Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical modelling of structural fire behaviour of restrained steel

beam–column assemblies using typical joint types
X.H. Dai, Y.C. Wang ∗ , C.G. Bailey
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

article info abstract

Article history: This paper presents the results of a simulation study of 10 fire tests on restrained steel beam–column
Received 15 October 2009 assemblies using five different types of joints: fin plate, flexible endplate, flush endplate, web cleat and
Received in revised form extended endplate. This paper will provide details of the simulation methodology for achieving numerical
22 February 2010
stability and faithful representation of detailed structural behaviour, and compare the simulation and
Accepted 1 April 2010
Available online 15 May 2010
experimental results, including joint failure modes, measured beam axial forces and beam mid-span
deflections. Good agreement between ABAQUS simulations and experimental observations confirms that
Keywords:
the finite element models developed through the ABAQUS/Standard solver are suitable for predicting the
Structural fire behaviour structural fire behaviour of restrained structural assemblies with realistic steel joints undergoing different
Numerical modelling phases of behaviour in fire, including restrained thermal expansion and catenary action in the beams. The
Restrained steel frames validated model may be used to conduct numerical parametric studies to generate theoretical data to help
Joints develop detailed understanding of steel joint behaviour and their effects on robustness of steel framed
Robustness structures in fire.
Catenary action © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The high profile Cardington structural fire research programme
[1] and World Trade Center collapse [2,3] have firmly established
steel joint behaviour in fire as the most important aspect of
understanding the behaviour and robustness of steel structures in
fire.
Joints play a critical role in steel framed structure in controlling
fire induced progressive structural collapse. When designing and
analysing a steel framed structure at ambient temperature, the
joints between beams and columns are commonly classified as
either simple joints or moment resisting joints, based on their
predominant bending moment capacity. Under the fire condition,
the behaviour of the joint can be totally different owing to the
presence of axial restraint offered to the connected beam by the
surrounding structure. The qualitative behaviour of an axially
restrained beam in fire is now well established [1]: (i) at low
temperatures, the beam’s lateral deflection is small and its thermal
expansion is high, therefore compressive axial forces are generated
in the beam; (ii) as the beam’s temperature increases, the steel’s
mechanical properties degrade and the beam’s lateral deflections
increase, reducing the amount of axial extension of the beam.
Combined with the reduced axial stiffness of the beam due to
degrading mechanical properties, the beam’s axial compression
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yong.wang@manchester.ac.uk (Y.C. Wang).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.009
decreases; (iii) when the beam’s bending moment capacity has
reduced to the applied bending moment in the beam, the beam
will undergo accelerated lateral deflections, which will induce
sufficient shortening to cancel the beam’s thermal expansion. At
this stage, the beam’s axial force returns to zero; the temperature
at which the beam’s axial force is zero is very close to the limiting
temperature of the beam without axial restraint, as confirmed by
the results of a theoretical study by Yin and Wang [4–6]; (iv) after
the beam’s axial compressive force has returned to zero, the beam
will enter the catenary stage; if the joints have sufficient axial
strength and ductility, the beam will be able to survive very high
temperatures without failure. On the other hand, if the additional
axial forces in the joint are not designed for or the joint does not
have sufficient ductility to allow the beam to experience very large
deflections, the joints may fracture due to either compression or
tension, which may lead to progressive structural collapse. Failure
of the seated bearing connections to columns 79–81 of the World
Trade Center building 7 has been attributed to having initiated the
progressive collapse of the building [3].
To improve understanding of the effects of joints on steel
framed structural behaviour in fire and to help design better
steel joints to mitigate against fire induced structural collapse,
an experimental research project has recently been completed at
the University of Manchester, in which fire tests were carried out
to investigate interaction between joints and connected beams
and columns in a H-shaped structural assembly. Details of this
experimental programme and its principal findings are presented
elsewhere [7,8]. In this research, fire tests and analyses were also
2338 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
performed to determine temperatures in different components of
steel and composite joints with various fire protection schemes
[9–12]. This research was carried out in collaboration with the
University of Sheffield, which performed elevated temperature
experiments and numerical analyses to investigate bolt behaviour
[13], elevated temperature behaviour of isolated joint assemblies
[14–17] and to develop component based method to characterise
joint behaviour under different combinations of axial load, bending
moment and shear [18–21].
The Manchester fire tests on structural assemblies provide
experimental data to calibrate numerical simulation models,
which will then be used to perform parametric studies to
help develop detailed understanding of joint behaviour as well
as to develop more effective joint details to reduce the risk
of fire induced progressive collapse. These tests have been
modelled by the authors using the general finite element package
ABAQUS/standard solver. It has been a tremendous challenge to
faithfully model detailed behaviour of restrained steel framed
structural subassemblies with realistic joint details undergoing
