For Peer Review Only: Cyclic Modelling of Bolted Beam-To-Column Connections: Component Approach

Page 1 of 61 Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1
2
3
4
5 CYCLIC MODELLING OF BOLTED BEAM-TO-COLUMN
6
7 CONNECTIONS: COMPONENT APPROACH
8
9 M. Latour, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano
10
11 University of Salerno
12 Civil Engineering Department
13
14 Salerno, Italy
15 mlatour@unisa.it, v.piluso@unisa.it, g.rizzano@unisa.it
16
Fo
17
18
19 1 INTRODUCTION
20
rP
21
22
23
24 According to the traditional design philosophy of seismic resistant steel structures, the
ee
25
26
dissipation of earthquake input energy has to be provided by the yielding of some
27
28
rR
29 selected zones, namely dissipative zones, which have to be properly detailed to provide
30
31 adequate ductility supply and energy dissipation capacity.
32
33
ev
34
Concerning the location of dissipative zones in MR-frames, design criteria for beam-to-
35
36 column joints play a role of paramount importance. Beam-to-column joints can be
iew
37
38 designed to develop either full strength or partial strength aiming to reach a given
39
40
41 performance requirement. In the former case, the seismic input energy is dissipated by
42
43 excursions in plastic range occurring at the beam ends, relying on the ability of the steel
On
44
45 member to develop wide and stable hysteresis loops. In the latter case, beam-to-column
46
47
joints are designed to have a flexural strength less than the one of the connected beam,
ly
48
49
50 so that the seismic input energy is dissipated by yielding of the joint components.
51
52
Under this point of view it is necessary to distinguish between dissipative and non-
53
54
55 dissipative components, i.e. between dissipative and non-dissipative failure mechanisms
56
57 (Plumier, 1994, Astaneh, 1995).
58
59
60
URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

Journal of Earthquake Engineering Page 2 of 61
1
2
3
4
5 It is well known that local buckling phenomena do not usually allow the development of
6
7 highly dissipative mechanisms. This is the case of the column web in compression and
8
9 the case of plates in compression. For this reason the use of stiffeners, such as
10
11
12 continuity plates, is commonly suggested. Regarding beam flange and web in
13
14 compression, local buckling phenomenon can result in a dissipative behaviour provided
15
16 that the width-to-thickness ratios of the plate elements constituting the beam section are
Fo
17
18
19 limited to assure a ductile behaviour, i.e. class 1 cross-sections are adopted.
20
rP
21 Regarding bolt behaviour, it is important to note that, both under normal and shear
22
23
24
stresses, their limited plastic deformation capacity and fatigue life can lead to the brittle
ee
25
26 collapse of the joint, so that bolts have to be designed with sufficient overstrength to
27
28 prevent brittle failure modes. Moreover, the cyclic behaviour of bolted connections can
rR
29
30
31 be strongly affected by bolt plastic deformation, because the occurrence of such plastic
32
33 deformations can lead to pinching phenomena of hysteresis loops of bolted components,
ev
34
35 i.e. end-plate, column flange and flange cleat in bending.
36
iew
37
38 Similarly, aiming to assure a dissipative behaviour of joints, failure of welds has to be
39
40 absolutely avoided, because of their brittle collapse mechanism. For this reason, it is
41
42 suggested to provide sufficient over-strength of welds with respect to the design flexural
43
On
44
45 resistance of the joint. The yielding of the panel zone in shear can be admitted, provided
46
47 that excessive distortion does not occur, because excessive panel deformations can lead
ly
48
49
50
to the premature fracture of welds. To this scope, Eurocode 8 (CEN 2005a), requires
51
52 with reference to MR-frames that column web panel in shear has not to contribute for
53
54 more than 30% to the plastic rotation capacity of the joint.
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 In conclusion, an accurate design should aim to properly balance the plastic engagement
6
7 of the joint components, paying attention to avoid brittle and non-dissipative
8
9 mechanisms.
10
11
12 The economic advantages deriving by the adoption of partial strength beam-to-column
13
14 joints within MR-frames have been already pointed out by different authors in past
15
16 works. In both braced and unbraced frames, the use of partial strength connections can
Fo
17
18
19 lead to important savings in the gravity load system (Bjorhovde and Colson, 1991). In
20
rP
21 unbraced frames subjected to seismic loads the use of partial strength connections can
22
23
24
lead to an increased ductility as well as to lower design forces due to period shifts
ee
25
26 (Elnashai and Elghazouli, 1994).
27
28 Since Northridge and Kobe earthquakes, numerous research efforts have been devoted
rR
29
30
31 to enhance the performance of moment connections in steel structures under seismic
32
33 loads. Such seismic events showed the vulnerability of some types of welded
ev
34
35 connections subjected to cyclic actions. Since then, different solutions have been
36
iew
37
38 proposed for the retrofit of existing structures and for the design of new structures, in
39
40 particular four approaches have been followed: the improvement of unreinforced
41
42 welded connections, the strengthening of moment connections by adding cover plates,
43
On
44
45 ribs or haunches, the application of reduced beam section approach aiming to promote
46
47 the yielding of the beam far away from welds and the study of bolted solutions
ly
48
49
50
developed in order to improve connections performance under cyclic loads (Mahin et
51
52 al., 2002).
53
54 The inelastic behaviour of bolted connections is definitely more complex compared to
55
56
57 welded joints, simply because more components can be involved in the dissipation
58
59 mechanism, such as the end-plate, angles or tee stubs in bending (depending on the
60

1
2
3
4
5 connection typology), the column flange in bending, the panel zone in shear, the column
6
7 web in tension/compression.
8
9 With reference to bolted end-plate connections many research programs have been
10
11
12 developed in past years aiming to identify the monotonic and the cyclic behaviour of the
13
14 joint components and of the beam-to-column joint as a whole. Such connections exhibit
15
16 a distinctively non-linear behaviour resulting from a lot of phenomena like elasto-plastic
Fo
17
18
19 deformations, contact or slip between the connecting elements. The analysis of these
20
rP
21 phenomena and their interpretation is very complex, so that test results provide a
22
23
24
fundamental basis for the development and the calibration of mechanical models for
ee
25
26 predicting the joint behaviour. Under this point of view, experimental tests can be aimed
27
28 to provide the behaviour of each joint component and/or the whole joint moment-
rR
29
30
31 rotation curve. According to the component approach codified in Eurocode 3 (CEN,
32
33 2005b) for beam-to-column joints subjected to monotonic loading conditions, the whole
ev
34
35 beam-to-column joint is modelled by means of a combination of both rigid and
36
iew
37
38 deformable elements that represent the joint components, leading to a mechanical model
39
40 whose aim is the evaluation of the joint moment-rotation curve starting from the
41
42 knowledge of the force versus displacement behaviour of the joint components. This
43
On
44
45 approach can be extended also to beam-to-column joints under cyclic actions (Bernuzzi
46
47 et al., 1996, Nemati et al., 1999, Rassati et al., 2004, Nogueiro et al., 2007). The goal is
ly
48
49
50
the prediction of the cyclic behaviour of the connection starting from the modelling of
51
52 the cyclic response of each joint component. The distinction between dissipative and
53
54 non dissipative components allows to focus the attention on the modelling of the cyclic
55
56
57 behaviour of the dissipative components, assuming that a correct design of the joint is
58
59 made by assuring an adequate overstrength of brittle components (Faella et al., 2000).
60

