Introduction

Design models
Connection design
Global analyse

by Component Based
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction

Finite Element Method

Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Lecture 1
Summary
Beam to Column Moment Connection
 List of lectures

1) Beam to column moment connection

Introduction
Design models
2) Joint of hollow to open section
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
3) Column base
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 4) Seismically qualified joints
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

2
 Aims and objectives

o Provide information on joint modelling

Introduction
o Introduce principles of CBFEM
Design models
Global analyse
o Provide an online training
Classification to students and engineers
Component meth.
Interaction o Illustrate differences
Assessment I
CBFEM between research and design oriented FEM
General
Validation o Show the process of Validation & Verification
Verification
Benchmark case o Offer list of references relevant to the topic
Assessment II
Summary

3
 Beam to column
moment connection
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
František Wald, Lukáš Gödrich, Marta Kuříková,
Assessment II
Lubomír Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Summary
 Tutorial

o This lecture describes principles

of FEA modelling
Introduction of beam to column moment connection.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
o Survey of both simple and FEM analyses
Component meth. and modelling are shown.
Interaction
Assessment I o Finally Validation, Verification and Benchmark
CBFEM
General
case is presented.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Material was prepared under the R&D project MERLION II supported by
Assessment II
Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, project No TH02020301.
Summary

5
 Outline of the lecture

o Introduction to design
o Design models
Introduction o Global analyses
Design models o Classification
Global analyse
o Component method
Classification
Component meth. o Interaction of internal forces
Interaction o Assessment I
Assessment I
o Component Based Finite Element Method
CBFEM
General o General
Validation o Validation
Verification
o Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
o Benchmark case
Summary o Assessment II
o Summary

6
Introduction
Introduction to design
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Lecture 1
General
Validation Beam to column moment connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
8

Past and Present design models

An example of
For joint design are available models: component model for
fire design
o Experimental - history and contemporary design (Block et al 2005)

Introduction o Curve fitting – currently hollow section joints design

Design models
Global analyse o Analytical models
Classification o Component Method (CM)
Component meth.
Interaction o Research oriented finite element method
Assessment I o Design oriented finite element method
CBFEM
General o Component based FE Method (CBFEM)
Validation
Verification M Experiment
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Function lt hb M
 = C1( kM )1 + C 3 ( kM ) 3 + C 5 ( kM ) 5

ta
 )
An example of curve fitting model, Kishi and Chen (1990) 8
 Joints characteristics in bending

o Major characteristics for joint in bending are

o Initial stiffness Sj,ini
Introduction
Design models o Small influence to distribution of internal forces
Global analyse
o Design resistance Mj,Rd
Classification
Component meth. o Direct influence to resistance
Interaction
Assessment I o Deformation capacity φCd
CBFEM
General
o Influence to plastic and seismic design only
Validation
M
Verification
Benchmark case M j,Rd
Assessment II
Summary

S j,ini

Cd  9
 Design model
and experimental behaviour
o The design model reflects the need of designers
to safe prediction of joint behaviour
Introduction o As structural elements are in joint designed
Design models
for its material yielding fy or its ultimate stress fu
Global analyse
Classification
o The experimentally reached resistance
Component meth.
Interaction
is never the asked design resistance
Assessment I
M, moment, kNm
CBFEM
Initial stiffness Sj, ini
General Joint
Validation resistance
M j, Rd Experimental curve
Verification
Benchmark case
Elastic Design curve
Assessment II limit
Summary 2/3 M j, Rd

Rotation, , mrad
Deformation capacity j,Cd 10
 Joints deformability/stiffness

o Joint deforms due to

o Shear force
Introduction
o No influence to global distribution of internal forces
Design models
Global analyse o Is closed during erection
Classification
Component meth.
o Normal force
Interaction
o No influence to global distribution of internal forces
Assessment I
CBFEM o Exception in space structures of course
General
Validation
o Bending moment
Verification o Significant influence to distribution of internal forces
Benchmark case
Assessment II o The highest is in rectangular closed frames
Summary

11
 Joints in global analyses

o Example of frame with its joints

Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
o If part of joint is flexible is in global analyses modelled as
CBFEM
General
Flexible column web Stiff column web Stiff column web Stiff
Validation panel and panel and panel and semi-rigid column web panel
Verification
semi-rigid semi-rigid or pinned or pinned and
connections connections connections rigid connections
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

12
 Physical and theoretical joint

o In global analyses with 1D members are forces transferred

to beam ends.
Introduction o Forces are kept and moments are modified
Design models by action of forces on actual arms.
Global analyse
Classification o Theoretical joint should be in equilibrium,
Component meth. see example right below.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM F2
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
F1
Summary F3

F 1 + F2 + F3 = 0
13
 Classification

o For global analyses of steel frames are joints classified to

simplify the modelling.
Introduction
(Preferable as pinned and rigid joints.)
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth. o According to Ch. 5 in EN1993-1-8:2006
Interaction
are joints classified based on
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
o Best engineering practice
Validation
Verification o Simplified assumption of frame behaviour
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Actual influence of particular joint to frame design.
Summary (This implicates recalculation.)

