IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPONENT MODEL FOR THE CYCLIC

BEHAVIOUR OF STEEL JOINTS

Lus Simes da Silva, Ashkan Shahbazian, Filippo Gentili and Hugo Augusto
ISISE - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Portugal
luisss@dec.uc.pt; shahbazian@uc.pt; filippo.gentili@uc.pt; hugo.augusto@dec.uc.pt

ABSTRACT
Currently, the prediction of the moment-rotation response of steel joints sub-
jected to seismic loading is only possible for the small range of typologies and member
ranges that were validated experimentally. This paper presents a general formulation
based on the component method for predicting the cyclic response of steel joints. The
proposed cyclic component model is based on the static monotonic properties accord-
ing to Eurocode 3 part 1.8 and appropriate cyclic component laws for the dissipative
components. The proposed model has been validated with experimental results on
beam-to-column steel joints. In addition, the proposed model has been compared with
3D Finite Element simulations using the software Abaqus. Subsequently, a free ac-
cess software tool is presented that allows the simulation of the cyclic behavior of steel
joints in a user-friendly way. Finally, it is concluded that the proposed model provides
good agreement with the observed behaviour for this joint typology and constitutes a
generic basis for dealing with the cyclic response of steel joints.

1. INTRODUCTION
Analysing the behaviour of steel joints is complex as several phenomena affect
joint behaviour such as material and geometrical nonlinearity, contact and slip be-
tween different elements of the joint (Simes da Silva et al, 2002). Dealing with these
complexities is possible by using general Finite Element programs. However, general
FE packages (i.e. Abaqus unified FEA) need relevant expertise and they are compu-
tational expensive and produce results that may be sensitive to the modelling options
adopted by the user (Simes da Silva, 2008). One of the simplified methods to deal
with the complexity of steel joints is the component method which is the design ap-
proach specified in Eurocode 3 part 1.8 (2005). The component method is based on
a simplified mechanical model composed of extensional springs and rigid links,
whereby the joint is simulated by an appropriate choice of rigid and flexible compo-
nents. These spring elements represent specific parts of a joint that dependent on the
type of loading, contribute to the joints structural behaviour (Weynand et al 1995). In
general, each of these components is characterised by a non-linear force-elongation
curve, although simpler idealisations are possible. The moment-rotation response of
steel joints under cyclic loading is further complicated because of successive static
loading and unloading. Therefore, the joint moment-rotation curve is characterised by
hysteretic loops with progressive degradation of strength and/or stiffness that leads to
the failure of the joint. Earthquakes are typical examples of natural events that impose
cyclic loading on the structural members and joints. Due to the level of rotation that is
achieved during a seismic event, the cyclic loading and unloading is characterised by
repeated incursions in the plastic range that may lead to failure after a small number
of cycles, usually denoted low-cycle fatigue.
 Unlike static monotonic loading, it is still not possible to predict the moment-
rotation response of steel joints under cyclic loading using the component method.
Therefore, the usual approach is to develop multi-parameter mathematical expres-
sions that are able to reproduce the range of hysteretic behaviours (moment-rotation)
for a given group of steel joint typologies. Subsequently, the values of the parameters
are calibrated to satisfactorily correlate to a range of section sizes for a given group of
joint typologies (Nogueiro et al, 2007). However, such an approach relies purely on
statistical calibration, without a solid physical background. Simes da Silva et al (2009)
and Latour et al. (2011) have shown that the component method approach is able to
accurately reproduce the cyclic moment-rotation response of steel joints, while also
reducing the empirical nature of mathematical curve fitting by providing a mechanical
basis to the process. However, the Latour model fails to provide a general implemen-
tation that is consistent with the well-proven component models for the static mono-
tonic behaviour of steel joints. In addition, it is not able to address directly joint config-
urations with multiple bolt rows because it lumps all components in two levels only.
The relevance of this problem was recently further recognised in the on-going
European project EQUALJOINTS, whereby the development of a cyclic component
method is specifically addressed. It is the objective of this paper to extend the compo-
nent model for the behaviour of steel joints subject to cyclic loading.

