0 Votes +0 Votes -

6 vues15 pagesdesign of single span beams

Mar 30, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

design of single span beams

© All Rights Reserved

6 vues

design of single span beams

© All Rights Reserved

- ASTM C 393 - 00
- ETABS 2015 Manual by Civilax.com for Concrete Frame Design
- Lab 1 Report - Louis Larios
- MM222 Lec 19-20
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04
- ejemplo CFD-ACI-318-02
- Examplearticle (3)
- Task00-MultiLinearPlasticLink 20160126 MD DRAFT
- Cantilever Beam 450x600
- CFD-A08CI-318-
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-14
- CSI - Concrete Frame Design Manual as Per CSA-A23.3-04
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04
- Sdgcover Arup Handbook
- Chapter1
- My Structural Analysis (Water Tank)REL1.0
- Jirsa
- Katampe Project Report.pdf
- shutter beam check and plate stres.xls
- Basic Concepts , Rectangular and T Beams

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Job Duarte da Costa

Renata Obiala

Christoph Odenbreit

semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

Part 1: Beams with constant bending stiffness and joints according to EN 1993-1-8

This article explains a method for determining how semi-continu- deflection, natural frequency and distribution of the inter-

ous joints influence the deflection, natural frequency and bending nal forces in a single-span floor beam with constant bend-

moment distribution of single-span beams with constant inertia ing stiffness and subjected to a uniformly distributed load.

under uniformly distributed load. The method is adequate for sim- The formulae derived can help engineers, practitioners and

ple hand calculations, allowing the structural engineer to assess students to reach a better understanding of the influence

potential savings already in the pre-design phase. Further, the of semi-continuous joints on the beam behaviour at ULS

economical potential of semi-continuous joints according to and SLS. The analytical equations given were used to de-

EN 1993-1-8 [1] is demonstrated by an application example. termine factors, thus allowing quick, easy and safe applica-

tion. Further contributions are planned, covering the use

of semi-continuous joints for beams with partially constant

stiffness (composite beams) and composite beam-to-col-

1 Introduction umn joints.

allow huge spaces free from columns, easily convertible for

future use. Further, the structures have to be economic, In a global analysis, the effects of the behaviour of the

which requires low material consumption and simple erec- joints on the distribution of internal forces within a

tion processes, and they have to be sustainable. To satisfy structure, and on the overall deformations of the struc-

such demand for economic structures with long beam ture, should generally be taken into account. However,

spans, floor beams need a high loadbearing resistance and as these effects are sufficiently small for nominally

stiffness. The utilization of high-strength steel grades fulfils pinned and rigid/full-strength joints, they may therefore

the requirement of a high loadbearing resistance, but it be neglected. Three basic methods of global analysis

does not improve the bending stiffness. It is the activation exist:

of a composite action between steel beam and concrete

slab that increases the beam stiffness significantly [2], [3]; Elastic global analysis

further optimization of the floor beam cross-section can be The distribution of the internal forces within the structure

achieved by using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints. only depends on the stiffness of the members in the struc-

Semi-continuous joints influence the distribution of the ture. Therefore, joints should be classified according to

bending moment along the beam, leading to the desired their stiffness. In the case of a semi-rigid joint, the rota-

decrease in the beam deflection and increase in the natural tional stiffness Sj corresponding to the bending moment

frequency of the beam in comparison with simple, hinged Mj,Ed should generally be used in the analysis. As a simpli-

beam-to-column joints. fication, the rotational stiffness may be taken as Sj,ini/η in

Design rules for semi-continuous beam-to-column the analysis for all values of the moment Mj,Ed ≤ Mj,Rd,

joints in steel are given in [1]. Standard design software where a value of 2.0 for the stiffness modification coeffi-

allows the moment–rotation characteristic of the joint to cient η can be used for typical beam-to-column joints. For

be quickly determined. But to assess the influence of those other types of joint, see Table 5.2 in [1]. If Mj,Ed does not

joints on the beam behaviour at ULS and SLS, the mo- exceed 2/3 of Mj,Rd, the initial rotational stiffness Sj,ini may

ment–rotation characteristic has to be implemented in the be used in the global analysis.

global analyses, which requires additional effort by the

structural engineer. Rigid–plastic global analysis

This article gives formulae that allow easy determina- Using rigid–plastic global analysis, the distribution of the

tion of the influence of semi-continuous joints on the beam internal forces within the structure only depends on the

strength of the members in the structure. Therefore, joints

should be classified according to their strength. The rota-

* Corresponding author: tional capacity of a joint should be sufficient to accommo-

mathias.braun@arcelormittal.com date the rotations resulting from the analysis.

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 1 1

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

design moment–rotation characteristic.

Mj,Rd

3 Economical structures with semi-continuous joints

has a significant influence on the distribution of the inter-

nal forces along the beam and, consequently, on the beam

Sj,ini/η

ϕj design. Whereas nominally pinned beam-to-column joints

lead to a higher bending moment at mid-span, they are

ϕCd popular in buildings due to their low fabrication cost. A

comparison of the bending moments for simple, hinged

Fig. 1. Simplified bi-linear design moment–rotation charac- beam-to-column joints with fully rigid joints is given in

teristic for elastic–plastic global analysis Fig. 2. The rotational stiffness of the semi-continuous

joint is represented at its adjacent support A and B by a

rotational spring Sj,A and Sj,B respectively. As shown, fully

Elastic–plastic global analysis rigid joints reduce the bending moment at mid-span by a

The distribution of the internal forces within the structure factor of three by creating a bending moment at the sup-

depends on the stiffness and strength of the structural ports. Hence, they lead to a more economic distribution

members. Therefore, joints should be classified according of the internal forces along the beam span, enabling the

to both stiffness and strength. The moment–rotation char- use of a smaller beam section and thus reducing material

acteristic of the joints should be used to determine the consumption and costs. On the other hand, however, the

distribution of internal forces. As a simplification to the fabrication costs for fully rigid joints are much higher

non-linear moment–rotation behaviour of a joint, a bi-lin- than that for pinned joints. The economic optimum be-

ear design moment–rotation characteristic may be adopted, tween fabrication and material costs is achieved by using

see Fig. 1. For the determination of the stiffness coefficient semi-continuous joints, see Fig. 3. Semi-continuous joints

η, see Table 5.2 in [1]. allow for the transmission of a bending moment via the

The appropriate type of joint model should be deter- joint and for a certain rotation of the joint, which – com-

mined from Table 1, depending on the classification of the pared with rigid joints – leads to a higher bending mo-

joint and on the chosen method of analysis. The design ment at mid-span, requiring a bigger beam section. But

moment–rotation characteristic of a joint used in the anal- they are much more economic than rigid joints. An opti-

ysis may be simplified by adopting any appropriate curve, mum (= minimum total cost) has to be calculated for each

including a linearized approximation (e.g. bi- or tri-linear), structure individually.

Table 1. Type of joint model for global analysis according to [1]

Method of global analysis Classification of joint

Elastic Nominally pinned Rigid Semi-rigid

Rigid-Plastic Nominally pinned Full-strength Partial-strength

Semi-rigid and partial-strength

Elastic-Plastic Nominally pinned Rigid and full-strength Semi-rigid and full-strength

Rigid and partial-strength

Type of joint model Simple Continuous Semi-continuous

q = const.

