Structural Steelwork Eurocodes

Development of
A Trans-national Approach
Course: Eurocode 3

Module 5 : Structural Joints

Lecture 16: Simple Joints

Summary:
This lecture is intended to introduce the concept of simple joints as a limiting condition of all joints.
The requirements relating to stiffness, strength and rotation capacity are listed.
Joints are described as an assemblage of components each of which may be regarded as a link in a
chain. The strength of the weakest link controls the overall load carrying capacity of the system.

 Examples of simple beam to column and beam to beam joints are given.

Pre-requisites: (what prior knowledge is required of the student?)

 A knowledge of structural analysis
Helpful ( but not essential ) to understand plastic response of frames
Lecture on Generalities about Structural Joints

Notes for Tutors:

This material comprises one 30 minute lecture.

SSEDTA
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

Objectives:
The student should:

 Understand the conceptual assumption of simple joints.

 Appreciate the basic reasoning for the approximation
 Be able to examine a joint and identify the individual components and force transfers which occur
in the joint.
 Know where to look for clauses governing these force transfers.
 Be able to assess the capacity of a joint when worked examples have been studied.

References: (essential & background reading)

 Owens, G.W. and Cheale, B.D.,”Structural Steelwork Connections”, Butterworth & Co., Salisbury,
1989.
Kirby, P.A.,Bitar, S and Gibbons, C.,”The Design of Columns in Non-Sway Semi-Rigidly Connected
Frames”,First World Conference on Constructional Steel Design, Acapulco, Mexico, December
1992.

Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Condition 1 : Strength
1.2 Condition 2 : Stiffness
1.3 Condition 3 : Rotation Capacity
2. Types of Joint
2.1 Beam to Column Joints
2.2 Beam to Beam Joints
2.2.1 Primary to Secondary Beams
2.2.2 Beam Splices
3. Concluding Summary

1. Introduction
Beam-to-column and beam-to-beam joints are traditionally designed as pinned or rigid even
though the most flexible of these will provide some resistance to moment whilst the stiffest
will have some small degree of flexibility. As was argued in the lecture on “Generalities of
Structural Joints”, simple joints are presumed to possess no resistance to moment whatever
the rotation at the joint. In a frame which is prevented from swaying, this assumption makes
the structure behave as a collection of statically determinate components which may then be
readily analysed by hand and, equally importantly, each member may be proportioned without
reference to the rest of the structure. If the joints are assumed to be rigid, the frame may be

14/09/99 2
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

analysed using a relatively straightforward analysis though the resulting computations are
considerably more complex than for a pin-jointed frame. It can be appreciated that the
assumptions regarding the pinned and rigid approximations have arisen because of the
resulting simplifications in frame analysis and hence in the design process. Although
computational capabilities have improved dramatically during the past couple of decades,
most frames are still designed using these assumptions which represent the limiting moment -
rotation stiffnesses which can exist in joints. This implies that frames designed using the
assumption of pinned joints will not be capitalising on the inherent stiffness possessed by even
the simplest connections whilst fames designed using continuous construction ( rigid joints )
will probably involve the expense of complex joints often incorporating the use of stiffeners in
order to achieve the requisite stiffness in the joint. In reality, all practical joints have moment -
rotation characteristics which correspond to stiffnesses intermediate between these two
extreme cases.

In addition to the consideration of joint stiffness referred to above, there is a second factor
which must be accounted for in joint design, namely strength. By definition, a joint which is
truly pinned possesses zero resistance to moment. However, other joints may be either full
strength - if the moment resistance of the joint exceeds that of the connected members - or
partial strength if its resistance is less than that of the connected members. This situation is
also described in lecture 4 : “Frame Analysis and Design”.

To fully satisfy the definition of a true pinned joint would require the production of an
expensive detail. This is not justifiable as, for many years, designers have been producing
highly successful frames using the assumption, and without such expense. There is a range of
situations for which small stiffness and strength may be neglected. EC3 states that “ a
nominally pinned connection shall be so designed that it cannot develop significant moments
which might adversely affect members of the structure”. Clearly the connection must
nevertheless be capable of successfully transferring the forces arising at the location and must
be capable of undergoing any required deformations without distress. This implies that, if the
frame is designed plastically, the connection must be able to rotate sufficiently to permit all of
the hinges of the mechanism to develop. This gives rise to the requirement of adequate
rotation capacity. Consideration of a joint assumed to resist zero moment shows that such
joints must also be capable of accepting rotation without losing the ability to resist actions
such as shear.

Thus it can be seen that, in general, a connection has three distinct properties

(i) Strength - its moment resistance.

