UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE, CIVIL ENGINEERING AND GEODESY

FACULTY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT “STEEL, TIMBER AND PLASTIC STRUCTURES”

eng. Dimo Siderov Zhelev

DUCTILITY OF BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINT

WITH ENDPLATE CONNECTION

Author's summary of PhD thesis

(English version)

For the award of educational

and scientific degree "doctor"

Sofia, 2015
 The thesis is structured in 6 headings and 1 application in total of 246 pages with 276 figures and 62
tables. In heading 1 is grounded the relevance of the study. In heading 2 is researched the T-stub as contains
detailed literature review and results from author’s numerical simulations of isolated T-stubs. In heading 3 are
described researches of the web panel. Heading 4 summarize analytical and numerical research of beam-to-
column joint with endplate connection subjected to cyclic load. In detail are presented results and conclusions
based on 23 by FEA simulated specimens. The material models applied in the FEA are specified in heading 5.
In heading 6 is performed comparison of experimental and author’s numerical results to verify them.

The thesis is discussed at scientific seminar in Department "Steel, Timber and Plastic Structures" at the
UACEG in ………………, 2015 and is targeted for defense.

The author is enrolled as regular doctoral student at Department "Steel, Timber and Plastic Structures" of
UACEG in 21.04.2012 with Protocol № 333 / 21.04.2012.

The public presentation of the thesis will take place on ………………. in Hall ………. of UACEG,
1 Hristo Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, Bulgaria from …………. hours

Materials for defense will be available to those interested in the study in office room …….., UACEG, 1
Hristo Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, Bulgaria and are uploaded to the website of the university www.uacg.bg.

Author: Eng. Dimo Siderov Zhelev

Title: Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 2
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Formulation of thesis ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Equivalent T-stub ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 FEA of T-stub for tension resistance determination............................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Prying force in T-stub.................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Designation of the maximum tension resistance of the T-stub............................................................................... 8
2.3 Determination of parameters in Richard-Abott formula representing “Force-elongation” in T-stub ..................... 9
2.3.1 Determining the initial stiffness of T-stub with no pretension bolts ............................................................. 9
2.3.2 Determination of the initial stiffness of the T-stub with pretension bolts ................................................... 10
2.3.3 Determination of the elongation at reaching maximum strength u of T-stub ........................................... 10

2.3.4 Determination of the parameter  .............................................................................................................. 10

2.3.5 Comparison of the evaluated analytical expression with experimental study [11] ...................................... 11
3 Shear of column web.................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Maximum shear resistance of joint panel ............................................................................................................. 12
4 Numerical and analytical study of stiffened extended end plate connection subjected to monotonic loading ............. 13
4.1 Analytical expressions for determining the rotation capacity of end plate connection ........................................ 13
4.2 Relationship end plate connection resistance and plastic moment of the beam ................................................... 14
4.3 Numerical simulation of isolated end plate connection........................................................................................ 14
4.3.1 Входни данни за изследването .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2 Numerical simulation of end plate connection partial results ...................................................................... 15
4.3.3 Initial stiffness of the end plate connection specimen ................................................................................. 15
4.3.4 Proposal for an analytical expression for determining the rotation capacity of end plate connection ......... 16
5 Numerical and analytical study of beam-to-column joint with end plate connection subjected to cyclic load ............ 17
5.1 Low cycle fatigue literature review ...................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Research of beam-to-column joint 1 from frame 1 .............................................................................................. 18
5.2.1 Results of beam-to-column joint of Frame 1 ............................................................................................... 20
5.3 Part of results for frame 1 specimen. .................................................................................................................... 22
5.3.1 Specimen N_6_20_24_600 .................................................................................................................................. 22
5.3.2 Fatigue life of simulated specimens, subjected to JISF cyclic load ............................................................. 23
5.3.3 Beam flange local buckling ......................................................................................................................... 25
5.3.4 Joint rotation distribution on the components ............................................................................................. 26
5.3.5 Influence of the end plate connection resistance to the joint hysteresis behavior when subjected to cyclic 27
5.3.6 Influence of Rd on the behavior of partial strength and full strength end plate connections, when subjected
to cyclic load. ............................................................................................................................................................... 30
5.4 Research of beam-to-column joint from frame 2 ................................................................................................. 32
5.4.1 Comparison of the maximum strain in the simulated specimens in frame 2 ............................................... 34
6 Appropriate material models for cyclic loading appication from the ANSYS material library ................................... 35
7 Numerical simulating of experiments .......................................................................................................................... 36