1
2
3
4
5 In particular, it is of fundamental importance to design welds with adequate
6
7 overstrength preferring the adoption of full penetration welds.
8
9 Even though full strength connections are usually preferred and their use is suggested
10
11
12 by seismic codes, Eurocode 8 has opened the door to the possibility of adopting partial
13
14 strength joints for seismic purposes. In particular, with reference to MR-frames,
15
16 dissipative semi-rigid and/or partial strength connections are allowed provided that
Fo
17
18
19 connections have a rotation capacity consistent with global deformations (CEN, 2005a),
20
rP
21 members framing into the connections are demonstrated to be stable at the ultimate limit
22
23
24
state (ULS) and the effect of connection deformation on global drifts is taken into
ee
25
26 account using non-linear static global analysis or non-linear time history analysis.
27
28 Most of all, Eurocode 8 requires a plastic rotation supply of connections depending on
rR
29
30
31 the ductility class of the structure. In particular, benchmark values equal to 35 mrad for
32
33 structures designed for ductility class high (DCH) and 25 mrad for structures designed
ev
34
35 for ductility class medium (DCM) have to be assured.
36
iew
37
38 In this work, the possibility to extend the component approach to the prediction of the
39
40 cyclic behaviour of bolted beam-to-column connections is analyzed. To this scope,
41
42 reference has been made to experimental tests carried out at the University of Salerno
43
On
44
45 and described in a companion paper (Iannone et al., 2009). The setting up of
46
47 experimental tests has been performed taking care of measuring the displacements of
ly
48
49
50
each joint component and the joint as a whole. In particular, the comparison between the
51
52 sum of the energy dissipated by each joint component and that dissipated by the joint as
53
54 a whole has underlined that the extension of the component approach to the prediction
55
56
57 of the cyclic behaviour of beam-to-column joints is feasible, provided that the joint
58
59 components are properly identified and modelled (Iannone et al., 2009).
60

1
2
3
4
5 Starting from such result, in this paper, the implementation of the component method
6
7 for predicting the joint rotational response under cyclic loading conditions is carried out
8
9 and the accuracy of the proposed model is verified in terms of energy dissipation by
10
11
12 means of the comparison between the experimental moment-rotation curves and those
13
14 provided by the proposed model.
15
16 Even though in the technical literature there are works dealing with the modelling of the
Fo
17
18
19 cyclic response of beam-to-column joints since 1980s (Moncarz and Gerstle, 1981;
20
rP
21 Ballio et al., 1987), such works were based on mathematical models concerning the
22
23
24
overall flexural response of the joints. Conversely, the prediction of the cyclic response
ee
25
26 of joints by means of a component approach is a relatively young research topic
27
28 (Nemati et al., 1999; Rassati et al., 2004; Nogueiro et al., 2007) considering, above all,
rR
29
30
31 that only the problem of predicting the monotonic response is codified in Eurocode 3
32
33 (CEN 2005b). The novel contribution of the work herein presented consists in providing
ev
34
35 not only a cyclic mechanical model for the assembly of the single joint components, but
36
iew
37
38 also the analytical rules for predicting the behaviour of such components starting from
39
40 their geometrical and mechanical properties to be combined with empirical rules to
41
42 account for stiffness and strength degradation and pinching effects based, again, on past
43
On
44
45 component modelling efforts, rather than on calibration procedures regarding the joint
46
47 as a whole. In fact, the novelty of the contribution is to underline how degradation rules
ly
48
49
50
of stiffness and strength and pinching rules derived from single component testing can
51
52 be properly applied to predict the whole joint rotational response. Any recalibration of
53
54 parameters would lead to something more similar to a curve fitting rather than to a
55
56
57 prediction model which, conversely, is the goal of the present work.
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 2 MECHANICAL MODEL FOR BOLTED BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINTS
6
7
8
9 Methods available in technical literature regarding the modelling of the cyclic behaviour
10
11
12 of beam-to-column joints can be divided into three groups: mathematical models,
13
14 mechanical models and finite element models. Mathematical models are based on curve
15
16 fitting of joint moment-rotation curves, so that their limits can be easily understood. In
Fo
17
18
19 fact, mathematical models can be developed only if experimental tests are available, so
20
rP
21 that their application is limited to tested structural details.

22
23
24
Conversely, mechanical models are based on an appropriate combination of the cyclic
ee
25
26 response of the joint dissipative components. The potentialities of such a kind of
27
28 approach with respect to mathematical modelling can be easily recognized in the variety
rR
29
30
31 of connections which can be modelled, provided that the modelling of the cyclic
32
33 response of the joint components is available and the accuracy of the mechanical model
ev
34
35 adopted for combining the joint components is verified. The starting point of this
36
iew
37
38 approach is the check of the possibility to obtain the dissipation capacity of the whole
39
40 joint as the sum of those of the single components, as testified in a companion paper
41
42 (Iannone et al., 2010). In addition, because of the complexity of finite element models
43
On
44
45 and their computational effort, mechanical models appear to be an effective and
46
47 practical prediction of the beam-to-column behaviour under cyclic actions.
ly
48
49
50
In this paper, the prediction of the cyclic rotational response of bolted connections is
51
52 carried out by means of the mechanical model depicted in Figs.1-2, with reference to
53
54 bolted end-plate connections (a) and to bolted tee-stub connections (b). In particular
55
56
57 four sources of energy dissipation are considered: column flange in bending (cfb),
58
59 column web in tension and compression (cwt-c), column web in shear (cws) and end-
60

1
2
3
4
5 plate in bending (epb)/ tee-stub in bending (tsb). The mechanical model is aimed at the
6
7 prediction of the rotational cyclic response of bolted connections having two bolt rows
8
9 in tension, because, as depicted in Figs.1-2, the behaviour of the two bolt rows in
10
11
12 tension is modelled by means of only one spring element for each component (cfb and
13
14 epb or cfb and tsb), represented by an equivalent T-stub.
15
16 The use of the mechanical model requires three steps to be performed:
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21 - Modelling of the cyclic behaviour of each joint component;

22
23
24
- Assembling of the joint components;
ee
25
26 - Evaluation of joint cyclic moment-rotation curve.
27
28
rR
29
30
31 In the following sections, further details concerning modelling of the joint components
32
33 and their assembling are provided. Successively, the proposed model is applied to
ev
34
35 simulate the joint rotational response of the specimens tested during an experimental
36
iew
37
38 program carried out at Salerno University whose results are presented in a companion
39
40 paper. Finally, the accuracy of the proposed mechanical model is investigated by
41
42 comparison with test results.
43
On
44
45
46
47 3 CYCLIC MODELLING OF DISSIPATIVE COMPONENTS
ly
48
49
50
51
52 3.1 Equivalent “T-stub” under cyclic actions
53
54 Following the same approach of Eurocode 3 (CEN, 2005b), bolted joint components
55
56
57 such as the end-plate in bending, the column flange in bending and the tee-stub in
58
59 bending can be modelled by means of an “equivalent T-stub”. Aiming to develop a
60

1
2
3
4
5 model for the prediction of the cyclic behaviour of bolted steel connections, it is of
6
7 paramount importance the use of a cyclic model sufficiently reliable for predicting T-
8
9 stub response under cyclic actions. In this work, the model proposed by Piluso and
10
11
12 Rizzano (2008) is applied.
13
14 According to such model the main parameter to define degradation laws of stiffness and
15
16 strength is the energy cumulated at collapse under cyclic conditions. This is related to
Fo
17
18
19 the energy absorbed under monotonic loads up to a displacement equal to the
20
rP
21 displacement amplitude of the i-th cycle, of the displacement history under

22
23
24
investigation, by means of a nondimensional parameter. Such non-dimensional
ee
25
26 parameter is a function of the ratio between the ultimate displacement of the T-stub
27
28 under monotonic loading conditions and the plastic part of the displacement occurring
rR
29
30
31 in the i-th cycle. The ultimate displacement under monotonic loading conditions can be
32
33 evaluated depending on the material mechanical properties, by means of a coefficient C,
ev
34
35 and on the geometrical properties of the T-stub, namely m and n, that are respectively
36
iew
37
38 defined as the distance between the bolt axis and the plastic hinge corresponding to the
39
40 flange-to-web connection and the distance between the prying force and the bolt axis,
41
42 and tf, i.e. the plate thickness (Piluso et al., 2001a,b).
43
On
44
45 By means of a regression analysis of experimental data dealing with isolated bolted T-
46
47 stubs (i.e. the single joint component) under cyclic actions, the following relationship
ly
48
49
50
has been proposed derived (Piluso and Rizzano, 2008).:
51
52
53
54 − b0
Ecc  tfδp 
55 = a0  
2 
(1)
56 E0  2Cm 
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 where Ecc is the energy cumulated at collapse, assuming the conventional collapse as the
6
7 attainment of 50% deterioration of energy dissipation capacity, E0 is the area below the
8
9 monotonic curve (i.e. the absorbed energy) up to a displacement equal to the one
10
11
12 corresponding to the i-th cycle, C is a parameter depending on the material mechanical
13
14 properties (Piluso et al., 2001), δp is the plastic part of the displacement corresponding
15
16
Fo
17
to the i-th cycle and a0 and b0 are two regression parameters, given in Table 1.
18
19 The implementation of the model requires the preliminary evaluation of monotonic
20
rP
21 force-displacement curve by means of the theoretical approach proposed by Piluso et al.

