Article

Advances in Structural Engineering

2017, Vol. 20(6) 884–895
Experimental model for predicting the Ó The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
semi-rigid connections’ behaviour with sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369433216665621

angles and stiffeners journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Mahyar Maali1, Mahmut Kılıc

x1, Merve Sağıroğlu2 and
Abdulkadir Cüneyt Aydın1

Abstract
This article presents the experimental results of nine specimens of steel bolted beam-to-column connections with top-and-seat angle
and stiffener. All of the connections have the angles and beams reinforced with stiffeners in the extended parts. The results are ana-
lysed on the basis of the global moment–rotation curves. The main parameters observed are the failure modes, the evolution of the
resistance, the stiffness, the rotation capacity, the ductility of a joint and the energy dissipation. The aim was to provide necessary data
to improve the Eurocode 3. While the stiffness decreased with the increased thickness of beam stiffeners of 5–10 mm, the maximum
bending moment (Mj.max) increased with the increased length of top-and-seat angle.

Keywords
beam stiffeners, energy dissipation, Eurocode 3, experimental testing, resistance, semi-rigid connections

Introduction moment–rotation behaviour of stiffened extended end-

The behaviour of beam–column joint plays an impor-
tant role in the response of a steel moment resisting
framed structure (Babu and Sreekumar, 2012). The use
of bolted joints allows more energy dissipation and
provides a good response under static loads. In the
structural framework with semi-rigid joints, the char-
acteristics of connections play a significant role in the
resistance, the stiffness, the rotation capacity, the duc-
tility of a joint and the energy dissipation mechanisms.
As rigid connections are more expensive and difficult
to assemble and because flexible connections do not
have the necessary resistance and stiffness to resist the
static loads, use of semi-rigid connections using bolted
angles is justified (Babu and Sreekumar, 2012). In
recent years, a number of research works were carried
out to study the behaviour of semi-rigid connections.
Cabrero and Bayo (2007) researched the semi-rigid
behaviour of three-dimensional steel beam-to-column
joints subjected to proportional loading. An experi-
mental investigation of statically loaded extended end-
plate connections in both major and minor column
axes was undertaken. The aim of the research was to
provide insight into the behaviour of these joints
when a proportional load is applied to both axes
(three-dimensional loading). Shi et al. (2007) investi-
gated the experimental and theoretical analyses for the
plate connections. A new theoretical model for evalu-
ating the moment–rotation (M–u)relationship for stif-
fened and extended steel beam–column end-plate
connections was derived. Based on a specific definition
of the end-plate connection rotation, the end-plate
connection was broken down into several components,
including the panel zone, bolt, end-plate and column
flange. Abidelah et al. (2012) researched the experi-
mental and analytical behaviours of bolted end-plate
connections with or without stiffeners. The results were
analysed on the basis of global moment–rotation
curves and the evolution of the tension forces in the
bolts. The main parameters observed were the failure
modes, the evolution of the resistance, the stiffness and
the rotation capacity. When beam-to-column joints to
the column minor axis were considered, the adopted
design process generally assumed these joints to be
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ataturk
University, Erzurum, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Erzurum
Technical University, Erzurum, Turkey
Corresponding author:
Abdulkadir Cüneyt Aydın, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Ataturk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey.
Email: acaydin@atauni.edu.tr
Maali et al.
pinned; however, they did not behave as though they
were pinned (De Lima et al., 2002). Given that no code
provisions currently exist for semi-rigid minor axis
joints, a mechanical model was developed in accor-
dance with the general principles of Eurocode 3
(European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
2005) to evaluate the structural behaviour of the con-
nections. Chen et al. (1996) discussed a new method of
trimming the beam flanges in order to enhance the
ductility of beam–column connection keeping the ulti-
mate strengths unaltered and increasing the plastic
rotation capacity and energy dissipation capacity.
Frederick and Abuyasein (1994) studied the influence
of partial rigidity of beam–column connection on the
behaviour and stability of frames. The conventional
usage of stiffeners can be designed to present local
bending, local yielding and local buckling of the beam
or column. However, the usage of stiffeners with angles
is not mentioned and investigated either in Eurocode 3
or in the literature as in this research (Aydın et al.,
2015a, 2015b). Thus, the aim of the study was to ana-
lyse the influence of the beam stiffeners and lengths (L)
of top-and-seat angle joints on the behaviour of major-
axis beam-to-column semi-rigid connections and to
provide the necessary data for improving Eurocode 3.
The moment–rotation curves were used to evaluate the
main parameters characterizing the behaviour of the
tested connections, such as the resistance, the stiffness,
Figure 1. Top-and-seat angle geometry and proposed three-dimensional semi-rigid joint and location of the strain gauges.
ST1: parallel to beam on seat angle; ST2: vertical to beam on seat angle; ST3: parallel to stiffener beam; ST4: vertical to stiffener beam.
885
the rotation capacity, the ductility of a joint and the
energy dissipation of the joints.
Description of the experimental
programme
Test details and geometrical properties
This article discusses nine full-scale specimens in three
groups, labelled L91, L82 and L73 (L = length of
top-and-seat angle), under statically loaded condition,
the experimental programme is shown in Figure 1. The
joints were fabricated from a major-axis joint, as
shown in Figure 1, and detailed in Table 1. From the
practical point of view, the stiffened angles are thought
as the stiffness-induced joints. Thus, the rotation capa-
bility of the joint may be reduced. Whole of the speci-
mens are tested and compared extensively for L91,
L82 and L73 groups. Angle stiffeners with a thickness
equal to 6 mm were welded to the top-and-seat angle,
and beam stiffeners with a thickness equal to 5, 6 and
10 mm were welded to the beams by means of a con-
tinuous 45° fillet weld. The fillet welds were prepared
for the workshop in a down-hand position. The man-
ual metal arc welding type of procedure was involved
with a consumable electrode (Coelho et al., 2004;
Maali et al., 2015). The chosen steel grade for the top-
and-seat angle, plate stiffener and profile section was
886 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(6)