very large deflections and different modes of buckling and failure
in fire. The main objective of this paper is to explain key
aspects of the modelling technique to help future researchers
to develop robust numerical simulation models for this type of
structures. Validation of the numerical models is assessed through
comparison of the simulation results with the ten fire tests on
restrained steel structural assemblies carried out by the University
of Manchester.
2. A brief summary of the structural assembly fire tests
Details of the experimental set up and results have been
presented elsewhere by the authors [8,7]. This section will
only provide a brief description of the fire tests and the main
experimental observations.
2.1. Structural fire tests
As shown in Fig. 1, each specimen, in the form of ‘‘rugby-
goalpost’’, consisted of one beam, two identical columns and two
identical joints. The 4 ends of the two columns were restrained
horizontally. In total, 10 fire tests were performed, covering 5 joint
types (fin plate, flexible endplate, web cleat, flush endplate and
extended endplate) and two column section sizes to simulate two
different levels of axial restraint to the beam. Table 1 summarises
the main member dimensions of the ten tests.
The whole beam, the two joints and the central part of the
two columns were exposed in fire inside the furnace. During
the fire tests, the furnace temperatures were recorded by six
thermocouples whose average temperature was intended to follow
the standard fire condition in [22]. The beam was loaded by two
point loads with a target value of 40 kN. The horizontal reaction
forces at the column ends were measured by pin load cells installed
at the column ends.
2.2. Main experimental conclusions
The main experimental observations are as follows:
• Joint failure modes included weld tearing (fin plate, flexi-
ble endplate), beam web fracture (flexible endplate) and bolt
thread stripping (flush endplate and some web cleat). How-
ever, there was no beam failure despite very large deflections
(span/8–span/6). There was no structural failure during the
beam-in-compression phase. Here failure is defined as com-
plete collapse of the structure.
• Using different joint types had very little effect on the beam’s
axial force development. In contrast, the beam axial force was
heavily influenced by the different column sizes. This can be
attributed to the very short length of the joint region and
strongly suggests that the joints may be considered to have
infinite axial rigidity so that the axial restraint is principally
dependent on that of the connected columns.
• The different types of joints possessed different levels of rota-
tional capacity. The web cleat connections, through significant
bending deformation of the heel, developed very high rotations.
The extended end plate connections also developed a very duc-
tile mode of behaviour through bending of the thin endplate.
3. Methodology of ABAQUS modelling
The use of numerical modelling to analyse steel joint behaviour,
either at ambient temperature or in fire, has had a long history
of development. Bursi and Jaspart [23] built a simple model to
simulate bolted connections at ambient temperature using the
commercial program ABAQUS. In their ‘‘spin’’ model, an assembly
of beam elements was adopted to represent a bolt. Swanson et al.
[24] modelled bolted T-stub joints using ABAQUS, in which contact
interactions between bolts and base materials and between
connection plates were considered. Maggi et al. [25] investigated
the structural behaviour of bolted endplate connections using
ANSYS. AlJabri et al. [26,27] simulated the moment–rotation-
temperature relationships of a series of fire tests on flexible
and flush endplate connections using ABAQUS. In their models,
surface to surface contact was used. Sarraj et al. [28] modelled
fin plate connections in fire using ABAQUS, in which surface to
surface contact with a small sliding option was used. Yu et al.
[29] commented on the problem of simulating bolted joints due to
numerous contact problems and developed a numerical simulation
procedure using the ABAQUS/Explicit solver to model bolted joints
at both ambient and elevated temperatures. By controlling the
time step, it was shown to be possible to produce quasi-static
responses. Shirh et al. [30] developed a 3D model using ANSYS to
study the behaviour of flush end plate connection between beams
and columns at elevated temperatures.
A common feature of all the existing numerical simulations
of joint behaviour is that the structural system was statically
determinate. In particular, most of the investigations have focused
on producing joint moment–rotation characteristics. In such a
structural system, the appearance of large deformations in any
part of the structure would signal failure of the system. Therefore,
the existing researches only focused on simulating joint response
before very large deformations and gross inaccuracy in predicting
large joint displacements were overlooked. In contrast, in the
fire tests conducted by the authors, the appearance of very large
deformations merely means that the structure was going through
a different phase of behaviour, the axial force in the beam changing
from compression to tension. In order for the subsequent phase of
structural behaviour (catenary action) to be accurately simulated,
it is important to develop a robust numerical model to satisfactorily
capture this stage of the structural behaviour. In this research, the
authors used both ABAQUS/Static analysis and ABAQUS/Explicit
analysis and finally decided to use the ABAQUS/Static solver due
to the huge requirement on computational resources (both time
and storage) and unstable structural behaviour when using the
ABAQUS/Explicit solver.
As shown in Fig. 1, the tested structure was symmetrical
in geometry, loading arrangement and boundary conditions.
However, during testing, some unsymmetrical heating was
encountered due to unsymmetrical layout of the burners in the
fire test furnace. Therefore, the observed structural behaviour
was not exactly symmetrical. Nevertheless, it was considered
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351 2339

Fig. 1. Elevation view of the test set up.

