Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic behavior of an innovative bolted connection with dual-slot hole for

modular steel buildings
Si-Yuan Zhai a, Yi-Fan Lyu b, Ke Cao c, d, *, Guo-Qiang Li e, Wei-Yong Wang a, Chen Chen e
a
College of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 119077, Singapore
c
School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
d
Research Center for Construction Economics and Management, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
e
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200001, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although a significant advantage for modular steel buildings (MSBs) is suitable for rapid construction, the un­
Inter-module connection expected installation error and initial defects of components in the construction site may lead to the failure of
Dual-slot hole rapid assembly or even connection between modules. Aiming at the error sensitivity problem of module splicing,
Full-scale test
this paper proposes a new type of bolted connection with dual-slot hole and two kinds of connection strength­
Parametric study
ening methods, including diagonal brace strengthening and flange strengthening. To proceed, tests on four full-
Hysteretic model
scale connections with cyclic loads were performed for seismic behavior. The test results presented the speci­
mens’ failure mode, strength and stiffness properties, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity. Following that,
the finite element model was validated against test data, and the influence of slot hole size and displacement
effect was discussed. Finally, the hysteretic model was given. The results indicated that the proposed connection
has reliable load-bearing, stable energy dissipation, and fast splicing capacity. The connection may be classified
as semi-rigid type according to the stiffness feature for the structural behavior of MSBs. Both diagonal brace and
flange strengthening can effectively improve the connections’ load-bearing capacity but weaken the energy
dissipation capacity. The research results could serve as an effective reference for the inter-module bolted
connection design of MSBs.

1. Introduction force performance depends on the modules’ mechanical properties and

Modular steel building (MSB) is the construction form of splicing
prefabricated modular units at the construction site, as shown in Fig. 1.
The modular unit is made in the factory, which can be a fully decorated
room unit with wall panels, hydropower, and other systems [1]. MSB has
outstanding advantages, such as rapid construction, reduced carbon
emissions, and safe construction. With these advantages, it has been
constructed in many regions [2]. Specifically, MSB is mainly divided
into wall-supported and column-supported types based on the force
transmission path [3]. The research object in this paper is the column-
supported MSB, which has the characteristics of a flexible spatial
layout and easily forms large bays.
For column-supported MSBs, the primary force system is the steel
frame system, whose main structural components include beams, col­
umns, and inter-module connections. The modular structure’s overall
the coordination of the deformation between the modules. MSBs are
assembled by splicing multi-modules. If the modules are not reliably
connected, the building will be deformed, damaged, or even collapsed.
Through inter-module connections, the load can be transferred module-
to-module. Moreover, single module unit design may require lateral
restraint, provided by the module-to-module connections [4]. For
structural integrity, force-reliable connections are essential. The inter-
module connection influences the overall response of a building
assembled from interconnected modules [5]. Additionally, the signifi­
cant advantage of MSBs is that they are suitable for rapid construction.
Therefore, connections suitable for fast splicing are the key to taking full
advantage of MSBs. As shown in Fig. 2, various inter-module connection
constructions have been proposed, including self-locked [6], interlocked
[7], rotary part [8], welded [9], stud-welded [10], grouted [11], pre­
stressed [12], vectorbloc [13], bolted [14], etc. Accordingly, the force

