4 views

Uploaded by alfonso

- USD beam
- trb015
- en-curs13_dsis.pdf
- Effects of Fire-damage on the Nonlinear Response of r.c. Base-Isolated Buildings Under Near-fault Earthquakes
- Connection Coefficient of Composite Beam
- AASHTO -Prestressed Beams AASHTO Examples
- Design of Welded Structures
- 1.3
- Pna Module 9 Local Structural Analysis
- Plastic Design
- Experiment 08 j1 Batch
- Beam Design for Moment, Shear & Torsion
- 7.8.1.pdf
- ASTM for Bend Testing
- CombinedTorsionandBendinginReinforcedandPrestressedConcretebeamsUsingSMCS
- WJ_1973_08_s329.pdf
- 12_Bridge Basic Structural Considerations - August 2016
- Yield Stress Von MIses Stress Strength of Materials - Mechanics of Materials
- Raft Foundation Design
- TEDDS Engineering Library (AU)

You are on page 1of 17

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

beam-to-column steel joints

a,*

~es da Silva

L. Simo , Aldina Santiago b, Paulo Vila Real c

a

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Polo II, Pinhal de Marrocos, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal

b

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Edifıcio II das Engenharias, Calcßada do Lameiro, 6200 Covilh~

a, Portugal

c

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campo de Santiago, 3800 Aveiro, Portugal

Received 26 July 2001; accepted 9 January 2002

Abstract

A procedure for the evaluation of ductility in steel joints is presented. Using the component method as background,

a non-linear analysis for a number of end-plate beam-to-column joints is performed that is capable of identifying the

‘‘yield’’ sequence of the various components and the failure of the joint. Each component is characterised using a bi-

linear approximation for the force–displacement relation. Comparing these results with the corresponding experimental

results leads to a proposal of the post-limit stiﬀness of the various components. A component ductility index is pro-

posed for each component as a means of classiﬁcation with respect to ductility, using the three ductility classes currently

proposed in the literature. A joint ductility index is also proposed, which can be used to verify available rotation against

the structure required rotation. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel joints; Steel structures; Ductility; Component method; Post-limit stiﬀness

ment–rotation response of a very stiﬀ, overstrength joint

It is never enough repeating that the behaviour of (rigid in practical terms) that, for a given applied mo-

joints is complex, falling between the traditional as- ment M, exhibits a rotation h0j < hb , hb denoting the

sumption of pinned or fully rigid response. A consider- corresponding beam rotation. In contrast, for the same

able eﬀort was undertaken over the past two decades applied moment, a semi-rigid joint will reach a rotation

to give consistent predictions of the behaviour of steel h00j > hb , thus requiring much higher ductility from the

joints. However, until now, most research studies on the joint. This ductility demand may easily reach 0.03 rad

behaviour of semi-rigid joints were focused on deter- for some joints where a plastic hinge is required, in

mining resistance and stiﬀness characteristics [8,17,19] plastic design conditions.

leading, for example, to the code speciﬁcations for the The prediction of the deformation of beam-to-

evaluation of strength and stiﬀness of steel joints that column or beam-to-beam steel joints requires the consid-

were prepared for Eurocode 3 [2]. eration of bending moments and axial and shear forces,

The evaluation of joint ductility constitutes an es- that are usually present in a steel frame. Concentrat-

sential characteristic to ensure that suﬃcient rotation or ing solely on the rotational deformations arising from

deformation capacity is available to allow the chosen bending moments of the connected beam, it is necessary

to deﬁne the various contributions for the total rotation

of the joint. In analogy with member rotation, and given

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-239-797216; fax: +351- that non-linearity in the moment–rotation response of

239-797217. steel connections starts at low values of rotation, duc-

E-mail address: luis_silva@gipac.pt (L. Sim~

oes da Silva). tility ratios are proposed in this paper, aimed at the

0045-7949/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 4 - 7

516 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

Nomenclature

As tensile stress area of the bolt zone

Ac eﬀective web area in compression zone beff;t;wc eﬀective width of the column web in tension

At eﬀective web area in tension zone zone

Aw eﬀective shear area db clear depth of the beam

Awc shear area of the column dc clear depth of the column

Bt;Rd tensile resistance of bolts fu ultimate tensile strength of the weld

E Young’s modulus fub ultimate tensile strength of the bolts

Fy strength of component fy yield stress

Fb;fc;Rd resistance of column ﬂange in bending fy;p yield stress of end-plate

Fb;p;Rd resistance of end-plate in bending fy;wb yield stress of a beam web

Fc;fb;Rd compression resistance of a beam ﬂange and fy;wc yield stress of a column web

the adjacent compression zone of a beam h depth of the column

web ht distance from the tensile force to the centre

Fc;wc;Rd resistance of an unstiﬀened column web of compression

subject to transverse compression leff smallest of the eﬀective lengths (individually

Ft;wb;Rd tensile resistance of the beam web or as part of a bolt group)

Ft;wc;Rd tensile resistance of the column web ki stiﬀness coeﬃcients for basic joint compo-

Fv;Rd shear resistance of bolts nents

G shear modulus of steel m distance between the bolt centre-line and the

Ke elastic stiﬀness of the connection, obtained face of the weld connecting the beam web to

from the following: ki E the end-plate; number of faying surfaces or

K pl post-limit stiﬀness of the connection shear planes in a bolted joint, equal to 1.0

Kb;f stiﬀness of component column ﬂange in for bolts in single shear and 2.0 for bolts in

bending double shear

Kb;p stiﬀness of component end-plate in bending n eﬀective distance to the free edge

Kc;wc stiﬀness of component column web in com- nb number of bolt-rows

pression r root radius of the web-ﬂange junction

Kt;b stiﬀness of component bolt in tension tf ﬂange thickness

Kt;wb stiﬀness of component beam web in tension tfb thickness of a beam ﬂange

Kt;wc stiﬀness of component column web in ten- tfc thickness of a column ﬂange

sion tp thickness of end-plate

Kw stiﬀness of component weld tw web thickness

Kwp stiﬀness of component column web panel in twb thickness of a beam web

shear twc thickness of a column web

Lb bolt elongation length, taken as equal to the z lever arm between the compressive resis-

grip length (total thickness of material and tance, and tensile resistance

washers), plus half the sum of the height of m Poisson’s ratio

the bolt head and the height of the nut b transformation parameter, see Part 1–8,

M moment EC3

Mc;Rd moment resistance of the beam cross-sec- bw correlation factor

tion, reduced if necessary to allow for shear h rotation

Mpl;Rd ﬂexural resistance of end-plate or column h0j ; h00j ; hb design rotation to rigid joint; semi-rigid