14
 Classification
based on resistance
o Bending moment resistance of connection to bending
moment resistance of connected beam is compared in
Introduction connections loaded in bending.
Design models
Global analyse
o Full strength joints/connections Mj,Rd > Mb,pl,Rd
Classification
Component meth.
o Partial strength joints/connections Mj,Rd < Mb,pl,Rd
Interaction
Assessment I Moment, M
CBFEM
General M b,pl,Rd Full strength connection
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case Partial strength connection
Assessment II Bending moment resistance
Summary
of connected beam

Rotation,  15
 Classification
based on rotational capacity
o Rotational capacity of connection to rotational capacity of
connected beam is compared in connections loaded in
Introduction
bending.
Design models o Ductile connection
Global analyse
o Semi-ductile connection
Classification
Component meth. o Brittle connection
Interaction
Moment,
Assessment I Elastic rotation M
M M
CBFEM
of connected beam
General

Validation
Ultimate rotation
of connected beam
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Ductile connection (Class 1) 
M
Summary Semi-ductile connection (Class 2)
Brittle connection (Class 3)

Rotation,  16
 Classification
based on stiffness
o Bending stiffness of connection to bending stiffness of
connected beam is compared in connections loaded in
bending.
Introduction
Design models o Rigid joint Sj,ini ≥ 25 E Ib / Lb (for frames without bracing)
Global analyse o Semi-rigid joint Sj,ini,rigid ≤ Sj,ini ≥ Sj,ini,pinned
Classification
Component meth.
o Nominally pinned joint Sj,ini ≤ 0,5 E Ib / Lb
__
Interaction
Poměrný moment,
Relative moment M b __
Assessment I Mb
tuhé
Rigid Mb=
CBFEM 1,0 M b.pl.Rd
styčníky
joints
General
0,8 _  E Ib 
Validation S j.ini.n = 25 =
Verification Lb M b.pl.Rd
0,6
Benchmark case _
S j.ini.s= 8 _
Assessment II 0,4 Sj.ini.p = 0,5
Summary
0,2 polotuhé styčníky
Semi-rigid joints
Pinned joints
kloubové styčníky
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 
Poměrná
Relative tuhost,
stiffness 
17
 Component Method

o Component method is analytical procedure

to evaluate joint resistance and stiffness.
It consist of steps:
Introduction
Design models 1) Decomposition of joint to individual components based
Global analyse on assumed distribution of internal forces.
Classification
2) Component description in terms of deformational stiffness
Component meth.
and resistance.
Interaction
Assessment I 3) Joint behaviour assembly from the behaviour of its
CBFEM components based on assumed distribution of internal forces.
General Column web in tension
Validation Connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Components in tension
Summary
Components in compression
Web panel in shear
Column web in compression
Joint 18
 1) Decomposition of joint
o In simplified procedures are joints design in one plane
o Joint is decomposet to component based on best
engineering practice
Introduction
Design models o Example below is decomposition of the beam to column joint
Global analyse of open I/H sections with one end plate bolted connection is
Classification
o To components in column (❶❷❸❹), end plate connection (⑤⑩), and
Component meth.
connected beam (⑦)
Interaction
Assessment I o Finally to rigid bodyand one spring
CBFEM

  
General
Validation

Verification  z1 z z
Benchmark case  Mj  2 
 1
Assessment II
 2 3
Summary

   
  
 
  19
 2) Component description

o The structural properties of basic joint components are

described in Chapter 6 of EN 1993-1-8 for some basic
V

Introduction
components, eg. for Ed

Design models
Global analyse o Column web panel in shear
VEd
Classification
Fc,Ed
Component meth. o Column web in transverse compression
Ft,Ed
Interaction
Assessment I Ft,Ed
o Column web in transverse tension
CBFEM
General
Validation
o Column flange in bending
Verification
Benchmark case o End-plate in bending Ft,Ed

