Hammerhead Seismic Van-long2014

8/19/2019 Hammerhead Seismic Van-long2014

1/12

Hammer head beam solution for beam-to-column joints in seismicresistant building frames

Hoang Van-Long ⁎, Jaspart Jean-Pierre, Demonceau Jean-François

ArGEnCo Department, University of Liège, Belgium

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

Article history:

Received 9 June 2014

Accepted 1 August 2014Available online xxxx

Keywords:

Bolted joints

Hammer head beams

Experimental tests

Component method

Design guidelines

This paper presents a research on an innovative stiffened extended end-plate joint, used to connect I-shaped

beams to partially-encased composite wide ange columns. In the joint, T-shaped hammer heads cut from the

same I-proles than the beams are used, instead of using traditional haunches. At the joint level, the columnweb is strengthened by two lateral plates welded to the column anges; these plates also reinforce the column

anges. This type of joint is proposed to use in the seismic resistance building frames, as a full-strength and a

fully-rigid joint solution. Firstly, a test program carried out within a RFCS European project titled HSS-SERF“High Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames”, 2009–2013, will be presented. Then, analyticaldevelopments based on the component approach and aimed at predicting the joint response will be described;

their validity will be demonstrated through comparisons with the tests. Moreover, a new design concept forfull strength joint accounting for the actual position of the plastic hinge and the possible individual over-

strength factors for each component is proposed, respecting the requirements of EN1998-1-1.© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In order to obtain a full-strength and a fully-rigid solution for boltedextended end-plate beam-to-column joints to be used in seismic resis-

tant building frames, two directions are practically considered:(i) reducing the beam section near the joint (dog-bone beam) or (ii)using stiffeners to reinforce the end-plate parts outside the beam

anges. If the second solution is chosen, the haunches (with or without

anges) are generally used. Researches on the above joint types havebeen largely carried out in literature, and the design rules are alsocovered in Eurocodes.

In this paper, a new economical joint conguration is proposed to

connect I-shaped beams to partially-encased composite wide angecolumns (Fig. 1). In the proposed joint conguration, T-shaped hammerheads cut from the same I-proles as the beams are used, instead of using the traditional haunches. At the joint level, the column is also

strengthened by two lateral plates welded to the column anges(Fig. 1); the use of these plates allows increasing the resistance of thecolumn web components (in shear, tension or compression) but alsothe column ange in bending component.

In comparison withthe joint solutions using haunches, the followingadvantages can be pointed out for the hammer head joint solution:(1) the use of hammer head allows a good load transfer from the

beam to the joint zone and so avoids local compression in the beam

web which appears with haunches (at the intersection between thehaunch ange and the beam); (2) the use of hammer heads directly

cut from the beam prole simplies the fabrication procedure andleads to cost saving; (3) the capacity of the hammer head componentscan be multiplied by the over-strength factor as they are cut from thebeam prole where the over-strength factor is applied, which will

induce some economies in the design process.The observation reportedin point (1) regarding the load transfer at the joint level has beendemonstrated through the experimental tests conducted within theHSS-SERF project [1]; these tests will be presented in Section 2. Also,

regarding the remark reported in point (2) on the economical fabrica-tion process, a technical and economic evaluation was carried out forseveral types of joints in [1]: joint using long bolts, joint with externaldiaphragm, joint with rib stiffeners, and joint with hammer head

beams. The conclusion was that the hammer head joint is the bestsolution. Finally, regarding point (3), detailed explanations will begiven in Section 4 of the present paper.

However, the design of the proposed joint is not presently covered

in Eurocodes and in literature, as the joint involves some newcomponents. Therefore, analytical developments were realized inorder to propose a full design procedure useful for practitioners and in

fullagreementwith the component method which is the design methodrecommended in Eurocodes for the characterization of joints.

The present paper summarizes the researches on the proposed jointconguration, from the experimental tests to the development of the

design procedure. In Section 2, the results of the tests on the proposed joint conguration will be reported. Section 3 will deal with the analyt-ical development based on the component method. Section 4 is

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 103 (2014) 49–60

⁎ Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Van-Long),

[email protected] (J. Jean-Pierre), [email protected] (D. Jean-François).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001

0143-974X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0143974Xhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0143974Xhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/Unlabelled%20imagehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/Unlabelled%20imagemailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001&domain=pdf


2/12

dedicated to the validation of the proposed models through compari-sons to the experimental results. How to take into account forthe actualposition of the plastic hinges and individual component over-strengthfactors to satisfy the full-strength requirement from EN1998-1-8 dedi-

cated to the seismic design of buildings will be the content of

Section 5. Section 6 is nally devoted to the concluding remarks.

2. Experimental results

A test program was dened and performed on the proposed jointconguration within the HSS-SERF project; details about the performed

tests and theobtained results can be found in [2]. All the jointswere de-signed to be full strength ones, meaning that the plastic hinges shoulddevelop in the beam, more precisely in the cross-sections close to thehammer head ends. Within the test program, two categories of tests

were dened: (1) prequalication tests for which the“actual” specimenconguration, i.e. the conguration which would be met in a buildingstructure, were used and for which the plastic hinges occurred at the

beam sections close to the hammer head ends; and (2) joint character-

ization tests for which the beams were strengthened so as to force thefailure at the joint level and to obtain the complete behavior of the

joint. Within the present paper, the joint characterization tests will bedescribed as only these tests are used to validate the joint design

procedure.The specimen geometries and materials are presented in Table 1 and

Fig. 2. Test A1 was dened to evaluate the resistance of the hammer

head zone while tests A2 and B1 aim at characterizing the connectionresistance under hogging and saggingmoments respectively. Obviously,the elastic stiffness of the specimens can be recorded from the threetests. The HEB320 columns used for specimens A1 and A2 are made of S460 steel while the column HEB260 column in specimen B1 is made

of high strength steel S690, to investigate the possibility of using highstrength steel in seismic resistant building frames, but this aspect isnot dealt with in the present paper.

