Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 June 2014
Accepted 1 August 2014
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Bolted joints
Hammer head beams
Experimental tests
Component method
Design guidelines
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a research on an innovative stiffened extended end-plate joint, used to connect I-shaped
beams to partially-encased composite wide ange columns. In the joint, T-shaped hammer heads cut from the
same I-proles than the beams are used, instead of using traditional haunches. At the joint level, the column
web is strengthened by two lateral plates welded to the column anges; these plates also reinforce the column
anges. This type of joint is proposed to use in the seismic resistance building frames, as a full-strength and a
fully-rigid joint solution. Firstly, a test program carried out within a RFCS European project titled HSS-SERF
High Strength Steel in Seismic Resistant Building Frames, 20092013, will be presented. Then, analytical
developments based on the component approach and aimed at predicting the joint response will be described;
their validity will be demonstrated through comparisons with the tests. Moreover, a new design concept for
full strength joint accounting for the actual position of the plastic hinge and the possible individual overstrength factors for each component is proposed, respecting the requirements of EN1998-1-1.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In order to obtain a full-strength and a fully-rigid solution for bolted
extended end-plate beam-to-column joints to be used in seismic resistant building frames, two directions are practically considered:
(i) reducing the beam section near the joint (dog-bone beam) or (ii)
using stiffeners to reinforce the end-plate parts outside the beam
anges. If the second solution is chosen, the haunches (with or without
anges) are generally used. Researches on the above joint types have
been largely carried out in literature, and the design rules are also
covered in Eurocodes.
In this paper, a new economical joint conguration is proposed to
connect I-shaped beams to partially-encased composite wide ange
columns (Fig. 1). In the proposed joint conguration, T-shaped hammer
heads cut from the same I-proles as the beams are used, instead of
using the traditional haunches. At the joint level, the column is also
strengthened by two lateral plates welded to the column anges
(Fig. 1); the use of these plates allows increasing the resistance of the
column web components (in shear, tension or compression) but also
the column ange in bending component.
In comparison with the joint solutions using haunches, the following
advantages can be pointed out for the hammer head joint solution:
(1) the use of hammer head allows a good load transfer from the
beam to the joint zone and so avoids local compression in the beam
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.hoangvanlong@ulg.ac.be (H. Van-Long),
jean-pierre.jaspart@ulg.ac.be (J. Jean-Pierre), jfdemonceau@ulg.ac.be (D. Jean-Franois).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.08.001
0143-974X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
web which appears with haunches (at the intersection between the
haunch ange and the beam); (2) the use of hammer heads directly
cut from the beam prole simplies the fabrication procedure and
leads to cost saving; (3) the capacity of the hammer head components
can be multiplied by the over-strength factor as they are cut from the
beam prole where the over-strength factor is applied, which will
induce some economies in the design process. The observation reported
in point (1) regarding the load transfer at the joint level has been
demonstrated through the experimental tests conducted within the
HSS-SERF project [1]; these tests will be presented in Section 2. Also,
regarding the remark reported in point (2) on the economical fabrication process, a technical and economic evaluation was carried out for
several types of joints in [1]: joint using long bolts, joint with external
diaphragm, joint with rib stiffeners, and joint with hammer head
beams. The conclusion was that the hammer head joint is the best
solution. Finally, regarding point (3), detailed explanations will be
given in Section 4 of the present paper.
However, the design of the proposed joint is not presently covered
in Eurocodes and in literature, as the joint involves some new
components. Therefore, analytical developments were realized in
order to propose a full design procedure useful for practitioners and in
full agreement with the component method which is the design method
recommended in Eurocodes for the characterization of joints.
The present paper summarizes the researches on the proposed joint
conguration, from the experimental tests to the development of the
design procedure. In Section 2, the results of the tests on the proposed
joint conguration will be reported. Section 3 will deal with the analytical development based on the component method. Section 4 is
50
4
2a
1
2b
Elements
1
I- steel beam
2a, 2b
Top and bottom hammer- heads
3
Partially-encased wide-flange column
4
End-plate
5
Bolts
6
Lateral plates
Steel materials
Mill steel
Extracted from the beam profiles
High strength steel may be used
Mill steel
High strength bolts (8.8 or 10.9)
Same grade with the column profiles
dedicated to the validation of the proposed models through comparisons to the experimental results. How to take into account for the actual
position of the plastic hinges and individual component over-strength
factors to satisfy the full-strength requirement from EN1998-1-8 dedicated to the seismic design of buildings will be the content of
Section 5. Section 6 is nally devoted to the concluding remarks.