Ft,Ed
Assessment II
Summary o Flange cleat in bending

o For composite joints are in EN1994-1-1:2005

o For another joints in literature
20
 3) Joint assembly

o Joint are assembled

using the assumed lever arms of components zx
assumed according to best engineering practice
Introduction
Design models o E.g. for bolted connection with one bolt row
Global analyse may be guess simplified assembly
Classification
Component meth.
o Fc,Rd is compression force
Interaction recon in the middle of bottom flange
Assessment I o Ft,Rd is tensile force expected in the middle of bolt
CBFEM
General
o z is estimated lever arm
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary M j ,Rd = F
i ti ,Rd
zi

21
 Interaction
of bending moment and normal force
o Many joints are exposed to interaction of bending moment
and normal forces,
Introduction o One example is simple portal frame, where the bolted eaves
Design models
moment connection transmits the normal force based on the
Global analyse
Classification
rafter inclination.
Component meth. o The Normal force may be neglectabe
Interaction
Assessment I
but for greater inclination is for connection significant.
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

22
 Simplified prediction of interaction
of bending moment and normal force
o In EN 1993-1-8:2005 is recommended:

Introduction
o Design moment resistance of joint Mj,Rd does not take
Design models account of any axial force NEd in the connected member.
Global analyse Axial force in the connected member NEd should not
Classification exceed 5% of design plastic resistance of connected
Component meth.
Interaction
element Npl,Rd.
Assessment I
CBFEM
o Otherwise should be considered by:
General
N Ed M Ed
Validation o Linear interaction + 1
Verification N j , Rd M j , Rd
Benchmark case o Component method
Assessment II
Summary o Interaction ratio is calculated to the vectors between
points of the interaction curve.

23
s

Interaction
of bending moment and normal force
on beam to column joint with end plate
o The significant points are marked.
o The lines represents the limit of safe design by simple linear
interaction and by component method.
Introduction
Design models VSd M Sd
Global analyse
Classification NSd
Component meth.
Normal force, kN
Interaction

Assessment I

CBFEM 
General
5 % error
Validation
Verification   Moment,
Benchmark case kNm
Assessment II
 
Summary
Component method

 Linear interaction

 
24
 Assessment I

o Describe the influence to quality of design of the three major

characteristics of joint
Introduction o Principles of joint classification according to What Ch. 5 in
Design models EN1993-1-8:2006
Global analyse
Classification o What’s influence of joint deformation due to shear force,
Component meth. Normal force and bending moment
Interaction
Assessment I o Draw the four possible representation of joints in global
CBFEM
analyses.
General
Validation o Describe the three major steps of Component method.
Verification
Benchmark case o How is in Component method predicted the lever arm of
Assessment II
internal forces?
Summary

o Describe the three major steps of Component method.

o How to predict in a simple way interaction of bending
moment and normal force? 25
 Component Based
Finite Element Method
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Lecture 1
General
Validation Beam to column moment connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
 Material

o Bilinear ideal elastic plastic diagram is used in design oriented

models as CBFEM according to Ch. 7 in EN 1993-1-5:2006
and the slope of plastic branch is due to numerical stability E/1000.
Introduction
Design models o Plastic strain in plates is limited by 5%.
Global analyse o In research oriented models is calculated the true stress-strain
Classification diagram from the material properties obtained in tensile tests, which
Component meth.
is takin into account the necking of the coupon during its yielding
Interaction
Assessment I
before rupture.
CBFEM True stress-strain
General Experimental
Validation
Design
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

5%
27
 Plate
o Four node quadrangle shell elements are applied with six degrees
of freedom, i.e. three translations and three rotations, in every node.

Introduction
o End plates, element profiles, slender stiffener, T-stubs are modelled
Design models
as plates connected in joint by constrains and the connection check
Global analyse is independent on the element size.
Classification
o Example of T-stub shows the influence of mesh size on the T-stub
Component meth.
resistance.
Interaction
Assessment I o Dashed lines are representing 5%, 10% and 15% difference.
CBFEM

T-stub resistance [kN]

General 200
Validation 195
Verification 190 15%
Benchmark case 185
180
10%
Assessment II
175 5%
Summary
170
165
bf 160
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Half of flange width Number of elements [-]
28
 Bolt

o Fan model with interpolation constrains to edges

of bolt holes is used in CBFEM, but is used also
Introduction
in research oriented models (Bursi, Jaspart, 1998).
Design models
o Nonlinear springs are connected for
Global analyse
Classification o Tension in contact of
Component meth.
Interaction
o bolt shank and bolt head
Assessment I o Shear in contact between
CBFEM
General
o plate and bolt head
Validation o bolt shank and plate
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Fan model of bolt