Sj,A Sj,B

MEd = 3 qL2/24

L

Sj,A Sj,A= Sj,B= ∞ → rigid joint Sj,B

MEd = qL2/24

Fig. 2. Bending moment distribution for nominally pinned and rigid joints

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

Cost K

Mj Sj,ini ≥ Kb EIb/Lb

Rigid

Fabrication cost

Material cost Pinned

ϕj

hinge rigid Stiffness boundaries

Kopt Joint stiffness Initial rotational stiffness

Fig. 3. Total cost as a function of the joint stiffness accord- Fig. 5. Classification of beam-to-column joints by stiffness

ing to [4]

where:

Mj Sj,ini Kb = 8 for frames where the bracing system reduces the

Mj,Rd horizontal displacement by at least 80 %

Mj E elastic modulus of beam material

Ib second moment of area of beam

2/3 Mj,Rd Lb beam span (distance between centres of supporting col-

umns)

Sj ϕj

out developing significant moments and they should be

ϕXd ϕCd capable of accepting the resulting rotations under the de-

sign loads. For rigid joints it is assumed that their rota-

Fig. 4. Design moment–rotation characteristic for a joint tional behaviour has no significant influence on the distri-

bution of internal forces. Semi-rigid joints have a rotational

stiffness that allows the transmission of a moment based

4 Joint design according to EN 1993-1-8 on their design moment–rotation characteristic and their

4.1 Design moment–rotation characteristic of a joint initial joint stiffness Sj,ini, see Fig. 5.

curve, which is characterized by its rotational stiffness Sj, According to its strength, a joint may be classified as full-

its design moment resistance Mj,Rd with corresponding ro- strength, nominally pinned or partial-strength by compar-

tation φXd and its design rotational capacity φCd, see Fig. 4. ing its design moment resistance Mj,Rd with the design

– The rotational stiffness Sj is the secant stiffness as indi- moment resistance of the members it connects, see Fig. 6.

cated in Fig. 4. The definition of Sj applies up to the Nominally pinned joints transmit the internal forces with-

rotation φXd at which Mj,Ed first reaches Mj,Rd. The ini- out developing significant moments and should be capable

tial stiffness Sj,ini is the slope of the elastic range of the of accepting the resulting rotations under the design loads.

design moment–rotation characteristic. A joint may be classified as nominally pinned if its design

– The design moment resistance Mj,Rd is equal to the max- moment resistance Mj,Rd is not greater than 0.25 times the

imum moment of the design moment–rotation charac- design moment resistance required for a full-strength joint,

teristic. provided it also has sufficient rotational capacity. A joint

– The design rotation capacity φCd is equal to the maxi- may be classified as full-strength if it meets the criteria

mum rotation of the design moment–rotation character- given in Fig. 6. A joint may be classified as a partial-strength

istic. joint if it does not meet the criteria for a full-strength or a

nominally pinned joint.

Rules for calculating those values are given in [1].

Classification by rotational capacity

4.2 Classification of joints Using rigid–plastic global analysis and with the joint at a

plastic hinge location, then for joints with a bending resist-

Joints may be classified by their rotational stiffness Sj,ini, ance Mj,Rd < 1.2 times the design plastic bending moment

their strength Mj,Rd and their rotational capacity φCd, see Mpl,Rd of the cross-section of the connected member, the

section 5.2 of [1] and Table 1. rotational capacity of the joint has to be checked. If the

design resistance Mj,Rd of a bolted joint is not governed by

Classification by stiffness the design resistance of its bolts in shear or the design re-

Classifying a joint by its rotational stiffness is performed by sistance of the welds and local instability does not occur,

comparing its initial rotational stiffness Sj,ini with the clas- it may be assumed to have adequate rotational capacity for

sification boundaries given in Fig. 5. plastic global analysis. For more details, see 6.4 of [1] and

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

Full - strength Mj,Rd ≥ Mpl,Rd radius of the column flange, the beam web and beam

flange (about 1.5 times the thickness of the column

Mpl,Rd

flange).

– The end-plate thickness is similar to the column flange

Partial - strength 0.25 Mpl,Rd < Mj,Rd < Mpl,Rd thickness.

Mj,Rd

For other joint types see [6]. The approximate value of the

0.25 Mpl,Rd initial joint stiffness Sj,app is expressed by

Pinned Mj,Rd ≤ 0.25 Mpl,Rd

E ⋅ z2 ⋅ t fc

Strength boundaries

ϕj S j,app = (1)

C

Joint moment resistance

where the values of C for different joint configurations and

a) Top of column loadings are given in Table 2, parameter z is the distance

Mj,Rd between the compression and tensile resultants and tfc is

Either Mj,Rd ≥ Mb,pl,Rd the column flange thickness.

or Mj,Rd ≥ Mc,pl,Rd After calculating the distribution of the internal forces

in the structure using Sj,app, it is necessary to check if this

assumption was adequate. Fig. 7 shows the upper and

b) within column height lower boundaries for semi-continuous joints in braced

frames. If the re-calculated value of Sj,ini is within the given

Either Mj,Rd ≥ Mb,pl,Rd boundaries, the difference between stiffness Sj,app and Sj,ini

Mj,Rd or Mj,Rd ≥ 2 Mc,pl,Rd affects the frame’s loadbearing capacity by no more than

5 %. If Sj,ini is not within the given boundaries, the calcu-

lation of the internal forces has to be repeated with an

adapted joint stiffness.

Mb,pl,Rd is the design plastic moment resistance of a beam

Mc,pl,Rd is the design plastic moment resistance of a column

5 Analytical investigations of the influence of semi-

continuous joints on the behaviour of single-span beams

Fig. 6. Classification of joints by strength 5.1 Assumptions

[5]. The rules given in [1] are valid for steel grades S235, The equations for estimating the influence of semi-contin-

S275 and S355 and for joints for which the design value of uous beam-to-column joints on the overall beam behaviour

the axial force NEd in the connected member does not ex-

ceed 5 % of the plastic design resistance Npl,Rd of its

cross-section. Table 2. Approximate determination of joint stiffness Sj,app

according to [6]

4.3 Simplified prediction of the initial joint stiffness Joints with extended, unstiffened end-plate Factor C

Single

rules given in section 6.3 of [1]. But to apply them, the joint

sided, 13

first has to be defined, which requires knowledge about the (β ≈ 1)

distribution of the internal forces in the structure and es-

pecially at the positions of the joints. As the stiffness of the

joint influences the distribution of the internal forces, the

aforementioned process for determining the internal forces

and the joint design is iterative. This process could be sim-

plified if the designer could assess the initial joint stiffness

adequately before the distribution of the internal forces is

calculated, or at least when the basic dimensions of the Double

sections are known. sided, 7.5

A method described in [6] allows the initial stiffness of (β ≈ 0)

a joint to be assessed, which can be used in the preliminary

design phase using simplified formulae. The designer can

determine the stiffness of a joint just by selecting the basic

joint configuration and taking account of some fixed

choices regarding the connection detailing, e.g. for end-

plate connections:

Note: For the rare cases of double-sided joint configurations

– The connection has only two bolt rows in tension. where β = 2 (unbalanced moments), the value of the factor C is

– The bolt diameter is approx. 1.5 times the column flange obtained by adding 11 to the relevant value for symmetrical con-

ditions (balanced moments).

thickness.

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

natural frequency) are derived in this section. Based on the

equations obtained, factors are determined which simplify

the use of semi-continuous joints, see Tables 3, 4 and 5.