22
23
24 (2001a, b), starting from the knowledge of the geometrical and mechanical properties of
ee
25
26 the equivalent T-stub.
27
28 As soon as the T-stub monotonic behaviour has been theoretically predicted, for a given
rR
29
30
31 displacement amplitude the hysteresis loop is modelled by means of a multilinear
32
33 approximation.
ev
34
35
On the basis of experimental results on isolated T-stubs, the authors have observed that
36
iew
37
38 in constant amplitude cyclic tests, the points corresponding to the load inversion remain
39
40 practically unchanged during loading and unloading process. These points, i.e. A and D
41
42
43
in Fig.3, can be identified starting from the maximum displacement achieved at the i-th
On
44
45 cycle and the corresponding load on the monotonic force-displacement curve, as
46
47 depicted in the same figure.
ly
48
49
50 As mentioned before, the characteristic points of the generic loading or unloading
51
52 branch are defined provided that stiffness and strength degradation laws are known.
53
54 Such degradation laws have been derived by means of a regression analysis of
55
56
57 experimental data on isolated T-stubs, relating the degradation to the ratio between the
58
59 maximum displacement of the i-th cycle (δmax) and the threshold amplitude (2δy) and to
60

1
2
3
4
5 the ratio between the energy dissipated in the previous loading history up to the i-th
6
7 cycle and the energy cumulated at collapse, derived by means of Eq.(1):
8
9
10
11 a2 a3
12 Fi δ   Eic 
13 = 1 − a1  max    (2)
Fmax  2δ 
14  y   Ecc 
15
16
Fo
17
18
b2 b3
19 δ 
Ki  Eic 
20 = 1 − b1  max    (3)
 2δ 
rP
21 K0  y   Ecc 
22
23
24
ee
25
26 where Fi and Ki are the force and stiffness at the i-th cycle, Fmax is T-stub strength
27
28
corresponding on the monotonic curve to the displacement δmax of the i-th cycle, K0 is
rR
29
30
31 the initial stiffness of the T-stub without bolt preloading (Faella et al., 1998), δy is the
32
33 yield displacement, Eic is the energy dissipated up to the i-th cycle and a1, a2, a3, b1, b2,
ev
34
35
36 b3 are regression parameters obtained by curve fitting of test data on isolated T-stubs.
iew
37
38 The values of the regression parameters required for the application of the model are
39
40 reported in Table 1.
41
42
43 The main steps for the application of the model for predicting the cyclic response of the
On
44
45 equivalent T-stub can be summarized as follows:
46
47
ly
48
49
50 1. Prediction of monotonic force-displacement curve by means of Piluso et al.
51
52 approach (2001a, b);
53
54
55
2. Computation of the energy E0 absorbed under monotonic loads up to a
56
57 displacement δmax equal to the one of the i-th cycle:
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 3. Computation of the energy dissipation capacity Ecc corresponding to the
6
7 displacement δmax of the i-th cycle by means of Eq.(1);
8
9 4. Evaluation of the force Fmax corresponding to δmax on the monotonic force-
10
11
12 displacement curve;
13
14 5. Definition of the strength degradation law by means of Eq.(2);
15
16 6. Definition of the stiffness degradation law by means of Eq.(3);
Fo
17
18
19 7. Evaluation of the degraded values of the force Fi and of the stiffness Ki for the
20
rP
21 current cycle;
22
23
24
8. Definition of the current bilinear branch of the cyclic response.
ee
25
26
27
28 3.2 Modelling of the panel zone in shear
rR
29
30
31 Since some seismic codes (CEN, 2005b) allow yielding of the panel zone prior to the
32
33 full development of the moment carrying capacity of connected beams, many research
ev
34
35 efforts have been addressed to the study of the behaviour under load reversal of column
36
iew
37
38 web panels.
39
40 Many models have been proposed in last two decades to account for panel zone
41
42 behaviour under both monotonic and cyclic loading conditions following two different
43
On
44
45 approaches: the analytical modelling and the FEM modelling. In the former case, the
46
47 panel zone is idealized as a dimensionless region, representing its behaviour by means
ly
48
49
50
of a rotational spring connecting two nodes at the same coordinates. Such a kind of
51
52 approach allows to account for the additional P-∆ effects on the columns due to the
53
54 shear deformation of the panel zone provided that rigid end offsets are adopted. On the
55
56
57 other hand, FEM models are able to account for the actual dimension of the panel zone
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 by modelling the shear panel response by means of an assemblage of sub-elements
6
7 representing the deformation modes of the panel zone.
8
9 In this work, Kim and Engelhardt model has been chosen due to the best agreement
10
11
12 with the experimental results (Kim and Engelhardt, 1996, 2002). The authors, reviewing
13
14 the existing literature since the 70s, have recently developed a monotonic and a cyclic
15
16 model for the prediction of the panel zone under shear loads enhancing existing models
Fo
17
18
19 (Kim and Engelhardt, 1996, 2002).
20
rP
21 One of the main features of the model, originally developed by Cofie and Krawinkler to
22
23
24
model cyclic stress-strain behaviour of steel, resides in the rules for the movement of
ee
25
26 the bound lines. In such a model the cyclic steady state curve, defined as the locus of
27
28 peak moments obtained by cycling the shear panel at various rotation amplitudes, is
rR
29
30
31 used to describe the bound lines shift at the i-th cycle (Krawinkler et al., 1983). The
32
33 following expression for the cyclic steady state curve has been proposed by the authors:
ev
34
35
36
iew
37 c
38 γ M  M 
39 = s +  s  (4)
40 γ n M n  ξM n 
41
42
43
On
44
45 Where M s is the ordinate of the cyclic steady state curve M n is the normalizing moment
46
47 assumed equal to the panel zone yield moment plus two times the plastic moment of the
ly
48
49
50 column flange, γ n is the rotation corresponding to the normalizing moment, given by the
51
52
ratio between the normalizing moment and the panel elastic stiffness evaluated
53
54
55 according to Kim and Engelhardt monotonic model for panel zone in shear and ξ and c
56
57 are two parameters empirically determined, given in Table 2.
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 The first step to apply the model is the evaluation of the monotonic law for the
6
7 prediction of the first loading branch. The monotonic moment-rotation relationship is
8
9 idealized by means of a quadrilinear curve, defined by two post-elastic branches and a
10
11
12 strain-hardening branch (Fig.4). After the first semi-cycle, the i-th loading or unloading
13
14 branch is constituted by a linear elastic branch, whose elastic limit factor is equal to 1.4
15
16 times the monotonic value My (Fig.4) as determined on the basis of available
Fo
17
18
19 experimental results, followed by a non linear curve derived according to the expression
20
rP
21 proposed by Dafalias (1975, 1976).

