Cost effective connections C M Steenhuis, ir, Research Assistant, TNO Building and Construction Research, P.O.

Box 49, 2600 AA Delft J W B Stark prof ir, Professor, Delft University of Technology, TNO Building and Construction Research A M Gresnigt ir, Se nior Lecturer, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft Summary This review highlights some of the recent developments in steel design and fabrication and its associated research. In the last decades, labour costs have increased considerably while material costs remained constant. Therefore, there is a tendency to simplify the most labour extensive parts of a steel structure: the connections (and thus cut labour costs). Simplification of fabrication is of considerable more importance than minimum use of material. Research has been carried out to support this process of simplification. This paper reports on some of the practical outcomes of this research. Special attention is given to fabrication and erection friendly connections, the application of preloaded fasteners, and unstiffened moment connections including base plates. Finally, in the conclusions, the paper identifies future research needs. Introduction In many countries, each year labour costs increase substantially, while material costs remain more or less constant. This is especially so in the steel construction industry. Until recently, however, detailing of connections in structural steelwork was very much based on traditional practice, aiming at minimizing the use of material rather than the costs. Consequently, the detailing of the joints is often too complex. As an alternative, the size of members can be increased, and joints simplified (e.g., often expensive stiffeners can be avoided). Because of the increasing labour costs, steel construction industry passed a point of no return in the development to more economical ways of construction. Automation is now introduced in all facets of the production of steel structures like: overall frame design (frame analysis and code check software); connection design (design software); preparation of workshop drawings (CAD systems); fabrication and erection (numerical controlled machinery, welding robots). It is not surprising that this development lead to a reconsideration of what was seen in the past as the most favourable way of construction. This is especially valid for the connections, because they have a significant influence on the fabrication costs and thus at the overall costs of a steel structure. Some changes in steel cons truction industry include for example application of details with less (on site) welding, reduction of the number of different bolt types, reduction of stiffening and strengthening plates. These changes are not only required by the automation of the fabrication process, but also by the final assemblage of the steel structure on the erection site. Copy of paper published in Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol 1 (1997) pp 18-24

To facilitate the changes in steel construction industry research is carried out worldwide. It is impossible to give in the context of this paper a complete overview of all developments taking place. In this paper, four different subjects will be covered: connections with a high level of fabrication and erection friendliness; pretensioned bolted connections and possible alternatives; the use of unstiffened moment connections; base plate connections; Fabrication and erection friendly connections Traditional connections ** [ 1][ 2 ][ 3 ][ 4 ][ 5][ 6 ][ 7 ] In many countries, design guides are developed to facilitate the use of fabrication and erection friendly connections. In most cases, a distinction is made in design guidance for the so-called simple connections and moment connections. The difference is that simple connections normally can be assumed as nominally pinned connections and thus transferring only shear and normal forces, whereas moment connections also transfer significant bending moments. Since simple connections are more popular in practice, so far more attention is given to design guidance for this kind of connections. Most design guides are based on the following basic points: a use of bolting rather than welding on the erection site. On the erection site installation of bolts is faster and better under control than welding; a preference for snug tightened bolts rather than preloaded bolts in predominantly static loaded structures. Tightening and checking procedures of preloaded bolts are time consuming during erection and thus expensive. This point will be treated more extensively later on in this paper; standardisation of bolts (diameter and strength). With bolt standardisation less bolts need be kept in stock, machines can be more productive since less time is needed to change drills, quantum savings can be gained from the bolt manufacturer, and there is less risk of faulty installed bolts. the use of fully threaded bolts. With the use of fully threaded bolts the number of different bolts lengths can be reduced. This means less different bolts in stock and on the erection site, see Table A for an example. Fully threaded bolts show good ductility and only slightly ] less tensile capacity than bolts with short thread length[ J . Table A: preferred bolt lengths of fully threaded bolts (mm)[ F . M16 30 45 M20 45 60 75 M24 70 85 100
]

standardisation of plates and angle cleats (geometrical properties and strength). In this case less plate and cleat materials need to be kept in stock . There is a tendency to adopt steels with higher strengths (European steel grade S355, yield strength of 355 mPa) as standard plate and cleat material. This material is slightly more expensive then lower grade standard structural steel but in general, design will result in smaller plate thickness, so less welding or drilling is required;

rationalisation of dimensions to improve design capacities. With proper dimensions of plates, welds, bolts and bolt spacing, connections can show ductile behaviour and at the same time show good strength characteristics. ] rationalisation of beam and column elements** [ A . In the workshop it is preferred to have rather only welding or drilling than welding and drilling on one single element. This saves internal transportation of the element through the workshop. Therefore, the choice of the connection depends also on other connections at the same element. For example, if a primary beam connected to a column need to be drilled, secondary beams may be connected with partial depth end plates or angle cleats. Figure A shows some detailing to be preferred and other to be avoided.

