(11)
The equation elements are
c b
M 0.35 h V (458 7225) 0.35 1.2 1263 8213kNm + = + + =
(12)
3
cn c j
C 0.6 f ' b h 0.6 31 657 1200 14664 10 N = = = (13)
Where fc is the specified compressive strength of concrete in MPa.
Tvrn and Cvrn are the nominal strengths in tension and compression respectively, of the vertical joint
reinforcement, which is attached directly to the steel beam, and hvr is the distance between the bars. The
reinforcement is considering acting only in tension:
2
3
vrn vrn
3
c j
25
T C 2 300 0 295 10 N
4
0.3 f ' b h 0.3 31 657 1200 7332 10 N OK
 
+ = + =


\
= =
(14)
The right term of vertical bearing check equation is:
cn vr vrn vrn
[0.7hC h ( T C )] 0.7[0.7 1.2 14664 1.1 295] 8849kNm + + = + = (15)
The vertical bearing check is:
8849
8213 kN 8849 kN safety factor FS 1.08 OK
8213
< = = (16)
9
Joint Shear Check
The horizontal shear strength, of the joint is the sum of the nominal resistance of:
1. The steel panel, Vsn
2. The inner concrete compression strut, Vcsn
3. The outer concrete compression field, Vcfn
The horizontal shear strength is considered adequate if the following equation is satisfied:
b1 b2
c sn f csn w cfn 0
V V
M jh [ V d 0.75V d V (d d )]
2
+
+ + +
(17)
Where jh is given by the following:
c
vrn vrn c b
M
jh
( T C C ) V /2
458 7225
0.7(295 0 12627) 1263/2
0.92 0.7h 0.7 1.2 0.84m OK
jh 0.92m
= =
+ +
+
= =
+ +
= = =
=
(18)
( )
3
c c j c
C 2 f ' b a 2 31 10 0.657 0.31 12627 kN = = = (19)
2 2
c
c
h h 1.2 1.2
a K 0.28
2 4 2 4
a 0.31m 0.3 h 0.3 1.2 0.36m OK
= =
= = =
(20)
( )
c b vrn vrn vr
c j
3
2
1 h
K M V (T C ) h
2 f ' b 2
1 1.2
(458 7225) 1263 0.7 (295 0) 1.1
2
0.7 2 31.5 10 0.657
0.28m
(
= + + =
(
(
= + + + =
(
=
(21)
The left side of the join shear check equation became:
b1 b2
c
V V 55 1208
M jh (458 7225) 0.92 7152 kNm
2 2
+ +
= + =
(22)
The right side of joint shear check equation is given by evaluating each of the shear resistance contributors as
described above. The values of Vsn, Vcsn and Vcfn are given in the following sections.
sn f csn w cfn 0
[ V d 0.75V d V (d d )]
0.7 [3710 1.13 0.75 5015 1.11 2569 (1.15 0.25 1.15)]
8442 kN
+ + + =
= + + + =
=
(23)
The joint shear check:
10
8442
7152 kN 8442 kN safety factor FS 1.18 OK
7152
< = = (24)
Steel panel
The nominal strength of the steel panel is calculated as follows:
( )
3 3
sn ysp sp
V 0.6 F t jh 0.6 240 10 (18 10) 10 0.92 3710 kN
= = + = (25)
Fysp and tsp are the yield strength and thickness of the steel panel (considered as the web thickness of the steel
beam plus the 10mm doubler plate), respectively, and jh was calculated before.
Concrete strut
The nominal strength of the concrete compression strut mechanism, Vcsn is calculated as follows:
csn c p
c p w
csn
V 1.7 f ' b h 1.7 31 438 1200
5015kN 0.5 f ' b d 0.5 31 438 1110 7536kN OK
V 5015 kN
= = =
= = =
=
(26)
Where bp=438mm is the width of face bearing plate limited by bf + 5tp = 350+525=475mm, and
dw=1110mm is the distance between beam flanges (height of the web).
Compression field
The nominal strength of the concrete compression filed mechanism, Vcfn, is calculate as follows:
cfn c s
c o
cfn
V V' V' 590 1979
2569 kN 1.7 f ' b h 1.7 31 575 1200 6531 kN OK
V 2569 kN
= + = + =
= = =
=
(27)
The force resisted by the concrete is:
c c o
V' 0.4 f ' b h 0.4 31 219 1200 590 kN = = = (28)
The strength provided by the horizontal ties is calculated as (considering ties of 20mm @ 120mm):
2
s sh ysh
h
h 20 1200
V' A F 0.9 2 350 0.9 1979 kN
s 4 120
= = = (29)
The cross sectional area of reinforcing bars in each layer of ties spaced at sh through the beam depth, should
not be less than:
2
sh h
A 0.004 b s 0.004 1200 120 576 mm = = (30)
11
The area measured through a vertical plane perpendicular to the beam (Ash) for the assumed configuration of
ties (20mm @ 120mm) represents 628mm
2
which is greater than 576mm
2
.