ﬂange joint and beam, respectively

Q shear force of the column web x reduction factor to allow for the possible

Vwc;Rd shear resistance of column web panel eﬀects of shear in the column web panel

a eﬀective thickness of the weld q reduction factor for plate buckling

b ﬂange width Dy deformation that correspond to yield stress

beff eﬀective width Df deformation that correspond to failure

beff;c;wc eﬀective width of the column in compression Di deformation for basic joint components

zone

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 517

2. Joint models

stitute a joint (bolts, welds, stiﬀeners) gives a good pic-

ture of the complexity of its analysis, which requires

proper consideration of a multitude of phenomena,

ranging from material non-linearity (plasticity, strain-

hardening), non-linear contact and slip, geometrical

non-linearity (local instability) to residual stress condi-

tions and complicated geometrical conﬁgurations. Al-

though numerical approaches using non-linear ﬁnite

elements may deal with all these complexities, they re-

quire lengthy procedures and are very sensitive to the

modelling and analysis options. In practical terms, a

predictive approach must thus be based on simpler

models that eliminate much of the variability arising

from the analysis procedure itself. The so-called com-

ponent method corresponds precisely to a simpliﬁed

Fig. 1. Comparison of moment–rotation response between mechanical model composed of extensional springs and

beam and various joint types.

rigid links, whereby the joint is simulated by an appro-

priate choice of rigid and ﬂexible components. These

components represent a speciﬁc part of a joint that,

objective of ensuring ductility compliance, within the dependent on the type of loading, make an identiﬁed

framework of the component method, as explained later contribution to one or more of its structural proper-

in this paper. ties [17], as illustrated in Fig. 2a. Typical examples of

Fig. 2. Component method applied to a typical beam-to-column joint: (a) component model; (b) equivalent rotational spring.

518 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

panel in shear, (ii) end-plate in bending, (iii) column

ﬂange in bending, (iv) beam web in tension, (v) column

web in compression, (vi) column web in tension, (vii)

beam ﬂange and web in compression, (viii) bolts in ten-

sion and (ix) welds. In general, each of these components

is characterised by a non-linear force–deformation

curve, although simpler idealisations are possible.

Several alternative spring and rigid link models have

been proposed [6], which share the same basic compo-

nents. In the following, the simpliﬁed component model

of the revised Annex J of EC3 (1998) will be selected,

that, for simplicity, combines the bending behaviour of

the joint with the shear behaviour of the column panel to

yield an equivalent rotational spring, as shown in Fig.

2b.

Application of the component method to steel joints

requires the following steps:

a global list of components (13 diﬀerent components

currently codiﬁed, for example, in Annex J of EC3);

(ii) evaluation of the force–deformation response of

each component;

(iii) assembly of the active components for the evalu-

ation of the moment–rotation response of the joint,

using a representative mechanical model (Fig. 2a).

reﬁnement, simpliﬁed characterisation of the compo-

nents being possible whenever only the resistance or the

initial stiﬀness of the joint is required.

Describing the mechanical behaviour of the various Fig. 3. Components with high ductility: (a) actual behaviour;

and (b) bi-linear approximation.

components of a joint allows the analysis of a large

number of diﬀerent joint conﬁgurations with a relatively

small number of repeating components. A key aspect to

direct analogy with the classiﬁcation of cross-sections,

the component method thus relates to the characterisa-

three classes are proposed [10], described below.

tion of the force–deformation curves for each individual

extensional spring. For the evaluation of the initial

stiﬀness of a joint, only the linear stiﬀness of each 2.2.1. Components with high ductility

component is required, whereas the evaluation of duc- According to Kuhlmann et al. [10], these components

tility requires the knowledge of the non-linear force– present a force–deformation curve that changes from an

deformation response of each component. initial linear elastic mode into a second carrying mode

Concentrating on the components relevant for steel which allows increasing deformation with increasing

beam-to-column joints, a brief review of their behaviour force. The deformation capacity of the component is

is presented below. With reference to Fig. 3a, it is noted nearly unlimited, not imposing any bounds on the

that analytical expressions are only presented for overall rotation ability of the joint, and is typically il-

strength and initial stiﬀness because of lack of data for lustrated in Fig. 3a or, as a bi-linear approximation, in

the post-limit response, here presented only in a quali- Fig. 3b, where K e , K pl , F y and Dy denote, respectively,

tative way, according to research results from various the initial elastic stiﬀness, the post-limit stiﬀness, the

authors. Of particular relevance to a ductility evaluation strength and the yield displacement of the component. It

is the deformation capacity of each component. Here, in is noted that Df , the limit displacement of the compo-

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 519

nent, is very high, so that, in practical terms, Df =Dy may According to Janss and Jaspart [7], Jaspart [8] and

be taken as inﬁnity. Some components falling into this Shi et al. [16], the contribution of the shear deformation

classiﬁcation are described below: of the column web panel to the overall initial rotation of

2.2.1.1. Column web panel in shear. This component has the joint is given by

been studied by Jaspart [8], typical experimental results

Q

being reproduced in Fig. 4, that clearly show the stable Us ¼ ð4Þ

post-limit response. GAwc

The resistance of the panel zone in shear is given by

where Q denotes

P the shear force on the column web,

fy;wc Awc taken as 2 Fi (Fi denoting the force in each bolt row

Vwp;Rd ¼ pﬃﬃﬃ ð1Þ

3 and i the bolt row), and Awc already deﬁned above. The

corresponding axial stiﬀness becomes

where fy;wc is the yield stress of the column web and Awc

is the shear area of the column. In case of welded sec- GAwc 0:38EAwc

Kwp ¼ ¼ ð5Þ

tions, the shear area of the column coincides with the z z

area of the web, whereas in the case of rolled sections it

is given by where z denotes the lever arm between the compressive

and the tensile areas. From Eq. (4) it can be observed

Awc ¼ Ac 2bc tfc þ ðtwc þ 2rc Þtfc ð2Þ that the stiﬀness of this component depends on the ap-

plied shear force on the column web. Given that, in

where Ac is the total area of the column, bc , tfc and twc

general, internal forces transmitted by the lower and

are, respectively, the ﬂange width, the ﬂange thickness

upper column and (for internal nodes with unbalanced

and the web thickness of the column and rc is the root-

moments) left beam may also be present, the applied

radius of the web-ﬂange junction. Eq. (1) neglects the

shear force must also be modiﬁed by a factor b to deal

column axial load; otherwise, using the Von Mises yield

with this eﬀect, Eq. (5) becoming

criterion it would be possible to evaluate a reduced value

of resistance that takes the column axial load into con- 0:38EAwc

sideration. Jaspart [8] suggested a reduction coeﬃcient Kwp ¼ ð6Þ

bz

of 0.9 that approximately takes care of this problem, an

approach currently adopted in Annex J of EC3, yielding For a stiﬀened web panel the shear deformation may

be neglected (Ks;wp ¼ 1). Finally, it should be noted that

0:9fy;wc Awc

Vwc;Rd ¼ pﬃﬃﬃ ð3Þ for slender webs, instability becomes the governing

3 factor, currently not covered in code speciﬁcations.

component is usually evaluated using a simple substitute

model, the T-stub [18,19], assumed to represent the be-

haviour of the tension zone of the joint and illustrated in

Fig. 5a. In terms of resistance, the T-stub exhibits three

Fig. 4. Experimental results taken from Jaspart [8]. Fig. 5. Equivalent T-stub assembly.