The rotational restraints at supports are represented by Sj,A

and Sj,B. The following assumptions were made, see Fig. 8:

– single-span beam

– constant bending stiffness EI

– uniformly distributed constant load and uniform mass

distribution

– Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, shear deformations not

considered

– first-order theory

– only vertical, harmonic vibration

– damping not considered

Fig. 7. Boundaries for discrepancy between Sj,app and Sj,ini – linear moment–rotation (Mj-φj) relationship of rota-

for braced frames [6] tional restraints

Table 3. Factors a and b for determining the maximum bending moment in the span and its position

kA

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

kB

a = 1.50

0.00 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

b= 0.50

1.45 1.40

0.10 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.51 0.50

1.40 1.35 1.30

0.20 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.52 0.51 0.50

1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20

0.30 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.31 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10

0.40 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.26 1.21 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00

0.50 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.54 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.22 1.16 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90

0.60 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.17 1.12 1.06 1.01 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80

0.70 Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.13 1.07 1.02 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70

0.80 Sym. Sym.

0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.08 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.81 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60

0.90 Sym.

0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.04 0.98 0.93 0.87 0.82 0.76 0.71 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50

1.00

0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50

1.00 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.77 0.72 0.66 0.61 0.55

1.10 / /

0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53

0.96 0.90 0.84 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.62

1.20 / / / /

0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55

0.92 0.86 0.80 0.74 0.68

1.30 / / / / / /

0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58

0.88 0.82 0.76

1.40 / / / / / / / /

0.62 0.61 0.60

0.84

1.50 / / / / / / / / / /

0.63

q ⋅ L2 q ⋅ L2 q ⋅ L2

With M A = − ⋅ k A; MB = − ⋅ kB; max. MSpan = ⋅ a at x max = b ⋅ L

12 12 12

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

Table 4. Factors c and d for determining the maximum beam deflection and its position

kA

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

kB

c = 5.00

0.00 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

d= 0.50

4.80 4.60

0.10 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.50 0.50

4.60 4.40 4.20

0.20 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.51 0.50 0.50

4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80

0.30 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

1.35 0.51 0.50 0.50

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40

0.40 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50

4.01 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00

0.50 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50

3.81 3.61 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60

0.60 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50

3.61 3.41 3.21 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20

0.70 Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50

3.42 3.21 3.01 2.81 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80

0.80 Sym. Sym.

0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50

3.22 3.02 2.81 2.61 2.41 2.21 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40

0.90 Sym.

0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50

3.03 2.82 2.62 2.42 2.21 2.01 1.81 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00

1.00

0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50

2.83 2.63 2.43 2.22 2.02 1.81 1.61 1.41 1.20

1.10 / /

0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52

2.64 2.44 2.23 2.03 1.82 1.62 1.42

1.20 / / / /

0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54

2.45 2.25 2.04 1.84 1.63

1.30 / / / / / /

0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56

2.27 2.06 1.86

1.40 / / / / / / / /

0.57 0.57 0.57

2.08

1.50 / / / / / / / / / /

0.58

c q ⋅ L4

With max . w = ⋅ at x w = d ⋅ L

384 E ⋅ I

5.2 Determination of bending moment distribution For n → ∞ and m → 0, then kA → 1.5 and kB → 0.

This presents the standard case of a single-span beam with

The bending moments at supports A and B can be ex- a hinged support on one side and rigid support on the

pressed as follows: other.

q ⋅ L2

q ⋅ L2 The well-known solution M A = − and MB = 0 is ob-

MA = − ⋅ kA (2) 8

12 tained.

MB = − ⋅ kB (3)

12 and kB → 1.0, and the solution is

where q ⋅ L2

M A = MB = − .

12

m+6 n+6

kA = ; kB =

m 12 n 12 The vertical support reaction A as a function of kA and kB

m+4+4⋅ + n+4+4⋅ +

n n m m can be expressed as follows:

S j,A ⋅ L S j,B ⋅ L

and n =

E ⋅I

;m=

E ⋅I

A=

q⋅L q ⋅L

2

+

12

(

⋅ k A − kB ) (4)

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

kA

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

kB

0.00 e = 1.00 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.10 1.02 1.04 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.20 1.04 1.07 1.09 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.30 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.15 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.40 1.09 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.22 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.50 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.22 1.25 1.30 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.60 1.15 1.18 1.22 1.25 1.30 1.34 1.39 Sym. Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.70 1.18 1.21 1.25 1.30 1.34 1.39 1.45 1.52 Sym. Sym. Sym.

0.80 1.21 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.45 1.52 1.59 1.68 Sym. Sym.

0.90 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.45 1.52 1.59 1.68 1.79 1.91 Sym.

1.00 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.45 1.51 1.59 1.68 1.78 1.91 2.07 2.27

1.10 1.34 1.39 1.45 1.51 1.59 1.68 1.78 1.91 2.06 / /

1.20 1.38 1.44 1.51 1.58 1.67 1.77 1.90 / / / /

1.30 1.44 1.50 1.58 1.66 1.77 / / / / / /

1.40 1.50 1.57 1.66 / / / / / / / /

1.50 1.56 / / / / / / / / / /

π2 E ⋅I

With f1 = e ⋅ ⋅ , with m = uniform mass

2 ⋅ π ⋅ L2 m

3 1

( 1

) ( )

2

and the bending moment as a function of x: where a = + ⋅ k A − kB + ⋅ k A − kB − kA

2 2 24

()

M x = A ⋅ x + MA −

1

2

⋅ q ⋅ x2 (5) x max = b ⋅ L (10)

Values for factors a and b, as a function of stiffness coeffi-

Using Eqs. (2) and (4) with Eq. (5), the following expres- cients kA and kB, are given in Table 3.

sion is derived for the bending moment as a function of x

and the stiffness coefficients kA and kB: 5.3 Influence of semi-continuous joints on beam deflection

()

M x =

q⋅L

2

⋅x +

q⋅L

12

(

⋅ k A − kB ⋅ x ) The beam deflection is expressed by the well-known linear

differential equation

q ⋅ L2 1

−

12

⋅ kA − ⋅ q ⋅ x2

2

(6)

()

w′′ x = −

M x () (11)

E ⋅I

The position of the maximum bending moment can be cal-

culated with M′(x) = 0, which leads to After applying Eq. (5) in place of M(x), Eq. (11) takes the

following form:

()

M′ x = 0 ⇒

q⋅L q⋅L

2

+

12

(

⋅ k A − kB − q ⋅ x = 0 ⇒ ) () ()

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w′′ x = M x = A ⋅ x + M A −

1

2

⋅ q ⋅ x2

⇒x=

L L

+

2 12

(

⋅ k A − kB ) (7) () 1 1

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w′ x = A ⋅ ⋅ x 2 + M A ⋅ x − ⋅ q ⋅ x 3 + C1

2 6

() 1 3

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w x = A ⋅ ⋅ x + M A ⋅ ⋅ x

6

1 2

2

1

− ⋅ q ⋅ x + C1 ⋅ x + C 2

4 (12)

24

x 1 1

b= = +

L 2 12

⋅ k A − kB ( ) (8)

Constants C1 and C2 are determined with the boundary

Using Eqs. (7) and (6), the maximum bending moment in conditions:

the span MSpan can be expressed as

( )

w x = L ⇒ C1 = −

1

6

1

⋅ A ⋅ L2 − ⋅ M A +

2

1

24

⋅ q ⋅ L3

q ⋅ L2

max. MSpan =

12

⋅a (9) w ( x = 0) ⇒ C2 = 0

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

q = const. Eq. (15) has three real solutions. The solution gives the

position of the maximum beam deflection and can be ex-

Sj,A Sj,B pressed as a factor d. By using the now known position of

the maximum vertical beam deflection with Eq. (14), the

EI = constant value of the maximum deflection can be calculated. Hence,

x the maximum vertical beam deflection w can be calculated

A B using

L

Sj,A Sj,B c q ⋅ L4

max. w = ⋅ (17)

384 E ⋅ I

w,v(x)

x and the position of the maximum deflection with

Fig. 8. Simply supported beam with rotational springs at the xw = d ⋅ L (18)

supports

Pre-calculated values for factors c and d as a function of

the stiffness coefficients kA and kB are given in Table 4.

