Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Review

Review on the modelling of joint behaviour in steel frames

Concepción Díaz a , Pascual Martí a , Mariano Victoria a , Osvaldo M. Querin b,∗
a
Department of Structures and Construction, Technical University of Cartagena, Campus Muralla del Mar, 30202 Cartagena (Murcia), Spain
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

article info abstract

Article history: Steel portal frames were traditionally designed assuming that beam-to-column joints are ideally pinned
Received 12 August 2010 or fully rigid. This simplifies the analysis and structural design processes, but at the expense of not
Accepted 24 December 2010 obtaining a detailed understanding of the behaviour of the joints, which in reality, have finite stiffness
and are therefore semi-rigid. The last century saw the evolution of analysis methods of semi-rigid joints,
Keywords: from the slope-deflection equation and moment distribution methods, to matrix stiffness methods and,
Steel joint analysis
at present, to iterative methods coupling the global and joint structural analyses. Studies agree that
Semi-rigid joints
Joint behaviour representation
in frame analysis, joint rotational behaviour should be considered. This is usually done by using the
Moment–rotation curve moment–rotation curve. Models such as analytical, empirical, experimental, informational, mechanical
Beam-to-column joints and numerical can be used to determine joint mechanical behaviour. The most popular is the mechanical
model, with several variances (e.g. Component Method). A summary is given of the advantages and
disadvantages and principal characteristics of each model. Joint behaviour must be modelled when
analysing semi-rigid frames, which is associated with a mathematical model of the moment–rotation
curve. Depending on the type of structural analysis required, any moment–rotation curve representation
can be used; these include linear, bilinear, multilinear and nonlinear representations. The most accurate
representation uses continuous nonlinear functions, although the multilinear representation is commonly
used for mechanical models. This article reviews three areas of steel joint research: (1) analysis methods
of semi-rigid joints; (2) prediction methods for the mechanical behaviour of joints; (3) mathematical
representations of the moment–rotation curve.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................................743
2. Analysis methods of semi-rigid joints ..............................................................................................................................................................................743
3. Methods for modelling the rotational behaviour of joints ..............................................................................................................................................744
3.1. Experimental testing .............................................................................................................................................................................................744
3.2. Empirical models ...................................................................................................................................................................................................745
3.2.1. Frye and Morris model ...........................................................................................................................................................................745
3.2.2. Krishnamurthy model ............................................................................................................................................................................745
3.2.3. Kukreti model .........................................................................................................................................................................................746
3.2.4. Attiogbe and Morris model ....................................................................................................................................................................746
3.2.5. Faella, Piluso and Rizzano model...........................................................................................................................................................746
3.3. Analytical models ..................................................................................................................................................................................................746
3.3.1. Chen et al. model ....................................................................................................................................................................................746
3.3.2. Yee and Melchers model ........................................................................................................................................................................747
3.4. Mechanical models ................................................................................................................................................................................................747
3.5. Numerical models..................................................................................................................................................................................................748
3.6. Informational models ............................................................................................................................................................................................750
4. Mathematical representation of moment–rotation curve ..............................................................................................................................................751

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1133432218, +44 7712532215 (mobile); fax: +44 1133432150.
E-mail addresses: conchi.diaz@upct.es (C. Díaz), pascual.marti@upct.es (P. Martí), mariano.victoria@upct.es (M. Victoria), O.M.Querin@Leeds.ac.uk (O.M. Querin).

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.014
742 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758

4.1. Stiffness, resistance and shape factor-based formulations .................................................................................................................................752

4.1.1. Linear model ...........................................................................................................................................................................................752
4.1.2. Bilinear model.........................................................................................................................................................................................752
4.1.3. Multilinear model ...................................................................................................................................................................................752
4.1.4. Nonlinear model .....................................................................................................................................................................................752
4.2. Formulation based on curve fitting by regression analysis.................................................................................................................................754
5. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................755
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................................................................755
References...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................755

