Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical simulation of steel pretensioned bolted end-plate connections of

different types and details
Gang Shi a,∗ , Yongjiu Shi a , Yuanqing Wang a , Mark A. Bradford b
a Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
b Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney,
NSW 2052, Australia

Received 22 June 2007; received in revised form 22 February 2008; accepted 26 February 2008
Available online 22 April 2008

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a finite element numerical model with the ability to simulate and analyse the mechanical behaviour of
different types of beam–column end-plate connections in which all of the bolts are pretensioned. The general purpose ANSYS software forms the
basis of the modelling and its new functions are used to simulate the interface between the end plate and the column flange, as well as the pretension
force in the bolts. Modelling of this kind has hitherto not been reported. The finite element model is compared with test results, which verify that the
numerical procedure can simulate and analyse the overall and detailed behaviour of a number of types of bolt-pretensioned end-plate connections
and components accurately, including the generation of the moment–rotation (M–φ) relationship, the contact status between the end-plate and the
column flange, the behaviour of the end plate, the panel zone and bolts, and the influences of the bolt pretension force. Moreover, the numerical
model also provides some additional useful results which are difficult to measure during testing, including the distribution of the pressure and
frictional forces between the end plate and column flange induced by the bolt pretension and the moment at the joint, and the principal stress flow
in the connections. This knowledge provides a basis for developing mechanical models consistent with the Eurocode component method of joint
design. The validated numerical model is used for additional parametric finite element analyses of a number of beam-to-column bolt-pretensioned
end-plate connections so as to produce a comprehensive study of their behaviour.
c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: End plate connection; Finite element analysis; Pretensioned; Semi-rigid; Joints

1. Introduction moment in the connection [1–3,5]. In steel frame analysis

End-plate connections, which consist of two main types, viz.
flush and extended end-plate connections, are used widely in
steel structures, [1–3]. Beam-to-column connections, including
end-plate types, often significantly influence the behaviour
of steel frames, with deformation of the connection in
combination with the P-delta effect contributing to excessive
lateral drift in unbraced multistorey frames [4]. For most
connections under ambient conditions, the axial and shearing
deformations are usually small compared to the rotational
deformation and consequently the rotational deformation is the
most important characteristic of the connection. This rotational
deformation is customarily expressed as a function of the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6279 2330; fax: +86 10 6278 8623.
E-mail address: shigang@tsinghua.edu.cn (G. Shi).
conventional methods of analysis idealise the connections
simplistically in two representations: rigid or pinned. However,
the actual behaviour of frame connections lies between these
two extremes and is semi-rigid [1–6] and considerable attention
has been directed in recent years towards modelling the
response of semi-rigid connections. The so-called component
method adopted by the Eurocode [1,7] can quantify the
behaviour of semi-rigid connections and claims to be able
to establish a predictable degree of interaction between the
members based on the moment–rotation (M–φ) characteristics
of the joint. Although this somewhat advanced philosophy has
not been adopted universally amongst design standards, the
Chinese steel structures design code [8] requires the M–φ
characteristics of the joint to be first determined for the analysis
of steel frames with semi-rigid connections.