Table 1. Test details.

Groups name Experiment Top-and-seat angle Length of angle Stiffener thickness Stiffener thickness of Xmax and
(L, mm) of beam (BS, mm) top-and-seat Ymax (mm)
angle (tP, mm)

L91 group L91-tp6-BS5 A60 3 60 3 6 91 5 6 54

L91-tp6-BS6 6
L91-tp6-BS10 10
L82 group L82-tp6-BS5 82 5
L82-tp6-BS6 6
L82-tp6-BS10 10
L73 group L73-tp6-BS5 73 5
L73-tp6-BS6 6
L73-tp6-BS10 10

A: top-and-seat angles A60 3 60 3 6; L: length of top-and-seat angle; tp: stiffener thickness of top-and-seat angle; SB: stiffener thickness of beam.

Table 2. Average characteristic values for structural steels and bolt.a

E (MPa) Est (MPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) rc est euni ef

5-mm plate 202,812 1258 353 502 0.70 1.59 3 1022 1.42 3 1022 0.92 3 1021
6-mm plate 203,514 1308 487 559 0.87 1.82 3 1022 1.58 3 1022 1.03 3 1021
10-mm plate 205,352 1798 687 721 0.95 2.71 3 1022 2.68 3 1022 1.62 3 1021
Bolt – – 839.18 971.93 0.86 – – –
Beam web 202,942 1289 371 521 0.71 1.57 3 1022 1.39 3 1022 0.87 3 1021
Beam flange 203,985 1321 528 612 0.86 1.79 3 1022 1.51 3 1022 1.00 3 1021
Column web 204,424 1396 541 637 0.85 1.89 3 1022 1.63 3 1022 1.11 3 1021
Column flange 208,242 1928 831 945 0.88 2.99 3 1022 2.81 3 1022 1.78 3 1021
Top-and-seat angle 60 201,209 1281 311.28 450.45 0.69 1.70 3 1022 1.42 3 1022 0.99 3 1021
a
Standard deviation is 67.5% for all values.