2. CYCLIC COMPONENT MODEL

2.1 Introduction
Figure 1 illustrates the active components in a typical external end-plate beam-
to-column steel joint and its component assembly for static monotonic loading (Figure
1a for hogging bending and Figure 1b for sagging bending).
Eurocode 3 part 1.8 (2005) provides a simple procedure for the evaluation of
the initial stiffness and the plastic resistance of beam-to-column steel joints. In addi-
tion, the component models in Figure 1 also allow the calculation of the full nonlinear
moment-rotation response of a joint, given an adequate characterisation of the nonlin-
ear behaviour of each component (Gervsio et al, 2004). The nature of the component
method implies that all components are associated with a specific stress resultant,
besides representing a specific part of the joint. Hence, the component models for
hogging and sagging bending are different, as shown in Figure 1.

(a)
 (b)
Figure 1. Component models for double-extended end-plate steel beam-to-column joint
for (a) hogging and (b) sagging bending moments.

In the context of the behaviour of steel joints subject to both bending moment
and axial force, Lima et al. (2004) proposed a component model for M-N interaction
that overcomes the above problem by defining components that present distinct be-
haviour in tension and compression that only become active in tension or in compres-
sion, as illustrated in Figure 2. This strategy was successfully implemented for static
monotonic loading and a freeware software NASCon (Borges, 2003) was developed.
However, for cyclic loading, additional aspects need to be considered.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2. Component model for extended end-plate steel joints subject to both
bending moment and axial force: (a) typical component behaviour and (b) compo-
nent assembly for MN interaction (Lima et al, 2004).

2.2 Framework and assumptions

 The development of a cyclic component model should represent all the phe-
nomena that were described previously. Thus, in addition to the possibility of load re-
versal at any level of rotation, the model must be able to reproduce the hysteretic
behaviour including the degradation of the performance of the joint as the number of
cycles increases.
Following the general framework described in Simes da Silva et al. (2009), it
is noted that the number of components that are active in a beam-to-column joint sub-
ject to load reversal is large but only a small number of components concentrate most
of the dissipative behaviour, henceforth called critical components. Hence, the fol-
lowing assumptions were adopted in the development of a cyclic component model:
Hysteretic behaviour is only modelled for a small number of dissipative compo-
nents (critical components);
The remaining components are assumed to behave elastically and may be mod-
elled as linear elastic;
The critical components are defined on the basis of the prior evaluation of the
rotational behaviour both for hogging and sagging bending moments under static
monotonic loading;
The force-deformation laws of the components associated with tension or com-
pression are defined with respect to the appropriate effective widths that reflect
the geometry of the joint and, in particular, the spacing of the bolt rows based on
the Eurocode 3 part 1.8.
The force-deformation laws of the critical components represent the hysteretic
behaviour of the corresponding component, as defined in section 2.3, with an
appropriate implementation of tension only (positive force) or compression only
(negative force) behaviours.
The identification of the critical components and the evaluation of the cyclic
response is carried out according to the following procedure:

Figure 3. Proposed cyclic component model.

Step 1: Determination of the moment-rotation curves under static monotonic

conditions for hogging and sagging bending, respectively, using appropriate
component models (e.g. Figure 1) based on the Eurocode 3 part 1.8 and a com-
ponent characterisation that accounts for the post-limit stiffness (obtained, for
example, from Simes da Silva et al (2002)).
 Step 2: Determination of the yielding sequence of the various components
until failure, for hogging and sagging moments.
Step 3: Selection of the critical dissipative components.
Step 4: Determination of the moment-rotation curves under static cyclic con-
ditions using appropriate cyclic component models (Figure 3).
Without loss of generality, the cyclic component model (Figure 3) presented
in this paper is restricted to external node joints, in order to avoid the additional
complexity related to the column web panel in internal node joints (Jordo et al,
2013).