Table 1
Summary of specimen dimensions.
Test ID Joint type Connection component dimension (mm) Column section Beam section

Test-1 Fin plate 150 × 130 × 10

Test-2 Flexible endplate 150 × 130 × 8
Test-3 Flush endplate 150 × 200 × 8 UC 254 × 254 × 73
Test-4 Web cleat 90 × 150 × 10 (depth: 130)
Test-5 Extended endplate 150 × 250 × 8
UB 178 × 102 × 19
Test-6 Fin plate 150 × 130 × 10
Test-7 Flexible endplate 150 × 130 × 8
Test-8 Flush endplate 150 × 200 × 8 UC152 × 152 × 23
Test-9 Web cleat 90 × 150 × 10 (depth: 130)
Test-10 Extended endplate 150 × 250 × 8

that the slight non-symmetrical heating had only minor effect on

the behaviour of the restrained beam, which would be primarily
dependent on the heating condition in the central region of the
beam. As far as the joints were concerned, non-uniform heating
would result in one joint being damaged more than the other. Since
the main purpose of this simulation was to establish an appropriate
simulation methodology, it was accepted that as long as the
more severely damaged joint behaviour could be captured, the
simulation results would be valid. Simulating detailed structural
behaviour of the tested structural assembly was time consuming.
Therefore, to save computational time, it was decided to include
only half of the test assembly in the finite element model, of which
Fig. 2 shows a typical one.
Three-dimensional solid elements (C3D8) were used in mod- Fig. 2. Typical FE model adopted in numerical modelling.
elling the main structural members as shown in Fig. 2. A series
of ABAQUS models with different meshes were run to assess the (400 mm for models with large columns and 800 mm for mod-
sensitivity of simulation results to the FE mesh. The results of els with small columns) connected by the joint and exposed in
this sensitivity study suggested that the appropriate mesh size fire in the furnace was actually modelled using the solid elements.
would be 10–20 mm for the main structural members such as The other two parts away from the joint zone was modelled using
the beam, the joint components and the column. Too small ele- general beam elements with ‘‘I’’ cross section. The ABAQUS ‘‘Cou-
ment size would consume too much computation time, while too pling’’ function was used to join the three column parts as shown in
coarse mesh (Fig. 3(b)) would cause numerical convergence prob- Fig. 4(a). Fig. 4(b) shows the actual configuration simulated using
lem and would not be able to reveal some important member buck- ABAQUS.
ling characteristics such as shown in Fig. 3(a). Also, in order to avoid In the test structures, many contact pairs exist in the joints,
premature beam web buckling, at least two layers of elements in such as end plate to column, fin plate to beam web, bolt shanks
the thickness direction of the beam web should be used. Further- and nuts to the connected members. The ABAQUS contact function
more, to reduce the number of elements and nodes in the FE model, was used to simulate the interaction between the contact pairs.
the column was divided into three parts and only the central part A contact was defined as surface to surface contact with a small
2340 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351

(a) Suitable beam mesh.

(b) Coarse beam mesh.

Fig. 3. Effect of element sizes on structural deformation.

(a) User built model. (b) ABAQUS abstracted model.

Fig. 4. Column simulation method.