c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.013
2678 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686
Notwithstanding the usefulness of the component method
of the Eurocode for quantifying the behaviour of semi-rigid
joints [1,7], the background research on which the M–φ curves
and the relevant coefficients are based is limited to end-plate
connections with unstiffened end plates and snug tightened
bolts. As a result, the component method is not applicable to
end-plate joints with either pretensioned bolts or to joints with
a stiffened end plate and research into these types of end-plate
connections is therefore much needed [9].
Many tests on beam-to-column end-plate connections have
been reported over the years. However, connection types and
details are numerous and innovative with many parameters
that must be accounted for collectively to characterise the
behaviour; such parameters include whether the end plate is
flush or extended, whether the end plate extends beyond one
or both of the beam flanges and the length of this extension,
the diameter of the bolt, the number of bolt rows, the vertical
and horizontal spacing of the bolts, the grade of the bolts,
the end-plate thickness, stiffening of the end plate or column
panel zone, the bolt pretension force, the dimensions of the
beam and column, the yield strength of the steel and the
coefficient of friction at the contact surface etc. Because of this,
it is almost impossible to study the behaviour of these joints
comprehensively except by physical tests [10]. Furthermore,
such testing can be costly and finite element modelling in lieu
of physical modelling is an attractive option for developing a
database of connection characteristics.
The finite element analysis (FEA) of end-plate connections
appears to have been first reported by Krishnamurthy [11–
13]. An exhaustive numerical study of four-bolt, unstiffened,
extended end-plate connections, along with the results of a
series of experimental investigations, led to the development
of the design procedure reported in Ref. [14]. Tarpy
and Cardinal [15] carried out an elastic finite element
study of unstiffened end-plate connections that was verified
experimentally and they also proposed a design methodology
for these joints. Maxwell et al. [16] developed a prediction
equation for the ultimate moment of connections, as well as
their M–φ relationships, based on a FEA and on experimental
tests. Jenkins et al. [17] did FEA on flush end-plate connections
and those extended on one side, then put forward a bi-
linear M–φ model for flush end-plate connections. Kukreti
et al. [18] adopted 2-D FEA model to calculate 50 flush
end-plate connections and verified the recommended M–φ
relationship for this type of connection based on regression
analysis. Chasten et al. [19] studied the contact between the
end-plate and column flange so as to determine the prying
force by using the commercial ADINA code. Sherbourne
and Bahaari used firstly 2-D [20] and then 3-D [21] finite
element models to analyse end-plate connections. In addition
to the overall behaviour, the contribution of the bolts, end-plate
flexibility and the column flange flexibility to the connection
rotation was singled out in their work. Using FEA, Bahaari
and Sherbourne [22] also studied the structural properties
of an extended end-plate connected to a column flange and
produced a standardised M–φ function for extended end-plate
connections with or without stiffeners in the tension region by
curve fitting [23,24]. Choi et al. [25] applied new solid elements
and fine mesh to analyse beam-to-beam and beam-to-column
end-plate connections extended on both sides. Bose et al. [26]
used the commercial program LUSAS to analyse unstiffened
flush end-plate connections. Bursi et al. [27] produced an
overview of the finite element method for the analysis of end-
plate connections and undertook a FEA of one extended end-
plate connection using the commercial ABAQUS code. More
recently, the present authors [28] carried out a FEA of two types
of end-plate connections in portal frames and used test results
to verify the numerical results.
Over the last decade, some numerical simulation of
the hysteretic behaviour of end-plate connections has been
conducted. Kukreti and Biswas [29] developed a computer code
and used it to analyse the moment–rotation behaviour of three
eight-bolt end-plate connections subjected to seismic loading
and they compared their numerical results with experiments.
Deng et al. [30] formulated a hysteretic connection element
and implemented it to simulate the hysteretic response of
unstiffened extended end-plate connections. Bursi et al. [31]
performed a numerical analysis of the low-cycle fracture
behaviour of isolated T-stub connections; these are elemental
components of extended end-plate connections and are
fundamental elements of the Eurocode component method of
design of connections [7]. A shell finite element was applied
by Ádány et al. [32] to model the cyclic analysis of steel-to-
concrete end-plate joints.
While the results of these aforementioned studies are
valuable, their drawbacks, from a numerical standpoint, are
the use of often specifically-developed finite element models
and some questions as to the assumptions made in modelling
a difficult and complex problem. These formulations were
often seemingly governed by balancing accuracy with the
computational prowess of the day and, while providing
important results and insight into structural behaviour in
lieu of physical testing, in most cases they do not provide
an entirely general means of describing quantitatively the
behaviour of semi-rigid connections by FEA. Large-scale
general purpose finite element software packages such as
ANSYS [33] and ABAQUS [34] have evolved in recent
years and their functions and capabilities are becoming more
advanced and easier to implement. Software of this type can
be applied to model and simulate accurately the behaviour
of different types of bolted end-plate connections in lieu of
developing specific FEA programs for the simulation, or of
conducting expensive and time-consuming physical testing. In
particular, the most comprehensive version of ANSYS [33]
provides many new functions that can simulate and analyse
the mechanical behaviour of bolted end-plate connections
accurately, especially the contact between the end-plate and the
column flange and the pretension force in the bolts; these have
hitherto proven to be difficult to model for computer simulation.
This paper simulates and analyses eight beam–column end-
plate connections with pretensioned bolts having various types
and details using ANSYS. Hitherto, such joint types have not
been modelled in this way, the connections are all typical of
those in multistorey steel frames. In implementing the FEA, the
 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686 2679