Nomenclature tta top angle thickness

twa web angle thickness
bep end-plate width twb beam web thickness
bfc beam flange and web in compression
bj least-squares coefficients Capital letters
bt bolts in tension
bw t beam web in tension Ab gross cross-sectional area of the bolt
cfb column flange in bending C regression parameter
cwc column web in compression C1,2,3 curve-fitting constants
cws column web in shear Cj curve-fitting parameter obtained from linear re-
cwt column web in tension gression (Eq. (28)); modelling parameters obtained
d1 distance between the middle lines of the legs by linear regression analysis (Eq. (29))
adjacent to the beam flanges Dk curve-fitting parameter obtained from linear re-
d3 distance between the centre of the web angles and gression
the middle line of the seat angle leg adjacent to the E modulus of elasticity
beam flange H[φ] Heaviside’s step function
db bolt diameter K parameter depending on the geometrical and me-
dg vertical distance between the bolt centrelines chanical properties of the structural detail (Eq. (1));
epb end-plate in bending rotational stiffness
fy yield stress of the base material Kφ joint rotational stiffness
fyb bolt yield stress Kf joint rotational stiffness
g gauge of column flange bolts Kφ,p joint plastic rotational stiffness; strain-hardening
g1 distance between the nut edge and the middle line connection stiffness (Eq. (28))
of the top angle leg adjacent to the beam Kφ,y post-yielding rotational stiffness
g3 distance between the nut edge and the middle line Lsa length of the seat angle
of the web angle leg adjacent to the beam Lta length of the top angle
gb gauge distance between the two bolts in a row Lwa length of the web angle
hb beam height M joint moment
Ita inertia moment of the leg adjacent to the column M0 reference bending moment
face of the top angle Mi initial moment
Iw a inertia moment of the leg adjacent to the column Mj joint moment; upper bound moment of the jth part
face of the web angle of th curve (Eq. (27))
kt distance between the heel of the top angle and the Mj,p joint plastic moment
toe of the fillet Mj,Rd joint moment resistance
la angle length Mj,y yielding moment
m number of curve-fitting constants (Eq. (28)); num- Pi joint geometric parameter
ber of points between two elementary parts of the Wb beam section modulus
M–φ curve (Eq. (27))
n shape factor which characterizes the knee of the Greek letters
moment–rotation; shape parameter determined us-
ing the method of least squares for differences be- αi coefficients obtained in such a way as to give a good
tween the predicted moments and the experimental fit to the curve (Eq. (3))
test data (Eq. (30)) α regression parameter (Eq. (25)); scaling factor for
nb number of bolts per angle leg on column flange numerical stability (Eq. (28)); shape parameter
pf pitch of the bolt (distance from top of the flange to determined using the method of least squares for
the centreline of the bolt) differences between the predicted moments and the
ta angle thickness experimental test data (Eq. (30))
tep end-plate thickness φi initial rotation
tf column flange thickness φk starting rotation of the kth linear component of the
tfb beam flange thickness M–φ curve
ti angle thickness φ joint rotation
tp end-plate thickness φ0 joint permanent rotation
tsa seat angle thickness φCd joint rotational capacity
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
1. Introduction
Steel portal frames were traditionally designed assuming that
beam-to-column joints are ideally pinned or fully rigid. The use
of the ideally pinned condition implies that no moment can be
transmitted between the beam and the column; this means that
the connections have no rotational stiffness and cannot transmit
moments although they do transmit axial and shear forces to the
attached members (Fig. 1(a)). On the other hand, fully rigid joints
have rotational compatibility and therefore transmit all form of
loads between beam and column (Fig. 1(b)). An important aspect of
the analysis of these joints is that their behaviour is decoupled from
the analysis of the structure. Although this simplifies the analysis
and structural design processes; it comes at the expense of not
being able to obtain a detailed understanding of the behaviour of
the joint. In reality, joints have finite stiffness and are therefore
semi-rigid (Fig. 1(c)). In the last century, analysis methods of
semi-rigid joints evolved considerably to obtain the true structural
response. Starting in the 1930’s with the slope-deflection equation
and moment distribution methods, the 1960’s with the matrix
stiffness methods, and nowadays, with complex iterative analysis
methods which couple the structural analysis with that of the joint.
The true behaviour of a joint can be incorporated within the
global analysis of the structure by using the moment–rotation
curve (Mj –φ ), (Fig. 2). This is achieved by determining the
mechanical properties of the joint in terms of its rotational stiffness
(Kj ), moment resistance (Mj,Rd ), and rotational capacity (φCd ),
starting from their geometrical and mechanical properties.
There are several models which can be used to determine the
mechanical behaviour of joints, these are: analytical, empirical,
experimental, informational, mechanical and numerical. The most
popular of these is the mechanical model, which has several
variances, the most popular being the Component Method,
Eurocode 3 [1]. This method considers a joint as a set of
‘‘individual basic components’’, which allows the determination
of the moment resistance and stiffness characteristics of all the
different components of the joint.
These joint behaviour models need to be incorporated into
structural analysis packages in order to then be able to analyse
and design the joint. To achieve this, mathematical expressions
are required which allow for the rotational deformation, rotational
stiffness and design moment resistance to be easily incorporated
into the global structural analysis.
This article provides a state-of-the-art review of three areas
of steel joint research: (1) analysis method of semi-rigid joints;
(2) prediction methods for the mechanical behaviour of joints; and
(3) mathematical representations of the moment–rotation curve.
2. Analysis methods of semi-rigid joints
The first studies on semi-rigid joints were carried out in 1917,
when Wilson and Moore [2] investigated the stiffness of riveted
joints in steel structures. But it was not until the 1930’s that
studies began into the relationship between the moment and
rotation of semi-rigid joints and their overall effect on steel
structures. These can be seen in the reports of The Steel Structures
Research Committee [3–5] (UK), Young and Jackson [6] (Canada)
and Rathbun [7] (USA). Since then, there have been numerous
experimental and theoretical studies into the behaviour of semi-
rigid steel joints (riveted, bolted and welded) and their effect on
the overall structure.
Batho and Rowan [4] proposed a graphical method, called beam-
line, which was used to determine the end restraint provided
by each joint. To apply this method, requires the use of the
experimentally calculated moment–rotation curve. Baker [4] and
Rathbun [7], were the first to apply the slope-deflection [8] and
743
the moment distribution [9] methods to the analysis of semi-rigid
joints.
Between 1936 and 1950, most of the research was focused
on the application of these methods to the analysis of structures
with semi-rigid joints. The most notable publications are those of
Baker and Williams [5], Johnston and Mount [10], Stewart [11] and
Sourochnikoff [12].
By the 1960s, the matrix stiffness method of structural analysis
utilising computers had been established. Monforton and Wu [13]
were the first to incorporate the effects of semi-rigid connections
into the matrix stiffness method in 1963. This was achieved by
modifying the beam stiffness matrices to take the semi-rigid
connection effects into account in the frame analysis. Similar
procedures were also proposed by Livesley [14], and Gere and
Weaver [15], at about the same time. In these analysis methods,
a linear Mj –φ relationship was assumed and the linear semi-rigid
connection factor Z = φ/M was used to modify the beam stiffness
matrices [16].
The dynamic behaviour of semi-rigid frames was investigated
by Lionberger and Weaver [17] in 1969 and by Suko and
Adams [18] in 1971. In these analyses the connection elasto-plastic
behaviour was modelled by equivalent springs.
In 1978, the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
(ECCS) published Report 23 on the European recommendations
for steel construction [19]. This report formed the basis of the
current Eurocode 3. These recommendations replaced the method
of allowable stresses by the limit state method, which is based on
probabilistic concepts of safety and the use of enhancement ‘load’
factor for the analysis of structural resistance and stability instead
of the traditional reference to allowable stresses.
In 1981, Moncarz and Gerstle [20] proposed a new approxima-
tion to the analysis of semi-rigid frames based on modification of
the basic matrix stiffness technique.
Based on the studies of the ECCS, in 1984 the Commission of the
European Community published the first version of the Eurocode
3 [21]. In this document, the joints are classified as rigid and semi-
rigid for elastic linear analysis and with full- or partial-strength
for elastic–plastic analysis. However, they neither consider their
use, nor how to model them. The code was published on a trial
basis (European Pre-Standard, ENV) inviting comments from its
users as well as professional, scientific, standards and technical
organisations. Their comments and suggestions were used to
develop the final code (European Standard, EN). In 1989 this work
was transferred to the European Committee for Standardization
(CEN).
In 1983, Jones et al. [22] presented a revised review of the
analysis of frames with semi-rigid joints. This work was extended
by Nethercot in [23,24], where he proposed different approaches
and improvements for the analysis of semi-rigid frame by adopting
the basic matrix stiffness technique.
In 1987, Lui and Chen [25], and Goto and Chen [26], proposed
methods for the analysis of semi-rigid frame based on matrix
stiffness analysis, using small computers. On the same year,
the ECCS [27] created the Working Group TWG 8.2, to study
the influence of semi-rigid connections on the overall frame
behaviour. The results of this study helped to establish the
Technical Committee for Structural Connections (TC10) of the ECCS
to look at the behaviour of connections.
The Eurocode has evolved [28], and finally in May 2005, the
Eurocode 3 [1] was published. It was exclusively dedicated to all
types of joints, including semi-rigid ones, where the response of
a joint is dependent on the geometric and mechanical properties
of its components, using the component method. This code of
practice is a collection of decades of research in steel structures.
Other international codes of practice which also consider joint
behaviour are those of the USA in AISC-ASD [29], LRFD [30], AISC-
ASD/LRFD [31] and China in GB [32].
744 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
a b
Fig. 1. Joint types according to their behaviour, where φ is the angular rotation between the beam and the column: (a) pinned; (b) rigid; and (c) semi-rigid.
There is currently a great range of studies of steel frames
with semi-rigid connections: Jaspart [33], Jaspart and Maquoi [34],
Weynand et al. [35], Chen [36], Braham and Jaspart [37], Ashraf
et al. [38], Cabrero and Bayo [39], Bayo et al. [40], da S. Vellasco
et al. [41], Ashraf et al. [42], Yang and Lee [43], Faella et al. [44],
da Silva et al. [45], Daniũnas and Urbonas [46], Sekulovic and
Nefovska-Danilovic [47], Bel Hadj Ali et al. [48], Ihaddoudène
et al. [49], Mehrabian et al. [50], Darío [51], etc. These studies were
concerned with two principal themes [52]: (1) the evaluation of the
mechanical properties of the joints in terms of rotational stiffness,
moment resistance and rotation capacity, and (2) the analysis and
design procedures for frames including rotational joint behaviour.
All studies agree that when carrying out structural analysis
of any frame, the rotational behaviour of the joints must
be considered. It is evident that the prediction of the joint
behaviour by means of one of the above methods has to be
generally accompanied by a mathematical representation of the
moment–rotation curve, which is necessary to be used as input
data in computer programs for the structural analysis of semi-
rigid frames. In the next section, all methods for the prediction
of the joint rotational behaviour as well as their mathematical
representation will be explained.
3. Methods for modelling the rotational behaviour of joints
To properly model the beam-to-column joint behaviour, the
moment–rotation curve for the joints is required. Fortunately
there are many models which can be used to predict it. The most
commonly used models are included here, grouped into: analytical,
empirical, experimental, mechanical, numerical and informational
models. The last of which is the most recent. Other classifications
can be found in the work of Nethercot and Zandonini [53], Faella
et al. [54] and Jaspart [52].
3.1. Experimental testing
The most accurate knowledge of the joint behaviour is obtained
through experimental tests, but this technique is too expensive
for everyday design practice and is usually reserved for research
purposes only [54].
In 1917, Wilson and Moore [2] performed the first experiment
to assess the rigidity of steel frame connections. Since then,
experimental testing has been continued.
Prior to 1950, most connection tests were focused on riveted
joints: Batho [3]; Batho and Rowan [4]; Batho and Lash [5]; Young
and Jackson [6]; Rathbun [7]. After 1950, high strength bolts were
used extensively in steel construction.
A large number of tests were made and reported, allowing for
the generation of several data banks. The information required
from each test usually includes: the geometric and mechanical
c
properties of each component which makes up the joint, the
moment–rotation curve, the rotational stiffness (Kj ) and moment
resistance (Mj,Rd ) as well as the name of the researchers.
The four most important data banks are:
1. Goverdhan data bank. The first one to be developed, in
1984 [55], has the results of 230 tests from the USA carried
out between 1950 and 1983. It includes tests on the following
connection typologies: double web angle connections, single
web angle/plate connections, header-plate connections, end-
plate connections and top and seat angle connections with or
without web angles.
2. Nethercot data bank. The first European data bank on steel
connections was developed in 1985. Nethercot [56,57] exam-
ined more than 70 experimental studies collecting more than
700 individual tests by other researchers [58]. The connection
typologies include those examined by Goverdhan as well as
T-stub connections with and without web angles.
3. Steel connection data bank. In the USA, the work of Goverd-
han [55] was followed by that of Kishi and Chen [59,60] who
prepared a data bank collecting experimental tests from all over
the world carried out from 1936 to 1986. They compiled re-
sults from over 303 tests. In addition, they developed the Steel
Connection Data Bank (SCDB) program for the recovery of
all the experimental data and the formulation of mathe-
matical relationships for the curve fitting of experimental
moment–rotation behaviour [61,62]. In 1995, Abdalla and
Chen [63] added the results of 46 additional experimental
tests of steel beam-to-column joints. The tests collected in the
program SCDB are contained, according to the following con-
nection typologies: single angle web1 cleat/plate connections,
double angle web cleat connections, top and seat angle cleats
connections with or without web angles, extended and flush
end-plate connections and header-plate connections.
4. SERICON data bank. Developed by Arbed Recherches [64] and
Aachen University [65], includes only European test results [66].
It also contains tests from single joint components and tests on
composite connections. This data bank was extended into the
SERICON II database by Cruz et al. [67].
The use a data bank is mainly devoted to the validation of models,
aimed at the prediction of the joint behaviour from its geometrical
and mechanical properties, rather than to daily design practice. In
fact, the designer has only a low probability of finding in the data
bank the specific structural detail of the joint studied, due to the
great variety of connection typologies, geometrical properties and
stiffening details of panel zone [54].
1 Also referred to as ‘‘web angle’’.
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758 745

Fig. 2. Moment–rotation (Mj –φ ) curve.

Other experiments include the work of Popov and Takhi-

rov [68], who carried out two tests on bolted large seismic steel
beam-to-column joints. Girão et al. [69] evaluated 8 tests to assess
the ductility of extended end-plate connections. Girão et al. [70] Fig. 3. Geometrical parameters for the Frye–Morris polynomial representation of
end-plate connections without column stiffeners.
carried out 32 tests on bolted T-stub connections made up of
welded plates. Girão and Bijlaard [71] carried out experiments
to study the behaviour of high strength steel end-plate connec-
tions and in [72] the experimental behaviour of high strength steel
web shear panels. Cabrero and Bayo [73], analysed the semi-rigid
behaviour of three-dimensional steel beam-to-column joints sub-
jected to proportional loading. Shi et al. [74] carried out 5 ex-
periments of beam-to-column bolted extended end-plate joints to
develop an analytical model to obtain the rotational stiffness and
the moment–rotation curve of a joint. Piluso and Rizzano [75] did
an experimental analysis and modelling of bolted T-stubs under
cyclic loads.

3.2. Empirical models

Empirical models are based on empirical formulations which

relate the parameters of the mathematical representation of
the moment–rotation curve to the geometrical and mechanical
properties of beam-to-column joints. These formulations can be
obtained using regression analyses of data which can be derived in
Fig. 4. Extended end-plate connections with four bolts in the tension zone for the
different ways such as: experimental testing, parametric analyses
Krishnamurthy model [88].
developed by means of Finite Element (FE) models, analytical
models or mechanical models.
numerical difficulties in the analysis of semi-rigid frames using the
The main disadvantage of this type of model is that it is only
tangent stiffness formulation. To solve this problem, Azizinamini
applicable to joints whose characteristics match those used to
et al. [78] proposed a different formulation of the parameter K ,
generate the model. It is also not possible to determine how each
Eq. (3).
parameter of the joint affects its overall performance. Five common
α α
models are described next. K = P1 1 P2 2 · · · Pnαn (3)

3.2.1. Frye and Morris model where Pi are geometric parameters of the joint and the αi are the
The Frye and Morris model [76] is based on an odd-power coefficients obtained to give a good fit to the curve.
polynomial representation of the moment–rotation curve, Eq. (1). This model was used in several studies to investigate the effect
of semi-rigid joints on steel frame structures: Picard et al. [79];
φ = C1 (KM ) + C2 (KM )3 + C3 (KM )5 (1) Altman et al. [80]; Goverdhan [55]; Kameshki and Saka [81];
Hadianfard and Razani, [82]; Hayalioglu and Degertekin [83];
where K is a parameter depending on the geometrical and
Prabha et al. [84].
mechanical properties of the structural detail, and C1 , C2 and C3 are
curve-fitting constants. For example, for the end-plate connections
without column stiffeners of Fig. 3, the curve-fitting constants are 3.2.2. Krishnamurthy model
given by Eq. (2). Krishnamurthy [85,86] carried out a wide parametric study by
means of the FE Method (FEM) to study the rotational behaviour of
C1 = 8.91 × 10−1 ; C2 = 1.20 × 104 ; end-plate connections. Experimental tests, limited to 5 prototypes,
2.4 −0.4 −1.5
(2) were used to adjust some of the parameters of the model and
C3 = 1.75 × 108 ; K = d−
g tp tf .
confirm the numerical results.
The main drawback of this formulation is that, in some cases, The two-dimensional (2D) plane stress numerical model was
the slope of the moment–rotation curve can become negative for for a plane parallel to the beam web. Five experiments were used
some values of M [77]. This is physically unrealistic and can cause to correlate this model [87]. This method was further developed
746 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758

parameters (ϕ0 , M0 , n, Kϕ,p ) which are related to the geometrical

properties of a connection, Eq. (6).