Preferred: Only sawing and drilling

Preferred: Only sawing and welding

Preferred: Only cutting and drilling

Preferred: Only cutting and welding

Avoid: Cutting and drilling and welding Figure A: rationalisation of beam elements

Avoid: Cutting and drilling and welding

a preference for connections that facilitate easy erection on site. Connections should deal with some tolerances. For example, to correct out of plumb columns due to variations in column depth, in case of connections with end plates, filler plates should be adopted. These are additional loose elements during erection. A better solution may be cleated connections and fin plate connections which allow for a tolerance of 2 times the bolt hole clearance (+ 4 mm). Thus small corrections can be made without special measures.
]

For research containing background information on these design guidance, it is referred to [ I [ ] * [ 11 ] J . New forms of connections The aforementioned design guidance focuses still on existing methodologies used in fabrication, like the application of welds, plates, bolts an angle cleats. A more visionary development [ 11 ][ 12 ]* [ 13 ] towards rationalisation of the production of steel structures is made in . The emphasis of this research is on a cost-efficient automatic self-guiding connector (ATLSS connection) to greatly facilitate initial placement. It is stated that the use of the connector together with a special platform crane will minimise human assistance during construction and will result in quicker, safer and less expensive erection procedures. In a demonstration project, cost savings were achieved between 12 and 18%. Preloaded fasteners An important factor influencing the costs of a steel structure is the installation of the bolts. Especially when preloaded bolts are used, the tightening of the bolts and the required

inspection[ P ][ Q ] are labour intensive and thus costly. This leads to the question in which circumstances preloading is required. The answer to this question is very much influenced by tradition, quality level of fabrication industry and views on structural integrity in various countries. It should be noted that this question is still subject of discussion between experts of various countries. A first attempt to specify objective criteria for the use and installation of ] preloaded bolts was made in [ R . The effect of preloading on bolts in shear differs from the effect on bolts in tension. In shear connections, the preloading avoids slip in the connections which might occur due to the clearance in bolt holes required to facilitate erection (normally 2mm clearance). The shear force between the connected plates is transferred by means of friction, rather than bearing in case of non-preloaded bolts. The maximum shear force to be transferred is dependent on the preload in the bolt and the friction of the contact surfaces of the plates. When acting in tension, fluctuations in loading on the connection leads to limited fluctuation in the loading in the bolts due to loading and unloading of the plate package clamped by the bolts and the connection stiffness is increased. So when preloaded bolts should be applied is summarised in Table B. Table B: use of preloaded bolts Shear Connections Tension Connections to reduce deformations due to slip to improve fatigue resistance when using oversized or slotted holes to increase stiffness2) when subjected to (frequent) load reversal1) when subjected to loosening vibrations to improve fatigue resistance 1) load reversal in wind bracing can be avoided by preloading the bracing with a turn buckle 2) more economic alternatives with non-preloaded bolts exist like thicker plates, increased bolt diameter and different bolt spacing In other words, the need to use preloaded bolts is typically in bridges, cranes and other structures loaded by fatigue or dynamic loading. They should be rarely applied in buildings and other predominantly static structures. The installation of preloaded bolts should comply with two requirements: 1) the tightening should result in at least the specified bolt tension and 2) there should be a sufficient reserve against overtightening. Some frequently used installation methods [ S ] are listed below: Torque control method Turn of the nut method Combined method The use of direct tension indicators Alternatives for preloaded fasteners: injection bolts In slip resistant connections, different alternatives exists for preloaded bolts. A possibility is the use of fitted bolts. In this case, the bolt diameter is equal to the hole diameter, so there is no clearance between bolt shank and hole. Fitted bolts are expensive because the holes have to be machined. A better possibility in that case is the use of so-called injection bolts, see Figure B for a schematic impression.