Table 1
Types and details of specimens

Specimen number Connection type End-plate thickness (mm) Bolt diameter (mm) Number of bolts Column stiffener End-plate stiffener
SC1 Flush 20 20 6 Yes –
SC2 Extended 20 20 8 Yes Yes
SC3 Extended 20 20 8 Yes No
SC4 Extended 20 20 8 No Yes
SC5 Extended 25 20 8 Yes Yes
SC6 Extended 20 24 8 Yes Yes
SC7 Extended 25 24 8 Yes Yes
SC8 Extended 16 20 8 Yes Yes

Table 2
Dimensions of beam and column cross-sections (mm)
Section Web Flange Flange thickness
depth thickness width
Beam 300 8 200 12
Column 300 8 250 12

interaction between the end plate and column flange as well

as geometric and material nonlinearities are taken into account
and the modelling proposes a new and more appropriate method
for applying the pretension force in the bolts instead of the
more conventional use of applied initial strains. These eight
connections have also been tested physically under monotonic
loading in order to validate the FEA model and the results. The
numerical simulations also provide some extra valuable results
which are usually very difficult to measure during physical
testing, including the distribution of the pressure and frictional
force between the end plate and the column flange due to the
bolt pretension force and the moment at the joint, as well as the
principal stresses in the connection.

2. Finite element analysis

As has been noted, the purpose of this paper is not to derive a

new numerical scheme for the analysis of end-plate connections Fig. 1. Details of connections (dimensions in mm).
but rather to illustrate the use of recent advanced features of
ANSYS software for the FEA of these connection types. 2.2. Finite element model

2.1. Geometric details of connections
The details of the eight bolted end-plate connection
specimens used in the FEA are shown in Table 1 and in
Fig. 1. All of the beams and columns in the joints had the
same dimensions, as listed in Table 2. In these connection
specimens, SC2 can be regarded as a reference or control
specimen and all the other connections differ from SC2 in only
one or two geometric parameters, e.g. whether the joint is a
flush or extended end-plate type, whether the joint has an end-
plate stiffener or a column panel zone stiffener, the thickness of
the end-plate and the bolt diameter. The thickness of the column
flange is taken to be the same as that of the end-plate, within the
length range of 100 mm above the extension of the end-plate
and 100 mm below the extension of the end-plate (Fig. 1). The
thicknesses of the column panel zone stiffener and the end-plate
rib stiffener are 12 mm and 10 mm respectively.
In the modelling herein, all elements of the beams, columns,
end-plates, stiffeners and the high strength bolts were meshed
by the 10-node tetrahedral solid structural elements SOLID92.
The important interface between the end-plate and the column
flange was simulated by creating contact pairs with the 3-
D target surface elements TARGE170 and the 3-D 8-node
surface-to-surface contact elements CONTA174. The PSMESH
command was used to define pretension sections in the middle
of the bolt shanks and to generate the pretension elements
PRETS179 through which the pretension forces in the bolts are
applied by the command SLOAD. Because of their geometrical
symmetry about the central plane passing parallel through
the beam and column webs, only one half of each of the
connection specimens was modelled for the FEA in order to
reduce computation time. Fig. 3 shows a typical finite element
model of a connection and that of a high strength bolt is shown
in Fig. 4.
2680 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686

Table 3
Material properties for high strength bolts

Stress (MPa) 0 990 1160 1160

Strain (%) 0 0.483 13.6 15

Fig. 3. Typical finite element model of a connection.