ϕ0 = ta0.595 g −2.817 l4a.737 hb−0.784 nb−5.957 × 10−3

 

M0 = ta1.136 g −1.515 l1a .139 h0b.258 n0b.309

(6)
n = ta0.522 g 1.564 la−1.073 hb−0.737 n1b.704
Kϕ,p = ta0.955 g 2.044 l−
a
4.445 0.327 7.555
hb nb

where ta is the angle thickness (mm), g the gauge of column flange

bolts (mm), la is the angle length (mm), hb is the beam depth and
nb is the number of bolts per angle leg on column flange. The units
ϕ0 , M0 and Kϕ,p are radians, kN, and kN m/rad, respectively.

3.2.5. Faella, Piluso and Rizzano model

Fig. 5. Structural detail of a flush end-plate connection analysed [89].
to the case of extended end-plate connections with four bolts
in the tension zone (Fig. 4), leading to the development of an
empirical model based on the simple power representation of the
moment–rotation curve [88], Eq. (4).
The empirical model of Faella et al. [94] for the prediction of the
flexural resistance and rotational stiffness of extended end-plate
beam-to-column joints was developed by means of a mechanical
model [95,96] based on the component method from the Eurocode
3 [28].
3.3. Analytical models

φ = CM α (4) Analytical models use the basic concepts of structural analysis:

1.4βµ p2f .03 0. 1.03
0056 b0ep.61 tfb equilibrium, compatibility and material constitutive relations, to
α = 1.58; C = ; β= ; obtain the rotational stiffness (Kj ) and moment resistance (Mj,Rd )
Ab0.36 tep
1.38 h1b.30 tw
0.26 1.58
b Wb of a joint due to its geometric and mechanical properties.
1.0
µ= 1.20
fy0.38 fyb 3.3.1. Chen et al. model
where Wb is the beam section modulus, fy is the yield stress of the Chen and his colleagues worked extensively to predicting the
base material, fyb is the bolt yield stress and Ab is the gross cross- response of a joint from its geometrical and mechanical properties.
sectional area of the bolt. The work on joints with the semi-rigid connections with angles
These parameters are independent of the geometry of the is presented in [97–99]. For top and seat angles with double web
column as this was considered in the FE model. For this reason, the angles connections (Fig. 6) the initial stiffness is given by Eq. (7).
moment–rotation curve is for the connection and not the joint.
3EIta d21 3EIwa d23
Kϕ = + (7)
+ 0. + 0.78tw2 a
  
3.2.3. Kukreti model g1 g12 2
78tta g3 g32
Kukreti extended the method of Krishnamurthy by carrying out
Li ti3
a new parametric study of flush end-plate connections without Ii = (8)
column stiffeners (Fig. 5). 12
Kukreti et al. [89] also used the FEM to obtain the power model where Ita and Iwa are the inertia moments, Eq. (8), of the leg
of Eq. (5). adjacent to the column face of the top angle and of the web angle,
respectively; ti is the thickness of the angles; g1 and g3 are the
φ = CM α (5)
distances between the nut edge and the middle line of the angle
359 × 10−6 p2f .227 leg adjacent to the beam, g1 is referred to the top angle and g3 to
α = 1.58; C = 0.501 0.038 0.849 0.519 0.218 1.539
h2b.616 tw b tfb db gb bep tep the web angles; d1 is the distance between the middle lines of the
legs adjacent to the beam flanges; d3 is the distance between the
where the lengths are in inches and the moments in kip-ft. centre of the web angles and the middle line of the seat angle leg
This method was later applied to a study of the extended end- adjacent to the beam flange.
plate connection where eight bolts are located in the tensile zone
The ultimate bending moment is given by Eq. (9).
and the end-plate is stiffened by means of a reinforcing rib [90].
Empirical models, based on the power of the moment–rotation 2
Lsa tsa Vpt (g1 − kt )
curve, are able to accurately predict the initial rotational behaviour Mj,u = fy + + Vpt d2 + 2Vpa d4 (9)
of the connection, rather than the whole moment–rotation 4 2
curve. There is significant scatter between the predicted and where Lsa and tsa are the length and thickness of the seat angle, kt
experimental moment–rotation curves for high values of plastic is the distance between the heel of the top angle and the toe of the
deformations [91]. fillet, and d2 and d4 are given by Eqs. (10) and (11).

tsa
3.2.4. Attiogbe and Morris model d2 = d + + kt (10)
Attiogbe and Morris [92] proposed a new model based on lab- 2
f y tw a
oratory experimental results and the mathematical representa- 2Vpu + tsa
tion of Goldberg and Richard [93], to predict the moment–rotation d4 =  2
 Lw a + + LI . (11)
3 Vpu +
f y tw a 2
curve for double web angle connections. This model requires four 2
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
Fig. 6. Top and seat angle connection with double web angles and the geometrical parameters of angles.
The parameters Vpu , Vpt and Vpa are obtained using Eqs. (12)–(14).
 4  
2Vpu gc − ka 2Vpu
+ =1
fy t w a twa fy twa
 4  
2Vpt g1 − kt 2Vpt
+ =1
fy Lta tta tta fy Lta tta
f y tw a
Vpu + 2 by Faella [54] for the extended end-plate beam-to-column joint.
Vpa = Lw a (14)
2 To develop a mechanical model three steps are required:
where Lta and Lwa are the lengths of the top angle and of the web
angles, respectively.
These relationships were combined non-dimensionally
[100,101], to provide the influence of the main geometrical param-
eters on the rotational behaviour of connections with angles. Their
use within a design procedure based on advanced analysis meth-
ods has been shown [102].
The main problem with the Chen and Krishnamurthy models
is that they do not consider the deformation of the column. The
assumption being that the support to a connection is rigid.
3.3.2. Yee and Melchers model
In 1986, Yee and Melchers [103] proposed a mathematical
model that could predict the moment–rotation relationships of
bolted extended end-plate eave connections, using the connection
dimensions. The model represents a physically based approach to
the prediction of moment–rotation curves, taking into account the
possible failure modes and the deformation characteristics of the
connection elements.
The model included five deformation and six modes of
failure. The deformations are: (1) end-plate flexure; (2) column
flange flexure; (3) bolt extension; (4) column web panel shear
deformation; and (5) column web compression. And the failures
are: (1) bolt failure (tension); (2) formation of end-plate plastic
mechanism; (3) formation of column flange plastic mechanism;
(4) shear yielding of the column web; (5) buckling of the column
web; and (6) web crippling.
The rotational stiffness of a joint is obtained by combining the
elastic displacements of the different components of the joint. The
limiting moment capacity depends on the strength of the weaker
adjoining section.
Johnson and Law [104] developed with a similar approach a
method for predicting the initial stiffness and plastic moment
capacity of flush end-plate connections.
Pirmoz et al. [105] proposed a semi-analytical model of
obtaining the moment–rotation behaviour of bolted top–seat angle
connections under combined axial tension and moment loading
based on the data bank, created using FE simulation.
747
3.4. Mechanical models
Mechanical or spring models [54,95,96,103,106] represent the
(12)
joint by using a combination of rigid and flexible components,
which are modelled by means of stiffness and resistance values
obtained from empirical relationships. The nonlinearity of the
(13)
response is obtained by means of inelastic constitutive laws used
for the spring elements. Fig. 7 shows the mechanical model used
(1) identify the components of the joint that will provide sig-
nificant deformation and failure of the joint; (2) determine the
constitutive laws for each component of the joint using analyti-
cal, experimental or numerical means, and (3) assemble all of the
components together to produce the moment–rotation curve for
complete joint.
This procedure is very flexible as it can be applied to joints
of any type: bolted or welded, and where specific effects can be
introduced, such as: bolt pretensioning or plastic hardening, etc.
This is because all that is required are the constitutive behaviour
of the components which make up the joint.
The firsts to introduce this type of model were Wales and
Rossow [107] in 1983 to simulate the behaviour of a double web
angle connection with an applied bending moment and axial load
(Fig. 8). The joint was modelled using two rigid bars connected
by a homogeneous continuum of independent nonlinear springs.
An important characteristic of this model was that it included an
axial load. Kennedy and Hafez [108] used this model to repre-
sent header-plate connections. Chmielowiec and Richard [109] ex-
tended this model to predict the behaviour of all types of cleated
connections subject to bending and shear.
Since then, significant research has been carried out using
mechanical models to study the behaviour of joints and to
introduce their effect in the analysis of structure. Faella et al. [54]
developed the program JMRC to evaluate the moment–rotation
curve for welded connections, bolted end-plate connections and
bolted connections with angles. Pucinotti [110] proposed a model
for top and seat and web angle connection based on a simplification
of the model in part J of the Eurocode 3 [28]. A model for joints
under bending and axial loads was proposed by Simões da Silva and
Girão [111], Simões da Silva et al. [112], as well as by Urbonas and
Daniũnas [113], Sokol et al. [114] and del Savio et al. [115]. Bayo
et al. [40] proposed an improvement to the Eurocode 3 model by
introducing a component-based finite dimensioned elastic–plastic
4-node joint element which takes into account the actual size
of the joint, its deformation characteristics, including those of
the panel zone, local phenomena and all the internal forces that
concur at the joint. Cabrero and Bayo [116] proposed a model to
748 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
Fig. 7. Mechanical model for the extended end-plate beam-to-column joint [54].
Fig. 8. Mechanical model for web angle connections [107].
calculate the stiffness in three-dimensional steel beam-to-column
joints for both major and minor axes. Simões da Silva [117]
proposed a generic model for steel joints under generalized
loading. Lemonis and Gantes [118], proposed a model based on
the component method for bolted connections with end-plates and
with angles. Simões da Silva et al. [119] proposed a mechanical
model to evaluate the behaviour of cruciform flush end-plate
beam-to-column steel joints at elevated temperatures.
The component method [1] is a hybrid analytical–mechanical
method (Fig. 7). It consists of modelling a joint as an assembly
of extensional springs (components) and rigid links, where each
spring represents a specific part of a joint with its own strength
and rigidity, dependent on the type of loading. The behaviour of
the joint is obtained by knowing the mechanical and geometrical
properties of each component of the joint. It produces good results
when the joint is acting primarily in bending with minimal axial
loading.
3.5. Numerical models
Numerical simulation started to be used for several reasons:
(1) as a means of overcoming the lack of experimental results;
(2) to understand important local effects which are difficult to
measure with sufficient accuracy, e.g. prying and contact forces
between the bolt and the connection components; and (3) to
generate extensive parametric studies.
FE Analysis (FEA) is ideally suited to determine the rotation of
a joint; however such analysis is still computationally expensive.
The moment–rotation curve is the result of the complex interaction
between the different elements of a joint. The analysis of steel
joints requires the introduction of geometrical and material
nonlinearities of the elementary parts of the connection; bolt
preload and its response under a general stress distribution;
interaction between bolts and plate components: i.e., shank and
hole, head or nut contact; compressive interface stresses and
friction resistance; slip due to bolt-to-hole clearance; variability of
contact zones; welds; imperfections.
Currently the FEM allows for the introduction into the model of:
large deformations, plasticity, strain-hardening, instability effects,
the representation of large strain and/or displacements, contacts
between plates and pre-stressing of bolts [120,121].
In 1972 Bose et al. [122] carried out the first FEM study of
welded beam-to-column joints, which included: plasticity, strain
hardening and buckling. The results obtained compared favourably
with available experimental results. Since then, several researchers
have used the FEM to investigate joint behaviour.
In 1976, Krishnamurthy and Graddy [87] were the first to model
three-dimensional (3D) joints. They used an eight-node brick
element to model the end-plate connection. The analysis included
contact between the different joint elements and preloaded bolts.
However due to the limited computational power at the time,
the 3D model was only used to develop a correlation factor
between the two-dimensional (2D) and 3D results to enable the
prediction of the more accurate 3D values from the less expensive
2D results (Fig. 9). A similar process was proposed by Kukreti
et al. [89], to generate the moment–rotation curve for bolted end-
plate connection, obtaining very good results.
Kukreti et al. [91] developed a ‘hybrid’ 2D–3D FE model for tee-
hanger connections, using 3D FE for the tee-flange, bolt heads and
bolt shanks, and 2D FE elsewhere else.
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758 749