* Corresponding author at: School of Management Science and Real estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China.
E-mail address: caoke@cqu.edu.cn (K. Cao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115619
Received 22 August 2022; Received in revised form 21 December 2022; Accepted 9 January 2023
Available online 13 January 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
performance of the above connections has been studied and evaluated.
Overall, the above connections well solve the problems of multi-module
splicing or lack of construction space on site.
For inter-module connections, bolted connections are preferred
because they require less field work, overhaul, and are easier to
dismount [4]. Inter-module connection by bolting the columns can meet
the direct force transmission between columns. However, due to the
existence of a column end cover plate or connector [14], the require­
ment of beam-column joints in the module and inter-module connec­
tions may need to have a certain construction distance. In addition, the
large gaps arising from the noncompact connections (Fig. 2j) may cause
difficulties in soundproofing, waterproofing, and poor fire resistance of
MSBs, affecting building use. Beam-to-beam bolted connections may
allow for more compact connections between modules, avoid weakening
column openings, etc. The bolted connection with plug-in device shown
in Fig. 2k is a typical inter-module connection by bolting the beams [15].
In addition, the beam-to-beam bolted connections also have: bolted
connection with rocket shaped tenon [16], bolted steel bracket joint
[17], cruciform plate rolled joint [18], etc. Although the bolting method
mentioned above can complete the splicing multi-modules very well,
while requiring high construction accuracy.
Owing to module splicing under nonideal conditions, modules may
not be spliced due to installation errors (Fig. 3) [19]. The errors may
come from the initial defects of components, on-site assembly deviation,
force deformation between modules, etc., and are challenging to elim­
inate. Furthermore, this problem will become more prominent with the
increasing number of spliced modules. Consequently, it is crucial to
improve the error sensitivity of module installation. Dai et al. [11]
proposed using grouted sleeve connections, which effectively reduce
error sensitivity but require significant time for grouting in splice
modules. For bolted connections, the design of bolt holes as enlarged or
slotted holes is a way to be considered, which has been studied in beam-
column joints [20], but is still rare in inter-module connections. Deng
et al. [10] proposed the stud-welded connection, where slotted holes are
considered in the column, while they are only unidirectional, and the
connection between modules cannot be completed well for the hori­
zontal direction in both the transverse and longitudinal directions
because they need to be cut in the column sidewalls to provide con­
struction space for the installation bolts.
To expand the application of MSBs, this paper proposes an innova­
tive bolted connection with dual-slot hole, which can facilitate rapid
splicing modules at the construction site and with significant seismic
behavior. As shown in Fig. 4, the connection between modules is
completed through high-strength bolts and cover plates. Both the beam
and cover plate are set with slot holes with more fault tolerance. Spe­
cifically, horizontal slot holes are set on the beams, and vertical slot
holes are set on the cover plate. Additionally, stiffening ribs are provided
at the beam and column welding position. The modular steel frame is
made by welding the beams and columns. Then, the modules are
finished with the floors, ceilings, and walls. Reserve holes in the floor
and ceiling to install cover plates and bolts. Alignment inspection shall
be conducted during splicing modules. The proposed connection meets
the need for rapid splicing of multi-modules in both the horizontal and
vertical directions. Because the modules are spliced with full bolts, it is
Fig. 1. The construction process of modular building.
2
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
convenient for maintenance and removal after construction.
Module-to-module connections are a critical part of the connections
and forces in MSBs [21]. Moreover, the uncertainty factor when splicing
modules in the construction site may cause the weak force performance
of the connection. Consequently, it is necessary to strengthen the
connection. Two strengthening methods, diagonal brace strengthening
and flange strengthening, are designed. Furthermore, the axial force
ratio variation needs to be considered when analyzing column-
supported MSB connections. Following a detailed design, four tests are
conducted to investigate the seismic behavior of the proposed connec­
tions. Then, a parametric analysis is conducted using the test-validated
finite element model. Finally, the hysteretic model that compares well
with the test curves is given. The findings will provide valuable refer­
ences for the engineering design of MSBs.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen details
Four full-scale specimens were designed to analyze the seismic
behavior of the proposed connections. Design of specimen size accord­
ing to the determined module unit, considering the transport restrictions
from the code [22]. Combined with the test setup, the specimen’s
calculated length is taken between the frame inflection points under
lateral load [23]. The inflection point is taken at the midpoint of the
modular frame [24], as shown in Fig. 5. Thus, half of the full column and
beam lengths are included in the subassemblage so that the design ac­
tions in the specimen are simplified equivalent to those in the full frame
[23]. To achieve performance as “strong columns and weak beams”
[25], the yielding condition of the designed beam is lower than that of
the column, which makes the beam fail first. The column and beam
sectional sizes are selected from the specifications commonly used in the
construction market and meet the test setup requirements.
Bolts used in all cases were M16 in Grade 10.9 S with 900 MPa
nominal yield strength, and the preload was determined based on
standard [26], which was 100 kN. The bolt preload is achieved using a
torque wrench. Each preload is associated with a set torque value. When
the preload is reached, the wrench will alert the user that the preload has
been applied. The bolt preload will be rechecked before the official test
to ensure that the preload is fully applied. The bolt arrangement meets
the code for the design of steel structures [27]. For diagonal brace, its
sectional thickness should be no less than the sectional thickness of the
connected columns and beams. The flange reinforcement plate’s
sectional thickness is the same as the thickness of the beam flange. Both
reinforcements are designed under the requirement of meeting the
construction convenience.
During the machining process of the specimen, the precise splicing of
the module corners ensured the alignment of the column and beam. The
alignment is assisted by the level and the horizontal ruler, thus ensuring
the alignment between the modules, the alignment of the bolt holes, etc.
To facilitate splicing modules, the bolting process is not strictly posi­
tioned in the center of the hole to better test the practical application
effect of applying this connection type at the construction site. CNC
machine tools are used to cut and punch the test pieces. The normal
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
fabrication tolerance of the test pieces is slight, and the design of the
dual-slot hole makes this fabrication tolerance basically unaffected the
splicing modules. The dimensions of each specimen’s beams, columns,
and cover plates are consistent to compare the mechanical properties of
different connection constructions directly.
Table 1 and Fig. 6 show the specimen information summary. The
following additions were made regarding the comparative design of the
different specimens:
(a) Design of the dual-slot hole is used for all specimens. Due to the
indeterminate randomness at the construction site, the continued
use of standard round bolt holes may result in the inability to
splice multi-modules rapidly. Specimen QS1 is the standard
connection specimen, and the rest are comparison specimens.
(b) Different axial force ratios. The axial force ratio is an important
design parameter for column-supported MSBs. Deformation pat­
terns may differ due to differences in the axial force ratio. A
higher axial force ratio may result in more severe damage and
worse deformability. Specimen QS2 was set up to consider the
effect of the axial load.
(c) Connection strengthening. The connections are subjected to the
largest moment and shear in the structure under horizontal loads.
With the spliced modules increasing, the force performance of the
connections has higher requirements. Additionally, assembly er­
rors also weaken the connection force. Therefore, two types of
strengthening methods are designed: diagonal brace strength­
ening (QS3) and flange strengthening (QS4).
2.2. Material properties
The mechanical properties of steel are measured to facilitate the
theoretical analysis and numerical simulation of connections. Three
groups of steel parts are manufactured and tested according to the
specification [28,29]. Each group contains three tensile specimens.
Tensile specimens were loaded with displacement-control loading at 1
mm/min until fractured [30]. A computer automatically recorded all
measurement results. The measurement results include Young’s
modulus (E), yield strength (fy), yield strain (εy), tensile strength (fu),
ultimate strain (εu), and elongation at fracture (δ). The average
measured material properties are listed in Table 2.
2.3. Loading and measurement program
Adopting the beam-column subassemblage with column loading
method is recommended to conduct connection tests for unbraced
modular frames [23]. The simplified column-end loading method was
Fig. 2. Existing typical inter-module connection details.
3
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
used in the tests [31], as shown in Fig. 7. The lower columns and beams
are hinge-restrained, and the upper column top is subjected to axial and
horizontal loads. The setup can provide the required hinge restraint at
the beam and column ends. Horizontal jack, in addition to its tail and the
reaction wall fixed connection, its mainbody is also connected to the
reaction wall through the sling. The length of the sling can be adjusted to
ensure the level of the jack. Moreover, the horizontal jack and the
specimen for the hinge connection. The above measures can ensure that
the jack maintains horizontal loading during the large deformation
phase of the specimen [31].
Hinged struts are selected in the loading scheme to conveniently
provide hinge restraint at the beam end. In this way, the beam end will
have a slight vertical displacement during the rotation and horizontal
movement. It was reported that the lateral displacement of the column
might reach 100 mm or more in a typical specimen, and the vertical
displacement of the beam end could be only 0.5 mm [23]. Furthermore,
the small vertical displacement of the beam end could be challenging to
measure accurately [23]. Therefore, the vertical displacement of the
beam end was not measured. In addition, the test setup has been applied
in existing studies, and the force performance of the specimen obtained
through the test agrees well with the theoretical analysis [31]. There­
fore, the test setup used basically does not affect the expected experi­
mental results. For the upper and lower modular beams, it allows for
horizontal misalignment deformation. To prevent out-of-plane torsional
instability of the beam, the restraint is set at the beam end (Fig. 8).
The axial load is calculated according to the yielding condition of the
column sections [15] (fy⋅As = 5320 kN), where fy and As are the yield
strength and section area of the column. As shown in Table 1, the axial
force ratio is 0.15 (axial force = 798 kN). For specimen QS2, the axial
force ratio is 0.25 (axial force = 1330 kN), for comparison to consider
the effect of the axial load. The axial load at the column end remains
constant in magnitude during loading, and the direction varies with the
column end. Fig. 9 shows the applied cyclic loading history [32]. The
loading rate is close to 5 mm/min, and the load is held for at least 10 min
per stage. The inter-story drift angle of 0.02 rad is the maximum
allowable drift angle for steel frames as specified in GB50011-2010 [33],
while the specimens loaded exceeds this value limit to analyze their
failure characteristics [34].
Four LVDTs and a dial indicator were used to measure the specimens’
movement, as shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 10b is a simplified schematic dia­
gram given mainly for illustrating the measurement method, incorpo­
rating the actual deformation characteristics of the specimen. Since the
bending deformation of the column in the test is relatively small, the
deformed shape of the column is simplified to a straight line, and the
axial load direction passes predictably through the column hinge. Di and
Hi (i = 1,2,3,4) denote the horizontal displacement and vertical distance
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 3. Modular building and its connections.