2. Experimental results
A test program was dened and performed on the proposed joint
conguration within the HSS-SERF project; details about the performed
tests and the obtained results can be found in [2]. All the joints were designed to be full strength ones, meaning that the plastic hinges should
develop in the beam, more precisely in the cross-sections close to the
hammer head ends. Within the test program, two categories of tests
were dened: (1) prequalication tests for which the actual specimen
conguration, i.e. the conguration which would be met in a building
structure, were used and for which the plastic hinges occurred at the
beam sections close to the hammer head ends; and (2) joint characterization tests for which the beams were strengthened so as to force the
failure at the joint level and to obtain the complete behavior of the
joint. Within the present paper, the joint characterization tests will be
described as only these tests are used to validate the joint design
procedure.
The specimen geometries and materials are presented in Table 1 and
Fig. 2. Test A1 was dened to evaluate the resistance of the hammer
head zone while tests A2 and B1 aim at characterizing the connection
resistance under hogging and sagging moments respectively. Obviously,
the elastic stiffness of the specimens can be recorded from the three
tests. The HEB320 columns used for specimens A1 and A2 are made of
S460 steel while the column HEB260 column in specimen B1 is made
of high strength steel S690, to investigate the possibility of using high
strength steel in seismic resistant building frames, but this aspect is
not dealt with in the present paper.
The used testing set-up is presented in Fig. 3. A xed hinge at the
bottom and a hinge allowing a vertical displacement at the top are
used at the column extremities. Possible displacements of the hinges
have been anyway recorded during the tests. A vertical load is applied
at the free end of the beam introducing a bending moment and a
shear force in the joints. Lateral supports on the beam length have
been placed to avoid the lateral torsional buckling of the beam during
the tests.
Table 1
Description of the tested specimens (Fig. 2).
Tests
Column
Beam
Lateral plates
Reinforcement degree
Loading type
A1
A2
B1
HEB320
HEB320
HEB260
IPE400
IPE400
IPE400
800 290 15
800 290 15
800 230 15
Hogging moment
Hogging moment
Sagging moment
C30/37 concrete is used for all specimen; S355 steel is used for the beams and the end-plates; S460 steel is used for the HBE320 column and the associated lateral plates; S690 steel is used
for the HEB260 column and the associated lateral plates; M30 10.9 bolts are used.
The let welds of 5 mm is used to connect the hammer head web to the beams and the beam/hammer head webs to the end-plate, while the beam and the hammer head anges are
attached to the end-plate through let welds of 8 mm.
The reinforcement degree is used to obtain the difference failure modes, aiming to characterize the difference components.
51
A
35
15
550
IPE400
M30
a
reinforcement
zone
800
246
33
137
M30
Lateral
plate
reinforcement
plate
135
90
135
400
800
420
180
22
235
235
237
M30
90
M30
420
150
15
B-B
550
250
A-A
unit in mm
two bolt rows in tension, so explaining why the two bolt rows failed
at the same time. Through the test observation, it can be shown that
the critical section for specimen A1 is in the hammer head zone, close
to the end of the reinforcement zone of the beam, while the critical
sections for specimens A2 and B1 is the column face. In all the three
tests, no particular signs are observed from the column side (steel
prole, lateral plates and the concrete). The stiffness, the maximum moment at the critical sections and the maximum moment at the hammer
head end (i.e. where the plastic hinge should developed in the actual
specimens without the beam reinforcement) are reported in Table 2.
Through tests A2 and B1, it is also possible to demonstrate the full
strength degree of the studied joints (Table 2). Indeed, at the ultimate
state, the moment at the beam section next to the hammer head ends
about 900 kNm, while the actual ultimate capacity of the beam section
equals to 613.3 kNm.
(in mm)
Fig. 3. Testing set-up.
52
A1 test
450
Table 2
Stiffness and resistance of the specimens.
400
Load (kN)
350
A1
193000
742.4
A2
B1
187000
154500
909.2
894.1
300
250
200
Remark: the yielded and ultimate strength of the beam section is 500.0 kNm and 613.3
kNm, respectively (from the coupon test results, see Table 5).
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
Load (kN)
Displacement (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
A2 test
50
100
150
200
Displacement (mm)
Load (kN)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
B1 test
50
100
150
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4. Loadpoint load displacement curves of the tests.
