Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A phenomenological component-based model to simulate seismic

behavior of bolted extended end-plate connections
Pu Yang a, Matthew R. Eatherton b,
a
College of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, PR China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24060, VA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to investigate seismic behavior of bolted extended end-plate connections, a phenomenological
Received 5 August 2013 component-based model with several separated springs is presented where the constitutive relationships
Revised 16 May 2014 for individual components are determined using material and geometric properties. Analytical results
Accepted 17 May 2014
using the developed model were compared with experimental data from full-scale moment connection
Available online 13 June 2014
tests including global load versus displacement and local response of beam hinge, panel zone and other
components. The effectiveness of the model was demonstrated by these comparisons. The model is then
Keywords:
leveraged to study the inuence of design decisions such as weak columns and bolt pretension. The
Component-based model
Phenomenological model
analytical results indicate that bolt pretension and related connection slip can signicantly affect the
End-plate connections seismic behavior of the end-plate and column ange and thus their inclusion in the proposed model is
Seismic behavior validated.
Moment-resisting connections 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Computational simulation

1. Introduction in current United States building codes, often requires thousands

Steel end-plate moment connections are an important connec-
tion type used in many buildings in seismic regions. There have
been numerous previous experimental programs investigating
the behavior of end-plate moment connections subjected to
monotonic and cyclic loading and similarly, a range of computa-
tional models and analytical expressions have been developed to
simulate their behavior. High delity three dimensional nite
element (FE) models are presented in the literature that can cap-
ture monotonic and cyclic response of end plate connections in
small subassemblages such as those tested in the lab. On the other
hand, analytical expressions and simplied component models
have been developed to model the behavior of end plate connec-
tions subjected to monotonically increasing moment. Although
these models allow computationally efcient analysis of end plate
moment frames, they are typically not capable of capturing the
seismic response of a frame subjected to inelastic cycles.
In the context of modern earthquake engineering which focuses
on probabilistic evaluation of seismic performance, computation-
ally efcient numerical models of seismic resisting systems are
critical. For example, evaluating the suitability of seismic perfor-
mance factors such as the response modication factor, R, used
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +1 540 231 4559.
E-mail address: meather@vt.edu (M.R. Eatherton).
of response history analyses on archetype buildings [1]. Similarly,
performance based earthquake engineering design of new
buildings [2] and retrot of existing buildings [3] requires numer-
ous response history analyses to verify seismic performance and in
some cases iterate on the structural conguration and details. Con-
ducting these types of studies using three dimensional FE models is
not feasible making cyclic component models necessary.
A brief overview of the types of models available in the litera-
ture is provided here although more thorough background on
end plate modeling is provided elsewhere [4]. A number of the
models developed in the literature are constructed and calibrated
for ush end plates or end plates that are extended only on one
side that do not conform to prequalied seismic extended end
plate connections in the United States [5]. Furthermore, as noted
below, the studies are almost exclusively developed for monotonic
loading only.
There have been a number of previous studies that created
detailed three dimensional nite element (FE) models of end plate
connections with continuum elements, contact, bolt pretension,
and more [610]. These models have been shown to accurately
capture the behavior of a wide range of end plate moment
connections to different loading scenarios.
In an effort to create simplied models, researchers have
developed analytical equations to model moment rotation
behavior of ush end plate connections [11,12], and extended

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.023
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
12 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126
Fig. 1. An extended end-plate connection and analytical model.
Fig. 2. Constitutive relationship of components.
end plate connections [7,12,1316]. Several of these models
analytically decompose the connection into components and then
sum up their moment-rotation behavior. In effect, these models
can be considered as a component model with a single rotational
spring at the intersection of the beam and columns. Some
researchers have even extended the analytical equations to work
for cyclic loading [17,18].
Another approach is to explicitly model each component of the
end-plate connection as a discrete spring. Anderson and Naja [19]
developed a simplied component model to capture monotonic
behavior of extended end plate connections with a composite slab.
Assemblies included a few springs that lumped end plate behavior
in with beam ange and column behavior. More recently,
component models have been developed for ush end plates with
composite slabs [20], extended end plate connections [21],
extended end plate models capable of capturing ultimate rotation
and ductility [22], and end plate connection models capable of
capturing exure-axial interaction [4]. However, all of these
component models were constructed and calibrated to work for
monotonic loading only.
There has also been substantial work on component modeling
of end plate connections subjected to elevated temperature. These
vary in complexity and can capture behavior of short end plates
[23], and full depth end plates [2426], but similarly are calibrated
for monotonic behavior and do not capture cyclic behavior.
Considerably fewer examples of component models exist capa-
ble of modeling cyclic behavior of semi-rigid steel connections.
Rassati et al. [27] developed a component model for a partially
restrained composite connection with bottom seat angles and
composite concrete slab. Kim et al. [28] developed a component
model to capture the behavior of top and seat angle connections
with double angle web connection to column.
In this paper, a phenomenological component-based model is
developed to simulate cyclic behavior of bolted extended end-plate
connections. Bilinear or tri-linear constitutive relationships based
on material and geometric properties of the connection are used
to represent the behavior of connection components. The connec-
tion is decomposed into components related to the deformation
of the column ange, column web, end-plate, panel zone, and a slip
model is used to simulate the relative slippage between end-plate
and column ange. The model is built based on connection
geometry and material properties and thus does not require
calibration. The proposed model is developed and then applied to
specic connection congurations, subjected to cyclic loading,
and evaluated against experimental results.
2. Phenomenological component-based model
2.1. Identication of key deformation sources and model description
The key components which contribute to the deformation of
steel bolted extended end-plate connections are shown in Fig. 1
and include, going from left to right: (1) shear deformation of col-
umn web including consideration of continuity and doubler plates;
(2) compression of the column web; (3) bending of the column
ange; (4) vertical slip between the end-plate and column ange;
(5) bending of the extended end-plate in association with elonga-
tion of the bolts in tension; and (6) inelastic deformations of the
beam in the plastic hinge region. These deformation sources and
the proposed phenomenological component-based model are
shown in Fig. 1.
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 13