2.3 Mechanical characterisation of the cyclic behaviour of the components

In accordance with the assumptions and the detailed procedure for the cyclic
model presented in the previous section, two groups of components need to be char-
acterised: (i) critical dissipative components, and (ii) elastic components. Both groups
contribute towards the deformation of the joint but only the first group provides energy
dissipation. In addition, the force-elongation laws of all the components should be im-
plemented, where appropriate, with tension only or compression only behaviours.
Many authors have investigated the cyclic behaviour of selected zones in steel
joints and proposed semi-empirical laws to describe their behaviour (Simes da Silva
et al 2009; Swanson et al 2000; Kim et al, 2002; Piluso et al, 2008; Iannone et al,
2011). Focussing on the most common dissipative components, the column web panel
in shear exhibits a stable behaviour, with hardly any noticeable stiffness or strength
degradation and no pinching effect. The same type of behaviour may be observed for
the column web panel under direct transverse stresses (Latour et al, 2011). In contrast,
the T-stub in tension behaves asymmetrically and it is characterised by extensive
pinching, accompanied by the development of compressive forces when pushed back
to the zero-displacement level. In this paper, two types of critical dissipative compo-
nents are considered: Type 1 (column web panel in shear), illustrated in Figure 4a and
Type 2 (tensile/compressive only components), depicted in Figure 4b.
All other components will have linear elastic force-elongation behaviour, with
tension only or compression only behaviours, as shown in Figure 2a.

a) Type 1 b) Type 2
Figure 4. Mechanical behaviour of critical components.
 3 COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
The cyclic component model described in section 2 was implemented in a pur-
posely-developed FE program (Shahbazian et al, 2016). The current implementation
covers a generic external node beam-to-column steel joint with arbitrary dimensions
falling within the limits of application of Eurocode 3, part 1.8 regarding moment-resist-
ing connections. Consequently, the user is free to define the component assembly,
with an arbitrary number of bolt rows and the desired active components. Because of
the nonlinear nature of the calculations, an algorithm was developed based on a dis-
placement control incremental iterative procedure (Borges, 2003). The program cur-
rently provides the three types of component force-deformation laws described in the
previous section: the two dissipative types and the elastic non-dissipative type.

4 VALIDATION

4.1 Introduction
A set of experimental tests carried out at the University of Coimbra (Borges, 2003)
was used to validate the cyclic component model presented in this paper. The tested
joints were designed aiming to study the behaviour of double extended end-plate
bolted beam-to-column partial-strength external joints under cyclic loading conditions.
The experimental programme comprised thirteen external double-extended bolted
end-plate joints, see Table 1. It was divided in four groups, whereby the column section
size and/or the beam size were varied, as well as the presence of axial force in the
column in J2 group. The first test for each group had the loading applied monotonically,
complemented by two tests with cyclic loading, except in the first group which includes
one additional cyclic test, with arbitrary loading. The columns were 3.0 m high and the
beams were approximately 1.2 m long. The loading was applied in the vertical direc-
tion, at the end of the cantilever beam by means of a 100 ton hydraulic actuator.

Table 1: Bolted beam-to-column double extended end-plate joints test programme.

Group 1 (J1) Beam Column type Bending Axial
Test J-1.1 IPE360 HEA320 Monotonic M- -
Test J-1.2 IPE 360 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Test J-1.3 IPE 360 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Test J-1.4 IPE 360 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Group 2 (J2) Beam Column type Bending Axial
Test J-2.1 IPE360 HEA320 Monotonic M- N- (800 kN)
Test J-2.2 IPE 360 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ N- (1200 kN)
Test J-2.3 IPE 360 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ N- (800 kN)
Group 3 (J3) Beam Column type Bending Axial
Test J-3.1 IPE360 HEB320 Monotonic M- -
Test J-3.2 IPE 360 HEB 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Test J-3.3 IPE 360 HEB 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Group 4 (J4) Beam Column type Bending Axial
Test J-4.1 HEA280 HEA320 Monotonic M- -
Test J-4.2 HEA 280 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -
Test J-4.3 HEA 280 HEA 320 Cyclic M-/M+ -