Figure B: injection bolt Injection bolts are (normal standard structural) bolts in which the cavity produced by the clearance the bolt and the wall of the hole is filled with a two component resin. The resin, when hardened prevents slip of the connections. Research and practical experience have shown that injection bolts are a reliable and relative cheap alternative for repair of existing (riveted) structures. Filling takes place through a small hole in the head of the nut. The washer should have an air escape groove. The advantages ** [ T ] of injection bolts are listed in Table C. A difference can be made towards existing and new structures. Table C: Advantages of injection bolts . Existing Structures Solution for connections with riveted plates Good design resistance in bearing No internal corrosion New Structures No slip in case of overload Good design resistance in bearing Compact connections are possible when injection bolts are combined with preloading. No special requirements for contact surfaces No controlled tightening to prevent slip

The design procedures for injection bolts in shear and bearing under static loading are quite similar as for normal bolts (check of bolt shear and hole bearing). However, additional checks ] need to be performed for design resistance of the resin. In [ U design rules are given. In case of bearing, shear and friction, the design resistance of a connection may be calculated as the sum of the friction resistance and the bearing and shear resistance of the injection bolts. Other bolting systems Last years, (patented) systems are developed like blind bolting, flowdrill Huck-Fit * [ V ] ] ] [ W [ X etc. These systems focus on easy and rapid installation and inspection (for example in tubular columns, where single sided installation is required). Research focused on the behaviour of these systems compared to classical (preloaded) bolting. Special attention is paid to items specific for preloaded bolts like the effect of lack of plate flatness.

Unstiffened moment connections Traditionally, joints in steel frames are treated as either nominally pinned (in braced frames) or rigid (in unbraced frames). Typical examples of joints treated as nominally pinned are joints with web cleats, fin plates and partial depth end plates, see Figure Ca. Typical examples of

rigid joints are stiffened fully welded joints, (stiffened) haunched joints with full depth end plate etc., see Figure Cb.

a) pinned joints

b) rigid joints

c) semi rigid - partial strength joints Figure C: typical joints There is a third class of joints: unstiffened moment connections. They are rarely applied in practice, but research has demonstrated their potential economical benefit . The behaviour of unstiffened moment connections is normally such that the mechanical properties (strength, stiffness and rotational capacity) should be taken into account when performing the design and analysis of the frame. These kind of joints are also referred as semi rigid - partial strength joints (Europe) or partial restrained connections (US & Australia), see Figure Cc. How economical benefit can be achieved from the application of semi-rigid / partial strength joints is indicated in Figure D and Figure E. In Figure D two alternatives are given for a beam to column connection in a braced frame.

IPE 550

IPE 500

HE 220 A

HE 220 A

Figure D: alternatives for joints in a braced frame. Left: nominally pinned, right: partial strength. The joint on the left hand side consists of traditional double angle cleats. The design criterion for the beam IPE 550 is that the section should be able to resist the sagging moment (for a 2 uniformly distributed load q: 1/8 q l , where l is the beam span). The connection is assumed to transfer shear only. The joint on the right hand side consist of full depth end plated connection.

In this connection a hogging moment can develop. Normally, for full depth end plated or extended end plated connections, the moment capacity of the joint is about 15-30% of the resistance of the beam (this is also referred as partial strength). In other words, it is possible to decrease the beam section from an IPE 550 to an IPE500 because the vertical loading moment will be partly transferred through the joint and not resisted only by the mid section. A second effect is that deflections of the beam in the right hand solution will decrease due to the restraining effect of the connections compared to the pinned solution. Economical benefit will now be gained because of the savings in material and savings due to reduced construction height will in general be more than the extra production costs for and end plate connection compared to angle cleats. Costs savings are reported up to 13% of the bare frame costs[ Y ]* [ Z ]. IPE 400