Fig. 9. 2D mesh of the end-plate connection with 581 nodes and 508 elements [87].

Chasten et al. [123] studied large extended unstiffened end-

plate connections with eight bolts at the tension flange (four-
bolts wide). FEM was used, using shell elements for the end-plate
and beam flanges and plane stress elements for the beam web. Fig. 10. 3D model of the extended end-plate connection [129].
Contact between the end-plate and column flange was modelled
to determine the prying force.
Gebbeken et al. [124] studied extended end-plate connections
using shell elements. The characteristics of their model are:
bolts with a simplified geometry; plane stress analysis; nonlinear
strain–displacement relationship. For the case of friction between
end-plate and screw head, only the limit cases when completely
stick and frictionless slip were considered; and the friction
between the flange and end-plate was neglected.
Sherbourne and Bahaari [125,126] developed a FEM to inves-
tigate the behaviour of steel bolted end-plate connections. Where
the end-plate, beam and column flanges, webs, and column stiff-
eners were represented as plate elements with each bolt shank
modelled using six spar elements. Three-dimensional interface el-
ements were used to model the boundary between the column
flange and the back of the end-plate that may make or break con-
tact.
Bursi and Jaspart modelled T-stub connections [127] and
isolated extended end-plate connections [128,129] (Fig. 10). They
carried out several models using 3D brick elements and contact
elements. They considered the effect of: element type, preloading,
different constitutive relationships, and friction coefficient. Their
results compared favourably to test results.
Troup et al. [130] used FEA to create a numerical model of a
T-stub and an extended end-plate connection. Simplified bilinear
stress–strain curves for the steel sections and bolt shank were
adopted. Material nonlinearity was considered for steel members
and connecting components, together with geometric nonlinearity
due to the changing area of contact between the faces of the end-
plate or T-stubs. An encouraging correlation between the model
and experimental tests was observed showing a good comparison
of the stiffness in both thick and thin plate conditions. Fig. 11. 3D model using shell elements of an extended end-plate connection [131].
Bahaari and Sherbourne [131] developed a detailed 3D FEM
to study 8-bolt unstiffened extended end-plate connections using very good correlation between theirs and test results. Their model
primarily shell elements (Fig. 11). Neither the bolt head or nut included: solid eight-node brick elements for the beam section
were included in the model, instead the end-plate and column and column flange, which included plasticity effects; solid twenty-
flange thicknesses were increased around the bolt hole. The node elements for the bolts and end-plate; and contact elements
bolt shank was represented using truss elements connecting between the end-plate and the rigid column flange.
corresponding nodes between the end-plate and column flange. Swanson et al. [133] presented the results of a FE investigation
The contact between the column flange and back of the end-plate of the behaviour of T-stub flanges (Fig. 12). Two types of models
was modelled using 3D interface elements. were used; a 3D T-stub model consisting of brick and wedge
Sumner et al. [132] also used FE to develop 4- and 8-bolt elements and several 2D T-stub flange models consisting of
extended unstiffened moment end-plate connections, obtaining rectangular and triangular elements. All models incorporated
750 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
Fig. 12. 3D solid T-stub model [133].
nonlinear material characteristics, nonlinear geometric behaviour,
and several contact interactions.
Citipitioglu et al. [134] presented different 3D models of bolted
connections with angles, (Fig. 13), following the recommendations
of [129] on the FE selection. Contact between all parts was
modelled, including the effect of friction. Their results, similar to
those of [129], confirmed that the effect of friction on the initial
stiffness of the joint was negligible, although it was slightly more
on the plastic regions. The effect of bolt pretension was similar to
that of friction, although it could modify the ultimate moment of
the joint by as much as 25%.
Gantes and Lemonis [135] developed an FE model for bolted
T-stub steel connections. Material and geometric nonlinearities
as well as contact and friction were implemented, which was
validated by comparison with experimental data. The impact of
bolt length considered in the model was investigated and shown
to be of primary importance.
Ju et al. [136] developed a 3D elasto-plastic FE model to study
the structural behaviour of butt-type steel bolted joints. The results
showed that the nominal capacities of the bolted connection
calculated from the AISC specification and using FEM were similar.
Maggi et al. [137] carried out parametric analyses on the be-
haviour of bolted extended end-plate connections using 3D FE
models calibrated to experimental results. The models took into
account: material nonlinearities, geometrical discontinuities, large
displacements and contact to account for geometric discontinu-
ities. Comparisons between numerical and experimental data for
the moment–rotation curves, displacements of the end-plate, and
forces on bolts showed satisfactory agreement.
Xiao and Pernetti [138] proposed several models using shell
FE based on [130], where shell elements were shown to give
equivalent results to solid 3D elements but at a fraction of the
solution time. Slip between end-plate and bolt head was neglected.
Contact elements were introduced between the end-plate and the
column flange to model the movement of end-plate away from the
column flange.
Tagawa and Gurel [139] used FE simulations to examine the
strength of steel beam-to-column joints stiffened with bolted
channels. 3D eight-node structural solid elements were used to
model all components of the joint, with pretensioned bolts.
Abolmaali et al. [120] developed a 3D FE model for flush end-
plate connections using 8-noded solid isoparametric elements for
the beam, column, end-plate and bolts. Geometric and material
nonlinearity, contact and pretension in the bolts were considered.
Moreno [140] developed a 3D FE model of flush and extended
end-plate bolted connections. The model included the beam, end-
plate, bolts ends and the column. Considering the interaction
between: end-plate and the column flange; bolts (head and
nut) and the column flange; and bolts and the end-plate.
The bolt shanks were modelled using truss elements. The
analysis incorporated material nonlinearity for the plates and
bolts. The FE results were compared with numerically predicted
moment–rotation curves, which corresponded to the experimental
tests carried out and with the component method [1].
Cabrero [141] developed two extended end-plate connections
models, following the FEM recommendations of Bursi and
Jaspar [129]. One of the models used 8-node brick elements with
incompatible modes, whereas the other model used truss elements
for the bolts and shell elements for the end-plate, beam and
column. Different strategies were used for modelling contacts in
the second model, such as gap elements. Both models produced
good results, with a slight underestimation of the rotational
stiffness and a slight overestimation moment resistance when
compared with experimental results.
Pirmoz et al. [142] studied the behaviour of bolted top–seat
angle connections with web angles subjected to combined shear
force and moment. Several 3D parametric FE models were used
with geometric and mechanical properties used as parameters.
With all of the connection components, such as beam, column,
angles and bolts are modelled using solid elements. The contacts
between surfaces were simulated by surface-to-surface contact
elements. The results were compared with experimental results
with good agreement.
Mohamadi-shooreh and Mofid [143] presented the results
of several parametric analyses on the initial rotational stiffness
of bolted flush end-plate beam splice connections using FEM
with 20-noded brick elements, material behaviour, geometrical
discontinuities and large displacements. The model was verified
for three case studies from the literature with the predicted results
comparing well with reported data.
Lemonis and Gantes [118] proposed a methodology to estimate
the moment–rotation curve of structural beam-to-column joints
based on the component method. The cases examined in this work
included bolted connections with end-plates and with angles. The
methodology was found to be very satisfactory compared with
experimental tests and advanced FE models in terms of stiffness,
strength and rotational capacity.
Dai et al. [144] made a simulation study of 10 fire tests
on restrained steel beam–column assemblies using five different
types of joints. Three-dimensional solid elements were used in
modelling the main structural members. The results demonstrated
good agreement between numerical simulations and experimental
observations.
Díaz [145] developed a detailed 3D FE model to study the
behaviour of beam-to-column bolted extended end-plate joints
(Fig. 14). The beam, column, extended end-plate, bolts (head, nut
and shank) were all modelled using 8-node brick elements with full
integration and incompatible modes. Contact elements were on all
contact surfaces of the joint. The obtained results were in good
agreement with the real behaviour of joints, found in experimental
rests in the literature. The model was used to develop a metamodel
for use into the design and optimization of semi-rigid connections.
3.6. Informational models
Informational models using Neural Networks (NN), can provide
an alternative to conventional methods of determining the
moment–rotation curve by providing an inside relationship in
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
Fig. 13. 3D FE models of bolted connections with angles [134].
Fig. 14. 3D FEM of a beam-to-column extended end-plate joint [145].
the form of generalizations between the parameters involved.
Thereby obtaining a more approximate moment–rotation curve by
extracting information directly from the experimental results.
Artificial NN (ANN) is an artificial intelligence application
implemented by engineers to carry out design tasks. It has
been applied to problems of: predicting function approximation;
classification; filtering; structural analysis, design, dynamics and
control and structural damage assessment [146].
Informational NN formulations are equation-free global repre-
sentation. The purpose of curve fitting is to find the parameters
for a mathematical equation, whereas NN modelling is to learn the
background mechanics. Once this ‘learning’ is done, the neural net-
work can be implemented into other structural analysis platforms
without further simplification and calibration challenges [147].
Jadid and Fairbairn [148] investigated the relationship between
the behaviour of beam–column joints and the geometrical shape,
amount and size of steel reinforcement, fixed beam and column
cross-sectional dimensions and concrete strength using ANN.
Anderson et al. [149] used NN to predict the bilinear ap-
proximation of the moment–rotation curves of minor axis
beam-to-column flush end-plate joints; Stavroulakis et al. [150]
to predict the global moment–rotation curve for single web angle
beam-to-column joints.
Dang and Tan [151] proposed an inner product-based hys-
teretic model for the application to piezoceramic actuators;
Yun et al. [152] as a model for hysteretic behaviour of materials;
751
Yun et al. [153] as a hysteretic material model to expedite learning
of the cyclic behaviour of connections.
De Lima et al. [154] used NN to predict the flexural resistance
and initial stiffness of beam-to-column steel joints, the results
of which were consistent with experimental and design code
reference values; Guzelbey et al. [155] to estimate the rotation
capacity of wide flange beams. The database used to train the NN
was based on 81 experimental results from the literature.
Pirmoz and Golizadeh [156] and Salajegheh et al. [157] used
NN to estimate the behaviour of bolted top–seat angle connections
with web angles and Kim et al. [147] to model the nonlinear
hysteretic cycle for bolted beam-to-column angle joints in steel
frames.
Another methodology to predict the moment–rotation curve is
Genetic Programming (GP). Cevik [158] was the first to investigate
the use of GP to determine the rotation capacity of wide flange
beams.
4. Mathematical representation of moment–rotation curve
In order to consider the behaviour of a joint in the global
analysis of a structure, it is necessary to consider the mathematical
representation of the moment–rotation curve.
This representation can be performed by means of different
relationships and levels of precision. Fig. 15 shows the different
mathematical representations of the moment–rotation curve:
linear; (b) bilinear; (c) multilinear (trilinear); (d) nonlinear.
752 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758