 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
Fig. 5. Bolt model.
sliding option. ‘‘Hard contact’’ was assumed for the normal contact
behaviour and a friction coefficient of 0.3 was used in the tangential
direction of the contact pairs. The results of a sensitivity study
confirmed that using a wide range of friction coefficient values had
little effect on the simulation results.
In the tests, ordinary Grade 8.8 M20 bolts were used and they
were installed manually using spanners. Fig. 5 shows how the
bolts were simulated. The bolt thread was not modelled because
its modelling would be extremely time consuming. Except for the
thread stripping failure mode, this simplification was considered
acceptable because all other modes of failure were accurately
simulated. All the contacts between the bolt shank and the edges of
the holes in the connected members, between the bolt head (nut)
and the connected plate (column flange, end plate) surfaces were
simulated using the aforementioned contact pair method. To avoid
numerical difficulty at the start of the simulation, the gap between
the bolt shank and bolt hole was set at 0.1 mm and the gap between
bolt head (nut) and connected plate was 0.001 mm. Due to the
difficulty in measuring the real bolt initial stress, no pre-stress was
applied to the bolts.
The stress–strain constitutive relationships adopted in the FE
models for the steel beams, columns and connection components
were based on the steel tensile coupon tests at ambient
temperature. Table 2 shows the average yield strength, ultimate
tensile strength and elastic modulus of the joint assembly
members. For ABAQUS simulation, the nominal engineering
stress–strain model obtained from steel tensile coupon test was
converted to the true stress–strain relationship according to:
σtru = σnom (1 + εnom ) and εtru = ln(1 + εnom ), in which σtru and
εtru represent the true stress and strain; and σnom and εnom are the
nominal stress and strain respectively. Since no mechanical test
was performed on the bolts and nuts, their mechanical properties
were assumed to be elastic-perfectly-plastic. For Grade 8.8 bolts,
the nominal yield strength and elastic modulus were assumed to be
640 MPa and 210 000 MPa respectively. The EC3 (EN 1993-1-2) [31]
reduction factors, shown in Fig. 6, for carbon steel at elevated
temperatures were used. Weld was not directly modelled. Instead,
the welded elements were tied together using the ABAQUS ‘‘tie’’
function.
The boundary conditions of the FE model were according to
those in the test. The bottom of the columns was pinned in all
three directions and the top of the columns was pinned in two
directions but movement along the column axis was allowed. Since
only half of the beam was included in the FE model as discussed
earlier, the beam mid-section was fixed in the axial direction,
which effectively prevented rotation about any axis in the beam
cross section, but allowed the beam to twist about its longitudinal
axis. The beam top flange was prevented from lateral movement
to simulate the effect of the lateral restraining effect of the truss
connected to the beam upper flange. However, for simplicity in
modelling, the lateral restraining truss was replaced by 2 plates
of 750 mm long and 50 × 8 mm in cross section as shown in
Fig. 7. The truss replacement plate dimensions were determined
2341
Fig. 6. Reduction factors for strength and elastic modulus of carbon steel at
elevated temperatures (EN 1993-1-2).
by ensuring that the plates contributed the same as the lateral
restraining truss to the bending capacity of the beam. Nevertheless,
since this contribution was low, the beam’s behaviour would only
be slightly influenced by the plate dimensions.
As in the tests, the FE model applied the loads in two steps:
(i) two point loads of 40 kN each to the beam at ambient
temperature; (ii) increasing the structural temperatures while
maintaining the structural loads. In the FE model, five different
temperature–time curves based on the test measurements were
adopted for different parts of the structure: temperature curves
for the beam bottom flange, web and top flange; one temperature
curve for the joint zone which included all the bolts, nuts and
connection components (such as endplate, fin plate and web
cleats) as well as 100 mm length of the beam in the joint zone;
one temperature curve for the column segment (400 mm of the
large column, 800 mm of the small column) in the joint region. The
temperature of the column away from the joint zone was set at
ambient temperature.
Since the main objective of the fire tests was to investigate
complete failure of the structures at elevated temperatures, the
test specimens underwent a variety of temporary instabilities
due to localised buckling and very large deformations. Any of
these temporary instabilities could cause the numerical model
to terminate and the numerical model would not be able to go
through all the phases of structural behaviour as in the tests.
To ensure that the numerical model was able to go through
all the phases of structural behaviour experienced in the tests,
an artificial viscous damping was applied to the numerical
model. This artificial damping became active and dissipated the
energy released during temporary instability of the structure
so as to allow the numerical model to bypass the temporary
numerical instability problem. After the numerical model bypassed
temporary numerical instability and if the structure was still stable,
the artificial damping became inactive. On the other hand, if the
artificial damping was still active for a long period of time, then the
numerical instability signified that the structure was approaching
complete failure and was unable to sustain the applied load.
2342 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
Table 2
Summary of key mechanical property values for different steel members.
Component Beam
Elastic modulus (MPa) 226 580
Yield strength (MPa) 344
Maximum strength (MPa) 514
Ultimate strain (%) 28.2
Fig. 7. Simulation of horizontal restraining truss.
(a) Dissipated energy fraction = 0.00001.
Fig. 8. Effect of dissipated energy fraction on structural deformation.