520 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

alternative failure modes, typically shown in Fig. 5b, 2.2.1.3. Column ﬂange in bending. Except for the re-

described next: straint provided by additional stiﬀening of the column,

this component behaves similarly to the end-plate in

(i) Type 1––end-plate yielding without bolt failure. bending, the T-Stub approach being equally valid. The

(ii) Type 2––simultaneous yielding of end-plate with same degree of ductility and post-limit stiﬀness is thus to

bolt failure. be expected, the relevant equations for strength and

(iii) Type 3––bolt failure without end-plate yielding. stiﬀness being reproduced below.

8

Eq. (7) describes the corresponding axial strength, > 4Mpl;Rd

>

> Type 1

8 < m P

> 4Mpl;Rd Ft;Rd ¼ 2M pl;Rd þ n Bt;Rd ð10Þ

>

> Type 1 >

> Type 2

< m P >

:P mþn

Ft;Rd ¼ 2M pl;Rd þ n B t;Rd ð7Þ Bt;Rd Type 3

>

> Type 2

>

:P mþn

Bt;Rd Type 3 0:85Eleff tfc3

Kb;f ¼ ð11Þ

where m denotes the distance between the bolt centre- m3

line and the face of the weld connecting the beam web to

the various quantities having the same meaning as

the end-plate, n is the eﬀective distance to the free edge,

for the end-plate in bending, just replacing the end-plate

Bt;Rd corresponds to the resistance of the bolts in tension

for the column ﬂange.

and Mpl;Rd is the ﬂexural resistance of the end-plate,

given by

2.2.1.4. Beam web in tension. For bolted end-plate joints,

leff tp2 fy;p

Mpl;Rd ¼ ð8Þ the tension resistance of the beam web is given by

4

Ft;wb;Rd ¼ beff;t;wb twb fy;wb ð12Þ

where leff is the eﬀective width of the end-plate in

bending, and tp and fy;p are the thickness and yield stress where the eﬀective width beff;t;wb should be taken as equal

of the end-plate, respectively. to the eﬀective length of the equivalent T-Stub repre-

Analytical expressions for the initial stiﬀness of the senting the end-plate in bending and twb and fy;wb denote,

T-Stub (end-plate in bending) can be derived from respectively, the thickness of the beam web and the

classical beam theory [16,18], once an eﬀective width has corresponding yield stress. The initial stiﬀness for this

been properly evaluated, giving component may be taken as inﬁnity (Kt;wb ¼ 1).

0:85Eleff tp3

Kb;p ¼ ð9Þ

m3 2.2.2. Components with limited ductility

These components are characterised by a force–defor-

typical force–deformation results obtained from experi-

mation curve exhibiting a limit point and a subsequent

mental work being reproduced in Fig. 6 [5], showing a

softening response, as shown in Fig. 7a or, as a bi-linear

stable (positive) post-limit stiﬀness.

approximation, in Fig. 7b. In this ductility class, it is

required to deﬁne the collapse displacement of the

component, Df .

2.2.2.1. Column web in compression. This component has

been studied by Kuhlmann [9], who concluded that it

exhibited limited ductile behaviour with a softening

branch after reaching its maximum load carrying ca-

pacity, as reproduced in Fig. 8.

The resistance of this component may be subdivided

into two diﬀerent criteria, crushing and buckling resis-

tance. The crushing resistance must take into account

the interaction between local stresses that arise from the

shear stresses in the panel zone, the vertical normal

stresses due to axial load and bending moment in the

column and the horizontal normal stresses transmitted

by the beam ﬂanges. Using the Von Mises yield criterion

[4], the crushing resistance is given by

Fig. 6. Force versus deformation for T-Stub assembly taken

from Gebbeken et al. [5]. Fc;wc;Rd ¼ beff;c;wc twc fy;wc xkc;wc ð13Þ

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 521

compression, given by, for bolted end-plate joints,

pﬃﬃﬃ

beff;c;wc ¼ tfb þ 2 2a þ 5ðtfc þ sÞ þ sp ð14Þ

rolled column sections and sp denoting the length ob-

tained by dispersion at 45° through the end-plate; kc;wc

accounts for the inﬂuence of vertical normal stress, rv ,

rv

kc;wc ¼ 1:25 0:5 6 1 ðrv > 0:5fy;wc Þ ð15Þ

fy;wc

8

<1 0:0 6 b 6 0:5

x ¼ x1 þ 2ð1 bÞð1 x1 Þ 0:5 6 b 6 1:0 ð16Þ

:

x1 þ ðb 1Þðx2 x1 Þ 1:0 6 b 6 2:0

with

1

x1 ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð17aÞ

1 þ 1:3ðbeff;c;wc twc =Avc Þ2

1

x2 ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð17bÞ

1 þ 5:2ðbeff;c;wc twc =Avc Þ2

the Winter formula as

given by

(

1 k < 0:673

Fig. 7. Components with limited ductility: (a) actual behaviour; q ¼ ðk0:22Þ ð19Þ

k2 k > 0:673

and (b) bi-linear approximation.

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

beff;c;wc twc fy;wc beff;c;wc d fy;wc

k¼ ¼ 0:932 2

ð20Þ

Fcr Etwc

be determined from [16]

N d

Uc ¼ ð21Þ

EAc hc

where

P N is the resultant compressive force, taken as

2 Fi (Fi denote the force in each bolt row and i the bolt

row), Ac is the eﬀective web area in compression zone,

Ac ¼ twc beff;c , d the depth between column ﬁllets, and hc

the beam depth minus beam ﬂange thickness, so that the

initial (axial) stiﬀness becomes

Kc;wc ¼ EAc ¼E ð22Þ

pression [9]. d d

522 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

duction of the eﬀective width used for the strength cal-

culation is adopted (0.7beff;c;wc ).

phenomena, the resistance of this component is similar

to the column web in compression. Consequently,

Ft;wc;Rd ¼ beff;t;wc twc fy;wc x kt;wc ð23Þ

before by replacing c for t. It is noted that Annex J of

EC3 disregards the inﬂuence of vertical stresses arising

from the column.