with constrains 29
 Working diagram of spring model
for Component bolt in tension
o For bolt´s resistance is
expected maximum allowed Tensile force in bolt, kN
plastic strain εmpb as 25 % of
Introduction elongation to fracture Ft,Rd
Design models
of bolt according to EN ISO
Global analyse Ft,el kt
898-1:2013, the values are
Classification
Component meth.
summarised in Table below.
Fc,Ed
Interaction o The stiffness in tension is
Assessment I calculated as k = E As/Lb,
CBFEM where As is tensile area of bolt k
General
and Lb is the distance between
Validation
the centers of the head and the uel ut,Rd
Verification
Benchmark case
bolt nut. Bolt tesile deformation, mm
Assessment II
Summary
Maximum allowed plastic strains for bolts εt,Rd
Bolt grade 4.8 5.6 5.8 6.8 8.8 10.9
εmpb % 3,5 5,0 2,5 2,0 3,0 2,3
30
 Working diagram of spring model
for Component bolt in shear
o Bolt in shear is simulated by bilinear diagram
with its initial linear part and nonlinear one,
which may be simplified as second linear one.
Introduction
Design models
o Values are obtained by experiments and
Global analyse summarised in design standards.
Classification
Component meth.
o The values in Ch. 6 EN1993-1-8:2006 represents well the bearing
Interaction
of plate and bolt and shearing of the bolts shaft.
Assessment I
Shear force in bolt, kN
CBFEM
General Ft,Rd
Validation
Ft,el kt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Fc,Ed
Summary

uel ut,Rd
Bolt shear deformation, mm 31
 Bolt loaded in tension and shear

o The bolt loaded to tensile resistance Ft,Rd has still significant

shear residual resistance Fs,res,Rd.
Introduction o The interaction is described by linear/nonlinear relation,
Design models
which is in CBFEM simplified for initial and second part of the
Global analyse
Classification
curve, see Figs below
Component meth.
𝐹𝑣,𝐸𝑑 𝐹𝑡,𝐸𝑑
+ ≤ 1,0
Interaction 𝐹𝑣,𝑅𝑑 1,4 𝐹𝑡,𝑅𝑑
Assessment I
CBFEM
Shear force

General Ft,Ed

Tension
Validation V Ft,Rd
Verification Ft,Rd
Ft,el
Benchmark case
Ft,el
Assessment II
V
Summary
Ft,Ed
Shear deformation Shear
ut,el ut,p ut,lim Fs,el Fs,Rd

32
 Bolts

o Interaction diagram for deformation of the bolt loaded

in shear and tension, (Wald et al. 2016)
Introduction
Design models Bolts tension
Global analyse deformation, δt
Classification Ft.Rd
Component meth. Ft.Rd
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Ft.el
Ft.el
Bolts tension force, Ft,Ed

General
Validation δt,Rd
Verification
Benchmark case
r.δv,Rd
Assessment II
Summary δt,el
1,4 − 1
r.δv,el 𝑟=
1.4

Bolts shear deformation, δv δv,el δv,Rd

33
 Slip resistant bolt

o In the preloaded slip resistant bolt is transferred the shear

force by friction.
Introduction o As the friction force is reached slip resistance
Design models
the shear force is transferred by bearing of the plate
Global analyse
Classification
and shearing of bolt as regular non preloaded bolt.
Component meth.
Interaction
o Bolt is preloaded to 70% of its strength.
Assessment I
Bolt model
Ft,Ed Shear force
CBFEM
General
V Ultimate shear
Validation V force
Verification
𝜇 (𝐹𝑝 − 0.8𝐹𝑡,𝐸𝐷 )
Benchmark case Fp Fp Connection slippage
Assessment II
V
Summary
Shear deformation
Ft,Ed

34
 Welds

o Filled weld is modelled by equivalent solid elastoplastic

element, which is added between plates to express the weld
behaviour, see Fig. below.
Introduction
Design models
o The element respects the weld throat thickness, position,
Global analyse and orientation to assure good representation of weld
Classification deformation stiffness, resistance and deformation capacity.
Component meth.
o The plastic strain in weld is limited to 5%.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Equivalent
Validation
Verification stresst σ
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Weld throat
Summary
section
Equivalent solid
element
Multipoint constraint
Multipoint constraint Wald et al. (2016)
35
 Verification & Validation

o The need and position of Verification & Validation in

prediction of the reality is demonstrated on the diagram
Introduction
below.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Kwasniewski L. (2009)
36
 Terminology

o Validation
o compares the numerical solution
Introduction with the experimental data.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification o Verification
Component meth.
Interaction
o uses comparison of computational solutions
Assessment I with highly accurate analytical or numerical solution.
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
o Benchmark case
Assessment II o ais example for check of the software and its user
Summary by validated and simplified input and output.