Finally, the beam deflection as a function of the stiffness of 5.4 Influence of semi-rigid joints on the natural frequency of

the rotational springs is defined as follows: the beam

()

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w x =

1

6

( 1

)

⋅ A ⋅ x 3 − L2 ⋅ x + ⋅ M A ⋅ x 2 − L ⋅ x

2

( ) The natural frequency of the beam is of significant interest

for the structural engineer. Based on the differential equa-

−

1

24

(

⋅ q ⋅ x 4 − L3 ⋅ x ) (13) tion of the harmonic vibration, a factor e, which allows a

quick determination of the natural frequency, is given in

Table 5.

()

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w x =

1

( )(

⋅ q ⋅ k A − kB + 6 ⋅ L ⋅ x 3 − L3 ⋅ x −

1

) x x

72 24

()

v x = C1 ⋅ cos λ ⋅ + C 2 ⋅ sin λ ⋅

(

⋅ q ⋅ k A ⋅ L2 ⋅ x 2 − L3 ⋅ x −

1

24

) (

⋅ q ⋅ x 4 − L3 ⋅ x (14) ) L L

x x

+ C 3 ⋅ cosh λ ⋅ + C 4 ⋅ sinh λ ⋅ (19)

The design value and position of the maximal vertical de- L L

flection is of key interest for the designer. It is derived from

λ x x

()

v′ x = ⋅ − C ⋅ sin λ ⋅ + C 2 ⋅ cos λ ⋅

() () 1

−E ⋅ I ⋅ w′ x = ϕ x = 0 ⇒ A ⋅ ⋅ x 2 + M A ⋅ x

2

L 1 L L

x x

1 + C 3 ⋅ sinh λ ⋅ + C 4 ⋅ cosh λ ⋅ (20)

− ⋅ q ⋅ x + C1 = 0

3 (15) L L

6

λ2 x x

This equation of the third order is solved by using the for- ()

v′′ x = 2

L

⋅ − C1 ⋅ cos λ ⋅ − C 2 ⋅ sin λ ⋅

L L

mulae from Cardan:

x x

L + C 3 ⋅ cosh λ ⋅ + C 4 ⋅ sinh λ ⋅ (21)

3

() (

ϕ x = x 3 + x 2 ⋅ ⋅ kB − k A − ⋅ L

4

2

) L L

λ3 x x

()

r

v′′′ x = ⋅ C1 ⋅ sin λ ⋅ − C 2 ⋅ cos λ ⋅

+ x⋅

L2

2

⋅ kA +

12

L3

(

⋅ 3 − 2 ⋅ k A − kB = 0

) (16) 3

L L L

x x

s t + C 3 ⋅ sinh λ ⋅ + C 4 ⋅ cosh λ ⋅ (22)

L L

Substituting x = y – r/3, the reduced form is obtained:

The constants are determined with the boundary condi-

3 ⋅ s − r2 2 ⋅ r3 r ⋅ s tions:

y 3 + p ⋅ y + q = 0 with p = and q = − +t

3 27 3

( )

v x = 0 = 0 ⇒ C1 + C 3 = 0

The discriminant D can be expressed as

v ( x = L) = (

0 ⇒ C1 ⋅ cos λ − cosh λ )

3 2

p q + C 2 ⋅ sin λ + C 4 ⋅ sinh λ = 0

D= +

3 2

S j,A ⋅ L

For the given application range of the rotation (0 ≤ x ≤ L)

(

– v′′ x = 0 ) +

n

L

∙ v′ (x = 0) = 0 ⇒ 2 ⋅ C1 ⋅ λ +

E ⋅I

⋅ C2

+ ⋅ C4 = 0

1.5), the discriminant is always D ≤ 0 and p < 0. Therefore, E ⋅I

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

HE320A

C30/37

(

– v′′ x = L – ) m

L

∙ v′ (x = L) = 0 ⇒ C1 ⋅ [λ ⋅ (cos λ + cosh λ) S355 a

40

130

S j,B ⋅ L

+ ⋅ (sin λ + sinh λ)]

E ⋅I

350

310

S j,B ⋅ L

+ C 2 ⋅ λ ⋅ sin λ – ⋅ cos λ

220

E ⋅I

S j,B ⋅ L

– C4 ⋅ ⋅ cosh λ + λ ⋅ sinh λ = 0 25 25

450x25, S355

E ⋅ I Cofraplus 220 50 300 50 a [mm]

450

B ∙ C = 0 mit (23)

130

b b b C

11 12 13 1

B = b21 b22 b23 und C = C C30/37 Cofraplus 220

220

2

b b b C

31 32 33 4

b11 = cos λ – cosh λ 80

b12 = sin λ 160

beff = 750 [mm]

b13 = sinh λ

b21 = 2λ

Fig. 9b. Application example – SFB cross-section with slab

b22 = b23 = n

b31 = λ (cos λ + cosh λ) + m (sin λ + sinh λ)

b32 = λ sin λ – m ∙ cos λ

b33 = – m cosh λ – λ sinh λ Note: As Eq. (24) is non-algebraic, it had to be solved

by numerical iteration. Therefore, the given values for the

The equation system is solved if the determinant of ma- factor e are an approximation. The given factors a, b, c and

trix B = 0. The lowest value for li for which the above d (described in the previous sections) are precise results,

equation system is solved (the trivial solution λ = 0 is rounded to two digits.

forbidden) is required. The determinant of matrix B is

expressed with 6 Application example – single-span slim-floor beam with

semi-continuous joints

( ) (

Det B = n ∙ m ∙ 1 − cos λ ∙cosh λ + λ ∙ n ∙ ) 6.1 Structural system and loading

(cosh λ ∙sin λ − cos λ ∙sinh λ ) + λ ∙ m ∙ The use of semi-continuous joints using elastic–plastic

(cosh λ ∙sin λ − cos λ ∙sinh λ ) + 2∙ λ 2 ∙ global analysis is demonstrated for a single-span slim-floor

sin λ ∙sinh λ = 0 (24) beam (SFB) with a beam span L = 9.00m and a beam dis-

tance a = 8.10 m (axis-to-axis). The beam is loaded with a

Solutions for λ as a function of stiffness coefficients kA and uniformly distributed constant load q, has a constant bend-

kB are given in Table 5. ing stiffness EI and it is symmetrically supported in an in-

The natural frequency can be calculated with ternal bay, see Fig. 9a. The SFB cross-section consists of an

HE320A hot-rolled section in grade S355 and a welded

λ 2i E ⋅I π2 E ⋅I bottom plate, see Fig. 9b. The SFB section has an inertia Iy

f1 = ∙ = e⋅ ⋅ (25)

2∙ π ∙L 2 m 2⋅π ⋅L2 m = 39 560cm4 with zel,top = 23.445 cm (measured from top

of upper flange downwards); possible participation of the

where m = uniformly distributed constant mass. concrete is not taken into account. The slab consists of

Cofraplus 220 metal decking with 13 cm in situ concrete

[7]. It is shown that the use of semi-continuous joints leads

q = const.

to an economical beam design for the ultimate limit state

Sj,A Sj,B (ULS) and to improved deflection and vibration behaviour

of the beam at the serviceability limit state (SLS).