The used testing set-up is presented in Fig. 3. A xed hinge at the

bottom and a hinge allowing a vertical displacement at the top areused at the column extremities. Possible displacements of the hingeshave been anyway recorded during the tests. A vertical load is appliedat the free end of the beam introducing a bending moment and a

shear force in the joints. Lateral supports on the beam length have

been placed to avoid the lateral torsional buckling of the beam duringthe tests.

sl ai r et aml eet S st nemel E

leetslliMmaebleets-I12a, 2b Top and bottom hammerheads Extracted from the beam profiles

3 Partially-encased wide-flange column High strength steel may be usedleetslliMetalp-dnE4

)9.01r o8.8(stlobhtgner tshgiHstloB5selif or pnmulocehthtiwedar gemaSsetalplar etaL6

2a

2b

3 4

5

6

1

Fig. 1. Proposed joint conguration.

Table 1

Description of the tested specimens (Fig. 2).

Tests Column Beam Lateral plates Reinforcement degree Loading type

A1 HEB320 IPE400 800 × 290 × 15 Partial reinforcement (a = 350 mm—Fig. 2) Hogging moment

A2 HEB320 IPE400 800 × 290 × 15 full reinforcement (a = 50 mm—Fig. 2) Hogging moment

B1 HEB260 IPE400 800 × 230 × 15 full reinforcement (a = 50 mm—Fig. 2) Sagging moment

C30/37concreteis used forall specimen;S355 steel is used forthe beams andthe end-plates; S460 steel is usedfor theHBE320 columnand theassociated lateral plates;S690steelis used

for the HEB260 column and the associated lateral plates; M30 10.9 bolts are used.The let welds of 5 mm is used to connect the hammer head web to the beams and the beam/hammer head webs to the end-plate, while the beam and the hammer head anges are

attached to the end-plate through let welds of 8 mm.

The reinforcement degree is used to obtain the difference failure modes, aiming to characterize the difference components.

50 H. Van-Long et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 103 (2014) 49–60

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%80


3/12

Displacement and rotational transducers were used to records thekinematics of the specimens during the tests, i.e.: the column panel ro-

tation, the connection rotation, the plastic hinge rotation and the dis-placement of the load application point.

The load–displacement curves of the tests are presented in Fig. 4.Itisshown that specimen A1 presents a better ductility than specimens A2

and B1. This observation can be explained from the different failuremodes observed during the tests. Indeed, as expected, a plastic hinge

occurred at the hammer head zone, at the end of the reinforcement(Fig. 5) in specimen A1, while the two bolt rows in the tension zone

simultaneously failed in specimens A2 and B1 (see the arrows inFig. 5). Also, plastications can be observed in the hammer head webs(in both compression and tension zones) and in the beam end section(see the dashed lines in Fig. 5). The yielding of the hammer head webs

in tension may be associated to a plastic redistribution between the

two bolt rows in tension, so explaining why the two bolt rows failedat the same time. Through the test observation, it can be shown that

the critical section for specimen A1 is in the hammer head zone, closeto the end of the reinforcement zone of the beam, while the criticalsections for specimens A2 and B1 is the column face. In all the threetests, no particular signs are observed from the column side (steel

prole, lateralplates and the concrete). The stiffness, the maximum mo-ment at the critical sections and the maximum moment at the hammer

head end (i.e. where the plastic hinge should developed in the “

actual”

specimens without the beam reinforcement) are reported in Table 2.

Through tests A2 and B1, it is also possible to demonstrate the fullstrength degree of the studied joints (Table 2). Indeed, at the ultimatestate, the moment at the beam section next to the hammer head endsabout 900 kNm, while the actual ultimate capacity of the beam section

equals to 613.3 kNm.

B-B

IPE400

reinforcementplate

unit in mm

a reinforcementzone

420

550

1 3 5

420

550

35

2 3 5

8 0 0

250

1 3 5

4 0 0

2 3 5

1 5

1 5

8 0 0

9 0

1 3 7

2 4 6

2 3 7

9 0

180

Ø 3 3

150

M30

M30

M30

M30

A

A

B

B

A-A

22

Lateral plate

Fig. 2. Geometry of the tested specimens.

(in mm)

Fig. 3. Testing set-up.

51H. Van-Long et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 103 (2014) 49–60

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B3%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B3%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80


4/12

The joints have a very high stiffness, the coef cient kb as dened inEN1993-1-8 [3] (i.e. ratio between the joint stiffness and the bending ri-gidity of the beam) is equal to 29.8, 28.9 and 23.8 for specimens A1, A2

and B1 respectively, assuming a beam span of 7.5 m (corresponding tothe span of the beam of the reference building from which the jointswere extracted). According to EN1993-1-8 [3], the tested joints maybe classied as fully-rigid ones for all types of frames (a tolerance

about 5% for B1 specimen), i.e. unbraced frames (kb ≥ 25.0) or bracedframes (kb ≥ 8.0).