200
The formulas to estimate the resistance and stiffness of the bolt rows
inside the beam anges are given in EN1993-1-8, 6.2.6.5[3]; they can
be directly applied to the present conguration. However, with respect
to the bolt rows between the beam anges and the hammer head
anges, the situation is different because these bolt rows present a specicity which is their proximity to two anges (Fig. 6); bolt row conguration is not yet covered in EN1993-1-8.
The proximity of the bolt row to two anges affects the development
of the yielding lines within the end-plate and so affects the effective
length to be considered for the T-stub model which is the model recommended in EN1993-1-8 for the characterization of the joint component
in bending. In [6], a method for the estimation of an appropriate
Table 3
Basic component met in the investigated joint.
Components
Stiffness
EN-1993-1-8, 6.1.3[3]
EN-1994-1-1, 8.4.4.1
[4]
9 Encased concrete in compression EN-1994-1-1, 8.4.4.2
[4]
EN-1993-1-8, 6.1.3[3]
10 Lateral plates (b)
EN-1994-1-1,A.2.3.2
[4]
EN-1994-1-1,A.2.3.2
[4]
(a)
The conditions to take into account the contribution of the encased concrete in the
calculation of the column panel in shear is indicated in EN1998-1-1, 7.5.4(7) [5].
(b)
The calculation of the lateral plates in shear/tension/compression is not explicitly
covered in the Eurocodes but can be easily extrapolated from the rules proposed for the
column web component in the case of I-shaped section.
effective length with account for the presence of two anges close to the
considered bolt row is given. This method is summarized here below
and is recommended for the investigated joint conguration.
The possible effective lengths to be considered for the T-stub model
are minimum of the following:
l f 1 ; 2l with 1
k4
In which the parameters m and e are shown in Fig. 6, taking into account the welds as described in EN1993-1-8, 6.2.4.1 [3]; and u (u for
upper) and l (l for lower) are computed in agreement with
Fig. 6.11 of EN1993-1.8, 6.2.6.5 [3] using the following parameters 1,
2u, and 2l:
u f 1 ; 2u with 1
!
r
0:9dm 1:8dm
1
L
L
4mpl;fc
6 F Rd;4;bending
6
0:9dm
6
1
6
L
6
t fc f y;fc
4
F Rd;4;punching dm p
3
53
t 3fc
2
12 1 2 0:18 Lstiff =2
in which, mpl,fc is the unit plastic resistant moment of the column ange;
dm is the mean diameter of the bolt head/nut; tfc is the thickness of the
column ange; fy,fc is the yield strength of the column ange; is
the Poisson coefcient; L = 0.5(bc tws) 075rc (Fig. 8), Lstiff =
0.5(bc tws) 0.5rc + 0.5tl(Fig. 9) (with bc the column ange width,
twc the thickness of the column web, rc the corner radius of the column
and tl the thickness of the lateral plates); the coefcient is given by:
m
m2u
; 2u
me
me
m
m2l
; 2l
me
me
1 if dm 0:28L
0:7 1:08dm =L if
dm b0:28L
Table 4
Identication of the specic components for the investigated joints and proposed design rules for their characterization and assembly.
Considered components
Resistance/Stiffness
FRd,1
k1
FRd,2
k2
FRd,3
FRd,4
FRd,5
FRd,6
FRd,7
FRd,8
FRd,9
FRd,10
k3
k4
k5
k6
k7
k8
k9
k10
MRD,j
Sj,ini
(a)
(b)
(c)
Proposed rules
Involved basic components (a): steel column web, lateral plates
and encased concrete
Involved basic components: steel column web, lateral plates
and encased concrete
Involved basic components: steel column web and lateral plates
Rules are proposed in Section 3.1
Involved basic component: beam ange and web in compression
Involved basic component: beam web in tension
Involved basic component: bolts in tension
Rules are proposed in Section 3.2
Rules are proposed in Section 3.3
Rules are proposed in Section 3.4
Rules are proposed in Section 3.5
The resistance/stiffness of the considered components is calculated as the sum of the contributions of the listed basic components.
These components are made of the beam material; this remark will be used in Section 5.
This concerns the resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone which is not directly involved in the component assembly.
54
Present situation
Reference cases
Fig. 7. Column ange in bending component.