In ABAQUS, the artificial viscous damping is specified using
the ‘‘dissipated energy fraction’’. Determining an appropriate
damping factor value was important to ensure that the numerical
simulation model was robust when encountering temporary
instability but that it did not give spurious results. Fig. 8 shows an
example of the effects of using different damping factors on the
simulated deformed shapes of the same structure. When a value of
0.00001 was used, the observed web buckling mode was correctly
simulated. But when a value of 0.0001 was used, this mode of
deformation was damped out.
In general, the appropriate damping factor will be structure
specific, which makes it difficult for the authors to provide
detailed rules to help determine a suitable damping factor.
According to the authors’ experiences, two quantities outputted
from the simulation model may be checked to assess whether
the damping factor used is appropriate. One quantity is the
ratio of the dissipated energy by damping (parameter ALLSD in
ABAQUS) to the total strain energy (parameter ALLIE in ABAQUS).
Theoretically, this ratio should be less than the specified dissipated
energy fraction. However, in the authors’ simulations, because
the structure underwent very large deformations, the viscous
damping dissipated energy was often higher than the specified
dissipated energy fraction. However, as long as this ratio did not
Column End plate Fin plate Web cleat
200 000 191 670 188 330 228 170
390 303 235 342
553 460 380 493
25 30.5 30.6 32.6
(b) Dissipated energy fraction = 0.0001.
exceed 0.1, the FE model results were in good agreement with the
experimental results. For example, Fig. 9 compares the ALLSD and
ALLIE quantities for the same structure using dissipated energy
fractions of 0.00001 and 0.0001 respectively. It can be seen that
before the structure collapsed, the ALLSD plot was stable and small
and the ratio of ALLSD to ALLIE was less than 0.05 when a dissipated
energy fraction of 0.00001 was adopted. In contrast, when using a
dissipated energy fraction of 0.0001, the ratio of ALLSD to ALLIE
was quite high for a significant period of time of the simulation
time. In both cases, the ratio of ALLSD to ALLIE was large at the
start of the fire simulation. This was a result of the total strain
energy (ALLIE) being small when the structure deformation was
very small.
Another quantity that can be checked is the support reactions,
i.e. they should be in static equilibrium with the applied loads.
If the dissipated energy fraction is too high, too much of the
applied loads may be resisted by viscous damping. For example,
Fig. 10 compares the applied load (40 kN) with the vertical reaction
force for using the aforementioned two different dissipated energy
fractions. Clearly, using a fraction of 0.0001 was not appropriate
because viscous damping contributed to supporting a large part of
the applied load for a long period of time. The authors suggest that
if the support reaction forces return to the level of the applied loads
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
(a) Dissipated energy fraction = 0.00001.
(c) Ratio of ALLSD to ALLIE.
Fig. 9. Energy dissipation from different damping factors.
Fig. 10. Reaction forces at column ends.
after temporarily decreasing (due to damping), then the structural
is stable and the damping factor is appropriate. However, if the
support reaction forces decrease but do not return to the level of
the applied loads after a long period of simulation time, then the
damping factor is not appropriate (too high) and the simulation
results are not correct. It must be pointed out that, according to
the authors’ experiences, numerical instability may also be caused
by low quality of the FE model such as coarse mesh and large
gaps between contact pairs. Therefore, before using a high value
of dissipated energy fraction to suppress the numerical instability,
checks should be made to ensure that the FE simulation results are
not sensitive to such factors.
In the numerical model, the column ends were assumed to be
able to rotate freely in the plane of the structure. However, as
indicated in Fig. 1, the column flange at the ends was linked to
the load cell at two locations using bolts. This arrangement may
induce some rotational restraint at the column ends. In the first
series of tests using the large column size, the column rigidity is
2343
(b) Dissipated energy fraction = 0.0001.
very high so this rotational restraint would not have any significant
effect on the beam and joint behaviour, as evidenced by almost non
discernible column deformation in tests 1–5. However, when the
small column was used, the column rigidity may not be sufficiently
high (evidenced by the large column local and global deformations
in tests 6–10, see later) so that the effect of this additional restraint
at the column ends should be assessed to ensure that the boundary
conditions in the numerical simulation model was correct.
An additional model of the structure for test 10 was created
assuming complete rotational fixity at the column ends. Fig. 11
compares the simulation results for the models with pin and rigid
column ends. With complete fixity at the column ends, the axial
force in the beam, both in compression and in tension, is much
greater than the measured results. In contrast, assuming pinned
column ends produced results much closer to the test results. It
can therefore be accepted that the actual column ends would be
much closer to pin support than fixed end support, as assumed in
all the numerical simulation models.
4. Comparison between FE model and test results
All ten tests have been analysed using the ABAQUS modelling
techniques described in the last section. This section presents com-
parisons between the simulation and test results to comprehen-
sively validate the numerical modelling method.
4.1. Tests with large column size (UC 254 × 254 × 73)
4.1.1. Test 1: fin plate joint
Fig. 12 shows that the observed deformations of the joint
components and beam were followed by the numerical model.
Fig. 13 confirms that the simulation results accurately captured
2344 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351

