Газар хөдлөлтөөс үүсэх гал түймэр

Газар хөдлөлтийн үед гарах түймрийг нурсан байшингаас (цаашид нурангиас гэх) гаралтай,
нураагүй барилгаас гаралтай түймэр гэж ангилах ба түймрийн тоо нь нурангиас гаралтай ба
нураагүй байшингаас гаралтай түймрийн тооны нийлбэр байна.

Хустайн хагарал Байршил: Улаанбаатар хотоос баруун урагш 30км-ийн зайнд орших цэгээс баруун
урагш үргэлжилнэ. Чиглэл: Зүүн хойд- баруун өмнөд Налуу: Зүүн урагш Урт: 80 км (RCAG-ын тайлан
2012, Dujardin et al., 2012) Улаанбаатар хотын төвөөс баруун урагш 30км-т орших цэгээс зүүн хойд-
баруун урагш чиглэлд сунан тогтсон хагарал.

Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 11

CONNECTION DESIGN: STATIC LOADING

Lectures 11.4.1: Analysis of Connections I:

Basic Determination of Forces
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To review the behaviour and the basis for design of local elements in connections.

PREREQUISITES

Lecture 1B.5: Introduction to Design of Industrial Buildings

Lecture 1B.7: Introduction to Design of Multi-Storey Buildings

Lecture 2.3: Engineering Properties of Metals

Lecture 2.4: Steel Grades and Qualities

Lecture 11.1.2: Introduction to Connection Design

Lectures 11.2: Welded Connections

Lectures 11.3: Bolted Connections

RELATED LECTURES
Lecture 11.5: Simple Connections for Buildings

Lecture 11.6: Moment Connections for Continuous Framing

Lecture 11.7: Partial Strength Connections for Semi-Continuous Framing

SUMMARY

This group of 4 lectures (11.4.1 - 11.4.4) explains how the behaviour of local elements
in connections may be analysed so that each component may safely be proportioned to
resist the loads it is required to transfer. It therefore develops the basic concepts of
force transfer that were presented in general terms in Lecture 11.1.2.

In this first lecture the general principles used in determining the forces for which
each component in a connection must be designed are explained. These make use of
the fundamental structural concepts of equilibrium, stiffness and deformations to
decide how the externally developed loads are shared between the various
components. This then leads to the idea of load paths as being the most effective way
that applied forces can pass through the connection.

NOTATION

The notation of Eurocode 3 [1] has been adopted.

1. INTRODUCTION
In Lecture 11.1.2 it was shown in general terms how the structural adequacy of
connections can be checked by considering the resistance of the local elements of the
connection.

The resistance of a local element is determined on the basis of the resistance of the
individual bolts or welds and plates.

The resistance of welds and bolts is covered in Lectures 11.2 and 11.3. In this Lecture
11.4.1 the resistance, stiffness and deformation capacity of a number of components
are discussed.

Thus the material of Lectures 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 is brought together to explain how the
individual components in connections can be safely proportioned. This involves both
a determination of the forces to which each is subjected and the ways in which, acting
in combination, the parts of the connection transfer these forces from the supported
member to the supporting member.
Having established the principles, Lectures 11.4.2 - 11.4.4 apply these to the
consideration of the transfer of different types of internal forces within connections
e.g. direct tension, shear, tension as part of a moment etc., whilst Lectures 11.5 - 11.8
fully develop the ideas to cover the design of particular connection types.

2. DETERMINATION OF FORCES
2.1 Forces on the Connection

For the determination of the forces on the connection, a static analysis is carried out.
Such an analysis includes the determination of the design loads on the structure and
the definition of the design basis for the structure.

In defining the design basis, consideration of the structural behaviour of the

connections is necessary. Are the connections pinned, or rigid, or semi-rigid? Are they
partial strength or full strength connections? More details about the influence of the
type of connection on the distribution of forces in the structure are given in Lectures
11.1, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7 and 11.8.

2.2 Force Distribution in the Connection

After the determination of the normal forces, shear forces and bending moments on
the connections, an internal distribution of forces in the connection is chosen.