The ties adjacent to joint are of no concern since steel band plates are provided above and below the beam.
Finite Element Analysis of Bolted Connection
The bolted connection was calculated using a finite element model of the entire connection. Due to complex
mechanism that develops within in the joint, it was necessary to model each principal contributor (i.e. steel
panel, inner concrete and outer concrete regions) along with a proper definition of their contact relationships.
Analytical model
The model was developed with SOLVIA Finite Element System [15]. The analysis was carried out using a
simplified plane stress model. Each of the three principal contributors to shear resistance of the joint was
modeled using 4node plane stress elements (2D solids). The outofplane degrees of freedom were deleted
since planestress elements allow only for translation degreeoffreedom. The reinforcement was modeled
using 2node truss elements.
The concrete regions were introduced in the model using a nonlinear concrete model (the main attributes of
the concrete model are that it is a hypoelastic model based on a nonlinear uniaxial stressstrain relation that is
generalized to take biaxial and triaxial stress conditions into account and that it models tensile failure (i.e.
cracking) and compression failure (i.e. crushing) by failure envelopes). The smeared crack approach was
adopted for tensile failure modeling, i.e. the cracked concrete is treated as a continuum.
The compressive and tensile concrete stresses were considered as average values. The average compressive and
tensile strengths are based on STAS 10107 [4] provisions as follows:
 The compressive stress for C25/30 is given by the relation: 1.75Rc = 1.7518=31.5MPa.
 The tensile compressive stress for C25/30 is also given by the relation: 1.75Rc = 1.751.25 = 2.2
MPa
 Initial elasticity modulus was considered 32500MPa
The structural steel of beams was modeled using elastic material to allow for determining the maximum bolt
forces (otherwise the maximum bolt forces would have been limited by the associated yielding capacity of the
steel beam).
The forces provided in the input data section were transferred to the end of members so that the overall
equilibrium is preserved.
The following figures illustrate the principal characteristics of the finite element model developed for the
connection analysis.
12
Figure 3. The outer concrete region along with longitudinal and tie reinforcement
Figure 4. The inner concrete region along with vertical joint reinforcement connected to the steel
beam flanges
13
Figure 5. The core steel column (left) and steel beam ends with vertical joint reinforcement (right)
Bolt stiffness
The forces developed in bolts are directly related to the stiffness ratio between the three contributors to the
joint shear resistance and bolt stiffness. Therefore, an accurate calculation of bolt stiffness is required to
identify properly the tributary forces to the bolts.
The following two section presents the tension and shear stiffness for a single bolt.
Tension stiffness
The tension stiffness of bolts is calculated using the following equation:
7 2
tension
b
EA 2.1 10 ( 0.024 /4)
k 211115 (Mp/ m)
l (0.02 0.025)
= = =
+
(31)
Shear Stiffness
The shear stiffness is calculated conservatively as the maximum between Eurocode 3 Appendix J [19] and Rex
ref. [18]. (Note that this stiffness includes only the bearing stiffness for a bolt against a single plate).