55
hammer head ange may be neglected. So, the resistance of the shear
mechanism can be formulated as:
be dened as illustrated in Fig. 11. So, the parameters Avh and Zvh can be
computed as follows:
p
F Rd;9;shear lh1 t w f yb = 3
Z vh hhw
with lh1 the length of the hammer head web (Fig. 10); tw the thickness of
the hammer head web; and fyb the yield strength of the hammer heads
(equal to the yield strength of the beam).
The resistance of the hammer heads in compression or tension is
taken as the minimum between the resistance in shear and the resistance in compression or in tension respectively.
In terms of stiffness, the formula recommended EN1993-1-8, 6.3.2
[3] for the stiffness of the column web panel in shear can be applied to
the hammer heads in compression/tension components:
k9;shear
0:38Avh
Z vh
Eq. (4) is valid for a rectangular plate while the shape of the hammer
head is trapezoidal; accordingly, an equivalent rectangular panel has to
Z vh n
in case of compression
in case of tension
in case of compression
h n
Avh t hw lh1 lh2 hw
lh1 lh2 =2
hhw
in case of tension
where thw is the thickness of the hammer head web; the other parameters are dened in Fig. 11.
From the utilization condition, it would be to note that the height of
the upper hammer head should be adequate with the height of the oor
slab.
Fig. 11. Equivalent rectangular panel to estimate the stiffness of the hammer head.
56
The resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone should be veried to avoid the development of a plastic hinge in this part.
For a section at a distance s from the hammer head end (Fig. 12), two
possible critical sections (11 and 22) are identied. The plastic resistance of Section 11 can be easily estimated. For Section 22 combining
the bending resistance of the beam and the shear resistance of the
hammer head web, the resistance may be estimated as follows:
MRd;hammer head
zone
p
M Rd;beam f yw t w shb = 3
where MRd,beam is design resistance of the beam I-prole; fyw is the yield
strength of the hammer head web material (equal to the yield strength
of the beam web); s is the distance represented in Fig. 12; and hb is the
beam height.
Table 6
Bending resistance of the beam in the hammer head zone (A1 test).
Table 5
Coupon test results.
Elements
Yielded strength
Ultimate strength
Bolts
Beam/hammer head ange
Beam/hammer head web
396.0 N/mm2
430.0 N/mm2
606.0 kN/bolt
490.0 N/mm2
512.0 N/mm2
Using the actual strengths, the plastic and ultimate capacities of the IPE400 beam are
respectively: Myield,beam = 500.0 kNm; Multimate,beam = 613.3 kNm.
613.3 (Table 5)
203.7 (Eq. (5))
817.0
820.0 (Table 2)
0.36%
"817.0" is the analytical value while "820.0" is the experimental value. These two values
are considered as the "main" values in the table.
the tension zone. Therefore, the force distribution between the two
zones can be estimated through the following equation, Eq. (6).
Table 7
Ultimate strength of the joint under sagging moment (A2 test).
Critical components and resistances (kN)
F zone1 min F Rd;zone1 ; F Rd;row1 F Rd;row2
4
F zone2 min F Rd;zone2 ; F Rd;row1 F Rd;row2 F zone1
2
In Eq. (6), Fzone1 and Fzone2 are the compression forces developing in
the zones 1 and 2 respectively. FRd,zone1 and FRd,zone2 are the resistances of
the governing components in zones 1 and 2, respectively; FRd,row1 and
FRd,row2 are the design resistances of bolt rows 1 and 2 in tension,
respectively.
Secondly, the plastic redistribution in the two bolt rows in the tension zone may be considered when at least one of the following components in the tension zone is activated at yielding: the hammer head web
(in the tension zone), the column web in tension, the end-plate in bending or the column ange in bending. In the contrary, if another component is activated, the elastic distribution between the two bolt rows
should be used.
When the above plastic redistribution is activated, the resistance of
the joint can be computed as follows:
1187 kNm
0.3%
Table 8
Ultimate strength of joint under hogging moment (B1 test).
Critical components and resistances (kN)
57
Compression forces
(kN)
Row 1: hammer head in shear, FRd,row1 = 1175 (Eq. (3)) Fzone1 = 1175 (Eq. (3))
Fzone2 = 1212 (Eq. (6))
Row 2: bolts in tension, FRd,row2 = 1212 (Table 5)
Zone 1: hammer head in shear, FRd,zone1 = 1175 (Eq.