S235. The column HE300B, the beam IPE160 and
hand-tightened full-threaded grade 8.8 M10 bolts in
12-mm drilled holes were kept constant for all tested
specimens. The columns were chosen with large cross
section, and the stiffener usage prevented excessive
deflection in the flange column because the aim of this
study was to evaluate the influence of the beam stiffen-
ers and their lengths (L) of top-and-seat angle connec-
tions on their behaviour.
Mechanical properties
Coupon tension testing of the structural steel material
of the stiffener, profiles and top-and-seat angles were
performed complying with UNE-EN 10002-1 (2002).
The average actual characteristics are set out in
Table 2. In this table, the values for Young’s modulus,
E; the strain hardening modulus, Est; the static yield
and tensile stresses, fy and fu; the yield ratio, ry = fy/fu;
the strain at the strain hardening point, est; the uniform
strain, euni; and the strain at rupture load, ef, are given.
The stress values indicated in this table correspond to
the static stresses, which are the stress values obtained
at zero strain rate, that is, during a hold on of the
deformation-driven experiment.
The mechanical properties of the bolt material were
determined in accordance with BS EN ISO 898-1:1999
(2009). The average properties are set out in Table 2,
for bolts 8.8.
Test arrangement and instrumentation
The specimens were subjected to a static force applied
by a 900-kN hydraulic jack with a maximum piston
stroke of 300 mm. Tests were performed under displa-
cement control with a constant speed of 0.01 mm/s up
to the collapse of the specimens. The test arrangements
are shown in Figure 2. In order to prevent the lateral
torsional buckling of the beam while loading, a two-
column guidance device near the beam was provided
(Coelho et al., 2004; Maali et al., 2015). In fact, from
the experiments, it was observed that lateral torsional
buckling of the beam with the course of loading did
not occur. The instrumentation plan is described in
Figure 2. The lengths of the beam and column
(1500 mm) were chosen to ensure, on one hand, that a
Maali et al.
Figure 2. Location of the displacement transducers (DT = LVDTs).
realistic stress pattern was developed at the connec-
tion, and, on the other hand, that fracture of the sev-
eral specimens, that is, ultimate load, was attained
with the specific testing machine (Coelho et al., 2004;
Maali et al., 2015).
887
The full instrumentation plan is described below.
The primary requirements of the instrumentation were
the measurement of the applied load (P); the displace-
ments (DT) of the connection, beam, top-and-seat
angle and flange of the column; and the strains at the
888
top-and-seat angle connections. The results were col-
lected using a data logging device that recorded all
measurements and the load cells at 1-s intervals. All of
the data were recorded for the duration of the test.
Displacements were measured using linear variable dis-
placement transducers with a maximum displacement
of 100 mm (LVDTs, shown as DT in Figure 2). Two
strain gauges (STs) of TML YEFLA-5 (maximum
strain of 15%–20%) were added to the top-angle
connection (horizontal and vertical) and to the stif-
fener of the beam (horizontal and vertical) as shown in
Figure 1 to observe the strain distribution. For good
comparison of the results, all specimens used the same
arrangement for the location of the strain gauges and
measuring devices.
The moment–rotation curve is the explanation of
the moment connections that describe the relationship
between the applied moment (M) and the correspond-
ing rotation (u) between the members. The rotation
and the bending moment (M) are predicted using dis-
placements of the beam or top-and-seat angle connec-
tion as well as multiplication of the distance between
the load application point and beam end, bolted to col-
umn (Lload), respectively
M = PLload ð1Þ
The rotational deformation of the joint (u) is equal
to the connection rotation. The beam rotation is
approximately given by (Figure 2)
Figure 3. Moment–rotation curve characteristics.
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(6)
  
