C.T.A.

Collegio dei Tecnici dellAcciaio

GIORNATE ITALIANE DELLA COSTRUZIONE IN ACCIAIO
ANCONA: 2-3-4-5 ottobre 1997

ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS PREDICTION OF FLANGE AND WEB ANGLE

CONNECTIONS WITH PRELOADED BOLTS

PREVISIONE DELLA RIGIDEZZA ROTAZIONALE DI NODI BULLONATI

CON ANGOLARI DALA E DANIMA CON BULLONI PRECARICATI

C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno

ABSTRACT
In this paper, a procedure for evaluating the rotational stiffness of top and seat angle connections
with double web angles is proposed. Even though, this connection typology is very common in
constructional practice, it is not covered by Eurocode 3. The proposed procedure is based on the
so-called "component method" according to the philosophy of the european codes. For this reason, the
procedure provides a contribution for covering the code gap. The prediction of the rotational stiffness
is carried out taking into account also bolt preloading, according to a formulation presented by the
Authors in a previous work. Finally, the reliability of the proposed procedure is verified by means of
a comparison with available experimental results.

SOMMARIO
In questo lavoro, viene proposta una procedura per la valutazione della rigidezza rotazionale di nodi
bullonati con angolari di flangia e danima. Sebbene tale tipologia di collegamento trave-colonna sia
molto diffusa nella pratica costruttiva, essa non trattata nella normativa europea. La procedura
proposta, si basa sul "metodo delle componenti" in accordo con limpostazione dei codici europei.
Pertanto, essa fornisce un utile contributo per colmare la lacuna normativa. Nel metodo proposto, si
considera anche leffetto della pretrazione dei bulloni sulla rigidezza rotazionale sulla base di una
formulazione presentata in un precedente lavoro dagli stessi autori. Infine, laffidabilit del metodo
proposto viene verificata mediante un confronto con risultati sperimentali disponibili nella letteratura
tecnica.

1. INTRODUCTION
The prediction of the joint behavioural parameters, such as the initial rotational stiffness and the
flexural resistance, is nowadays discussed within the scientific community. In fact, Eurocode 3, with
its Annex J [1,2], has opened the door, for the first time, to the practical use of semirigid frames
providing simplified rules for predicting the actual beam-to-column joint behaviour. The procedure
provided by the european code is based on the so called "component method" and is referred to the
most common joint typologies: welded connections, bolted end plate connections and top and seat
angle connections.
As the case of top and seat angle connections with web angles is not included in Annex J, the main
feature of this work is the extension of the codified approach to this very common joint typology. In
particular, with reference to the joint flexural resistance, this connection typology has been already
examined in [3], where a comprehensive procedure able to include all joint components has been
proposed. This procedure, according to the component method, considers all the possible collapse
mechanisms of the joint components without any preliminary assumption regarding the failure mode.
In addition, the problem of predicting the rotational stiffness of this connection typology has been also
faced in [4,5] where the need to revise the Annex J approach has been underlined.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -2-