The component-based model was implemented in the Open- beff ;cw tbf l 2tep 5k 8
Sees software [29]. Nonlinear springs are used to simulate the
where, beff,cw is the effective depth of the column web given by
behavior of each of the key components of the connection listed
Eq. (8), E is the modulus of elasticity of steel (taken as 200 GPa), t
above. The column panel zone is simulated with four rigid bars
is the Poissons ratio for steel (taken as 0.3), tbf is the beam ange
pin connected at the corners with a nonlinear rotational spring at
thickness, l is total llet weld thickness from the beam to end plate,
one corner as developed by Krawinkler [30]. The deformation of
and k is the distance from the edge of column ange to the root of
the column web, end plate slip, column ange bending, and end
the column web llet. The model is intended to capture local defor-
plate bending were implemented as zero length springs at the
mations due to column web crippling. Since these types of deforma-
height of the top and bottom anges of the beam. The beam plastic
tions only occur when the web is subjected to compression, the
hinge is implemented as a nonlinear rotational spring using the
component spring is dened to have large stiffness in tension.
Ibarra-Krawinkler deteriorating hysteretic model [31] as described
On the other hand, the complimentary deformations of the col-
further in the next section. The columns were modeled using non-
umn ange and end-plate as subjected to tension are dened to
linear ber elements with 10 bers per web and ange. The beam
have an elasticplastic forcedeformation relationship as shown
was modeled using elastic beam-column elements outside the
in Fig. 2c with near rigid response in compression. The column
plastic hinge region.
ange yield force, Fcfy, end plate yield force, Fepy, and related initial
stiffnesses, Kcf and Kep, are determined using the following equa-
2.2. Constitutive relationships of each component
tions from Yee and Melchers [16].
 
Models for many of the components of the extended end-plate 0:5C 4F ub Ab n
F cfy1 F yc t 2cf 3:14 9
connection have been developed by others for either nonend-plate mn mn
type moment connections, or for monotonic loading as described  
2n C  dbh
previously. In this section, the constitutive relationship and cyclic F cfy2 F yc t 2cf 3:14 10
m
behavior of each component are discussed as they apply to the
component-based model of the end-plate connection. where m is the distance from the bolt to the column web,
For typical moment frames, shear deformation of the panel zone m = (Atcw)/2, n is the distance from the bolt to the edge of the
can be non-negligible [32]. The panel zone model developed by column ange, n = (bcfA)/2, A is the horizontal bolt gage, C is the
Krawinkler [30] which uses a tri-linear shear force versus shear vertical bolt spacing (assuming one row of bolts on each side of
distortion relationship shown in Fig. 2 a has been shown to the ange), Fub is the ultimate stress of the bolts, Ab is the area of
accurately capture panel zone shear deformations. The control one bolt, and dbh is the bolt hole diameter.
values for panel zone shear yield, Vy, and shear distortion at shear
F cfy minF cfy1 ; F cfy2 11
yield, cy, [30] are given as follows:
 
F yc Aeff 2bep 2p
V y p  0:55F yc dc t cw 1 F epy F yp t 2ep 12
3 C  tbf  2l A  t bw  2l
F where Fyp is the yield strength of the end plate, p = 0.6(dbtbf), bep is
cy pyc 2
the width of the end plate, tep is the thickness of the end plate, and
3G
where Fyc is the column yield strength, Aeff is the effective shear tbw is the thickness of the beam web.
area, dc is the column depth, tcw is the column web thickness, and 8E
K cf h i 13
G is the shear modulus of steel. The full plastic shear resistance,
Z cf 1  q3acf  4a3cf
Vp, and related shear distortion of the joint, cp, are estimated using
the following equation:
  ! 8E
3K p 3:45bcf t2cf K ep h  i 14
Vp Vy 1  0:55F yc dc tcw 1 3 Z ep 1  q 3aep  4a3ep
Ke db dc t cw
l3 l3
where Z ep w ept3 , Z cf w cft3 , and
cp 4cy 4 ep ep cf cf

aep1 1:5aep  2a3ep ; aep2 6a2ep  8a3ep 15

where Ke, and Kp are the elastic and post-yield stiffness of the panel
zone, respectively, tcf and bcf are the column ange width and thick-
ness, respectively, and db is the depth of the beam. Since the panel
acf 1 1:5acf  2a3cf ; acf 2 6a2cf  8a3cf 16
zone shear resistance is modeled using one rotational spring in an
assembly of rigid elements, the rotational spring moment is merely a bep
lep 2a b; aep ; wep 17
the shear force, V, multiplied by the beam depth, db and the spring lep 2
rotation is equal to the panel shear deformation, c. where a is the distance from the edge of the end-plate to the bolt
The column web bending model is based on work by Yee and centerline, b is the distance from the bolt centerline to the face of
Melchers [16], using a bilinear forcedeformation relationship as the beam ange, and bep is the width off the end-plate. These equa-
shown in Fig. 2b. The yield compression force, Fcwy, initial stiffness, tions are based on a T-stub model in which lep and lcf are the effec-
Kcw, and post-yield stiffness, Kcwp, are calculated by Eqs. 57 tive lengths of the T-stub for the end plate and column respectively.
respectively. For stiffened connections:
F cwy F yc t cw beff ;cw 5 a bcf
lcf lep ; acf ; wcf 18
Etcw lcf 2
K cw 6
1  m2 For unstiffened connections:

Etcw 1  m2 bcf  A t bf
K cwp K cw 7 lcf bcf  tcw ; acf ; wcf a b 19
2:45 2:45 2lcf 2
14 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Table 1
Measured connection dimensions (mm).