P

X 3DT Lload X 2DT
arctan dDT1  dDT5   EI 6 
1
2
1
u=
L1
ð2Þ
where I is the moment of inertia and E is Young’s
modulus of beam. Some differences among the results
from LVDTs DT1–DT2 are identical, as expected.
Therefore, all of the deformation values presented
throughout the remainder of the section refer to the
readings from DT1.
Test results
The M–u curve of the connection may be characterized
using the aforementioned relationships. The main fea-
tures of this curve are moment resistance, rotational
stiffness and rotation capacity. In particular, the fol-
lowing characteristics were assessed for the different
experimental tests (Aydın et al., 2015a, 2015b; CEN,
2005; Coelho et al., 2004), as shown in Figure 3: the
plastic flexural resistance, Mj.Rd, which corresponds to
the intersection point of the previous two regression
lines obtained for the initial stiffness (Sj.ini) and for the
post-limit stiffness (Sj.p-l) and its corresponding rota-
tion uMRd; the maximum bending moment, Mj.max, and
its corresponding rotation, uM.j.max; the knee-range of
the M–u curve, which is defined as the transition zone
between the initial and post-limit stiffness, with its
lower boundary at MminK-R and rotation uminK-R, and
Maali et al.
Figure 4. Moment–rotation curve for the three groups.
with its upper limit at MsupK-R and rotation usupK-R;
and the bending moment capacity, Mu.Cd, and its cor-
responding rotation capacity, uCd.
The moment–rotation and moment–strain responses
for the three groups using top-and-seat angle joints
with a 5-, 6- and 10-mm stiffener thickness of the
beams are reported in Figure 4 and Table 3. Due to
lower values (lower than 1026 mm) of the measured
column deflections (with DT8) as illustrated in
Figure 2, the relative rotation of the beam-to-column
connection was evaluated with the ignorance of col-
umn deflections.
The curves in Figure 4 and Tables 3 to 5 show that
the knee-range of joints for the L91, L82 and L73
groups increased by about 1.05%, 5.71% and 27.48%,
with increasing thickness of stiffener beam, respec-
tively. Moreover, the knee-range of joints for the BS5,
BS6 and BS10 test models increased by about 45.98%–
56.85%, 29.13% and 41.13%–43.31% with increasing
lengths (L) of the top-and-seat angle, respectively.
Generally, the knee-range of joints increased with
increasing lengths (L) of the angles and increasing the
stiffener thickness of the beam.
The plastic flexural resistance for the L91, L82 and
L73 groups decreased by about 5.32%–17.29%,
34.97%–50.68% and 4.4%–10.45%, respectively, with
the increasing thickness of stiffener beam and for BS5,
BS6 and BS10 test models increased about 25.07%–
889
45.14%, 36.58%–55.32% and 48.11%–48.55%,
respectively, with increasing lengths (L) of the top-
and-seat angle. Therefore, the plastic flexural resis-
tance increased with increasing lengths (L) of the
angles and decreasing stiffener thickness of beam.
The maximum bending moment for the L91 and
L73 groups increased by about 1.56%–2.22% and
3.4%–21.83%, respectively, with increasing thickness
of stiffener beam and for BS5, BS6 and BS10 test mod-
els increased by about 25.34%–42.41%, 29.31%–
49.37% and 27.96%–30.19%, respectively, with
increasing lengths (L) of the top-and-seat angle.
Therefore, the maximum bending moment increased
with increasing lengths (L) of the angles and increasing
stiffener thickness of beam.
The bending moment capacity for the L91 and L73
groups increased by about 0.67%–2.08% and 40.45%–
48.45%, respectively, with increasing thickness of stif-
fener beam. Meanwhile, the bending moment capacity
of joints for the L82 group decreased by about
63.29%–125.58% with increasing thickness of stiffener
beam and for BS5, BS6 and BS10 test models increased
by about 62.11%, 36.80% and 27.96%, respectively,
with increasing lengths (L) of the top-and-seat angle.
The rate of rise in the initial stiffness to the post-
limit stiffness for the L91, L82 and L73 groups
decreased by about 38.92%–56.12%, 38.06% and
25.29%, respectively, with increasing thickness of
890 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(6)

0.095

0.068
0.052
0.067
0.062
0.049
0.073
0.07
0.08
stiffener beam. Additionally, for BS5, BS6 and BS10
uCd
test models, it increased by about 26.05%–53.46%,
41.85%–59.37% and 43.87%, respectively, with
uMj.max

0.092 increasing lengths (L) of angles. Generally, the rate of

0.069
0.078
0.064
0.051
0.058
0.054
0.043
0.071
rise in the initial stiffness to the post-limit stiffness
increased with increasing lengths (L) of the angles.
The rotation of the plastic flexural resistance for
uMsupK-R

L91 and L82 groups increased by about 3.1% and

0.064
0.032
0.053
0.054
0.041
0.047
0.047
0.036
0.052
21.05%, respectively, with increasing thickness of stif-
fener beam of 5–10 mm. Meanwhile, the rotation of
the plastic flexural resistance for the L73 group
uminK-R