3. Application of the component method to the investigated jointconguration

In this section, the joint resistance and stiffness calculations usingthe component method is presented. Table 3 lists the basic componentswhich are met in the investigated joints, and their design rules are

covered by the Eurocodes, while Table 4 identies all the speciccomponents of the investigated joint and explain how to calculate theresistance and stiffness of these components. There are some compo-nents which are directly covered by Eurocodes while additional rules

are required for some other components. The rules already availablein the Eurocodes will not be presented in this sectionwhich only focuseson the new proposed rules (as detailed from Sections 3.1 to 3.5).

3.1. End-plate in bending component

Theformulas to estimate theresistance and stiffnessof the bolt rowsinside the beam anges are given in EN1993-1-8, §6.2.6.5[3]; they can

be directly applied to the present conguration. However, with respectto the bolt rows between the beam anges and the hammer head

anges, the situation is different because these bolt rows present a spec-icity whichis their proximity to two anges (Fig. 6); bolt row congu-

ration is not yet covered in EN1993-1-8.Theproximity of theboltrow to two anges affects the development

of the yielding lines within the end-plate and so affects the effectivelength to be consideredfor the T-stub model which is the modelrecom-

mended in EN1993-1-8 for the characterization of the joint componentin bending. In [6], a method for the estimation of an appropriate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

L o

a d

( k N )

Displacement (mm)

A1 test

0

50

100

150

200

250300

350

400

450

500

L o a d

( k N )

Displacement (mm)

A2 test

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 50 100 150 200

0 50 100 150 200

0 50 100 150 200

L o a d

( k N )

Displacement (mm)

B1 test

Fig. 4. Load—point load displacement curves of the tests.

Fig. 5. Tested specimens at failure.

Table 2

Stiffness and resistance of the specimens.

Test Joint stiffness

(kNm/rad)

Moment at hammer head

ends (kNm)

Moment at the critical

sections (kNm)

A1 193000 742.4 820.0 (at the end of the

reinforcement)

A2 187000 909.2 1187.0 (at the column face)

B1 154500 894.1 1160.0 (at the column face)

Remark: the yielded and ultimate strength of the beam section is 500.0 kNm and 613.3

kNm, respectively (from the coupon test results, see Table 5).


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B5%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80


5/12

effective length with account for the presenceof twoangesclose to the

considered bolt row is given. This method is summarized here belowand is recommended for the investigated joint conguration.

The possible effective lengths to be considered for the T-stub modelare minimum of the following:

leff ;c ¼ 2π m for circular pattern

leff ;nc ¼ α u þ α lð Þm – 4 m þ 1:25eð Þ for non−circular pattern

In which the parameters m and e are shown in Fig. 6, taking into ac-count the welds as described in EN1993-1-8, §6.2.4.1 [3]; and αu (u for“upper”) and αl (l for “lower”) are computed in agreement with

Fig. 6.11 of EN1993-1.8, §6.2.6.5 [3] using the following parameters λ1,λ2u, and λ2l:

α u ¼ f λ1;λ2uð Þ with λ1 ¼ m

m þ e ; λ2u ¼ m2um þ e

α l ¼ f λ1;λ2lð Þ with λ1 ¼ m

m þ e ; λ2l ¼ m2lm þ e

With the so-calculated effective length, the formulas as given inTable 6.2 of EN1993-1-8, §6.2.4.1 [3] can be used for the prediction of the resistance of the T-stub and so, of the bolt row.

3.2. Column ange in bending component

The column cross-section made of an H-prole and lateral plates as

illustrated in Fig. 1 may be considered as two hollow sections connected

to each other. Accordingly, half of this component maybe seen as a faceof a rectangular hollow cross-section in transverse tension, with onlyone bolt on one horizontal row. In the Eurocodes and in literature,

such a component is not explicitly covered. However, the calculationof the “column face”/or “column web” components in bending (Fig. 7)can be found in many works (e.g. [7–9]). For the investigated joint con-

guration, these developments may be applied assuming the distance

between two bolts as equal to zero. The formulations which are pro-posed are summarized here after.

The resistance of the column ange under bending is dened as theminimum value givenby the bending andpunching mechanisms as de-

scribed in [8]:

F Rd;4;bending ¼

β 4π m pl; fc

1−0:9dmL

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1−0:9dmL

r þ1:8dm

π L !

F Rd;4; punching ¼ π dmt fc f y; fc ffiffiffi

3p

2666664 ð1Þ

while the stiffness of the considered component can be determinedusing the following formula [9]:

k4 ¼π t 3 fc

12 1−ν 2

0:18 Lstiff =2 2 ð2Þ

in which, mpl,fc is the unit plastic resistant moment of the columnange;

dm is the mean diameter of the bolt head/nut; t fc is the thickness of thecolumn ange; f y,fc is the yield strength of the column ange; ν isthe Poisson coef cient; L = 0.5(bc − t ws) − 075r c (Fig. 8), Lstiff =0.5(bc − t ws) − 0.5r c + 0.5t l(Fig. 9) (with bc the column ange width,

t wc the thickness of the column web, r c the corner radius of the columnand t l the thickness of the lateral plates); the coef cient β is given by:

β ¼ 1 if dm≥0:28L β ¼ 0:7 þ 1:08dm=L if dmb0:28L

Table 3

Basic component met in the investigated joint.