37
 Design and research oriented model
Current approval of design models consist of
1) Experiments
Introduction o Research oriented FE model (ROFEM)
Design models
2) is validated on experiment.
Global analyse Experiment
Classification 3) Numerical experiments are prepared.
Component meth.
Interaction o Design oriented
Assessment I analytical/numerical model (AM/DOFEM)
CBFEM
General
4) is verified to numerical experiments
Validation and/or another design models. Research model
Verification
5) Sensitivity study is prepared.
Benchmark case
Assessment II 6) Validity range is defined.
Summary
o Benchmark case (BC)
7) is prepared to help the users of model
to check up its correctness and proper use. Design model
38
 Experiments with bolts in tension

o Out of dozens of published tests, 13 bolts of different lengths

and diameter were tested to obtain the detailed force-
deformation behaviour.
Introduction
Design models o Bolts elongation was measured by inductive sensors.
Global analyse
Classification o Bolts were fixed to the testing machine by special tools with
Component meth. bearing caps to ensure hinges on its ends.
Interaction Testing machine
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Inductive sensors
arrangement
39
 Failure modes of bolts in tension

o There are four possible failure modes

of bolts loaded in tension:
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
Stripping of nut threads Rupture of bolt close to nut
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Stripping of bolt threads Rupture of bolt close to head

40
 Validation
for rupture of bolt close to head
o The figure shows the validation of research oriented model
in case of failure mode rupture of bolt close to the bolt head.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Force [kN]

Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I Experiment
CBFEM
Research FEM
General Research oriented
Validation
model of bolt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Deformation [mm]
Summary

Rupture of bolt
close to head
41
 Validation of stripping of nut thread

o The validation of the research oriented model

in case of failure mode stripping of the nut thread
is presented below.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Force [kN]

Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I Experiment
CBFEM Research FEM
General Research oriented
Validation
model of bolt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Deformation [mm]
Summary

Stripping of nut
threads
42
 Experiment with T-stub in tension

o Two specimens were prepared with T stubs,

cross sections HEB300 and HEB400 with bolts M24 8.8.
Introduction
o T-stub deformation was measured by inductive sensors.
Design models o Strains were measured on the expected yielding lines on
Global analyse
flanges by strain gauges.
Classification
Component meth. o Forces in the bolts were measured by KMR400 rings placed
Interaction under the bolt heads.
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Measuring devices
arrangement
Testing machine 43
 Validation of research model
of T-stub in tension
o The Figure shows the validation of the research oriented
model of T-stub from HEB300 loaded in tension.
Introduction
Design models
400

Force [kN]
Global analyse
Classification 350
Component meth. 300
Interaction
Assessment I 250
CBFEM 200 Experiment
General
Validation
150
Solid elements
Verification 100
Benchmark case
bolts
50
Assessment II
Summary 0
Research oriented
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deformation [mm]
model of T-stub

44
 Experiments
with generally positioned end plates
o The experiments were prepared with three bolted beam to
beam end plate connections.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse 0°
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 30°
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
45°
Summary

45
 Parameters of speciments
for the generally positioned end plate
o Plate P20 – 400 x 300 mm
o Steel S355 (fy,exp = 410 MPa; fu, exp = 582 MPa)
Introduction o Bolts M20 - 8.8
Design models
o Pitches vertical (35 – 230 – 100 - 35 mm)
Global analyse
Classification
horizontal (30 – 240 – 30 mm)
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 0°
General
45°
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

30°

46
 Verification of T-stub in tension

o The Figure shows the verification of the design oriented

model of T-stub from HEB300 loaded in tension to research
Introduction
oriented FE model. Comparison to component method is
Design models included. 450

Resistance [kN]
Global analyse
Classification 400
Component meth.
350
Interaction
Assessment I 300
CBFEM
250
General
Validation 200
Verification Component
Metoda method
komponent
150
Benchmark case
Assessment II 100 CBFEM
CBFEM

Summary
50 Validovaný
Research vědecký
FEM3D-FEM
0
Design oriented
tf10 tf12 tf15 tf20 tf25 tf30 tf35 tf40 tf45 tf50
model of T-stub
Flange thickness [mm]
47
 Verification of T-stub in tension

o The sensitivity study of thickness of the flange shows higher

resistance according to CBFEM compared to CM for
samples with flange thicknesses up to 20 mm.
Introduction
Design models
o ROFEM gives even higher resistance for these samples.
Global analyse o Higher resistance of both numerical models is due to
Classification neglection of membrane effect in CM.
Component meth.
Interaction 450
Resistance [kN]

Assessment I 400
CBFEM 350
General
300
Validation
250
Verification
200
Benchmark case
Assessment II
150 CM komponent
Metoda