In analogy with the previous case, the initial defor-

mation of this component, Uw , may be determined from

[16]

T d

Uw ¼ ð24Þ

EAt ht

P

where T is the resultant tensile force, taken as 2 Fi (Fi

denoting the force in each bolt row and i the bolt row),

At is the eﬀective web area in the tensile zone, At ¼

twc beff;t;wc , d the depth between column ﬁllets, and ht the

distance from the tensile force to the center of com-

pression, so that the axial stiﬀness becomes

1 0:7beff;t;wc wc

Kt;wc ¼ EAt ¼E ð25Þ

d d

beam ﬂange and web in compression adjacent to

the beam-connection system provides a limitation to

the resistance of the joint, so that it is required to assess

its maximum resistance, given by

Mc;Rd

Fc;fb;Rd ¼ ð26Þ Fig. 9. Components with brittle failure: (a) actual behaviour;

z

and (b) linear approximation.

while its initial stiﬀness is taken as inﬁnity.

These components behave linearly until collapse,

with very little deformation before failure, as shown in

Fig. 9a or, as a linear approximation, in Fig. 9b, so that

Df ¼ Dy .

2.2.3.1. Bolts in tension. Bolts exhibit a linear force–

deformation response up to failure, as shown in Fig. 10,

taken from a tensile test on a single bolt. The resistance

and initial stiﬀness of each bolt are given by

Ft;Rd ¼ 0:9fub As ð27Þ

1:6EAs

Kt;b ¼ ð28Þ

Lb

tensile strength of the bolts and Lb is the sum of the Fig. 10. Experimental results for bolt in tension.

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 523

washers and the half thickness of the nut and the bolt Mechanical properties of Humer tests

head. Elements Yield strength Failure strength

(MPa) (MPa)

2.2.3.2. Welds. Welds are virtually undeformable (Kw ¼ Humer 109.005

1), a rigid-plastic model being adequate, resistance Column web 306.6 445.0

being given by Column ﬂange 275.9 400.5

pﬃﬃﬃ Beam web 315.6 398.0

fu = 3 Beam ﬂange 284.6 413.0

Fw;Rd ¼ a ð29Þ

bw End-plate 323.0 360.0

Backing plate 333.0

where a is the eﬀective thickness of the weld, fu the ul- Boltsa 900.0 1000.0

timate tensile strength of the weld and bw is a correlation

Humer 109.006

factor. Column web 309.4 449.0

Column ﬂange 247.6 398.5

Beam web 294.2 427.0

3. Joint ductility Beam ﬂange 288.0 418.0

End-plate 325.0 360.0

Backing plate 336.0

The assessment of the ductility of a steel joint requires

Boltsa 900.0 1000.0

a non-linear procedure, which takes into account the

non-linear force–deformation response of each compo- Humer 109.003

nent. Here a bi-linear force–deformation response with a Column web 341.1 499.0

cut-oﬀ is assumed which highlights, for each compo- Column ﬂange 300.4 468.0

nent, the transition between initial elastic stiﬀness and Beam web 343.8 458.0

Beam ﬂange 322.5 413.0

residual stiﬀness while maintaining suﬃcient accuracy.

End-plate 273.0 360.0

Additionally, direct comparison with ideal linear elastic Backing plate 368.0

components is straightforward using, for example, the Boltsa 900.0 1000.0

values for component stiﬀness that were presented above.

Humer 109.004

Column web 359.0 521.0

Column ﬂange 305.9 444.0

4. Post-limit stiﬀness of bolted end-plate beam-to-column Beam web 315.6 458.0

joints Beam ﬂange 284.6 413.0

End-plate 323.0 360.0

4.1. Introduction Backing plate 298.0

Boltsa 900.0 1000.0

In order to evaluate realistic values of the post-limit E ¼ 210 GPa.

a

stiﬀness of the various relevant components, a set of four Nominal values.

extended end-plate beam-to-column joints tested by

Humer at the University of Innsbruck (1987) were se- For all specimens, the (measured) material properties

lected from the database of steel joints SERICON II [1]. and geometries are reproduced in Tables 1 and 2, the

Table 2

Geometric properties of Humer tests

Test

109.005 109.006 109.003 109.004

Beam IPE450R: h ¼ 454; IPE600R: h ¼ 597; IPE300R: h ¼ 300; IPE450R: h ¼ 454;

b ¼ 192; tf ¼ 14; b ¼ 220; tf ¼ 18:6; b ¼ 151; tf ¼ 11:2; b ¼ 192; tf ¼ 14:6;

tw ¼ 10:4; r ¼ 21 tw ¼ 12:1; r ¼ 24 tw ¼ 7; r ¼ 15 tw ¼ 10:4; r ¼ 21

Column HEB240R: h ¼ 242; HEB240R: h ¼ 240; HEB180R: h ¼ 179; HEB180R: h ¼ 180;

b ¼ 240; tf ¼ 16:4; b ¼ 240; tf ¼ 17; b ¼ 180; tf ¼ 14:1; b ¼ 180; tf ¼ 14;

tw ¼ 10:4; r ¼ 21 tw ¼ 10:4; r ¼ 21 tw ¼ 9:2; r ¼ 15 tw ¼ 9:4; r ¼ 15

End-plate 553 239 41 693 243 40 383 181 30 553 239 41

Backing-plate 2 185 100 12 2 200 95 12 2 150 70 10:8 2 185 100 10:4

Bolts 3 bolt rows M24 3 bolt rows M24 3 bolt rows M20 3 bolt rows M24

Units: mm.

524 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

either by applying the analytical methodology presented

Fig. 12. Localisation of displacement transducers.

in [14] or by performing a non-linear ﬁnite element ana-

lysis using the bi-linear characteristics of the components.

The adopted procedure for establishing the post-limit

stiﬀness of the various components involves the follow-

layout of the joint, instrumentation and corresponding ing steps:

experimental results for test 109.005 being illustrated in

Figs. 11–13. (a) for each specimen, assumption of trial values of

For each specimen, a prediction of the moment– the post-limit stiﬀness, obtained as a best ﬁt to the ex-

rotation response was attempted using the component perimental moment–total rotation curves;

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 525

calibration of component sub-models with experi-

mental curves for moment versus panel rotation

and moment versus connection rotation;

(c) statistical evaluation (mean and standard devia-

tion) of the normalised post-limit stiﬀness values ob-

tained above (ratio of initial stiﬀness versus post-limit

stiﬀness) for steps (a) and (b);

(d) for each specimen, evaluation of moment–rota-

tion curves for the average values established above.