a b

c d

Fig. 15. Different mathematical representations of the (Mj –φ ) curve: (a) linear; (b) bilinear; (c) multilinear (trilinear); (d) nonlinear.

The moment–rotation curve can be represented mathemati- 4.1.3. Multilinear model

cally in one of two ways [54]: (1) depending on parameters with
clear physical meaning (e.g. stiffness, resistance) and a shape fac-
tor; and (2) based on no clear physical meaning as it is derived from
regression analysis, called curve-fitting formulations. For a full re-
view of this topic, the reader is referred to Faella et al. [54] and
Eurocode 3 [1].
This model was proposed to remedy the problem of the bilinear
model. Moncarz and Gerstle [20] use a trilinear representation
with five parameters, Eq. (17), the: rotational stiffness (Kφ ); first
yielding moment (Mj,y ); post-yielding rotational stiffness (Kφ,y );
plastic moment (Mj,p ); and plastic rotational stiffness (Kφ,p ) of the
joint.

Kφ φ for Mj ≤ Mj,y

4.1. Stiffness, resistance and shape factor-based formulations Mj = Kφ,y φ for Mj,y < Mj < Mj,p (17)
Kφ,p φ for Mj,p ≤ Mj .
The mathematical representation of the moment–rotation
The representation proposed in Eurocode 3 [1] is divided into
curve depends on parameters with a physical meaning, such as the
three segments (Fig. 16), although for elastic–plastic analysis, a
rotational stiffness (K ), moment resistance (M) and a shape factor
simplified bilinear model is proposed. The first segment of the
n which characterizes the knee of the moment–rotation [54].
curve has the linear behaviour of Eq. (15) up to the moment
value of 2/3Mj,Rd , where Mj,Rd is the design value of the joint
4.1.1. Linear model plastic moment Mj,p . The second segment is nonlinear according to
The linear model, Eq. (15), is the simplest to use but it is the Eq. (18) in the range of 2/3Mj,Rd < Mj < Mj,Rd .
least accurate. It overestimates the rigidity of the joint [159] and is
Kφ
only dependent on the rotational stiffness (Kφ ) of the joint. Batho Mj =  ξ φ (18)
Mj
et al. [3,5], Rathbun [7], Monforton and Wu [13], amongst others, 1.5 M
j,Rd
used this model.
where ξ depends on the [1]:
Mj = Kφ φ. (15)
2.7

welded, bolted end-plate and base-plate connections
ξ=
3.1 bolted angle flange cleats.
4.1.2. Bilinear model
This model depends on three parameters, the: rotational The last segment is a straight horizontal line representing plastic
stiffness (Kφ ); plastic moment (Mj,p ); and plastic rotational behaviour (Mj = Mj,Rd ).
stiffness (Kφ,p ) of the joint, Eq. (16). Used by many [17,160–164] Other multilinear models can be can be found in the work
and implemented in FEA programs it has a sharp change in rigidity of [105,115,165–167].
and the intersection of the two curves (Fig. 15(b)).
4.1.4. Nonlinear model
Kφ φ

for Mj ≤ Mj,p This is the most accurate model so far. Proposed in 1943 by
Mj = (16)
Kφ,p φ for Mj > Mj,p . Ramberg and Osgood [168], Eq. (19), depends on three parameters:
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758 753

a M
M0

n3

1
n1
n2
Kp >0
n1 <n2 <n3

Fig. 16. Three-segment approximation of the (Mj –φ ) curve [1].

φ/φ0

n1
M
n2 b M
M0
n3
M0 n=∞

n3
1

n1 <n2 <n3 n1
n2
Kp <0
Kφ n1 <n2 <n3
Kφ

φ0 2φ0 φ φ/φ0

Fig. 17. Ramberg–Osgood [168] representation of the (M–φ ) curve.

Fig. 18. Goldberg and Richard [93] nonlinear representation of the mo-
ment–rotation curve: (a) positive plastic stiffness; (b) negative plastic stiffness.
rotational stiffness (Kφ ), rotation (φ ) of the joint, and the shape
factor (n) which characterizes the knee of the moment–rotation
curve (Fig. 17). The curve becomes bilinear with elastic–perfectly
plastic behaviour as n ⇒ ∞ at which point the plastic moment of a M
the joint is equal to the reference moment M0 . M0
   n −1 
φ M M n3
= 1+ where M0 = Kφ φ0 . (19)
φ0 M0 M0
1
Ang and Morris [169] were the first to use Eq. (19). Abolmaali n1
et al. [120] compared the moment–rotation curve for flush end- n2
plate connections generated by Eq. (19) with one using FEA, with
excellent results.
Kp >0
Fig. 18 shows the nonlinear representation use by Goldberg and
n1 <n2 <n3
Richard [93]; Richard and Abbot [170] and Attiogbe and Morris [92]
which is given by Eq. (20). It depends on four parameters: reference
φ/φ0
bending moment (M0 ); rotational stiffness (Kφ ); plastic rotational
stiffness (Kφ,p ) and a shape factor (n). Which is better than the
Ramberg–Osgood [168] equation as it allows positive, zero and b M
M0
negative plastic rotational stiffness (Kφ,p ). Negative values are
necessary when the joint fails due to local buckling.
  φ n3
M 1 − Kp φ φ Kφ,p
=  0
n  + K p ϕ0
1
where K p = . (20) 1
M0   φ  n Kφ
1 +  1 − Kp φ 

0
n1
n2
The exponential equation (21), proposed by Yee and Melch- Kp <0
ers [103] also allows positive, zero and negative plastic rotational
n1 <n2 <n3
stiffness (Kφ,p ) (Fig. 19). A characteristic of this curve is that slope
of the curve at the origin is equal to the initial elastic stiffness of
the joint.
φ ′ φ φ
[  ]
M Fig. 19. Yee and Melchers [103] exponential representation of the mo-
= 1 − exp − 1 − Kp + n + Kp ment–rotation curve: (a) positive plastic stiffness; (b) negative plastic stiffness.
M0 φ0 φ0 φ0
754 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758

M M
M0 M0 n3 n2
n1
1 1

n1
n2
n3

n1 <n2 <n3
n1 <n2 <n3

1 φ/φ0 1 φ/φ0

Fig. 20. Exponential representation of Pilvin [171]. Fig. 22. Logarithmic representation of Wu and Chen [173].

M A more accurate representation is that of Kennedy [174];

M0 Sommer [175] and Frye and Morris [76], Eq. (26); although its slope
1 can become negative for some values of M [77].

n1
φ = C1 M + C2 M 3 + C3 M 5 (26)

n2 where C1 , C2 and C3 are curve-fitting constants depending on the

n3 geometrical and mechanical properties of the joint.
To solve this problem, Jones et al. [176], proposed equation (27)
which is given by a segmented cubic B-spline formulation.
m
n1 <n2 <n3 − 3
φ = φi +

bj M − Mj
j =0

for M > Mj
 
1 φ/φ0   M − Mj
where M − Mj = (27)
0 for M < Mj
Fig. 21. Exponential representation of Colson [172].
where m is the number of points between two elementary parts of
the moment–rotation curve, Mj is the upper bound moment of the
φ0

′
n = n

 jth part of the curve, while φi is the initial rotation (usually φi = 0)
Kφ and the coefficients bj are obtained by least-squares curve fitting.
where Kφ,p (21)
Lui and Chen [177] proposed the exponential relationship of
K p =

 .
Kφ Eq. (28), where Mi is the initial moment, Kφ,p is the strain-
hardening connection stiffness and Cj are modelling parameters
Two further nonlinear representations are those of Pilvin [171], obtained by linear regression analysis [178]; α is a scaling factor
Eq. (22), (Fig. 20) and Colson [172], Eq. (23), (Fig. 21). for numerical stability. It requires (m + 3) parameters, where m is
 M
 the number of curve-fitting constants (Cj ); usually, for a sufficient
φ M 1 M0 degree of accuracy, m = 4–6. Although this model provided an
= 1+ n (22)
φ0 M0 2 − 1 1 − MM excellent fit, if the slope of the curve changes sharply, the model
0
cannot capture this adequately [179].
φ M 1
= where M0 = Kφ φ0 . (23) m [  ]
φ0
 n − − |φ|
M0 1 − M M = Cj 1 − exp + Mi + Kφ,p |φ| . (28)
M0
j =1
2jα
Wu and Chen [173] proposed the logarithmic representation of Kishi and Chen [60] modified Eq. (28) to accommodate linear
Eq. (24) for connections with angles (Fig. 22). components of the moment–rotation curve Eq. (29).
φ m
  [  ]
M − |φ|
.
−
= n ln 1 + (24) M = Mi + Cj 1 − exp
M0 nφ0 2jα
j =1