The distribution of forces in the connection may be determined in whatever rational

way is best, provided that:

a. The assumed internal forces are in equilibrium with the applied forces and
moments.

b. Each part of the connection is capable of resisting the forces assumed in the

analysis.

c. The deformations imposed by the chosen distribution are within the deformation

capacity of the fasteners, welds and other parts of the connection.

Figure 1 gives an outline of the determination of the load on the individual elements
of the connections, and the verification of their resistance.
It is not necessary and it is often not possible to determine the real distribution of
forces in the connection. A realistic assumption of internal forces, in equilibrium
with the external forces on the connection, is sufficient. In fact selecting this
assumption is the most difficult part of the analysis. It requires a sound understanding
of the structural behaviour of the connection when it is loaded.

The following rules apply:

a. The distribution of forces in the parts to be connected requires consideration

If, for instance, an I-section loaded in bending and shear, has to be connected, then the
shear force is largely concentrated in the web, whilst the flanges carry most of the
bending moment. A simple and usually acceptable assumption for the load transfer in
the connection is to connect the web for the full shear force and the flanges for the full
bending moment, see Figure 1.

b. The stiffness of the various parts in the connection requires consideration

Deformations caused by loads acting in the plane of a plate are much smaller than
those produced by loads acting perpendicular to a plate (normal force versus bending
moment). In many cases the understanding of the influence of the stiffness ratio on the
force distribution can be improved by considering the situation after a small
deformation of the connection has occurred. This approach is illustrated in Section 3
by examples.

c. The assumed force distribution must be consistent for all parts in the
connection

Violations against this rule may occur if a separate calculation is carried out for the
different parts in the connection. An example is given in Figure 2. The indicated
distribution of forces for the calculation of the bolts is not consistent with the
distribution of stresses in the beam assumed to design the welds between the beam
and the end plate. Overloading of the welds in the top flange of the beam results.

2.3 Basic Load Cases for Local Elements

The analysis of the structural behaviour of connections can be carried out by
considering a number of basic load cases for local elements. For a T-connection this
analysis is demonstrated in Figure 3. The load transfer in nearly every type of
connection can be modelled with the five basic load cases. Use of these cases permits
a systematic and clear presentation of the calculation methods, despite the wide
variety of possible connection types. Eurocode 3 (Chapter 6 and Annex J) follows this
approach.

In Lectures 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 calculations for the five basic load cases are presented for
a number of connection designs. For each part of the connection, a number of possible
failure modes can be identified. They may refer to:

 the fasteners (welds or bolts).

 the members which are connected.
 extra parts in the connection, e.g. plates and angle cleats.

It has to be demonstrated that the weakest link in the connection system (chain) is
strong enough to carry the load that acts on it.
The design of the fasteners (welds and bolts) is dealt with in Lectures 11.2 and 11.3.
The design of other parts in the connection is dealt with in the present Lectures 11.4.

3. DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES
3.1 Influence of Stiffness Differences

When distributing normal forces, shear forces and bending moments in the
connection, the stiffness differences in the connection must be taken into account. In
particular, the deformations due to normal forces in the plane of a plate are much
smaller than the deformations due to forces acting perpendicular to it.

A calculation for the example of Figure 4 gives a good demonstration of this

principle. The plate 100 ´ 100 ´ 10 mm, clamped on one side, is loaded with 1000 N
perpendicular to the plate surface. 

The deflection follows from:

d =   =   = 0,2 mm     (3-1)

The same plate is loaded with an in-plane tensile force of the same magnitude. The
displacement of the end of the plate is now:

Dl =   =   = 0,0005 mm (3-2)

Both plates are now connected, see Figure 5, causing both displacements at the
interface to be equal. A load of 1000 N is applied to this structure. The load is carried
by both plates, shared in proportion to the stiffness ratio. The plate loaded in tension is
0,2/0,0005 = 400 times stiffer than the plate that is bent. Consequently, nearly the
whole load is carried by the plate loaded in tension, see Figure 5b.