Components Associated rules in the Eurocodes

Resistance Stiffness

1 Steel column web in shear EN-1993-1-8, §6.1.3[3]

2 Column web in compression

3 Column web in tension

4 End-plate in bending

5 Beam ange and web in

compression

6 Bolts in tension

7 Beam web in tension

8 Encased concrete in s hear (a) EN-1994-1-1, §8.4.4.1

[4]

EN-1994-1-1,A.2.3.2

[4]

9 Encased concrete in compression EN-1994-1-1, §8.4.4.2

[4]

EN-1994-1-1,A.2.3.2

[4]

10 Lateral plates (b) EN-1993-1-8, §6.1.3[3]

(a) The conditions to take into account the contribution of the encased concrete in the

calculation of the column panel in shear is indicated in EN1998-1-1, § 7.5.4(7) [5].(b) The calculation of the lateral plates in shear/tension/compression is not explicitly

covered in the Eurocodes but can be easily extrapolated from the rules proposed for the

column web component in the case of I-shaped section.

Table 4

Identication of the specic components for the investigated joints and proposed design rules for their characterization and assembly.

Considered components Resistance/Stiffness Proposed rules

Column panel in shear F Rd,1 k1 Involved basic components (a): steel column web, lateral plates

and encased concrete

Column in transverse compression F Rd,2 k2 Involved basic components: steel column web, lateral plates

and encased concrete

Column in transverse tension F Rd,3 k3 Involved basic components: steel column web and lateral plates

End-plate in bending F Rd,4 k4 Rules are proposed in Section 3.1

Beam ange and web in compression (b) F Rd,5 k5 Involved basic component: beam ange and web in compression

Beam web in tension (b) F Rd,6 k6 Involved basic component: beam web in tension

Bolts in tension F Rd,7 k7 Involved basic component: bolts in tension

Column ange in bending F Rd,8 k8 Rules are proposed in Section 3.2

Hammer heads in compression (b) F Rd,9 k9 Rules are proposed in Section 3.3

Hammer heads in tension (b) F Rd,10 k10Hammer head zone in bending (c) Rules are proposed in Section 3.4

Component assembly M RD,j S j,ini Rules are proposed in Section 3.5

(a) The resistance/stiffness of the considered components is calculated as the sum of the contributions of the listed basic components.(b) These components are made of the beam material; this remark will be used in Section 5.(c)

This concerns the resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone which is not directly involved in the component assembly.



6/12

3.3. Hammer heads in compression/tension component

In terms of resistance, three mechanisms shown in Fig. 10 should beconsidered for the “hammer head in compression/tension” component.The shear mechanism is considered for the hammer heads in the com-

pression or the tension zone while the compression and tension mech-anisms are respectively adopted for the hammer heads in thecompression or tension zone.

Even if the compression and tension mechanisms developing in thehammer heads are not directly covered by the Eurocodes, the rules

given in EN1993-1-8 for “hanched beam” and “beam web in tension”components can be easily adapted to the compression and tensionmechanisms respectively.

The resistance of the shearmechanism is taken as equal to the resis-tance in shear of the hammer head web added to the resistance of theend-plate and the hammer head ange in bending (see Fig. 10) at theimage of what is done for a column web panel in shear stiffened by

transverse horizontal plates. However, in most of the cases, the contri-bution of thehammer head webin shear is preponderant, and thereforethe contribution of plastic hinges forming in the end-plate and the

Fig. 6. End-plate in bending component.

Present situation Reference cases

Fig. 7. Column ange in bending component.

Fig. 8. Span of the column ange in the resistance determination.


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B7%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B8%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B7%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B6%80


7/12

hammer head ange may be neglected. So, the resistance of the shearmechanism can be formulated as:

F Rd;9;shear ¼ lh1t w f yb= ffiffiffi

3p

ð3Þ

with lh1 the length of thehammer head web (Fig. 10); t w thethickness of

the hammer head web; and f yb the yield strength of the hammer heads(equal to the yield strength of the beam).

The resistance of the hammer heads in compression or tension istaken as the minimum between the resistance in shear and the resis-

tance in compression or in tension respectively.In terms of stiffness, the formula recommended EN1993-1-8, 6.3.2

[3] for the stiffness of the column web panel in shear can be applied tothe hammer heads in compression/tension components:

k9;shear ¼0:38 Avh

Z vhð4Þ

Eq. (4) is validfor a rectangular plate while theshape of the hammerhead is trapezoidal; accordingly, an equivalent rectangular panel has to

bedened as illustrated in Fig. 11. So,the parameters Avh and Zvh canbecomputed as follows:

Z vh ¼ hhw in case of compression

Z vh ¼ n in case of tension

Avh ¼ t hw lh1 þ lh2ð Þ=2 in case of compression

Avh ¼ t hw lh1 þ lh2 þhhw−n

hhwlh1−lh2ð Þ

=2 in case of tension

where t hw is the thickness of the hammer head web; the other parame-

ters are dened in Fig. 11.From the utilization condition, it would be to note that the height of

theupper hammer head should be adequate with theheight of the oorslab.

Fig. 9. Span of the column ange in the stiffness determination.