Fig. 4. Conceiving the bolted connection with dual-slot hole for MSBs.

from the measuring position to the column hinge. The dial indicator
3. Experimental results and discussion
measures the relative movement between the module’s beam and col­
umn. The actual fixed instrument’s position is measured before the
3.1. Failure modes
formal test to ensure the reliability of the results. The strain gauge layout
is shown in Fig. 11. The measurement scheme is essentially consistent
Typical failure characteristics of specimens are as follows: (1) overall
for each specimen to facilitate comparison. The calculation methods of
bending deformation of the beam; (2) local buckling or fracture of the
the moment and related angle [35] are shown in Eq. (1) to Eq. (4):
beam flange; (3) weld tearing at the reinforcement; (4) partial fracture of
M = F⋅Lc (1) the beam web; (5) bolt slippage; (6) upper and lower beam-end dislo­
cations. No significant deformation of the column or cover plate was
θi =
Di
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4) (2) found during the test.
Hi As shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, the failure characteristics of speci­
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ mens QS1 and QS2 are similar, in which beam flange fracture is the
θ5 =
Δl h2 + b2
(3) controlled failure mode of the connection’s strength. The beam flange is
hb susceptible to instability and buckling under in-plane pressure. There­
fore, the beam flange fractured at the local buckling produced by the
Δl = l2 − l1 (4)
horizontal reciprocal loading due to being repeatedly bent. The flange

4
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 5. Detailed information on test specimens.

the beam’s bending and local buckling. The different rotation directions
Table 1
of the beam struts in specimen QS2′ s test were due to the beam’s large
Summary of test specimens.
deformation during the specimen’s failure stage. With cyclic loading,
Specimen Bolt hole Bolt hole size Strengthing method Axial load the beam end slipped in the restraints. However, the hinge restraint
No. shape (mm) (kN)
provided at the beam end is unchanged and does not affect the obtained
QS1 Dual-slot 17.5 × 30 None 798 law for probing the effect of the axial load on the connection force.
hole
The damage of specimen QS3 mainly occurred at the diagonal brace
QS2 Dual-slot 17.5 × 30 None 1330
hole reinforcement, which was manifested as weld tearing and flange frac­
QS3 Dual-slot 17.5 × 30 Diagonal brace 798 ture, as shown in Fig. 14. Due to stiffeners in the beam, out-of-plane
hole strengthing dislocation deformation and significant gaps occur between the adja­
QS4 Dual-slot 17.5 × 30 Flange strengthing 798 cent module beams. The failure locations of specimen QS4 also occurs
hole
mainly at the reinforcement (Fig. 15). Because of the strengthening plate
setting, the buckling and fracture of the beam flange are far from the
connection of the upper and lower beams cracked at the bolt hole due to core area of the connection, and the beam-column weld is protected.
the large interlayer shear force. Under cyclic loading, beam-column Weld tearing occurs at the reinforcing plate as a consequence of stress
weld tearing is a common failure feature in the module [3]. However, concentration.
owing to the design of slot holes in the proposed connections, more
significant deformation and energy dissipation are provided for the
3.2. Bolt hole deformation
components. As a result, the tearing degree of the beam-column welds is
small. The upper and lower module beam-end dislocations are caused by
The bolt hole’s deformation characteristics can reflect the bolted

Fig. 6. Different connection constructions.

5
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Table 2
Average measured material properties.
Parts Steel grade t (mm) E (GPa) fy (MPa) εy (%) fu (MPa) εu (%) δ (%)

Beam Q345B 8 218 438 0.21 543 13.6 16.9

Column Q345B 10 219 475 0.35 570 8.9 26.1
Cover plate Q345B 10 196 379 0.28 480 12.2 21.5

Fig. 7. Test setup photograph.

Fig. 8. Test setup.

connection’s force features. As shown in Fig. 16, the bolt hole in the
unreinforced connection specimen has extensive deformation and clear
bolt slip traces, which reflects the reason for its excellent energy dissi­
pation performance. The energy is mainly dissipated through the beam’s
yield deformation. Due to the negligence of the test, the photo of the bolt
hole deformation of QS1 could not be found. However, based on the test
results, the force–deformation characteristics, strength, and energy
dissipation of specimens QS1 and QS2 are similar. Therefore, the failure
characteristics of QS2 are chosen in Fig. 16a. This approach does not
affect the contrasting laws obtained.
As a result of protecting the connection’s core area by the diagonal
brace, the bolt hole deformation in specimen QS3 is the smallest.
Furthermore, there are some bolt hole tearing phenomena in the flange
strengthening connection (QS4), mainly caused by the stress

6
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
Fig. 9. Cyclic loading history.
concentration at the strengthening site. The cover plates have no
obvious deformation, reflecting their relatively large in-plane stiffness,
playing a satisfactory connection role.
3.3. Moment-drift angle response
Generally, connection deformation mainly consists of the beam and
column’s bending, and the connection domain’s shearing [36]. The
inter-story drift angles θi (i = 1,2,3,4) calculated by Eq. (2) are close
Fig. 10. Displacement measurements.
Fig. 11. Strain gauge locations.
7
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
(Fig. 17a), indicating that the deformation of the columns and the
connection domain is relatively small. The connection rotation (θ5) is
the changing angle between the beam and the column axis [35], which is
calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4), is within 10% error compared with the
drift angles θi, which further proves that the deformation composition of
the connection is mainly provided by the beam (Fig. 17b). Therefore, the
bending of the beam primarily contributes to the connection deforma­
tion. This feature reflects the force-reliability of the inter-module
connection. To avoid the influence of the installation error of the
measuring instrument, and the data of the drift angles obtained from
each specimen are more, which can verify the accuracy of each other,
the specimens are all analyzed using the drift angle [53]. The seismic
behavior of the connection can be well reflected by the moment
(M)-drift angle (θ) [6,37].
Figs. 18-21 show the specimens’ hysteresis curve and deformation
characteristic process. The hysteretic curves are not pinched, reflecting
that the proposed bolted connection with dual-slot hole has no apparent
interlayer slip. Among them, specimens QS1 and QS2 displayed plump
hysteretic rings, showing the connection’s excellent seismic behavior.
When flange fracture occurs, the connection’s bearing capacity and
ductility decrease. The strengthened connection’s energy consumption
performance is weakened with the fracture of reinforcements, and
specimen QS3 is the most pronounced. Specimens’ moment-drift angle
curve could be identified as three major stages: the elastic stage, the
plastic development stage, and the failure stage, in which the plastic
development stage is the main stage of connection energy dissipation.
Fig. 22 shows the hysteresis curve comparison between specimens.
The axial force ratio of 0.15 and 0.25 has little effect on the connection’s
seismic behavior. Therefore, within the parameters designed for this
test, the lateral component of the axial load has less effect on the
b
D
h L
D
l l
H
L H
D
D H
H
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 12. Specimen QS1.

