Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Lus Simes da Silvaa, Lus Caladob, Rui Simesa, Ana Giro Coelhoc
a Civil Engineering Department, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
b Civil Engineering Department, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Lisboa, Portugal
c Civil Engineering Department, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Abstract
The current trend towards the use of partial strength, semi-rigid joints requires
that enough ductility (rotation) is available, and thus the prediction of the full
(non-linear) moment-rotation response of the joint. The component method
currently provides independent procedures to evaluate the strength and initial
stiffness of steel and composite joints. A unified, closed-form, analytical approach
is presented in this paper that gives the full non-linear moment-rotation response
of steel and composite joints, and, consequently, its strength, initial stiffness and
maximum rotation.
1
INTRODUCTION
The current trend towards the use of partial strength, semi-rigid joints requires that enough
ductility (rotation) is available, and thus the evaluation of the full (non-linear) moment-rotation
response of the joint. The component method, currently widely accepted as the practical
approach at predicting the behaviour of such joints (1), provides independent procedures to
evaluate the strength and initial stiffness of steel and composite joints. These procedures,
already incorporated in codes of practice (2, 3), were shown to reproduce satisfactorily these
properties, while maintaining a relative ease of application.
The evaluation of ductility presents two added difficulties, when compared to strength and initial
stiffness:
(i)
knowledge of the non-linear force-deformation response of each component;
(ii)
knowledge of the full (non-linear) moment-rotation response of the joint.
The first item still remains quite unexplored in the literature, most of the research effort being
directed in the past towards the consistent evaluation of strength and initial stiffness of the
various components (4); the second involves iterative numerical procedures, given that
phenomena such as plasticity and instability are necessarily present.
Assuming that the non-linear behavior of the components is known, a unified, closed-form,
analytical approach is presented in this paper that gives the full non-linear moment-rotation
response of steel and composite joints, and, consequently, its strength, initial stiffness and
maximum rotation. Also, the yielding sequence of the various components is identified.
223
EVALUATION OF DUCTILITY
APPROXIMATION
F
ke
ke
'
a) Linear aproximation
F
1 1
+
ke kp
FC
ACTUAL
BEHAVIOUR
F
ke
kp ; PB = 2FC
'
ke
b) Bi-linear approximation
'
F C,2
F C,1
1 1
+
k e k p1
ke
1 1 1
+
+
k e k p1 k p 2
'
kp1 ;
P 1 B =2FC,1
kp2 ;
P 2 B =2FC,2
ke
c) Tri-linear approximation
FC
Q2
ke
'
ke
kp ; PB = 2FC
F
L
k p = kp1+4Lkp2(1-cosQ2)+12L 2k p3(1-cosQ2)2+...
d) Non-linear approximation
to the post-limit behaviour
224
(c) components with brittle failure. Components with high ductility present a nearly unlimited
deformation capacity, not imposing any bounds on the overall rotation ability of the joint, and
include, for example: (i) column web panel in shear, (ii) end-plate in bending and (iii) column
flange in bending. Components with limited ductility are characterised by a force-deformation
curve exhibiting a limit point and a subsequent softening response, comprising: (iv) column web
in tension and (v) column web in compression. Finally, components with brittle failure behave
linearly until collapse, with very little deformation before failure, being adequately modelled with
a linear approximation, typical examples being: (vi) bolts in tension, (vii) bolts in shear and (viii)
welds.