Fig. 11. Comparison of beam mid-span deflection and axial force in frames with different column end restraints.

Fig. 12. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of fin plate joints.

Fig. 13. Comparison of modelling and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by fin plate joints.

the transition process from compression to tension in the beam.
In the test, the lower flange of the beam began to bear against the
flange of the column towards the end of the test. However, the
bearing force would not have been high, otherwise there would
have been indication on the column flange from the beam’s lower
flange. The numerical model produced lower beam deflections
so this bearing action was not observed in the numerical model.
However, Fig. 12 indicates that in the numerical model, the beam
lower flange was very close to the column flange. Because of the
large column size and column flange thickness, both the test and
the numerical model show no sign of column deformation. The test
specimen failed by fracture of the weld at the top. Since weld was
not directly modelled, this failure mode could not be simulated.
Instead, the numerical model failure was in the fin plate close to
the weld under tension and shearing.
4.1.2. Test 2: flexible endplate joint
Fig. 14 shows that Test 2 failed due to fracture of the beam web.
This was predicted by the numerical model, as shown by the tensile
and shear stress patterns in Fig. 14. The simulated flexible endplate
deformation pattern is also very similar to the test observation.
Fig. 15 compares the simulated and measured beam axial
force and mid-span deflection. The agreement is satisfactory
overall, with the simulation results slightly overestimating the
transition temperature from compression to tension in the beam.
However, the rapid deformation process was closely followed by
the simulation model.
4.1.3. Test 3: flush endplate joint
This test failed due to thread stripping of the bolts in tension, as
shown in Fig. 16. This failure mode could not be reproduced by the
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351 2345

(a) Test observation. (b) Model Mises stress.

(c) Model shear stress in web plane.

Fig. 14. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of flexible endplate joint.

Fig. 15. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by flexible endplate joints.

Fig. 16. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of flush endplate joint.
2346 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351

Fig. 17. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by flush endplate joints.

Fig. 18. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of web cleat joint.

Fig. 19. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by web cleat joints.

simulation model because the threads were not modelled. Instead,
in the numerical model, the bolt tensile strength was exceeded. In
both the numerical model and the test, failure was initiated from
to top bolt. Hu et al. [13] tested Grade 8.8 bolts and their results
indicate that when bolt thread stripping occurred, the bolt thread
stripping strength was only slightly lower than the bolt tensile
strength. Therefore, although the predicted bolt tensile failure
mode was different from the observed thread stripping model,
the tensile force in the bolt may be considered to be correctly
predicted by the model. Fig. 16 also shows that the observed very
severe distortion of the flush endplate was closely matched by
the numerical model. Both the simulation and test results indicate
some slight deflection of the column flange, due to larger tensile
forces in the beam and the joint, compared to tests 1 and 2.
Fig. 17 shows that the predicted beam axial force and beam mid-
span deflection match the measured results very well.
4.1.4. Test 4: web cleat joint
Fig. 18 indicates that the observed deformation patterns of
the various joint components were reproduced by the simulation
model. In particular, opening up of the web cleats at the heel, which
gives this type of joint very high ductility, was closely followed in
the simulation model. There was no failure in the test, which was
terminated due to a lack of space for the beam to deflect in the test
furnace.
Fig. 19 indicates larger discrepancy between the predicted and
recorded beam axial force and mid-span deflection characteristics
when compared to other tests. This may be attributed to the more
severe non-uniform heating encountered in this test.
4.1.5. Test 5: extended endplate joint
To avoid thread stripping encountered in the flush endplate
joint test (Test 3) and to recognise that the extended endplate
connection would generate large forces in the bolts, Grade 10.9
bolts and nuts were used in this test.
No failure (fracture) was encountered in either the test or the
simulation model. Fig. 20 shows the simulated joint deformation
and the observed ‘‘classical’’ ductile behaviour of the thin extended
endplate, with very little sign of deformation in the bolts. Due to
large compression force in the beam lower flange near the joint,
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351 2347

Fig. 20. Comparison of simulation and observed joint deformation patterns.

Fig. 21. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by extended endplate joints.

Fig. 22. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of fin plate joints.