EI = constant Yield strength of hot-rolled section, HE320A,

S355: fyd = 355 N/mm2

Fig. 9a. Application example – structural system and load- Yield strength of bottom plate, 450 × 25 mm,

ing S355: fyd = 345 N/mm2

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

= =

t 9 9

fyd ⋅ I y 35.5 kN/cm 2 ⋅ 39560 cm 4

Mel,Rd = = 235

zel,top 23.445 cm = 25.0 < 58.58 = 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ ε ⇒ class 1

355

= 599 kNm

⇒ At mid-span the SFB section is classified as a class 2

Plastic bending resistance of SFB cross-section: Mpl,Rd = section. A class 2 section can develop its plastic cross-sec-

732 kNm with zpl = 30.75 cm from top of upper flange tional resistance, but has not enough rotational capacity to

downwards (by hand calculation). allow for a plastic hinge.

The beam-to-column joints are realized as end-plate Cross-section at supports – pure bending, negative

connections with a rotational stiffness Sj,A = Sj,B. bending moment:

Edge of bottom plate in compression:

Load assumptions:

Cofraplus 220 with 13 cm concrete: gC+220 = 4.29 kN/m2 c 75 235

= = 3.00 < 7.43 = 9 ⋅ = 9 ⋅ ε ⇒ class 1

Additional dead load: Dg = 1.20 kN/m2 t 25 345

Self-weight of SFB with concrete encasement:

gSFB = 1.82 kN/m + 2.75 kN/m = 4.57 kN/m Bottom plate + lower flange in compression:

Dead load (slab + beam, self-weight):

=

(

c 0.5 ⋅ 300 − 9 − 2 ⋅ 27

=

118.5 )

= 2.93 < 7.43

Σg k = [1.1 ⋅ 4.29 kN/m 2 ⋅ (8.10 − 0.45 + 2 ⋅ 0.05) m t 25.0 + 15.5 40.5

+ 1.1 ⋅ 1.20 kN/m 2 ⋅ 8.10 m]

235

+ 4.57 kN/m = 51.83 kN/m = 9⋅ = 9 ⋅ ε ⇒ class 1

355

Live load (category B1, office use, ψ0 = 0.70): 2.00 kN/m2 ⇒ At the supports the SFB section is classified as a class 1

Partitions: 1.20 kN/m2 section, which can form a plastic hinge with the rotational

∑qk = 1.1 · (2.00 + 1.20) kN/m2 · 8.10 m = 28.51 kN/m capacity required from plastic analysis without a reduction

in the resistance.

5 10 m 2

Reduction factor: α A = ⋅ψ + = 0.64

7 0 9 ⋅ 8.10 m 2 6.3 Semi-continuous beam-to-column joint

Reduced live load: The design of the joint is not presented in detail in this

q′k = ∑qk · aA = 28.51 kN/m · 0.64 = 18.17 kN/m article. The joint can be designed using standard software

or even by hand calculation; reference is made to [1]. The

The additional load on the beam due to continuity of the joint is designed as semi-continuous with an extended end

slab – perpendicular to beam span – is taken into account plate, see Fig. 10. Both beam ends are connected sym

by a factor of 1.10. metrically to the columns with end plates (Sj,A = Sj,B, n =

m, kA = kB).

Load combinations: The design moment–rotation characteristic of the

Total characteristic load: Ek = qSLS = ∑gk + q′k joint is presented in Fig. 11a and was calculated according

= 51.83 kN/m = 18.17 kN/m to [1]. The initial stiffness Sj,ini is within the boundaries for

= 70.0 kN/m a semi-rigid joint (see also Fig. 5). Its design moment resis

Design load: Ed = qULS = 1.35 · ∑gk + 1.50 · q′k tance Mj,Rd = 360 kNm is within the limits given in Fig. 6

= 1.35 · 51.83 kN/m + 1.50 · 18.17 kN/m for a partial-strength joint (0.25 ∙ Mpl,Rd ≤ Mj,Rd ≤ Mpl,Rd

= 97.2 kN/m with Mpl,Rd = Mb,pl,Rd = 732 kNm). Therefore the joint is

classified as semi-rigid and partial-strength and is modelled

6.2 Section classification in design as semi-continuous joint.

moment: 6M30, 10.9 HE320A

105.5 45

45 S355

Upper flange in compression:

10

9⋅ε = 9⋅

235 c

= 7.32 < =

(

0.5 ⋅ 300 − 9 − 2 ⋅ 27 )

189

355 t 15.5 5

450x25

S355

118.5 235

= = 7.65 < 8.14 = 10 ⋅ = 10 ⋅ ε ⇒ class 2

15.5 355 10

450x300x20 [mm]

S355

Web in compression:

Fig. 10. Application example – basic components of

semi-continuous joint

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

For the following analysis of the SFB for SLS and Calculation of qj,el

2

ULS, a tri-linear approximation of the moment–rotation Up to a bending moment M j,Ed ≤ ⋅ M j,Rd , the initial joint

3

characteristic is used in accordance with 5.1.1(4) of [1], see

Fig. 11b. It is divided into three areas: stiffness Sj,ini can be used in the calculation, see 5.1.2(3) in

– An elastic area for a joint rotation φj within the range [1].

0 ≤ φj ≤ φj,el

– A second area for a joint rotation φj within the range φj,el 2 2

⋅ M j,Rd = ⋅ 360 kNm = 240 kNm

≤ φj ≤ φXd 3 3

– A plastic area for a joint rotation φj within the range φXd ⇒ S j,ini = 51.6 MNm/rad

≤ φj ≤ φCd

Using the equations given in section 5, it is possible to

Note: Using Eq. (1) and Table 2 of section 4.3, an approx- calculate the values for n = m and kA = kB:

imate joint stiffness Sj,app could be calculated as follows:

S j,ini ⋅ L 51.6 MNm/rad ⋅ 9.0 m

( ) n=m = =

2

E ⋅ z2 ⋅ t fc 210000 MN/m 2 ⋅ 0.307 m ⋅ 0.0215 m E ⋅I 210000 MN/m 2 ⋅ 39560 ⋅ 10−8 m 4

S j,app = =

C 7.5

[− ]

= 5.59

= 56.7 MNm/rad = 56.7 kNm/mrad rad

Based on the given SFB section, the structural system and m+6 5.59 + 6

k A = kB = =

the design moment–rotation characteristic (Fig. 11b), the m 12 5.59 12

m+ 4+ 4⋅ + 5.59 + 4 + 4 ⋅ +

corresponding load levels qj,el and qj,Rd are calculated for n n 5.59 5.59

the joint rotations φj,el and φXd. = 0.74

Mj

( )

2

8 EIb / Lb = 73.8 kNm/mrad q j,el ⋅ L2 q j,el ⋅ 9 m

Mj,Rd = 360 kNm 2

⋅ M j,Rd = 240 kNm = ⋅ kA = ⋅ 0.74

3 12 12

2/3 Mj,Rd = 240 kNm ⇒ q j,el = 48.0 kN/m

Sj,ini = 51.6 kNm/mrad

0.5 EIb / Lb= 4.6 kNm/mrad

Calculation of qj,Rd

ϕj For a bending moment Mj,Ed in the range

ϕXd = 20.9 mrad ϕCd

2

⋅ M j,Rd < M j,Ed ≤ M j,Rd

3

Fig. 11a. Application example – design moment–rotation

characteristic of semi-continuous joint we use the joint stiffness Sj,2 = 7.4 MNm/rad, see Fig. 11b.