Fig. 13. Specimen QS2.

Fig. 14. Specimen QS3.

8
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 15. Specimen QS4.

Fig. 16. Blot holes deformation of beams and cover plates.

Fig. 17. Connection force deformation characteristics.

connection force. Moreover, since there is almost no bending deforma­
tion of the column or lateral offset along the column axis direction in the
test, the additional moment generated by the applied axial load on the
specimen is negligible. The energy dissipation of reinforced specimens is
weaker than that of unreinforced specimens due to the flange fracture or
weld tear at the stiffeners. Nevertheless, their load-bearing performance
is significantly improved. For the diagonal brace reinforced connection,
the stiffener in the beam bears part of the force, and the plastic hinge
moves outward. Thus, the force at the beam end increases, and the
moment calculated from the column end load increases. Additionally,
the setting of the flange reinforcing plate makes each component’s stress
in the connection more sufficient. Compared with the diagonal brace
strengthening method, the hysteretic loop of the connection with the
flange reinforcing plate is plumper.
Fig. 23 shows the effect of the two defense lines with load-bearing
capacity after the diagonal brace is disengaged. Under reciprocating
loading, the diagonal brace is gradually separated because of weld
tearing. When the diagonal brace is completely disengaged, the

9
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 18. Specimen QS1.

Fig. 19. Specimen QS2.

Fig. 20. Specimen QS3.

Fig. 21. Specimen QS4.

10
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
Fig. 22. Comparison of moment-drift angle curves of specimens.
Fig. 23. The effect of the two defense lines with load-bearing capacity.
connection’s bearing capacity is close to the maximum bearing capacity
of the unreinforced connection. This feature is favorable for promoting
the application of diagonal brace strengthening method.
3.4. Stiffness and strength characteristics
Fig. 24 and Table 3 show the method and results of the specimens’
key parameters. Here, the yield point is defined by Ref [38]. The force
properties of QS1 and QS2 are similar. Compared with QS1, the initial
rotational stiffness and maximum moment of QS3 are increased by
53.4% and 23.4%, respectively, and its load-bearing performance is
better than that of QS4. The difference between the initial rotational
Fig. 24. Key parameters of test connections.
11
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
M
stiffness (Ki) and the design rotational stiffness (Kse) of the standard
connection is less than 10%, which shows that the proposed connection
has stable force properties [39]. Furthermore, the proposed connections
are classified by Eurocode 3 Part 1–8 [36], and the results are shown in
Fig. 25, which are classified as semi-rigid full-strength connections.
Fig. 26 shows the stiffness degradation (Kj), the strength degradation
at the same loads (λi), and the strength degradation at the total load (λj)
calculated by Ref [39]. The stiffness degradation rate of the reinforced
connections is significantly higher than that of the unreinforced con­
nections. Due to weld tearing and beam flange fracture at the diagonal
brace, the stiffness degradation of specimen QS3 is the fastest. The axial
force ratio of 0.15 and 0.25 has little effect on the rotational stiffness.
Furthermore, when the drift angle reaches 0.04 rad, the specimens have
no obvious strength degradation (λi). The strength degradation co­
efficients (λj) increase linearly in the elastic and plastic development
stages. After the drift angle exceeded 0.04 rad, the specimens experi­
enced a rapid loss of strength in the failure stage. Stiffness and strength
degradation is mainly caused by weld tearing or beam flange fracture.
3.5. Ductility and energy dissipation
The proposed connections meet the ductility requirement of GB
50011–2010 [33], including an elastic drift ratio limit of 0.004 rad and
an elastic–plastic drift ratio limit of 0.02 rad. The rotation capacity of all
specimens also meets the ductility requirement of no less than 30 mrad
for seismic resistance, as suggested by FEMA-350 [40]. The average
M0.04/Mm was well over 0.80 for all specimens, as required by AISC
341–10 [41] for SMF systems. The bending capacity of the connection at
the 0.04 rad drift angle (M0.04) is normalized by the maximum moment
resistance (Mm). Overall, the connection exhibits sufficient deformation
capacity and ductility.
The energy dissipation capacity is an essential index to evaluate the
connection under earthquakes, which is usually reflected by the
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Table 3
Key parameters of the specimens.
Specimen No. Kie Kse My θy Mm θm Mu θu μθ
QS1 8902.8 8399.8 166.4 0.022 206.4 0.054 175.4 0.062 2.84
QS2 8428.8 7776.6 179.3 0.026 206.3 0.059 175.3 0.066 2.50
QS3 13654.2 11404.9 195.2 0.018 254.7 0.036 216.5 0.049 2.75
QS4 11280.8 10224.2 193.25 0.02 247.3 0.048 210.15 0.054 2.66

*Note: Kie (kN⋅m⋅rad− 1) indicates the initial rotational stiffness, defined as the secant stiffness corresponding to 20% Mm at the moment-drift angle curves; Kse
(kN⋅m⋅rad− 1) indicates the service-level rotational stiffness, defined as secant stiffness corresponding to 60% Mm; My (kN⋅m) and θy (rad) indicate the yield moment
and yield drift angle; Mm (kN⋅m) and θm (rad) indicate the maximum moment and maximum drift angle; Mu (kN⋅m) and θu (rad) indicate the moment and drift angle at
failure state; μθ (θu/θy) indicates the angular displacement ductility coefficient.