22
23
24
The non linear branch, according to Dafalias’ bounding surface theory, is defined by
ee
25
26 means of the following parameters:
27
28 - the distance din between the bound line and the end point of the previous linear branch
rR
29
30
31 (Fig.4);
32
33 - shape factor ψ whose value depends on the accumulated plastic rotation θp during the
ev
34
35
previous loading history;
36
iew
37
38 - the slope Kpbl of the bound line (Fig.4).
39
40
41
42
43 In particular, the factor ψ governs the shape of the i-th non linear branch. Kim and
On
44
45 Engelhardt have found that a shape factor equal to 20 for small rotation amplitudes and
46
47
equal to 40 for large rotation amplitude provides a good agreement with available
ly
48
49
50 experimental tests (Kim and Engelhardt, 1996). Thus, a shape factor varying with a
51
52 Boltzman function has been proposed:
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 ψ = 40 +
(20 − 40 )
6  (θ p − 0.213 ) 
(5)
7 1 + e 0.074 
8  
9
10
11
12
13 where θp is the accumulated plastic rotation at the i-th cycle.
14
15
16 According to Dafalias’ theory, the plastic part of the non linear curve is defined by
Fo
17
18 means of its plastic stiffness K pA (Fig.5). This is related to the distance from the bound
19
20
rP
21 line of the generic point dA, to din , to ψ and to the stiffness of the bound line by means
22
23 of the following expression:
24
ee
25
26
27
28  dA 
rR
29 K pA = K blp 1 + ψ  (6)
30  d in − d A 
31
32
33
ev
34
35 By means of comparison with experimental data a slope of the bound line Kpbl=0.008Ke
36
iew
37 is assumed, where Ke is the initial stiffness of the shear panel defined by Kim and
38
39
40 Engelhardt monotonic model (Kim and Engelhardt, 2002). Finally, the tangent stiffness
41
42 at the point A of the inelastic curve is determined accounting for its elastic part by
43
On
44 means of the following relationship:

45
46
47
ly
48
49 K e K pA
50 K tA = (7)
51 K e + K pA
52
53
54
55
56 Finally, the procedure to shift the bound line at the i-th loading or unloading cycle can
57
58
be summarized in the following steps:
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 - compute the mean value of the bending moment and the mean value of the rotation
8
9 corresponding to the previous semi-cycle, given by:
10
11
12
13
14 (M i + M i −1 )
15 Mm = (8)
16 2
Fo
17
18 (γ i + γ i −1 )
19 γm = (9)
20
2
rP
21
22
23
24 - compute the semi-amplitude of moment range and rotation range corresponding to the
ee
25
26
27 previous semi-cycle, given by:
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34 M i − M i −1
35 Ma = (10)
2
36
iew
37
38 γ i − γ i −1
39 γa = (11)
2
40
41
42
43
On
44 - calculate the difference ∆M between the moment amplitude Ma and Ms, which is
45
46
47 defined as the moment on the cyclic steady state curve corresponding to the
ly
48
49 rotation amplitude γa ;
50
51
52 - if ∆M is positive cyclic hardening is predicted and bound lines are moved
53
54 outward by an amount equal to 2FH∆M;
55
56
57 - if ∆M is negative cyclic softening is predicted and bound lines are moved inward
58
59 by an amount equal to 2FS∆M;
60

1
2
3
4
5 - finally bound lines are moved to account for the mean moment relaxation by an
6
7 amount equal to FR Mm.
8
9
10
11
12 The hardening, softening and mean moment relaxation coefficients, namely FH,FS and
13
14 FR respectively, are given in Table 2 as experimentally evaluated by Cofie and
15
16 Krawinkler (1983,1985).
Fo
17
18
19 Reference is made to the original work for further details regarding the monotonic
20
rP
21 behaviour and the steps needed to apply the model.

22
23
24
3.3 Modelling of column web under tension and compression
ee
25
26
27 The model adopted in this paper to account for the panel zone behaviour under cyclic
28
rR
29
30 tension and compression is the one proposed by Cofie and Krawinkler (1983,1985) and,
31
32 therefore, it is analogous to the one of Kim and Engelhardt for the shear panel. The
33
ev
34
35
main differences between the above models are constituted by the assumption of a
36
constant shape factor ψ and of a non-linear monotonic law. Three curves are needed to
iew
37
38
39 apply the model: the monotonic curve, the cyclic steady state curve and the hysteretic
40
41
42 curve consistent with Dafalias’ bounding surface theory.
43
On
44 The monotonic curve is constituted by means of a linear branch followed by a yield

45
46
47
plateau branch and a non linear hardening branch defined by a Ramberg-Osgood
ly
48
49 relationship. The branch are given by the following equations:
50
51
52
53
54 σ = Eε for 0<ε <εy (12)
55
56
57
σ = fy for ε y < ε < 14ε y (13)
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 1/ n
5 ε σ  σ  ε > 14ε y
6 = + for (14)
7 ε y f y  Kf y 
8
9
10
11
12 where the coefficients K and n given in Table 3, as obtained from curve fitting of
13
14 experimental data reported in Krawinkler et al. studies on A36 steel. As already seen for
15
16
Fo
17
the modelling of the shear panel, the cyclic steady state curve is a stable reference curve
18
19 during the whole cyclic loading history representing the saturation curve of the material
20
rP
21 (Fig.6). This has been determined by Cofie and Krawinkler by means of constant
22
23
24 amplitude cycles and it is described by a Ramberg-Osgood relationship:
ee
25
26
27
28 1 / n'
rR
29 ε σ  σ 

30 = + (15)
31 ε y f y  K ' f y 

32
33
ev
34
35
36 the parameters K’ and n’ are given in Table 3. Further details on the application of the
iew
37
38 model can be found in the original work of the authors. The parameters needed for the
39
40
41 application of the model are reported in Table.3.
42
43
On
44
45 4 ASSEMBLING OF COMPONENTS
46
47
In order to obtain the cyclic moment-rotation curve of bolted beam-to-column joints
ly
48
49
50 starting from the knowledge of the cyclic force-displacement behaviour of the joint
51
52 components, a computer program has been developed.
53
54
55 The computer program is constituted by a series of subroutines, corresponding to the
56
57 different joint components, providing the component displacement for a given force
58
59
60
level. With reference to the loading phase of the cyclic response, the main program

1
2
3
4
5 working step-by-step for increasing values of the bending moment compute the force
6
7 level in each joint component, because of the knowledge of the lever arm. Therefore, for
8
9 each joint component the displacement corresponding to the given force level can be
10
11
12 computed, accounting for the rules governing their cyclic behaviour. The knowledge of
13
14 the displacements of each joint component allows the evaluation of the joint rotation
15
16 according to the mechanical models presented in Section 2. This process is carried out
Fo
17
18
19 step-by-step, increasing the bending moment, until the computed rotation assumes a
20
rP
21 value equal to the one corresponding to the end of the loading semi-cycle of the applied
22
23
24
history.
ee
25
26 Similarly, regarding the unloading phase, the analysis is carried out by progressively
27
28 decreasing the bending moment and computing the force levels in the joint components.
rR
29
30
31 The computation of the component displacements, accounting for the previous loading
32
33 history, allows the evaluation of the corresponding rotation values. This process
ev
34
35 continues up to the rotation value corresponding to the end of the unloading phase, as
36
iew
37
38 fixed by the applied rotation history.
39
40 The above procedure is repeated for the following loading-unloading cycles to compute
41
42 the numerical prediction of the joint cyclic flexural response corresponding to a given
43
On
44
45 rotation history.
46
47
ly
48
49
50
5 ACCURACY OF THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL MODEL
51
52 In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed model, the numerical simulation of the
53
54 cyclic rotational response of the beam-to-column connections tested at the University of
55
56
57 Salerno, presented in a companion paper (Iannone et al. 2010), has been carried out. In
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 addition, to enlarge the experimental sample for model validation, other three tests
6
7 collected from the technical literature have been considered.
8
9 Regarding the authors’ own tests, attention has been focused on three partial strength
10
11
12 bolted beam-to-column connections. All the specimens are characterized by the same
13
14 coupling of beam and column, but with different details of the connection elements. In
15
16 particular, HEB200 and IPE270 profiles have been used for the column and the beam,
Fo
17
18
19 respectively. The first joint, namely EEP-CYC01 (Fig.7), is characterized by a panel
20
rP
21 zone without continuity plates and by an end-plate whose resistance has been calibrated
22
23
24
to significantly reduce its plastic engage so that, as confirmed by experimental evidence
ee
25
26 the energy dissipation mainly occurs in the shear panel. The second and the third joint,
27
28 namely EEP-CYC02 (Fig.8) and TS-CYC04 (Fig.9) have been designed aiming to
rR
29
30
31 engage in plastic range the end-plate in bending, in case of EEP-CYC 02 specimen, and
32
33 the tee-stub in bending, in case of TS-CYC04 specimen. To this scope, continuity plates
ev
34
35 and supplementary web plates have been added to the panel zone. The equivalent T-
36
iew
37
38 stubs modelling the end-plate and the tee-stub, respectively, of these two joints are
39
40 characterized by flanges having different thickness and bolt location.
41
42 Regarding the experimental tests collected from technical literature, those performed by
43
On
44
45 Bernuzzi et al. (1995), Nogueiro et al. (2006) and Yang & Kim (2006) have been
46
47 considered. The joints under investigation are characterized by different details. In
ly
48
49
50
particular, Bernuzzi test, namely FPC/B (Fig.10), consists of a beam stub of an IPE 300
51
52 section connected by means of a flush end-plate connection to a rigid counterbeam. This
53
54 testing condition approximately reproduces the case of a beam-to-column joint with
55
56
57 negligible column deformability. Nogueiro et al. test, namely J-1.3 (Fig.11), is
58
59 composed by the assemblage of an IPE 360 beam and an HEA 320 column coupled
60

