Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcard

A compact and simpler formulation of the component method for

steel connections

ndez-Montes*
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna
Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Granada (UGR), Campus Universitario de Fuentenueva s/n, 18072, Granada, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A simpler and a more general formulation of the component method (CM) proposed by the European
Received 1 September 2019 Standard of Steel Structures is presented in this work. There are two main differences from the meth-
Received in revised form odology proposed in Eurocode 3-Part 1e8: first) the moment-rotation curve is obtained from the
17 September 2019
moment and axial equilibrium equations using only the translational stiffness (springs) of the compo-
Accepted 23 September 2019
Available online 19 November 2019
nents (i.e. avoiding the concept of rotational stiffness), and two) the shear response of the column panel
zone is distributed over the joint and located at the level where other components exist, instead of
concentrating it at the level of the compression zone, as Eurocode 3-Part 8 does. By using basic kinematic
Keywords:
Semi-rigid connections
conditions and solving a simple system of equations, all the information regarding the behavior of the
Component method joint is obtained. Two examples are presented.
Column web panel zone © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Yield rotation

1. Introduction studied [8e11] although recent pieces of research have further

The component method (CM) allows the flexibility of the joint
on the performance of the structure to be introduced. Eurocode 3,
Part 1e8 (EC3:1-8) [1] provides a methodology based on the CM,
that allows the characterization of the joint in terms of strength and
stiffness. In the CM, each focus of deformation of the joint is
modeled by a spring (component) whose behavior can be elastic-
plastic (which is approximated by a bilinear curve [2]) or rigid-
plastic [3] (see Fig. 1). All the components involved in a joint are
assembled into a mechanical model. The application of the CM
requires the previous characterization of each component of the
joint; that is, their force-deformation relationship and the way they
are assembled [4]. The characterization of each component is ob-
tained either from experiments or from numerical or analytical
models. This paper adopts the values of both stiffness and design
resistance given by EC3:1-8 [1] for each component.
The main advantage of the CM is its versatility [5], and it has
been implemented in Eurocode 3 [1] and Eurocode 4 [6].
The procedure included in EC3:1-8 [1] is applicable to 2D joints
(welded and bolted end plates and bolted flange cleats) subjected
to in-plane bending under monotonic loading conditions [7]. The
components involved in these types of joints have been widely
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mlgil@ugr.es (L.M. Gil-Martín), emontes@ugr.es
(E. Hern

andez-Montes).
characterized some components under different conditions
[7,10e15]. The CM in EC3:1-8 [1] has been formulated as a bending
problem with axial force in the connected member not exceeding
5% of the axial capacity of the cross-section of the beam. This is a
traditional “modus operandi” in structural engineering, where a
division between bending with and without axial force is usually
done. The origin of this distinction is not completely clear and
recent research on reinforced concrete members has proved that it
is unnecessary [16]. Taking the effect of an axial load into account,
the CM has been extended to joints loaded in combined bending
and axial force in the case of welded beam-to-column steel joints
[17] and semi-rigid end-plate joints [18].
In this paper, a simpler and a more general formulation of the
CM is presented. In this approach the deformation refers to the
section located at the outer part of the flange of the column in
contact with the beam. It is assumed that this section remains
plane. The components included in EC3:1-8 [1] are considered but
the stiffness of the joint is defined as a function of the stiffness of
extensional springs, instead of defining an initial rotational stiff-
ness, as EC3:1-8 [1] does. The main differences from the traditional
CM are: i) The axial force equilibrium equation is also included,
together with the moment equilibrium equation, ii) spring forces
can be working either in the elastic or in the plastic range, iii) the
component corresponding to the column web in shear is extended
over the height of the joint (instead of concentrating it at the level
of the compressed flange of the beam as has usually been done
[1e4,15]).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105782
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna

Fig. 1. Equivalent spring for springs connected in series.