5. Numerical models

chosen joint conﬁgurations are illustrated in Fig. 14. The

rigid links are modelled using beam elements with elastic

material properties and very high cross-sectional prop-

erties, while the springs are modelled as non-linear joint

elements, reproducing the bi-linear characteristics earlier

described. An incremental non-linear analysis for an

applied bending moment is performed using the non-

linear ﬁnite element code [12].

According to the procedure deﬁned above, distinct

numerical models were deﬁned for step (a) (Fig. 15a:

moment versus total joint rotation) and step (b) (Fig.

15b (1): moment versus panel rotation and 15b (2):

moment versus connection rotation).

Fig. 15. Component method model: (a) joint model; and (b) (1)

shear panel model, (2) connection model.

3 reproduces the strength and initial stiﬀness values for

all relevant components. Application of step (a) of the

procedure described above leads to the results of Fig. 16,

that compares the experimental results with the numer-

ical/analytical results, showing excellent agreement be-

tween both curves. For the calculated moment–rotation

curve, the yielding rotations of the critical components

are also identiﬁed. Similarly, application of step (b)

yields the results of Fig. 17a and b, that compare the

experimental and numerical curves for moment versus

panel rotation and moment versus connection rotation,

respectively.

Repeating steps (a) and (b) for the remaining joint

Fig. 14. Finite element model: Humer 109.005. conﬁgurations and deﬁning the normalised post-limit

526 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

Table 3

Component characterisation for Humer 109.005

Component Designation F y (kN) k (mm) K e (kN/m) Dy (mm)

Column web in shear 1 543.83 2.91 611100 0.88992

Column web in compression 2 602.31 11.71 2459100 0.24493

Column web in tension 3.1 386.24 7.12 1495200 0.25832

3.2 386.24 7.12 1495200 0.25832

Column ﬂange in bending 4.1 435.93 17.85 3748500 0.11629

4.2 435.93 17.85 3748500 0.11629

End-plate in bending 5.1 635.40 114.60 24066000 0.02640

5.2 635.40 116.87 24542700 0.02589

Beam web in tension 7 877.10 1 1

Beam ﬂange in compression 8.1 941.21 1 1

8.2 941.21 1 1

Bolts in tension 10.1 635.40 6.25 1312500 0.48411

10.2 635.40 6.25 1312500 0.48411

the post-limit stiﬀness and the corresponding initial

stiﬀness,

Kipl

Ki ¼ 100 ð30Þ

Kie

brated values for the critical components, together with Fig. 17. Moment–rotation curve Humer 109.005: (a) shear

the statistical evaluation (mean and standard deviation) panel rotation; and (b) connection rotation.

of the normalised post-limit stiﬀness for each component

(step (c)).

Examination of the normalised post-limit stiﬀness (‘‘exact’’ solution, step (a)) and the corresponding results

values of Table 4 led to the choice of average values for obtained using the average values of post-limit stiﬀness.

the various components shown in Table 5. Assuming In order to assess the error of this approach, an adi-

these mean values for all specimens, and reanalysing all mensional error measure is proposed, given by Eq. (31),

cases using these properties (step (d)) yields the results of

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Figs. 16,18–20, where the experimental results are plotted X n

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

superimposed with the numerical results earlier obtained e¼ ei þ ef ð31Þ

by individual calibration of the post-limit stiﬀness values i¼1

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 527

Table 4

Calibrated values of post-limit stiﬀness

Elastic Stiﬀness Moment–total joint rotation Moment–shear panel/connec-

(kN/m) tion rotation

Post-limit stiﬀ- Ki Post-limit stiﬀ- Ki

ness (kN/m) ness (kN/m)

Component 1 Humer 109.005 611100 48000 7.86% 33000 5.40%

Humer 109.006 468300 20000 4.27% 23000 4.91%

Humer 109.003 573300 27138 4.73% 24000 4.17%

Humer 109.004 388500 16535 4.26% 15000 3.86%

Mean 5.28% 4.59%

Standard deviation 0.016 0.007

Humer 109.006 2553600 22000 0.86% 34048 1.33%

Humer 109.003 2362500 92269 3.91% 90865 3.85%

Humer 109.004 2545200 23622 0.93% 29944 1.17%

Mean 2.39% 2.35%

Standard deviation 0.017 0.013

Humer 109.006 1635900 3043 0.19% 42328 2.58%

Mean 0.66% 2.67%

Standard deviation 0.007 0.001

Humer 109.006 2499000 14366 0.58% 50023 2.00%

Humer 109.003 2706900 141912 5.24% 331128 12.23%

Humer 109.004 1409100 4464 0.32% 7603 0.54%

Humer 109.003)

Standard deviation 0.023 0.055

Mean 0.07% 0.1%

Adopted normalised post-limit stiﬀness values for the various superscript j ð ¼ ind; avÞ denoting individual calibration

components (step (a)) or use of average values (step (d)). Similarly, /i

Component K i (%) denotes the corresponding joint rotation at yield of

1 4.59 component i. The second term in Eq. (31) estimates

2 2.35 (where applicable) the error at failure of the joint, given

3.1 1.67 by

3.2 0.10

4.1 1.31

10.1 7.19 2 !2

10.2 0.45 Mfind Mfav /if /av

f

ef ¼ þ ð33Þ

Mfind /ind

f

where

2 !2

Miind Miav /ind /av Mf and /f having the same meaning as before, subscript

i i

ei ¼ þ ð32Þ f denoting failure of the joint. Table 6 illustrates the

Miind /ind

i error for each test.

528 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

Table 6

Error evaluation for teach test result

Humer Error (%)

109.005 7.871

109.006 3.863

109.003 1.555

109.004 1.857

7.1. Deﬁnition

Fig. 18. Humer 109.006: moment–rotation curve, experimental context of the component method requires, as men-

results and analytical response. tioned above, the characterisation of the ductility of

each component, i.e., the identiﬁcation of the failure

displacement, Df , of each component. Here, assuming

the bi-linear idealisation of component behaviour of Fig.

7b, a ductility index ui is proposed for each component

i, deﬁned as,

Dfi

ui ¼ ð34Þ

Dyi

classiﬁcation of each component in terms of ductility,

using, for example, the three ductility classes proposed

by Kuhlmann et al. [10]:

Class 2––components with limited ductility ðb 6 ui < aÞ:

Class 3––components with brittle failure ðui < bÞ:

Fig. 19. Humer 109.003: moment–rotation curve, experimental a and b representing ductility limits for the various

results and analytical response.

component classes, here suggested as a ¼ 20 and b ¼ 3.