IPE 450

HEB 340

HEB 400

Figure E: alternatives for joints in an unbraced frame. Left: rigid, right: semi-rigid. Figure E shows two alternatives for knee joints in a two storey unbraced frame. The connection on the left hand side is a traditional rigid connection. To be sufficient rigid, stiffening is required. The connection on the right hand side consists of an unstiffened connection. To fulfil requirements like overall frame stability, the column size is increased from an HEB 340 to an HEB 400. However, it appeared that the beam size could reduce from an IPE 450 to an IPE 400. In the case of the unstiffened connection, the flexibility of the connection should be taken into account in the frame analysis. When this is the case, the joint is referred to as semi-rigid. Economical benefits will be gained from savings in fabrication costs which are higher than the increase of material costs (in the right hand side solution, there is no need for the fabrication of a haunch). Cost savings are reported up to 30% of the bare ] ] ]. frame costs [ Y * [ Z [ AA Research on semi-rigid connections so far focused very much on unstiffened major axis beam to columns connections. Knowledge on beam-to-column joints and beam splices founds its ] ] ] ] ] ] ] way to codification[ BB [ CC and design manuals[ D * [ DD [ EE [ FF [ GG . Backgrounds ] ] ] ] ] * [ Z [ HH [ II * [ JJ [ KK to these codes and manuals are well documented. It has to be noted that the concept of semi-rigid design is now well introduced in the European standards. Also outside Europe, substantial research is performed [ LL] [ MM ] . There is a demand from practice to focus also on other forms of semi-rigid connections, like minor axis joints, joints between slender sections, (haunched) joints in portal frames where the ] norma l force in the beam is non-negligible during design. In * [ JJ an overview is given of existing research material and future directions are indicated. Base plate connections A special kind of semi-rigid / partial strength joint is the base plate connection. Normally, this connection forms the interface between the steel work and the (concrete) foundation. Base plate connections are in practice also normally treated as either pinned or rigid, although there

is a tendency to treat base plates by preference as nominally pinned. The reason for this is that in case the joints are treated as nominally pinned, only shear and normal forces have to be transmitted to the foundations, which leads to a more simple design. Research has demonstrated that even base plate connections which normally are treated as ] normally pinned posses a stiffness and a (moment) capacity which are non-negligible* [ NN [ ] ] ] OO [ PP [ QQ . During design, one could take advantage of these characteristics. This can be illustrated with the help of a simple unbraced (sway) frame loaded by two horizontal loads F as shown in Figure F. The beam and columns have stiffness EI. The stiffness of the base is equal to Sbase. The frame height is equal to l and the span is 2l.

Figure F gives the results of a small parameter study for the frame. First order elastic analysis is used. The influence of the column base stiffness on the horizontal displacement (solid line) and the influence of the column base stiffness on the moment at the column base (dotted line) are given. For presentation purpose, the stiffness of the column base Sbase is given relative to the column stiffness (EI/ l). Deflections are given relative to the deflection 0 of the frame in case of a pinned column base connection (S base = 0). The moment in the column base is given relative to Fl.

F EI

F l EI Sbase 2l EI Sbase

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 5 10 15 20 Sbase l EI Figure F: influence of variation of column base stiffness on frame deflections and forces. /0 25 M base Fl

For low values of

S base l , Figure F is very interesting. For example, when deflections EI

decrease to 80% compared to the pinned situation, the moments in the base are still low (20% of Fl). From Figure F the following conclusion can be drawn. Since the design of unbraced frames is normally based on the limitation of horizontal deflections, advantage can be taken of a low column base stiffness without the penalty of heavy foundations required to transfer moments. It has to be noted that for multi-storey frames similar conclusions can be drawn. What regards frame stability of unbraced frames, similar tendencies occur as for horizontal deflections (with a low column base stiffness the frame stability increases substantially without inducing problems in the foundation block). In braced frames, a certain amount of base plate stiffness reduces the column buckling length. Since most pinned column base designs in practice posses some inherent stiffness, better understanding of the column base beha viour will lead to more economical frame designs. Tests on typical base plate configurations have been performed * [ NN [ OO [ PP [ QQ . Based on the test results, models have been developed to predict strength and stiffness. Due to the complexity of the problem (steel, concrete and the effect of the normal force in the column on the stiffness of the base plate), the models developed so far are still in a userunfriendly form and thus not ready for codification. Also the effect of the column base stiffness on the frame has been studied in detail. It has to be noted that most research has been performed with respect to steel-concrete interaction. The strength and stiffness behaviour of the concrete block in interaction with the soil needs to be studied in more detail [ ] RR . Conclusions and future research needs An important change is taking place in steel construction industry in recent years. The production costs of structures are decreasing in order to retain competitiveness. The design, fabrication and erection of the connections play a key role in this process. Research has lead to design guidance helping industry to design connections on a rational basis, that is economic fabrication and erection and good mechanical behaviour. In this paper, research has been reported related to systems of standardisation, economic bolting systems, use of unstiffened moment connections and base plate connections. For the future, the following tasks can be identified: codification of existing research material to make the latest research results accessible for practitioners; training of practitioners, to allow them to fully utilise latest research results in their daily practice; development of quantitative performance specifications for the choice between preloaded and non-preloaded bolts. the development of simple design models to predict the stiffness of base plate connections. study of the interaction between soil and concrete block of base plate connections. References and recommended reading
] ] ] ]