In the proposed method, the behavior of the joint can be easily

9
M
¼ kwp d =
deduced by imposing simple kinematic conditions. Given the
F¼
clarity of the proposed methodology, little additional effort is z / M ¼ z2 kwp 4 (1)
;
required to extend the method to the presence of axial force. d ¼ 4z
Moreover, it has been proved that some assumptions of the Euro-
pean Standard, such as EC3:1-8 [1] (x6.2.7.2(2)): "For bolted end- The resulting shear force Vwp,Ed in the web panel is given by:
plate connections, the center of compression should be assumed
to be in line with the center of the compression flange of the M
Vwp;Ed ¼ F ¼ b (2)
connected member", are not necessary. z
Two examples illustrate the advantages of the proposed CM. b is a transformation parameter that depends on the values of
the beam moments (on the right- and left-hand sides of the joint)
2. Component modeling for the column web in shear (or web and the shear forces acting at the periphery of the web panel zone,
panel, WP) and z is the lever arm. The value of z depends on the type of
connection and it is defined by EC3:1-8 [1] in x6.2.7.
The panel zone is the region of the column web delimited by the Considering that in a pure elastic shear state the rotation of the
flanges of the column and the flanges of the beams in a beam-to- joint is equal to the panel zone shear distortion angle (see Fig. 4):
column connection. Several approaches have been developed to
consider the panel zone deformations. In all these approaches, Vwp;Ed 4E
shear deformation of the panel zone is usually modeled by just one t¼ ¼ 4G ¼ (3)
Avc 2ð1 þ yÞ
spring. In the Scissors model, the rotational spring is located at the
beam-to-column intersection [19] (Fig. 2a). Krawinkler [20] pro- with Avc as the shear area of the column, y the Poisson coefficient
posed a more realistic representation of the panel zone consisting and G the shear modulus of elasticity.
of eight rigid elements whose dimensions are defined by the actual Operating in eqs (1)e(3), the value proposed by EC3:1-8 [1] for
dimensions of the joint. In the Krawinkler model, both strength and the stiffness of the spring that represents the column web in which
stiffness properties are modeled by a rotational spring located at shear is obtained:
one of the four panel zone corners (Fig. 2b) and the other three are
articulated. A modification of the Krawinkler model leads to the
Frame model (Fig. 2c), in which a diagonal translational spring is
included at the intersection of the rigid elements [19].
The shear deformation of the panel zone (component 1: C1) is
modeled in EC3:1-8 [1] by a spring located at the compressed
flange of the beam [2e4].
It is assumed that the panel zone is under a pure shear stress state
in the elastic range [19]. If the perimeter of the panel zone is rigid, the
bending moment can be converted into two auto-equilibrated
forces. So, for the component modeling of the panel zone, wp, the
relationship between the applied bending moment and the stiffness
of the spring is shown by Eq. (1) (see Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Panel zone component. Moment converted into auto-equilibrated forces.

Fig. 2. Models of the panel zone. a) Scissors model. b) Krawinkler model. c) Frame model. Adapted from Refs. [19,21].

ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna 3

Fig. 4. Component C1 represented by two springs.