In order to complete the development of the component approach also for this connection typology,
in this work the attention is focused on the prediction of the rotational stiffness. Simplified methods
for evaluating the rotational stiffness of connections with flange and web angles have been already
developed in [6,7,8,9] with reference to the behaviour of the connection only rather than to the joint
as whole.
As soon as all joint components are considered, additional difficulties arise due to the column
components. In fact, the joint components involved in the evaluation of the initial rotational stiffness
are: 1) column web in compression (k cwc); 2) column web in shear (k cws); 3) column flange in bending
(k cfb); 4) column web in tension (k cwt); 5) angle in bending (top angle k ta and web angle k wa); 6) bolts
in tension (k bt); 7) bolts in shear (top angle k bs.ta, seat angle k bs.sa, web angle k bs.wa); 8) plate in bearing
(top angle k tab, seat angle k sab, beam flanges k bfb, beam web k bwb, web angle k wab). In the previous
list, the simbols in brackets represent the stiffness of the spring element corresponding to each
component, which can be modelled as an elastic-perfectly plastic spring. On the contrary, other joint
components, such as the beam web in tension, the beam flange and web in compression, the top angle
in tension and the seat angle in compression, are modelled as rigid-perfectly plastic elements.
Therefore, the overall behaviour of the joint can be modelled as shown in Fig.1.
Obviously, the rigid-plastic elements are involved only in the evaluation of the joint flexural
resistance, while the elastic-plastic components govern both the flexural resistance and the rotational
stiffness [12].
With reference to the evaluation of the initial rotational stiffness, the procedure adopted in this work
is similar to that suggested by Annex J for end plate connections. In particular, as shown in Fig.1, four
components (column web in compression, column web in shear, bolts of seat angle in shear, seat angle
in bearing) are independent of the bolt row, while the other components are dependent on the bolt row.
Therefore, the first step for predicting the rotational stiffness is the evaluation of the equivalent stiffness
k i of each bolt row. With reference to the bolt rows connecting the web angles to the column flange,
the following relationship can be adopted (Fig. 2):
1 (1)
ki =
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + + + + +
k cwt k cfb k wa k bt k bs k bwb k wab

cwt cfb bt
ta bs tab bfb tat

cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt M

h1 h sa cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt
ht cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt

cwc cws bs sab bfc sac

elastic-plastic component rigid-plastic component

F F
FRd FRd

Fig. 1 - Mechanical model of flange and web angle connections

C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -3-

cwt cfb bt
ta bs tab bfb tat

cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt M

cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt
cwt cfb bt wa bs bwb wab bwt

(a)
cwc cws bs sab bfc sac

k1

kt
k2 M M
k2
ht ht
k3

cwccws bs sab (b) cwccws bs sab (c)

Fig. 2 - Procedure for evaluating the rotational stiffness
The stiffness of the spring elements representing the joint components are evaluated according to
the relationships described in the following Section.
With reference to the components affecting the top angle and the tensile beam flange, these are
considered belonging to the first bolt row as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In particular, four sources of
deformability (i.e. the top angle in bending, the bolts of top beam flange in shear, the top angle in
bearing and the beam flange in bearing) are considered to be located at the level of the mid-thickness
of the top angle leg adjacent to the beam flange. Therefore, the equivalent stiffness of the first bolt row
has to account for the need to move the contribution of these components to the level of the first bolt
row, connecting the top angle to the column flange. Therefore, the stiffness of these four components
is modified by means of the following relationships:
2 2 2 2
hsa hsa hsa hsa (2)
k ta = k ta k bs = k bs k tab = k tab k bfb = k bfb
h1 h1 h1 h1

where k are the stiffnesses of the springs acting at the first bolt row level, hsa is the distance between
the centre of compression and the mid-thickness of the top angle leg adjacent to the beam tensile flange
and h1 is the distance between the centre of compression and the first bolt row (Fig. 1).
The second step of the procedure is the calculation of the lever arm ht which represents the distance
between the resultant tensile force and the centre of compression. Assuming that the centre of
compression is located at the mid-thickness of the seat angle leg adjacent to the beam compressed
flange and taking into account the location of each bolt row, the lever arm ht is computed by means of
the following relationship (Fig.2b):
nb
(3)
k i hi
2

i=1
ht = nb

k i hi
i=1
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -4-

where hi is the distance between the i-th bolt row and the centre of compression, and nb is the total
number of bolt rows connecting the web angle and the top angle to the column flange.
Therefore, as third step of the procedure, the overall contribution of the bolt rows is represented by
means of a spring acting at the tension center level, whose stiffness is given by (Fig. 2c):
nb
(4)
k i hi
i=1
kt =
ht
Finally, the contribution of all the components is obtained by combining the stiffness of the four
components, independent of the bolt rows, with the overall contribution k t of the components depending
on the bolt rows. Therefore, taking into account that this final spring is located at the tension center
level defined through the lever arm ht, the rotational stiffness of the joint is obtained by means of the
following relationship:
h2t
K = (5)
1 1 1 1 1
+ + + +
k cwc k cws k bs.sa k sab k t

2. STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS

In this Section, the formulations for evaluating the stiffness of the spring elements corresponding
to each component are briefly summarized.

a) Column web in shear:

0.38 A vc
k cws = E (6)
ht

where A vc is the shear area of the column. In the case of rolled sections, the shear area is
A vc = A c 2bc tfc + ( twc + 2 rc ) tfc being A c, bc, tfc, twc and rc respectively the area, the flange
width, the flange thickness, the web thickness and the fillet radius of the column section. In the case
of welded sections, the shear area is equal to the area of the web plate. In addition, = 0 in the case
of inner joints with beams subjected to equal, but opposite in sign, end moments (the panel zone is not
subjected to shear); = 1 in the case of external joints; = 2 in the case of inner joints whose beams
are subjected to equal end moments. The values of for further loading conditions are also suggested
[2].

b) Column web in compression:

With reference to this component it has been suggested [10,11,12] to calculate the effective width
beff,cwc by considering a 45o spreading of the action transmitted by the beam compressed flange. This
spreading gives rise to the following relation for evaluating the stiffness of the column web in
compression:
beff.cwc twc [ 2 tsa + 0.6 rsa + 2 ( tfc + s )] twc
k cwc = E = E (7)
dwc dwc

where tsa is the seat angle thickness, rsa is the fillet radius of the seat angle, s = rc for rolled column
sections or s =
2 ac for welded column sections (ac is the throat thickness of the welds), and dwc is
the clear depth of the column web.
A different assumption is made in Eurocode 3, where the effective width for stiffness calculation
is obtained by reducing that adopted for evaluating the joint flexural resistance.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -5-

In addition, in the case of columns stiffened with continuity plates, it is suggested to account for
the extensional deformability of the stiffeners, which is not considered in Eurocode 3, where the column
web in compression does not provide any contribution in the case of stiffened columns.

c) Column web in tension:

In order to evaluate the stiffness of the column web in tension, the following relationship has been
proposed:
beff.cwt twc
k cwt = E (8)
dwc

where beff.cwt is computed according to the same criteria given in the following with reference to the
column flange in bending. The effective width adopted in the above relationship is specific of stiffness
calculation. On the contrary, also in this case the Annex J approach is based on the reduction of the
effective width used for calculating the flexural resistance.

d) Column flange in bending:

Regarding this contribution it is suggested to evaluate the effective width (beff.cf) by considering an
equivalent cantilever whose section is based on a 45o spreading of the concentrated action due to the
bolts, starting from the bolt head edge, according to the proposals developed for end plate connections
[11,12]. In the case of angle connections, the evaluation of the effective width of the column flange in
bending is given in Table 1, for different bolt row locations (cases a, b, c of Fig. 4). Reference is made
to the notation of Fig.3 and Fig.4, where the influence of the mutual position and the presence of
stiffening elements is taken into account. This is the case of columns stiffened by means of continuity
plates, where the effective width of the first two bolt rows has to be computed as a bolt row adjacent
to a stiffener.
The stiffness of the column flange in bending is, therefore, derived according to the following
considerations [10,12].
The end displacement of the equivalent cantilever is given by:
F m3 2 P m3
= = (9)
beff.cf t3fc E beff.cf t3fc
3E
12

where F is the axial force in the single bolt, P is the force transmitted by the single bolt row (two bolts
are considered for each row), tfc is the column flange thickness and m is the distance represented in
Fig.3 and Fig.4.
The contribution to the rotational stiffness due to each bolt row is derived as:
M P hi E beff.cf t3fc 0.5 beff.cf tfc su3 2
k = = = P h2i = E hi (10)
hi 2Pm 3
m3

Table 1 - Proposed values for evaluating the effective width of column flange in bending