** [ A ] Australian Institute for Steel Construction. Standardized Structural Connections. Sidney: AISC. 1985. Design handbook for simple connections. Provides tools for designers and fabricators for efficient design of connections from both mechanical as fabricational point of view. [ B ] BCSA/SCI . Joints in simple construction, volume 1: design methods SCI-P-105 . Ascot: Steel Construction Institute. 1991

[ C ] BCSA/SCI . Joints in simple construction, volume 2: practical applications SCI-P-105 . Ascot: Steel Construction Institute. 1991

[ D ] BCSA/SCI. Joints in steel construction, moment connections SCI-P-207. Ascot: Steel Construction Institute. 1995

[ E ] Henderson JE. Standardized Steel Connections. Design Manual. Willowdale Ontario: Canadian Institute Steel Construction. 1994. [ F ] Staalbouwkundig Genootschap TC10a. Richtlijnen staalverbindingen voor normaalen dwarskracht. rapport 96-CON-R0359. Delft: TNO Building and Construction Research. 1996. [ G ] American Institute of Steel Construction. Detailing for Steel Construction. Design Manual. Chicago: AISC. 1983.

[ H ] Treiberg T. Design Handbook for Connections (in Swedish). Publications 101-106 . Stockholm: Swedish Steel Construction Institute. 1987.

[ I ] Hancock G, Syam A, Chapman A, & Hogan A. Connection research, design and practice in Australia. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 563-575

[ J ] Steurer A. Trag und verformbarheitverhalten von auf zug beanspruchter Schrauben. Bericht 217. Zurich: Institut fur Baustatik und Konstruktion EHT. 1996.

* [ K ] Moore D.B. A review of connection research and development in the UK. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 535-562 Gives some backgrounds to developments in the UK what regards simple and moment connections, see also[ 2][ 3][ 4].

[ L ] Zahn CJ. Bolted Framing angle connections design aids: past and present. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A, Haaijer G. & Stark JWB (eds) Connections in Steel Structures II. Chicago: AISC. 1992: 132-141.

[ M ] Fleischman RB, Viscomi BV & Lu LW. Development, analysis experimentation and implementation of the ATLASS connection for automated construction. Proceedings of the National Steel Construction Conference pp 16-1 to 16-20 Orlando: The American Institute of Steel Construction. 1993.

* [ N ] Viscomi BV, Michalery WD & Lu LW. Automated construction in the ATLSS integrated building systems. Automation in Construction Vol 3 No 1. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1994: 33-43. Publication gives overview of ATLSS integrated building systems. [ O ] Viscomi BV, Lu WL, Michalerya WD, Larrabee AB, & Perreira ND. Automated Erection of Structures Utilizing ATLSS Connections and A Robotic Crane. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering 10 . Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1995: 309-323.

[ P ] ECCS. European Recommendations for Bolted Connections in Structural Steelwork. Publication no 38. Brussels: ECCS. 1985.

[ Q ] ECCS-TC10-WG4. Acceptance inspection of grade 10.9 structural fasteners intended for controlled tightening Publication 64. Brussels: ECCS. 1991.

[ R ] Stark JWB. Criteria for the use of preloaded bolts in structural joints. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 431-440.

[ S ] CEN. Execution of Steel Structures. Part 1. General rules and rules for buildings. ENV 1090-1. Brussels: CEN. 1995

* [ T ] Gresnigt AM & Stark JWB. Design of bolted connections with injection bolts. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 77-87. Paper gives overview of design rules and applications for bolted connections with injection bolts.

[ U ] ECCS-TC10-WG4. European recommendations for bolted connections with injection bolts. Publication 79. Brussels: ECCS. 1994.

* [ V ] Ballerini M, Bozzo E, Occhi F & Piazza M. The Flowdrill system for the bolted connection of steel hollow sections. Part 1 the drilling process and the technological aspects. Construzioni Metalliche, 1995: (4) 13-23 Paper reports on the applicability of the flowdrill system and explains the underlying principles. Can be read in conjunction with[ W ] where the mechanical behaviour of the system is evaluated. [ W ] Ballerini M, Bozzo E, Occhi F & Piazza M. The Flowdrill system for the bolted connection of steel hollow sections. Part 2 the experimental results and design evaluations. Construzioni Metalliche PLAATS: UITGEVER. 1995: (5) 1-12.