Likewise, springs 1, 2 and 7 are connected in series in the

M Vwp E Avc EAvc compression zone (row 2). The combination of the springs in series
kwp ¼ ¼ ¼ z0:38 (4)
z2 4 bz4 2ð1 þ yÞ bz bz leads to a single equivalent spring per row (see Fig. 5b), fully
EC3:1-8 [1] allows the shear resistance of the column web panel defined by Eq. (7):
after yielding to be increased. This additional resistance, which can (
be considered when transverse web stiffeners exist in both the krow;i d if 0  d  dy;i
FEQ ;i ¼
compression zone and the tension zone of the joint, is due to the FEQ :Rd;i if d > dy;i
yielding of the frame defined by the column flanges and the web  
stiffeners surrounding the panel zone. In this work, this additional 1 1 1 1
krow;1 ¼ þ þ
resistance is not going to be considered. k1 k3 k4
In the proposed approach, the formulation proposed by EC3:1-8  
1 1 1 1
[1] for the CM is modified with regard to the component of the krow;2 ¼ þ þ (7)
column web in shear. The component corresponding to the shear k1 k2 k7
h i
zone of the column (C1) is modeled by several springs located at the FEQ ;Rd;1 ¼ Min Vwp;Rd ; F3;Rd ; F4;Rd
levels where other components already exist.
h i
The proposed methodology has a general application. For the FEQ ;Rd;2 ¼ Min Vwp;Rd ; F2;Rd ; F7;Rd
sake of clarity, and without loss of generality, in the following sec-
tions this methodology is applied to two widely used types of steel dy;i ¼ FEQ ;Rd;ik
row;i
connection: welded and bolted end-plate beam-to-column joints.
with FEQ,i as the force at the equivalent spring, FEQ,Rd,i as its strength,
3. Unstiffened welded joint krow,i as its stiffness and dy,i as its yield displacement.
Vwp,Rd is the shear resistance of the column web panel (given in
This type of joint is a typical example of a semi-rigid steel Eq. (6)), Fj,Rd is the design resistance of component j (j>1), and kj is
connection [3]. In this case, the authors propose modeling the shear the translational stiffness of component j (j>1) as given by EC3:1-8
deformation of the panel zone (i.e. component C1) using two [1] (see Fig. 5). Notice that component 1 has already been described
springs located at the top and bottom flanges of the beam, i.e. at the by Eqs. (5) and (6).
level of the compression and tension zones of the joint (see Fig. 4). As can be seen in Eq. (7), the resistance of the equivalent spring
In doing so, the corresponding stiffness of the C1 component, k1, is the minimum of the resistances of the three springs connected in
has to be twice the stiffness given by Eq. (4), that is: series. The stiffness depends exclusively on the stiffness of the
elastic-plastic springs of the components because the stiffness of
EAvc
k1 ¼ 2kwp ¼ 0:76 (5) the rigid-plastic components (C4 and C7 in Fig. 5) is infinity, that is:
bz k4¼k7¼∞.
The proposed spring model for an unstiffened welded joint is Assuming that the section of the joint remains plane (Fig. 6), the
represented in Fig. 5a. The force at each elastic-plastic spring in following compatibility equation can be formulated:
Fig. 5a can be expressed as a function of the deformation using
piecewise functions. In this case, the function defining the behav- d ¼ dcg þ 4y (8)
iour of the column web in shear (see Fig. 4) is:
8 with 4 as the rotation of the joint and d as the deformation at a
>
> Vwp;Rd if d <  dy distance y to the mid-height of the beam, whose deformation is dcg,
<
see Fig. 6.
Vwp ¼ k1 d if  dy  d  dy
>
> Equilibrium of forces and moments in Fig. 6 leads to the
:
Vwp;Rd if d > dy (6) following equations:
Vwp;Rd 0:9Avc fy;wc X
where dy ¼  with Vwp;Rd ¼ pffiffiffi NEd ¼ 0 ¼ N00 ¼ FEQ ;1 þ FEQ ;2
k1 3gM0
int
X (9)
with gM0 ¼ 1.05 according to EC3:1-8 [1] and fy,wc as the yield
MEd ¼ M0MEd ¼ FEQ ;1 yt þ FEQ ;2 yc
int
strength of the web column. The subscript Rd means design
resistance. The unknowns of the problem are 4 and dcg. The curve moment-
For the sake of clarity, spring 1 has been completely defined in rotation of the joint is obtained by considering Eqs. (7) and (8) and
Eq.(6) (i.e. for the whole range of d). However, as we will see in the solving the system given in Eq. (9) for different values of the rota-
next paragraph, only the spring equivalent to the ones connected in tion of the joint 4.
series (see Fig. 5b and Eq. (7)) needs to be fully defined. dcg ¼ 0 in the case of the unstiffened welded joint in Fig. 5. This is
As can be seen in Fig. 5a, springs 1, 3 and 4 are connected in because the stiffness of both springs is the same (k2¼k3), and with
series in the tensioned zone of the joint (row 1 eof springs-). yc ¼ yt (double symmetrical beam) as yt¼(hb-tfb)/2, where hb and tfb
4
ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna
Fig. 5. Spring model for an unstiffened welded joint. a) Connection geometry and spring model. b) Equivalent springs.
Fig. 6. Deformation of the points of the joint as function of the rotation and the deformation at the mid-height of the beam.
are the height and the flange thickness of the beam, respectively.
To illustrate the above approach, an example has been devel-
oped below.
Example 1.
The M-4 curve is going to be obtained for the joint represented
in Fig. 7. This joint corresponds to an IPE 450 beam welded around
the entire perimeter to the flange of a HEB240 column by means of
a cord with a throat thickness of 9 mm. Both rolled shape members
are made of steel S275 (fu ¼ 500 MPa).
The values of the design resistances of each one of the compo-
nents involved in this joint are obtained with EC3:1-8 [1]. These
values are summarized in the last column of Table 1 (see Fig. 5a).
The stiffness values of the components in Table 1 are
Fig. 7. Example of unstiffened welded joint.
summarized in Table 2 (note that in this case b ¼ 1). The effective
widths proposed by EC3:1-8 [1] are considered. In Table 2, twc and
dc are the thickness and the height of the web of the column,
respectively.
Applying the procedure described above (Eq. (7) to Eq. (9)), the
corresponding M-4 curve is obtained. This curve is represented in
Fig. 8 in black. As expected, in this case dcg ¼ 0 for the whole range
of moments (see Fig. 6).
In Fig. 8 the half initial secant stiffness approach [22] and the
non-linear curve proposed by EC3:1-8 [1] for elastic-plastic global
analysis (a curve with a knee), both included in the European
Standard [1], have also been drawn in gray.
As can be seen in Fig. 8, the proposed methodology leads to
analogous values than EC3:1-8 [1] for both, the design moment
resistance and the initial rotational stiffness of the beam-to-column
joint.
4. Bolted end-plate joint
The application of the CM to bolted joints is more complicated
because a greater number of components are involved [3,23,24].
These components can be identified in the catalogue included in
EC3:1-8 [1]. As in the case of welded joints, the spring that models
the deformation of the column web panel in shear is usually rep-
resented by one translational spring, usually located at the level of
the compression flange of the beam [1e4].
In the proposed approach, the shear panel component (C1) is
connected in series with the other components involved in the
joint: bolt-rows and compressed flange. Without loss of generality,
it is assumed that the stiffness corresponding to the panel zone at
the level of all the bolts-rows is the same: k1bolts. This assumption is

ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna 5

Table 1
Components in unstiffened welded joint with EC3:1-8 [1].

Component Type of spring Description Design Resistance ðgM0 ¼ 1:05&gM1 ¼ 1:10Þ

C1 Column web in shear (wp) 0:9Avc fy;wc

Vwp;Rd ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 452:36 kN
3gM0
C2 Column web in transverse compression (c,wc) ukwc rbeff ;c;cw tcw fy;cw
Fc;wc;Rd  ¼ 451:49 kN
gM1
C3 Column web in transverse tension (t,wc) ubeff ;t;cw twc fy;c;w
Ft;wc;Rd ¼ ¼ 472:99kN
gM0
C4 Column flange in bending (fc) beff ;b;fc tfb fy;fb
Ffc;Rd ¼ ¼ 53:87 kN
gM0
C7 Beam flange and web in compression (c,fb) Mb;Rd
Fc;fb;Rd ¼ ¼ 1024 kN
hb  tfb

Table 2 equilibrium to the system of springs in Fig. 10, which corresponds

Stiffness of the components involved in unstiffened welded joint. to a pure shear state (i.e. both moment and axial force equal to
Component Stiffness zero).
C1
k1 ¼ 0:76
EAvc
¼ 1:22 N=mm
X
bz N ¼ 00k1bolts y1 þ k1bolts y2 þ k1bolts y3 þ k1compr ycompr ¼ 0
C2 0:7Ebeff ;c;wc twc int
k2  kc;wc ¼ ¼ 1:64 N=mm X
dc
C3 0:7Ebeff ;t;wc twc M ¼ 00k1bolts y21 þ kbolts y22 þ k1bolts y23 þ k1compr y2compr ¼ kwp z2
k3 ¼ kt;wc ¼ ¼ 1:64 N=mm int
dc
C4 k4 ¼ kfc ¼ ∞ (10)
C7 k7 ¼ kc;f ;b ¼ ∞
In Eq. (10) kwp is the stiffness of the panel zone with EC3:1-8 [1],
given by Eq. (4), see Fig. 3. The system of two equation (10) has two
true if all the bolts in the joint are identical and there are the same unknowns: k1bolts and k1compr.
number of bolts in all the rows. The stiffness corresponding to the The functions that fully define the behavior of each equivalent
panel zone at the level of the compressed flange of the beam is spring in Fig. 9c are.
named k1compr. See Fig. 9a and b. The spring model corresponding to  
the panel zone is represented in Fig. 10. As can be seen in Fig. 10, in krow;i d if 0  d < FEQ ;Rd;i krow;i
FEQ ;i ¼  withi ¼ 1; 2; …; nb
the proposed approach, the column web in shear is defined by two FEQ ;Rd;i if d  FEQ ;Rd;i krow;i
.
variables: k1bolts and k1compr. k if 0  d < FEQ ;Rd;compr kcompr
compr d
According EC3:1-8 [1], the components involved in a bolted FEQ ;compr ¼ .
end-plate joint are the ones indicated in Fig. 9. As can be seen in the FEQ ;Rd;compr if d  FEQ ;Rd;compr kcompr
spring models of Fig. 9, the panel zone component (subscript 1) is (11)
not located at just one level but at all the levels where other
components exist (see k1bolts and k1compr in Fig. 9a and b), and Once the values of the stiffness corresponding to the panel zone
connected in series with them. The stiffness of the other compo- k1bolts and k1compr (Figs. 9 and 10) are obtained from Eq. (10), the
nents in Fig. 9a and b are named kj,i, where the first subscript in- springs connected in series are replaced by an equivalent spring
dicates the component number (see Table in Fig. 9) and the second (Fig. 9c). As can be seen in Fig. 9a and b, the components involved at
one eif it exists- indicates the number of bolt-row. As indicated in the level of each bolt-row in tension are the ones proposed by
EC3:1-8 [1], the bolt row 1 is the farthest from the compressed EC3:1-8 [1] and listed in the table included in Fig. 9. However, when
flange of the beam. a bolt-row is under compression, see bolt-row 3 in Fig. 9b, the only
The values of k1bolts and k1compr can be obtained by imposing component at this level is the one corresponding to the column
web in shear (k1bolts).with nb as the number of bolt-rows (nb ¼ 3 for
the case in Fig. 10) and:

For bolts  row in tension :

!1
1 1 h i
krow;i ¼ þS and FEQ ;Rd;i ¼ Min Vwp;Rd ; Fj;Rd
k1bolts kj;i

For bolts  row in compression :

krow;i ¼ k1bolts and FEQ ;Rd;i ¼ Vwp;Rd
!1
1 1 h i
kcomp ¼ þS and FEQ ;Rd;compr ¼ Min Vwp;Rd ; Fj;Rd
k1compr kj
(12)

with k and FRd as the stiffness and design resistance of each

component, respectively. The subscript EQ indicates equivalent
force, and the subscript Rd means design resistance. The valid values
Fig. 8. M-4 curves corresponding to the unstiffened welded joint in Fig.7 of j for row i in Fig. 9 (i.e. the components involved in each row) are
6
ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna

Fig. 9. Spring model for an end-plate bolted joint. a) Spring model when the three bolt-rows are in tension. b) Spring model when the bolt-rows 1 and 2 are in tension and bolt-row
3 is in compression. c) Equivalent springs.

Fig. 10. Proposed spring model of the column web panel for the shear component in the case of an end-plate bolted joint.

indicated in Table 3.
X
The values of the stiffness and design resistance of each NEd ¼ 0 ¼ N00 ¼ FEQ ;1 þ FEQ ;2 þ FEQ ;3 þ FEQ ;comp
component involved in the joint are obtained considering the int
effective length and the T-stub proposed by EC3-1:8 [1]. In the X
proposed approach, as stated by EC3-1:8 [1], the design resistance MEd ¼ M0MEd ¼ FEQ ;1 y1 þ FEQ ;2 y2 þ FEQ ;3 y3 þ FEQ ;comp ycomp
int
of each component of each bolt-row is taken as the minimum of the
design resistance considering the individual bolt-row, and the (13)
contribution of the bolt-row to the maximum design resistance of From the two equations in (13) the values of dcg, and 4 as a
the adjacent bolt-rows within a bolt-group.
As shown in the case of unstiffened welded joints, the defor- Table 3
mation of any fiber of the end-plate bolted connection of Fig. 11 Components per bolts-row in Fig. 9.
joint is related to the rotation of the joint (4) and to the deforma-
for i ¼ 1 (bolt-row 1 in tension) j ¼ 3, 4, 5 and 10
tion of the middle-height of the beam (dcg). The equilibrium of axial
forces and bending moments in Fig. 11 leads to the following for i ¼ 2 and 3 (bolt-rows 2 and 3 in tension) j ¼ 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10
for the zone in compression of the joint j ¼ 2 and 7
equations:

ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna 7

Fig. 11. Proposed mechanical model.

