~'7

'

J. Construct. Steel Res. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 61-91, 1997 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain Pn: S0143-974X(97)00001-1 0143-974X/97 $17.00 + 0.00

ELSEVIER

A New Method to Design Extended End Plate Connections and Semirigid Braced Frames
C. Faella,* V. Piluso & G. Rizzano
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy (Received 29 April 1996; revised version received 19 November 1996; accepted 11 December 1996)

ABSTRACT In this paper, the relations between the parameters representing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections are investigated and, by a wide number of numerical analyses, their dependence on the geometrical detail of the connection is shown. As a result of these analyses, powerful design tools are presented. In addition, a design procedure for braced frames is suggested. The originality of the proposed procedure consists of its ability to guide the designer up to the complete detailing of beam-to-column connections. Finally, with reference to braced frames, some examples are presented to show the economical convenience of semirigid joints. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

1 INTRODUCTION Steel frames are usually designed by assuming that beam-to-column joints are either pinned or rigid. In the first case, it is assumed that connections are not able to develop any flexural resistance and the relative rotation between the column and the connected beam is completely free. In this case, the building structure has to be conceived by including a bracing system which has to withstand the horizontal forces due to either the wind action or the seismic action. In the second case, it is assumed that connections are flexurally resistant and the relative rotation between the connected members is completely prevented. Both these assumptions allow a simple design procedure, but they neglect
*Universit~ degli Studi di Salerno, Facolth di Ingegneria, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile via Ponte Don Melillo, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy. 61

62

C. Faella et al.

the true rotational behaviour of connections, i.e. joints always possess finite values of rotational stiffness and flexural resistance. However, the design problem becomes more difficult as soon as the true rotational behaviour of beamto-column joints is accounted for. In fact, with reference to the global elastic analysis, for any given loading condition, the internal actions that members and joints have to withstand depend on the joint rotational stiffness. As the joint flexural resistance is strictly related to its rotational stiffness, the design problem requires many iterations to achieve a safe and economical design. In the case of braced frames, the approach commonly used is based on the beam line concept (Fig. 1). For a given loading condition, the beam line provides the end moment M and the corresponding rotation q~for any joint whose rotational behaviour is known. In fact, by superimposing the joint momentrotation curve M-q~ on the beam line, the beam end moment il4" is obtained as the intersection between the two curves. Therefore, the beam resistance can be immediately checked taking also into account the maximum sagging
moment

((qL2/8)-M~).

As an alternative, it is possible to derive the range of stiffness which the joint can possess for a given beam and loading condition [Fig. l(b)]. This requires the introduction of a new beam line providing the sagging moment corresponding to any given rotation of joints. The intersection between the beam line corresponding to the hogging moment and that corresponding to

lilllillllll

illlllil'i

k
" ~ ~llllllllll~
MA T
qi2/12

J
, "
K:o a x ,vm
. . . . . .

M*

qL2- M*
"8

M+
-.-~. . . . . . . ~

q I~/8 I - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.......

a = 1.00

l- ...... .t ............
" B"B . . . . . . . ~

" - i -. -. ". . . . . . . . . . . v

q~,16i.~-------:
2 ~ ," ' l i ~ " ~ ,

........ !
i

d
. . . .

or_ .

0.50
.

q~l~<'rlit,.
q I~/24 E I (p

~ ~ .................
(b)

i%.-...i
q 1~/24 E I (p

it

'

(K=6)

(a)
Fig. 1. The beam line approach.

Extended end plate connection design

63

the sagging moment represents the optimum condition (i.e. the minimum design bending moment equal to qL2/16 corresponding to a joint nondimensional stiffness K equal to 6, where K is the ratio between the joint rotational stiffness and the beam flexural stiffness). Two cases can arise. In the first case, the design resistance M'b.Rd of the selected beam lies in the range between qL2/16 and qL2/12. Therefore, the intersection (A) between the horizontal line corresponding to M'b.Rd and the beam line corresponding to the hogging moment provides the maximum rotational stiffness K'~om,x that the joints have to possess. In addition, the intersection (B) between the same horizontal line and the beam line corresponding to the sagging moment provides, through the vertical line (BC), the minimum stiffness K'~.~n that the joints have to possess. In the second case, the design resistance M"b.Rd exceeds qL2/12. In this case, there is no limitation to the maximum stiffness that the joints have to possess. The intersection (D) between the horizontal line corresponding to M"b.Rd and the beam line corresponding to the sagging moment provides, through the vertical line DE, the minimum stiffness /~tq~min that the joints have to possess. The main limitation of the beam line approach is represented by the fact that it does not provide any indication regarding the detailing of the beamto-colunm joints. This means that, as it is difficult to design joints having predetermined values of rotational stiffness and flexural resistance, the most important point in designing semirigid frames is practically still to be faced. A tool to solve this problem has been developed within a strategic programme 'SPRINT' of the European Community [1] which provides the designer with tables giving the rotational stiffness and the flexural strength of a great number of joints for different connection typologies. Despite the great number of considered cases, these tables do not include all possible combinations of the parameters governing the joint behaviour. Therefore, they do not represent an exhaustive solution of the design problem. For this reason, with reference to extended end plate connections a new design procedure is herein proposed with the aim of guiding the designer up to the complete detailing of the beam-to-column joints.