[ X ] Czarnomska M, Muzeau JP & Racher P. Etude exprimentale comperative du comportement dassemblages par boulons sertis Huck-Fit our par boulons HR 10.9. Construction Metallique Paris: CTICM 1993: (2) 9-29.

[ Y ] ECCS-TC10-WG2 Connections and frame design for economy. Publication 77. Brussels: ECCS. 1995.

* [ Z ] Weynand K. Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchungen zur anwendung nachgiebieger Anschlusse im Stahlbau. PH-D Thesis. RWTH Aachen. To be published in 1997. Publication gives excellent overview of concepts used in Eurocode 3 Annex J [ CC ]. Helpful for practitioners. [ AA ] Bjorhovde R & Colson A. Economy of Semi-Rigid Frame Design. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A, Haaijer G. & Stark JWB (eds) Connections in Steel Structures II. Chicago: AISC. 1992: 418-431.

[ BB ] CEN. Design of Steel Structures Part 1.1. General rules for buildings. Eurocode 3 ENV 1993-1-1. Brussels: CEN. 1992

[ CC ] CEN. Design of Steel Structures Part 1.1. General rules for buildings. Revised Annex J. Eurocode 3 ENV 1993-1-1 Document CEN / TC 250 / SC3 N419 E. Brussels: CEN. June 1994.

* [ DD ] European Commission of the European Communities. Frame design including joint behaviour, volume 1. Reference number 93-F6.05. Brussels: ECSC. 1997. Design handbook provides background and examples for a practitioner willing to adopt the semi-rigid concept. [ EE ] European Commission of the European Communities. Frame design including joint behaviour, volume 2. Reference number 93-F6.05. Brussels: ECSC. 1997.

[ FF ] European Commission of the European Communities. Frame design including joint behaviour, volume 3. Reference number 93-F6.05. Brussels: ECSC. 1997.

[ GG ] Sprint RA 351. Semi Rigid Connections in Steel Construction - Simple Design Model and Design Aids. Final Report. Brussels: European Community Strategic Programme. 1994.

[ HH ] Weynand K, Jaspart JP & Steenhuis M. The stiffness model of Revised Annex J. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 441-452.

[ II ] Brown DG, Fewster SMC, Hughes AF & Owens GW. A new industry standard for connections in steelwork. The structural engineer / volume 74 No 20 / 15. London: The Institution of Structural Engineers. October 1996: 335-342.

* [ JJ ] Jaspart JP. Contributions to recent advancements in the field of steel joints - column bases and further configurations for beam-to-column joints and beam splices. Thesis. Lige: University of Lige: 1997. Thesis gives an excellent overview of recent developments in the field of semi-rigid design as taking place in Europe. [ KK ] Steenhuis CM, Gresnigt AM & Weynand K. Pre-design in semi-rigid joints in steel frames. In Wald F. (Ed) Proceedings of the 2d state of the art workshop. Prague: Czech Technical University. 1994.

[ LL ] Murray TM & Borgsmiller JT. Strength of moment end plate connections with multiple bolt rows at the beam tension flange In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A & Zandonini R (eds) Connections in Steel Structures III. Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1996: 169-189.

[ MM ] Yee YL & Melchers RE. Moment rotation curves for bolted connections. Journal of the Structural Division Vol. 122 ST3. New York: ASCE. March 1996: 615-635.

* [ NN ] Wald F. Patky Sloupu - Column Bases. Report. Prague: Czech Technical University. 1995. Report summarizing 3 years of European research on column bases. [ OO ] Guisse S, Vandegans D. & Jaspart JP. Application of the component method to column bases. Experimentation and development of a mechanical model for characterization Report MT 295 . Lige: CRIF . 1997.

[ PP ] Melchers RE. Steel baseplate - footing -soil behaviour. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A, Haaijer G. & Stark JWB (eds) Connections in Steel Structures II. Chicago: AISC. 1992: 132-141.

[ QQ ] Melchers RE. Column base response under applied moment, Journal of Constructional Steel Research No 27 Oxford: Elsevier Science. 1992: 127-143

[ RR ] Trauner L. Skrabl S. Zlender B. Stiffness of rigid block (column base) in non homogenious soil. In Wald F. (Ed) Proceedings of the 2d state of the art workshop. Prague: Czech Technical University. 1994.