Specimen Column Beam End-plate Dimension (mm) Bolt

Number
tep bep A C a b dbo (mm) T1(kN)
1, 2, 5 W14  257 with 12 mm doubler plates each W24  62, RBS 34.9 254.0 127.0 119.8 44.5 52.4 34.9 533.4
side
3, 4 W24  62, No RBS
10 W36  150, No RBS 38.1 355.6 127.0 119.1 47.6 47.6 34.9 533.4
ES-1-1/2-24a* dc = 508, tcw = 9.5, bcf = 203.2, tcf = 12.7 db = 609.6, tbw = 6.35, bbf = 203.2, 12.7 203.2 82.5 92.1 47.6 41.3 25.4 226.8
tbf = 9.5
M2 W12  96 with 12.7 mm doubler plates W18  65 15.9 230.0 125.0 164 60.0 99.4 25.4 226.8
*
With continuity and stiffened extended end-plate.

Fig. 3. Moment connection conguration and loading protocol, (* values in (parentheses) are for Specimen ES-1-1/2-24a and values in [brackets] are for Specimen M2).

LVDT Lin.Variable Diff.

Transformer
SP String Potentiometer
Inc - Inclinometer

(e) Instrumentation Plan

for Specimens 1-10

Fig. 4. Connection details and instrumentation plan all (all units in mm).

For pretensioned bolts, the effect of bolt force on joint stiffness, surface of the end-plate or column ange, ln is the thickness (height)
q, is given by: of the nut, and lw is two times the thickness of an individual washer.
 tep t cf
k3 21
Z ep aep1 Z cf aep2 5
q  k2 k3
20
Z ep acf 1 Z cf acf 2 2A For snug-tightened bolts, the effect of bolt force on joint stiff-
b k2 k3 ness, q, is given by:
Z ep aep1 Z cf aep2
where k2 = ls + 1.43lt + 0.91ln + 0.4lw, ls is the length from the base of q  22
Z ep acf 1 Z cf acf 2 k12A
2k4
the bolt head to the threads, lt is the length of threads below the b
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 15

Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
100 100

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Experimental Experimental
Analytical 200 Analytical

100 100
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0

-100 -100

-200
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
100 500
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

50

0 0

-50
-500
-100

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 5. Comparison of hysteresis loops.

where k1 = ls + 1.43lt + 0.71ln displacement. This model is similar to the one proposed by Kim
et al. [28], but adds a nal branch in which the connection fails
k4 0:1ln 0:2lw 23
in either bolt shear or bearing. The control values for the model
The model is based on a four bolt extended end plate connec- are given as follows:
tion (four bolts around the tension ange) so the maximum ange
F slip lmbo T 1 26
force, Fbo, [15] is given by Eq. (24), where, Fyb is yield strength of the
bolt, and cb is the bolt force prying factor taken to be, cb = 1.33.
dbh  dbo
However, modications of this model for use with eight bolt Dslip 27
connections are discussed and validated later in this paper. The 2
yield deformation of the column ange and end plate can obtained
F s&b minfF shear ; F bearing g 28
as given in Eq. (25).

4F yb Ab 0:8
F bo 24 kbearing 120F y t p min dbo 29
cb
where, Fslip is slip force, l is friction coefcient which is taken as 0.3
F epy F cfy for clean mill scale steel surfaces in current AISC specications [33],
Depy ; Dcfy 25 mbo is number of bolts, T1 is the bolt pretension, (Fytp)min is
K ep K cf
minimum yield stress times thickness between the end-plate and
The vertical slip mechanism between end-plate and column column ange, Fshear and Fbearing is shear strength of bolts and
ange has three idealized stages shown in Fig. 2d, which are bearing strength at bolts holes, respectively.
pre-slip, slipping and bearing. The spring is given a large initial The plastic hinge is modeled using the modied Ibarra
stiffness such that the deformation in the pre-slip stage may be Krawinkler deteriorating hysteretic model [34]. The parameters
neglected. Slip occurs when the friction force, Fslip, is attained and for the degrading hysteretic spring were taken from Lignos and
then maintained during slip displacement. After the bolts engage Krawinkler [35] and implemented with the Bilin hysteretic model
the plies in bearing, the bearing force increases proportionally with available in OpenSees [29]. Since the hysteretic model and related
16 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Experimental Experimental
0.05 Analytical 0.04 Analytical

Rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)
0.02

0 0

-0.02

-0.04
-0.05
0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Experimental Experimental
0.04 Analytical 0.04
Analytical

Rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)

0.02 0.02

0 0

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04

0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000

Experimental steps Experimental steps
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Experimental Experimental
Analytical 0.04 Analytical
0.04
Rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)

0.02
0.02

0 0

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04
0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 6. Comparison of beam hinge rotation.

parameters are documented well in the literature [34,35], further
details are not repeated here.
Thus, the proposed component-based model of the extended
end plate connection is shown in Fig. 1b, in which the spring
moments and forces Mpz, Ffrict, Fcw, Fcf, and Fep, and Mph, represents
the nonlinear force or moment associated with shear deformation
of panel zone, slip and bearing of bolts, compression deformation
of column web, deformation of column ange, deformation of the
end-plate, and plastic hinge rotation, respectively.
3. Validation of the modeling with experimental results
3.1. Description of experimental program
The computational model is validated against seven experimen-
tal tests including six recent full-scale extended end-plate
beam-column connections and one full-scale connection test with
thinner end plate found in the literature. Information about the
seven specimens is included in Table 1, the connection geometry
is shown in Fig. 4ad, and the layout of instrumentation is given
in Fig. 4e.
The experimental conguration for the set of six full-scale tests
[36] used the same column for all tests with removable
cantilevered beams connected to the column using prequalied
bolted end-plate connections in accordance with AISC 358-10 [5]
as shown in Fig. 4a and c. All specimens were subjected to a dis-
placement protocol consistent with connection qualication
requirements provided in AISC 341 Chapter K [37] and shown in
Fig. 3b. All bolts were ASTM A490 high-strength structural bolts
fully pretensioned using direct tension indicator washers at the
end plate connections. The column and beam were A992 steel
and the rest of the plates were fabricated from A572 Grade 50
steel. From three coupon tests for each beam size, the average yield
stress was 363 MPa for the W24  62 specimens and 372 MPa for
the W36  150 specimens.
Specimens 1, 2, and 5 had reduced beam section (RBS) as shown
in Fig. 4b. Although it is not typical to include an RBS with the
prequalied extended end plate connection, the specimens
included both to provide the opportunity to study the behavior
of the RBS plastic hinge behavior while reusing the column. Param-
eters for calibrating the plastic hinge rotational spring are given in
[35] for RBS connections.
Specimen 10 was an eight bolt stiffened extended end plate
connection A method for idealizing the connection as an equivalent
four bolt unstiffened extended end plate connection is used as
follows. The value of ange force, Fbo, is assumed as two times as
value determined by Eq. (24) to account for twice as many bolts.
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 17

Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
0.0005 0.0005

Distortion (rad)
Distortion (rad)
0 0

-0.0005 -0.0005

-0.001 -0.001

0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000

Experimental steps Experimental steps
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
0.0015

Distortion (rad)
0.001 0.001
Distortion (rad)

0.0005
0 0

-0.0005
-0.001
-0.001

0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000

Experimental steps Experimental steps
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4
Experimental
Analytical Experimental
0.001 Analytical
-0.002
Distortion (rad)
Distortion (rad)

0.0005

0 -0.004

-0.0005

-0.006
-0.001
0 20000 40000 60000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 7. Comparison of shear distortion of panel zone.

Parameter, b, was taken as the distance from the rst bolt center-
line to the face of beam ange, while parameter, a, is assumed as
half the distance between bolt rows on the outside of the beam
ange. This specimen is included in this study as a preliminary
effort to assess whether the proposed component model might
be applied to eight bolt stiffened connections.
In order to validate the proposed component model against
connections with thinner end-plate, column anges, and column
web, two additional tests with bolted stiffened extended end-plate
from the literature have been investigated [38,39]. The loading
protocol for the specimen designated as ES-1-1/2-24a [38] was
the same as given in Fig. 3b whereas the M2 specimen [39]
followed the ATC 24 loading protocol (see [39] for details). The
bolts were ASTM A325 high-strength structural bolts and all
components were fabricated from A572 Grade 50 steel plate. From
coupon tests, the average yield stress of the end plate steel was
421 MPa and 322 MPa for ES-1-1/2-24a and M2 respectively.
The instrumentation plan for Specimens 110 as shown in
Fig. 4e was sufcient to decompose the story drift into different
components such as panel zone shear, end plate deformation,
and plastic hinge rotation [35]. The instrumentation for specimen
ES-1-1/2-24a included global moment and rotation measurements
as well as displacement transducers measuring the separation of
the end plate from the column [38]. The only data for specimen
M2 provided in the literature was the end plate rotation and
related moment [39].
3.2. Comparison of analysis and experimental results
In order to validate the proposed component-based end plate
connection model, the experimental response of the above
described specimens are compared to model predictions including
global response and the contribution of each component to
moment-rotation. The model described in Section 2 and shown
in Fig. 1b was implemented in OpenSees [29] with the geometry
given in Table 1 and Fig. 4, and material properties given above.
Fig. 5 shows the overall applied force versus vertical displace-
ment relationship for Specimens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. It is shown
that the analytical hysteresis loops match the test results closely,
especially the forces at peak displacement in each cycle (average
error of 6% for the set). For these specimens, the strength is primar-
ily governed by the plastic hinge behavior and as such the accuracy
of the backbone and strength degradation is largely attributed to
the plastic hinge spring modeled using parameters from Lignos
and Krawinkler [35]. Additionally, the stiffnesses of the specimens
in both the elastic and inelastic range are all quite close to the test
results. This suggests that the exibility of the connection made up
of the assembly of springs in the component model can accurately
18 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Experimental Experimental
0.006
Analytical 0.002 Analytical

Rotation (rad)
0.004 0.0015

Rotation (rad)
0.001
0.002
0.0005
0 0

-0.002 -0.0005
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
0.002 0.002

Rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)

0.001
0.001
0

-0.001 0

-0.002
-0.001
-0.003
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Experimental Experimental
0.0015 Analytical Analytical

0.001 0.002
Rotation (rad)

Rotation (rad)

0.0005 0

0
-0.002

-0.0005
-0.004
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
Experimental steps Experimental steps
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 8. Comparison of end-plate rotation.

4000
Shear Force (kN)

50,000
2000
Force (kN)

0 0

-2000 -50,000
-4000

-0.0008 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0 -0.005 0 0.005

Deformation (m) Distortion (rad)
(a) Column web (b) Panel zone

Fig. 9. Force vs. deformation of Specimen 10.

capture the stiffness of the overall connection. The component-
based model is shown to generally predict the overall hysteretic
behavior accurately.
The response of individual components such as the plastic
hinge, end-plate, column ange, column web, and panel zone are
investigated individually and compared with experimental data.
The comparisons of analytical and experimental rotation of the
beam plastic hinge in each loading step are shown in Fig. 6. As
mentioned previously, the beam plastic hinge contributed the
majority of the deformation in these specimens and the proposed
model is shown to capture the amount of deformation due to the
plastic hinge well. On average, the model predicted the amount
of plastic hinge rotation during the 0.1 m and 0.2 m drift cycles
within 12% of the experimental value. The ability of the proposed
model to capture the plastic hinge deformation is due in part to
the ability of the plastic hinge model [35] to capture the strength
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 19

Analytical Analytical
100 Experimental 100 Experimental

Percentage (%)
80 80

Percentage (%)
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Analytical Analytical
100 Experimental 100 Experimental

Percentage (%)
80 80
Percentage (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Analytical Analytical
150 Experimental 100 Experimental
Percentage (%)

80
Percentage (%)

100
60

40
50
20

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 10. Contribution of beam hinge at each peak point.