function of the moment, MEd, can be obtained.
It is interesting to note that Eq. (13) can be generalized to the
case of non-zero external axial force.
The above approach is applied below to an end-plate bolted
connection.
Example 2.
Let’s consider the bolted end-plate joint represented in Fig. 12
which corresponds to an IPE 300 beam welded around the entire
perimeter of a 15 mm thick end-plate by means of a cord with a
throat thickness of 6 mm. The plate is bolted to the flange of a
HEB200 column by six M24 bolts (As ¼ 353 mm2 and Lb ¼ 57 mm) of
Grade 6.8. All the steel is S275 (fu ¼ 500 MPa).
Table 4 summarizes the design resistances and stiffness of the
components involved obtained with EC3:1-8 [1]. Design resistances
in Table 4 are the minimum values considering each bolt-row as
individual and the contribution of the bolt-row within a group with
the previous rows (if applicable).
Table 5 summarizes the mechanical properties that characterize
the panel zone component in the proposed approach at each level
of deformation of the joint (see Figs. 9 and 10).
Ticks in Tables 4 and 5 identify the minimum value of the design
resistances at each row of springs, which govern the resistance of
the corresponding equivalent spring (see Fig. 9c) with both EC3:1-8
[1] and the proposed approach.
The M-4 curve of the joint is obtained by applying the proposed
approach (i.e. from Eq. (10) to Eq. (13), see Fig. 9). This curve has
been represented in black in Fig. 13. In this curve, the changes of
slope correspond to the yielding of one of the equivalent springs.
Point A corresponds to the yielding of bolt-row 1, point B to the
yielding of bolt-row 2, point C indicates the rotation at which bolt-
row 3 starts to be in tension and point D corresponds to the yielding
of the spring that models the compression zone of the joint.
The curves corresponding to both the half initial secant stiffness
approach [22] and the non-linear curve proposed by EC3:1-8 [1] for
elastic-plastic global analysis, are also drawn in Fig. 13. As can be
seen in this figure, both the design moment resistance, Mj,Rd, and

Table 5
Design resistance and stiffness of the panel zone component in the proposed
approach for the joint of Fig. 12.

Component Design Resistance (kN) k (N/mm)

Fig. 12. End-plate bolted joint (dimensions in mm). with E ¼ 210000 MPa

C1 Vwp;Rd ¼ 338:18✓ k1bolts ¼ 3:22 E

Table 4 k1compr ¼ 4:12 E
Design resistance and stiffness of the components in the end-plate bolted joint of
Fig. 12. According to EC3:1-8 [1].

Component DesignResistance (kN) k (N/mm)