−n
+ Dk (|φ| − |φk |) H [|φ| − |φk |] (29)
4.2. Formulation based on curve fitting by regression analysis
k=1

An alternative way to determine the moment–rotation curve
is using regression analysis. The simplest representation is that of
Krishnamurthy et al. [88], Eq. (25) used for end-plate connections.
φ = CM α
where C and α are regression parameters related to the
geometrical and mechanical properties of the beam-to-column
joint.
where Cj and Dk are curve-fitting parameters obtained from
linear regression [62]; φk is the starting rotation of the kth
linear component of the moment–rotation curve and H [φ] is the
Heaviside’s step function (1 for φ ≥ 0 and 0 for φ < 0).
(25) Lee and Moon [180] proposed the 2-parameter log model of
Eq. (30) to describe the nonlinear moment–rotation curve for semi-
rigid connections with angles.
n
M = α ln 103 nφ + 1
 
(30)
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758 755

Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of models to obtain the rotational joint behaviour.
Model Advantages Disadvantages

Analytical Ease of application Uses simplified models

Low computational cost Requires verification with experimental results to validate

Empirical Ease of application Requires calibration with other models, e.g. experimental
Low computational cost Its applicability is limited to the connection typologies used to
calibrate it
Cannot be used to determine the contribution of each
component of a joint to its global behaviour

Experimental Best method to obtain the rotational behaviour of the joints Very expensive to carry out

Informational Can obtain information from experimental data Large data set required to obtain good results

Mechanical Applicable to any type of joint The accuracy of the results depends on the number of
components used and on their mechanical characteristics
Low computational cost

Numerical Can introduce local effects which are difficult to measure, (prying forces, High computational cost
contact, etc.)
Can be used to carry out parametric studies

Table 2
Principal characteristics of current models to obtain the rotational behaviour of a joint.
Characteristics Model
Analytical Empirical Experimental Informational Mechanical Numerical

Advanced analysis available (contact, pretension, etc.) Low Low Medium Low Medium High
Level of complexity Low Low Medium Medium Medium High
Database requirements High High Low High Low Medium
Cost Low Low High Medium Low Medium
Reusable for other connection typologies No No No No Yes Yes
Parameterization Low Low Low High Medium High
Solution time Low Low High Low Low Medium
User skills Low Low Medium Medium Medium High
Usability for design optimization Low Low N/A High High High
Match real behaviour Low Low High Medium Medium Medium
Provides extra information No No Yes No Yes Yes
N/A not applicable.

where n and α are shape parameters determined using the method
of least squares for differences between the predicted moments
and the experimental test data [59].
5. Conclusions
representations can be used, these are: linear, bilinear, multilinear
and nonlinear. The most accurate representation can be obtained
using continuous nonlinear functions, although the multilinear
representation is commonly used for mechanical models.
Acknowledgements