The cyclic loading strategy, for the cyclic tests consisted on 2 distinct cyclic histo-
ries, both with gradual increase of the cyclic amplitude in the elastic range followed by
constant amplitude loading with two different levels. The tests were carried out in dis-
placement control, with constant speed of 0.02 mm/sec for the monotonic tests, 0.2
mm/sec for the first cyclic tests and 0.4 mm/sec for the second cyclic tests.
The experimental test results were complemented by advanced numerical models us-
ing solid elements (Figure 5) developed in Abaqus (Augusto et al, 2016).

Figure 5. FE model.

4.2 Component model assembly and identification of critical components

Based on Eurocode 3, part 1.8 (2005) the following components should be con-
sidered for double extended end-plate joints: (1) Column web panel in shear; (2) Col-
umn web in compression; (3) Column web in tension; (4) Column flange in bending;
(5) End-plate in bending; (7) Beam flange in compression; (8) Beam web in tension
and (10) Bolts in tension. Selecting tests J3 for illustration and with reference to the
component models of Figure 1, because of the double symmetry of the joints, the be-
haviour under hogging and sagging bending moments is identical. Step 1 leads to the
moment-rotation curve depicted in Figure 6, that shows good agreement between ex-
perimental, FE and component method results, the latter obtained with the software
tool briefly described in section 3.
500
Bending Moment (kN.m)

400

300

200

100 Test (J3.1)

Abaqus
FESTJoint
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 6. Moment-rotation response of J3.1

According to Step 2 of the procedure defined in section 2.2, the following critical
dissipative components were identified: end-plate in bending, column web panel in
shear and column flange in bending (Nogueiro, 2009). Hence, these 3 components
should be modelled as dissipative components in Step 4.

4.4 Cyclic response

Teste J3.2 exhibits a stable behaviour without pinching. Figure 6 shows the
cyclic component model that is applicable for cyclic conditions.

Figure 6. Cyclic component model for double-extended end-plate beam-to-column

joint (schematic).

Figure 7 shows the load history for test J3.2. Test J3.2 followed the ECCS cyclic pro-
tocol. Figure 8 compares the component model, the experimental and the FE results
for J3.2. Good agreement is noted both at the joint level (Figure 8a) and component
level (Figure 8b). It is noted that, despite considering hysteretic behaviour for end-
plate in bending, there is no pinching effect in the global behaviour of the joint, as was
also seen in the test.

Figure 7. Rotation history for J3.2.

 600 600

400 400

Bending moment (kN.m)

Bending moment (kN.m)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 Test (J3.2) -400 Test (J3.2)

FESTJoint Numerical
Abaqus Abaqus
-600 -600
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
Rotation (mrad) Rotation (mrad)

(a) (b)
Figure 8. J3.2: (a) overall behaviour and (b) column web panel in shear.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes a component based methodology for the prediction of the cyclic
behaviour of beam to column steel joints. By adhering to the principles of the compo-
nent method, this model incorporates the static monotonic component properties spec-
ified in Eurocode 3 part 1.8. This component-based methodology is able to generate
cyclic bending moment-response of steel joints with sufficient accuracy and to identify
the failure modes of the joint. The proposed approach was validated with cyclic tests
performed at the University of Coimbra and showed acceptable agreement.
The following conclusion may be drawn:
Despite the apparent simplicity of the methodology, guaranteeing numerical stabil-
ity of the component models is not an easy task. Specific guidance is necessary
for those willing to implement cyclic models.
The behaviour of tension only or compression only dissipative components is a
crucial feature of the cyclic component model and, combined with the implementa-
tion of springs in parallel with zero stiffness paths constitutes the key aspect of this
paper that was not previously exploited in the literature.
The running speed of a cyclic component implementation makes it the only viable
option to perform global analysis f frames incorporating the dissipative behaviour
of joints, as the time cost of running advanced FE models makes them prohibitive
in practical applications.
Finally, the component model is currently undergoing a thorough calibration and vali-
dation in the context of the RFCS project EQUALJOINTS.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work was funded by the European Commissions Research Fund for Coal and
Steel (RFCS) through the research project EQUALJOINTS RFSR-CT-2013-00021,
and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through project
UID/ECI/04029/2013.