Fig. 10. Considered mechanisms for the hammer head component.

Fig. 11. Equivalent rectangular panel to estimate the stiffness of the hammer head.


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B1http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B0http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B9%80


8/12

3.4. Resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone

The resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone should be ver-ied to avoid the development of a plastic hinge in this part.

For a sectionat a distance s from thehammer head end(Fig. 12), twopossible critical sections (1–1 and 2–2) are identied. The plastic resis-

tance of Section 1–1 can be easily estimated. For Section 2–2 combiningthe bending resistance of the beam and the shear resistance of thehammer head web, the resistance may be estimated as follows:

M Rd;hammer head zone ¼ M Rd;beam þ f ywt wshb= ffiffiffi

3p

ð5Þ

where M Rd,beam is design resistance of the beam I-prole; f yw is the yield

strength of the hammer head web material (equal to the yield strengthof the beam web); s is the distance represented in Fig. 12; and hb is thebeam height.

3.5. Component assembly

The assembly rule recommended in EN-993-1.8 [3] can be appliedfor the investigated joints, but the two following specicities shouldbe considered.

Firstly, a plastic redistribution in the compression zone may be

adopted for the investigated joints redistribution which is not consid-ered in the present draft of the Eurocodes. Indeed, at the beginning,the hammer head ange may be considered as the compression pointof the joint, identied as compressionzone1 (Fig.13). With the increase

of the load, the compression zone 1 may yield, but additional compres-sion forces can be supported by activating a second compression zonemade of the beam ange and web component (compression zone 2 inFig. 13). In reality, the compression zone spreads from the hammer

head ange to the beamange, but, for sake of simplicity with the appli-

cation of thecomponentmethod, the compression zone is split into twozones. Obviously, the force developing in the two compression zonesmust be in equilibrium with the tension forces in the two bolt rows in

Fig. 12. Resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone.

Fig. 13. Denition of the compression zones.

Table 5

Coupon test results.

Elements Yielded strength Ultimate strength

Bolts – 606.0 kN/bolt

Beam/hammer head ange 396.0 N/mm2 490.0 N/mm2

Beam/h ammer head web 430.0 N/mm2 512.0 N/mm2

Using the actual strengths, the plastic and ultimate capacities of the IPE400 beam are

respectively: M yield,beam = 500.0 kNm; M ultimate,beam = 613.3 kNm.

Table 6

Bending resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone (A1 test).

Section position (Fig. 12) s = 0.2 (A1 specimen)

IPE400 ultimate capacity (kNm) 613.3 (Table 5)

Hammer head contribution (kNm) 203.7 (Eq. (5))Estimated ultimate resistance (kNm) 817.0Experimental ultimate resistance for A1 test (kNm) 820.0 (Table 2)

Model-test difference 0.36%

"817.0" is the analytical value while "820.0" is the experimental value. These two values

are considered as the "main" values in the table.


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B3http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B2


9/12

the tension zone. Therefore, the force distribution between the twozones can be estimated through the following equation, Eq. (6).

F zone1 ¼ min F Rd; zone1; F Rd;row1 þ F Rd;row2

F zone2 ¼ min F Rd; zone2; F Rd;row1 þ F Rd;row2−F zone1

24 ð6Þ

In Eq. (6), F zone1 and F zone2 are the compression forces developing in

the zones 1 and2 respectively. F Rd,zone1 and F Rd,zone2 are the resistances of the governing components in zones 1 and 2, respectively; F Rd,row1 andF Rd,row2 are the design resistances of bolt rows 1 and 2 in tension,

respectively.Secondly, the plastic redistribution in the two bolt rows in the ten-

sion zone may be considered when at leastone of the following compo-nents in the tension zone is activatedat yielding: the hammer head web

(in the tension zone), the column web in tension, the end-plate in bend-ing or the column ange in bending. In the contrary, if another compo-nent is activated, the elastic distribution between the two bolt rowsshould be used.

When the above plastic redistribution is activated, the resistance of the joint can be computed as follows:

If F Rd;1 þ F Rd;2≤ F Rd; zone1 thenM Rd; j ¼ F Rd;1: Z 11 þ F Rd;2: Z 21

If F Rd;1≤ F Rd; zone1≤ F Rd;1 þ F Rd;2 thenM Rd; j ¼ F Rd;1: Z 11 þ min F Rd;2; F Rd; zone1−F Rd;1

h i: Z 21þ

min F Rd;2−min F Rd;2; F Rd;4−F Rd;1

; F Rd; zone2

h i: Z 22

If F Rd; zone1≤ F Rd;1 then

M Rd; j ¼ F Rd; zone1: Z 11 þ min F Rd; zone2; F Rd;1−F Rd; zone1h i

: Z 12þmin F Rd; zone2−min F Rd; zone2; F Rd;1−F Rd; zone1

; F Rd;2

h i: Z 22

ð7Þ

with F Rd,zone1 and F Rd,zone2 the resistances of the governing componentsin compression zones 1 and 2, respectively; Z 11, Z 12, Z21 and Z22 thelevel arms shown in Fig. 13.

Table 7

Ultimate strength of the joint under sagging moment (A2 test).