In design terms, and in-line with the usual assumptions

in plastic design, it seems reasonable to assume, for

Class 1 components, a ductility index ui ¼ 1. On the

other end, for Class 3 components, because of brittle

behaviour, a safe estimate can be obtained with a duc-

tility index of ui ¼ 1 (elastic response). For Class 2

components, lower bounds for the ductility indexes must

be established for each component type, as a result of

experimental and analytical research to be carried out.

As a crude indication, from the experimental results

obtained by Kuhlmann [9] and referring to Fig. 8, a

ductility index in the range of 4–5 seems reasonable for

the component web in compression, if a negative plastic

stiﬀness is used.

Fig. 20. Humer 109.004: moment–rotation curve, experimental Evaluation of the ductility indexes for test 109.005

results and analytical response. yields the results of Table 7. Examination of Table 7

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 529

ponents and the corresponding levels of ductility for the

analysed extended end-plate joint. As also observed in

Fig. 16, the ﬁrst component to yield is the column web in

9.0325

1.0000

1.1505

0.8856

0.7956

0.6005

0.7891

0.6079

Failure

13.235

27.242

15.689

shear, at a yield displacement of 0.8899 mm (Table 7)

and a total joint rotation of 0.0036 radian, the other

components remaining elastic. Next, in succession, the

following components reach yield: column web in

compression (2), column web in tension (3.1), column

9.0325

1.0000

1.1505

0.8856

0.7956

0.6005

0.7891

0.6079

13.235

27.242

15.689

ﬂange in bending (4.1) and column web in tension (3.2).

Table 7 illustrates the relevant values of displacement

and the corresponding values for the remaining com-

ponents. Finally, for this test, the maximum recorded

6.3146

8.2450

0.8676

1.0000

0.7687

0.6923

0.5240

0.6860

0.5274

9.0556

12.324

A joint ductility index can also be proposed, deﬁned

as

4.2635

4.4790

1.0000

0.7693

0.8856

0.6810

0.6120

0.4628

0.6079

0.4675

5.2500

hf

uj ¼ ð35Þ

h1

2.3687

1.0000

0.8811

0.6783

0.7807

0.6010

0.5393

0.4093

0.5356

0.4123

2.3889

Di =Dyi

For the four examples presented above, the joint duc-

Rel. displ.

1.0000

0.9028

0.7960

0.6121

0.7051

0.5426

0.4896

0.3672

0.4838

0.3720

1.0000

is noted that except for test 109.003, no brittle compo-

Rel. rot. h/h1

lihood of this particular result, since no sudden failure of

8.0380

3.2412

7.0365

0.2583

0.1338

0.1030

0.0208

0.0157

0.3820

0.2943

0.0565

is the maximum ductility index reached by the compo-

nents with limited ductility, a maximum ratio of 46 be-

ing calculated for the column web in compression

5.6194

2.0192

3.1832

0.2241

0.1163

0.0894

0.0181

0.0137

0.3321

0.2553

0.0326

without failure.

3.7941

1.0969

0.2583

0.1987

0.1030

0.0792

0.0160

0.0121

0.2943

0.2263

0.0189

Component ‘‘yield’’ sequence (j)

8. Conclusions

Ductility indexes for extended end-plate joint 109.005

2.1079

0.2449

0.2276

0.1752

0.0908

0.0699

0.0141

0.0107

0.2593

0.1996

0.0086

characterisation of each component. A good balance

Abs. displ. Di

achieved using bi-linear approximations of the force–

0.8899

0.2211

0.2056

0.1581

0.0820

0.0631

0.0128

0.0096

0.2342

0.1801

0.0036

Abs. rot. (radian)

still not adequately characterised, work remains to be

done in that area before ductility indexes can be estab-

ui ðDfi =Dyi Þ

INF

INF

INF

INF

INF

INF

INF

5

1

1

This explains some less plausible results for the yield

Component

Rotation

Table 7

Joint

10.1

10.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

1

2

530 L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531

Table 8

Proposed code coeﬃcients for the evaluation of rotation capacity

Component Application rules

Resistance Rotation capacity

Initial stiﬀness Post-limit stiﬀness K i Limit displacement

0:9f ﬃ Avc

pﬃﬃy;wc

1 Column web panel in shear Vwp;Rd ¼ K1 ¼ E 0:38A

bz

vc

[4.6%] Df1 ¼ 1

3cM0

xb twc fy;wc 0:7beff;c;wc twc

2 Column web in compression Fc;wc;Rd ¼ eff;c;wccM0 K2 ¼ E dc

[2.3%] Df2 ¼ ½3 5Dy2

xqbeff;c;wc twc fy;wc

but Fc;wc;Rd 6 cM1

xbeff;t;wc twc fy;wc 0:7beff;t;wc twc

3 Column web in tension Ft;wc;Rd ¼ cM0 K3 ¼ E dc

[0.1–1.7%] Df3 ¼ 1

3

0:85leff tfc

4 Column ﬂange in bending Equivalent T-stub model K4 ¼ E m3

[1.3%] Df4 ¼ 1

[Annex J-EC3, J.3.2]

0:85leff tp3

5 End-plate in bending Equivalent T-stub model K5 ¼ E m3

–a Df5 ¼ 1

[Annex J-EC3, J.3.2]

M

7 Beam or column ﬂange and Fc;fb;Rd ¼ c;Rd

z

K7 ¼ 1 –a Df7 ¼ ½3 5Dy7

web in compression

b t fy;wb

8 Beam web in tension Ft;wb;Rd ¼ eff;t;wbcM0wb K8 ¼ 1 –a Df8 ¼ 1

10 Bolts in tension Ft;Rd ¼ 0:9fcMb

ub As

K10 ¼ E 1:6A

Lb

s

Components with Df10 ¼ Dy10

brittle failure

2

11 Bolts in shear Varying according to bolt K11 ¼ E 16nEdbM16

d fub

Components with Df11 ¼ Dy11

grade pﬃﬃ brittle failure

19 Welds Fw;Rd ¼ a bfuw=cMw3 K19 ¼ 1 Components with Df19 ¼ Dy19

brittle failure

a

Values to be established.

for its resistance being recently proposed by Kuhlmann strength eﬀects that may produce unsafe results [15].

and Kuenhemund [11]. This may even lead to the requirement of guaranteed

The current draft version of Part 1.8 of EC3 [3] al- upper bounds on material properties, in particular for

ready tries to extend the vague ductility provisions that the yield stress of steel.

were present in Annex J of EC3 by presenting a table

with an unﬁlled column for rotation capacity, compo-

nent by component. Table 8 presents an improved ver-

sion of this table which includes two columns for Acknowledgements

rotation capacity: post-limit stiﬀness and limit dis-

placement. This subdivision is required since no ductility Financial support from Ministerio da Ci^encia e

limits may be evaluated without the prior knowledge of Tecnologia––PRAXIS XXI research project PRAXIS/P/

a post-limit stiﬀness [13]. Based on the statistical anal- ECM/13153/1998 is acknowledged.

ysis performed in this paper for a limited number of

test results (single-sided, extended end-plate beam-to-

column joints with backing plates between an IPE beam References

and a HEB column), some trial values are proposed (in

brackets) as a ﬁrst approximation. [1] Cruz PJS, Silva LS, Rodrigues DS, Sim~ oes R. Database for

Next, a ductility model is required which is able to the semi-rigid behaviour of beam-to-column connections in

predict the ‘‘yield’’ sequence of the various components seismic regions. J Construct Steel Res 1998;46(120):1–3.