Steel portal frames were traditionally designed, assuming that

beam-to-column joints are ideally pinned or fully rigid, whereas
in fact, due to the finite stiffness of the joints, the true behaviour
is somewhere between these two extremes. All studies agree
that when carrying out structural analysis of any frame, the
rotational behaviour of the joint should be considered. Currently,
the most common method of accounting for the true behaviour of
a connection is by using the moment–rotation curve in the analysis
of the structure.
Several types of models can be used to obtain the mo-
ment–rotation curve, these are: analytical, empirical, experimen-
tal, informational, mechanical and numerical. The most popular of
these are the mechanical models, of which the most used is the
component method. With this method it is possible to evaluate the
rotational stiffness and moment capacity of semi-rigid joints when
subjected to only pure bending. The method fails if an axial load is
also present.
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each model
is given in Table 1 with Table 2 giving the principal characteristic
of each model.
When analysing semi-rigid frames, the behaviour of the joints
need to be modelled, this is associated with a mathematical model
of the moment–rotation curve. Depending on the type of global
structural analysis required, one of several moment–rotation curve
This work was supported by the CARM (Consejería de
Educación, Ciencia e Investigación de la Región de Murcia) and
the Technical University of Cartagena. Its support is greatly
appreciated. Travelling funds for the fourth author were provided
by the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds.
References
[1] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Eurocode 3. Design of steel
structures, part 1–8: design of joints (EN 1993-1-8:2005). Brussels; 2005.
[2] Wilson WM, Moore HF. Tests to determine the rigidity of riveted joints in
steel structures. In: University of Illinois. Engineering experiment station.
Bulletin 104, Urbana (USA): University of Illinois; 1917.
[3] Steel Structures Research Committee. First report. London: Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, HMSO; 1931.
[4] Steel Structures Research Committee. Second report. London: Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, HMSO; 1934.
[5] Steel Structures Research Committee. Final report. London: Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, HMSO; 1936.
[6] Young CR, Jackson KB. The relative rigidity of welded and riveted connections.
Canadian Journal of Research 1934;11(1–2): p. 62–100, 101–134.
[7] Rathbun JC. Elastic properties of riveted connections. Transactions of
American Society of Civil Engineers 1936;101:524–63.
[8] Bendixen A. Die methode der alpha-gleichungen zur berechnung yon
rahmenkonstruktionen. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 1914.
[9] Cross H. Analysis of continuous frames by distributing fixed–end movements.
In: Grinter LB, editor. Numerical methods of analysis in engineering.
Successive corrections. New York: Macmillan Company; 1949. p. 1–12.
756 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
[10] Johnston B, Mount E. Analysis of building frames with semi-rigid connections.
Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers 1942;107.
[11] Stewart RW. Analysis of frames with elastic joints. Transactions of American
Society of Civil Engineers 1947;114:17–39.
[12] Sourochnikoff B. Wind stresses in semi-rigid connections of steel framework.
Transactions, ASCE 1950;115:382.
[13] Monforton GR, Wu TS. Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly connected frames.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1963;89(ST6):3713–42.
[14] Livesley RK. Matrix methods of structural analysis. 1st ed. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1964.
[15] Gere JM, Weaver W. Analysis of frame structures. Princenton (NJ): D Van
Nostrand Company. Inc.; 1965.
[16] Li TQ, Choo BS, Nethercot DA. Connection element method for the analysis
of semi-rigid frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1995;32(2):
143–71.
[17] Lionberger S, Weaver W. Dynamic response of frames with non-rigid
connections. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. ASCE 1969;
95(EM1):95–114.
[18] Suko M, Adams PF. Dynamic analysis of multibay multistory frames. Journal
of the Structural Division. ASCE 1971;97(ST10):2519–33.
[19] European convention for constructional steelwork. European recommenda-
tions for steel construction; 1978; 23.
[20] Moncarz PD, Gerstle KH. Steel frame with nonlinear connections. Journal of
Structural Division 1981;107(ST8):1427–41.
[21] Eurocode 3: Common unified rules for steel structures. Directorate General
for Internal Market and Industrial Affairs. Commission of the European
Communities; 1984.
[22] Jones SW, Kirby PA, Nethercort DA. The analysis of frames with semi-
rigid connections-A state-of-the-art report. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1983;3(2):2–13.
[23] Nethercot DA. Joint action and the design of steel frames. Journal of the
Institution of Structural Engineers. Part A Design and Construction 1985;63A:
271–9.
[24] Nethercot DA. The behaviour of steel frame structures allowing for semi-
rigid joint action. In: Pavlovic MN, editor. Steel structures. Recent research
advances and their application to design. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers;
1986. p. 135–52.
[25] Lui EM, Chen WF. Steel frame analysis with flexible joints. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1987;8:161–202.
[26] Goto Y, Chen WF. On the computer-based design analysis for the flexibly
jointed frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1987;8:203–31.
[27] ECCS-CECM-EKS. Working committees. TC-10 Structural connections.
http://www.steelconstruct.com (accessed 12.08.10).
[28] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Eurocode 3: Annex J: joints
in building frames (ENV 1993-1-1:1992/A2), Brusseles: 1998.
[29] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for structural
steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-05, Chicago (IL): 2005.
[30] Manual of steel construction: load and resistance factor design (LRFD).
I, structural members, specifications & codes, 3rd ed. American institute
of steel construction (AISC). Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC); 2001.
[31] AISC-ASD/LRFD. Steel construction manual. 13th ed.; 2005.
[32] GB 50017-2003. Code of design of steel structures. Beijing: China Planning
Press; 2003 [in Chinese].
[33] Jaspart JP. Extending of the merchant-rankine formula for the assessment of
the ultimate load of frames with semi-rigid joints. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 1988;11(4):283–312.
[34] Jaspart JP, Maquoi R. Guidelines for the design of braced frames with
semi-rigid connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1990;16(4):
319–28.
[35] Weynand K, Jaspart JP, Steenhuis M. Economy studies of steel building frames
with semirigid joints. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;46(1–3):
85.
[36] Chen WF. In: Chen WF, editor. Practical analysis for semi-rigid frame design.
World Scientfic Publishing Company; 2000.
[37] Braham B, Jaspart JP. Is it safe to design a building structure with simple
joints, when they are known to exhibit a semi-rigid behaviour? Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(3–5):713–23.
[38] Ashraf M, Nethercot DA, Ahmed B. Sway of semi-rigid steel frames: part 1:
regular frames. Engineering Structures 2004;26(12):1809–19.
[39] Cabrero JM, Bayo E. Development of practical design methods for steel
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures 2005;27(8):
1125–37.
[40] Bayo E, Cabrero JM, Gil B. An effective component-based method to model
semi-rigid connections for the global analysis of steel and composite
structures. Engineering Structures 2006;28(1):97–108.
[41] Da S Vellasco PCG, de Andrade SAL, da Silva JGS, de Lima LRO, Brito Jr O.
A parametric analysis of steel and composite portal frames with semi-rigid
connections. Engineering Structures 2006;28(4):543–56.
[42] Ashraf M, Nethercot DA, Ahmed B. Sway of semi-rigid steel frames. Part 2:
irregular frames. Engineering Structures 2007;29(8):1854–63.
[43] Yang JG, Lee GY. Analytical model for the preliminary design of a single-
storey multi-bay steel frame under horizontal and vertical loads. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2007;63(8):1091–101.
[44] Faella C, Martinelli E, Nigro E. Analysis of steel-concrete composite PR-
frames in partial shear interaction: a numerical model and some applications.
Engineering Structures 2008;30(4):1178–86.
[45] Da Silva JGS, de Lima LRO, da S Vellasco PCG, de Andrade SAL, de
Castro RA. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel portal frames with semi-rigid
connections. Engineering Structures 2008;30(9):2566–79.
[46] Daniũnas A, Urbonas K. Analysis of the steel frames with the semi-rigid beam-
to-beam and beam-to-column knee joints under bending and axial forces.
Engineering Structures 2008;30:3114–8.
[47] Sekulovic M, Nefovska-Danilovic M. Contribution to transient analysis of
inelastic steel frames with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures
2008;30(4):976–89.
[48] Bel Hadj Ali N, Sellami M, Cutting-Decelle AF, Mangin JC. Multi-stage
production cost optimization of semi-rigid steel frames using genetic
algorithms. Engineering Structures 2009;31(11):2766–78.
[49] Ihaddoudène ANT, Saidani M, Chemrouk M. Mechanical model for the
analysis of steel frames with semi rigid joints. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2009;65(3):631–40.
[50] Mehrabian A, Ali T, Haldar A. Nonlinear analysis of a steel frame. Nonlinear
Analysis 2009;71(12): e616–e623.
[51] Darío Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Second-order slope–deflection equations for im-
perfect beam–column structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering
Structures 2010;32(8):2440–54.
[52] Jaspart JP. General report: session on connections. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2000;55:69–89.
[53] Nethercot DA, Zandonini R. Methods of prediction of joint behaviour: beam-
to-column connections. In: Narayanan R, editor. Structural connections,
stability and strength. London (UK): Elsevier Applied Science; 1989. p. 23–62.
[54] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Structural steel semirigid connections: theory,
design and software. In: New directions in civil engineering. Boca Raton (FL
(EEUU)): CRC Publishers; 2000.
[55] Goverdhan AV. A collection of experimental moment–rotation curves and
valuation of prediction equations for semi-rigid connections. Master thesis.
Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University; 1984.
[56] Nethercot DA. Steel beam-to-column connections: a review of test data and
its applicability to the evaluation of joint behaviour in the performance of
steel frames. CIRIA report, RP338; 1985.
[57] Nethercot DA. Utilization of experimentally obtained connection data in
assessing the performance of steel frames. In: Chen WF, editor. Connection
flexibility and steel frames. Detroit: Proc. of a Session Sponsored by the ASCE
Structural Division; 1985.
[58] Jones SW, Kirby PA, Nethercot DA. Effect of semi-rigid connections on steel
column strength. Journal of Construtional Steel Research 1980;1:38–46.
[59] Kishi N, Chen WF. Steel connection data bank program. In: Structural
engineering. 2nd ed. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Report no. CE-STR86-18; 1986.
[60] Kishi N, Chen WP. Data base of steel beam-to-column connections. In:
Structural engineering. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, 1/2, Report no. CE-STR-86-26; 1986.
[61] Chen WF, Toma S. Advanced analysis of steel frames. Boca Raton (FL): CRC
Press; 1994.
[62] Kishi N. In: Chen WP, Toma S, editors. Semi-rigid connections. Advanced
analysis of steel frames. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1994.
[63] Abdalla KM, Chen WF. Expanded database of semi-rigid steel connections.
Computers & Structures 1995;56(4):553–64.
[64] Gerardy JC, Schleich JB. Semi-rigid action in steel frame structures. Report no.
7210-SAl507, Arbed Recherches, Luxembourg; 1991.
[65] Weynand K. SERICON I — databank on joints building frames. In: Proc. COST
C1 first state of the art workshop on semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering
structures. 1992. p. 463–74.
[66] Weynand K, Huter M, Kirby PA, Simões da Silva LAP, Cruz PJS. SERICON — data
bank on joint in building frames. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 workshop.
1998.
[67] Cruz PJS, Simões da Silva LAP, Rodrigues DS, Simões RAD. SERICON II —
database for the semi-rigid behaviour of beam-to-column connections in
seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;46(1–3):
233–4.
[68] Popov EP, Takhirov SM. Bolted large seismic steel beam-to-column
connections Part 1: experimental study. Engineering Structures 2002;24(12):
1523–34.
[69] Girão Coelho AM, Bijlaard FSK, Simões da Silva L. Experimental assessment
of the ductility of extended end plate connections. Engineering Structures
2004;26:1185–206.
[70] Girão Coelho AM, Bijlaard FSK, Gresnigt N, Simões da Silva L. Experimental
assessment of the behaviour of bolted T-stub connections made up of welded
plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(2):269–311.
[71] Girão Coelho AM, Bijlaard FSK. Experimental behaviour of high strength steel
end-plate connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63(9):
1228–40.
[72] Girão Coelho AM, Bijlaard FSK, Kolstein H. Experimental behaviour of
high-strength steel web shear panels. Engineering Structures 2009;31(7):
1543–55.
[73] Cabrero JM, Bayo E. The semi-rigid behaviour of three-dimensional
steel beam-to-column joints subjected to proportional loading. Part I:
experimental evaluation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63:
1241–53.
[74] Shi Y, Shi G, Wang Y. Experimental and theoretical analysis of the
moment–rotation behaviour of stiffened extended end-plate connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63(9):1279–93.
 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
[75] Piluso V, Rizzano G. Experimental analysis and modelling of bolted T-stubs
under cyclic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008;64(6):
655–69.
[76] Frye MJ, Morris GA. Analysis of flexibly connected steel frames. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 1975;2(3):280–91.
[77] Radziminski JB, Azizinamini A. Prediction of moment–rotation behaviour of
semi-rigid beam-to-column connections. In: Connections in steel structures:
behaviour. Strength and design. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers;
1988.
[78] Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski JB. Static and cyclic behaviour
of steel beam–column connections. Structural Research Studies. Civil
Engineering Department, University of South Carolina; 1985.
[79] Picard A, Giroux YM, Brun P. Discussion of analysis of flexibly connected steel
frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1976;3(2):350–2.
[80] Altman WG, Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski JB. Moment–rotation
characteristics of semi-rigid steel beam–column connections. Civil Engineer-
ing Department, University of South Carolina; 1982.
[81] Kameshki ES, Saka MP. Optimum design of nonlinear steel frames with semi-
rigid connections using a genetic algorithm. Computers & Structures 2001;
79(17):1593–604.
[82] Hadianfard MA, Razani R. Effects of semi-rigid behaviour of connections in
the reliability of steel frames. Structural Safety 2003;25(2):123–38.
[83] Hayalioglu MS, Degertekin SO. Minimum cost design of steel frames
with semi-rigid connections and column bases via genetic optimization.
Computers & Structures 2005;83(21–22):1849–63.
[84] Prabha P, Marimuthu V, Saravanan M, Jayachandran SA. Evaluation of
connection flexibility in cold formed steel racks. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2010;66(7):863–72.
[85] Krishnamurthy N. Analytical investigation of bolted stiffened tee-stubs.
Department of Civil Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville (TN),
Report no. CE-MBMA-1902; 1978.
[86] Krishnamurthy N. Fresh look at bolted end-plate behaviour and design.
Engineering Journal 1978;15(2):39–49.
[87] Krishnamurthy N, Graddy DE. Correlation between 2- and 3-dimensional