2 BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF END PLATE CONNECTIONS

2.1 Parametric analysis

The rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections can be predicted by means of the so-called component method which is applied by Eurocode 3 in its Annex J [2]. This method allows the joint rotational stiffness to be computed by properly combining the stiffness of the basic components which

64

C. Faella et al.

constitute the joint. With reference to extended end plate connections, the following components have to be considered: column web in shear, column web in compression, column flange in bending, end plate in bending, bolts in tension and column web in tension. In addition, the joint flexural resistance is computed by considering the weakest component including the possible limitations deriving from the resistance of the beam web and flange in compression and from the beam web in tension. Annex J gives the relationships for computing both the stiffness and the strength of each component. Comparison between some experimental results and the predictions obtained by the codified method has been carded out by Jaspart et al. [3] showing a sufficient degree of accuracy. The reliability of the Annex J procedure for predicting the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections has been statistically investigated by the authors [4-6] on the basis of the comparison with a great number of experimental data collected in the technical literature [7-12]. In addition, some proposals have been developed to improve the codified approach leading to a better agreement with the experimental data. Starting from these results, in order to evidence the main parameters governing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections, a great number of joints have been examined by computing their rotational stiffness and flexural strength. The computations have been carded out by means of the modified version of the Annex J approach, according to the authors' proposals [4-6]. The end plate of the analysed joints is extended at the beam tension flange side (Fig. 2). At the tension flange level, the fastening action is assured by 0.8
. . . . . . . ==

a~-~~ t end plate

'-" i~d~)..m~m

~.Sdl l

T_T

', :
i

;L

I ',
i i

, Sd-vl
.. j:.~

. . . . . . . . .

' Illo
bep

i
I

""

column flange

Fig. 2. End plate geometrical configuration.

Extended end plate connection design

65

two bolt rows with two bolts for each row. In addition, the examined cases can be divided into two groups: unstiffened external joints and unstiffened internal joints. In this work, only unstiffened joints (i.e. joints without continuity plates) have been considered. This is justified taking into account that, in the case of braced frames, the economical convenience of semirigid joints requires the use of structural details which are not too complicated with respect to nominally pinned joints, such as double web angle connections. For each group, more than 28,000 joints made of Fe360 steel have been considered by varying the following parameters: (1) the column section (all the sections of the standard HEA, HEB and HEM series); (2) the beam section (all the sections of the standard IPE series); (3) the distance m between the bolts and the beam web, which has been assumed equal to that between the bolts and the beam flange (Fig. 2); (4) the bolt class (classes 8.8 and 10.9 have been considered); (5) the endplate thickness. In order to ensure an adequate rotation capacity and to simplify the design procedure, the bolts have been designed to withstand the axial forces corresponding to a bending moment equal to 1.20 times the beam plastic moment. As a consequence, for any given beam the bolt diameter is immediately derived provided that the bolt class is chosen. This design assumption leads to a bolt overstrength in the case of partial strength connections, but it avoids iterative and cumbersome procedures. In fact, the bolt size could be calibrated on the basis of the joint resistance (which can be also less than that of the connected beam), but this is not available before the joint is completely detailed. In addition, such a bolt overstrength prevents the development of brittle failure modes. Concerning the distance m between the bolts and the beam web or the beam flange, the following values have been considered:
m/d = 2; 3; 4; 5

(1)

where d is the bolt diameter. Even though the value m/d = 5 is quite unusual in practical situations, it has been considered to cover also the cases characterized by the coupling of relatively small beam sections with large columns. Therefore, it basically represents an upper bound for the parametric analysis. The end plate width b~p has been selected according to the following geometrical relation:

66

C. Faella et al.

(2) b~ where ap is the throat thickness of the end plate-to-beam weld, twb is the thickness of the beam web and beo is the beam flange width. Obviously, only the joints requiring an end plate width less than or equal to the one of the column flanges have been considered. Concerning the depth of the end plate, it is necessary to specify the dimension of the part extended at the beam tension flange level (Fig. 2). It is given by: hp = 1.5d + m + 0.8ap~j2. (3)

Finally, regarding the end plate thickness, the following values have been considered: t~p = 7.5 mm; 10 mm; 15 mm; 20 mm; 25 mm; 30 mm; 35 mm.

(4)

Concerning the joint components affected by the state of stress of the column (column web in shear, column web in compression and column web in tension), some assumptions have been made. In particular, as the aim of this work is to provide a design tool for detailing beam-to-column joints, simplified values of the coefficients taking into account the above state of stress have been considered [2]: the coefficient ~ taking into account the influence of the shear force in the column has been assumed equal to 1.0 in the case of external joints and equal to 0 in the case of internal joints, as suggested in Annex J; the coefficient kwc taking into account the influence of the normal stress in the web (adjacent to the root radius), due to axial force and bending moment, has been assumed equal to 0.75, i.e. the most severe design condition has been considered. In addition, as the aim of the work is to provide the designer with operative tools to evaluate quickly the joint resistance rather than the resistance of the joint-beam system, the limitation to the resistance given by the beam web and beam flange in compression has not been considered. This allows the joints to be classified as full strength joints when the design flexural resistance exceeds that of the connected member or as partial strength joints in the opposite case.

Extended end plate connection design

67

2.2 Flexural resistance versus rotational stiffness relation

In order to determine the relation between the rotational stiffness and the flexural resistance of joints, it is useful to adopt the concept of equivalent beam length which has been introduced by Bjorhovde e t al. [13]. The equivalent beam length L~ represents the value of the beam length which corresponds to the equality between the joint rotational stiffness and the beam flexural stiffness. According to this definition:

K, - Le - ,qdb

(5)

where the equivalent beam length has been expressed as ~ times the beam depth db (where K, is the joint rotational stiffness and Ib is the beam inertia moment). According to this definition, the parameter ,/can be used to represent the joint rotational deformability. In fact, by introducing the nondimensional rotational stiffness K of the joint, which is defined as the ratio between the joint rotational stiffness and the beam flexural stiffness:

K =K L

(6)

where L is the beam length, the deformability parameter 7/is related to the nondimensional stiffness by the relationship: L
- dbK"

(7)

In addition, the joint flexural resistance can be expressed through the nondimensional parameter:
/ ~ / = Mj'Rd

Mb.RO

(8)

which represents' the ratio between the design flexural resistance of the joint and the one of the connected beam. Starting from the consideration that the joint flexural resistance has to increase as the rotational stiffness increases, from the analysis of the available experimental data the possibility has been shown of deriving a relation between 19/and 7/of the following type [14]:

68

C. Faella et al.

= Cl ~/- c2

(9)

where Cj and (72 are two constants which car~ be computed by regression analysis. The regression analyses of the results of the numerical simulations described in the previous sections have confirmed the validity of the relationship (9) provided that the influence of the spacing between the bolts and the beam section is taken into account. In other words, it is possible to obtain a relationship of the type (9) for each group of joints (according to the classification given in the previous section), for a given value of the parameter m/d, for each bolt class (8.8 or 10.9) and column shape (HEA, HEB or HEM). As an example, with reference to unstiffened internal joints with bolt class 8.8 and HEB column, the relationship/~/-~/is presented in Figs 3-6 where the points represent the data of the numerical analyses. The coefficients C1 and C2 corresponding to the two groups are given in Table 1. In the same table, the correlation coefficients r of the regression analyses are also given. They are always very close to 1 confirming the accuracy of the proposed relationship (9). The influence of the column shape and of the bolt class is represented in Figs 7 and 8 for the two extreme values of m/d. First of all, it can be observed that both the influence of the column shape and that of the bolt class cannot be neglected. Concerning the influence of the column shape (Fig. 7), it can be pointed
UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS m2

M
HEB column
1.5

Fe360 bolt class 8.8

m/d=2

0.5

10

12

11

14

Fig. 3. ,g/-r~ relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m / d = 2.

Extended end plate connection design

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 2 HEB column 1.5 t "! ...... .... :
1

69

Fe360 bolt class 8.8

0.5

0 0

10

15

20

25

Fig. 4. /f/-~7 relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 3. UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ~2 M HEB column 1.5 - 4
q

Fe360 bolt class 8.8 4

==30

0 0

. 5

. 10

. 15

i 20

, 25

h 1-1 30

Fig. 5. /~/-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4.

out that for a given value of the joint resistance the use of HEM, HEB or HEA columns leads, respectively, to a progressive increase of the joint rotational deformability. This is obviously due to the role of the joint components depending on the column section. This effect slightly reduces as the m/d ratio increases, because the influence of the end plate in bending becomes more important.

70

C. Faella et al.

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ~2

M
H E B column
1.5
. . . . i . . . . i .....

Fe360 bolt class 8.8

i
1

0.5

o
0

i
10

i
20

i
30

,
'1~ 40

Fig. 6. /I-,/-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 5.

Regarding the influence of the bolt class (Fig. 8), it can be observed that, for a given value of h5/, the use of the bolt class 8.8 leads to a joint rotational deformability greater than the one obtained in the case of the 10.9 bolt class. Even though this result could seem unexpected due to the increase of the bolt stiffness (the use of the class 8.8 requires an increase of the bolt diameter with respect to the use of class 10.9), it is immediately justified as soon as it is considered that, for a given value of the m/d ratio, the increase of the bolt diameter leads to the increase of the m value. As a consequence, the deformability mainly due to the column flange in bending and to the end plate in bending increases.
2.3 E n d p l a t e t h i c k n e s s v e r s u s r o t a t i o n a l st if f n ess r e l a t i o n

The failure modes of the examined joints are presented in Table 2 where, with reference to the equivalent T-stub of the joint components, Mode 1 refers to the complete yielding of the flanges, Mode 2 to the bolt failure with flange yielding and Mode 3 to the bolt failure. This table shows that the failure mode involves mainly the column flange and the end plate in bending. Therefore, it can be stated that, for any given mid ratio, the most important geometrical parameters governing the joint behaviour are the column flange thickness and the end plate thickness. For this reason, in order to account for the fact that the column flange in bending and the end plate in bending behave as a series of springs, the following parameter t~q has been introduced:

Extended end plate connection design

71

TABLE 1
Numerical Coefficients o f t h e / ~ / - ~ Relation

Column

Bolt class

told

CI

C2

Data number

Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.8 2

10.9

HEB

8.8

2 3 4 5 HEM 8.8 2 3 4 5 10.9 2 3 4 5 Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.8 2 3 4 5 10.9 2 3 4 5 HEB 8.8 2 3 4 5 10.9 2 3 4 5 HEM 8.8 2 3 4 5 10.9 2 3 4 5

10.9

2.5452 2.1408 1.8265 1.6543 2.7545 2.1913 1.8968 1.7167 1.9230 1.7382 1.5827 1.4773 2.1421 1.7691 1.6080 1.5167 1.1064 1.2725 1.3078 1.2810 1.0622 1.1937 1.2713 1.2874 3.2782 2.4446 1.9790 1.7390 3.5779 2.6411 2.1115 1.8371 2.7306 2.0267 1.7347 1.5613 3.6069 2.2169 1.8309 1.6416 1.6554 1.4891 1.4133 1.3408 1.9775 1.5230 1.4317 1.3790

1.3739 0.9595 0.7499 0.6408 1.5439 1.0908 0.8581 0.7290 1.3865 0.9378 0.7333 0.6240 1.6825 1.0955 0.8482 0.7164 1.1536 0.8262 0.6700 0.5814 1.3795 0.9579 0.7714 0.6688 1.3942 0.9894 0.7656 0.6505 1.5134 1.1268 0.8762 0.7393 1.4803 0.9837 0.7593 0.6387 1.7982 1.1569 0.8817 0.7351 1.3388 0.8945 0.7009 0.5989 1.6923 1.0596 0.8188 0.6943

1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253 1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253

0.93 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.91 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.98

72
I~1/

C. Faella

et al.

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS .i..i\I,.\. .................................... Fe360 Steel Bolt class 10.9 I 1~'~\ i i ~ HEA column
~.~,,,\

i ~l\

0.6
0.4

..~,..,, ~ .............................. " ='-" x ~ :, ~, " ~......

..,,,,.: ::

k~

::

::

.............

HEB column
column

...................H E M

i ~ <'.~m/d=5
',
..... ~,...........

k',,
i..'~..~,:

~
! ........................