with E ¼ 210000 MPa

C1 Vwp;Rd ¼ 338:18✓ k1 ¼ kwp ¼ 3:264E

C2 Fc;cw;Rd ¼ 368:80 k2  kc;wc ¼ 8:25E
C3 Bolt-row 1 Ft;wc;Rd ¼ 219:62 k3 ¼ kt;wc ¼ 4:69 E
Bolt-row 2 Ft;wc;Rd ¼ 132:73✓ k3 ¼ kt;wc ¼ 6:08 E
Bolt-row 3 Ft;wc;Rd ¼ 124:07✓ k3 ¼ kt;wc ¼ 6:08 E
C4 Bolt-row 1 Ffc;Rd ¼ 255:12 k4 ¼ kfc ¼ 21:62 E
Bolt-row 2 Ffc;Rd ¼ 195:31 k4 ¼ kfc ¼ 28:02 E
Bolt-row 3 Ffc;Rd ¼ 153:65 k4 ¼ kfc ¼ 28:02 E
C5 Bolt-row 1 Fep;Rd ¼ 103:125✓ k5 ¼ kep ¼ 2:56 E
Bolt-row 2 Fep;Rd ¼ 231:05 k5 ¼ kep ¼ 13:65 E
Bolt-row 3 Fep;Rd ¼ 218:98 k5 ¼ kep ¼ 12:85 E
C7 Vc;fb;Rd ¼ 568:53 k7 ¼ kc;fb ¼ ∞
C8 Bolt-row 1 e k8 ¼ kt;wb ¼ ∞
Bolt-row 2 Ft;wb;Rd ¼ 348:05
Bolt-row 3 Ft;wb;Rd ¼ 301:11
C10 All bolt-rows FB;Rd ¼ 2BRd ¼ 305 k10 ¼ kB ¼ 9:91 E
Fig. 13. Moment-rotation curves for the end-plate bolted joint of Fig. 12.
8
ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna
Fig. 14. Evolution of forces at the levels where components are located for the end-
plate bolted joint of Fig. 12 (see Fig. 9c).
the initial rotational stiffness of the joint obtained from EC3:1-8 [1]
and from the proposed approach are almost identical. The main
difference in curves in Fig. 13 is related to the rotation at which the
design moment resistance of the joint is reached, which happens at
around 0.01 rad with EC3:1-8 [1] (end of the knee) and at 0.023 rad
(twice the value of EC3:1-8 [1]) with the proposed approach.
Fig. 14 represents the evolution of forces at the equivalent
springs (located at the levels indicated in Fig. 9c) for the end-plate
bolted joint of Fig. 12 as a function of the rotation of the joint. As can
be seen in Fig. 14, the spring at the level of bolt-row 3 does not yield
(see Table 4).
For each value of the applied moment, the location of the joint
compression centre (JCC) from the mid-thickness of the com-
pressed flange of the beam can be calculated as (see Fig. 11, Eq. (11)
and (12) and Table 3):
P The results obtained with the proposed procedure are in
Gi ,FEQ ;i ,ðz=2 þ yi Þ
JCC ¼ P for i ¼ 1; 2; 3; comp
Gi FEQ ;i
8 0 dcg
> if yi  
< 4
being Gi ¼
>
: the context of optimal solutions [25,26].
dcg
1 if yi < 
4
where -dcg/4 corresponds to the position of the fiber of zero
deformation of the joint from the middle-height of the beam
Fig. 15. Deviation of the centre of compression of the end-plate bolted joint of Fig. 12
respect to the mid-thickness of the compressed beam flange.
(obtained from Eq. (13)).
In Fig. 15 the value of JCC as function of the rotation of the joint is
drawn. In this figure, points A and B correspond to the yielding of
bolt-rows 1 and 2, respectively (see Fig. 14), and the point at which
the bolt-row 3 starts to be in tension is point C. As shown, the JCC is
slightly above the mid-thickness compression flange of the beam
until point C is reached. So, the assumption of the European Stan-
dard EC3:1-8 [1] that the center of compression of the joint is in line
with the mid-thickness compression flange of the beam is not
proved for the branch of the M-4 curve at the left of point C.
5. Conclusions
The approach proposed for the CM is compact, simple and
applicable to any type of joints and joint configurations. The pro-
posed method uses equilibrium conditions that can be applied
when the joint is under bending, with or without axial force. The
proposed approach models the behavior of a joint in terms of
translational stiffness, which provides more information than the
formulation proposed by EC3:1-8 [1], which is based on rotational
stiffness.
In the presented approach, some of the assumptions made by
EC3:1-8 [1], such as yielding of all the components involved in the
joint and the position of the compression center of the joint, are no
longer necessary.
The division of the panel zone component into several springs
located at each focus of deformation of the joint leads to realistic
modeling of the behavior of the joint.
The proposed approach is general and suitable for all type of
joints and joint configurations provided that the components
involved are well characterized.
In the new model, only translational springs connected in series
are considered. The behavior of the joint can be obtained based on
simple kinematics and equilibrium conditions, which are easy for a
designer who is not familiar with EC3:1-8 [1] to understand.
accordance with both the initial rotational stiffness and the design
moment resistance of the joints obtained using the formulation
given by EC3:1-8 [1].
(14) The approach presented can be easily implemented in structural
analysis software, and it can be useful in the modeling of joints in
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105782.
References
[1] UNE EN 1993-1-8:2013 Eurocode 3 d Design of Steel Structures d Part 1-8:
Design of Joints, 2013.
[2] L. Simo ~ es Da Silva, A.G. Coelho, Ductility model for steel connections, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 57 (2001) 45e70, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(00)00009-2.
[3] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano, Structural Steel Semirigid Connections : Theory,
Design, and Software, 1999.
[4] K. Weynand, J.P. Jaspart, M. Steenhuis, The stiffness model of revised Annex J
of eurocode 3, Connect Steel Struct III (2007) 441e452, https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-008042821-5/50100-0.
[5] F. Bijlaard, Eurocode 3, a basis for further development in joint design,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (2006) 1060e1067, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcsr.2006.06.012.
[6] UNE-EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
Structures e Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2013, 2013.
[7] H. Augusto, J.M. Castro, C. Rebelo, L.S. da Silva, A contribution to the extension
of the component method to beam-to-column connections subjected to cyclic
loading, in: Eurosteel 2014 - 7th Eur Conf Steel Compos Struct, 2014.
[8] A.B. Francavilla, M. Latour, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano, Simplified finite element
analysis of bolted T-stub connection components, Eng. Struct. 100 (2015)
656e664, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.029.
[9] H. Augusto, L. Simo ~es, C. Rebelo, J. Miguel, Characterization of web panel