Summary 100 CBFEM

CBFEM
50 ROFEMvědecký 3D-FEM
Validovaný
0
tf10 tf12 tf15 tf20 tf25 tf30 tf35 tf40 tf45 tf50
Flange thickness [mm]
48
 Verification of T-stub in tension
o To show the prediction of the CBFEM model, results of the studies
are summarized in graph comparing resistances by CBFEM and
component method. The results show that the difference of the two
Introduction calculation methods is mostly up to 10%.
Design models
o In cases with CBFEM/CM > 1,1 accuracy of CBFEM is verified by
Global analyse
Classification
the results of Research oriented FEM, which gives highest
Component meth. resistance in all selected cases.
500
Resistance CBFEM [kN]

Interaction
Assessment I 450
CBFEM 400
General 350
Validation 300
Verification 250
Benchmark case 200
Assessment II Variation of Plate thickness
150 Parametr-tloušťka pásnice
Bolt size
Summary Parametr-velikost šroubu
100 Bolt material
Parametr-materiál šroubu
50 Parametr-vzdálenost šroubů
Bolt distance
0 Parametr-šířka T-průřezu
T-stub thickness

0 100 200 300 400 500

Resistance - Component method [kN] 49
 Verification of T-stub in tension

o Three failure modes of T-stub are considered.

Component Method
Yielding of flange and
Full yielding of flange Rupture of bolts
Introduction rupture of bolts

Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
(8n − 2ew ) Mpl,1,Rd 2M pl,2,Rd + 2nFt,Rd
Validation Ft ,1, Rd = Ft , 2, Rd = Ft ,3, Rd = 2Ft,Rd
2mn − e w ( m + n ) m+n
Verification
Benchmark case Component
Assessment II
Based FEM
Summary
Yielding of flange Bolt resistance

50
 Verification of generally loaded
end plate
o Resistance calculated by CBFEM is compared with the results of CM and
experimental results. The sensitivity study is focused on ratio of bending
moments in strong and week axis, see Figure below.
o CM with linear interaction gives conservative values of resistance.
Introduction
o CM with quadratic interaction gives the highest resistances, which are to
Design models
experimental results still rather conservative.
Global analyse
o CBFEM gives similar results as CM with quadratic interaction.
Classification
Component meth.
Experiment
Experimenty
70
Moment Mz [kNm]

Interaction CM –komponent
Metoda Linear- interaction
lineární
interakce
Assessment I 60 CM –komponent
Metoda Quadratic interaction
- kvadratická
interakce
CBFEM
50 CBFEM
CBFEM
General
Validation 40
Verification
30
Benchmark case
Assessment II 20
Summary
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Moment My [kNm] 51
 Verification of end plate
o Comparison of the global behaviour described by moment-rotation diagram is
prepared. Attention is focused to initial stiffness, resistance and deformation
capacity.
o Sample 0° with strong axis bending moment is chosen to present as
Introduction
reference, see Figure below.
Design models
o CM gives higher initial stiffness compared to CBFEM and experimental data.
Global analyse
Classification
o Resistance predicted by CM and CBFEM are similar.
Component meth.
o Experimentally reached resistance is higher.
100
Moment [kNm]

Interaction
Assessment I 90
CBFEM 80
General
70
Validation
60
Verification
50 CBFEM - 0°
Benchmark case
40 CM - 0°
Assessment II
30 Experiment - 0°
Summary
20
10
0
0 50 100 150
Rotation [mrad] 52
 Benchmark case T-stub

o Inputs
o T-stub
Introduction o Steel S235
Design models
o Flange thickness tf = 20 mm
Global analyse
o Web thickness tw = 20 mm
Classification
Component meth. o Flange width bf = 300 mm
Interaction o Length b = 100 mm
Assessment I o Double fillet weld aw = 10 mm
CBFEM
General o Bolts
Validation o 2 x M24 8.8
Verification
o Distance of the bolts w = 165 mm
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Outputs
Summary
o Design resistance in tension FT,Rd = 175 kN
o Collapse mode - full yielding of the flange with maximal strain 5 %
o Utilization of the bolts 88,4 %
o Utilization of the welds 49,1 %
53
 Benchmark case
end plate connection
o Inputs
o Steel S235
o Beam IPE 330
Introduction
o Column HEB 300
Design models
Global analyse o End plate height hp = 450 (50-103-75-75-75-73) mm
Classification o End plate width bp = 200 (50-100-50) mm
Component meth. o End plate P15
Interaction
o Column stiffeners 15 mm thick and 300 mm wide
Assessment I
o End plate stiffener 10 mm thick and 90 mm wide
CBFEM
General
o Flange weld throat thickness af = 8 mm
Validation o Web weld throat thickness aw = 5 mm
Verification o Bolts M24 8.8
Benchmark case
o Outputs
Assessment II
Summary
o Design resistance in bending MRd = 209 kNm
o Corresponding vertical shear force VEd= 209 kN
o Collapse mode - yielding of the beam stiffener on upper flange
o Utilization of the bolts 89,5 %
o Utilization of the welds 87,2 % 54
 Assessment II