(3))
Zone 2: beam ange and web in compression,
FRd,zone2 = 1295
Lever arms (m): z11 = 0.688; z12 = 0.453;
z21 = 0,551; z22 = 0.316 (Fig. 2)
Predicted bending resistance of jointEq. (7): Fzone1z11 +
(FRd,row1 Fzone1)z12 + FRd,row2z22 = 1191 kNm
Experimental bending resistance of joint:
1160 kNm
Model-test difference:
2.6%
h
i
M Rd; j F Rd;zone1 :Z 11 min F Rd;zone2 ; F Rd;1 F Rd;zone1 :Z 12
h
i
min F Rd;zone2 min F Rd;zone2 ; F Rd;1 F Rd;zone1 ; F Rd;2 :Z 22
Table 9
Component stiffness factors (mm).
Considered components
Specimens
(a)
(a)
A1
A2
B1
k1 = 10.972
k2 = 24.235
k3,r1 = 18.097
k3,r2 = 17.348
k3,r3 = 20.623
k4,r1 = 54.707
k4,r2 = 44.185
k4,r3 = 44.185
k5 =
k6 =
k7,r1 = 10.317
k7,r2 = 10.317
k7,r3 = 10.317
k8,r1 = 5.760
k8,r2 = 5.760
k8,r3 = 5.760
k9 = 7.160
k10,r1 = 28.210
k10,r2 = (b)
k10,r3 = (b)
z1 = 688.250
z2 = 551.250
z3 = 305.250
k1 = 11.498
k2 = 24.235
k3,r1 = 20.462
k3,r2 = 17.924
k3,r3 = 20.623
k4,r1 = 50.349
k4,r2 = 44.185
k4,r3 = 44.185
k5 =
k6 =
k7,r1 = 10.317
k7,r2 = 10.317
k7,r3 = 10.317
k8,r1 = 5.760
k8,r2 = 5.760
k8,r3 = 5.760
k9 = 13.050
k10,r1 = 28.210
k10,r2 = (b)
k10,r3 = (b)
z1 = 688.250
z2 = 451.250
z3 = 205.250
k1 = 7.264
k2 = 21.942
k3,r1 = 19.220
k3,r2 = 19.220
k3,r3 = 21.073
k4,r1 = 54.707
k4,r2 = 44.185
k4,r3 = 44.185
k5 =
k6 =
k7,r1 = 10.317
k7,r2 = 10.317
k7,r3 = 10.317
k8,r1 = 6.359
k8,r2 = 6.359
k8,r3 = 6.359
k9 = 7.160
k10,r1 = 10.270
k10,r2 = (b)
k10,r3 = (b)
z1 = 688.250
z2 = 551.250
z3 = 305.250
58
Table 10
Joint stiffness estimation and comparison.
Quantities and formulas
Specimens
A1
1
k3;r1
1
1
1
1
k4;r1
k7;r1
k8;r1
k10;r1
1
k2
k19
1
1
Ez2eq
1
k 1 k 1
k
1
eff ;c
A2
B1
2.639
2.293
2.783
2.851
2.866
3.046
2.927
2.948
3.089
5.527
8.482
5.398
558.031
516.418
557.952
7.672
6.724
8.132
162500
158360
146620
193 000
15.8
187 000
15.3
154 500
5.1
eq
Remark. The above rule is applied for estimating the joint resistance,
while only the compression zone 1 should be used for calculating the
stiffness, because in the elastic domain, only this zone is assumed to
be activated. The formula given in EN1993-1-8, 6.3.3 can be directly applied for the present joint.
5. Joint classications
In Section 3, the analytical tools to estimate the resistance and stiffness of the joints were presented. Now, the question is how to classify
the joints in terms of stiffness and resistance.
On one hand, for the stiffness classication (i.e. as pinned, semi-rigid
or rigid), the rule as given in EN1993-1-8, 5.2.2 [3] can be directly
pmax
pmin
MEd,j,HOG
MEd,j,SAG
464.0(a)
7.5
0.585(b)
6.01(c)
35.4
27.0
830.5
710.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
59
of the plastic hinges. The function f1 means the component method procedure presented in Section 3, but the capacity of the components made
from the beam material can be multiplied by 1.1*ov. It means that the
dimensions of these beam components (the hammer heads for example) can be reduced, leading to the cost saving. On the other hand, the
two last terms of the right hand of Eqs. (10c) and (10.d) consider the actual position of the plastic hinge while the rst term is the same with the
right hand of Eq. (8).