Mj

ad

4 k N m/mr

7.

S j,2 = Mj,Rd - 2/3 Mj,Rd

Sj,2 = ϕXd - ϕj,el

2/3 Mj,Rd = 240 kNm

ad

mr

qj,el= 48.0 kN/m

m/

kN

1.6

,in

i =5

Sj

ϕj

ϕj,el = 4.6 mrad ϕj,SLS ϕj,Ed ϕXd = 20.9 mrad ϕCd

(Area 1) (Area 2)

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

First, factors n2 = m2 and kA,2 and kB,2 have to be calcu- represents a sufficiently precise approximation of the real

lated: joint behaviour.

n2 = m2 = =

E ⋅I 210000 MN/m 2 ⋅ 39560 ⋅ 10−8 m 4

E k = Σg k + q′k = 51.83 kN/m + 18.17 kN/m = 70.0 kN/m

[− ]

= 0.80

rad Load combination for beam deflection at mid-span:

k A,2 = kB,2 =

m 12

m2 + 4 + 4 ⋅ 2 + = 1.0 ⋅ 51.83 kN/m + 1.0 ⋅ 18.17 kN/m = 70.0 kN/m

n2 n2

= = 0.29

0.80 12

0.80 + 4 + 4 ⋅ +

0.80 0.80 qHz = 1.0 ⋅ Σg k + 0.20 ⋅ q′k

= 1.0 ⋅ 51.83 kN/m + 1.0 ⋅ 18.17 kN/m = 55.5 kN/m

Using Eq. (2) we get

M j,Rd − ⋅ M j,Rd = 360 kNm − 240 kNm = 120 kNm

3 As shown in Fig. 11b, the load qSLS is in “area 2” (qj,el ≤

2

∆q ⋅ L2 ∆q ⋅ 9 m

= ⋅ kA = ⋅ 0.29 calculated in two steps.

12 12

⇒ ∆q = 62.0 kN/m Step 1 – deflection wel with qj,el:

For kA = kB = 0.74, factor c is taken from Table 4: c = 2.04

and q j,Rd = q j,el + ∆q = 48.0 kN/m + 62.0 kN/m (by linear interpolation).

Deflection wel is calculated using Eq. (17):

= 110.0 kN/m

( )

4

−2

c q j,el ⋅ L

4

2.04 48.0 ⋅ 10 kN/cm ⋅ 900 cm

⇒ w el = ⋅ = ⋅

6.4 Beam design for SLS 384 E ⋅I 384 21000 kN/cm 2 ⋅ 39560 cm 4

= 2.01 cm

The total vertical beam deflection and the natural fre-

quency of the SFB are determined by using the equations Step 2 – additional deflection Dw with DqSLS:

and tables in section 5. In the absence of a more precise Taking the load DqSLS = qSLS – qj,el = 70 kN/m – 48 kN/m

method for defining the joint stiffness, the tri-linear design = 22 kN/m, a deflection Dw is calculated using the joint

moment–rotation characteristic of Fig. 11b is used, which stiffness Sj,2 = 7.4 kNm/mrad, see Fig. 11b.

Mj

Mj,Rd

Mj,Hz

Sj,Hz =

2/3 Mj,Rd ϕj,Hz

/m

kN

.5

38

=z

j,H

S

ϕj

ϕj,el ϕj,Hz = 6.6 mrad ϕXd ϕCd

Fig. 12. Application example – idealized joint stiffness for vibration analysis Sj,Hz

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

Table 4: c2 = 3.84 (by linear interpolation). nHz = mHz =

E ⋅I

A deflection Dw is calculated using Eq. (17):

38.5 MNm/rad ⋅ 9.0m [− ]

= = 4.17

c ∆q ⋅ L4 210000 MN/m 2 ⋅ 39560 ⋅ 10−8 m 4 rad

⇒ ∆w = 2 ⋅ SLS

384 E ⋅I

mHz + 6

( ) k A,Hz = kB,Hz =

4

−2

3.84 22.0 ⋅ 10 kN/cm ⋅ 900 cm m 12

= ⋅ mH2 + 4 + 4 ⋅ Hz +

384 21000 kN/cm 2 ⋅ 39560 cm 4 nHz nHz

= 1.74 cm 4.17 + 6

= = 0.68

4.17 12

4.17 + 4 + 4 ⋅ +

which leads to the following total vertical deflection of the 4.17 4.17

SFB at mid-span:

From Table 5 we obtain e = 1.49 (by linear interpolation).

wSLS = wel + Dw = 2.01 cm + 1.74 cm = 3.75 cm ≈ L/240 < Using Eq. (25), the natural frequency can be calcu-

L/200 ⇒ The deflection is within acceptable limits. lated as follows:

f1 = e ⋅ ⋅ = 1.49 ⋅ ∙

beam deflection at mid-span would be: 2⋅π ⋅L

( )

2 m 2

2⋅π⋅ 9 m

( )

4

−2

5 qSLS ⋅ L4 5 70 ⋅ 10 kN/cm ⋅ 900 cm 21000 kN/m 2 ⋅ 39560 cm 4 ⋅ 10−4

⇒w = ⋅ = ⋅

384 E ⋅I 384 21000 kN/cm 2 ⋅ 39560 cm 4 55.5 kN/m/9.81 m/s2

which is 1.92 times the deflection of the semi-continuous The value of 2.60 Hz as a minimum acceptable natural

beam! frequency of the floor beams is found in [8]. Even though

A basic assumption of the calculation of the beam the natural frequency is commonly used to assess floor vi-

deflection is an elastic material behaviour; the strains in brations, the authors recommend using more precise meth-

the cross-section do not exceed the yield strain. To verify ods that take into account the natural frequency of the

this assumption, the bending moment of the joint Mj,SLS whole floor and its modal mass. For further information

at SLS and the bending moment at mid-span MSLS are see [9] and [10].

calculated and compared with the elastic bending resis- Note: With simple, hinged beam-to-column joints, the

tance of the SFB cross-section: natural frequency of the SFB would be only 2.35 Hz!

M j,SLS = ⋅ kA + ⋅ k A,2

12 12

Design checks for bending and shear with semi-contin-

2 ∆qSLS ⋅ L2 uous joints

= ⋅ M j,Rd + ⋅ k A,2

3 12 Based on the simplified tri-linear design moment–rotation

2

2 22 kN/m ⋅ 9 m

= ⋅ 360 kNm + ⋅ 0.29 < qEd = 97.2 kN/m < qj,Rd, the bending moment at the joint

3 12 Mj,Ed and the one at mid-span MEd are calculated as fol-

= 240 kNm + 43 kNm = 283 kNm lows:

( ) (q )

2

qSLS ⋅ L2 70 kN/m ⋅ 9 m q j,el ⋅ L2 − q j,el ⋅ L2

MSLS = − M j,SLS = − 283 kNm M j,Ed = ⋅ kA +

Ed

⋅ k A,2

8 8 12 12

= 426 kNm < Mel,Rd = 599 kNm

( )

2

48 kN/m ⋅ 9 m

= ⋅ 0.74

12

⇒ The SFB cross-section remains fully elastic at SLS, the

( 97.2 − 48) kN/m ⋅ ( 9 m )

2

assumption is correct.