Eurocode 3:
shear, bearing
b b t b u
k 24 k k d F 24 1.25 2.3 24 345 57132 Mp/ m = = = (32)
Where (1Mp=1megapond 1tf)
kb is conservatively considered as 1.25 (kb=Le/4db<1.25, Le is the end distance, db is bolt diamter),
14
kt = 1.5tp/dm16=1.525/16=2.3<2.5 (tp is the plate thickness ~25mm, dm16 is nominal diameter of
M16 bolt 16mm),
Fu is the ultimate stress ~345Mpa
According to equations 12, 13 and 14 from Rex [18] (assuming standard hole size and an initial bearing
deformation of 0.102mm):
shear, bearing 0.8
b p y b
0.8
k 120 t F (d / 25.4)
120 25 240 (24 / 25.4) 68807 Mp/ m
= =
= =
(33)
shear, bending 3
b p e b
3 6
k 32Et (L /d 1/ 2)
32 210000 25 (50/ 24 1/ 2) 66.68 10 Mp/ m
= =
= =
(34)
shear,shearing
b p e b
6
k 6.67 G t (L /d 1.2)
6.67 80769 25 (50/ 24 1.2) 1.19 10 Mp/ m
= =
= =
(35)
The proposed prediction model of Rex [18] shown that the initial stiffness depends on three primary stiffness
values in the plate. The stiffness associated with bending, shearing and bearing combine to determine the final
initial stiffness. The model that accounts for these three stiffness values is simply three springs in series. The
final stiffness is given by Blevins [20]:
shear
b
shear, bearing shear, bending shear,shearing
b b b
6 6
1
k
1 1 1
k k k
1
64983 Mp/ m
1 1 1
68807 66.68 10 1.19 10
= =
+ +
= =
+ +
(36)
Analysis Results
This section presents the analysis results from the finite element analysis of the connection. The stress
diagrams presented in the following Figures provides information in Mp/m
2
Figure 6 presents the crack distribution along with the compressive stress field in the inner joint
region. The thickness of the inner joint region (an implicitly the thickness of its finite planestress
elements) was considered equal to the beam flange width 350mm. The maximum principal
compressive stress in the strut is roughly 20MPa. Two compressive diagonal struts were developed
due to presence of the flange steelcolumn. The maximum bearing stress is already attained but is
very localized and since the model disregarded the steel band plates this not represents a concern
(maximum strain is 410
3
which is acceptable in case of strong confinement provided by the steel
band plates above and below the steel beam).
Figure 7 presents the crack distribution along with the compressive stress field in the outer joint
region. The effective thickness (bo) of this contributor to the shear resistance of the joint was
considered as the remaining thickness of the effective joint width bj (657350=307mm). The overall
maximum compressive stress in the diagonal strut is approximately 25MPa. Same considerations as
stated at previous point apply.
Figure 8 shows the normal stress developed in the beam and also the von Mises effective stress
developed in the steel panel of the core column.
15
The structural steel of adjacent beams was modeled using elastic material (to allow for application of
capacity bending moment of composite section including slab otherwise the bending moment
would have been limited by the yielding capacity of the beam). This assumption lead to occurrence of
excessive stress in the beam moreover this means that the beam yields at a considerable lower
loading level (506MPa/(240MPa 1.35)=1.56).
The steel panel of the core column remains below the yielding limit (max. stress in the steel panel
315MPa) the von Mises stress diagram is presented at right of Figure 8.
Figure 9 presents the distribution of the contact forces. The principal contact relationships was set
between:
 Concrete steel beam flanges and face bearing plates
 Concrete steel column flanges
 Concrete connection flange plates
 Connection flange plates beam flanges
Figure 10 illustrates the position of the bolts. The maximum encountered tension force was
477kN/2rows=238kN this force was identified only at one exterior bolt from the bottom flange associated
with the capacity bending moment of the composite section. This force is unlikely to occur due to limitation of
the steel beam capacity which yields at a significant lower loading level. Even though, the remaining bolts
exhibit forces of 257/2rows=129kN which allows for redistribution of the loading in case of failure of the
exterior bolt. (The tension capacity of a M24 bolt Gr.10.9 is 202kN).
In case of shear loading of the same group of bolts located on the beam flange, the maximum shear force for
a single bolt disregarding the exterior one, is 520kN/2rows = 260kN. The capacity of a single bolt M24
Gr.10.9 in shear is the minimum between (shear=196kN; bearing=81.6x2.5=204kN) = 196kN. Therefore the
capacity is exceeded by 260/196 = 32%. Considering that the beam yields at 1/1.56=0.64 loading level the
actual safety factor is (196/260)1.56=1.18, which means that the beam attains its capacity before failure of
bolts.
The flange connection is not critical even in case that its capacity might be exceeded, since the shear resistance
of the joint is provided by the steel panel which in our case is given by the beam web + column web + shear
tabs. Therefore, the critical connection is along the path of this mechanism.
The web connection (which is important in order to assure a proper shear capacity of the joint) was done using
4 group of bolts located at the end of the compressivetensilediagonals present in the steel panel as shown at
the right of Figure 8. The maximum bolt shear force is 180kN < 195kN (OK).
Note that these forces are conservative estimates since the slab was not considered in analysis. Moreover, the
design strength of the bolts was conservatively taken into account instead of the average yield strength of
bolts.