0.0061
0.0065
0.0059
0.0099
0.0083
0.0073
0.0097
0.0021
0.0093
decreased by about 10.53% with the increasing thick-
Rotation (rad)

ness of stiffener beam and for BS5, BS6 and BS10 test
models increased by about 38.71%–51.61%, 17.65%
0.031
0.017
0.032
0.015
0.021
0.019
0.019
0.014
0.017
uMRd

and 40.63%–46.87%, respectively, with the increasing

lengths (L) of angles. Generally, the rotation of the
plastic flexural resistance increased with the increasing
Sj.ini/Sj.p-l

lengths (L) of angles.

The maximum rotation for L91 and L82 groups
5.72
4.11
2.51
9.09
1.67
5.63
4.23
2.39
3.16

decreased by about 15.22%–25% and 9.3%–20.31%,

Stiffness (kN m/rad)

respectively, with increasing thickness of stiffener beam

0.29
0.37
0.45
0.22
0.48
0.52
0.34
0.46
0.38
Sj.p-l

of 5–10 mm. Meanwhile, the maximum rotation for

L73 group increased by about 31.48% with increasing
thickness of stiffener beam and for BS5, BS6 and BS10
1.099
1.66
1.54
1.13
2.00
0.81
2.95
1.44

1.20

test models increased by about 30.43%–41.30%,

Sj.ini

26.08%–37.68% and 8.97%–25.64%, respectively,

with increasing lengths (L) of angles. Generally, the
Mu,Cd

13.17
13.26
13.45
9.70
4.30
5.94
4.99
8.38
9.68

maximum rotation increased with the increasing

lengths (L) of angles.
The rotation capacity for the L91, L82 and L73
6.718

groups decreased by about 15.78%–26.31%, 1.47%–

Mj.max

13.18
13.27
13.48
9.84

9.41
7.59
9.38
9.71

23.53% and 20.96%, respectively, with the increasing

thickness of stiffener beam. Meanwhile, the rotation
capacity for L73 group increased by about 15.06%
5.124
Mj.Rd

9.77
8.08
9.25
7.32
3.61
4.76
5.36

4.80

with increasing thickness of stiffener beam of 5–10 mm

and for the BS5, BS6 and BS10 test models increased
Table 3. Main characteristics of the moment–rotation curves.

Resistance (kN m)

by about 28.42%–37.74%, 25.71%–30% and 8.75%–

K-R (knee-range)

16.25% with increasing lengths (L) of angles. Thus, the

2.23–11.709

usage of the beam stiffener is not suggested to improve

1.53–11.11
2.60–9.43

4.29–9.41
1.08–5.92
3.18–8.61
2.81–6.90
0.86–8.38
2.45–8.09

moment resistance capacity.

The ductility of a joint (Cj) is a property that reflects
the length of the yield plateau of the moment–rotation
response. The proposed definition of the ductility of a
joint is the difference between the rotation value corre-
L73-tp6-BS10 (11)
L91-tp6-BS10 (3)

L82-tp6-BS10 (7)

L73-tp6-BS6 (10)
L91-tp6-BS5 (1)
L91-tp6-BS6 (2)

L82-tp6-BS5 (5)
L82-tp6-BS6 (6)

L73-tp6-BS5 (9)

sponding to the joint plastic resistance, uMRd, and the

Experiment

total rotation capacity, uCd (Gil et al., 2003; Schleich

et al., 1998; Figure 3). Thus, the ductility of a joint
relates the maximum rotation of the joint, uCd, to the
rotation value corresponding to the joint’s plastic flex-
ural resistance, uMRd (Aydın et al., 2015a, 2015b)
Groups name

uCd
L91 group

L82 group

L73 group

Cj = ð3Þ
uMRd
Maali et al. 891

Table 4. The effect of angle length on the moment–rotation curves.