+ ⋅ 0.29

12

Calculation of the natural frequency of the SFB

The natural frequency of the SFB is determined based = 240 kNm + 96 kNm = 336 kNm < M j,Rd

on the equations in section 5. The load qHz is in “area 2”

( )

2

(qj,el ≤ qHz = 55.5 kN/m ≤ qj,Rd), and so an idealized joint 97.2 kN/m ⋅ 9 m

q ⋅ L2

stiffness Sj,Hz is used, see Fig. 12. For q Hz, the corre- MEd = Ed − M j,Ed = − 336 kNm

8 8

sponding values of the joint rotation Φj,Hz and the bend-

ing moment M j,Hz are: Φj,Hz = 6.6 mrad and M j,Hz = = 984 kNm − 336 kNm = 648 kNm

254.5 kNm ⇒ Sj,Hz = Mj,Hz/Φj,Hz = 254.5 kNm / 6.6

mrad = 38.5 kNm/mrad

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

984 kNm 336 kNm joints vs. semi-continuous joints

Joint Type / Semi-con- Cost Difference*

Simple

Component tinuous €/SFB

648 kNm

Hot Rolled

Section HE280M HE320A – 480 €

9.00m

(Grade S355)

Weld size

Fig. 13. Application example – bending moment distribu- (Endplate to 5 mm 10 mm + 100 €

tion for ULS flanges only)

Endplate 300 × 300 450 × 300

125 + 20

HE280M (Grade S355) × 20 × 20

4M20, 8.8 S355

4 M 20, 6 M 30,

Bolts + 60 €

8.8 10.9

5

Total ∆Cost: – 300 €

5 ⇒ Beam Design with semi-continuous joints is 300 € cheaper

450x25 (per 9 m SFB)!

S355

* Estimated cost based on 2015 price level, including erection.

300x300x20 [mm]

S355

2

figuration 2 ⋅ VEd

fyd,V = 1 − − 1 ⋅ fyd

V

pl,Rd

2

which leads to the bending moment distribution presented 2 ⋅ 437.4 kN

= 1 − − 1 ⋅ 35.5 kN/cm 2

in Fig. 13. 843 kN

span:

As this reduction in the yield strength is < 1 %, it is ne-

MEd = 648kNm ≤ Mpl,Rd = 732 kNm glected in this example.

⇒ Verification is fulfilled! The SFB cross-section is not plastified at the supports.

At mid-span it is partially plastified, but there is still no

Note: With simple beam-to-column joints, the bending mo- development of a plastic hinge; therefore, the classification

ment at mid-span MEd would exceed the bending resist- of the cross-section in class 2 is sufficient for the chosen

ance Mpl,Rd of the cross-section: design method.

MEd = 984 kNm > Mpl,Rd = 732 kNm! Rotational capacity of the joint

Elastic–plastic global analysis was used in the given ex-

Verification of the SFB cross section at the supports: ample. The joint is not located at the position of a plastic

hinge, and the acting design moment does not reach the

Bending: M j,Rd = 336 kNm ≤ Mpl,Rd = 732 kNm value of the design moment resistance, Mj,Ed < Mj,Rd.

Therefore, the rotation φEd does not reach φXd and the

Shear: rotational capacity of the joint does not have to be

checked.

VEd = qEd ⋅ L/2 = 97.2 kN/m ⋅ 9 m/2

6.6 Economic evaluation of semi-continuous joints

A vz

= 437.4 kN ≤ Vpl,Rd = ⋅ fyd

3 This section compares the cost of the SFB designed with

semi-continuous joints with a beam design using simple

41.13 cm 2

= ⋅ 35.5 kN/cm 2 = 843 kN joints. The design of the simply supported SFB was carried

3 out with the software [12] and was based on the same as-

sumptions as the design of the semi-continuous SFB (same

⇒ Verification is fulfilled! load assumptions and L = 9.0 m, a = 8.10 m, hSlab = 350 mm).

With a load ratio VEd/Vpl,Rd = 437.4 kN/843 kN = The basic components of the simple joint are shown in Fig.

0.52 > 0.50, the bending resistance has to be reduced due 14. The cost difference for the basic components is presented

to the presence of a shear force. According to 6.2.8 of [11], in Table 6. Only the direct costs of the non-identical parts are

this may be done by reducing the yield strength of the given; the possible influence of the joint design on the foun-

shear area by dations, columns etc. was not taken into account.

M. Braun/J. Duarte da Costa/R. Obiala/C. Odenbreit · Design of single-span beams for SLS and ULS using semi-continuous beam-to-column joints

7 Conclusion and outlook [7] Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik: Allgemeine bauaufsicht-

liche Zulassung – ArcelorMittal Systemdecke Cofraplus 220,

This article outlines the advantage of semi-continuous approval No. Z-26.1-55, Berlin, 2013.

beam-to-column joints for the design of single-span beams [8] AFNOR: National annex to NF EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3:

Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules

(with constant inertia and subjected to a uniformly distrib-

for buildings.

uted constant load) at ULS and SLS. Factors for use in

[9] Sedlacek, G., et al.: Generalization of criteria for floor vibra-

combination with standard design formulae were derived tions for industrial, office, residential and public building and

analytically. They allow the structural engineer to deter- gymnastic halls. European Commission, final report, 2006,

mine the influence of the joint stiffness on the beam deflec- EUR 21972 EN, ISBN 92-79-01705-5.

tion, its natural frequency and the distribution of the bend- [10] Hicks, S., Peltonen, S.: Design of slim-floor construction for

ing moment quickly and easily. Further, the application is human induced vibrations. Steel Construction, 8 (2015), No.

shown in a design example for a slim-floor beam (SFB), 2. DOI:10.1002/stco.201510015

which shows the economic potential of semi-continuous [11] CEN/TC250: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part

joints. Overall, such joints lead to a more economic, more 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Commis-

sustainable structure. The influence of semi-continuous sion.

[12] CTICM France, ArcelorMittal R&D: ArcelorMittal Beam

joints on the design of single-span beams with partially

Calculator (ABC), version 3.30, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differ-

constant inertia will be investigated in a second article.

dange S.A. http://sections.arcelormittal.com/down-

load-center/design-software.html

References

Keywords: semi-continuous steel beam-to-column joints; global

[1] CEN/TC250: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part analysis; approximate determination of the joint stiffness; eco-

1-8: Design of joints, European Commission. nomical design; slim-floor construction

[2] Braun, M., Hechler, O., Obiala, R.: Untersuchungen zur Ver-

bundwirkung von Betondübeln. Stahlbau, 83 (2014), No. 5.