For instance, a simple calculation shows that the ratio between the bending moment of the composite section
calculated using average strengths (5150kNm) to the bending moment of the same section but using this time
the design strengths (3900kNm) is 5150/3900=1.32. The maximum bolt shear load should be divided by this
value (260kN/1.32=196kN) to be consistent with the bolt design shear strength of 196kN which further
leads to a safety factor of 1. However, this safety factor reflects the fact that the entire bending moment
associated to the composite section (including the concrete slab) is to be resisted only by the bolts which is
still conservative.
16
Figure 6. Crack distribution and Concrete state in the inner joint region
Figure 7. Crack distribution and Concrete state in the outer joint region
Zone confined by
steel band plates
Principal
compressive stress
vs. loading function
Principal
compressive strain
vs. loading function
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
t
Principal
compressive stress
vs. loading function
Principal
compressive strain
vs. loading function
17
Figure 8. Stress state in the structural steel
Figure 9. Contact forces distribution
This region
indicates a large
exceedance of yield
stress beam
yields
18
Figure 10. Bolted Connection Configuration
Conclusions
The success of a connection design in terms of deformation and strength is directly related to the overall
behavior of the building. Apparently, for a regular concrete building this goal may be attain more easily, but for
a composite structure this may be challenging. The success of connection design (in terms of stiffness and
strength) directly affects the response of the building and implicitly the possibility to meet the target drift ratio,
therefore special care have to be provided to particular connection types, especially if they have not been
tested enough.
The connection was evaluated using ASCE guidelines [1] (the load and resistance factors were considered in a
consistent manner see discussion). Also, a finite element model was developed to determine the bolt forces
by appropriately accounting for contact relationships between main contributors to the shear resistance of the
joint.
References:
1. ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete
Guidelines for Design of Joints between Steel Beams and Reinforced Concrete Columns. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 8, August, 1994.
2. Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti Cod de Proiectare pentru Structuri din Beton
Armat cu Armatura Rigida. NP03399. MLPAT ord. nr.61/N. august 1999.
3. Dalban C., Chesaru E., Dima S., Serbescu C. Constructii cu structura metalica. Editura didactica
si pedagogica Bucuresti. 1997.
19
4. Institutul Roman de Standardizare Calculul si alcatuirea elementelor structurale din beton, beton
armat si beton precomprimat. STAS 10107/090.
5. Institutul Roman de Standardizare Calculul Elementelor de Otel. STAS 10108/078.
6. Arhitectural Institute of Japan AIJ Standards for Structural Calculation of Steel Reinforced
Concrete Structures. 1987
7. EUROCODE Editorial Group Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Eurocode
No.4. Prepared for the Commission of the European Communities. 1992
8. Bugeja M, Bracci J. M., Moore W. P. Seismic Behavior of composite RCS Frame Systems. ASCE
Journal of structural engineering Vol. 126, No. 4. April 2000.
9. ParraMontesinos G., Wight J. K. Seismic Response of Exterior RC ColumntoSteel Beam
Connections. ASCE Journal of structural engineering. Vol. 126, No. 10, October 2000.
10. Bracci J. M., Moore W. P., Bugeja M. N. Seismic Design and Constructability of RCS Special
Moment Frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 125, No. 4, April, 1999.
11. Deierlein G., Noguchi H. Overview of USJapan Research on the Seismic Design of Composite
Reinforced Concrete and Steel Moment Frame Structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.
Vol. 130 No. 2, February 2004.
12. Liang X., ParraMontesinos G. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete ColumnSteel Beam
Subassemblies and Frame Systems. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 130. No. 2,
February 2004.
13. Nishiyama I., Kuramoto H., Noguchi H. Guidelines: Seismic Design of Composite Reinforced
Concrete and Steel Buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 130. No. 2. February
2004.
14. Kuramoto H., Hishiyama I. Seismic Performance and Stress Transferring Mechanism of Through
ColumnType Joints for Composite Reinforced Concrete and Steel Frames. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering. Vol. 130. No. 2 February 2004.
15. SOLVIA Engineering AB SOLVIA Finite Element System. Version 03. 19872006. Sweden.
16. INCERC Bucuresti Cod de practica pentru executarea lucrarilor din beton, beton armat si beton
precomprimat. Indicativ NE 01299
17. American Concrete Institute Building CODE requirements for structural concrete. ACI318M02.
ACI Committee 318. 2002
18. Rex C. O., Easterling W. S. Behavior and Modeling of a Bolt Bearing on a Single Plate. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol.126. No.6. June 2003.
19. EUROCODE 3 Design of Steel Structures. Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels. 1993
20. Blevins R. D. Formulas for natural frequency and mode shape. Krieger Publishing Company.
Malabar, Florida. Reprinted edition 2001.