::
i ........................

::
~ ......................

............

i ........................

0.2
0

.............. ~... ?..........................

i.............. ~~.~,,.~.,,~. 7~::' 2

i......................... i.........................

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 7. Influence of the column shape.

1

M
0.8

lI:
I~'

......~

UNSTII~ENED INTERNAL JOINTS ] Fe360 Steel HEB column 1 .....................i Bolt elass 10.9 Bolt class 8.8 ! [

0.6

:i, m/d=5 i"',.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.4

0.2

Fig. 8. Influence of the bolt class.

t~q tf~ t~

(10)

where tfc and /ep are the thicknesses of the column flange and of the end plate, respectively. This parameter has been properly nondimensionalized according to the following relationship:

Extended end plate connection design

TABLE 2 Failure modes of the analysed joints Failure mode External joints Internal joints

73

(%)

(%)

Column web in shear Column web in compression Column flange in bending Column web in tension End plate in bending Beam web in tension

0.01 17.72 Mode 1 0.03 Mode 2 5.85 Mode 3 34.46 Mode 1 16.80 Mode 2 25.03 Mode 3 0.00 40.34 0.00 41.90 0.03 17.09 26.38 0.00 0.80 10.99 36.60

0.00 8.10 48.39 0.00 43.47 0.04

r=\ lb )

/~3 ,4 \ 1/4 ['eq t*b/

(l 1)

The relation between the joint rotational deformability, expressed by means of the parameter r/, and the thickness of the connected elements, expressed by T, can be investigated through the numerical data of the analyses described in section 2.1. Starting from the consideration that, obviously, the joint rotational deformability increases as the thickness of the connected elements decreases and from the observation of the numerical analysis data, the following mathematical structure has been selected for the r/--~- relationship: ,/0.25_
C3 + C5>-C6

~'-C4

(12)

where the coefficients C3, C4, C5 and C6 can be computed through a nonlinear regression by means of the least squares method. As an example, with reference to unstiffened interior joints with HEB column and bolt class 8.8, the relationship r/Jr and the corresponding data are presented in Figs 9-12, where the double square root of the parameter ~q has only been used to improve the readability of the figures. The coefficients Ca, Ca, C5 and C6 corresponding to the two groups are given in Table 3 where the standard deviation s is also given. It is interesting to point out the physical meaning of the limitation provided to the connection deformability parameter r / b y the coefficient C6. In fact, the influence of the joint components depending on the column section (i.e. the

74

C. Faella et al.
UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3

'4.5
1.5
. .

HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8.8

m/d=2
. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . -: " : ~ L v ?- . . . . . . . . . . .

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

1;

0.8

Fig. 9. ~-~- relationship for unstiffened internal joints with rrgd = 2. UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

T]I/4.S

-.i. . . .

:
i

.......
..... i

HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8.8

[ ~, 2 [ .......... ~kL . . . . .

0.5
0 i i i i i

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 10. r/-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 3.

column web in shear, the column web in compression, the column flange in bending and the column web in tension) becomes more and more important as the end plate thickness increases. As a consequence, when the end plate thickness is sufficiently great so that its deformability is negligible, the joint deformability becomes almost constant, being a feature of the beam--column coupling, of the mid ratio and of the bolt class.

Extended end plate connection design UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3

75

'45
1.5

HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8.8

m/d=4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

'l:

1.2

Fig. 11. rl-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4. UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3

'45
1.5

..... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "~ ..... ~ i........ ....

HEB column Fe360 b ~ d a s__.58"8

0.5
0 ' i i i i I { J

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

I:

1.2

Fig. 12. rt--r relationship for unstiffened intemal joints with m/d = 5.

The influence of the colunm shape on the rt--'r relationship is shown in Fig. 13. It can be observed that, obviously, for a given value of ~- (i.e. for a given value of the end plate thickness), the use of HEM, HEB or HEA columns, respectively, leads to a progressive increase of the connection deformability. Moreover, the influence of the bolt class is pointed out in Fig. 14. For a

76

C. Faella et al.

TABLE 3
Numerical Coefficients o f the r/-~- Regressions

Column

Bolt class

m/d

C3

C4

C5

C6

Data number

Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.8 2 0.153 3 0.229 4 0.258 5 0.350 10.9 2 0.114 3 0.209 4 0.232 5 0.282 HEB 8.8 2 0.110 3 0.242 4 0.302 5 0.435 10.9 2 0.081 3 0.172 4 0.248 5 0.310 HEM 8.8 2 0.148 3 0.241 4 0.370 5 0.456 10.9 2 0.110 3 0.228 4 0.285 5 0.313 Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.8 2 0.143 3 0.169 4 0.282 5 0.368 10.9 2 0.116 3 0.206 4 0.228 5 0.277 HEB 8.8 2 0.082 3 0.185 4 0.277 5 0.449 10.9 2 0.060 3 0.146 4 0.204 5 0.296 HEM 8.8 2 0.078 3 0.197 4 0.314 5 0.409 10.9 2 0.052 3 0.154 4 0.239 5 0.318

0.004 0.023 0.051 0.043 0.006 0.003 0.033 0.039 0.036 0.018 0.033 0.012 0.035 0.024 0.027 0.029 0.018 0.021 0.003 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.010 0.026 0.004 0.051 0.037 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.039 0.051 0.042 0.040 0.003 0.047 0.032 0.044 0.031 0.058 0.038 0.022 0.014 0.062 0.032 0.027 0.021

0.720 0.560 0.525 0.374 0.834 0.611 0.585 0.512 0.761 0.511 0.442 0.260 0.850 0.655 0.535 0.459 0.570 0.483 0.336 0.263 0.658 0.470 0.454 0.468 0.839 0.749 0.519 0.373 0.936 0.693 0.645 0.558 0.942 0.691 0.530 0.272 1.034 0.797 0.681 0.526 0.859 0.618 0.460 0.357 0.950 0.708 0.583 0.492