This knowledge is used to determine the distribution of forces for the brace
connection shown in Figure 6, e.g. in a floor structure. In this connection many
distributions of the forces in the connections, each obeying equilibrium, are possible.
First it is assumed that the force is carried by both connections, whilst the direction
stays the same, see Figure 7. For the analysis, the force 0,5 F is resolved as Fs = 0,35 F
and Ft = 0,35 F.
The deformation in the shear direction (Fs) is much smaller than the deformation in
the tensile direction (Ft). The result is that the deformation D1 at point (1) is very
different from the deformation D2 at point (2). The deformations D1 and D2 cannot be
accommodated by the gusset plate!

This means that the deformation at point (1) caused by Fs (DS1) must be the same as
the deformation at point (2) caused by Ft (DS2).

Therefore, Fs is much larger than Ft. The distribution of forces in Figure 7
is incorrect.

The correct distribution is indicated in Figure 8. The force F effectively causes only
shear in the bolt groups (1) and (2). The tension load in the bolts can be ignored.
Conclusion: If large differences in the stiffness between two possible types of load
transfer exist, then ignore the load transfer that gives the larger deformations (bending
deformation of the plate), and assume that all load is transferred in the way that gives
the smaller deformations (deformation in the plane of the plate).

This approach also applies to welded structures, e.g. see Figure 9 which illustrates the
connection of a plate to a square hollow section. The assumed force distribution where
the welds are only loaded in shear is correct.
The stiffness ratio in the connection may influence the assumption for the calculation
of the bending moments. An example is given in Figure 10. In the connection in
Figure 10a, the rotation of the bolted connection is larger than the rotation of the plate
which is welded in the plane of the web of the column. Therefore, the hinge for the
calculation of moments is assumed to be the bolt row. The bolts are loaded by a shear
force V. The welds must be designed for a shear force V and a bending moment V.e.

In the connection in Figure 10b, the plate is welded to the non-rigid wall of the square
hollow section. Here the more logical place for the hinge is this wall. The weld is now
only loaded in shear and consequently, the bolt row is loaded in shear (V) and bending
(V.e).

3.2 Free Centre of Rotation and Forced Centre of Rotation

a. Free centre of rotation

The plates in Figure 11 are connected by bolts arranged in an arbitrary pattern. The
connection is loaded by a bending moment M. The plates are assumed to be rigid,
compared with the stiffness of the fasteners. Therefore, the rotation q between the
plates is the result of the deformation of the fasteners. The plates rotate around the
centre of rotation.

In the case of small deformations of the fasteners, a linear relation between the bolt
forces Ri and the displacements di may be assumed, giving bolt forces Fi proportional
to the distance ri to the centre of rotation and the rotation q, see Figure 12.
di = ri q                                         (3-3)

Ri =  (ri/rmax)Rmax                           (3-4)

Rxi =  (yi/ri)Ri  = (yi/rmax)Rmax              (3-5)

Ryi = (xi/ri)Ri  = (xi/rmax)Rmax               (3-6)

If the load on the connection is a pure bending moment, equilibrium requires that the
resultant forces in the x and y directions must be zero:

SRxi = Rmax/rmax   Syi = 0 ® Syi = 0 (3-7)

SRyi = Rmax/ rmax   Sxi = 0 ® Syi = 0 (3-8)

The centre of rotation is therefore located at the centroid of the bolt group.

M = Sri . Ri = S(Rmax/ rmax) . Rmax = (Rmax/rmax) Sri2     (3-9)

Rmax =   (3-10)

This situation with the centre of rotation at the centroid of the bolt group is called
"free centre of rotation".
If an eccentric force acts on a bolt group with free centre of rotation, the following
analysis can be carried out, see Figure 13.

The eccentric force F can be replaced by a bending moment M = F . e and a force F

through the centre of rotation. The loads on the bolts are the summation of the loads
caused by M (as explained above) and the loads caused by F. For n bolts, each bolt
carries F/n. The resultant force on each bolt can be determined by resolving the forces
caused by M and F in the x-direction and in the y-direction:

Fx = FxM + FxF (3-11)

Fy = FyM + FyF (3-12)

R =   (3-13)
For an arbitrary bolt pattern it is not easy to determine in advance which bolt is the
most heavily loaded. Several bolts have therefore to be checked. In practice, however,
the bolt pattern is usually regular and the more severely loaded bolts are readily
identified.

b. Forced centre of rotation

In an end plate connection of the type shown in Figure 14, there is an important
difference between the stiffness of the tension zone and the compression zone.