REFERENCES
Augusto, H., Simes da Silva, L., Rebelo, C. and Castro, J.M. (2016) Characterization
of web panel components in double-extended bolted end-plate steel joints.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116, 271293.
Augusto, H.; Castro, J.M.; Rebelo, C.; Simes da Silva, L. (2014) A contribution to the
extension of the component method to beam-to-column connections subjected
to cyclic loading. Proceedings of EUROSTEEL 2014. Naples, Italy.
Borges LAC. (2003). Probabilistic evaluation of the rotation capacity of steel joints.
MSc thesis. Coimbra, Portugal: University of Coimbra.
Eurocode 3 (2005). Design of Steel Structures: Design of joints. Part 1-8: CEN.
Gervsio H, Simes da Silva L, Borges L. (2004). Reliability assessment of the post-
limit stiffness and ductility of steel joints. Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search. 60:635-48.
Iannone F, Latour M, Piluso V, Rizzano G. (2011). Experimental Analysis of Bolted
Steel Beam-to-Column Connections: Component Identification. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering. 15:214-44.
Jordo S, Simes da Silva L, Simes R. (2013). Behaviour of welded beam-to-column
joints with beams of unequal depth. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.
2013;91:42-59.
Kim KD, Engelhardt MD. Monotonic and cyclic loading models for panel zones in steel
moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2002;58:605-35.
Latour M, Piluso V, Rizzano G. (2011). Cyclic Modeling of Bolted Beam-to-Column
Connections: Component Approach. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering;15:537-63.
Lima LRO, Simes da Silva L, Vellasco PCGdS, de Andrade SAL. (2004). Experi-
mental evaluation of extended endplate beam-to-column joints subjected to
bending and axial force. Engineering Structures. 2004;26:1333-47.
Nogueiro P, Simes da Silva L, Bento R, Simes R. (2007). Numerical implementation
and calibration of a hysteretic model with pinching for the cycling response of
steel joints. International Journal of Advanced Steel Construction. 3:128-53.
Nogueiro PNG (2009). Cyclic behaviour of steel joints (in Portuguese). PhD Thesis.
University of Coimbra.
Piluso V, Rizzano G. (2008). Experimental analysis and modelling of bolted T-stubs
under cyclic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 64:655-69.
Simes da Silva L, Rebelo C, Mota L. (2009). Extension of the Component Method to
End-Plate Beam-to-Column Steel Joints Subjected to Seismic Loading. In:
Topping BHV, Neves, LFC, Barros RC (eds). Trends in Civil and Structural
Engineering Computing. Stirlingshire, UK: Saxe-Coburg Publications; p. 149-
67.
Simes da Silva L, Santiago A, Real PV. (2002) Post-limit stiffness evaluation of the
ductility of steel joints. Computers and Structures.80:515-31.
Simes da Silva L. (2008) Towards a consistent design approach for steel joints under
generalized loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 64:1059-75.
Swanson JA, Leon RT. (2000). Bolted steel connections: Tests on T-stub components.
Journal of Structural Engineering-Asce. 126:50-6.
Weynand K, Jaspart J-P, Steenhuis M. (1995). The stiffness model of revised Annex
J of Eurocode 3. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Connec-
tions; p. 441-52.