Bolt row location Effective width for column flange

beff.cf = beff,1 + beff,2 with beff,1 = min dhb + 2 m ; dhb 2 + p 2 + m

bolt row adjacent to a



stiffener
and beff,2 = min dhb + 2 m 2 ; dhb 2 + m 2 + ex

(case a of Fig.4)

beff.cf = min dhb + 2 m ; p

other inner bolt row (case



b of Fig. 4)
beff.cf = min dhb + 2 m ; dhb 2 + p 2 + m

other end bolt row (case c

of Fig. 4)
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -6-

EQUIVALENT T-STUB EQUIVALENT T-STUB beam web

OF THE COLUMN FLANGE tensile beam flange OF THE COLUMN FLANGE
ADJACENT TO TOP ANGLE ADJACENT TO WEB ANGLE
web angle web angle

top angle

beff.cf
beff.cf

m column m column
flange flange
m m
0.8 rc 0.8 rc

Fig. 3 - Equivalent T-Stub for column flange

Therefore, the corresponding spring element stiffness is given by:

0.5 beff.cf t3fc
k cfb = E (11)
m3

e) Bolt row in tension:

1.6 A s
k bt = E (12)
Lb

where A s is the resistant area of the bolt and L b is the sum of the thickness of the connected plates, the
thickness of the washers and half thickness of the nut and of the bolt head.
In this formulation, provided also by Eurocode 3 [2], the coefficient 1.6 is aimed to approximately
account for the influence of prying forces [13].
COLUMN FLANGE IN BENDING AND COLUMN WEB IN TENSION

f) Angle in bending: ex w ex
b eff,cf = b eff,cwt
Also in this case, it is proposed to bolt row location
evaluate the element initial stiffness on m2 case a
the basis of an effective width derived by
an equivalence in elastic range between m2 bolt row location o
case a 45
the actual behaviour and the angle model. p bolt row location
In particular, the increase of deformabili- case b
ty due to the angle leg connected to the p bolt row location
beam, can be accounted for by means of case c
continuity
m dhb 0.8 rc
the structural models depicted in Fig. 5.
On the contrary, the modelling of the top plates
angle behaviour by means of an equiva- column
lent T-stub, as suggested by Annex J [2], flange m
neglects such additional deformability.
Therefore, the rotational stiffness of top
and web angles in bending can be evalua- Fig. 4 - Parameters for evaluating the effective width
ted by means of the following relation-
ships:
0.5 beff.ta t3ta 4
k ta = E 4 + 3 (13)
m 3ta
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -7-

TOP ANGLE MODEL

m ta L2
L1 I1
0.8 rta I2 P

L2

column flange beam tensile

flange

WEB ANGLE MODEL

L1
I1

I2 P/2
column

0.8 rwa
L2
mwa L2 beam web

Fig. 5 - Top and web angle model

0.5 beff.wa t3wa 4 (14)

k wa = E 4 + 3
m 3wa

where m ta and m wa are depicted in Fig. 5 and the coefficient is given by:
I2 L 2
= (15)
I1 L 1

In equations (13) and (14), the effective widths beff.ta and beff.wa are evaluated by means of a 45o
spreading of the action transmitted by the bolts to the angles. Taking into account the geometrical
properties of the top and web angle and the pitch p of the web angle bolt rows, the values of the effective
width can be evaluated according to Table 2 and the notation of Fig.6.

e) Bolts in shear:
In the case of snug-tightened bolts, the stiffness of a single bolt row in shear, constituted by two
bolts, can be computed according to the following relationship given in Annex J [2]:
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -8-