degradation of the plastic hinge (RBS and nonRBS) in combination
with a relatively accurate distribution of stiffnesses in the
proposed component model.
Comparisons of the analytical and experimental panel zone
shear distortion history are shown in Fig. 7. It is clear that panel
zone shear response calculated by the model is also close to test
results and there is little difference between analytical and exper-
imental distortion, especially later in the test. The predicted
amount of panel zone shear deformation was on average within
17% and 21% of the experimental values for the 0.1 m and 0.2 m
drift cycles respectively.
The comparisons of analytical and experimental end-plate rota-
tion history during loading are shown in Fig. 8. It is shown that end
plate response calculated by the proposed model is smaller than
suggested by the test results with an average error of 43% and
77% at the 0.1 m and 0.2 m drift cycles respectively. The reason
for the difference is likely most associated with inaccuracies in
the measurement. The end plate rotation is calculated as the differ-
ence in rotation between the inclinometer at the center of the col-
umn web and the inclinometer at the end of the beam web as
shown in Fig. 4e. Therefore the rotation attributed to end-plate
rotation actually includes some contributions from column ange
deformation and some local deformations at the end of the beam.
An examination of Fig. 8f shows that simplications that con-
verted the eight bolt stiffened extended end plate into an equiva-
lent four bolt unstiffened end plate produced reasonable
prediction of end plate deformation. However, it is noted that
Specimen 10 exhibited essentially elastic behavior of the end plate
and so the comparison in Fig. 8f is based on the initial stiffness of
the end plate spring. During the 0.2 m drift cycle, the errors in the
force, plastic hinge rotation, panel zone deformation, and end plate
rotation were 4%, 22%, 34% and 37% respectively for Specimen 10.
From analytical results and experimental data, it was found that
all components of the connection besides the plastic hinge likely
remained in the elastic range for specimens 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. All
inelasticity was focused in the plastic hinge component. The one
exception was Specimen 10 for which the panel zone and column
web were predicted by the component model to enter the inelastic
range as shown in Fig. 9. Slip of the end plate did not occur for any
of the tested end plates because of large clamping force.
To further examine the ability of the proposed model to capture
connection behavior, the contribution of each deformation compo-
nent to total response was investigated. Figs. 1012 shows the
percent contribution for the beam plastic hinge, panel zone and
end plate to the total story drift at each cycles peak point. The
beam hinge plays the most important role among all factors
20 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Analytical Analytical
8 Experimental 10 Experimental

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)
6
6
4
4
2
2

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Analytical Analytical
10 Experimental 10 Experimental

8 8
Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Analytical Analytical
Experimental 25 Experimental
8
20
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)

6
15

4
10

2 5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 11. Contribution of Panel Zone at each peak point.

contributing to total response as shown in Fig. 10. This is expected
for prequalied moment connections designed in accordance with
AISC 358-10 [5]. It is shown that these contributions are changing
during the displacement history as deformations shift from elastic
to inelastic. The contribution of the plastic hinge was about 30%
and 22% for Specimens 15 and 10, respectively while the in the
elastic range. When the beam entered the inelastic range, the plas-
tic hinge contribution increased sharply from 30% to almost 100%.
The component model is shown to capture this trend.
Fig. 11 shows the percent contribution of the panel zone to total
story drift at each cycle peak which demonstrates that similar to
the other contributions, the portion of story drift due to panel zone
shear remains fairly constant while the plastic hinge is elastic.
When the plastic hinge region becomes inelastic and the plasticity
starts spreading, the panel zone contribution drops quickly from
about 7% to lower than 2% for Specimen 15, and from about
15% to 5% for Specimen 10.
Fig. 12 shows the contribution of the end-plate deformation to
total story drift at each cycle peak. The end plate contribution
varies more during the elastic cycles than the other components
ranging between 0% and 36% for some specimens with the compu-
tational model predicting constant values between 3% and 12%.
When the beam begins to yield, the end-plate contribution pre-
dicted in the component model drops quickly from about 4% to
1% for Specimen 15, from about 12% to 3% for Specimen 10. While
the experimental data is generally similar, as discussed previously,
the measurement of end plate rotation in the experiments was a
rough approximation using the difference of two inclinometer
rotations and thus does not capture the end plate rotation by itself.
Specimens ES-1-1/2-24a [38] and M2 [39] were to examine the
accuracy of the model for thinner end plates, column anges and
column webs. Both the global moment-rotation response and local
end-plate separation response were provided in Ryan [38]. Similar
to previously described specimens, the connection was modeled in
Opensees [29] with the geometry given in Table 1 and Fig. 4, and
material properties given in the previous section. Some simplifying
assumptions were required such as neglecting the stiffener on the
extended end-plate of ES-1-1/2-24a in the analytical model and
neglecting column web deformation because continuity plates
are provided in the column web.
Fig. 13a illustrates the global response of Specimen ES-1-1/2-
24a. In this test, inelasticity was concentrated in the end-plate
and column ange components while all other components
including the plastic hinge remained elastic. The experimental
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 21

Analytical Analytical
8 Experimental Experimental
15

Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
6

10
4

2 5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2

Analytical
Analytical
15 Experimental
Experimental
15

Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)

10
10

5
5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4

Analytical Analytical
Experimental 40 Experimental
8
Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

6 30

4 20

2 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
No. of peak points No. of peak points
(e) Specimen 5 (f) Specimen 10
Fig. 12. Contribution of end-plate at each peak point.