Critical components and resistances (kN) Compression forces (kN)

Row 1: hammer head in shear,

F Rd,row1 = 1175 (Eq. (3))F zone1 = 1175 (Eq. (3))

F zone2 = 1212 (Eq. (6))

Row 2: bolts in tension,

F Rd,row2 = 1212 (Table 5)

Zone 1: hammer head in shear,

F Rd,zone1 = 1175 (Eq. (3))

Zone 2: beam ange and web in compression,FRd,zone2 = 1295

Lever arms (m): z11 = 0.688; z12 = 0.553;

z21 = 0.451; z22 = 0.316 (Fig. 2)

Predicted bending resistance of joint - Eq. (7):

F zone1 z11 + (F Rd,row1 − F zone1) z12 +

F Rd,row2 z22 = 1191 kNm

Experimental bending resistance: 1187 kNm

Model-test difference: 0.3%

Table 8

Ultimate strength of joint under hogging moment (B1 test).

Critical components and resistances (kN) Compression forces

(kN)

Row 1: hammer head in shear, FRd,row1 = 1175 (Eq. (3)) Fzone1 = 1175 (Eq. (3))

Fzone2 = 1212 (Eq. (6))

Row 2: bolts in tension, FRd,row2 = 1212 (Table 5)Zone 1: hammer head in shear, FRd,zone1 = 1175 (Eq.

(3))

Zone 2: beam ange and web in compression,

FRd,zone2 = 1295

Lever arms (m): z11 = 0.688; z12 = 0.453;

z21 = 0,551; z22 = 0.316 (Fig. 2)

Predicted bending resistance of joint—Eq. (7): F zone1 z11 +

(F Rd,row1 − F zone1) z12 + F Rd,row2 z22 = 1191 kNm

Experimental bending resistance of joint: 1160 kNm

Model-test difference: 2.6%

Table 9

Component stiffness factors (mm).

Considered components Specimens

A1 A2 B1

Column panel in shear (one side) (a) k1 = 10.972 k1 = 11.498 k1 = 7.264Column in transverse compression (a) k2 = 24.235 k2 = 24.235 k2 = 21.942

Column in tension (a) k3,r1 = 18.097 k3,r1 = 20.462 k3,r1 = 19.220

k3,r2 = 17.348 k3,r2 = 17.924 k3,r2 = 19.220

k3,r3 = 20.623 k3,r3 = 20.623 k3,r3 = 21.073

End plate in bending (a) k4,r1 = 54.707 k4,r1 = 50.349 k4,r1 = 54.707

k4,r2 = 44.185 k4,r2 = 44.185 k4,r2 = 44.185

k4,r3 = 44.185 k4,r3 = 44.185 k4,r3 = 44.185

Beam ange and web in compression k5 = ∝ k5 = ∝ k5 = ∝

Beam web in tension k6 = ∝

k6 = ∝

k6 = ∝

Bolts in tension (a) k7,r1 = 10.317 k7,r1 = 10.317 k7,r1 = 10.317k7,r2 = 10.317 k7,r2 = 10.317 k7,r2 = 10.317

k7,r3 = 10.317 k7,r3 = 10.317 k7,r3 = 10.317

Column ange in bending (Eq. (2)) k8,r1 = 5.760 k8,r1 = 5.760 k8,r1 = 6.359

k8,r2 = 5.760 k8,r2 = 5.760 k8,r2 = 6.359

k8,r3 = 5.760 k8,r3 = 5.760 k8,r3 = 6.359

Hammer heads in compression (Eq. (4)) k9 = 7.160 k9 = 13.050 k9 = 7.160

Hammer heads in tension (Eq. (4)) k10,r1 = 28.210 k10,r1 = 28.210 k10,r1 = 10.270

k10,r2 = ∝(b) k10,r2 = ∝

(b) k10,r2 = ∝(b)

k10,r3 = ∝(b) k10,r3 = ∝

(b) k10,r3 = ∝(b)

Level arms (Fig. 2) (c) z1 = 688.250 z1 = 688.250 z1 = 688.250

z2 = 551.250 z2 = 451.250 z2 = 551.250

z3 = 305.250 z3 = 205.250 z3 = 305.250

(a) The detail calculation can be found in [10].(b) As no hammer head component is existing at the level of bolt row 2 and 3, these coef cients are taken as equal to innite.(c) z1, z2 and z3 are thedistances from the bolt rows 1, 2 and 3 in the tension zone to the centreof thehammer headange in the zone compression; they can be determined from the

geometries showed in Fig. 2.



10/12

Remark. The above rule is applied for estimating the joint resistance,

while only the compression zone 1 should be used for calculating thestiffness, because in the elastic domain, only this zone is assumed tobe activated. The formula given in EN1993-1-8, 6.3.3 can be directly ap-plied for the present joint.

4. Validation of the proposed models

In this section, the proposed analytical models for the joint charac-terization provided in Section 3 are validated through comparisons tothe experimental results presented in Section 2. In order to make thecomparison, the actual material characteristics obtained through cou-

pon tests are used; the main actual characteristics of materials aregiven in Table 5, more detail informationcan be found in [2]. Moreover,all partial safety factors are taken as equal to 1.0.