finite element analysis of steel bolted end-plate connections. Computers &
Structures 1976;6(4–5):381–9.
[88] Krishnamurthy N, Huang H, Jeffrey PK, Avery LK. Analitycal M–φ curves for
end-plate connections. Journal of the Structural Division 1979;105:133–45.
[89] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Abolmaali A. End-plate connection moment–rotation
relationship. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1987;8:137–57.
[90] Kukreti AR, Ghasseimieh M, Murray TM. Behaviour and design of large
capacity moment end plates. Journal of Structural Engineering 1990;116(3):
809–28.
[91] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Ghassemieh M. Finite element modeling of large
capacity stiffened steel tee-hanger connections. Computers & Structures
1989;32(2):409–22.
[92] Attiogbe G, Morris G. Moment–rotation functions for steel connections.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1991;117:1703–18.
[93] Goldberg DE, Richard RM. Analysis of non-linear structures. Journal of the
Structural Division 1963;89(4):333–51.
[94] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. A new method to design extended end plate
connections and semirigid braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1997;41(1):61–91.
[95] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Proposals to improve Eurocode 3 approach
for predicting the rotational stiffness of extended end plate connections.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno; Report no. 70; 1995.
[96] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Some proposals to improve EC3 — annex J
approach for predicting the moment–rotation curve of extended end-plate
connections. Costruzioni Metalliche 1996;4:15–31.
[97] Kishi N, Chen WP. Moment–rotation relations of semi-rigid connections with
angles. Journal of Structural Engineering 1987;116(7):1813–34.
[98] Chen WF, Kishi N, Matsuoka KG, Nomachi SG. Moment–rotation relation of
top and seat angle with double web angle connections. In: Connections in
steel structures: behaviour, strength and design. London: Elsevier Applied
Science; 1988.
[99] Chen WF, Kishi N, Matsuoka KG, Nomachi SG. Moment–rotation relation of
single double web angle connections. In: Connections in steel structures:
behaviour, strength and design. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1988.
[100] Kishi N, Chen WP, Goto Y, Matsuoka KG. Design aid of semi-rigid connections
for frame analysis. Engineering Journal 1993;30(3):90–107.
[101] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Limit states design of semi-rigid frames using
advanced analysis: part 1: connection modeling and classification. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1993;26:1–27.
[102] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Limit states design of semi-rigid frames using
advanced analysis: part 2: analysis and design. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1993;26:29–57.
[103] Yee KL, Melchers RE. Moment–rotation curves for bolted connections. Journal
of Structural Engineering 1986;112:615–35.
[104] Johnson RP, Law CLE. Semi-rigid joints for composite frames. In: Joints in
structural steelwork. London: Pentech Press; 1981. p. 3.3–3.19.
[105] Pirmoz A, Seyed Khoei A, Mohammadrezapour E, Saedi Daryan A. Mo-
ment–rotation behaviour of bolted top-seat angle connections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2009;65(4):973–84.
[106] Jaspart JP. Etude de la semi-rigidite des noeuds poutre-colonne et son
influence sur la resistance et la stabilite des ossatures in acier. Ph.D. thesis.
Belgium: University of Liege; 1991.
757
[107] Wales MW, Rossow EC. Coupled moment-axial force behaviour in bolted
joint. Journal of Structural Engineering 1983;109(5):1250–66.
[108] Kennedy DJR, Hafez M. A study of end-plate connections for steel beams.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1984;11(2):139–49.
[109] Chmielowiec M, Richard RM. Moment–rotation curves for partially re-
strained steel connections. Report to AISC. University of Arizona; 1987, p.
127.
[110] Pucinotti R. Top-and-seat and web angle connections: prediction via
mechanical model. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:661–94.
[111] Simões da Silva L, Girão Coelho AM. An analytical evaluation of the response
of steel joints under bending and axial force. Computers & Structures 2001;
79:873–81.
[112] Simões da Silva L, de Lima LRO, da S Vellasco PCG, de Andrade SA. Behaviour of
flush end-plate beam-to-column joints under bending and axial force. Steel
and Composite Structures 2004;4(2):77–94.
[113] Urbonas K, Daniũnas A. Behaviour of semi-rigid steel beam-to-beam joints
under bending and axial forces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2006;62:1244–9.
[114] Sokol Z, Wald F, Delabre V, Muzeau JP, Svarc M. Design of endplate joints
subject to moment and normal force. In: Third European conference on steel
structures—Eurosteel 2002. Coimbra: Cmm Press; 2002. p. 1219–28.
[115] Del Savio AA, Nethercot DA, da S Vellasco PCG, Andrade SAL, Martha LF.
Generalised component-based model for beam-to-column connections
including axial versus moment interaction. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2009;65(8–9):1876–95.
[116] Cabrero JM, Bayo E. The semi-rigid behaviour of three-dimensional steel
beam-to-column joints subjected to proportional loading. Part II: theoretical
model and validation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63:
1254–67.
[117] Simões da Silva L. Towards a consistent design approach for steel joints under
generalized loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008;64(9):
1059–75.
[118] Lemonis ME, Gantes CJ. Mechanical modeling of the nonlinear response of
beam-to-column joints. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009;65:
879–90.
[119] Simões da Silva L, Aldina S, Vila Real P. A component model for the behaviour
of steel joints at elevated temperatures. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2001;57(11):1169–95.
[120] Abolmaali A, Matthys JH, Farooqi M, Choi Y. Development of mo-
ment–rotation model equations for flush end-plate connections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2005;61:1595–612.
[121] Al-Jabri KS, Seibi A, Karrech A. Modelling of unstiffened flush end-plate bolted
connections in fire. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006;62:151–9.
[122] Bose SK, McNeice GM, Sherbourne AN. Column webs in steel beam to column
connexions. Part I: formulation and verification. Computers & Structures
1972;2:253–72.
[123] Chasten CP, Lu LW, Driscoll GC. Prying and shear in end-plate connection
design. Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(5):1295–311.
[124] Gebbeken N, Rothert H, Binder B. On the numerical analysis of endplate
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;30(2):177–96.
[125] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. 3D simulation of end-plate bolted connections.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1996;120(11):3122–36.
[126] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. Finite element prediction of end-plate bolted
connection behavior. I: parametric study. Journal of Structural Engineering
1997;123(2):157–64.
[127] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Benchmarks for finite element modeling of bolted steel
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1997;43:17–42.
[128] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Calibration of a finite element model for isolated bolted
end plate steel connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1997;
44(3):225–62.
[129] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Basic issues in the finite element simulation of extended
end plate connections. Computer & Structures 1998;69:361–82.
[130] Troup S, Xiao RY, Moy SSJ. Numerical modeling of bolted steel connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;46(1):269.
[131] Bahaari MR, Sherbourne AN. Behaviour of eight-bolt large capacity endplate
connections. Computers & Structures 2000;77:315–25.
[132] Sumner EA, Mays TW, Murray TM. End-plate moment connections: test
results and finite element method validation. In: 4th International workshop
on connections in steel structures. 2000. p. 82–93.
[133] Swanson JA, Kokan DS, Leon RT. Advanced finite element modeling of bolted
T-stub connection components. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;58(5–8):1015–31.
[134] Citipitioglu AM, Haj-Ali RM, White DW. Refined 3D finite element modeling
of partially-restrained connections including slip. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2002;58:995–1013.
[135] Gantes CJ, Lemonis ME. Influence of equivalent bolt length in finite element
modeling of T-stub steel connections. Computers & Structures 2003;81:
595–604.
[136] Ju SH, Fan CY, Wub GH. Three-dimensional finite elements of steel bolted
connections. Engineering Structures 2004;26:403–13.
[137] Maggi YI, Gonçalves RM, Leon RT, Ribeiro LFL. Parametric analysis of steel
bolted end plate connections using finite element modelling. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2005;61:689–708.
[138] Xiao RY, Pernetti F. Numerical analysis of steel and composite steel and
concrete connections. In: Hoffmeister B, Hechler O, editors. Eurosteel 2005:
4th European conference on steel and composite structures. Maastricht:
Verlag Mainz; 2005. 10-253-4.10-259.
758 C. Díaz et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 741–758
[139] Tagawa H, Gurel S. Application of steel channels as stiffeners in bolted
moment connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(12):
1650–71.
[140] Moreno A. Un modelo de elementos finitos para el análisis de uniones atornil-
ladas viga-pilar con comportamiento semirrígido. Ph.D. thesis. Universidad
de La Coruña; 2005 [in Spanish].
[141] Cabrero Ballarín JM. Nuevas propuestas para el diseño de pórticos y uniones
semirrígidas de acero. Ph.D. thesis. Universidad de Navarra; 2006 [in
Spanish].
[142] Pirmoz A, Saedi DA, Mazaheri A, Ebrahim DH. Behavior of bolted angle
connections subjected to combined shear force and moment. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2008;64:436–46.
[143] Mohamadi-shooreh MR, Mofid M. Parametric analyses on the initial stiffness
of flush end-plate splice connections using FEM. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2008;65(3):749.
[144] Dai XH, Wang YC, Bailey CG. Numerical modelling of structural fire behaviour
of restrained steel beam–column assemblies using typical joint types.
Engineering Structures 2010;32:2337–51.
[145] Díaz Gómez C. Optimum design of semi-rigid joint by numeric simulation
and Kriging models. Ph.D. thesis. Spain: Technical University of Cartagena;
2010 [in Spanish].
[146] Arslan MH. An evaluation of effective design parameters on earthquake
performance of RC buildings using neural networks. Engineering Structures
2010;32:1888–98.
[147] Kim J, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. Mechanical and informational modeling
of steel beam-to-column connections. Engineering Structures 2010;32(2):
449–58.
[148] Jadid MN, Fairbairn DR. Neural-network applications in predicting mo-
ment–curvature parameters from experimental data. Engineering Applica-
tions of Artificial Intelligence 1996;9(3):309–19.
[149] Anderson D, Hines EL, Arthur SJ, Eiap EL. Application of artificial neural
networks to the prediction of minor axis steel connections. Computers &
Structures 1997;63(4):685–92.
[150] Stavroulakis GE, Avdelas AV, Abdalla KM, Panagiotopoulos PD. A neural
network approach to the modelling, calculation and identification of semi-
rigid connections in steel structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
1997;44(1–2):91–105.
[151] Dang X, Tan Y. An inner product-based dynamic neural network hysteresis
model for piezoceramic actuators. Sensors Actuators 2005;121(2):535–42.
[152] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. A new neural network-based model
for hysteretic behavior of materials. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2008;73(4):447–69.
[153] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. Self-learning simulation method for inverse
nonlinear modeling of cyclic behavior of connections. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008;197(33–40):2836–57.
[154] De Lima LRO, da S Vellasco PCG, de Andrade SAL, Vellasco MMBR, da Silva JGS.
Neural networks assessment of beam-to-column joints. Journal of Brazilian
Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2005;28(3):314–24.
[155] Guzelbey IH, Abdulkadir C, Mehmet TG. Prediction of rotation capacity of
wide flange beams using neural networks. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2006;62(10):950–61.
[156] Pirmoz A, Gholizadeh S. Predicting of moment–rotation behavior of bolted
connections using neural networks. In: 3rd national congress on civil
engineering. 2007.
[157] Salajegheh E, Gholizadeh S, Pirmoz A. Self-organizing parallel back propaga-
tion neural networks for predicting the moment–rotation behavior of bolted
connections. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2008;9(6):625–40.
[158] Cevik A. Genetic programming based formulation of rotation capacity of wide
flange beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63(7):884–93.
[159] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press;
1991.
[160] Romstad KM, Subramanian CV. Analysis of frames with partial connection
rigidity. Journal of Structural Division 1970;96(ST11):2283–300.
[161] Tarpy TS, Cardinal JW. Behaviour of semi-rigid beam to column end plate
connections. In: Proc. of conference on joints in structural steelwork.
England: Pentach Press; 1981.
[162] Melchers RE, Kaur D. Behaviour of frames with flexible joints. In: Proc 8th
Australian conf mech of structural materials. 1982. p. 27.1–27.5.
[163] Sugimoto H, Chen WF. Small end restraint effects on the strength of H-
columns. Journal of Structural Division 1982;108(ST3):661–81.
[164] Lui EM, Chen WF. Strength of H-columns with small end restraints. Journal
of the Institute of Structural Engineers 1983;61B:17–26.
[165] Vinnakota S. Planar strength of restrained beam–columns. Journal of
Structural Division 1982;108(11):2496–516.
[166] Razzaq Z. End restraint effect on steel column strength. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1983;109(ST2):314–34.
[167] Poggi C, Zandonini R. Behavior and strength of steel frames with semi-rigid
connections, connection flexibility and steel frames. In: Chen WF, editor. Proc
of a session sponsored by ST Div of ASCE. 1985, p. 57–76.
[168] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress–strain curves by three-
parameters. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Technical report
902; 1943.
[169] Ang KM, Morris GA. Analysis of three-dimensional frames with flexible
beam–column connections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineers 1984;
245–54.
[170] Richard RM, Abbott BJ. Versatile elastic–plastic stress–strain formula. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics Division 1975;101(4):511–5.
[171] Pilvin A. Modelisation du Comportement des Assemblages de Structures a
Barres. Ph.D. thesis. France: Universite de Paris 6; 1983.
[172] Colson A. Theoretical modeling of semirigid connections behaviour. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 1991;19:213–24.
[173] Wu FS, Chen WF. A Design model for semi-rigid connections. Engineering
Structures 1990;12(2):88–97.
[174] Kennedy DJL. Moment–rotation characteristics of shear connections. Engi-
neering Journal 1969;105–15.
[175] Sommer WH. Behaviour of welded header plate connections. Master’s thesis.
University of Toronto; 1969.
[176] Jones SW, Kirby PA, Nethercot DA. Modelling of semirigid connection
behaviour and its influence on steel column behaviour. In: Howlett JH,
Jenkins WM, Stainsby R, editors. Joints in structural steelwork. Pentech Press;
1981. p. 5.73–5.87.
[177] Lui EM, Chen WF. Analysis and behaviour of flexibly jointed frames.
Engineering Structures 1986;8:107–15.
[178] Lui EM. Effects of connection flexibility and panel zone deformation on
the behavior of plane steel frames. Ph.D. dissertation. USA: School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette; 1985.
[179] Wu FS. Semi-rigid connections in steel frames. Ph.D. dissertation. USA: School
of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette; 1989.
[180] Lee SS, Moon TS. Moment–rotation model of semi-rigid connections with
angles. Engineering Structures 2002;24(2):227–37.