o How is limited plastic strain for design of resistances of

plates?
Introduction o How is simplified the convergence of finite elements
Design models procedure of steel members and plates?
Global analyse
Classification o How is modelled the bolt model in CBFEM?
Component meth.
Interaction o How is modelled interaction bolts loaded at the same time in
Assessment I shear and tension?
CBFEM
General o As how is transferred the shear force as the slip resistance
Validation bolt reach its resistance?
Verification
Benchmark case o Why is filled weld modelled by equivalent solid elastoplastic
Assessment II
element, which is added between plates?
Summary

o How differs validation from verification?

o What are two major purposes of benchmark cases in
application of FEA analyses? 55
Introduction
Summary
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Lecture 1
General
Validation Beam to column moment connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
 Summary

o The design of beam to column moment connections is

focussed to preferable yielding of steel plates and brittle
Introduction
failure of fasteners, bolts, welds.
Design models
Global analyse o The design of beam to column moment connection by
Classification
Component Method (CM) is very accurate in components
Component meth.
Interaction
behaviour modelling.
Assessment I
CBFEM o The lever arm is in CM estimated based on the best
General
engineering practice. Its prediction is good in well know and
Validation
Verification
tested connections and joints. Its educated guess affects the
Benchmark case resistance.
Assessment II
Summary
o The CM is prepared for software tools and design tables
not for had calculation.

57
 Summary

o The design of connections by finite element method is not

replication of the physical experiment. The designer is
interested into the limited yielding of steel plates and failure of
Introduction
Design models
fasteners.
Global analyse
Classification o Component based finite element method (CBFEM) is taking
Component meth. advantage of accurate modelling of component behaviour
Interaction
Assessment I
based on experiment and accuracy of discrete analyse of
CBFEM steel plate by FEM
General
Validation o The Validation and Verification procedure is integral part of
Verification
Benchmark case
any finite element analyses. The procedure is checking the
Assessment II software and the use by designer.
Summary

o CBFEM offers the designer a discrete view on the behaviour,

see next slides.
58
 Prediction
of global and local behaviour
Beam to column connection
o Full depth end plate 25 mm
Introduction
o Rafter IPE 400
Design models
Global analyse o Column HEA 320
Classification
Component meth. o 12 bolts M24 8.8
Interaction
Assessment I o Haunch 700x300 mm
CBFEM
o Flange 15x150 mm
General
Validation o Stiffeners P20
Verification
Benchmark case o Steel S355
Assessment II
Summary

59
 Global and local behaviour

M = 100 kNm
Fi = 3,2 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,6 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case Column flange plastification round bolts
Assessment II
Summary Well designed steel connection starts to classify early
to allow plastic distribution of forces between
connectors.
 Global and local behaviour

M = 150 kNm
Fi = 4,8 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,6 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column web plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 180 kNm
Fi = 5,7 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,5
Global analyse
MNm/rad
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Progress of column web plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 220 kNm
Fi = 7,3 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 30,0 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Progress of column web plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 250 kNm
Fi = 10,7 mrad
Introduction
Si = 23,4 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column web full plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 260 kNm
Fi = 14,7 mrad
Introduction
Si = 17,4 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column flange on opposite side plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 270 kNm
Fi = 23,4 mrad
Introduction
Si = 11,5 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Beam above haunch starts yield
 Global and local behaviour

M = 280 kNm
Fi = 43,6 mrad
Introduction
Design models
Si = 6,4 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Further plastification
 Global and local behaviour

M = 290 kNm
Fi = 78,6 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 3,7 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation, mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Resistance reached
Assessment II
o By 5% strain in column web loaded in shear and compression.
Summary
o Well designed steel connection starts to plasticize early
to allow plastic distribution of forces between connectors/plates.
 Global and local behaviour