1.162 1.131 1.070 1.032 1.191 1.174 1.142 1.092 1.087 1.071 1.026 0.999 1.128 1.111 1.089 1.054 0.984 0.985 0.983 0.965 1.017 1.040 1.036 1.015 1.200 1.126 1.098 1.053 1.244 1.208 1.159 1.099 1.124 1.094 1.046 1.024 1.182 1.148 1.104 1.070 1.036 1.023 1.003 0.975 1.103 1.076 1.063 1.040

1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253 1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253

0.034 0.037 0.046 0.056 0.041 0.040 0.045 0.057 0.033 0.039 0.045 0.050 0.032 0.043 0.047 0.056 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.046 0.042 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.039 0.031 0.038 0.049 0.052 0.037 0.037 0.049 0.027 0.027 0.035 0.042 0.032 0.032 0.035 0.046 0.031 0.033 0.037 0.039 0.029 0.037 0.041 0.047

Extended end plate connection design

2 : : : :

77

4f~-- [ i~ ~ ! [Fe360Steel 1.8 ~-..................... i"~.~-"~.~.~'"i .......'~":= ......... { ~ l i '~,,~, ~m,o==~ I ............. 16 I:1"-~ ~ ! [ ....................
l.'t ....................... ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " .;~'~,.': ~ . . . . . . . . %~;: ~ . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . .

Bolt class l0.9 HEA column

HEBcolumn

HEM column
:......................

: ......................

1.2
{

...................... ! .....................

= i .....................

~ 7it"

""-~":~= ~: " ' i ........................ i .......................

i ........................

::~ .......... ,~';;~--~--~--~--~---...:~/--~-~-,-.,~--~--~--,

0.8

0.6
0

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ] i , I , t , I , i 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Fig. 13. Influence of the column shape.

t 0.5

0.6

4/__.__2
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
1

1\

~'ii',

i Fe360 Steel

H'EB column Bolt class 8.8

................ ' ~

.........i"'"" ~ , ......... Bolt class 10.9

......................... Li

............... iii ,..... i

- -

..........

.................................................................................................... ?.:.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.8 0.6
, 0 } , i , i ,

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 14. Influence of the bolt class.

given value of ~- the use of bolt class 8.8 leads to a connection deformability greater than that obtained using bolt class 10.9. Exception is made for the plateau of the r/---r relationship.

2.4 Design abaci

The results of the previous sections have pointed out that the behavioural parameters of extended end plate connections (M, r/), designed according to the criteria given in section 2.1, are strictly related. In addition, the deform-

78

C. Faella et al.

ability parameter r/is strictly related to the parameter ~- which accounts for the influence of the thickness of the connected elements. From the design point of view, it has to be pointed out that, according to Annex J, nonlinearity arises before the design resistance of beam-to-column joints is completely developed (Fig. 15). As, for economy, joints have to be designed to obtain a flexural resistance Mj.Rd close to the design bending moment Mj.sd, with reference to the ultimate limit state, elastic structural analyses can be carried out on the basis of the secant rotational stiffness of the joints, corresponding to Mj.Rd [15]. This assumption leads to safe results when the structural analysis, based on the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj.R~, provides Mj.sd < Mj.Rd. In the opposite case, as Mj.sd cannot exceed Mj.RO, a moderate plastic rotation has to be expected. With reference to the serviceability conditions, the initial stiffness will be considered as suggested in the design procedure presented in section 3. According to Annex J, the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj.Rd is given by (Fig. 15): K,sec = 0.335K,. (13)

The corresponding nondimensional secant rotational stiffness is given by:

gsec

--

K,psoc L - 0.335K. EIb

-

(14)

M j,Rd

/
Kq, M(1.5 M .~2.7

2/3 M j,Rd

(p
Fig. 15. Moment-rotation curve according to Annex J.

Extended end plate connection design

79

Obviously, the corresponding secant deformability parameter can be defined according to the relationship:
L
T~sec -- d b g s e c -

0.33~3~/.j

(15)

As the joint design has to be based on the secant stiffness K~sec, it is clear that, for design purposes, the previous correlations/(/versus r/and ~/versus 1- have to be rearranged using the secant deformability parameter thee. The relationships obtained by the regression analyses provide the designer with an operative tool for detailing beam-to-column connections. In fact, for each group of joints (unstiffened exterior joints and unstiffened interior joints), column shape (HEA, HEB or HEM) and bolt class (8.8 or 10.9) it is possible to provide the design abaci presented, as an example, in Figs 16 and 17, where reference is made to the joint secant deformability parameter r/see. In order to perform an elastic global analysis, the knowledge of the joint

1
M 08
0,

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS HEB column

- ~ ~ \ \ i
......... = .......

..... ] Fe360Steel
......

" 0.2 "" ~

5 0 ...." i ............. i 4 ........... i ............ ; ..............

1.o
0.1

1.25 m/d

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.5

0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5

0.6

Fig. 16. Design abacus for unstiffened internal joints.

80

C. Faella et al.

L0
M

UNSTIFFENED EXTERNAL JOINTS

HEB column Fe360 Steel Bolt class 10.9

0.8 0.6 m/d 0.4 0.2

2
'" 5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

1.0 1.25
m/d

1$0

175

200

2.25 2.5

................................................................