Table 2 - Proposed values for evaluating the effective width of top and web angles

effective width for top and web angle

beff.ta = min dhb + 2 m ta ; dhb 2 + m ta + w 2 ; ba 2 ; ex + dhb 2 + m ta

top angle

beff.wa = min dhb + 2 m wa ; p

web angle inner bolt row

beff.wa = min dhb + 2 m wa ; dhb 2 + m wa + p 2 ; exw + p 2 ; exw + dhb 2 + m wa

external bolt



row

ba
ex w ex
e min
d lt
t ta
g
exw
dhb
p
Lwa
p
t wa t wa exw

Fig. 6 - Parameters for evaluating the effective width of the top angle and of the web angle
16 d2b f ub
k bs = (16)
dM16

where db and f ub are the diameter and the ultimate tensile strength of the bolts, respectively, and
dM16 is the nominal diameter of an M16 bolt.
This source of deformation is not present in the case of pretensioned bolts where k bs = is assumed.

e) Plate in bearing:
This contribution regards all plate elements connected by bolts subjected to shear. This is the case
of the angle legs adjacent to the beam compressed flange, to the beam tensile flange and to the beam
web. A similar source of deformation is given by the bearing of the beam flanges and web.
However, these sources of deformation arise only in the case of snug-tightened bolts. In such a case,
the corresponding stiffness for a single bolt row (constituted by two bolts) can be computed as
suggested by Eurocode 3 [2]:
k pb = 24 k b k a db f u.p
(17)

where k b is equal to the minimum value between k b1 = 0.25 eb db + 0.5, k b2 = 0.25 pb db + 0.375 and
1.25. Moreover, k a is equal to the minimum value between 1.5 tp dM16 and 2.5. In addition, eb is the
distance between the bolt row and the free edge of the plate in the direction of load transfer, pb is the
pitch of the bolt rows in the direction of load transfer, f u.p and tp are the ultimate tensile strength and
the thickness of the plate on which the bolt bears.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -9-

In the case of pretensioned bolts, the assumption k pb = is suggested.

3. THE INFLUENCE OF BOLT PRELOADING

The bolt preloading plays an important role in the prediction of the rotational stiffness [14]. With
reference to end plate connections, it has been already pointed out that the stiffness prediction is
significantly underestimated neglecting the bolt preloading [12]. For this reason, an experimental study
on T-Stub subassemblages has been developed by the Authors [15] aiming at the calibration of a
coefficient correcting the stiffness of the components modelled by means of an equivalent T-stub.
In the following, it is assumed that the increase of stiffness due to bolt preloading develops with the
same magnitude both in the case of bolted T-stubs and in the case of angles. Therefore, in the case of
bolt preloading, the stiffness of the column flange in bending and of the top and web angle in bending,
can be evaluated by means of the following relationships:
0.5 beff,cf t3fc
k cfb = E (18)
m3fc

0.5 beff.ta t3ta 4

k ta = E 4 + 3 (19)
m 3ta

0.5 beff.wa t3wa 4 (20)

k wa = E 4 + 3
m 3wa

where the coefficient , accounting for preloading effects, is given by [15]:

1.28
tp (21)
= 0.57

db

where tp is the thickness of the connected plate element (column flange, leg of the top angle or of the
web angle attached to the column flange) and = m db in the case of the column flange in bending,
= m ta db in the case of the top angle in bending and = mwa db in the case of the web angle.
In addition, the bolt preloading provides an increase of the axial stiffness of the bolt-plate system
due to the decompression of the connected plates [16,17]. In order to take into account this effect,
equation (12) for evaluating the stiffness of a single bolt row in tension, has to be replaced by means
of the following relationship suggested in [12]:
1.6 A s t
k bt = E 4.10 + 3.25 p
L b
(22)
db

where tp is the mean value of the thickness of the connected plates.

Finally, it is important to underline that, in the case of bolt preloading, the bolts in shear and the
plates in bearing do not provide any contribution to the joint deformability.

4. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA

In order to analyse the reliability of the proposed approach for predicting the joint rotational stiffness
a comparison with the experimental data of Azizinamini et al. [6,7,18] has been carried out.
As the specimens tested by Azizinamini et al. are characterized by high strength bolts and the
experimental joint moment-rotation curves do not exhibit any slip, bolt preloading has to be accounted
for. In addition, as the experimental stiffnesses, given by the Authors, are referred to the joint excluding
the deformability due to the components of the column panel zone (i.e. the column web in compression
and the column web in tension), the comparison has been performed considering the rotational stiffness
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 10 -

predicted by means of the proposed method, but excluding these two components. The stiffness
computed according to this procedure can be compared with experimental one declared by the Authors.
The results of this comparison are shown in Fig.7 and Table 3.