(ii) Stiffness - related to the slope of its moment - rotation relationship.
(iii) Deformability - its rotation capacity.
In order to determine whether or not a connection will satisfy the condition that moments will
not adversely affect the performance of the frame, considerable research has shown that a
beam to column connection may be classified as nominally pinned if the two conditions listed
below, are satisfied.

1.1 Condition 1: STIFFNESS

This rotational stiffness Sj must satisfy the condition

Sj,ini 0,5 E Ib / Lb (1)

where Sj,ini is the initial rotational stiffness of the connection.

14/09/99 3
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

Ib is the second moment of area of the connected beam.

Lb is the length of the connected beam.
Revised
In the ENV version of the Eurocode , in Chapter 6, the relevant stiffness was specified as S j, , Annex J
which was measured with reference to the point on the moment - rotation characteristic at the
design moment resistance, MRd. However in the revised Annex J this has been replaced by the
initial stiffness, Sj,ini.

1.2 Condition 2 : STRENGTH

The design moment resistance of the joint, MRd, must not exceed 0,25 times the design plastic
moment resistance, Mpl.Rd, of the weaker connected member or members as shown in Figure 1.

Mpc is fully plastic moment of resistance of column

Mpb is fully plastic moment of resistance of beam

Mpc Mpc

Mpb Mpb

Mpc Mpc

If Mpb < 2Mpc If Mpb > 2Mpc

then Mj,Rd = 0,25Mpb then Mj,Rd = 0,25x2xMpc

Figure 1 Maximum moment resistance requirement for simple joints.

In addition to satisfying the above requirements for a joint detail to be considered to be a

pinned connection, the designer must ensure that the shear ( the end reaction of the beam ) and
any axial force can be safely transferred between the connected members. The principal
action to be considered is the transferrence of the reaction from the end of the beam through to
the supporting member. This reaction may also be accompanied by a tying force and it may be
necessary to combine these two actions to determine their resultant.

1.3 Condition 3 : ROTATION CAPACITY

A further consideration which is included relates to the ability of the joint to remain coherent
and accept imposed rotations without rupture ( for example welds must not fracture ) before
sufficient rotations have occurred which allow the full loading to be carried, nor should the
joint acquire an undesirable stiffness during the development of the required rotations.

14/09/99 4
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

Considering first the problem of the development of an undesirable stiffness. The most
obvious situation which might give rise to such an effect is the closure of a gap which causes
two surfaces to come into bearing. This might lead to an increased stiffness which is
inappropriate for simple design, as indicated in Figure 2. Calculations on a medium sized
beam ( about 450 mm deep ) and spanning 6.0m shows that the rotations resulting from the
application of a maximum factored loading causes a gap of some 10mm to be produced at one
extremity of the beam end, if the rotational end restraint is truly zero. Of course the size of
this gap will increase with beam depth. In practice there will always be some resistance to
rotation and this will reduce the size of the gap required and the actual span moment which
will arise at the midspan of the beam. Thus the assumption of zero restraint is safe for beams.
The effect on columns is, at first sight, somewhat different as any moment attracted to the joint
will be transferred to the column. However extensive studies, both theoretical and
experimental, have demonstrated that the effect of any adverse moment transferred from the
beam to the column because of the stiffness of the joint is offset by the restraint provided to
the column by the beam due to the stiffness of the joint. Further information on this
phenomenon may be found in the second of the references.


M

Contact between
beam flange and
column face.


Figure 2 Effect of gap closure.
The other phenomenon which must be considered is the mode of failure within a joint. For
cleated connections, the problems associated with overstrength material is covered in revised
Annex J where hidden factors have been included in the formulations which cater for the
possibility of this effect. They ensure that failure is in the angle sections and does not occur in
the bolts thus ensuring that a ductile ( rather than a brittle ) failure occurs which, in general,
leads to an adequate rotation capacity.

2. Types of Joint.
The most common joints which are used for simple connections between beams and columns
are seat and web cleats, top and seat cleats,web cleats, flexible end plate connections and shear
plates. Figure 3 shows a number of typical details of such arrangements. Variations on these
arrangements are often used for connections between primary and secondary beams and
Figure 4 shows two possible examples. The choice of the specific joint type to be adopted will
usually be controlled by the type of equipment possessed by the fabricator, but will also be
influenced by experience gained from past practice and by the requirements relating to the
erection process on site. This last mentioned consideration will often lead to the removal of

14/09/99 5
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

parts of the beam section, as can be seen from Figure 4 for the beam-to-beam connections.
Similarly parts of the beam are often removed for beam to column joints to facilitate the
erection process.