"U

0.5 0.6
Fig. rL Design abacus for unstiffened external joints.

rotational stiffness is required. Its value can be chosen on the basis of different design requirements such as the limitation of the top sway displacement, the interstory drift or the beam deflections imposed by service conditions. For a given beam and a given column, the lower part of the design abaci provides the end-plate thickness required to assure the desired value of the joint rotational stiffness, for different values of the m i d ratio. In addition, by means of the upper part of the abaci the flexural resistance of the joint can be evaluated as a function of the m i d ratio which, therefore, can be selected on the basis of the design internal actions obtained from the elastic analysis. With reference to the plastic analysis, the joint flexural resistance can be chosen to obtain a desired safety level against the ultimate limit state of the structure. On the basis of the corresponding value of ~(/, the upper part of the abaci provides the range of stiffness which is possible to realize by varying the m i d ratio. This ratio can be selected to fulfil serviceability limit state

Extended end plate connection design

81

requirements. The lower part of the abaci provides the corresponding end plate thickness. Finally, the joint geometrical properties to be selected to obtain a given strength and stiffness, as required by an elasto-plastic analysis, can be evaluated, provided that the /15/-,/ point lies between the two extreme curves (m/d = 2 and m/d = 5). However, it must be stressed that any design approach generally requires an iterative procedure, because the internal actions that the joints have to withstand depend on the joint properties. A method to overcome this difficulty will be presented in the next section with reference to semirigid braced frames.

3 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BRACED FRAMES

3.1 Design conditions

Braced frames are usually designed assuming that beams are pin-jointed to the columns. In other words, the beam-to-column joints are designed to transmit the shear forces only and the beams are designed to withstand a bending moment equal to qtL2/8, where qt is the total vertical uniform load (including the partial safety factors, i.e. qt 1.35gk+l.5qk where gk and qk are the characteristic values of the permanent and live load, respectively) acting on the beams whose span is L. The use of semirigid joints, such as extended end plate connections, allows the maximum bending moment and the midspan deflection that the beam has to sustain to be reduced so that a smaller section can be adopted. The design procedure of braced frames can be based on a very simple model represented by a beam partially restrained at its ends. With reference to this model, five design conditions have to be taken into account. The first two conditions are the check of beam resistance against the sagging moment and that against the hogging moment. The other two conditions concern the serviceability limit state requiting the limitation of the beam deflection under both live loads and total loads. The last design condition is the check of the resistance of the joints subjected to the hogging moments. The check of the beam resistance against the sagging moment requires the fulfilment of the following relationship:
=

qtL 2 Ksec + 6 24 Ksec + 2 ~Mb'Ru

(16)

where Mb.Rdis the design resistance of the beam. By introducing the parameter:

82

C. Faella et al.

ot - qtL2/~

Mb.Rd

(17)

the first design condition can be expressed as:

/~s

c->

6(1 -oO

(18)

The check against the hogging moment is given by:

qtL2 Ksec 12 /(see + 2 -MbRd

(19)

which can be written as: 6a Kse~<--2_3a.

(20)

It is important to underline that both in eqn (16) and in eqn (19) reference has been made to the secant stiffness. This is justified taking into account that an economic design of the joints requires a joint flexural resistance very close to the design hogging moment. With reference to the serviceability limit state, according to Eurocode 3, the maximum beam deflection under live loads has to be less than 1/350 times the beam span. This requirement can be expressed by the relationship:
5 qkL4 384 EIb qkL z K Lz 12 K + 2 8Elb <-f~

(21)

where qk is the characteristic value of the uniform live load and f = L/350 is the limit deflection under live loads. By means of the notation: 5 fO6EIb ,B1 4 qkL 4 the following limitation is obtained: K-- ? - ~ l (23)

(22)

Extended end plate connection design

83

which, with reference to the secant stiffness, gives:

gsec~ 16~1.

(24)

In addition, according to Eurocode 3 [16], the maximum beam deflection under the total loads has to be less t h a n f = L/250. This design condition leads to the relationship:

Ksec- > where

6/3t

1 -/3t

(25)

5 ft96EIb
/3t - 4 qtL4 .

(26)

It must be stressed that the use of the initial nondimensional rotational stiffness K (instead of Kse~) in eqn (21) is due to the reduced value (1.0) of the partial safety factors for serviceability limit states (i.e in this case q~ = gk + qk) which leads to a significant reduction of the bending moment Mj.s~. This justifies the use of the initial rotational stiffness of the joints in evaluating the beam deflection. Therefore, according to the first four design conditions, the nondimensional rotational stiffness of the joint has to be designed so that the secant stiffness lies in the range gsecmin--gsecmaxdefined by:

Ksecmin= max~ 3otZi ; 1-/3,' 1-/3 d 6or

f6(1-a)

6/3,. 6/3t l

(27)

gsecmax -

2Z3a.

(28)

The last design condition regards the check of resistance of the joints. This condition defines the minimum strength that the joints have to develop, through the relationship:
qtL e K~.

w~/~ifMb.Rd

12 Ksec + 2

(29)

84 which gives: 115/>-1 2

C. Faellaet al.

3a

2~h~c" l+-L/db

(30)

3.2 Design algorithm

The previous design conditions and the relationships, obtained in section 2, relating the joint rotational behaviour to its geometrical parameters allow the development of a design algorithm which provides simultaneously the beam section and the geometrical parameters of the joint. The design algorithm is given by the following steps: (1) Select the beam section, according to the most economical solution, to withstand a bending moment equal to qtL2/16 which corresponds to a nondimensional secant stiffness K~,~ of the joint equal to 6. (2) As, in general, the design resistance of the selected beam section exceeds qtL2/16, compute the range of stiffness K~i~n-Ks~m~x, given by eqns (27) and (28), and the corresponding range of the joint rotational deformability a%eCr~n--9S~Cm~xdefined by: L 'lC~SeCmin ttb~Xs'4 1""eCmax L

(31)

T~SeCmax dbgsec min"

(32)

(3) For the selected m/d ratio compute the r/s*~cvalue and the/17/* value corresponding to the equality between the required flexural strength given by eqn (30) and the joint resistance given by eqn (9) (rearranged as 37'/-r/see taking into account that rhec~3r/); these values represent the intersection (A) between the continuous curve representing the flexural resistance which the joint is able to provide (for the selected m/d ratio) and the dashed curve representing the design value of the bending moment (for a given a value) (Fig. 18) (this figure refers to the practical application of the proposed design method, corresponding to the examples given in the following section). (4) Control the location of the intersection point. If for each m/d ratio the intersection point is outside the range T~SeCmi - ~SeCma the joint cannot n x be designed for the selected beam. In such a case, choose the next beam

Extended end plate connection design

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

85

l__O M o.s

~
:

~_~E

~
B column

....... I F e 3 6 0 Steel

""~..