The comparisons of analytical predictions to the experimental resis-

tances of for specimens A1, A2 and B1 are reported in Tables 6, 7 and 8respectively. In these tables, the resistances of the non-critical compo-

nents are not presented; the detail of the computation can be found in[10]. With respect to the stiffness estimations, Table 9 summarizes the

stiffness factors of the all components of the specimens, and Table 10

makes the stiffness assembly and compares the so-obtained stiffness's

with the experimental ones.Good agreements are observed demonstrating the accuracy of the

proposed models. Indeed, less than 3% of difference is observed for theresistance estimations and about 15% for the stiffness evaluations

(Table 10).The ultimate strength of the bolts (1212 kN) is more than the one of

the hammer head in shear (1175 kN), butvery close.It justies applyingthe plastic redistribution in the two bolt rows in tension zone, and then

Eq. (7) can be adopted (Section 3.5). However, after yielding, the ham-mer head hardens leading to the failure in the bolts as the show fromthe experimental tests. Therefore, it can say that the failure mode is inagreement between the proposed model and the tests.

5. Joint classications

In Section 3, the analytical tools to estimate the resistance and stiff-ness of the joints were presented. Now, the question is how to classify

the joints in terms of stiffness and resistance.On onehand, for the stiffness classication (i.e. as pinned, semi-rigid

or rigid), the rule as given in EN1993-1-8, 5.2.2 [3] can be directly

Table 10

Joint stiffness estimation and comparison.

Quantities and formulas Specimens

A1 A2 B1

Effective stiffness of each bolt row (mm) keff ;r 1 ¼ 1k3;r 1 þ 1k4;r 1 þ 1k7;r 1 þ 1k8;r 1 þ 1k10;r 1

−1 2.639 2.293 2.783

keff ;r 2 ¼ 1k3;r 2 þ 1k4;r 2

þ 1k7;r 2 þ 1k8;r 2

þ 1k10;r 2 −1 2.851 2.866 3.046

keff ;r 3 ¼

1

k3;r 3 þ 1

k4;r 3 þ 1

k7;r 3 þ 1

k8;r 3 þ 1

k10;r 3 −1 2.927 2.948 3.089

Effective stiffness of compression zone (mm) keff ;c ¼ 1k2 þ 1k9

−1 5.527 8.482 5.398

Equivalent lever arm (mm) zeq ¼ keff ;r 1 z21þkeff ;r 2 z22þkeff ;r 3 z23

keff ;r 1 z1þkeff ;r 2 z2þkeff ;r 3 z3558.031 516.418 557.952

Equivalent stiffness factor (mm) keq ¼ keff ;r 1 z1þkeff ;r 2 z2þkeff ;r 3 z3 zeq 7.672 6.724 8.132

Joint stiffness (models) (kNm/rad) S J ;ini ¼ Ez2eq

1k1

þ 1keff ;c

þ 1keq

162500 158360 146620

Joint stiffness (test—Table 1) (kNm/rad) 193 000 187 000 154 500Model-test differences (%) 15.8 15.3 5.1

Fig. 14. Internal force in joint at the seismic situation.


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B4


11/12

applied. On the other hand, the resistance classication (i.e. pinned, par-tiallyresistant or fully resistant) needs to be claried, in particular whenconsidering the specic seismic design requirement given in EN1998-1-

1 [5]. The detailed discussion about this question has been dealt with in[11]; a summary is presented here below.

According to EN1998-1-1 [5], it is requiredto take into account of thepossible over-strength effects to classify a joint as fully resistant when

the capacity design is considered. The objective is to ensure that theplastic hinges develop in the beam sections, and not in the joints, incase of over-strength of the beam material. Accordingly, the followingcondition has been given in EN1998-1-1, 6.5.5 (3) [5]:

M Rd; jo int≥1:1γ ovM pl;beam ð8Þ

where M Rd,joint is the required resistance of thejoint; M pl,beam is the plas-

tic moment of the beam section; γov is the over-strength factor, equalsto 1.25.

The condition as given in Eq. (8) does not take into account of the

fact that (i) for some joint congurations as the one investigated here,the beam plastic hinge may form at a certain distance from the joint(the column face) and that (ii) for some components linked to thebeam properties, a possible over-strength effect should not be consid-

ered as they are made from the same material. Therefore, the condition(8) should be revised in order to take into account the aspects.The pro-posal is the rewrite the “full strength” condition as follows:

M Rd; j≥M Ed; j

M Rd; j ¼ f 1 1:1 γ ov F Rd;beam components; F Rd;other components

M Ed; j ¼ f 2 1:1 γ ovM pl;beam; dhj; pmax; pmin

8>><>>: ð9Þ

In Eq. (9), M Ed,j is the required moment for the joint, it can be calcu-lated from the equilibrium equation (function f 2 in Eq. (9)) of the beamstub betweenthe plastic hinge and the column face (dhj in Fig. 14). M Rd,jis the joint resistance, calculated by the component method, represent-

ed by the function f 1 in Eq. (9).InEq. (9), the over-strength factor is onlyapplied for the “beam” terms (M pl,beam and F Rd, beam components), not forother terms (dhj, the maximal/minimal loads in the beam pmax/ pmin

and FRd, other components). For the investigated joint con

guration,the component with “b” in Table 4 belongs to “beam” components(F Rd, beam components).