Groups L91 L82 L73 Groups L91 L82 L73

(K-R) BS5%–BS10% 1.05 5.71 27.48 (Sj.ini/Sj.p-1) BS5 to BS10% 256.12 238.06 225.29
(K-R) BS6%–BS10% 28.71 10.87 233.33 (Sj.ini/Sj.p-1) BS6%–BS10% 238.92 237.12 32.21
(Mj.Rd) BS10%–BS5% 25.32 234.97 210.45 (uMRd) BS5%–BS10% 3.10 21.05 210.53
(Mj.Rd) BS6%–BS5% 217.29 250.68 24.40 (uMRd) BS6%–BS10% 88.23 210.52 21.42
(Mj.max) BS5%–BS10% 2.22 24.56 21.83 (uMj.max) BS5%–BS10% 215.22 29.30 31.48
(Mj.max) BS6%–BS10% 1.56 28.69 3.4 (uMj.max) BS6%–BS5% 225.00 220.31 220.37
(Mu.Cd) BS6%–BS10% 2.08 263.29 48.45 (uCd) BS5%–BS10% 215.78 21.47 17.74
(Mu.Cd) BS5%–BS6% 0.67 2125.58 40.45 (uCd) BS6%–BS5% 226.31 223.53 220.96

Table 5. The effect of stiffener thickness on the moment–rotation curves.

Groups BS5 BS6 BS10 Groups BS5 BS6 BS10

(KR) L73%–L91% 56.85 210.10 41.13 (Sj.ini/Sj.p-1) L73%–L91% 26.05 41.85 225.89
(KR) L82%–L91% 45.98 29.13 43.31 (Sj.ini/Sj.p-1) L82%–L91% 258.91 59.37 2124.30
(Mj.Rd) L73%–L91% 45.14 36.58 48.11 (uMRd) L73%–L91% 38.71 17.65 46.87
(Mj.Rd) L82%–L91% 25.07 55.32 48.55 (uMRd) L82%–L91% 51.61 223.53 40.63
(Mj.max) L73%–L91% 42.41 29.31 27.96 (uMj.max) L73%–L91% 41.30 26.08 8.97
(Mj.max) L82%–L91% 25.34 49.37 30.19 (uMj.max) L82%–L91% 30.43 37.68 25.64
(Mu,Cd) L73%–L91% 62.11 36.80 27.96 (uCd) L73%–L91% 28.42 25.71 8.75
(Mu,Cd) L82%–L91% 26.34 67.57 55.84 (uCd) L82%–L91% 37.74 30.00 16.25
(Sj.ini/Sj.p-1) L73%–L82% 53.46 243.11 43.87

Table 6. Experimental evaluation of the joint ductility indices Cj and Cj.maxload.

Groups name Experiment uMRd (rad) uMj.max (rad) uCd (rad) Cj Cj.maxload Energy dissipated
(kN m rad)

L91 group L91-tp6-BS5 (1) 0.031 0.092 0.095 3.065 2.97 0.626
L91-tp6-BS6 (2) 0.017 0.069 0.07 4.12 4.06 0.464
L91-tp6-BS10 (3) 0.032 0.078 0.08 2.5 2.44 0.538
L82 group L82-tp6-BS5 (5) 0.015 0.064 0.068 4.5 4.27 0.3346
L82-tp6-BS6 (6) 0.021 0.051 0.052 2.48 2.43 0.1747
L82-tp6-BS10 (7) 0.019 0.058 0.067 3.53 3.05 0.315
L73 group L73-tp6-BS5 (9) 0.019 0.054 0.062 3.26 2.84 0.235
L73-tp6-BS6 (10) 0.014 0.043 0.049 3.5 3.07 0.2298
L73-tp6-BS10 (11) 0.017 0.071 0.073 4.29 4.18 0.3544

Also, the rotation values at the maximum load and
corresponding ductility levels, Cj.maxload, can be
derived from
uMj: max
Cj:maxload =
uMRd
Eurocode 3 (CEN, 2005) gives quantitative rules for
predicting the joint flexural plastic resistance and initial
rotational stiffness for major beam-to-column joints of
end-plate connections. These structural properties are
evaluated below using the geometric and mechanical
nominal properties in the Eurocode 3.
The joint ductility index (Cj), the rotation values at
the maximum load and the corresponding ductility
levels index (Cj.maxload) and energy dissipation are eval-
uated as mentioned in Tables 6 and 7. The joint ducti-
lity index (Cj), the rotation values at the maximum
load and the corresponding ductility levels index
(Cj.maxload) and energy dissipation for the L91 group
ð4Þ
decreased by about 64.80%, 39.90% and 16.35%,
respectively, with increasing thickness of stiffener
beam. Meanwhile, the joint ductility index (Cj), the
rotation values at the maximum load and the corre-
sponding ductility levels index (Cj.maxload) and energy
dissipation for the L73 group increased by about 24%,
47.18% and 33.66% with increasing thickness of stif-
fener beam of 5–10 mm. Also, the joint ductility index
(Cj), the rotation values at the maximum load and the
892 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(6)