Moment, kNm

Introduction Resistance
Design models
Global analyse
Classification Initial stiffness
Component meth.
Interaction
Deformation
Assessment I
capacity
CBFEM
General
Rotation, mrad
Validation
Verification
The major joint in bending design characteristics
Benchmark case
Assessment II where Sj,ini is the initial stiffness,
Summary
Mj,Rd is the design bending resistance,
φCd is the deformation capacity
are well described.
 What is the major reason
?
of using CBFEM for Beam to column moment connections

o Generally loaded complex

joints
is difficult to design in space
Introduction
Design models
accurately by
Global analyse Component or other methods.
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction o The example of design
Assessment I
procedure by CBFEM
CBFEM
General
is shown below.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

3D model Finite element analyses Design check70

Introduction
Design models

Thank your for attention

Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
URL: steel.fsv.cvut.cz
Summary

František Wald, Lukáš Gödrich, Marta Kuříková

Luboš Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
 Notes to users of the lecture

o Subject Design of the open sections joints.

o Lecture duration 60 mins.
Introduction
Design models
o Keywords Civil Engineering, Structural design, Steel structure,
Global analyse
Beam to column connection, Beam to beam connection,
Classification
Beam spices, Open section, Joint, Component Method,
Component meth.
Component based Finite Element Method, Eurocode.
Interaction
Assessment I o Aspects to be discussed Experiments, Reasons and methods
CBFEM of classification, Principles of CM, Major components in CM,
General Interaction of forces, Components in CBFEM, Principles of
Validation CBFEM, Validation and Verification.
Verification
Benchmark case o Further reading relevant documents in references and
Assessment II relevant European design standards, Eurocodes including
Summary National Annexes.
o Preparation for tutorial exercise see examples in References.

72
 Sources
To Component Mehod
Agerskov H., High-strength bolted connections subject to prying, Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE, 102 (1), 1976, 161-175.
Block F.M., Davison J.B., Burgess I.W., Plank R.J., Deformation-reversal in
Introduction
component-based connection elements for analysis of steel frames in fire,
Design models
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 86, 2013, 54-65.
Global analyse
Da Silva L., Lima L., Vellasco P., Andrade S., Experimental behaviour of end-
Classification
plate beam-to-column joints under bending and axial force, Database
Component meth.
reporting and discussion of results, Report on ECCS-TC10 Meeting in
Interaction
Ljubljana, 2002.
Assessment I
Da Silva L., Towards a consistent design approach for steel joints under
CBFEM
generalized loading, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, 2008,
General
1059-1075.
Validation
Chen, W.F., Abdalla K.M., Expanded database of semi-rigid steel connections,
Verification
Computers and Structures, 56, (4), 1995, 553-564.
Benchmark case
Kishi N., Chen W.F. Moment‐Rotation Relations of Semirigid Connections with
Assessment II
Angles, Journal of Structural Engineering, 116 (7), 1990, 1813-1834.
Summary
Zoetemeijer P., Proposal for Standardisation of Extended End Plate Connection
based on Test results - Test and Analysis, Ref. No. 6-83-23, Steven
Laboratory, Delft, 1983.
Zoetemeijer P., Summary of the research on bolted beam-to-column
connections, TU-Delft report 26-6-90-2, Delft, 1990. 73
 Sources

To Component Based Finite Element Mehod

Introduction Bursi O. S., Jaspart J. P., Benchmarks for Finite Element Modelling of Bolted
Design models Steel Connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 43 (1-3),
Global analyse 1997, 17-42.
Classification Kwasniewski L., On practical problems with verification and validation of
Component meth. computational models, Archives of Civil Engineering, LV, 3, 2009,
Interaction 323-346.
Assessment I
Oberkampf, W.L. TrucanoT.G., Hirsch C., Verification, validation, and
CBFEM
predictive capability in computational engineering and physics, Appl.
General
Mech. Rev. 57 (5), 345–384, 2004
Validation
Verification
Virdi K. S. et al, Numerical Simulation of Semi Rigid Connections by the Finite
Benchmark case
Element Method, Report of Working Group 6 Numerical, Simulation
Assessment II
COST C1, Brussels Luxembourg, 1999.
Summary Wald F. et al, Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel
connections, Česká technika ČVUT, 2016.
Wald F., Gödrich L., Šabatka L., Kabeláč J., Navrátil J., Component Based
Finite Element Model of Structural Connections, in Steel, Space and
Composite Structures, Singapore, 2014, 337-344. 74
 Standards

EN1992-1-1, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1, General rules

and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
EN1993-1-5, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-5, Plated Structural
Introduction Elements, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
Design models
EN1993-1-8:2006, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
Global analyse
joints, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Classification
Component meth. EN1994-1-1:2010, Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete
Interaction structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 2010.
Assessment I ISO 898-1, Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy
CBFEM steel, Part 1, Bolts, screws and studs with specified, property classes,
General Coarse thread and fine pitch thread, Geneva, 2013
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

75