Fig. 2. Typical connection prototype model (dimensions in mm).

2.3. Material properties

The stress–strain relationship for the steel plates was taken

as elastically–perfect plastic with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
The yield strength and elastic modulus of steel plates thicker
than 16 mm were taken as 363 MPa and 204,227 MPa
respectively; those for plates thinner than 16 mm being
391 MPa and 190,707 MPa. The stress–strain relationship
for the high strength bolts (including the bolt heads, shanks
and nuts) was taken as trilinear, with the points defining the
stress–strain relationship being given in Table 3. Von Mises’
yield criterion was adopted as the yield criterion for all steel
components and the flow rule was adopted following yielding.
The coefficient of friction for the contact surface between the
end plate and column flange was taken as 0.44. All of these
material properties were taken from test data reported by the
authors [35].
2.4. Analysis methodology
The implementation of the analysis and solution of the
finite element modelling involved two load steps. Firstly, all
displacement restraints were applied at the restraint points that
are shown in Fig. 2 and the pretension forces were applied to
the bolts. The pretension forces were 155 kN and 225 kN for
M20 and M24 bolts respectively, which were obtained from
the Chinese design code for pretensioned high strength bolted
connections [36]. After solving the first load step, the second
load step implemented consisted of a downward displacement
load being applied at the loading point identified on the beam in
Fig. 2, for which the “Large Displacement Static” analysis type
was chosen to consider the P-delta effect.
Fig. 4. Finite element model of high strength bolt.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison of results from FEA and experiments
For post-processing the results of the FEA, the force at the
loading point shown in Fig. 2 was identified and its peak value
was taken as the loading capacity of each of the connection
specimens. The joint moment was taken as the product of the
load and its lever arm of 1200 mm (which is the distance from
the loading point to the column flange, as shown in Fig. 2).
Table 4 presents comparisons of the load capacities of all of
these connections.
Comparisons of the moment–rotation (M–φ) and moment-
shearing rotation (M–φs ) curves for the FEA and test results
for all of the connection specimens are shown in Figs. 5 and
6 respectively. In these figures, the rotation φ is the total joint
rotation of the beam-to-column end-plate connection while φ s
is the shearing rotation, which is that part of φ contributed
to by the shearing deformation of the column panel zone.
The detailed definition and method of calculating the joint
rotation is given in Ref. [37]. The M–φ curves describe the
 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686 2681

Fig. 5. Comparison of moment–rotation (M–φ) curves for all connections.

overall characteristics of the joints, while the M–φ s curves
illustrate the detailed behaviour of one of the components of
the connection.
Comparisons of the ultimate failure modes from the FEA
and test results for two typical connection specimens (SC1
and SC8) are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The comparison of the
ultimate failure modes for the other connection specimens was
found to be similar. These two figures also show the detailed
deformations of the end-plate, the column flange and the end-
plate stiffener.
2682 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686

Fig. 6. Comparison of moment-shearing rotation (M–φs ) curves for all connections.

3.2. Discussion
When comparing the moment–rotation (M–φ) and moment-
shearing rotation (M–φs ) curves that are shown in Figs. 5
and 6, it can be seen that the initial stages of loading for
all of the connections are linear and that the agreement
between the FEA curves and the test results is extremely close.
For most of the end-plate connections with bolt pretensions
the agreement between the FEA and test results in the
nonlinear range of response is very close, with only minor
 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686 2683

Fig. 7. Comparison of ultimate failure mode of connection specimen SC1.

Fig. 8. Comparison of ultimate failure mode of connection specimen SC8.