Experimental Experimental
600 Analytical Analytical
400 500
Moment (kN-m)

Moment (kN-m)

200

0 0
-200

-400
-500
-600
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.005 0
Total Rotation (rad) End-plate Separation (m)
(a) Moment vs. Rotation (b) Moment vs. End-plate Separation
Fig. 13. Comparison of specimen ES-1-1/2-24a fortunately (Experimental Response Adapted from Ryan [38]).

moment vs. total rotation is compared with the results from the
proposed model as shown in Fig. 13a and it is found that although
the proposed model does not simulate the pinched response of a
thin end-plate going through large deformations, the stiffness
and strength of the connection are generally captured. The
analytical model is shown to idealize the pinched behavior of the
connection as elastic with linear hardening.
The comparison of moment at end-plate vs. end-plate separa-
tion at the bottom of beam ange is shown in Fig. 13b and sheds
light on the difference between the hysteretic behavior of the
experiment and model. When the end plate is compressed toward
the column ange, the end plate deforms inelastically in a gradual
manner as opposed to the model which predicts sharp changes
between elastic and inelastic behavior. Some of the difference is
22 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Experimental Example 1
500 Analytical 200 Specimen 3

100
Moment (kN-m)

Force (kN)
0
0

-100

-200
-500 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Displacement (m)
End-plate Rotation (rad)
Fig. 15. Comparison of overall force versus displacement of Example 1 and
Fig. 14. Comparison of specimen M2 (Experimental Response Adapted from Adey Specimen 3.
et al. [39]).

on Yee and Melchers [16]. Pinching of the hysteretic shape similar

Table 2 to Specimen ES-1-1/2-24a was noted in the response of Specimen
Comparison of parameters between Specimen 1 and Example 1 (mm). M2 which is likely due to similar reasons as identied above
Parameters Specimen 3 Example 1
related to Fig. 13b. Based on an examination of the responses for
Column section W14  257 W14  82 Specimen ES-1-1/2-24a and M2, it is concluded that improvements
End plate thickness, tep 34.9 25.4 to the end plate analytical component response are warranted by
Bolt diameter, dbo 34.9 28.6 implementing a pinching hysteretic shape with cyclic strength
Vertical distance between bottom ange 52.4 44.4
degradation that also captures geometric hardening due to cate-
and outer bolt, a
Vertical bolt edge distance on plate, b 44.4 38.1 nary action. Because of the limited data available in the literature,
this future research will likely need to be conducted in association
with additional cyclic tests on thin extended end plate connections
to provide sufcient data to calibrate such an end plate
also attributed to the simplifying assumptions made in the model component.
as described above.
Specimen M2 had wider spacing of bolts on either side of the
ange and was subjected to considerably larger rotations. As 4. Parameters study and discussion
shown in Fig. 14, the end plate underwent geometric hardening
as the end plate tension force resistance shifted to a catenary Several key aspects of the proposed component model were
mechanism rather than being related to end plate moment capac- examined and validated in the previous section. In this section,
ity as was assumed in the equations presented in Section 2.2 based the model is used to examine the sensitivity of the proposed model
Compression force (kN)

2000
1500
Tension force (kN)

1000
1000
500
0
0
-500

-1000 -1000
-1500
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

Beam Hinge
Panel Zone
1000 40 Column Web
End-plate
Shear force (kN)

Percentage/%

500 30

0 20

-500 10

-1000
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distortion (mm) Steps

Fig. 16. Forcedeformation relationship of each component of Example 1.

 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126 23

Table 3 during the elastic regime to 10% after inelasticity initiated, while
Clamping force per bolt, T1 (unit: kN). the contribution of the panel zone and end-plate to total rotation
Name Pretensioned bolt Snug-tightened bolt increased from 15% to 30%, and 4% to 40%, respectively. The contri-
Specimen 3 533 53.3 bution of the column web to story drift remained fairly constant
Example1 356 35.6 and relatively small.

4.2. Effect of bolt pretension

to variations in the input parameters. To this end, an example was
designed for comparison with Specimen 3 as shown in Table 2 with
all other variables and geometry identical to Specimen 3. The pur-
pose of Example 1 is to examine the effect of a weaker column and
less conservative end plate on connection behavior.
4.1. Comparing behavior of specimens with different conguration
The overall force versus displacement of Example 1 was
compared with that of Specimen 3 as shown in Fig. 15. Due primar-
ily to the change in column section and end plate, the initial elastic
stiffness of Example 1 is noticeably lower than Specimen 3 and
inelastic behavior in the end plate and column begins before
inelasticity in the plastic hinge, although the ultimate strength is
almost same. The resulting hysteretic shapes are signicantly
different between the two cases.
For Specimen 3, plastic deformation concentrates at the beam
hinge while other components remain elastic during the entire
loading sequence as shown in Figs. 10c, 11c, and 12c. However,
for Example 1, the column web, panel zone and end-plate yielded
under compression, shear and tension force, respectively, while the
beam stayed elastic as shown in Fig. 16. It was found that the con-
tribution of the beam hinge to total story drift decreased from 25%
Bolts that are part of the seismic force resisting system are gen-
erally supposed to be fully pretensioned [37]. However, the effect
of bolt pretension can be examined through the use of the pro-
posed model to determine the effect of slip between the end plate
and the column ange. Two levels of pretension are considered
including snug-tight and fully pretensioned. The minimum clamp-
ing force of a fully pretensioned bolt is specied in the RCSC spec-
ications [40], while the clamping force of a snug-tightened bolt is
assumed to be 10% of pretensioned bolt force as given in Table 3.
Fig. 17 shows the comparison of loaddisplacement behavior of
beam-to-column joints with snug-tightened and pretensioned
bolts. The stiffness of Specimen 3 with pretensioned bolts is
slightly higher than that with snug-tightened bolts during cyclic
loading. This difference in stiffness demonstrates that the compo-
nent model captures the effect of bolt pretension on end-plate
stiffness and column ange stiffness according to Eq. (13), (14).
Bolt slip was shown to occur when the vertical shear at the end
plate interface exceeded the slip force with snug-tightened bolts.
Since the slip force was ten times larger for the pretensioned bolts,
the vertical force was not close to that required to cause slip in the
pretensioned connection as shown in Fig. 18.
The effect of bolt slip on shear distortion of the panel zone is
demonstrated in Fig. 19 by comparing the models with preten-

Pretensioned Pretensioned
200 Snug-tightened 200 Snug-tightened
150 150
100 100
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a) Specimen 3 (b) Example1
Fig. 17. Effect of bolt pretension on loaddisplacement behavior.