In the compression zone, the compression force is transmitted directly from the flange
of the beam to the web of the column. The deformations in the compression zone are
very small compared to the deformations in the tension zone, where bending of the
end plate and bending of the column flange occurs.

Because of this difference in the stiffness, the centre of rotation is effectively located
at point (1) in Figure 14. Sometimes, to be more conservative, the centre of rotation is
taken as the lowest bolt row.

If the end plate is thick and therefore stiff, then the centre of rotation may also be
assumed at the lower end of the plate.
The above situation, where the centre of rotation is not in the centre of the bolt group,
is called a connection with a "forced centre of rotation".

Assuming that the stiffness at each bolt row is the same, the forces in the bolt rows are
directly proportional to their distance from the centre of rotation. With the centre of
rotation at point (1), the following analysis can be carried out:

h1 2T1 + h2 2T2 + h3 2T3 + h4 2T4 + h5 2T5 + h6 2T6 = M (3-14)

With equal bolt sizes:

2T2 = 2T1 

2T3 = 2T1 

2T4 = 2T1 

2T5 = 2T1 

From these equations, the bolt force T1 in the most heavily loaded bolt can be
determined:

 (3-15)

In reality, the stiffness of the bolt rows may differ considerably, e.g. the extended part
of the end plate above the beam's top flange in Figure 15 is less stiff than the part
below the top flange where the web of the beam has a stiffening effect. As a result,
bolt row number 2 will transmit a higher load than bolt row number 1.
For thin end plates the differences in the stiffness of different bolt rows is more
pronounced and the distribution of forces in the bolt rows is more variable.

With "normal" dimensions of the end plate, it is reasonable to assume that the tension
force in the top flange of the beam is equally distributed between bolt rows 1 and 2.

If an end plate connection is loaded by a combination of bending moment M and a

tensile force FH, the situation with a forced centre of rotation may occur, but also a
free centre of rotation is possible. This depends on the magnitude of FH, see Figure 16.
If the centre of rotation is forced (FH is small), then FH is transferred through the rigid
point (1). The bending moment about (1) is:

M1 = M + FH . a =   Shi2 (3-16)

where

a is the distance between the centre line of the beam and the compression point (1).

From the condition of horizontal equilibrium it follows that:

D =   S hi - FH (3-17)

If:

FH =   S hi (3-18)

then D = 0. With D < 0, there is no longer a forced centre of rotation. From Equations
(3-16) and (3-17) it follows that if:

a +   (3-19)

there is a forced centre of rotation, and if:

a +   (3-20)

there is a free centre of rotation.

4. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
 All connection designs must satisfy three fundamental requirements:

i. Internal forces must be in equilibrium with the external applied forces and moments.

ii. Each part of the connection must be capable of safely resisting the forces in it
assumed by the analysis.
iii. The deformations required by the assumed internal force distribution must be
within the deformation capabilities of the component parts.

 Using 5 basic load cases the force transfers present in virtually every form of
connection may be obtained by suitable combination.
 Load transfer follows routes in which the majority of load follows the stiffer
paths.
 Moment transfer by means of a group of fasteners may involve either a "free
centre of rotation" or a "forced centre of rotation".

5. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures" ENV 1993-1-1: Part 1.1, General rules
and rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.

6. ADDITIONAL READING
1. Owens, G. W. and Cheal, B. D., "Structural Steelwork Connections",
Butterworths & Co. (Publishers) Limited, 1989.
2. Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W. and Struik, J. H. A., "Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints", Willey - Interscience, 2nd Edition, 1987.
3. Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F. M., "Theory and Design of Steel Structures",
Chapman & Hall 1983.
4. W. F. Chen "Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames" Journal of Constructional Steel
Research Volume 8, 1987.

Previous | Next | Contents