Table 7. The evaluation of the joint ductility indices Cj and Cj.maxload.

Group L91 L82 L73 Group BS5 BS6 BS10

(Cj) BS5%–BS10% 222.60 227.47 24.00 (Cj) L73%–L91% 25.98 17.71 241.72
(Cj) BS6%–BS10% 264.80 29.45 18.41 (Cj) L82%–L91% 231.18 66.13 229.18
(Cj.maxload) BS5%–BS10% 217.84 228.57 47.18 (Cj.maxload) L73%–L91% 4.57 32.24 241.62
(Cj.maxload) BS6%–BS10% 239.90 25.51 36.15 (Cj.maxload) L82%–L91% 230.44 67.08 220.00
(Energy dissipated) BS5%–BS10% 216.35 6.22 33.66 (Energy dissipated) L73%–L91% 62.46 50.47 34.13
(Energy dissipated) BS6%–BS10% 13.57 44.54 35.16 (Energy dissipated) L82%–L91% 46.55 62.35 41.45

Figure 5. Some moment–strain curves of the models.

Maali et al. 893

Figure 6. Collapse modes.

894
corresponding ductility levels index (Cj.maxload) and
energy dissipation increased with the increasing lengths
(L) of angles in the BS5 and BS6 test models.
Meanwhile, these also increased with the increasing
lengths (L) of angles in the BS10 test model.
The similar performances of moment–strain curves
of the models are shown in Figure 5, for both horizon-
tal and vertical strain gauges. The observed values
from the strain gauges 1 and 2 are greater than the val-
ues from strain gauges 3 and 4. Although angle
stiffener–connected strain gauges have been exposed to
plastic deformation in some regions, beam stiffener–
connected strain gauges have been exposed to elastic
deformation.
Two collapse modes were observed during the tests:
(1) the bolt being directly overloaded by the applied
forces and (2) excessive bearing stress under the nut
face (Figure 6). An examination of the fracture showed
a full slant fracture surface and evidence of a shear-face
tensile fracture, characteristic of an overload. The fail-
ure modes of specimens appeared after necking posi-
tions in the top-angle connections (Figure 6).
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of
the beam stiffeners and lengths (L) of top-and-seat
angle joints on the behaviour of major-axis beam-to-
column semi-rigid connections and to provide the
necessary data for improving Eurocode 3. Shear-type
beam-to-column connections without beam stiffeners
are discussed in Eurocode 3 as nonmoment-transferring
joints. However, according to angles and beams with
stiffener-type joints, as investigated throughout this
work, the moment transferring ability was observed
due to stiffeners used in angles and beams. Thus, this
type of connections may be included in the Eurocode
3. Moreover, some other conclusions that can be drawn
from this work are as follows:
 The knee-range of joints and the maximum
bending moment increased with increasing
lengths (L) of the angles and increasing the stif-
fener thickness of the beam. The increase in the
maximum bending moment and the knee-range,
which corresponds to the transition from elastic
to post yield behaviour of the moment–rotation
curve, can be regarded as components of high
ductility.
 The plastic flexural resistance increased with
increasing lengths (L) of the angles and decreas-
ing stiffener thickness of the beams. The rota-
tional capacities of the joints can be thought as
increasing with the decreasing incline of
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(6)
moment–rotation curve. Thus, the main reason
of the decreasing incline of moment–rotation
curve can be the result of decreasing stiffener
thickness of the beams.
 The rate of rise in the initial stiffness to the post-
limit stiffness and the rotation of the plastic flex-
ural resistance increased with increasing lengths
(L) of the angles.
 The maximum rotation increased with the
increasing lengths (L) of angles. Thus, the usage
of the beam stiffener is not suggested to improve
moment resistance capacity. The joint ductility
index (Cj), the rotation values at the maximum
load and the corresponding ductility levels index
(Cj.maxload) and energy dissipation decreased