Table 3 - Experimental and predicted values of the rotational stiffness

experimenta Azizinamini model [6,7] Chen model[8,9] proposed approach

l value

without panel zone with panel zone

deformability deformability
TEST K K ,c K ,c K K ,c K ,c K K ,c K ,c K K ,c
[kN m/rad] [kN m/rad] [kN m/rad] [kN m/rad] [kN m/rad]
8S1 7540 7020 0.93 5611 0.80 7556 1.00 5617
8S2 13940 11660 0.84 10368 0.77 10926 0.78 7401
8S3 11830 7150 0.60 7481 0.66 8096 0.68 5918
8S4 1730 1410 0.81 385 0.45 2023 1.17 1821
8S5 8670 5980 0.69 5082 0.63 6735 0.78 5427
8S6 4460 3580 0.80 2084 0.55 5235 1.17 4252
8S7 5420 5810 1.07 3812 0.77 6159 1.14 4894
8S8 7900 9050 1.14 7154 0.96 8371 1.06 6091
8S9 11800 14990 1.27 13250 1.17 12127 1.03 7998
8S10 48200 33060 0.69 35564 0.75 22866 0.47 11959
14S1 22030 17280 0.78 14365 0.73 22792 1.03 18797
14S2 33330 37140 1.11 37491 1.18 37471 1.12 28539
14S3 13090 16950 1.29 14365 1.18 21113 1.61 17733
14S4 25070 23980 0.96 14365 0.83 27927 1.11 21370
14S5 27900 21580 0.77 17128 0.69 25251 0.90 20478
14S6 32300 46190 1.43 44826 1.45 42034 1.30 31218
14S8 65400 84510 1.29 79953 1.26 55437 0.85 38676
14S9 29200 46190 1.58 44826 1.61 42034 1.44 31218
AVERAGE 1.00 0.91 1.03
STAND. DEVIAT. 0.28 0.32 0.27
COEFF. OF VARIAT. 0.28 0.35 0.26

PROPOSED APPROACH
60,000

average = 1.03
predicted rotational stiffness

40,000

20,000

0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
experimental rotational stiffness

Fig. 7 - Comparison between predicted and experimental values of the rotational stiffness
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 11 -

It can be observed that the application of the proposed method leads to a good prediction of the joint
rotational stiffness . In fact, this approach provides a negligible average overestimation of the initial
stiffness (3%) with a coefficient of variation equal to 0.26.
In addition, in Table 3 the predicted values of the rotational stiffness of the above experimental tests
obtained by means of the methods proposed by Chen et al [8,9] and Azizinamini et al. [6,7] are also
reported. Both these predictions, according to the corresponding theoretical formulations, do not
account for all the sources of deformability due to the column. In particular, also the column flange
deformability is neglected. It can be observed that all the approaches are characterized by a comparable
degree of approximation but, it is important to underline that the proposed one is not specific of top
and seat angle connections with double web angles. In fact, it is characterized by a general philosophy
which has already provided a good prediction of the rotational stiffness of others connection typologies
(welded connections and end plate connections) [10,12]. In addition, the proposed method is able to
predict the overall joint stiffness including also the important effects of the column web components.
In Table 3, the predicted value of the rotational stiffness including panel zone influence are also
reported. It can be observed that the deformability contribution of the column web components is not
negligible, leading to an average increase of the joint deformability equal to 20%.