1
2
3
4
5 with an extended end-plate connection whose end-plate thickness is equal to 18 mm
6
7 fastened with eight M24 bolts (10.9 grade). The steel grades of plates and members is
8
9 S355. The column panel zone is strengthened by means of 15 mm continuity plates. In
10
11
12 this case, the experimental test has evidenced that the joint response of this specimen
13
14 has been mainly governed by the shear panel plastic engagement with a minor
15
16 contribution of the end-plate. Finally, Yang & Kim test, namely FW (Fig.12), is
Fo
17
18
19 constituted by H-250x125x6x9 beam fully welded to a H-125x125x6.5x9 column
20
rP
21 without stiffeners on the column panel zone, i.e. with neither supplementary web plates
22
23
24
nor continuity plates. All welds were checked by means of magnetic particle testing to
ee
25
26 assure the absence of defects. The base material of plates and steel members is SS400.
27
28 The test is characterized by a dissipation mainly concentrated in the panels in tension
rR
29
30
31 and compression and in the shear panel.
32
33 The comparison between the experimental results and the numerical results deriving
ev
34
35 from application of the developed mechanical model shows a good agreement both in
36
iew
37
38 terms of cyclic moment-rotation curves and in terms of energy dissipation. Obviously,
39
40 the accuracy of the developed mechanical model in predicting the cyclic rotational
41
42 behaviour of beam-to-column joints is mainly related to the accuracy in the modelling
43
On
44
45 of the cyclic force-displacement response of the weakest joint component. Therefore, in
46
47 the case of specimen EEP-CYC 01 and J-1.3, where dissipation mainly occurs in the
ly
48
49
50
shear panel, the good accuracy (Fig.13-14) testifies the goodness of Kim and Engelhardt
51
52 model adopted for the modelling of the panel zone in shear. In both cases the shape of
53
54 the hysteresis loops is accurately predicted in terms of stiffness and peak moment.
55
56
57 Notwithstanding, a slight overestimation of the energy dissipation capacity occurs
58
59 (Fig.15-16), because of a slight overestimation of resistance in the monotonic envelope.
60

1
2
3
4
5 In addition, the accuracy of simulation of FW test is mainly governed by the accuracy of
6
7 the modelling of shear panel and panels in tension/compression which are the two
8
9 components engaged in plastic range (Fig.17). The comparison in terms of energy
10
11
12 dissipation indicates that beyond Kim and Engelhardt model, even Cofie and
13
14 Krawinkler model is sufficiently reliable, allowing a satisfactory prediction of the joint
15
16 rotational response (Fig.18). Furthermore, regarding the accuracy in the modelling of
Fo
17
18
19 the cyclic response of specimens EEP-CYC 02 (Fig.19), TS-CYC 04 (Fig.20) and
20
rP
21 FPC/B (Fig.21), it is mainly related to the accuracy in the modelling of the cyclic force-
22
23
24
displacement response of the equivalent T-stub modelling the end-plate in bending and
ee
25
26 the tee-stub in bending, respectively. In fact, the two specimens are characterized by the
27
28 plastic engage of the T-stub representing the weakest joint component. In particular, the
rR
29
30
31 experimental cyclic response is characterized by a more significant pinching of
32
33 hysteresis loops compared to the numerical prediction. The pinching of the hysteresis
ev
34
35 loops is due to the whole reloading branch, not only to the initial reloading stiffness.
36
iew
37
38 Therefore, such pinching is affected by the degradation of stiffness and strength as the
39
40 number of cycles increases. It is a highly complicated phenomenon, because it is
41
42 affected not only by the geometrical properties, but also by the fabrication process
43
On
44
45 which, in turn, affects stiffness and strength degradation rules. This is confirmed not
46
47 only by the experimental results presented in this work, but also by experimental tests
ly
48
49
50
dealing with isolated T-stubs carried out both by the authors (Piluso and Rizzano, 2008)
51
52 and by other researchers (Clemente et al., 2004, 2005). In particular, according to
53
54 Clemente, Noè and Rassati (2004, 2005), experimental results on the cyclic response of
55
56
57 isolated T-stubs can be classified under three different aspects: a) behavioral differences
58
59 among same-sized T-stubs fabricated with different methods; b) behavioral differences
60

1
2
3
4
5 among different-sized T-stubs with the same fabrication method; c) differences between
6
7 the cyclic and the monotonic behavior of the specimens. As far as issue a) is concerned
8
9 (Clemente et al.,2004, 2005) have found results in agreement with those presented in
10
11
12 this paper stating that force-displacement curves of same sized T-stubs obtained from
13
14 hot rolled shapes and by welding of plates are characterized by different amount of
15
16 pinching. This is caused by localized plastic deformations of the T-stub flanges which
Fo
17
18
19 tend to pull away from the plate surface. In addition, welded T-stubs show early signs of
20
rP
21 stiffness and strength degradation, mostly due to the formation of cracks in the welds.
22
23
24
Therefore, experimental evidence shows that stiffness and strength degradation rules are
ee
25
26 significantly affected by the fabrication process, because of the heat affected zone.
27
28 In this framework, it is useful to observe that the model for the cyclic response of the
rR
29
30
31 equivalent T-stub was mainly calibrated on the basis of the experimental tests regarding
32
33 the cyclic response of isolated T-stubs made of rolled pro files. Therefore, as already
ev
34
35 underlined in (Piluso and Rizzano, 2008), an improvement of the model could be
36
iew
37
38 expected provided that additional experimental tests on isolated T-stubs composed by
39
40 welding are carried out. In fact, the modelling of bolted connections by means of the
41
42 component approach requires the definition of an equivalent T-stub to derive the force
43
On
44
45 versus displacement behaviour of the column flange in bending and of the end-plate in
46
47 bending/ tee-stub in bending (depending on the connection typology). It is evident that
ly
48
49
50
there is no any difference between rolled T-stubs and welded T-stubs when stiffness and
51
52 strength are of concern, because the flange-to-web connection typology of the T-stub
53
54 slightly affects only the m parameter providing the distance between the bolt axis and
55
56
57 the plastic hinge arising at the flange-to-web connection according to Eurocode 3 (CEN,
58
59 2005b). Conversely, it is also to be recognized that, as soon as the cyclic behaviour is of
60