the beam low flange experienced buckling in the test, which was
clearly reproduced in the simulation model.
Fig. 21 demonstrates very close agreement between simulation
and test results for the beam axial force and beam mid-span
deflection behaviour.
4.2. Tests with small column size (UC 152 × 152 × 23)
4.2.1. Test 6: fin plate joint
Fig. 22 shows very similar simulated and observed deformed
shapes of the structure, including local deformation at the column
flange in the joint zone and beam web distortion. Fig. 23 shows that
the simulated mid-span deflection followed the test results very
well before the large deformation phase but gave a slightly higher
beam limiting temperature (defined as the temperature when the
beam’s axial force returns to zero). Some weld fracture occurred
at the top of the fin plate. Although this could not be simulated
because the model did not incorporate a faithful weld model, the
very high tensile stresses at the top of the fin plate (Fig. 22) gives
clear suggestion of the most likely failure mode of this test.
2348 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
Fig. 23. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by fin plate joints.
Fig. 24. Comparison of simulation and observed joint deformation pattern.
4.2.2. Test 7: flexible endplate joint
Fig. 24 indicates that the simulation model accurately repro-
duced the deformation pattern in all parts of the flexible endplate
joint specimen. Due to the smaller column size, the catenary force
in the beam was low so there was no fracture in either the test
specimen or the simulation model. The test was terminated when
the beam deflection was too high for the fire test furnace to safely
accommodate.
Fig. 25 shows that the predicted results slightly overestimate
the beam’s limiting temperature for bending. However, this is
considered acceptable due to slight uncertainty with the measured
temperatures as shown by the jagged curves.
4.2.3. Test 8: flush endplate joint
The deformation patterns obtained by simulation and from the
test are very close as shown in Fig. 26. Again, no failure was
observed in both the test specimen and numerical model. Fig. 27
shows that both the numerical and measured beam axial force and
beam mid-span deflection match very well.
4.2.4. Web cleat joint
Fig. 28 shows that the simulated deformation patterns agree
with the test observation in most cases, including opening up of
the web cleat at the heel, local deformation of the column flange in
the joint zone and beam web distortion. However the simulation
also indicated buckling in the column flange not attached to the
web cleat, which was not observed in the test. This may have been
caused by compressive stress on this side of the column when the
column was pulled by an axial tensile force in the beam.
The predicted beam axial force and mid-span deflection
characteristics match the experimental observation very well as
shown in Fig. 29.
4.2.5. Extended endplate joint
No failure (fracture) was encountered in either the test
specimen or the simulation model. However, it appears that due
to a combination of catenary action in the beam and high hogging
bending moment in the joint, a plastic hinge formed in the column
at the joint zone, as shown in Fig. 30. The simulation deformation
pattern agrees well with observation on the connection side,
including the beam, the end plate and the column flange. On
the un-connected side, the column flange experienced some
deformation and the simulation result indicates severe distortion.
The simulation model also indicates distortion in the column
web at the level of the beam lower flange in compression and
adjacent to the distorted column flange on the un-connected side.
These simulated distortions may be qualitatively explained by the
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351 2349

Fig. 25. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by flexible endplate joints.

Fig. 26. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of flush endplate joint.

Fig. 27. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by flush endplate joints.

loading pattern in the column. With the beam in catenary action
and the joint under substantial hogging bending moment, the un-
connected column flange and the associated column web at the
beam top flange level would be under compression, which could
induce buckling and distortion. The column web at the beam lower
flange level would be subjected to direct compression from the
beam lower flange, which again would induce buckling in the
column web. Although these were not observed in the test, the
observed deformation in the column flange on the un-connected
side suggests that such distortions as indicated in the numerical
model must have been imminent in the test specimen.
Fig. 31 demonstrates very close agreement between simulation
and test results for the beam mid-span deflection and beam axial
force behaviour.
In summary, the simulation models can be considered to
provide faithful representations of the tests in all cases, in terms of
deformation patterns of all the structural components, the failure
modes, and beam axial force and mid-span deflection results.
2350 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351

Fig. 28. Comparison of simulation and observed deformation patterns of web cleat joint.

Fig. 29. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by web cleat joints.

Fig. 30. Comparison of simulation and observed joint deformation pattern.