5. CONCLUSIONS
As the top and seat angle connections with double web angles are not included in the last draft of
the Eurocode 3 (Annex J), in this work a procedure based on the "component method" has been
proposed in order to predict the rotational stiffness of this common joint typology. To this scope, a
new spring model for evaluating the rotational stiffness has been developed by properly modifying
that used in the codified approach in the case od end-plate connections.
In addition, the criteria for evaluating the stiffness of each spring element have been examined and,
in some cases, properly revised. In particular, this is the case of the top and web angles in bending for
which a specific sub-model has been developed.
Moreover, the influence of bolt preloading has been introduced by means of a formulation based
on experimental results on bolted T-stubs.
Finally, the comparison with the available experimental results has underlined the accuracy of the
proposed method.

6. REFERENCES
[1] Commission of the European Communities: Eurocode 3: design of steel structures,1990
[2] CEN/TC250/SC3-PT9: Eurocode 3, Part 1.1: Joints in Building Frames (Annex J), Approved
Draft, January, 1997.
[3] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: Prediction of the flexural resistance of bolted connections with
angles, International colloquium on semi-rigid structural connections, Istanbul, Turkey, Sep-
tember, 1996.
[4] A. De Luca, A. De Martino, R. Pucinotti, G. Puma: (Semirigid?) top and seat angle connections:
review of experimental data and comparison with Eurocode 3, C.T.A., Italian Conference on
Steel Construction, Riva del Garda, October, 1995.
[5] A. De Luca, A. De Martino, R. Pucinotti, G. Puma: (Semirigid?) top and seat angle connections:
critical review of Eurocode 3 approach, C.T.A., Italian Conference on Steel Construction, Riva
del Garda, October, 1995.
[6] A. Azizinamini, J. Radziminski: Static and cyclic performance of semirigid steel beam-to-co-
lumn connections, Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, n.12, December, 1989.
[7] A. Azizinamini, J.H. Bradburn, J. Radziminski: Initial stiffness of semi-rigid steel beam-to-co-
lumn connections, Journal of constructional steel research, Vol. 8, 1987.
[8] N. Kishi, W.F. Chen: Moment-rotation relations of semirig connections with angles, Journal
of structural engineering, ASCE, Vol.116, n.7, July, 1990.
[9] N. Kishi, W.F. Chen, K.G. Matsuoka, S.G. Nomachi: Moment-rotation relation of top- and seat-
angle with double web-angle connections, Workshop on connections and the behaviour, strength
and design of steel structures, Chacan, France, May, 1987.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 12 -

[10] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: Reliability of Eurocode 3 Procedures for Predicting Beam-to-
Column Joint Behaviour, Third International Conference on Steel and Alluminium Structures,
Istanbul, May, 1995.
[11] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: Modelling of the moment-rotation curve of welded connec-
tions: proposals to improve Eurocode 3 Annex J, C.T.A., Italian Conference on Steel Construc-
tion, Riva del Garda, October, 1995.
[12] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: Some proposals to improve EC3-Annex J approach for
predicting the moment-rotation curve of extended end plate connections, Costruzioni metalliche,
n.4, Luglio-Agosto, 1996.
[13] J.P. Jaspart, R. Maquoi: Effect of Bolt Preloading on Joint Behaviour, Steel Structures,
Eurosteel 95, edited by Kounadis, Balkema, 1995.
[14] Y.L. Yee, R.E. Melchers: Moment-Rotation Curves for Bolted Connections, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.112, January, 1986.
[15] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: Experimental analysis of bolted connections: snug vs.
preloaded bolts, submitted for publication in ASCE Journal of structural engineering on march
1997 and recommended for acceptance on June 1997.
[16] H. Agerskov: High-Strength Bolted Connections Subject to Prying, ASCE Structural Division,
Vol.102, pp.161-175, January, 1976.
[17] O. Bursi: Behaviour of High Strength Bolts in Bolted Beam-to-Column Connections, Proc. of
Applied Stress Analysis Conference, Nottingham, August, 1990.
[18] N. Kishi, W.F. Chen: Database of Steel Beam-to-Column Connections, Structural Engineering
Report, No. CE-STR-86-26, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.