At every stage of load transfer safety must by assured by adequate capacity with due regard
for sufficient flexibility and rotation capacity. The latter conditions are generally assessed by
experience rather than specific calculation but the first requires specific compliance with
codified conditions.

As can readily seen from the above, a joint consists of a number of components which
together effect the connection of the members, and a whole series of load transfers are
involved. The total effect may be likened to links in a chain and, if any one of the links is not
adequate, the chain will break and the joint will fail. The principal transfers are usually made
by welding and /or bolting although rivetting is occassionally used. Generally the fabrication
is arranged such that the connection of elements which is undertaken in the fabrication shop is
by welding, whilst that performed on site is by bolting. However such advice is by way of a
generalisation rather than a specific requirement but does reflect the current trend which is
largely governed by economics.

2.1 Beam to Column Joints

Considering the simple web angle connection shown in Figure 5, it can be appreciated that the
angle sections may be bolted to both the column face and the beam web and no welding is
involved. Alternatively the angles may be welded either to the column face, or to the beam
web, in the workshop with the other fastening be made by bolting on site. A number of checks
are needed to demonstrate the adequacy of the connection shown. These are listed below.

1)Transfer of the force from the web of the beam into the bolts ( part 1 ). This will involve Cl 6.5.2.2
consideration of the possibility of block shear failure. The potential failure zone is defined in
Clause 6.5.2.2 and is illustrated in Figure 6.

2)Transfer of the force from the web of the beam into the bolts ( part 2 ). Bearing failure Cl 6.5.2.2
between the bolts and the beam web. This is defined in Clause 6.5.5. and Table 6.5.3.
3) Shear failure of the bolts connected to the beam web. This aspect is covered in the Clause
6.5.5 and Table 6.5.3 referred to above.
Cl 6.5.5
4)Bearing and block shear failure in the outstanding legs of the angle cleats themselves. The
conditions are essentially the same as those in 1) and 2) above.
5)Shear failure in the bolts connected to the column flange. This is as in 3) above.
6)Bearing failure between the bolts and the column flange. This is as in 2) above.

14/09/99 6
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints
Top and seat cleats
(major and minor axes)
Single web cleat (major axis:
bolted to beam and column)
Welded fin plate: (minor axis:
bolted to beam, welded to
column)
Shear plate (major axis)
Figure 3 Common forms of simple joints
14/09/99
Seat and stability cleats
(major and minor axes)
Double web cleats (minor axis:
welded to beam, bolted to
column)
Tab plate: (major axis: welded
to beam, bolted to column)
Shear plate (major axis)
7
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

Supporting beam
Supported beam

Single notched angle connection

Supporting beam
Supported beam

Double notched end plate connection

Figure 4 Beam to beam connections.

Should any tying forces need to be considered ( as is the case in the U.K. NAD ) then the
connection must also be checked for such action which will involve consideration of the
following potential failure modes, remembering that it will often be necessary to combine the
axial and the shear forces to obtain a resultant action.

Figure 5 Simple web angle connection.

14/09/99 8
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

a1
Lv

a3

a2

Figure 6 Effective area for block shear.

1)Block shear failure in the beam web as above but with an amended failure zone.
See Annex J
2)Bearing failure between the beam web and the bolts. for the design
rules for such
3)Shear failure of the bolts. elements in
tension
4)Tensile capacity of the web cleats.

5)Tensile capacity of the bolts to the face of the column.

Most of these checks are similar to those made under the action of the vertical reaction force
alone, but others are different. However it can readily be seen that the process is again akin to
confirming that every link in a chain is capable of resisting the applied action and noting that
the strength of the chain is that of its weakest link.

In addition to the above there is a number of requirements relating to the positioning of holes
for bolts which should be satisfied to ensure that there are no unexpected sources of poor
performance ( both in terms of resistance and serviceabilty ) resulting from the detailing. Cl 6.5.1
These conditions also apply to holes for rivets although the use of rivetting is now very
limited. These are covered in Clause 6.5.1 and are summarised below.

1)Minimum end distance. This should not be less than 1,2 times the diameter of the hole.

2)Minimum edge distance. This should not normally be less than 1,5 times the hole diameter.

3)Maximum end and edge distances. The maximum value should not exceed 40mm plus 4
times the thickness of the thinner part connected when the connection is exposed to the
weather or other corrosive environments. In other circumstances the maximum value should
not exceed 150mm or 12 times the thickness of the thinner connected part.