5. Conclusions
This paper has presented a simulation methodology, us-
ing ABAQUS/Static solver, to model restrained steel frame sub-
assemblies using five different types of beam to column joint.
Comparison was made between simulation and test results, for
deformation patterns in different parts of the structures, failure
modes (wherever available), beam axial forces and mid-span de-
flections at elevated temperatures. The following conclusions may
be drawn:
(1) Because this study involved severe local deformations, detailed
element types and fine finite element meshes should be used;
(2) All test structures experienced very large global deflections
and rapid transition in mode of behaviour (from compression
to tension in the beam). Numerical simulation of this
phenomenon was challenging and had to deal with the
problem of numerical non-convergence. This problem may be
solved by introducing pseudo damping in the model. Selection
of an appropriate damping factor may be checked by limiting
the ratio of the dissipated energy by damping to the total strain
 X.H. Dai et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2337–2351
Fig. 31. Comparison of simulation and experimental results for mid-span deflection and axial force in the beam restrained by extended endplate joints.
energy to about 10% and by comparing the applied loads with
the support reaction forces;
(3) By using the recommended modelling methodology, the
ABAQUS/Static solver has been demonstrated to be able to
accurately reproduce the experimental results;
(4) The failure modes of weld fracture and bolt thread stripping
could not be simulated because they were not included
in the ABAQUS models. However, in each case, there was
an alternative failure mode (fin plate failure under shear
and tension for weld fracture, bolt tensile failure for bolt
thread stripping) with similar strength, the simulation and
experimental results were still very close. Nevertheless, weld
fracture and thread stripping may have to be included in
numerical modelling to ensure complete faithful prediction of
structural behaviour.
Acknowledgements
This research reported in this paper was funded by a research
grant from the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council (EP/C003004/1).
References
[1] Wang YC. Steel and composite structures, behaviour and design for fire safety.
London: Spon Press; 2002.
[2] Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA 2002), World trade center
building performance study. FEMA, USA.
[3] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2008), Federal building
and fire safety investigation of the world trade center disaster: structural
response and probable collapse sequence of world trade center building 7,
Volume 2, National Institute of Standards and Technology Report NIST NCSTAR
1-9. 2008.
[4] Yin YZ, Wang YC. A numerical study of large deflection behaviour of restrained
steel beams at elevated temperatures. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:1029–47.
[5] Yin YZ, Wang YC. Analysis of catenary action in steel beams using a
simplified hand calculation method, Part 1: theory and validation for uniform
temperature distribution. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61:183–211.
[6] Yin YZ, Wang YC. Analysis of catenary action in steel beams using a simplified
hand calculation method, Part 2: validation for non-uniform temperature
distribution. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61:213–34.
[7] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. An experimental study of structural behaviour
of joints in restrained steel frames in fires. In: International conference,
Application of structural fire design. 2009.
[8] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. An experimental study of structural behaviour
of joints in restrained steel frames in fires, Applications of Structural Fire
Engineering. In: Wald F, Kallerova P, Chlouba J, editors. Proceedings of
International Conference. Prague; 2009. p. 350–5.
[9] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. Temperature distribution in unprotected
steel connections in fire. In: Wang, Choi, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on steel and composite structures. Taylor & Francis
Group; 2007.
2351
[10] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. Temperature developments in partially protected
steel–concrete composite joints using intumescent coating. In: Proceedings of
the fifth international conference. 2008.
[11] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. Effects of partial fire protection on temperature
developments in steel joints protected by intumescent coating. Fire Saf J 2009;
44:376–86.
[12] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. A simple method to predict temperatures in steel
joints with partial intumescent coating fire protection. Fire Technol 2010;46:
19–35.
[13] Hu Y, Davison JB, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Comparative study of the behaviour of
BS 4190 and BS EN ISO 4014 bolts in fire. In: Wang, Choi, editors. Proceedings
of the 3rd international conference on steel and composite structures. Taylor
& Francis Group; 2007.
[14] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation of the
behaviour of fin plate connections in fire. In: Wang, Choi, editors. Proceedings
of the 3rd international conference on steel and composite structures. Taylor
& Francis Group; 2007.
[15] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation of the
behaviour of flush endplate connections in fire. In: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference (SiF’08). 2008.
[16] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation of
the tying capacity of web cleat connections in fire. In: The 5th European
conference on steel structures. 2008.
[17] Hu Y, Davison JB, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Experimental study on flexible end
plate connections in fire. In: The 5th European conference on steel structures.
2008.
[18] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Tying capacity of web cleat
connections in fire, Part 1: test and finite element simulation. Eng Struct 2009;
31:651–63.
[19] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Tying capacity of web cleat
connections in fire, Part 2: Development of component-based model. Eng
Struct 2009;31:697–708.
[20] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation of the
behaviour of fin plate connections in fire. J Construct Steel Res 2009;65:
723–36.
[21] Hu Y, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Modelling of flexible end plate
connections in fire using cohesive elements. In: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference. 2008.
[22] International Organization for Standardization (ISO 834 1975). Fire resistance
tests, elements of building construction. Geneva: International Organization
for Standardization.
[23] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Benchmarks for finite element modelling of bolted steel
connections. J Construct Steel Res 1997;43:17–42.
[24] Swanson JA, Kokan DS, Leon RT. Advanced finite element modelling of bolted
T-stub connection components. J Construct Steel Res 2002;58:1015–31.
[25] Maggi YI, Goncalves RM, Leon RT, Ribeiro LF. Parametric analysis of steel bolted
endplate connections using finite modeling. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61:
689–708.
[26] Al-Jabri KS, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Spring-stiffness model for flexible end-plate
bare beam joints in fire. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61:1672–91.
[27] Al-Jabri KS, Seibi A, Karrech A. Modelling of sustiffened flush endplate bolted
connections in fire. J Construct Steel Res 2006;62:151–9.
[28] Sarraj M, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Finite element modelling of fin plate
steel connections in fire. J Fire Safety 2007;42:408–15.
[29] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Numerical simulation of bolted steel
connections in fire using explicit dynamic analysis. J Construct Steel Res 2008;
64:515–25.
[30] Shirh A, Adeeb R, Al-Jabri KS. Finite element analysis of flush end-plate bare
steel connection at elevated temperature. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12(3):311–24.
[31] ENV 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, part 1.2: general rules—
structural fire design. London: British Standards Institution; 2005.