DOI:10.1002/stab.201410154

[3] Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik: Allgemeine bauaufsicht- Authors:

liche Zulassung – CoSFB-Betondübel. ArcelorMittal Belval & Matthias Braun

Differdange S.A., approval No. Z-26.4-59, Berlin, 2014. ArcelorMittal Europe – Long Products

[4] Ungermann, D., Weynand, K., Jaspart, J.-P., Schmidt, B.: Mo- 66, rue de Luxembourg

mententragfähige Anschlüsse mit und ohne Steifen. Stahl- L-4009 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

bau-Kalender 2005, Kuhlmann, U. (ed.), Ernst & Sohn, Ber-

lin, ISBN 3-433-01721-2. Job Duarte da Costa

[5] Jaspart, J.-P., Demonceau, J.-F.: European Design Recom- Renata Obiala

mendations for simple joints in steel structures. ArGEnCo Christoph Odenbreit

Dept., Liège University. University of Luxembourg, FSTC

[6] Maquoi, R., Chabrolin, B.: Frame Design including joint be- ArcelorMittal Chair of Steel & Façade Engineering

haviour. European Commission, contract No. 7210- 6, rue de Richard Coudenhove Kalergi

SA/212/320, 1998. L-1359 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

- ASTM C 393 - 00Transféré parAlexandre
- ETABS 2015 Manual by Civilax.com for Concrete Frame DesignTransféré parCivilax.com
- Lab 1 Report - Louis LariosTransféré parreaperhatch
- MM222 Lec 19-20Transféré parObeydullahKhan
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04Transféré parFrancisco Calderón
- ejemplo CFD-ACI-318-02Transféré parKilvethR.Midence
- Examplearticle (3)Transféré parsushilkumar
- Task00-MultiLinearPlasticLink 20160126 MD DRAFTTransféré parAry
- Cantilever Beam 450x600Transféré parShivaranjan HJ
- CFD-A08CI-318-Transféré parReza
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-14Transféré parlee
- CSI - Concrete Frame Design Manual as Per CSA-A23.3-04Transféré parJason Toralde
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04Transféré parRhedo.Abd
- Sdgcover Arup HandbookTransféré parmhan
- Chapter1Transféré parabese wende
- My Structural Analysis (Water Tank)REL1.0Transféré parLeandro Baldicañas Piczon
- JirsaTransféré parmasteriraga
- Katampe Project Report.pdfTransféré parBobor Emmanuel Ofovwe
- shutter beam check and plate stres.xlsTransféré parНемања Караклајић
- Basic Concepts , Rectangular and T BeamsTransféré parLouis Lai
- fpl_gtr148Transféré paryamnul khair
- Stability Analysis of Pipe Rack in Petrochemical Facilities-IJAERDV04I0264348.pdfTransféré parKyatoor Santosh
- Beam Fixed Simply SupportedTransféré parwisnu_bayusakti
- Mathcad 19 DeflectionTransféré parJack Mayhua Huaman
- THEORY-OF-STRUCTURES.docxTransféré parRj Kapunan
- Experimental Investigation on Behavior of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete MemberTransféré parInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- CP JointProject1314Transféré parRabindraSubedi
- Moltistoreyed building- dt 15.09.17.docTransféré parV.m. Rajan
- Influene of Bridge Parametrs on FE ModelTransféré parMarian Catalin Ion
- bardella_paper27.pdfTransféré parrs0004

- Sharp Writeview EL-W535 ManualTransféré parJkPhoenix
- Technical_Manual_Schoeck_Isokorb_[5185]_2016-02-10Transféré paring urban
- CORUS floordeck1Transféré parRubabath Bava
- comflor_floordecking.pdfTransféré paring urban
- StepbyStepGuidetoUsingtheCVreviewedJobseekerTransféré paring urban
- Calligraphic Practice PaperTransféré paranuska267246
- Ecocem BrochureTransféré paring urban
- Specifying Sustainable Concrete.pdfTransféré paring urban
- Competency WheelTransféré parAlejandro Garcia
- 03_Ancon Shear Load Connectors DwgTransféré paring urban
- BRCshapecodechartTransféré parbkgce
- LUNOS Catalogue for Home VentilationTransféré paring urban
- Lunos Domestic Ventilation Systems With Heat RecoveryTransféré paring urban
- 03_Hilti Shear Connectors X-HVB.pdfTransféré paring urban
- Italic Guide PaperTransféré paring urban
- C a 2016 at DesigninfoTransféré paring urban
- 03_Hilti Shear Connectors X-HVBTransféré paring urban
- Cylinrical Dripline 06-11 CdieTransféré paring urban
- CVInstructionsTransféré parHesham Yassin
- EuropassTransféré parDuško Tovilović
- Ratuc - Harta Retea de Transport in Comun Cluj-NapocaTransféré parmihai_omega
- Ruukki Classic C D Installation Instructions.pdfTransféré paring urban
- Cerere_card_european.pdfTransféré paring urban
- Bio RetentionTransféré paring urban
- Technical Data Sheet for HVU Adhesive Anchor System Technical Information ASSET DOC 2331232Transféré parFernando Santa Cruz Chavez
- Technical Data Sheet for HIT-HY-200 Injectable Mortar for Anchor and Rebar Technical Information ASSET DOC 2331175 (1)Transféré paring urban
- Technical Data Sheet for HIT-RE-500 Injectable Mortar for Anchor and Rebar Technical Information ASSET DOC 2331171Transféré parEnri05
- Technical Data Sheet for HIT-HY 170 Injectable Mortar for Anchor in Concrete Technical Information ASSET DOC 4398553Transféré paring urban

- 1 BJT-1 HistoryTransféré parcorazonpuro
- Measuring Reaction RateTransféré parhunarsandhu
- 5 Foods That Kill ErectionsTransféré parshawn
- Columbine Report Pgs 5201-5300Transféré parcolumbinefamilyrequest
- Einstein A-ZTransféré parziadn
- A High Step-Up DC to DC ConverterTransféré parishak789
- What is It All About Sandugong PanaginipTransféré parJunwell Bernado Bacalso
- 2019 Dr. Yuni Ch29-EyeTransféré parDEWI MULYANI
- the Symbolism of FreemasonryTransféré paramoiich
- Anubis Email EncryptionTransféré parFive Eyes Shill
- Addison vs. FelixTransféré parkelo
- Lesson 44 Jesus Feeds 5000Transféré parJayamany
- Phonology the Function and Patterning of Sounds an Languages Have SyllablesTransféré parAko Caniyago
- Adsorptive Removal of Pb II and Cr Vi From Wastewater Using Acid Untreated Coffee Husk (1)Transféré parEstefany Argomedo
- LM311Transféré parapi-3825669
- An Hebrew Polemical Treatise_ Anti-Cathar and Anti-OrthodoTransféré parystoyanov
- FORWARD KINEMATICS1.docxTransféré paradirey
- Crd_c62 CRD-C62-69 Method of Testing Cylindrical Test Specimens for Planeness and Parallelism of Ends and Perpendicularity of SidesTransféré parazharb
- Milton Friedman on the Distribution of IncomeTransféré parKatie
- LetterheadTransféré parJannie Rivera
- Contemporary Art and CyberneticsTransféré parΣταυρούλα Νουβάκη
- People v. Dick OngTransféré parlchieS
- Electronic Data InterchangeTransféré parPankaj Thapa
- CaC03 in HM FilmTransféré pargarapati
- Reading SkillsTransféré paraswah
- Glaser (1965) - The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative AnalysisTransféré parGermán Eduardo Lagos Sepúlveda
- Vedic TimeTransféré parovikbasu
- Triaxial Shear TestTransféré parAfiqah Nu'aimi
- fact and opinion lesson planTransféré parapi-324210922
- 2018 STEM-Wrestling Camp, Morgan State University, Grades 4-8Transféré parLydell Henry

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.