4)Minimum spacing. The spacing between the centres of fasteners in the direction of load
transfer should not exceed 2,2 times the hole diameter but this value may be increased if
needed to provide adequate bearing resistance.

5)Maximum spacing. Certain requirements exist which relate to joints in tension and
compression members and these are rarely appropriate in beam to column connections.
Clearly, for other types of simple joints, the same methodology of decomposing the complex
arrangement of joint components in simple load tranfers will apply, even though the specific
actions checked may differ; for example, no reference has been made to the checking of
welds.

14/09/99 9
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

2.2 Beam to Beam Joints

The most common beam to beam joints transfer loading from secondary beams to primary
beams and Figure 4 shows two typical details which might be used for this purpose. The first
is an example where the primary (supporting) beam is deeper than the secondary (supported)
beam, whilst the second illustrates a solution where both primary and secondary beams are of
equal depth. It is common that the upper surfaces of the beams are desired to be at the same
elevation and these two examples meet this requirement, but this is not always the case.
A second form is a splice within a beam length. The basic actions involved in beam to beam
joints are structurally similar to those in beam to column joints and will not be repeated here.

2.2.1 Beam to Beam Joints: Primary to Secondary Beams

The major differences occur as a result of the differing detailing arrangements which arise
largely as a result of construction requirements. Figure 4(b) shows a joint at the end of a
secondary beam which frames into a primary beam. The thin end plate is welded to the end of
the secondary beam ( possibly with limited depth ) and the joint is completed by bolting the
end-plate to the web of the primary beam. This is a popular detail mimising site work. It
does however suffer from the fact that it may be difficult to slew the beam into place and, in
addition, there is no adjustment for overlength secondary beams. It may be desirable to cut
the beams undersize and, with the beam in position, make up the length with packing plates
which may be slid in with the secondary beam in place.
An alternative to the use of an end plate involves the use of one or a pair of angles as indicated
in Figure 4(a). Bolted connections are made to the webs of the primary and secondary beams
by these web cleats which have the advantage that adjustments for small discrepances in
length and alignment can be accommodated by clearance in the holes in the beam webs and
the angle sections. Extra allowance can be made through the use of slotted holes.
Both of these arrangements however, will lead to the upper flanges of the primary and
secondary beams not being at the same level if the beam centrelines are at the same elevation.
The examples of Figure 4 place the upper surfaces at the same elevation but this has required
that the secondary beam flanges have been cut away to facilitate the construction even in the
case where the depth of the secondary beam would otherwise allow it to pass between the
flanges of the primary beam.. This cutting away process is known as coping.
This introduces a new factor which must be considered in assessing the design strength of the
joint; namely a revision to the shear block, as it must be recognised that the I beam has been
reduced to an inverted T section. There is also a consequent loss of in-plane, out-of-plane and
torsional strength and stiffness in the coped region and consideration should be given to local
buckling of the unrestrained portion of the web of the coped beam. Sometimes it may be
desirable to provide local stiffening.

2.2.2 Beam to Beam Joints: Beam Splices

Beam splices occur where a construction joint is placed in a beam member. Usually this is in
the form of a moment resisting joint designed to create a beam of the same cross-sectional
properties ( for example flexural rigidity and moment resistance ) as those of the component
beams when the total length is excessive for transportation or construction.. Such a joint
would be designed as a rigid, full strength joint and is outside the scope of this lecture, but
there may be occasions when articulation is required. Under these circumstances the
principles developed in this presentation should be followed.
Occasionally it may be desirable to make a simple connection if, for example, the joint is
made at a point which is the moment is required to be zero; it could be that it is desired to
restrict the sagging moment in the one part of the beam by ensuring that no moment is
transferred at the joint. However, this condition of zero moment is unlikely to be fully realised
in practice.

It can be seen that these joints may be considered in a fashion similar to that described for
beam to column joints in that equivalent individual checks ensure that the complete load path
is sufficiently strong so that the load transfer may be accomplished. In addition, flexibility
and rotation capacity considerations must receive proper attention, and sufficient clearances

14/09/99 10
 Structural Steelwork Eurocodes –Development of a Trans-National Approach
Structural Joints
Simple Joints

must be provided to ensure that, during the anticipated rotations, no surfaces come into contact
which would drammatically increase the stiffness to an undesirable level.

3. Concluding Summary
This lecture has introduced the philosophy of simple joints both in respect of idealised
behaviour and real response.

The concept of a joint as an assemblage of components which act as a number of links in a

chain has been introduced.

The requirements of strength, stiffness and rotation capacity have been outlined - as have the
code requirements.

Examples of practical details for beam to column and beam to beam joints have been given.

14/09/99 11