!\

::

[Bolt

class

10.9

0.4

.............. i .............. ::...... i ..... i ...... ~ , " ! .............. ::..............

i
0.2

"t...

:: i
2.25

.............. i ............ . . ~ - . i . . . - - ~ . . . . . . !

.............. i.7.r.r . . . . ..

i
~ 1.0 1.25

!
1.$0

i
!
!

i
1.75

~
2.0O
,

"
2.5 ~ / ' ~ e c

0.1 0.2

..................................... :: i

i i 1...................... i .............. ~............... i " i i ~ i i

....................................J.......~ ............i............. i..............

o.4 ......................................... i..............i.............................

~m/d=2i

o.s

.......................................................................i.............. i i
' :

0.6

F i g . 18. D e s i g n

of beam-to-column

joints for a given beam

and loading

condition.

section from the standard shapes and return to point (2). On the contrary, if for a selected m / d ratio the intersection point lies within the above range, design b e a m - t o - c o l u m n joints according to the following steps. (5) For the selected m / d ratio, c o m p u t e the ~- parameter which, according to eqn (12), is given by:

";- ~.1o.25_C5 + C 4 < C 6

+ Ca.

(33)

(6) C o m p u t e the parameter /eq through eqn (11). (7) For a given c o l u m n section, c o m p u t e the end plate thickness through eqn (10) which provides:

86

C. Faella et al.

t~p -

teqtfc (tf3c_~q)l/3

(34)

Equation (34) can be applied provided that tee > teq. If the above condition is not satisfied then select the next beam section from the standard shapes and return to point (2). It is important to underline that, for a given beam section, the requirement tee > teq shows that it is not possible to design joints having a fixed rotational behaviour, i.e. strength and stiffness, with an arbitrary column section. This is justified by the fact that the joint behaviour is also governed by some components depending on the column section. Typical cases are those of high beams which cannot be combined with small columns due to the collapse of one of the joint components belonging to the column. It is useful to note that the points (3), (4) and (5) of the design algorithm can be carried out by means of graphical tools such as that represented in Fig. 19 with reference to unstiffened internal joints.

4 APPLICATIONS In order to show the practical application of the proposed procedure, the design of three different braced frames has been developed and a comparison, from the economical point of view, between the solution with pin-joints (as an example double web angle connections) and that with semirigid joints is carried out. The bay span of the frames is equal to 7.0 m and the interstorey height is equal to 3.5 m (Fig. 20). All members are in Fe360 steel. The uniform loads acting on the beams are 28.5 and 19 kN/m for permanent and live loads, respectively, including the partial safety factors equal to 1.35 and 1.5, respectively. In the solutions with pinned joints the beams have an IPE450 section, while the use of semirigid joints allows the beam section to be reduced up to an IPE360. For each frame, the beam-to-column joints have been designed according to the method previously described. Reference has been made to an m/d ratio equal to 2 and to the bolt class 10.9. The graphical representation of the design procedure is given in Fig. 18 with reference to internal joints. For the given loading condition and the selected beam (IPE360) the parameter a is equal to 0.75 and the required joint flexural resistance, as a function of the joint rotational deformability, is represented by the dashed curve. The intersection (A) with the continuous curve, representing for mid = 2 the resistance that joint is able to develop, provides

Extended end plate connection design

87

1.0 [

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

~'" "I

1 ~ "'"" : ", o.s .':, ........... .........,~ "'.-,.

0.6 1";~"m/d
0.4 0.2
L

.:~ [
:ii
.n._ I'-.\ "-~ N.'x, :~

HEBcolumn Fe360 Steel

o,t c,ass 1,,.9

L/db=15
:

5 4 3
2
:

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

1.00
J

1.0 1.25 0.1 [ l m/d 0.2

0.a 0.4

.0

1.$0

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.5

2 4
5

Fig. 19. Graphical representation of the design procedure.

/f/= 0.52 and r/~ = 1.624. This solution lies within the range defined by eqns 25 (31) and (32), being r/SeCm~. 0 and T~SeCma x -~- 16, therefore it satisfies resistance = and deformability requirements. The value of the parameter ~-defining the end plate thickness is equal to 0.25. For each column section, the corresponding minimum value of the required end plate thickness tepr~in' computed through eqns (11) and (34), is given in Fig. 20 where the adopted design value tep is also shown. Furthermore, the design results concerning the external joints, obtained with the same method, are also indicated. In addition, for each designed joint, this figure provides the values of the nondimensional rotational stiffness (secant Ksec and initial K) and flexural resistance computed by the modified version [4-6] of Annex J for the adopted values of the end plate thickness. On the basis of the computed joint rotational stiffness, the elastic analysis of the designed semirigid frames has b e e n carried out and the stability and resistance of the members has been checked according to Eurocode 3 [16].