Remark. According to EN-1998-1-1 [5], the resistance of the column
web panel in shear should be sparely carried out where the overstrength factor is not applied.
applied. On the other hand, the resistance classication (i.e. pinned, partially resistant or fully resistant) needs to be claried, in particular when
considering the specic seismic design requirement given in EN1998-11 [5]. The detailed discussion about this question has been dealt with in
[11]; a summary is presented here below.
According to EN1998-1-1 [5], it is required to take into account of the
possible over-strength effects to classify a joint as fully resistant when
the capacity design is considered. The objective is to ensure that the
plastic hinges develop in the beam sections, and not in the joints, in
case of over-strength of the beam material. Accordingly, the following
condition has been given in EN1998-1-1, 6.5.5 (3) [5]:
Table 11 illustrates a numerical example on the calculation of the required resistance for the tested joint A (Table 1) with the span L = 7.5 m
(between the column center lines) and pmax = 35.4 kN/m, pmin = 27.0
kN/m. MEd,j,HOG and MEd,j,SAG equal to 830.5 and 710.1 kNm respectively.
If the condition of Eq. (8) is applied, the required resistance of the joint
equals to 1.1*1.25*464 = 638 kNm, much smaller than the requited
value given by Eq. (10). The difference comes from the distance of the
actual position of the plastic hinge that is not taken into account in Eq.
(8). It means that, in this case, the required by Eq. (8) is not conservative, making the risk of the plastic hinge occur in the joint.
6. Conclusion
where MRd,joint is the required resistance of the joint; Mpl,beam is the plastic moment of the beam section; ov is the over-strength factor, equals
to 1.25.
The condition as given in Eq. (8) does not take into account of the
fact that (i) for some joint congurations as the one investigated here,
the beam plastic hinge may form at a certain distance from the joint
(the column face) and that (ii) for some components linked to the
beam properties, a possible over-strength effect should not be considered as they are made from the same material. Therefore, the condition
(8) should be revised in order to take into account the aspects. The proposal is the rewrite the full strength condition as follows:
8
MRd; j MEd; j
>
>
<
MRd; j f 1 1:1 ov F Rd;beam components ; F Rd;other
>
>
:M
Ed; j f 2 1:1 ov M pl;beam ; dhj ; pmax ; pmin
components
In Eq. (9), MEd,j is the required moment for the joint, it can be calculated from the equilibrium equation (function f2 in Eq. (9)) of the beam
stub between the plastic hinge and the column face (dhj in Fig. 14). MRd,j
is the joint resistance, calculated by the component method, represented by the function f1 in Eq. (9). In Eq. (9), the over-strength factor is only
applied for the beam terms (Mpl,beam and FRd, beam components), not for
other terms (dhj, the maximal/minimal loads in the beam pmax/pmin
and FRd, other components). For the investigated joint conguration,
the component with b in Table 4 belongs to beam components
(FRd, beam components).
Explicating the function f2 in Eq. (9) for two cases, under hogging
moment (MEd,j,HOG) and sagging moment (MEd,j,SAG) (Fig. 14), we can
obtain the corresponding expressions, and Eq. (9) becomes Eq. (10)
8
M Rd; j MEd; j
>
>
>
>
>
>
M Rd; j f 1 1:1 ov F Rd;beam components ; F Rd;other components
>
>
>
<
2 1:1ov Mpl;beam pmax l
pmax d2hj
M Ed; j;HOG 1:1 ov M pl;beam
dhj
>
>
l
2
2
>
>
>
2
>
2 1:1 ov M pl;beam pmin l
pmin dhj
>
>
>
1:1
M
d
: Ed; j;SAG
hj
ov pl;beam
l
2
2
10a
10b
10c
10d
Eq. (10) is the full strength condition for the joint taking into account
the over-strength factor for the beam material, and the actual position
60
and trusses between steel members made of hollow and/or open sections: application of the component method. CIDECT report 5BP 4/05, vol. 1. , practical guidelines; 2005.
[9] Mgala-Chuquitaype C, Elghazouli AY. Component-based mechanical models for
blind-bolted angle connections. Eng Struct 2010;32:304867.
[10] Comeliau L, Demonceau JF, Jaspart JP. Computation note on the design on bolted beamto-column joints within HSS-SERF project. internal report. University of Liege; 2012.
[11] Comeliau L, Demonceau JF, Jaspart JP. Innovative bolted beam-to-column joints for
seismic resistant building frames. In: Dubina Dan, Grecea Daniel, editors. Connection VII proceedings; 2012.