2.2 Analytical models
To overcome the numerical complexity of the evaluation of the moment-rotation response of
steel and composite joints, an equivalent elastic model was developed (7), able to yield closedform analytical expressions. With reference to Figure 2, the proposed methodology (8)
comprises the following steps, here illustrated for an extended end-plate steel joint:
(i)
for each bolt row in tension and shear and compression zones, association of all
springs (components) in series into one single equivalent spring;
(ii)
association of all resulting tensile springs in parallel into an equivalent tensile
spring
(iii)
application of the equivalent elastic model of Figure 2c, that yields identical
results to the original elastic-plastic model of Figure 2b.
z1
z2
Kt
h
z
k1
k2
Kc
Centre of
rotation
kpt, PTB
Lt
ket
Lt
z
kpc, PCB
kec
Lc
Lc
225
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
linear (L), the corresponding elastic model being simply an elastic spring with
stiffness ke;
bi-linear (BL), the post-limit stiffness being reproduced by an elastic spring with
stiffness kp and pre-compression 2FC;
tri-linear (TL), with two post-limit branches characterised by stiffnesses kp1 and
kp2 and corresponding pre-compressions 2FC1 and 2FC2;
non-linear (NL), where the initial elastic part is followed by a polynomial nonlinear branch given by:
kp
k p 1 4Lk
p2
(1)
Next, the resulting equivalent elastic models are solved in the context of a post-buckling stability
analysis using an energy formulation, further details of the mathematical derivation being found
in (7,8). With reference to Figure 3, two basic models are considered, for steel (Figure 3a) and
composite (Figure 3b) joints, the latter case including a specific tensile row for the reinforcement
(9).
k t1
kt
k t2
kc
kc
a) Steel joints
b) Composite joints
226
(3)
I
HE 140 B
IPE 300
(1)
(2)
S235
a) Connection geometry
b) Mechanical model
Component
1
2
3
FC (kN)
218.17
258.30
258.30
ke (kN/m)
kp (kN/m)
3.608u10
1.803u106
1.803u106
6.013u10
4.624u103
4.624u103
(mm)
0.605
0.143
0.143
Compone
nt
1
2
3
i (mm)
-0.607
-1.372
-4.817
-0.121
-0.143
-38.640
0.121
0.143
38.640
2.94
5.73
151.63
Absolute joint rotation (mrad)
227
Failure
7.940
269.798
269.798
51.65
The moment-rotation curve of Figure 5 shows yielding of the first component (column web
panel in shear), followed by simultaneous yielding of the column web in compression and in
tension, at a joint rotation of about 0.006 radian. The ductile behavior of this joint is obvious,
maximum rotation of 0.151 radians being reached without failure at the end of the test. Table 2
summarises the yield sequence of the various components and the corresponding levels of
ductility.
M (kNm)
125.0
112.5
100.0
87.5
75.0
Experimental results
62.5
50.0
A nalytical results
37.5
25.0
12.5
I (mrad)
156.0
144.0
132.0
120.0
108.0
96.0
84.0
72.0
60.0
48.0
36.0
24.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
Experimental results
62,5
50,0
37,5
25,0
12,5
I (mrad)
156,0
144,0
132,0
120,0
108,0
96,0
84,0
72,0
60,0
48,0
36,0
24,0
12,0
0,0
0,0
228
(3,1) (4,1)
(3,2)
(5,1) (10,1)
I
HE 240 B
IPE 450
M
M
(1)
553 240 41
S275
a) Connection geometry
(2)
b) Mechanical model
Component
1
2
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
10.1
10.2
FC (kN)
529.33
576.13
510.78
510.78
476.21
476.21
635.40
635.40
635.40
635.40
ke (kN/m)
kp (kN/m)
6.363u10
2.474u106
1.426u106
1.426u106
5.601u106
5.601u106
2.315u107
5.571u107
1.199u106
1.199u106
7.122u10
3.022u104
2.513u104
2.513u104
3.131u103
9.131u103
8.446u103
8.446u103
(mm)
0.832
0.233
0.358
0.358
0.085
0.085
0.027
0.011
0.530
0.530
229
M (kNm)
400.0
360.0
320.0
280.0
240.0
200.0
Experimental results
160.0
A nalytical results
120.0
80.0
40.0
I (mrad)
60.0
54.0
48.0
42.0
36.0
30.0
24.0
18.0
12.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
Absolute displacement
1
2
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
10.1
10.2
Failure
-0.832
-0.214
0.209
0.162
0.053
0.041
0.013
0.004
0.248
0.193
-1.562
-0.233
0.227
0.177
0.058
0.045
0.014
0.005
0.270
0.210
i (mm)
Relative displacement
' i / 'yi
1.00
2.11
8.52
14.08
Joint ductility index
16.96
16.96
230
(13)
(3)
IPE 270
IPE 270