Explicating the function f 2 in Eq. (9) for two cases, under hoggingmoment (M Ed,j,HOG) and sagging moment (M Ed,j,SAG) (Fig. 14), we can

obtain the corresponding expressions, and Eq. (9) becomes Eq. (10)

M Rd; j≥M Ed; j 10að ÞM Rd; j ¼ f 1 1:1 γ ov F Rd;beam components; F Rd;other components

10bð Þ

M Ed; j;HOG ¼ 1:1γ ovM pl;beam þ2 1:1γ ovM pl;beam

l þ pmaxl

2

dhj þ

pmaxd2hj

2 10cð Þ

M Ed; j;SAG ¼ 1:1γ ovM pl;beam þ2 1:1γ ovM pl;beam

l −

pminl

2

dhj−

pmind2hj

2 10dð Þ

8>>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>>>:

Eq. (10) is the fullstrength condition for the joint taking into account

the over-strength factor for the beam material, and the actual position

of the plastic hinges.The function f 1 means the component method pro-cedure presented in Section 3, but thecapacity of the components madefrom the beam material can be multiplied by 1.1*γov. It means that thedimensions of these “beam” components (the hammer heads for exam-

ple) can be reduced, leading to the cost saving. On the other hand, thetwo last terms of the right hand of Eqs. (10c) and (10.d) considerthe ac-tual position of theplastic hinge while thersttermis the same withthe

right hand of Eq. (8).

Remark. According to EN-1998-1-1 [5], the resistance of the columnweb panel in shear should be sparely carried out where the over-strength factor is not applied.

Table 11 illustrates a numerical example on the calculation of the re-quired resistance forthe tested jointA (Table 1)withthespanL=7.5m(between the column center lines) and pmax = 35.4 kN/m, pmin = 27.0

kN/m. M Ed,j,HOG and M Ed,j,SAG equal to 830.5 and 710.1 kNm respectively.If the condition of Eq. (8) is applied, the required resistance of the jointequals to 1.1*1.25*464 = 638 kNm, much smaller than the requited

value given by Eq. (10). The difference comes from the distance of theactual position of the plastic hinge that is not taken into account in Eq.(8). It means that, in this case, the required by Eq. (8) is not conserva-tive, making the risk of the plastic hinge occur in the joint.

6. Conclusion

A new type of bolted stiffened end-plate beam-to-column joint hasbeen studied in this paper. The proposed joint conguration useshammed heads extracted from thebeam proles, instead of using tradi-tionalhaunches.It has beenpointed out that the proposed conguration

is a consistent/economic solution for beam-to-column joints used inseismic resistant building frames. The economic interest has beendrawn from both theoretical and practical evaluations while the goodmechanical behavior of the joint has been demonstrated by the experi-

mental tests.Analytical tools to characterize the proposed joint in terms of resis-

tance and stiffness have been developed, in full agreement with thecomponent method philosophy as recommended in the Eurocodes.

The proposed analytical methods have been validated through the ex-perimental tests. Moreover, an innovative method to take into accountthe actual position of the plastic hinge and the over-strength factor ac-cording to EN1998-1-1 dedicated to the seismic design of buildings

has been proposed and presented.

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with a nancial grant from the ResearchFund for Coal and Steel of the European Community, within HSS-SERFproject “High Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames”,

Grant N0 RFSR-CT-2009-00024.

References

[1] HSS-SERF project. “High strength steel in seismic resistant building frames”. nalreport; 2013.

[2] HSS-SERF project. “High strength steel in seismic resistant building frames”.Deliverable D4: prequalication tests on bolted beam-to-column joints inmoment-resisting dual-steel frames report; 2013.

[3] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.8: Design of joints. CEN, 2005.[4] Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - part 1.1: General

rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 2005.[5] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - part 1.1: General rules,

seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN, 2005.[6] Jaspart J-P. Recent advances in the eld of steel joints – column bases and further

congurations for beam-to-column joints and beam splices”. Thesis, University of Liege; 1997.

[7] Gomes FCT. Etat limite ultime de la résistance de l’ame d’une colonne dansun assemblage semi-rigide d’axe faible (in french). Rapport interne 203, TechnicalReport. University of Liege; 1990.

[8] Jaspart JP, Pietrapertosa C, Weynand K, Busse E, Klinkhammer R. Development of a

full consistent design approach for bolted and welded joints in building frames

Table 11

Example of calculation of the required resistance (in kN, m).

M pl,beam L d l pmax pmin M Ed,j,HOG M E d,j,SAG

464.0(a) 7.5 0.585(b) 6.01(c) 35.4 27.0 830.5 710.1

(a) Prole IPE400 and S355 steel grade.(b) dhj = lh1 + t p (lh1 is the hammer length and t p is the thickness of the end plate).(c) l = L-hc-2dhj (with hc is the height of the column prole).


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0005


12/12

and trusses between steel members made of hollow and/or open sections: applica-tion of the component method. CIDECT report 5BP – 4/05, vol. 1. , practical guide-lines; 2005.

[9] Mágala-Chuquitaype C, Elghazouli AY. Component-based mechanical models forblind-bolted angle connections”. Eng Struct 2010;32:3048–67.

[10] Comeliau L, DemonceauJF, JaspartJP. Computation note on thedesignon boltedbeam-to-column joints within HSS-SERF project”. internal report. University of Liege; 2012.

[11] Comeliau L, Demonceau JF, Jaspart JP. Innovative bolted beam-to-column joints forseismic resistant building frames”. In: Dubina Dan, Grecea Daniel, editors. Connec-tion VII proceedings; 2012.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0143-974X(14)00228-4/rf0025

Hammerhead Seismic Van-long2014

Documents