ndez-Montes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105782
L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna
components in double-extended bolted end-plate steel joints, JCSR 116 (2016)
271e293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.08.022.
[10] ~ i, F. Bijlaard, E. Bayo, Major axis steel joint under torsion: stiffness
B. Gil, R. Gon
and strength characterization, Eng. Struct. 180 (2019) 586e602, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.060.
[11] James A. Swanson, Roberto T. Leon, Bolted steel connections:tests on T-stub
components, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (2000) 50e56.
[12] A. Loureiro, M. Lo
pez, R. Gutie
rrez, J.M. Reinosa, Experimental and numerical
analysis of E-stubs in three dimensional joints: a new analytical formulation
for the stiffness calculation, Eng. Struct. 53 (2013) 1e9.
[13] A. Loureiro, M. Lo
pez, R. Gutie
rrez, J.M. Reinosa, A new analytical formulation
for the E-stub strength calculation in three dimensional steel joints with
additional plates welded to the weak axis, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013) 2263e2272.
[14] B. Gil, R. Gon ~ i R, T-stub behaviour under out-of-plane bending . I : experi-
mental research and finite element modelling, Eng. Struct. 98 (2015)
230e240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.041.
[15] B. Gil, F. Bijlaard, E. Bayo, T-stub behavior under out-of-plane bending . II :
parametric study and analytical characterization, Eng. Struct. (2015), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.039.
[16] E. Herna
ndez-Montes, L.M. Gil-Martín, M. Pasadas-Ferna
ndez, M. Aschheim,
Theorem of optimal reinforcement for reinforced concrete cross sections,
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 36 (2008) 509e521, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00158-007-0186-3.
[17] L. Simo ~es Da Silva, A.M. Gira ~o Coelho, Analytical evaluation of the response of
steel joints under bending and axial force, Comput. Struct. 79 (2001)
873e881, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(00)00179-6.
9
[18] K. Urbonas, A. Daniunas, Behaviour of semi-rigid steel beam-to-beam joints
under bending and axial forces, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (2006) 1244e1249,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.04.024.
[19] J.M. Castro, A.Y. Elghazouli, B.A. Izzuddin BA, Modelling of the panel zone in
steel and composite moment frames, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005) 129e144, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.09.008.
[20] H. Krawinkler, Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames,
Eng Journal, Am Inst Steel Constr 15 (1978) 82e91.
[21] B. Rafezy, H. Gallart, Evaluation of steel panel zone stiffness using equivalent
end zone ( EEZ ), Model 1e10 (2012).
[22] D.C. van Keulen, D.A. Nethercot, H.H. Snijder, M.C.M. Bakker, Frame analysis
incorporating semi-rigid joint action: applicability of the half initial Secant
stiffness approach, J. Constr. Steel Res. 59 (2003) 1083e1100, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0143-974X(03)00031-2.
[23] P. Zoetemeijer, Summary of the Research on Bolted Beam-To-Column Con-
nections (Period 1978 - 1983), 1983. Rep. No. 6-85-M.
[24] Yoke Leong Yee, Robert E. Melchers, Moment-Rotation Curves for Bolted
Connections 112 (1986) 615e635.
[25] J.F. Carbonell-Ma
rquez, L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Herna
ndez-Montes, Strength
design optimization of structural steel members according to Eurocode 3,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 80 (2013) 213e223, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcsr.2012.07.019.
[26] E. Bayo, A. Loureiro, M. Lo
pez, L. Simo
~es da Silva, General component based
cruciform finite elements to model 2D steel joints with beams of equal and
different depths, Eng. Struct. 152 (2017) 698e708, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2017.09.042.