[14] and a safe (lower bound) joint ductility index, here [2] CEN. Eurocode 3, ENV-1993-1-1, Revised Annex J,

Design of Steel Structures, CEN, European Committee

chosen as a relative value of total rotation with respect

for Standardization, Document CEN/TC 250/SC 3-N 419

to the initial stiﬀness of the joint. E, Brussels, 1998.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that ductility evalu- [3] CEN. Eurocode 3, prEN-1993-1-8: 20xx, Part 1.8: Design of

ation should be performed on actual values of compo- Joints, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Draft 2 Rev.,

nent behaviour (particularly when talking in terms of 6 December 2000, CEN, European Committee for Stan-

strength), because of the unexpected results of over- dardization, Brussels, 2000.

L. Sim~oes da Silva et al. / Computers and Structures 80 (2002) 515–531 531

[4] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Structural steel semirigid [12] LUSAS. Lusas Finite Element System, Lusas–User Man-

connections: theory, design and software. Boca Raton, FL: ual, Version 13.3. FEA––Finite Element Analysis Ltd.,

CRC Press; 2000. Kingston-upon-Thames, England, 2000.

[5] Gebbeken N, Wanzek T, Petersen C. Semi-rigid connec- [13] Silva LS, Coelho AG, Neto EL. Equivalent post-buckling

tions T-stub model. M€ unchen, Germany: Institut f€ ur models for the ﬂexural behaviour of steel connections.

Mechanik und Statik, Universitat des Bundeswehr Comput Struct 2000;77:615–24.

M€ unchen; 1997. [14] Silva LS, Coelho AG. A ductility model for steel connec-

[6] Huber G, Tschemmernegg F. Modelling of steel connec- tions. J Construct Steel Res 2001;57:45–70.

tions. J Construct Steel Res 1998;45(2):199–216. [15] Silva LS, Gervasio H, Rebelo C, Coelho AG. Assessment

[7] Janss J, Jaspart JP. Strength and behaviour of in plane of overstrength eﬀects in steel and composite connections

weak axis joints and of 3-D joints. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson using Monte Carlo methods. In: Proceedings of IABSE

A, Zandonini R, editors. Connections in steel structures. International Conference on Safety, Risk and Reliability

Proceedings of the International Workshop on Joints. Trends in Engineering, Malta, 21–23 March 2001. p.

New York: Elsevier Applied Science; 1987. 229–30.

[8] Jaspart JP. Etude de la semi-rigidite des noeuds poutre- [16] Shi YJ, Chan SL, Wong YL. Modelling for moment

colonne et son inﬂuence sur la resistance des ossatures en rotations characteristics for end-plate joints. J Struct

acier. PhD thesis, Department MSM, University of Liege, Engng 1996;122(11):1300–6.

Belgium, 1991 [in French]. [17] Weynand K, Jaspart JP, Steenhuis M. The stiﬀness model

[9] Kuhlmann U. Inﬂuence of axial forces on the component: of revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. In: Bjorhovde R, Colson

web under compression. Proceeding of COST-C1 Working A, Zandonini R, editors. Connections in steel structures

Group Meeting, C1/WG2/99-01. Thessaloniki, May 1999. III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on

[10] Kuhlmann U, Davison JB, Kattner M. Structural systems Connections in Steel Structures. Trento, Italy, 1995. p.

and rotation capacity. Proceeding of COST Conference on 441–52.

Control of the Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering [18] Yee YL, Melchers RE. Moment–rotation curves for

Structural Connections, Liege, Belgium, 1998. p. 167–76. bolted connections. J Struct Engng ASCE 1986;112(3):

[11] Kuhlmann U, Kuhnemund F. Proposal of a new design 615–35.

resistance of the joint component column web in compres- [19] Zoetemeijer P. A design method for the tension side of

sion, Internal Report. Stuttgart, Germany: University of statically-loaded bolted beam-to-column joints. Heron

Stuttgart; January 2001. 1974;20(1):1–59.

- USD beamUploaded bymanowar
- trb015Uploaded byduga11
- en-curs13_dsis.pdfUploaded bymashraf2
- Effects of Fire-damage on the Nonlinear Response of r.c. Base-Isolated Buildings Under Near-fault EarthquakesUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Connection Coefficient of Composite BeamUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- AASHTO -Prestressed Beams AASHTO ExamplesUploaded byAli Öztürk
- Design of Welded StructuresUploaded byManuelGonzales
- 1.3Uploaded bysergio0995654
- Pna Module 9 Local Structural AnalysisUploaded byLuu Viet Hung
- Plastic DesignUploaded byBurak Dobur
- Experiment 08 j1 BatchUploaded byRavi Shankar
- Beam Design for Moment, Shear & TorsionUploaded bygerrydimayuga
- 7.8.1.pdfUploaded byRahul Shrvastava
- ASTM for Bend TestingUploaded byMaha Lingam
- CombinedTorsionandBendinginReinforcedandPrestressedConcretebeamsUsingSMCSUploaded byKmrnKhn
- WJ_1973_08_s329.pdfUploaded byGunaedy Utomo
- 12_Bridge Basic Structural Considerations - August 2016Uploaded byKotesh Reddy
- Yield Stress Von MIses Stress Strength of Materials - Mechanics of MaterialsUploaded byGnabBang
- Raft Foundation DesignUploaded bymihai_serban13
- TEDDS Engineering Library (AU)Uploaded byChesho Chitobolo
- SOM Lab ManualUploaded byMuhammad Junaid
- 1Uploaded byIopscribd Scribd
- Bending Beam With Single ReinforcementUploaded byAnonymous nQ9Rqm
- Ban, Tan, Uy - 2015 - Strength of Multi-span Composite Beams Subjected to Combined Flexure and TorsionUploaded bySuman Mushahary
- Evaluation of FEMA 356 models for RC Columns and JointsUploaded byVenkata Hareen Cherukuri
- Civil Engineering Reviewer.docxUploaded byfuturecivilengineer
- Questions UBGLV5-10-2 Resit PaperUploaded byLibrary
- Flowcharts and Design Equations - Eurocode 2Uploaded byChineseAssassin
- The Vendran 2000Uploaded byBuddhika Weerasinghe
- AECT480 Lecture 9Uploaded bykrishpi27