Pretensioned
100 Snug-tightened 100 Pretensioned
Snug-tightened
50 50
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
-0.001 -0.0005 0 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Vertical displacement (m) Vertical displacement (m)
(a) Specimen 3 (b) Example 1
Fig. 18. Comparison of slip force vs. displacement.
24 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126

Pretensioned Pretensioned
1500 Snug-tightened Snug-tightened
1000
1000
500

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
500

0 0

-500
-500
-1000
-1000
-1500
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Distortion (rad) Distortion (rad)
(a) Specimen 3 (b) Example 1
Fig. 19. Comparison of shear force vs. distortion of panel zone.

Pretensioned Pretensioned
0.04 Snug-tightened -0.005 Snug-tightened

-0.01
Rotation (rad)

Rotation (rad)
0.02
0.01
0 0.005

0
-0.02
-0.005

-0.04 -0.01
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Loading step Loading step

1.06 1.04

1.05
1.03
1.04
Ratio
Ratio

1.03 1.02

1.02
1.01
1.01
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Loading step Loading step
(a) Specimen 3 (b) Example 1
Fig. 20. Comparison of rotation history of plastic beam hinge.

Pretensioned Pretensioned
Snug-tightened Snug-tightened
0
Displacement (m)

0
Displacement (m)

-0.00005 -0.0002

-0.0001 -0.0004

-0.00015 -0.0006

-0.0002 -0.0008
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Steps Steps

1.03 1.08

1.02 1.06
Ratio
Ratio

1.01 1.04

1 1.02

1
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Loading step Loading step
(a) Specimen 3 (b) Example 1
Fig. 21. Comparison of displacement history of column web.
 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126
Pretensioned
Snug-tightened
Displacement (m)
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0 0
0 5000
Steps
0.96
0.955
0.95
Ratio
0.945
0.94
0.935
0.93
0 5000
Loading step
(a) Specimen 3
Fig. 22. Comparison of displacement history of end-plate.
sioned and snug tightened bolts. For Specimen 3, the panel zone is
elastic during cyclic loading and the bolt pretension has negligible
effect. Conversely, Fig. 19 shows that Example 1 shows a signicant
change in the inelastic deformation of the panel zone as the result
of bolt slip.
The displacement history of the beam plastic hinge component
is investigated in Fig. 20. A bolt pretension effect ratio is dened as
the ratio of component response with snug-tightened bolts at each
cycle peak to the response with pretensioned bolts at the same
peak. Fig. 20 shows that the value of bolt pretension effect ratio
ranged from 1.02 to 1.06 and 1.01 to 1.04 for Specimen 3 and
Example1 respectively. Fig. 21 shows the column web displace-
ment history and bolt pretension effect ratio with different bolt
type. It was found that the value of the ratio for column web
displacement ranged from 0.96 to 0.93 and 0.95 to 1.18 for
Specimen 3 and Example 1 respectively.
Fig. 22 presents the end-plate displacement history for snug-
tight and fully pretensioned bolts along with the bolt pretension
effect ratio. It was found that the value of the ratio for end-plate
displacement ranged from 0.93 to 0.96 and 0.95 to 1.16 for Speci-
men 3 and Example 1, respectively with trends that were quite
similar to column web displacement.
From the above results, the bolt pretension is found to primarily
affect the response of the end-plate and column ange among all
components included in the model. Its effect for Example 1 was
much more than Specimen 3, implying that the effect of bolt slip
is more signicant in the presence of a weaker column and end
plate. Thus the effect of bolt pretension and connection slip should
be considered for moment frames with relatively weak connec-
tions. Furthermore neglecting the effect of bolt slip in connections
with snug tight bolts, while not signicantly effecting the overall
load-deformation response of the frame, can cause as much as
18% error in component deformations as discussed with the bolt
pretension effect ratio.
5. Conclusions
A phenomenological component-based model was proposed to
simulate the cyclic behavior of bolted extended end-plate connec-
25
Pretensioned
Snug-tightened
0.01
Displacement (m)
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Steps
1.2
1.15
Ratio
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
10000 15000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Loading step
(b) Example 1
tions utilizing ve separate springs to represent the nonlinear
response of the column panel zone undergoing shear distortion,
column web undergoing web crippling, column ange bending,
end-plate bending, end plate slip relative to the column ange,
and beam plastic hinge rotation. The behavior of each component
was dened based on or adapted from research on similar connec-
tions found in the literature.
Six full-scale experiments were conducted with sufcient
instrumentation to decompose the deformation of the key compo-
nents. The six test specimens were modeled using the proposed
method as subjected to the same reversed cyclic loading used in
the experiments. Furthermore a test specimen found in the litera-
ture with thin end plate, column ange, and column web was used
to validate the behavior of the model with large displacement con-
tributions from column and end plate deformations.
The simulation results were compared with test data including
a discussion of the ability of the model to capture global moment
rotation response of the connection and the ability of the model
to capture the deformation of each individual component. The
accuracy of the modeling approach was explored and suggestions
for future research to improve the model were presented. The
resulting component model represents a computationally efcient
validated modeling approach for end plate moment connections
subjected to seismic loading.
The model was then extended to examine the sensitivity of the
model behavior to connection geometry. An example conguration
was developed similar to one of the test specimens but with
weaker column and end plate. Analysis of the resulting global
and local response showed that to capture the load-deformation
response of connections in which column and end plate deforma-
tions are prevalent, it is critical to use a model like the one
proposed herein that captures the deformation contributions from
the key components.
The effect of snug-tightened versus fully pretensioned bolts was
also investigated using the proposed model to examine the effect
of end plate slip on connection behavior and determine whether
the end plate slip component springs are necessary in the proposed
model. The results show that slip of the end plate can have a
noticeable effect (as much as 18%) on the deformation of individual
26 P. Yang, M.R. Eatherton / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 1126