Table 4 small discrepancies between the numerical results and the

Comparison of loading capacities between FEA and tests physical tests need some discussion. Firstly, the stress–strain
Specimen number Test (kN) FEA (kN) FEA/Test relationship for the steel plates used in the FEA was
elastic–perfectly plastic and so strain hardening was neglected.
SC1 155.3 156.2 1.01
SC2 286.4 276.8 0.97
This idealisation is reflected in the FEA results for connections
SC3 256.9 244.2 0.95 whose capacities are governed by steel plates, including the
SC4 256.6 256.5 1.00 panel zone in shear and the end-plate in bending, where
SC5 268.4 289.2 1.08 the discrepancies are larger owing to the post-yield steel
SC6 325.3 294.2 0.90 strength; the discrepancies of specimens SC6 and SC7 in
SC7 342.3 301.9 0.88
SC8 296.1 261.6 0.88
particular are attributable to the neglect of the strength of
the panel zone after yielding, while those of specimens SC3
Average 0.96 and SC8 are attributable to the neglect of the strength of
Standard deviation 0.07
the end-plate in bending after yielding. The load capacities
of the other connections are controlled by the bolts and the
discrepancies. In addition, the comparisons given in Table 4 error is much smaller. Secondly, the values of the applied
of the joint capacities derived by the FEA and tests are pretension force for all of the bolts were determined by the
close, with the numerical predictions of the capacities being design values given in Ref. [36]. In conducting physical tests
slightly conservative (average FEA to test ratio of 96% with it is very difficult to induce a predetermined bolt force by
a coefficient of variation of 7%). It can be concluded that pretensioning techniques because the bolt forces are very
the finite element modelling described here can simulate the high [38] and, as a consequence, this has been identified
response of the connections with acceptable accuracy and, by as a reason for discrepancies between theoretical predictions
corollary, it is able to simulate the contact status between and test results [39,40]. Thirdly, fabrication errors in the test
the end-plate and the column flange as well as the detailed specimens can lead to a geometric deviation between the
characteristics of other components of the connections, viz. the physical and numerical results.
panel zone, end-plate, column flange, end-plate stiffener and 3.3. Additional results from FEA study
pretension forces in the bolts.
Because the FEA modelling herein purports to provide The finite element results can also provide extra valuable
an accurate representation of the joint behaviour, the results for the mechanical behaviour of bolt-pretensioned end-
2684 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686
Fig. 9. Distribution of pressure between the end-plate and column flange caused by bolt pretension force.
Fig. 10. Distribution of friction force between the end-plate and column flange at ultimate load.
plate connections, which are difficult to measure in physical
tests.
Firstly, Fig. 9 shows the distribution of pressure between the
end-plate and column flange for specimens SC2 and SC6 prior
to loading; the distributions in all of the other specimens are
similar. Although the area of force distribution is governed by
many factors, such as the bolt diameter and the end-plate and
column flange thicknesses, it can be concluded from the FEA
results of all of the connections that this distribution region
is about ten times the bolt shank sectional area. This value is
very important in the theoretical analysis of the stiffness and
deformation of pretensioned bolted connections [35].
The distributions of the friction force between the end-
plate and the column flange at ultimate loading for joints
SC1 and SC2 are shown in Fig. 10; the distributions for the
other connections are similar to SC2. The FEA results can
also provide the friction force distribution for the connection
under any loading, including that at first yield. This observation
provides full details of the contact and friction forces in the
connection at any load level and is important in contriving
a mechanical model for use in practical design, especially
when studying the behaviour of the end-plate connection under
combined moment and shear force. This also has potential for
including the large axial forces that are induced in a joint due
to fire loading but which are not included in the study in this
paper.
Fig. 11 shows the distributions of principal stress flow
for joints SC1 to SC 4; again the distributions for the other