- A Novel Compliant Linear-motion Mechanism Based on Parasitic MOTION COMPESATIONUploaded byalfonso
- Functionally Graded Materials 2017Uploaded byalfonso
- Analysis of Parasitic Motion in Parallelogram Compliant Mechanism 2010Uploaded byalfonso
- 2000 Optimum Spacing Design of Grillage Systems Using a Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byalfonso
- Effect of SiO2 Coating on Photoluminescence and Thermal Stability 2008Uploaded byalfonso
- 2017 Tying Capacity of Web Cleat Connections in Fire Part 2Uploaded byalfonso
- RakMek_43_1_2010_3Uploaded byManuel Valente
- Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering Volume 28 issue 1 2001 [doi 10.1139%2Fl00-077] Xu, Lei -- Second-order analysis for semirigid steel frame design (1).pdfUploaded byalfonso
- 2016 Symbiotic Organisms Search for Optimum DesignUploaded byalfonso
- Photocatalytic Abatement of NOx Pollutants in the Air Using Commercial Functional Coating With Porous Morphology 2017Uploaded byalfonso
- 2008 Robustness of Composite Floor Systems With ShearUploaded byalfonso
- 2011 Optimization of Steel Floor Systems Using Particle Swarm OptimizationUploaded byalfonso
- 2010 Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm for Optimization of Truss StructuresUploaded byalfonso
- Journal of Constructional Steel Research Volume 34 Issue 2-3 1995 [Doi 10.1016%2F0143-974x%2894%2900029-h] T.S. Kruger; B.W.J. Van Rensburg; G.M. Du Plessis -- Non-linear Analysis of Structural SteelUploaded byalfonso
- Gregory R.D.-classical Mechanics-CUP (2006)Uploaded byalfonso
- Leonardo Pinheiroa and Ricardo a. M. Silveira - Computational Procedures for Nonlinear Analysis of Frames With Semi-rigid ConnectionsUploaded byCristina Vlaicu
- International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Volume 55 Issue 21-22 2012 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.06.041] Sławomir Dykas; Włodzimierz Wróblewski -- Numerical Modelling of Steam CondeUploaded byalfonso
- 2005 Development of practical design methods for steel structures with semi rigid connections.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- 2001 Nonlinear analysis of frames with flexible connections.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- 2004 ELASTO PLASTIC FE ANALYSIS ON MOMENT ROTATION relations of top and seat angle connections.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- Applied Thermal Engineering Volume Issue 2017 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.applthermaleng.2017.07.085] Zhang, Kun; Zhu, Xiaojing; Ren, Xiaotong; Qiu, Qinggang; Shen, S -- Numerical Investigation on the Effect ofUploaded byalfonso
- Design of Compliant Mechanisms Applications to MEMSUploaded byalfonso
- Analysis of Natural Frequencies of Cantilever Beam using AnsysUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Volume 32 Issue 3 2006 [Doi 10.1007%2Fs00158-006-0021-2] S. Kitayama; M. Arakawa; K. Yamazaki -- Penalty Function Approach for the Mixed Discrete NonlineaUploaded byalfonso
- T-ESPE-040211Uploaded byDeibyMijailRequenaMarcelo
- Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society Volume 2011 issue 2011 [doi 10.1155%2F2011%2F569784] Zou, Wenping; Zhu, Yunlong; Chen, Hanning; Zhang, Beiwei -- Solving Multiobjective Optimization Problems Us.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society Volume 2011 issue 2011 [doi 10.1155%2F2011%2F569784] Zou, Wenping; Zhu, Yunlong; Chen, Hanning; Zhang, Beiwei -- Solving Multiobjective Optimization Problems Us.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society Volume 2011 issue 2011 [doi 10.1155%2F2011%2F569784] Zou, Wenping; Zhu, Yunlong; Chen, Hanning; Zhang, Beiwei -- Solving Multiobjective Optimization Problems Us.pdfUploaded byalfonso
- A Survey of Manufacturing Oriented Topology Optimization MethodsUploaded byalfonso

- 6 - Konveksi Paksa EksternalUploaded byAnfuad Agelza Pratama
- Garden Tractor Pulling Article 1Uploaded bySarah Luther
- VITA VM13 Product Information 1229EUploaded byCela King
- OZONEUploaded byWONG TS
- Role Engineer Cairo Jan10Uploaded bymmcdaid13
- Troybilt TB200Uploaded byHomer Silva
- Mares Spearfishing AU Consumer Catalogue 2013-14Uploaded byM. Ali Zouhairy
- Guidelines Bridge DesignUploaded byaa19
- Shifiting TrainingUploaded bybino
- Design of Steel StructuresUploaded bySaiRam
- AlignmentUploaded byVictor Nunez
- Course Outline TQMUploaded byMuhammad Bilal Gulfraz
- Large Power Transformers - Karsai-Kerenyi-Kiss - OcrUploaded byJuan Jerez
- Zafira Owners Manual_Jan07Uploaded byMentor Morina
- ai-ex-1-12Uploaded byMd Tarique Ansari
- F2CE9687A-B-CUploaded byjvega_534120
- SFDC Certification Syllabus Topics - 2016Uploaded byAnand
- structure factor.pdfUploaded byAndrea Espinosa
- Sensotronic Brake Control SBCUploaded bySyed Sharjil
- To Do List After Installing Linux Mint 16 OsUploaded byRapacitor
- Redline SmalltalkUploaded bySmalltalk Solutions
- Selecting Robot Motors v21Uploaded byTO Haioceank
- Course Material C++Uploaded byPaul Almario
- Vestel DVD 6000Uploaded bytlw72
- Typical Physical Properties for Ace Ton en GradeUploaded bytienhungvlkt
- SAP Internal Tables Interview Questions Answers GuideUploaded bySwati Jain
- Airtherm's Products & Services BrochureUploaded byAirtherm Engineering Ltd
- 1st International Knowledge Seekers Workshop Dec 08 2015.pdfUploaded byPettag Ralieru
- 02 History Performance LTE SSOA Ho Intra Inter Djoeli 20170515140552 1Uploaded byheru
- 216Uploaded byKyriakos Michalaki