88

C. Faella et al.

350

. 3sot
[~ ['~ , 700 ~ 350 350~._

350

<

350
35O

700

700

700

7~

7~

7~

35O 35O e~ [.z.] 350 350

.<

35o
350
t

350 350 # 7~ 4 700 ~ 700 . 700 ~ 700 ~ 700 ,

FRAME I
COLUMNS

PINNED

profile HE 180 B

. t ~tm~n~n
16.0

SEMIRIGID t~ K ~mm~
16 IPE 360 3.02 t (-16.3 %) 4.61

Ksec 1.54

M0.37

HE 180 B IPE 450 3.61 t

BEAMS
TOTAL WEIGHT

FRAME 2
COLUMNS BEAMS TOTAL WEIGHT ~'

PINNED lIE 180 B HE 220 B IPE 450 19.50 t

profile HE 180 B HE 220 B

SEMIRIGID t ep,min t ep K /ramI {ram) 16.0 16 4.61 14.0 15 8.98 IPE 360 15.97 t (-18.10 %) SEMIRIGID t ep K (mm) 15 5.71 16 10.46 16 4.61 15 8.98 IPE 360 36.43 t (-16.2 %)

Ksec 1.54 3.01

"M" 0.37 0.59

FRAME 3
~. ~ STOREYS I-2-3-4 STOREYS 5-6-7-8 BEAMS TOTAL WEIGHT A B A B

PINNED HE 220 B HE 320 B HE lg0B HE 220 B IPE 450 43.48 t

t ep,min (mm) HE 220 B 14.0 HE 320 B 15.3 HE 180 B 16.0 HE 220 B 14.0

profile

K sec 1.91 3.50 1.54 3.01

M" 0.45 0.65 0.37 0.59

Fig. 20. Structural schemes of the designed frames.

Extended end plate connection design

89

As the distribution of the internal actions is, due to semicontinuity, different from that exhibited by pinned frames, it is necessary to verify the load carrying capacity of the columns. In fact, in the semirigid solution, the columns are also subjected to bending. In addition, in case of multibay frames, the column axial force can be greater than that arising in the pinned solution. This effect is partially balanced by the restraining action exerted by the stiffness of beamto-column joints which reduces the effective length of the columns. Even though one bay frames represent the worst case from the point of view of the economical convenience of semirigid joints, due to the significant bending in the colamns, the semirigid solution leads to a reduction of the structural weight equal to 16.3%. It is useful to note that in this case the pinned solution is characterized by conservative column sections which have been selected to have a column flange width not less than that of the connected beam. In many practical situations the use of semirigid joints in one bay frames can lead, with respect to the pinned solution, to an economy in structural weight less than 5-10% [17]. On the contrary, in the case of multibay frames, the use of semirigid joints leads, independently of the design conditions, to a more significant economy. In fact, with reference to the six bay-four storey frame (Fig. 20), the economy in structural weight increases up to 18.1%. A slightly reduced economic advantage is achieved in the case of the six bay-eight storey frame (16.2%) (Fig. 20).

5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper, it has been stressed that the parameters describing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections, i.e. nondimensional strength and stiffness, are strictly related to each other. In addition, they can be predicted with a sufficient degree of accuracy on the basis of some important geometrical parameters of the beam-to-column joint, i.e. the m/d ratio, the end plate thickness and the column flange thickness. Starting from these results, effective design tools have been provided and their use in a rational design procedure has been presented for semirigid braced frames. The originality of the proposed design procedure consists of its ability to guide the designer up to the complete detailing of beam-to-column joints. Finally, the design examples presented in this paper have shown the economical convenience of using semirigid joints. In fact, the economy in structural weight allowed by a semirigid solution, with respect to the pinned solution commonly used, can be more than 15%, especially in multibay frames. Taking into account that, as suggested by some authors [17], the increase in cost due to the detailing of beam-to-column joints is about 5%, the economy,

90

C. Faella et al.

from the point of view of the overall cost of the structure, can reach 10% and more. It is useful to stress that the proposed design approach allows the possible solutions of a given design problem to be exhaustively investigated. For this reason, the proposed approach has led to a more significant economy of the semirigid solution with respect to that reported by other researchers. This result is encouraging in order to support a more widespread use of semirigid frames.

REFERENCES 1. SPRINT, European Community Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology, Steel Moment Connections According to Eurocode 3: Simple Design Aids for Rigid and Semirigid Joints, May, 1995. 2. Eurocode 3, part 1.1: Revised Annex J: Joints in Building Frames. 3. Jaspart, J. P., Steenhuis, M. and Weinand, K., The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. Third International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, Trento, May, 1995. 4. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Reliability of Eurocode 3 procedures for predicting beam-to-column joint behaviour. Third International Conference on Steel and Alluminium Structures, Istanbul, May, 1995. 5. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Proposals to improve Eurocode 3 approach for predicting the rotational stiffness of extended end plate connections. Report No. 70, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, June, 1995. 6. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Some proposals to improve EC3--Annex J approach for predicting the moment-rotation curve of extended end plate connections. Costruzioni Metalliche, 1996, No. 4, 15-31. 7. Weinand, K., SERICON---databank on joints in building frames. Proceedings of the 1st COST C1 Workshop, Strasbourg, October. 8. Kishi, N. and Chen, W. F., Database of steel beam-to-column connections. Structural Engineering Report, No. CE-STR-86-26, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986. 9. Aggarwal, A. K., Comparative tests on end plate beam-to-column connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1994, 30, 151-175. 10. Zoetemeijer, P. and Kolstein, M. H., Bolted beam-column connections with short end plate. Report 6-75-20 KV-4, University of Technology, Delft, 1975. 11. Zoetemeijer, P. and Munter, H., Extended end plate with disappointing rotation capacity: test results and analysis. Report 6-75-20 KV-4, University of Technology, Delft, 1983. 12. Simek, I. and Wald, F., Test results of end plate beam-to-column connections. CTU, G- 1121 Report, Prague, 1991. 13. Bjorhovde, R., Brozzetti, J. and Colson, A., Classification system for beam-toColumn connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1990, 116(11), 3059-3076. 14. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Connection influence on the elastic and inelastic behaviour of steel frames. International Workshop and Seminar on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, STESSA 94, Timisoara, Romania, July, 1994.

Extended end plate connection design

91

15. Jaspart, J. P. and Briquet, C., Sensitivity of steel building frames to joint properties. International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Budapest, 1995. 16. Commission of the European Communities, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, 1990. 17. Anderson, D., Colson, A. and Jaspart, J. P., Connections and frame design for economy. Costruzioni Metalliche, 1995, No. 4, 25-33.