(4)
(5)
(8)
(10)
(2)
HE 220 A
(7)
S235
C35/45; A400NR
a) Connection geometry
b) Mechanical model
Component
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
13
FC (kN)
ke (kN/m)
kp (kN/m)
1550.20
504.00
346.20
293.70
578.50
462.10
444.53
124.99
477.28
3.244u10
9.404u105
2.982u106
2.322u106
f
f
2.257u106
6.006u105
1.000u10
1.000u101
1.000u104
1.000u104
3.600u104
f
1.000u104
2.310u105
1.200u103
(mm)
0.478
0.536
0.116
0.126
0.000
0.000
0.197
0.208
231
M (kNm)
220.0
200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Experimental results
Analyt ical solut ion
Yielding of component 'concret e in
t ension'
Yielding of component 'beam web
and flange in compression'
Yielding of component 'longit udinal
slab reinf orcement in t ension'
15.0
16.0
17.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
I(mrad)
Component
Absolute displacement
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
13
Failure
Relative displacement
' i / 'yi
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A simple analytical procedure for the evaluation of the moment-rotation response of steel and
composite joints was presented in this paper. It allows the consistent evaluation of strength,
initial stiffness and ductility. Additionally, depending on the choice of component idealisation,
this methodology is able to to approximate, as closely as desired, the true moment-rotation
response of the joint, further identifying all relevant changes in joint response.
232
Finally, it should be noted that proper application of the component method requires the
adequate prediction of the post-limit stiffness of the various components, a task yet to be done.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Finantial support from Ministrio da Cincia e Tecnologia - PRAXIS XXI research project
PRAXIS/P/ECM/13153/1998 is acknowledged.
6
REFERENCES
Weynand K, Jaspart J-P, Steenhuis M, The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode
3, in R. Bjorhovde, A. Colson and R. Zandonini (eds), Connections in Steel Structures III,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, Trento,
Italy, pp. 441-452, 1995.
2 Eurocode 3, ENV - 1993-1-1:1992/A2, Annex J, Design of Steel Structures Joints in
Building Frames. CEN, European Committee for Standardisation, Document CEN/TC
250/SC 3, Brussels, 1998.
3 Eurocode 4, Draft prEN 1994-1-1, Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part
1.1 (Draft n1): General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for
Standardization. Brussels, 1999.
4 Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G, Structural steel semirigid connections: theory, design and
software. CRC Press LLC, 2000.
5 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, Mode interaction in non-linear models for steel and
steel-concrete composite structural connections, in Proceedings of CIMS 2000 - 3rd
International Conference on Coupled Instabilities in Metal Structures, Lisboa, Portugal, 2123 September, 2000 (in print).
6 Kuhlmann U, Davison JB, Kattner M, Structural systems and rotation capacity, COST
Conference on Control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural
connections, Lige, Belgium, pp. 167-176, 1998.
7 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, Neto E, Equivalent post-buckling models for the
flexural behaviour of steel connections. Comp. Struct., 2000 (in print).
8 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, A ductility model for steel connections, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 2000 (in print).
9 Simes da Silva L, Calado L, Cruz P, Dynamic behaviour of composite structures with
composite connections, in Proceedings of STESSA 2000 - 3rd International Conference on
Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Montreal, Canada, 21-24 August, 2000 (in
print).
10 Cruz P, Simes da Silva L, Rodrigues D, Simes R, Database for the semi-rigid behaviour
of beam-to-column connections in seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1998:46(120):1-3, 1998.
11 Simes da Silva L, Simes R, Cruz P, Behaviour of end-plate beam-to-column composite
joints under monotonical loading, Engineering Structures, 2000 (submitted for publication).
233