show excellent and stable energy dissipation capacity. The energy

Fig. 25. Connection classification.
equivalent viscous damping coefficient (ξeq), and can be obtained by
calculating the hysteresis loop [39], as shown in Fig. 27. Fig. 28 shows
the variation in the energy dissipation coefficients of each specimen at
different loading levels. In the elastic stage, energy consumption is
relatively low. Then, the energy dissipation capacity increases signifi­
cantly in the plastic development stage, until the failure stage. As ex­
pected, the standard connection (QS1, QS2) and strengthened flange
connection (QS4) show excellent energy dissipation capacity. Never­
theless, specimen QS3 is significantly weakened because of the fracture
at the diagonal brace.
Fig. 29 shows the variation in the energy consumed by the speci­
mens. Before reaching the yield angle, the energy consumed by the
specimen was nearly zero. After that, the energy consumed increased
with the increase of the hysteresis loop, showing a leaping change. The
destruction of connections mainly causes the weakening of energy
dissipation. Fig. 30 shows the hysteresis loop when each specimen starts
to consume energy and reaches the maximum energy dissipation,
showing that the energy dissipation and ductility of the standard
connection are better. In summary, the connections with dual-slot holes
dissipation of QS3 decreases the most because the setting of the diagonal
brace changes the force transmission path, and does not fully use the
yield deformation of the slotted hole beam. According to different design
cases, the ductility, stiffness, and energy dissipation indices of connec­
tions can be optimally combined to realize the reasonable use of
strengthening methods in seismic design.
As shown in Fig. 31a, the total energy consumption (Wt) of speci­
mens QS3 and QS4 decreased by 59% and 34%, respectively, compared
with specimen QS1. Although the total energy dissipation is lower, the
strengthened connections still have good energy dissipation capacity.
The experimental study by Deng et al. [37] showed the average dissi­
pated energy (Wa) of the stud-welded connection with an average value
of 7.37 kJ. The average dissipated energy of the proposed two
strengthened specimens in this paper is shown in Fig. 31b, with an
average value of 8.85 kJ. The comparison further demonstrates the
better energy consumption of the strengthened connection. The com­
parison of each connection’s maximum energy dissipation loops in
Fig. 31c shows that the strengthened connections have more advantages
in strength improvement. For the two proposed strengthening methods,
diagonal brace strengthening is easier to achieve than flange strength­
ening from the perspective of specimen fabrication.
3.6. Strain distribution
The specimen’s moment-drift angle hysteresis curve can reflect the
connection’s total energy dissipation. Accordingly, the moment-strain
hysteresis curve can reflect the contribution of components in connec­
tion to the total energy consumption. Fig. 32 shows the typical moment-
strain curve of specimens, which has the following characteristics:
The moment-strain hysteresis loop at the beam flange is the
plumpest, indicating its main contribution to energy dissipation.
Moreover, the strain values for components in the connection have
significant changes near the connection’s yield moment (Fig. 32a). The
column webs in the connection core area are mainly subjected to shear
under horizontal forces. Column webs have little contribution to energy
dissipation (Fig. 32b). The out-of-plane beams are hardly involved in the
force and energy dissipation (Fig. 32c). The strain (ε2) was significantly
reduced after diagonal brace strengthening. This result indicated an

Fig. 26. Stiffness and strength degradation characteristic of specimens.

12
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
Fig. 27. Idealized hysteretic loop.
Fig. 28. Equivalent viscous damping coefficients.
excellent protective effect on the beam-column weld in the module
(Fig. 32d). The beam flange at the reinforcement is constrained, limiting
its flexural deformation, and the strain (ε16) is significantly reduced
(Fig. 32e). The flange reinforcement plate has almost no effect on the
force of the beam web (Fig. 32f). The axial force ratio of 0.15 and 0.25
hardly affects the shear stress of the column web in the connection core
area. The adjacent horizontal columns are symmetrically stressed
(Fig. 32g). The setting of diagonal brace changes the path of beam-
column force transmission, which reduces the force in the connection
core area. Conversely, the flange reinforcement plate setting makes the
connection core area more fully stressed, and its strain increases
(Fig. 32h). Neither of the two types of reinforcements reached yield
during the loading (Fig. 32i).
The energy consumption of the connection is provided by different
components. As an illustration, Fig. 33 shows the strain distribution for
each component of specimen QS1, and the strain value is the strain peak
point under each loading cycle. The features are as follows: the beam
flange contributes the most to the connection energy consumption. The
beam flange first reaches yield during loading, and then the plastic hinge
gradually appears. The column web and cover plate almost do not yield.
The exertion degree of the components’ energy dissipation capacity in a
connection, is closely related to the appearance order of the connection
failure pattern and the deformation degree. According to the results, the
beam is the primary force and energy dissipation component under
13
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
earthquakes.
3.7. Force characteristics of the bolted connection with dual-slot hole
Through reasonable design, it is worth noting that the connections
have satisfactory load-bearing, energy dissipation, and rapid splicing
performance. In the 0.25 axial force ratio range, the connections’ initial
rotational stiffness is close to 8000 kN⋅m⋅rad− 1, and when the drift angle
exceeds 0.05 rad, the strength and stiffness has not decreased, indicating
that this connection has excellent load-bearing performance. The dual-
slot hole setting is advantageous for both connection energy consump­
tion and fast splicing. Fig. 34 shows the moment-drift angle-energy
comparison of specimens, where the energy value is the total energy
dissipation when reaching a certain angle. The load-bearing perfor­
mance of the connection is improved after strengthening, whereas the
energy dissipation performance is weakened with the reinforcement
setting.
Although the bolt holes in the beam and cover plate are slot holes,
the two directions in the connection plane are connected, limiting the
dislocation between the adjacent modules. The beam section still con­
trols the bearing capacity of the connections (Fig. 35a). Furthermore, the
connections’ prosperous ductility and energy dissipation mostly come
from the beam’s yield deformation and the bolts’ friction slip (Fig. 35b).
The design of bolted connection with dual-slot hole improves the
installation error sensitivity of multi-module splicing. Thus, the pro­
posed connection commendably balances the requirements for rapid
splicing modules and excellent seismic behavior.
4. Numerical analysis
4.1. Finite element model (FEM) and validation
The finite element software Abaqus was used to investigate the
proposed connections. As shown in Fig. 36, all parts have meshed with 8-
node linear brick, reduced integration, and hourglass control element
type (C3D8R) [52]. Different mesh sizes are divided into different
connection regions to improve computational efficiency and meet the
convergence requirements [42]. Tie constraints were applied between
the beam and column to simulate welding. The bolt preload is taken as
100 kN and simulated by the bolt load. To smoothly establish the contact
relationship between the plates, the bolt load is applied in 3 steps
(Fig. 37). The bolt contact surface is defined with a tangential friction
coefficient of 0.5. The normal direction is “hard contact”, a separation
allowed after the plate contact. The general contact for the rest of the
contact relationship.
A trilinear material model with isotropic hardening is used for the
column, beam, cover plate, and bolt [43], as shown in Fig. 38. The
material-related parameters are taken in Table 2. For the bolt, the ma­
terial parameters are taken according to the specification [26], in which
Young’s modulus is 206 GPa, the yield strength and tensile strength are
900 MPa and 1040 MPa, respectively, the plastic strain is 0.1, and
Poisson’s ratio is 0.3.
The constant axial or vertical load (downward load) is applied at the
column top end by force control. The axial load rotates with the end of
the column while the vertical load stays down to consider the
displacement effect (P-Delta effect). In addition, the horizontal cyclic
load is applied at the column top end by displacement control, with each
level of displacement increment kept in line with the test [44]. Hinge
constraints are applied at the beam ends and the lower column bottom
end to simulate moment inflection points. Constraints and forces are
applied to each reference point. Each reference point and the corre­
sponding end section couple all degrees of freedom of motion [45]. Since
the upper and lower beams are stressed independently and have dislo­
cation deformation, each beam end is constrained separately in the FEM.
In the FEM, the moment and inter-story drift ratio calculation
method remain the same as the test. Specifically, the moment is obtained
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 29. Hysteretic energy dissipation of specimens.