1
2
3
4
5 concern, stiffness and strength degradation rules and, as a consequence, pinching
6
7 phenomena can be better modelled by using two equivalent T-stubs: one calibrated on
8
9 the cyclic response of rolled T-stubs to be used for the column flange in bending and the
10
11
12 second one calibrated on the cyclic response of welded T-stubs to be used for modelling
13
14 either the end-plate in bending or the T-stub in bending, depending on the connection
15
16 typology.
Fo
17
18
19 Therefore, it is expected that when the cyclic behaviour of the beam-to-column joint is
20
rP
21 mainly governed, like in the examined cases, by the end-plate in bending or T-stub in
22
23
24
bending, an improved prediction of the whole cyclic behaviour and, in particular, of
ee
25
26 pinching and degradation phenomena can be obtained by means of degradation rules
27
28 properly calibrated on a wider experimental sample dealing with isolated welded T-
rR
29
30
31 stubs under cyclic actions.
32
33 As a result of the more marked pinching occurring in the experimental hysteresis loops,
ev
34
35 the mechanical model provides also in these cases a slight overestimation of the energy
36
iew
37
38 dissipation, as depicted in Fig. 22 for EEP-CYC 02 specimen, in Fig.23 for specimen
39
40 TS-CYC 04 and in Fig.24 for Bernuzzi et al. test FPC/B. Moreover, the maximum ratios
41
42 between the dissipated energy predicted by the model and that provided by experimental
43
On
44
45 evidence are summarized in Tab.4 for the six tests considered. Finally, in order to give a
46
47 more complete picture of the joint model performance, the comparison has been
ly
48
49
50
extended to the peak moment response and to the stiffness evaluated at each semi-cycle
51
52 on unloading branches (Figs. 25-28). In all cases the model appears to be sufficiently
53
54 reliable providing a good correlation with the experimental results.
55
56
57 The results are really encouraging about the possibility of accurately predicting the
58
59 cyclic response of bolted connections by means of the component approach. The
60

1
2
3
4
5 accuracy of the developed mechanical model can be improved provided that additional
6
7 test results on the cyclic response of isolated joint components are available to improve
8
9 the modelling of the cyclic force versus displacement behaviour of the joint
10
11
12 components. Moreover, considering that the cyclic model relies on empirical parameters
13
14 calibrated on the basis of cyclic experimental tests with only a symmetrical loading
15
16 history, other tests with generic loading history are necessary to prove the sufficiency of
Fo
17
18
19 the model for any loading history.
20
rP
21
22
23
24
6 CONCLUSIONS
ee
25
26 In this paper, a mechanical model for predicting the cyclic response of bolted joints has
27
28 been developed starting from models available in the technical literature for the
rR
29
30
31 modelling of the cyclic behaviour of each joint component. The main feature of the
32
33 model is that it relies on the component approach in the same fashion of the approach
ev
34
35 codified in Eurocode 3 for monotonic loading conditions. The accuracy of the model
36
iew
37
38 has been investigated by means of a comparison in terms of energy dissipation, peak
39
40 moment response and stiffness of unloading branches, between the results of an
41
42 experimental program performed at the University of Salerno and those provided by the
43
On
44
45 proposed model. A further validation has been obtained by extending such comparison
46
47 to some experimental tests taken from the technical literature. In particular, a good
ly
48
49
50
accuracy with experimental test results has been obtained in terms of strength, stiffness
51
52 and energy dissipation. The models by Cofie and Krawinkler and by Kim and
53
54 Engelhardt for the panel zone in tension and compression and for the panel zone in
55
56
57 shear, respectively, assure a good agreement with the experimental results. Also the
58
59 approach proposed by Piluso and Rizzano (2008) in previous works for modelling the
60

1
2
3
4
5 cyclic behaviour of bolted T-stubs appears sufficiently accurate. Nevertheless, the
6
7 setting up of more accurate stiffness and strength degradation laws for T-stubs
8
9 composed by welding can lead to the model improvement for those joints where
10
11
12 significant plastic engage occurs in the flanges of the equivalent T-stub modelling the
13
14 bolt row behaviour.
15
16 The obtained results are encouraging about the possibility of extending the component
Fo
17
18
19 approach to cyclic loading conditions. To this scope, further research efforts are needed
20
rP
21 to improve the accuracy of the modelling of the cyclic force versus displacement
22
23
24
behaviour of the joint components.
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6 References
7
8 Dafalias, Y.F., (1975): “On cyclic Anisotropic Plasticity”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
9
10 Calfornia, Berkeley.
11
12 Dafalias, Y.F., (1976): “Plastic Internal Variables Formalism of Cyclic Plasticity”,
13
14
Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol.43,.
15
16
Moncarz, P.D., Gerstle, K.H., (1981): Steel Frames with non linear connections”,
Fo
17 Journal of Structural Division, 107

18
19 Krawinkler, H., Zohrei, M., Lashkari-Irvani, B., Cofie, N., Hadidi-Tamjed, H., (1983):
20
rP
21 “Recommendations for Experimental Studies on the Seismic Behaviour of Steel

22
23 Components and Materials”. Report n°61, Stanford University.
24
Ballio, G., Calado, L., De Martino, A., Faella, C., (1987): “Cyclic Behaviour of Steel
ee
25
26
27 Beam to Column Joints: experimental research”, Costruzioni Metalliche, n°2,
28
pp.66-90.
rR
29
30
31
Cofie, N.G., Krawinkler, H., (1985): “Uniaxial Cyclic Stress-Strain Behaviour of
32 Structural Steel”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol.111, No.9, pp. 1105-
33
ev
34 1120.
35
36 Bjorhovde, R, Colson, A., (1991): “Economy of semi-rigid frame design”. Connections
iew
37
38 in Steel Structures II: Behaviour, Strength and Design. American Institute of Steel
39
40 Construction, pp.418-430.
41
42 Astaneh, A., (1994): “Behaviour of Connections”. Journal of Constructional Steel
43
On
Research, Vol.29, pp.95-119.

44
45
Elnashai, A., Elghazouli, A.Y., (1994): “Seismic Behaviour of Semi-Rigid Steel
46
47 Frames”. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.29, pp.149-174.
ly
48
49 Astaneh, A., (1995): “Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames”.
50
51 Structural Steel Educational Council, Technical Information and Service.
52
53 Bernuzzi, C., Zandonini, R., Zanon, P., (1996): “Experimental Analysis and Modelling
54
55 of Semi-rigid Steel Joints under Cyclic Reversal Loading”, Journal of
56
57 Constructional Steel Research, No. 2, 95-123.
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 Kim, K., Engelhardt, M.D., (1996): “Development of Analytical Models for Earthquake
6 Analysis of Steel Moment Frames”. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
7
8 Berkeley, CA.
9
10 Faella, C., Piluso, V., Rizzano, G., (1998): “Experimental Analysis of Bolted
11
12 Connections: Snug versus Preloaded Bolts”, ASCE, Journal of Structural
13
14 Engineering, Vol.124, No.7, pp.765-774.
15
16 Nemati, N., Le Houdec, D., Zandonini, R., (1999): “Numerical Behaviour of the basic
Fo
17
18
components of steel end plate connections”, Advances in Engineering Software,
19 31, 837-849.
20
rP
21 Faella, C., Piluso, V., Rizzano, G., (2000): “Structural Steel Semirigid Connections”,
22
23 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
24
ee
25 Piluso, V., Faella, C., Rizzano, G., (2001): “Ultimate Behaviour of Bolted T-stubs. I
26
27 Theoretical Model”, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.127, No.6,
28
rR
29 pp.686-693.
30
31 Piluso, V., Faella, C., Rizzano, G., (2001): “Ultimate Behaviour of Bolted T-stubs. II
32
Model Validation”, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.127, No.6,
33
ev
34 pp.686-693.
35
36 Kim, K.D., Engelhardt, M.D., (2002): “Monotonic and Cyclic Loading Models for
iew
37
38 Panel Zones in Steel Moment Frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
39
40 58, pp.605-635.
41
42 Mahin, S., Malley, J., Hamburger, R. (2002): “Overview of the FEMA/SAC program
43
On
44 for reduction hazards in steel moment frame structures”, Journal of Constructional