components, but smaller effect on global response. The effect of
end plate slip was found to be more pronounced for connections
with weaker columns and end plates.
Acknowledgements
The experimental program was supported by the Hilti
Corporation and the American Institute of Steel Construction.
In-kind funding was provided by Banker Steel and Applied Bolting
Technology.
References
[1] FEMA. Quantication of building seismic performance factors, (FEMA P-695).
Prepared by applied technology council for the federal emergency
management agency, Washington D.C; 2009.
[2] FEMA. Seismic performance assessment of buildings, (FEMA P-58-1). Prepared
by the applied technology council for the federal emergency management
agency, Washington D.C; 2012.
[3] ASCE. ASCE/SEI 41-06 seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Published by
the American Society of Civil Engineers; 2007.
[4] Del Savio AA, Nethercot DA, Vellasco PCGS, Andrade SAL, Martha LF.
Generalised component-based model for beam-to-column connections
including axial versus moment interaction. J Constr Steel Res
2009;65:187695.
[5] AISC. ANSI/AISC 358-10 prequalied connections for special and intermediate
steel moment frames for seismic applications. Published by the American
Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[6] Choi CK, Chung GT. Rened three-dimensional nite element model for end-
plate connection. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):130716.
[7] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Calibration of a nite element model for isolated bolted
end-plate steel connections. J Constr Steel Res 1997;44(3):22562.
[8] Maggi YI, Gonalves RM, Leon RT, Ribeiro LFL. Parametric analysis of steel
bolted end plate connections using nite element modeling. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61:689708.
[9] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. 3D simulation of end-plate bolted connections. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1994;120(11):312236.
[10] Shi G, Shi Y, Wang Y, Bradford MA. Numerical simulation of steel pretensioned
bolted end-plate connections of different types and details. Eng Struct
2008;30:267786.
[11] Abolmaali A, Matthys JH, Farooqi M. Development of moment-end rotation
model equations for ush end-plate connections. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61:1595612.
[12] Shi YJ, Chan SL, Wong YL. Modeling for moment-rotation characteristics for
end-plate connections. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):13006.
[13] Foley CM, Vinnakota S. Toward design ofce moment-rotation curves for end-
plate beam-to-column connections. J Constr Steel Res 1995;35:21753.
[14] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Abolmaali A. End-plate connection moment-rotation
relationship. J Constr Steel Res 1987;8:13757.
[15] Shi Y, Shi G, Wang Y. Experimental and theoretical analysis of the moment-
rotation behavior of stiffened extended end-plate connections. J Constr Steel
Res 2007;63:127993.
[16] Yee YL, Melchers RE. Momentrotation curves for bolted connections. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 1986;112(3):61535.
[17] Al-Bermani FGA, Li B, Zhu K, Kitipornchai S. Cyclic and seismic response of
exibly jointed frames. Eng Struct 1994;16(4):24955.
[18] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. A design-variable-based inelastic hysteric
model for beam-column connections. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2008;37:53555.
[19] Anderson D, Naja AA. Performance of composite connections: major axis end
plate joints. J Constr Steel Res 1994;31:3157.
[20] Brown ND, Anderson D. Structural properties of composite major axis end
plate connections. J Constr Steel Res 2001;57:32749.
[21] Zhang JF, Wang ZY, Jiang JQ. Component modeling of steel bolted end-plate
joints under bending and shearing loads. Appl Mech Mater 2012;226
228:11948.
[22] Da Silva LS, Coelho AG. A ductility model for steel connections. J Constr Steel
Res 2001;57:4570.
[23] Al-Jabri KS. Component-based model of the behavior of exible end-plate
connections at elevated temperatures. Compos Struct 2004;66:21521.
[24] Block FM, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. He development of a component-
based connection element for endplate connections in re. Fire Saf J
2007;42:498506.
[25] Da Silva LS, Santiago A, Real PV. A component model for the bahaviour of steel
joints at elevated temperatures. J Constr Steel Res 2001;57:116995.
[26] Wang WY, Li GQ, Dong YL. Experimental study and spring-component
modelling of extended end-plate joints in re. J Constr Steel Res
2007;63:112737.
[27] Rassati GA, Leon RT, No S. Component modeling of partially restrained
composite joints under cyclic and dynamic loading. ASCE, J Struct Eng
2004;130(2):34351.
[28] Kim J, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. Mechanical and informational modeling of
steel beam-to-column connections. Eng Struct 2010;32:44958.
[29] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation user command-language manual. OpenSees Version
2.0, Berkeley, California; 2009.
[30] Krawinkler H. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames.
AISC, Eng J 1978;15(3):8291.
[31] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate
strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
2005;34:1489511.
[32] Krawinkler H, Mohasseb S. Effects of panel zone deformations on seismic
response. J Constr Steel Res 1987;8:23350.
[33] AISC. ANSI/AISC 360-10 specication for structural steel buildings. Published
by the American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[34] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems
under seismic excitations. Rep. No. TB 172, The John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA; 2009.
[35] Lignos Dimitrios G, Krawinkler Helmut. Deterioration modeling of steel
components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under
earthquake loading. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2011;137:1291302.
[36] Eatherton MR, Toellner BW, Watkins CE, Abbas E. The effect of powder
actuated fasteners on the seismic performance of protected zones in steel
moment frames. Virginia tech structural engineering and materials. Report No.
CE/VPI-ST-13/05; 2013.
[37] AISC. ANSI/AISC 341-10 seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.
Published by the American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[38] Ryan, John C. Evaluation of extended end-plate moment connections under
seismic loading. Master of science thesis. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1999.
[39] Adey BT, Grondin GY, Cheng JJR. Cyclic loading of end plate moment
connections. Can J Civ Eng 2000;27:683701.
[40] RCSC. Specication for structural joints using high-strength bolts. Published by
the Research Council on Structural Connections; 2009.