Fig. 30. Hysteresis loops of maximum and basically start energy consumption.

Fig. 31. Comparison of connection energy consumption.

from the lateral load multiplied by the lever arm, which is the vertical lateral loads and displacements of the column ends are extracted in the
distance between the column’s loaded point and the upper beam’s upper FEM.
flange [46]. The drift ratio is obtained by dividing the lateral displace­ Fig. 39 and Fig. 40 show the deformation and stress distribution of
ment by the total height of the upper and lower columns [47]. The specimen QS1 when it is damaged. The adjacent upper and lower

14
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 32. Typical moment-strain curves of specimens.

Fig. 33. Strain distribution at different components of the specimen QS1.

module beams show obvious independent stress characteristics. More­
over, the typical failure characteristics of the FEM and tests are basically
consistent. The cover plate and corresponding bolt position exhibit the
partial yield phenomenon. Fig. 41 compares the moment-drift angle
curves between the test and FEM, which agree well. After comparing and
verifying the monotonic loading curve obtained by the FEM with the
skeleton curve obtained by the test, the moment and rotational stiffness
of connections under different design parameters can be obtained
efficiently [48]. The eigenvalue ratio in Table 4 is between 0.95 and
1.05, verifying the correctness of the FEM method. Sliding between
modules, including sliding between adjacent columns and sliding be­
tween adjacent beams, is considered in the FEM. Hence, different
parameter analyses can be carried out to study the connection’s force
properties more regularly.

15
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 34. Moment-drift angle-energy comparison of connections.

Fig. 35. Seismic behavior characteristics of the connection.

Fig. 36. Sophisticated finite element model.

16
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
Fig. 37. Bolt load application steps.
Fig. 38. Material model.
4.2. Parametric analysis
Two sets of parameters were designed, including slot hole size and
displacement effect. Enlarging the length of slot holes in the beams and
cover plates can bring greater convenience for splicing modules. In
addition, the axial force in the test rotates with the column end, and the
influence of the additional moment caused by the vertical force cannot
be considered. Therefore, the parameters with a vertical force ratio (n =
F/(fy⋅As)) of 0 ~ 0.45 are set in the FEM, where F is the applied vertical
force, fy and As are the yield strength and section area of the column,
Fig. 39. Comparison of deformation characteristics.
17
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
respectively. Such an investigation will provide practical guidance for
future proposals and improve analogous inter-module connections.
In the parametric analysis of the slot hole size, only the slot hole size
is changed, and the rest of the control conditions are the same. For
example, the bolt preload is 100 kN, the friction coefficient is 0.5, the
axial force is 798 kN and other conditions. As shown in Fig. 42, the
change in slot hole size between 17.5 × 30 mm and 17.5 × 40 mm has
less effect on the strength and stiffness of connections. The main reasons
include the following: the proposed inter-module connection is a space
connection, which is connected in both the in-plane and out-of-plane
directions. Friction-type high-strength bolts are used, and the in-plane
stiffness of the cover plate is relatively large. No obvious deformation
or damage occurred to these connectors when the connections were
stressed. Consequently, there is basically no dislocation between adja­
cent modules. The in-plane beam section mainly controls the connection
force, which is mainly the strength and stiffness.
Fig. 43 shows the stress state when each connection reaches 0.03 rad.
Within the set variation of slot hole parameters, the stress characteristics
of each beam are basically the same. This is because as the length of the
slot hole increases, the bearing capacity controlled by the section does
not change. This feature reduces sensitivity to installation errors when
splicing modules at the construction site.
The sliding pattern between modules is similar in connection with
17.5 × 30 mm slotted holes and the connection with 17.5 × 40 mm
slotted holes when only the slotted hole size is changed (Fig. 44). The
sliding between adjacent columns is relatively small and does not affect
the normal use of the connection. It should be noted that for the bolt
connection, when the bolt preload is small, a large slip between modules
may occur, so the preload should be taken strictly according to the
specification.
As shown in Fig. 45a, whether to consider the additional moment
caused by the vertical force significantly impacts the load-bearing per­
formance of the connection. With the increase in vertical force, the
connection’s strength and rotational stiffness gradually decrease
(Fig. 45b). When the vertical force ratio reaches 0.45, the strength and
stiffness of the connection drop sharply after reaching the peak point,
which is very unfavorable, and the peak drift angle is only approxi­
mately 0.02 rad.
In the analysis of the P-Delta effect, the moment calculated from the
horizontal load reflects its ability to bear the external load. Since the
connection strength is constant, the calculated peak moment’s reduction
comes from the effect of the additional moment generated by the P-Delta
effect. According to the specification, the drift angle limit of the
connection is 0.02 rad [33]. The difference between the peak moment at
0.02 rad considering the P-Delta and M0.02 (moment at 0.02 rad) without
considering the P-Delta is the maximum additional moment the
connection can bear. Thus the maximum limited vertical force ratio can
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 40. Stress state of cover plates and bolts.

Fig. 41. Comparison of test and FEM simulation curves.

Table 4
Comparison of key parameters of FEM and test results.
Loading direction Initial rotational stiffness (kN⋅m⋅rad− 1) Yield moment (kN⋅m) Yield drift angle (rad)

Test FEM Ratio Test FEM Ratio Test FEM Ratio

Push (+) 8631.8 9052.6 0.95 166.9 172.1 0.97 0.022 0.021 1.05
Pull (-) 9173.8 9052.6 1.01 165.9 172.1 0.96 0.022 0.021 1.05

Fig. 42. Parameter analysis on slot hole size.

be obtained. This analysis method is applicable to this type of connec­ connection is about twice that of the corner connection. The vertical
tion force controlled by beams, where the connection deformation is force ratio limit of 0.45 can also provide a reference for the corner
mainly provided by the beams. connections. In the MSB design, the vertical force of the connection at
According to Chen et al. [15,49], the strength of the middle the maximum force location is should be limited to ensure that the

18
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 43. Comparison of stress states.

Fig. 44. Sliding deformation between modules.