45 Steel Research, 58, pp.511-528.
46
47
Rassati, G.A., Leon, R.T., Noè, S. (2004): “Component Modeling of Partially
ly
48
49 Restrained Composite Joints under Cyclic and Dynamic Loading”, Journal of
50
51 Structural Engineering, n°2, 343-351.
52
53 Clemente, I., Noè, S., Rassati, G.A. (2004): “Experimental Behavior of T-stub
54
55 Connection Components for the Mechanical Modeling of Bare Steel and
56
57
Composite Partially-Restrained Beam-to-Column connections”, Proceedings of
58 Connections in Steel Structures V, Amsterdam.
59
60

1
2
3
4
5 CEN, (2005a): “EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
6 Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”, CEN,
7
8 European Committee for Standardization.
9
10 CEN, (2005b): “EN 1993-1-8 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-8: Design
11
12 of Joints”, CEN, European Committee for Standardization.
13
14 Clemente, I., Noè, S., Rassati, G.A. (2005): “Experimental and Numerical Analysis of
15
16 the Cyclic Behaviour of T-stub Components”, Proceedings of XX C.T.A.
Fo
17
18
Conference, Ischia (NA), Italy.
19
20
Nogueiro, P., Simoes Da Silva, L., Bento, R., Simoes, R., (2006): “Experimental
rP
21 Behaviour of standardised European end-plate beam-to-column steel joints under

22
23 arbitrary cyclic loading”, Proceedings of SDSS’06-International Colloquium on
24
Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Lisboa, Portugal.
ee
25
26
27 Yang, C.M., Kim, Y.M., (2006): “Cyclic Behaviour of Bolted and welded beam-to-
28
rR
29 column joints”, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 49, 635-649.

30
31 Nogueiro, P., Simoes Da Silva, L., Bento, R., Simoes, R., (2007): “Numerical
32
implementation and calibration of a hysteretic model with pinching for the cyclic
33
ev
34 response of steel joints”, International Journal of Advanced Steel Construction,

35
36 128-153.
iew
37
38 Piluso, V., Rizzano, G., (2008): “Experimental Analysis and modelling of Bolted T-
39
40 stubs under Cyclic Loads”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, pp.655-
41
42 669.
43
On
44 Iannone, F., Latour, M., Piluso, V., Rizzano, G. (2010): “Experimental Analysis of
45 Bolted Steel Beam-to-Column Connections: Component Identification”, Accept for
46
47 Publication to Journal of Earthquake Engineering.
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 cwt-c cfb epb
12
13
14 M
15
16
Fo
17 cws cwt-c cfb epb

18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 1: Mechanical model for bolted extended end-plate connections

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 cwt-c
12
13 cfb epb
14
15
M
16
Fo
17 cws cwt-c cfb epb

18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 2: Mechanical model for double tee connections

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
8 F max B
9
10 Fy
11
12 C
13
14 Kο Kο
15
16 1 K1 1
Fo
17 1 α
18
δy A
19
20 α D δ max
δ
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27 Fy
28
rR
29
30 Fmax
31
32
33 Fig. 3: Piluso et al. T-stub cyclic model
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 M
8
2FH∆M und line urve
9 positive bo tate c
li c s teady s
10 k bl
cy c
1 Mi-1
11
r
12
ch ea
an lin
13
br on
n
14
h
i-t
15
My ke 1.4My
16 1
Fo
ke
17 din
18 γi Mm γi+1
γ
19
20 γm
din
rP
21 ar
ine
22 o nl
Ma h n ch
23 1.4My 1)t bran
( i-
24 Ms ke
ee
25 1
26 Mi
∆M kbl
27 ound line 1
negative b
28
rR
29
30
31 Fig. 4: Shear panel cyclic curve
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 M bound line
8
9 1 kbl
10 dA
11
12
din kp
13
14 A 1
15
16
Fo
17
18
1.4My
19
20
rP
21 γp
22
23
24 Fig. 5: Dafalias-Popov model for Hysteresis Curve
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 F
8
2FH∆F ound line rve
9 positive b a t e cu
c steady st
10 k bl
cycli
11 1 Fi-1
12
r
ch ea
an lin
13
br on
n
14
h
i-t
15 Fy ke 1.2Fy
16 1
Fo
ke
17 din
18 γi Fm δi+1
δ
19
20 δm
rP
din
21 ar
22 ine
onl
23 Fa h n ch
1.2Fy 1)t bran
(i-
24 Fs ke
ee
25 1
26 ∆F
Fi
kbl
27 ound line 1
28 negative b
rR
29
30
31 Fig. 6: Cyclic curve at the i-th cycle for panels in tension and compression
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 bolt M20 (10.9) 32 32
8 90
9
45
10
100
11
12
13
450
160
14
15
16
100
Fo
17 IPE270
18
45
19 154
20 t ep = 20 mm
rP
21
22
23 Fig.7 – Geometry of EEP-CYC01 specimen
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
bolt M20 (10.9) 30 30
7 94
8
40
9
134
10
11
12
400
126
474
13
t cp = 10 mm
14
15
134
16 IPE270
Fo
17
40
18 t wp= 10 mm 154
t ep = 20 mm
19
20 HE200B
rP
21
170
22 25
120
25
23
53
24
ee200
25
26
27
28 Fig.8 – Geometry of EEP-CYC02 specimen
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
30 30
7 bolt M20 (10.9)
94
40
8
9
10
177
252
11
12
40
400
542
13
40
14 t cp = 10 mm
81
15
257
16
Fo
81
17 IPE270
40
18 t wp= 10 mm
19 154
20 HE200B
rP
170 293
21 25 25 25 40
t ep = 25 mm
120 73 60 60 60
22
30
23
200
135
24
75
ee
25
30
26
27
28 Fig.9 – Geometry of TS-CYC 04 specimen
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
170
7
8 32 105 32
9
60
10
11
Rigid Support
12
13
14
300
180
15
16 tep=12 mm
Fo
17
18
60
19
20 IPE 300 Bolts M20
rP
21 (8.8)
22
23
24
ee
25
26 Fig.10 – Geometry of FPC/B specimen (redrawn from Bernuzzi et al., 1996)
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
50
8
9
40
10
60
11
12 tp=15 mm
13
14
15
IPE 360 tep=18 mm
240
540
16 HEA 320
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
60
21 Bolts M24
22
40
(10.9)
23
50
24
55 110 55
ee
25 220
26
27
28
rR
29 Fig.11 – Geometry of J-1.3 specimen (redrawn from Nogueiro et al., 2006)

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 H-125x125x6.5x9
9
10
sf =9 mm
11
12
13
14
15
sw=6 mm
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23 H-250x125x6x9
24
ee
25
26 Fig.12 – Geometry of FW specimen (redrawn form Yang & Kim, 2006)
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
EEP-CYC 01
7
250
8
9
200
10
11
150
12
13
100
14
15
50
16
Fo
M [kNm]
17
0
18 -0,1 -0,08 -0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
19 -50
20
rP
21 -100
22
23 -150
24
ee
25 -200
26 Model
Experimental
27 -250
28
rR
φ [rad]
29
30
31 Fig. 13: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen EEP-CYC 01
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 J-1.3
400
5
6
7 300
8
9 200
10
11
100
12
13
14 0
M [kNm]
15 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

16
Fo
-100
17
18
19 -200
20
rP
21 -300
22
23
-400
24
ee
25
26 -500
27 q [rad]
28
rR
29 Fig. 14: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen J-1.3

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Energy dissipated EEP-CYC 01
250
5
6
7
8
200
9
10
11
12
150
13
E [kNm]
14
15
16
Fo
100
17
18
19
20
rP
50
21
Model
22 Experimental
23
24 0
ee
25 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
26 n° cycles
27
28
rR
29 Fig.15: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of the energy dissipated for specimen EEP-CYC 01