connections are similar to SC2. This figure makes transparent
the influence of the connection details, e.g. flush or extended
end-plate type, end-plate stiffener and column panel zone
stiffener, on the connection stress status. These results provide
important information for a generic mechanical analysis of the
overall behaviour of the end-plate connection and the influences
of its components and detailing.
4. Concluding remarks
This paper has described the development of finite element
models to simulate and analyse the mechanical behaviour
of beam–column bolt-pretensioned end-plate connections of
different types and details. From the results of a comprehensive
comparison of the results of the finite element analysis and
tests, the following conclusions can be made.
The finite element modelling that has been developed and
the methodology of its implementation can accurately and
efficiently simulate and analyse not only the overall behaviour
of connections of this type, including the load capacity, the
moment–rotation relationships and the mode of failure, but also
the detailed characteristics of the joint and its components,
including the mechanical behaviour and deformation of the
panel zone, the end-plate and the bolts.
The pretension force in the bolt and the contact between the
end-plate and the column, which have proven to be difficult to
include in finite element analyses, are simulated well with the
present modelling.
Strain hardening of the steel should be taken into account
when the post-yielding behaviour of end-plate connections is
needed.
The finite element results which were validated well against
test results can provide extra valuable results for the mechanical
 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686
Fig. 11. Distribution of principal stress flow in connections.
behaviour of joints which are difficult to measure in physical
tests, such as the distribution of pressure caused by bolt
pretension, the friction between the end-plate and the column
flange and the principal stress flow in the connection.
The finite element method allows for further parametric
analyses of bolt-pretensioned end-plate connections to be
implemented so as to obtain comprehensive results that can be
used to propose a complete analytical design procedure that is
consistent with the component method of joint design used in
the Eurocode.
Acknowledgments
This work was jointly supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 50578083) and Program
for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in
University (IRT00736), and also partly through the Australian
Research Council.
References
[1] Trahair NS, Bradford MA, Nethercot DA, Gardner L. The behaviour and
design of steel structures to EC3. 4th edn. British. London: Spon Press;
2007.
[2] Owens GW, Cheal BD. Structural steelwork connections. London:
Butterworths; 1989.
2685
[3] Kulak GL, Fisher JW, Struik JHA. Guide to design criteria for bolted and
rivetted joints. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
[4] Attiogbe E, Morris G. Moment–rotation functions for steel connections.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1991;117(6):1703–18.
[5] Chen WF, Lui FM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca Raton (FL):
CRC Press; 1991.
[6] Chen WF. Practical analysis for semi-rigid frame design. Singapore:
World Scientific; 2000.
[7] British Standards Institute. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part
1.8: Design of joints. London: BSI.
[8] GB50017 – 2003. Code for design of steel structures. 2003 [in Chinese].
[9] Shi G, Shi YJ, Wang YQ, Li S, Chen H. Experimental study on semirigid
end-plate connections in multi-story steel frames. Journal of Tsinghua
University (Science and Technology) 2004;44(3):391–4 [in Chinese].
[10] Shi YJ, Chan SL, Wong YL. Modeling for moment–rotation characteris-
tics for end-plate connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1996;122(1):1300–6.
[11] Krishnamurthy N, Graddy DE. Correlation between 2- and 3-dimensional
finite element analyses of steel bolted end-plate connections. Computers
and Structures 1976;6(4–5):381–9.
[12] Krishnamurthy N, Huang HT, Jeffrey PK, Avery LK. Analytical M-
theta curves for end-plate connections. Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE 1979;105(ST1):133–45.
[13] Krishnamurthy N. Modelling and prediction of steel bolted connection
behavior. Computers and Structures 1980;11(1-2):75–82.
[14] American Institute of Steel Construction. Manual of steel construction:
Load and resistance factor design. 3rd edn. Chicago: AISC, 2001.
2686 G. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2677–2686
[15] Tarpy TS, Cardinal JW. Behaviour of semi-rigid beam-to-column end-
plate connections. In: Howlett JH, Jenkins WM, Stainsby R, editors. Joints
in structural steelwork. London: Pentech Press; 1981. p. 2.3–2.25.
[16] Maxwell SM, Jenkins WM, Howlett JH. Theoretical approach to
the analysis of connection behaviour. In: Howlett JH, Jenkins WM,
Stainsby R, editors. Joints in structural steelwork. London: Pentech Press;
1981. 2.49–2.70.
[17] Jenkins WM, Tong GS, Prescott AT. Moment-transmitting end-plate
connections in steel construction and a proposed basis for flush end-plate
design. The Structural Engineer 1986;64A(5):121–36.
[18] Chasten CP, Lu LW, Driscoll GC. Prying and shear in end-plate
connection design. Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(5):
1295–311.
[19] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Abolmaali A. End-plate connection
moment–rotation relationship. Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search 1987;8:137–57.
[20] Bahaari MR, Sherbourne AN. Computer modelling of an extended end-
plate bolted connection. Computers and Structures 1994;52(5):879–93.
[21] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. 3D simulation of end-plate bolted
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994;120(11):
3122–36.
[22] Bahaari MR, Sherbourne AN. 3D simulation of bolted connections
to unstiffened columns-II. Extended endplate connections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1996;40(3):189–223.
[23] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. Finite element prediction of end-plate
bolted connection behavior. I: Parametric study. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(2):157–64.
[24] Bahaari MR, Sherbourne AN. Finite element prediction of end-plate
bolted connection behavior. II: Analytic formulation. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(2):165–75.
[25] Choi Chang-Koon, Chung Gi-Taek. Refined three-dimensional finite
element model for end-plate connection. Journal of Structural Engineering
1996;122(11):1307–16.
[26] Bose B, Wang ZM, Sarkar S. Finite-element analysis of unstiffened flush
end-plate bolted joints. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;123(12):
1614–21.
[27] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Basis issues in the finite element simulation of
extended end-plate connections. Computers and Structures 1998;69(3):
361–82.
[28] Shi G, Shi YJ, Wang YQ, Li S, Chen H. Finite element analysis and
tests on bolted end-plate connections in steel portal frames. Advances in
Structural Engineering 2004;7(3):245–56.
[29] Kukreti AR, Biswas P. Finite element analysis to predict the cyclic
hysteretic behavior and failure of end-plate connections. Computers and
Structures 1997;65(1):127–47.
[30] Deng CG, Bursi OS, Zandonini R. A hysteretic connection element and
its applications. Computers and Structures 2000;78(1–3):93–110.
[31] Bursi OS, Ferrario F, Fontanari V. Non-linear analysis of low-cycle
fracture behaviour of isolated Tee stub connections. Computers and
Structures 2002;80(27-30):2333–60.
[32] Ádány S, Dunai L. Finite element simulation of the cyclic behaviour of
end-plate joints. Computers and Structures 2004;82(23–26):2131–43.
[33] ANSYS Multiphysics 10.0. Canonsburg. Pennsylvania: Ansys Inc; 2003.
[34] ABAQUS Theory Manual, Version 6.4. Pawtucket (RI): Hibbit, Karlsson
and Sorensen Inc., 2003.
[35] Shi YJ, Shi G, Wang YQ. Experimental and theoretical analysis of the
moment–rotation behaviour of stiffened extended end-plate connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63(9):1279–93.
[36] JGJ 82-91. Specification for design, construction and acceptance of high
strength bolt connections in steel structures. 1991 [in Chinese].
[37] Shi G, Shi YJ, Wang YQ. Behaviour of end-plate moment connections
under earthquake loading. Engineering Structures 2007;29(5):703–16.
[38] Woolcock ST, Kitipornchai S, Bradford MA. Design of portal frame
buildings. 3rd edn. Sydney: AISC; 1999.
[39] Shi G, Shi YJ, Wang YQ. Experimental research on tightening sequences
and strain relaxation of high strength bolts in end-plate connections. In:
Fourth international conference on advances in steel structures, 2005.
p. 855–60.
[40] Shi G, Shi YJ, Wang YQ, Li S. Monitoring on tightening sequences and
strain relation of high strength bolts. In: Third international symposium
on steel structures, 2005. p. 458–64.