Fig. 45. Parameter analysis on displacement effect.

connection is not damaged first, ensuring that the connection is safe
during the service period of the building.
5. Hysteretic model and analysis
The exponential function model is employed due to the less inde­
pendence of experimental data and advantages in the model’s accuracy.
Moreover, this model can well describe the semi-rigid characteristics of
the inter-module connection [50]. Therefore, the hysteresis model is in
the form of the three-parameter power function. Assume the positive
and negative hysteresis rules take the same form [51]. The hysteresis
model is shown in Fig. 46. Combined with the experimental results, the
skeleton curve calculation formula is shown in Eq. (5). The hysteresis
curve calculation formula is shown in Eq. (6), where Ki is the initial
rotational stiffness, Mm is the maximum moment, θul and Mul are the
coordinates of unloading, and the shape parameter n is uniformly set to
2. Fig. 47 shows a comparison of typical hysteresis loops. Overall, it can
be seen that the coincidence between the hysteresis model and test re­
sults is reasonable in the elastic–plastic stage of connection force. The
model overestimates the connection force during the failure stage.
However, for the design objective, the drift angle needed to reach the
failure stage of this connection is relatively large, and the specification
does not allow it to exceed the limit of 0.02 rad for the inter-story drift
angle in the actual design [33], which is adequate for the given hys­
teresis model. The model can provide a reference for design.
M 1
θ= ⋅ (5)
Ki [1 − (M/Mm )n ]1/2n

19
S.-Y. Zhai et al. Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619

Fig. 46. Comparison between the hysteresis model and test results.

Fig. 47. Comparison of typical hysteresis curves.

⎧
⎪ M − Mul 1 CRediT authorship contribution statement
⎪
⎪ ⋅ (M⩾0)
⎪
⎨ Ki+ [1 − ((M − Mul )/(M + + M − ))n ]1/n
(6) Si-Yuan Zhai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
m m
θ − θul =
⎪ M − Mul 1
⎪
⎪ Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Yi-
⎩ K− ⋅
⎪ n 1/n
(M < 0)
i [1 − ((M − Mul )/(Mm+ + Mm− )) ] Fan Lyu: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing,
Formal analysis, Validation, Supervision. Ke Cao: Resources, Concep­
6. Conclusions tualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision,
(1) Based on the full-scale experimental study, the inter-module Funding acquisition. Guo-Qiang Li: Conceptualization, Methodology,
bolted connection with dual-slot hole is force-reliable. The Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Wei-Yong Wang: Resources,
connection meets the ductility requirement and has a stable en­ Writing – review & editing, Data curation. Chen Chen: Validation,
ergy dissipation capacity. Compared with the standard round Resources.
hole, the dual-slot hole can improve the installation error sensi­
tivity of splicing multi-modules. Declaration of Competing Interest
(2) The overall bending and local buckling of the modular beam are
the failure characteristics of all connections. The failure mode of The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
the connection before strengthening is mainly flange fracture. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
The failure location of the strengthened connection mainly occurs the work reported in this paper.
at the reinforcements, mainly manifested by flange fracture, and
tearing of the reinforcement and beam flange welds. Data availability
(3) Both diagonal brace and flange strengthening can improve the
load-bearing capacity but weaken the energy dissipation capacity I have shared the link to my data at the Attach file step.
of the connection. Without considering the displacement effect,
the axial force ratio of columns has little effect on the connection Acknowledgment
strength within the parameters considered in the test.
(4) Based on the FEM parametric analysis, the variation in 30 ~ 40 This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for
mm has little effect on the connection force when only the slot the Central Universities with project number 2022CDJSKJC17 and
hole length is changed. The displacement effect significantly in­ 2020CDJSK03PT08, the National Science Foundation for Young Scien­
fluences the connection’s strength and stiffness. According to the tists of China with project number 51808068, and the National Key
analysis of one inter-module connection, for safety reasons, the Research and Development Program of China with project number
vertical force ratio control value of the most forced connection 2017YFC0703803.
can be referenced to 0.45 when using this connection type.
(5) The hysteretic model of the bolted connection with dual-slot hole References
is given. Specifically, it adopts the form of the three-parameter
power function. Overall, the design curve given agrees well [1] Ferdousa W, Bai Y, Ngo TD, Manalo A, Mendis P. New advancements, challenges
and opportunities of multi-story modular buildings-A state-of-the-art review. Eng
with the experimental curve. Struct 2019;183:883–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.061.
[2] Thai HT, Ngo T, Uy B. A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings.
Structures 2020;28:1265–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.070.