with increasing thickness of stiffener beam.
 The joint ductility index (Cj), the rotation val-
ues at the maximum load and the corresponding
ductility levels index (Cj.maxload) and energy dis-
sipation increased with the increasing lengths
(L) of angles.
 The observed values from the strain gauges 1
and 2 are greater than the values from strain
gauges 3 and 4. Although angle stiffener–
connected strain gauges have been exposed to
plastic deformation in some regions, beam
stiffener–connected strain gauges have been
exposed to elastic deformation.
 Two collapse modes were observed during the
tests: (1) the bolt being directly overloaded by
the applied forces and (2) excessive bearing
stress under the nut face.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article: This work was financially supported by the BAP
Project of Ataturk University and Genc xler Metal Steel
Company in making test specimens available.
References
Abidelah A, Bouchaı̈r A and Kerdal DE (2012) Experimental
and analytical behavior of bolted end-plate connections
with or without stiffeners. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 76: 13–27.
Aydın AC, Kılıcx M, Maali M, et al. (2015a) Experimental
assessment of the semi-rigid connections behavior with
angles and stiffeners. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 114: 338–348.
Maali et al.
Aydın AC, Maali M, Kılıc x M, et al. (2015b) Experimental
investigation of sinus beams with end-plate connections.
Thin-Walled Structures 97: 35–43.
Babu S and Sreekumar S (2012) A study on the ductility of
bolted beam-column connections. International Journal
of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) 2(5):
3517–3521.
BS EN ISO 898-1:1999 (2009) Mechanical properties of fas-
teners made of carbon steel and alloy steel: bolts, screws
and stud.
Cabrero JM and Bayo E (2007) The semi-rigid behaviour
of three-dimensional steel beam-to-column joints sub-
jected to proportional loading, Part I: experimental eva-
luation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63:
1241–1253.
Chen SJ, Yeh CH and Chu JM (1996) Ductile steel beam-to-
column connections for seismic resistance. Journal of
Structural Engineering (ASCE) 122(11): 1292–1299.
Coelho AMG, Bijlaard FSK and Silva LS (2004) Experimen-
tal assessment of the ductility of extended end plate con-
nections. Engineering Structures 26: 1185–1206.
De Lima LRO, De Andrade SAL, da S Vellasco PCG, et
al. (2002) Experimental and mechanical model for predicting
the behaviour of minor axis beam-to-column semi-rigid
joints. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44:
1047–1065.
895
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005)
‘Design of Steel Structures’, Part 1.8: Design of Joints
(Stage 49 Draft). Brussels: CEN.
Frederick GR and Abuyasein OA (1994) Analysis of frames
with semi-rigid joints. Computers & Structures 52(6):
1161–1168.
Gil B, Cabrero JM, Goñi R, et al. (2003) An assessment of
the rotation capacity required by structural hollow sec-
tions for plastic analysis. In: Jaurrieta MA, Alonso A and
Chica JA (eds) Tubular Structures X. Lisse: A.A. Balkema
Publishers, pp. 277–292.
Maali M, Aydın AC and Sağıroğlu M (2015) Investigation of
innovative steel runway beam in industrial building. Sad-
hana 40(7): 2239–2251.
Schleich JB, Chantrain P, Chabrolin B, et al. (1998) Promo-
tion of Plastic Design for Steel and Composite Cross-Sec-
tions: New Required Conditions in Eurocodes 3 and 4,
Practical Tools for Designers. Domaine de Saint-Paul,
France: European Commission, CTICM.
Shi Y, Shi G and Wang Y (2007) Experimental and theoreti-
cal analysis of the moment–rotation behaviour of stiffened
extended end-plate connections. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 63: 1279–1293.
UNE-EN 10002–1 (2002) ‘Materiales met’alicos. Ensayos de
tracci’on’, Parte 1: M’etodo de ensayo a temperatura
ambiente. July ed. Madrid: AENOR.