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Energy Dissipated J-1.3
5
350
6
7
8 300
9
10
11 250
12
13
14 200
E [kNm]
15
16
Fo
17 150
18
19
20 100
rP
21
22
50
23 Model
24 Experimental
ee
25
0
26 0 5 10 15 20 25
27 n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 16: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of the energy dissipated for specimen J-1.3
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 FW
80
5
6
7 60
8
9
10 40
11
12
20
13
14
M [kNm]
15 0
16
Fo
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
17
18 -20
19
20
rP
-40
21
22
23 -60
24
ee
25
26 -80
27 φ [rad]
28
rR
29
30 Fig. 17: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen FW
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Energy Dissipation FW
5
70
6
7
8 60
9
10
11 50
12
13
14 40
E [kNm]
15
16
Fo
17 30
18
19
20 20
rP
21
22
10
23 Model
24 Experimental
ee
25
0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
27 n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 18: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of dissipated energy for specimen FW

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 EEP-CYC 02
5 250
6
7 200
8
9 150
10
11 100
12
13 50
14
M [kNm]
15 0
16 -0,1 -0,08 -0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Fo
17 -50
18
19 -100
20
rP
21 -150
22
23 -200
Model
24 Experimental
ee
25 -250
26 φ [rad]
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 19: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen EEP-CYC 02

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 TS-CYC 04
5 250
6
7 200
8
9 150
10
11 100
12
13 50
14
M [kNm]
15 0
16 -0,1 -0,08 -0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Fo
17 -50
18
19 -100
20
rP
21 -150
22
23 -200
Model
24 Experimental
ee
25 -250
26 φ [rad]
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 20: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen TS-CYC 04

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 FPC/B
60
5
6
7
8 40
9
10
11
20
12
13
14
M [kNm]
15 0
16
Fo
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
17
18
19 -20
20
rP
21
22 -40
23
24
ee
25
26 -60
27 φ [rad]
28
rR
29 Fig. 21: Theoretical-Experimental comparison for specimen FPC/B

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 EEP-CYC 02
5 250,00
6
7
8
9 200,00
10
11
12
13 150,00
E [kNm]
14
15
16
Fo
100,00
17
18
19
20
rP
50,00
21
22 Model
23 Experimental
24 0,00
ee
25 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
26 n°cycles
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 22: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of the energy dissipated for specimen EEP-CYC 02
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 TS-CYC 04
5 250
6
7
8
9 200
10
11
12
13 150
E [kNm]
14
15
16
Fo
100
17
18
19
20
rP
50
21
22 Model
23 Experimental
24 0
ee
25 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
26 n°cycles
27
28
rR
29 Fig. 23: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of the energy dissipated for specimen TS-CYC 04
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Energy Dissipation FPC/B
5
50
6
7
45
8
9
40
10
11
35
12
13
30
14
E [kNm]
15
25
16
Fo
17
20
18
19
15
20
rP
21
10
22
23 Model
5
24 Experimental
ee
25
0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
27 n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 24: Theoretical-Experimental comparison of dissipated energy for specimen FPC/B

30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Authors' Tests - Peak Moment
5
6 220
7 TS-CYC 04
8
200
9
10 EEP-CYC 02
11 180
12
13
Mmax [kNm]
14 160
15
16 EEP-CYC 01
Fo
17 140
18
19 EEP-CYC 01 Model
20 120 EEP-CYC 01 Experimental

rP
EEP-CYC 02 Model
21 EEP-CYC 02 Experimental
22 TS-CYC 04 Model
100
23 TS-CYC 04 Experimental
24
ee
25 80
26 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
27 n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 25: Model performance in terms of Peak Moment for Authors’ Tests
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Authors' Tests - Unloading Stiffness
5
16000
6
7
8 14000
9 EEP-CYC 02
10
12000
11 EEP-CYC 01
12
Kunloading [kNm/rad]
13 10000
14
15
8000
16
Fo
17
18 6000 TS-CYC 04
19
20
rP
4000 EEP-CYC 01 Model

21 EEP-CYC 01 Experimental
22 EEP-CYC 02 Model
23 2000 EEP-CYC 02 Experimental
24 TS-CYC 04 Model
ee
TS-CYC 04 Experimental
25
0
26 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
27
n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 25: Model performance in terms of Unloading Stiffness for Authors’ Tests
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Literature Tests - Peak Moment
EEP J-1.3
5
6 400
7
8 350
9
10
300
11
12
13 250
Mmax [kNm]
14
15
200
16
Fo
17
18 150
19 FPC B
FW Model
FW Experimental
20 FW
rP
100 FPC B Model

21 FPC B Experimental
22 EEP J-1.3 Model
23 50 EEP J-1.3 Experimental
24
ee
25 0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
27 n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 27: Model performance in terms of Peak Moment for Literature Tests
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Literature Tests - Unloading Stiffness
5
80000
6
7
8 70000
9 EEP J-1.3
10
60000
11
12
Kunloading [kNm/rad]
13 50000
14
15
40000
16
Fo
17
18 30000
19
20
rP
20000 FW Model
21
FW FW Experimental
22 FPC B FPC B Model
23 10000 FPC B Experimental
24 EEP J-1.3 Model
ee
EEP J-1.3 Experimental

25
0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
27
n°cycles
28
rR
29 Fig. 28: Model performance in terms of unloading stiffness for Literature Tests
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Table 1. Empirical parameters for definition of stiffness and strength degradation laws
5
6 a0 b0 a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3
7 1.1 1.212 0.345 0.158 3.595 0.849 0.053 0.137
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Table 2. Empirical parameters for the application of Kim and Engelhardt model
5
6 ξ c FH FS FR
7 1.1 7 0.45 0.07 0.05
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 3. Empirical parameters for the application of Krawinkler et al. model
7 Κ n Κ' n' h FH FS FR
8
9 0.51 0.23 0.9 0.19 45 0.45 0.07 0.05
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3 Table 4. Comparison between model and experimental dissipated energy
4
5
6 Ediss,mod Ediss,exp Ediss,mod / Ediss,exp
Joint Typology
7 [kNm] [kNm] [kNm]
8 EEP-CYC 01
9 Extended end-plate 210 197 1.07
(Iannone et al., 2010)
10
11
J-1.3
Extended end-plate 299 292 1.02
12 (Kim & Yang, 2006)
13 FW
14
Fully welded 60 64 0.94
(Nogueiro et al., 2006)
15 EEP-CYC 02
16 Extended end-plate 67 58 1.15
Fo
17
(Iannone et al., 2010)
18 TS-CYC 04
Extended end-plate 154 139 1.10
19 (Iannone et al., 2010)
20 FPC/B
rP
21 Flush end-plate 43 42 1.04

(Bernuzzi et al., 1996)
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

For Peer Review Only: Cyclic Modelling of Bolted Beam-To-Column Connections: Component Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Peer Review Only: Cyclic Modelling of Bolted Beam-To-Column Connections: Component Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 61 Journal of Earthquake Engineering

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 that their application is limited to tested structural details.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 - Modelling of the cyclic behaviour of each joint component;

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 displacement amplitude of the i-th cycle, of the displacement history under

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 force-displacement curve by means of the theoretical approach proposed by Piluso et al.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 proposed by Dafalias (1975, 1976).

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

44 means of the following relationship:

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 behaviour and the steps needed to apply the model.

44 The monotonic curve is constituted by means of a linear branch followed by a yield

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

17 Journal of Structural Division, 107

21 “Recommendations for Experimental Studies on the Seismic Behaviour of Steel

Research, Vol.29, pp.95-119.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

44 for reduction hazards in steel moment frame structures”, Journal of Constructional

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

21 Behaviour of standardised European end-plate beam-to-column steel joints under

29 column joints”, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 49, 635-649.

34 response of steel joints”, International Journal of Advanced Steel Construction,

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

17 cws cwt-c cfb epb

29 Fig. 1: Mechanical model for bolted extended end-plate connections

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

17 cws cwt-c cfb epb

29 Fig. 2: Mechanical model for double tee connections

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

29 Fig.11 – Geometry of J-1.3 specimen (redrawn from Nogueiro et al., 2006)

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: ertmer@illinois.edu