20
S.-Y. Zhai et al.
[3] Deng EF, Zong L, Ding Y, Zhang Z, Zhang JF, Shi FW, et al. Seismic performance of
mid-to-high rise modular steel construction-A critical review. Thin-Walled Struct
2020;155:106924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106924.
[4] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Review of bolted inter-module connections in
modular steel buildings. J Build Eng 2019;23:207–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.01.035.
[5] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Effect of inter-module connection stiffness on
structural response of a modular steel building subjected to wind and earthquake
load. Eng Struct 2020;213:110628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.110628.
[6] Dai XM, Zong L, Ding Y, Li ZX. Experimental study on seismic behavior of a novel
plug-in self-lock joint for modular steel construction. Eng Struct 2018;181:143–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.075.
[7] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Samali B, Ronagh H. Interlocking system for enhancing the
integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. Automat Constr 2018;85:263–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.023.
[8] Chen Z, Liu Y, Zhong X, Liu J. Rotational stiffness of inter-module connection in
mid-rise modular steel buildings. Eng Struct 2019;196:109273. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.06.009.
[9] Annan CD, Youssef MA, Naggar MHE. Experimental evaluation of the seismic
performance of modular steel-braced frames. Eng Struct 2009;31:1435–46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.024.
[10] Deng EF, Zong L, Ding Y, Dai XM, Lou N, Chen Y. Monotonic and cyclic response of
bolted connections with welded cover plate for modular steel construction. Eng
Struct 2018;167:407–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.028.
[11] Dai Z, Cheong TYC, Pang SD, Liew JYR. Experimental study of grouted sleeve
connections under bending for steel modular buildings. Eng Struct 2021;243:
112614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112614.
[12] Chen Z, Li H, Chen A, Yu Y, Wang H. Research on pretensioned modular frame test
and simulations. Eng Struct 2017;151:774–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.08.019.
[13] Dhanapal J, Ghaednia H, Das S, Velocci J. Structural performance of state-of-the-
art VectorBloc modular connector under axial loads. Eng Struct 2019;183:
496–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.023.
[14] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Review of
performance requirements for inter-module connections in multi-story modular
buildings. J Build Eng 2019;28:101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.101087.
[15] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y. Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel
buildings. Eng Struct 2017;147:625–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.06.002.
[16] Park KS, Moon J, Lee SS, Bae KW, Charles WR. Embedded steel column-to-
foundation connection for a modular structural system. Eng Struct 2016;110:
244–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.034.
[17] Lee S, Park J, Shon S, Kang CH. Seismic performance evaluation of the ceiling-
bracket-type modular joint with various bracket parameters. J Constr Steel Res
2018;150:298–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.08.008.
[18] Deng EF, Yan JB, Ding Y, Zong L, Li ZX, Dai XM. Analytical and Numerical Studies
on Steel Columns with Novel Connections in Modular Construction. Int J Steel
Struct 2017;17:1613–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-017-1226-5.
[19] Zhai SY, Lyu YF, Cao K, Li GQ, Wang WW, Chen C. Experimental study on bolted-
cover plate corner connections for column-supported modular steel buildings.
J Constr Steel Res 2022;189:107060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.107060.
[20] Liu XC, Chen ML, Chen X, Li YM, Wang Y, Xu L. Seismic behavior of bolted truss-to-
column joint with oversized or slotted bolt hole. Eng Struct 2021;247:113110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113110.
[21] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Structural response of modular buildings-An
overview. J Build Eng 2018;16:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2017.12.008.
[22] GB/T 16471-1996. Dimensional constraints for transport package. Beijing:
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China; 1996 (in Chinese).
[23] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H. Experimental methods for inter-module joints in
modular building structures-A state-of-the-art review. J Build Eng 2022;46:
103792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103792.
[24] Li GQ, Cao K, Lu Y. Column effective lengths in sway-permitted modular steel-
frame buildings. P I Civil Eng-Str B 2019;172:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jstbu.17.00006.
[25] Guo H, Zhou X, Li W, Liu Y, Yang D. Experimental and numerical study on seismic
performance of Q690 high-strength steel plate reinforced joints. Thin-Walled Struct
2021;161:107510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107510.
[26] GB/T 1231-2006. Specifications of high strength bolts with large hexagon head,
large hexagon nuts, plain washers for steel structures. Beijing: Standards Press of
China; 2006 (in Chinese).
[27] GB50017-2017. Code for design of steel structures. Beijing: China Architecture &
Building Press, 2018 (in Chinese).
21
Engineering Structures 279 (2023) 115619
[28] GB/T 2975-2018. Steel and steel products: Location and preparation of samples
and test pieces for mechanical testing. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2018 (in
Chinese).
[29] GB/T 228.1-2010. Metallic materials: tensile testing part 1: method at room
temperature. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2010 (in Chinese).
[30] Shi Y, Luo Z, Zhou X, Xue X, Li J. Post-fire mechanical properties of titanium-clad
bimetallic steel in different cooling approaches. J Constr Steel Res 2022;191:
107169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107169.
[31] Cheng G, Zhou X, Liu J, Chen F. Seismic behavior of circular tubed steel-reinforced
concrete column to steel beam connections. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;138:485–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.10.041.
[32] JGJ/T 101-2015. Specification for the seismic test of buildings. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press; 2015. (in Chinese).
[33] GB 50011–2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Beijing: Architecture
Industrial Press of China; 2016. (in Chinese).
[34] Li YW, Wang YZ, Wang YB. Application of seismic resilient energy-dissipative
rocking columns with HSS tension braces in steel frames. Eng Struct 2022;253:
113812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113812.
[35] Shi G, Yuan F, Huo D, Shi Y, Wang Y. The theoretical model and measuring
calculation method of the beam-to-column joint rotation in steel frames. Eng Mech
2012;29:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmc.3477. in Chinese.
[36] EN 1993-1-8. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures-part 1-8: Design of joints.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN); 2005.
[37] Deng EF, Zong L, Ding Y, Luo YB. Seismic behavior and design of cruciform bolted
module-to-module connection with various reinforcing details. Thin-Walled Struct
2018;133:106–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.09.033.
[38] Feng P, Qiang H, Ye L. Discussion and definition on yield points of materials,
members, and structures. Eng Mech 2017;34:36–46. https://doi.org/10.6052/j.
issn.1000-4750.2016.03.0192. in Chinese.
[39] Wang J, Zhang L, Spencer Jr BF. Seismic response of extended end plate joints to
concrete-filled steel tubular columns. Eng Struct 2013;49:876–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.001.
[40] FEMA-350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[41] ANSI/AISC 341-10. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago:
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[42] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. New interlocking inter-module connection for
modular steel buildings: Experimental and numerical studies. Eng Struct 2019;198:
109465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109465.
[43] Lyu YF, Li GQ, Cao K, Zhai SY, Li H, Chen C, et al. Behavior of splice connection
during transfer of vertical load in full-scale corner-supported modular building.
Eng Struct 2021;230:111698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111698.
[44] Peng J, Hou C, Shen L. Numerical simulation of weld fracture using cohesive
interface for novel inter-module connections. J Constr Steel Res 2020;174:106302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106302.
[45] Lian JY, Deng EF, He JM, Cai LM, Gao SC, Zhou JJ. Numerical analysis on seismic
performance of corner fitting connection in modular steel building. Structures
2021;33:1659–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.05.044.
[46] Li H, Xue J, Chen X, Tu G, Lu X, Zhong R. Experimental research on seismic damage
of cross-shaped CFST column to steel beam joints. Eng Struct 2022;256:113901.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113901.
[47] Qu H, Wang W. Calculations for moment versus rotation relationship of the joint of
beam and concrete-filled steel tubular column. Eng Mech 2010;27:106–60. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bmc.3477. in Chinese.
[48] Cheng Y, Yang Y, Li B, Liu J, Chen YF. Mechanical behavior of T-shaped CFST
column to steel beam joint. J Constr Steel Res 2021;187:106774. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106774.
[49] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y, Zhou C, Yan R. Experimental study of an innovative modular
steel building connection. J Constr Steel Res 2017;139:69–82. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.09.008.
[50] Zhang JF, Zhao JJ, Deng EF, Wang H, He JM, Yu HX, et al. Component method
based rotation performance and design method for the connection in ATLS
modular house. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;164:107803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2021.107803.
[51] Li GQ, Shi WL, Wang JF. Design of steel frames with semi-rigid connections.
Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2009. in Chinese.
[52] Yang YB, Wang ZL, Yao H, Zhang B, Xu H, Shi K. Weak-end and frequency
detection of elastically supported bridges by contact residual response of two-axle
test vehicle in round trip. J Bridge Eng 2022;28:06023001. https://doi.org/
10.1061/JBENF2/BEENG-5952.
[53] Zhang J, Li G, Sun Y, Sun J, Yu Z, Feng R. Maximum displacement prediction of
composite floor system under falling impact. Eng Struct 2022;275:115326. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115326.