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 3
 7.1 Bursi and Jaspart [32] experimental study on T-stub loaded on tension. ............................................................ 36
7.2 Gang Shi study on beam-to-column joint with end plate connection, subjected to cyclic loading [29] ............... 37

Bibliography
[1] БДС, БДС EN 1993-1-8: Проектиране на стоманени конструкции Част 1-8: Проектиране на възли, 2007.
[2] J. Jaspart, Etude de la semi-rigidité des noeuds poutre-colonne et son influence sur la résistance et la stabilité des ossatures
en acier, Liège, Belgique: Université de Liège, 1991.
[3] N. Krishnamurthy, "A Fresh Look at Bolted End-Plate Behavior and Design," Engineering Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 39-
49, 1978.
[4] A. M. G. Coelho, Characterization of the ductility of bolted end plate beam to column steel connections, Universidade de
Coimbra, 2004.
[5] A. Abolmaali, J. H. Matthys, M. Farooqi и Y. Choi, „Development of moment–rotation model equations for flush end-plate
connections,“ Journal of Constructional Steel Research, № 61, p. 1595–1612, 2005.
[6] R. S. Silva, L. S. da и P. J. Cruz, „Cyclic behaviour of end-plate beam-to-column composite joints,“ Steel and Composite
Structures, том 1, № 3, pp. 355-376, 2001.
[7] C. Faella, V. Piluso и G. Rizzano, Structural steel semirigid connections, 2000.
[8] K. Weynand, J.-. P. Jaspart и M. Steenhuis, „The stiffness model of revised annex J of Eurocode 3,“ Connections in Steel
Structures, том III, pp. 441-452, 1995.
[9] SAC Joint Venture, FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, 2000.
[10] БДС, БДС EN 1993-1-5: Проектиране на стоманени конструкции Част 1-5: Пълностенни конструктивни елементи,
2007.
[11] D. Dubina, A. Stratan, N. Muntean и D. Graecea, „Dual-Steel T-stub behaviour under monotonic and cyclic loading,“
Connections in steel structures, том VI, 2008.
[12] F. A. Charney и W. M. Downs, „Modeling procedures for panel zone deformations in moment resisting frames,“
Connections in Steel Structures V, pp. 121-130, 2004.
[13] K. Ikarashi, H. Kaneko, H. Yanase и M. Aono, „Hysteresis loop model of joint panels in H-shaped column to bema
connections,“ Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, № 597, pp. 119-126, 2005.
[14] A. Kawano, H. Asega и H. Hasebe, „An experimental study on ductility of wide - flange steel frame with composite beam
including weak joint panel in different collapse models,“ Journal of structural construction engineering, № 452, pp. 109-
119, 1993.
[15] A. Kawano, „On the effect of structural composition of joint panel on a seismic behaviour of steel frame,“ Journal of
Structural Construction Engineering, том 435, 1992.
[16] SAC Joint Venture, FEMA 355D State of the art report on connection performance, Sacramento, California, 2001.
[17] БДС, БДС EN 1998-1: Проектиране на конструкциите за сеизмични въздействия Част 1: Общи правила, сеизмични
въздействия и правила за сгради.
[18] P. Zoetemeijer, Summary of the research on bolted beam-to-column connections (period 1978-1983), Delft, 1983.
[19] I. O. Adegoke и A. R. Kemp, „Moment-rotation relationships of thin end plate connections in steel beams,“ в In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Structures (ASSCCA’03), 2003.
[20] FEMA, „FEMA 356 prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings“.
[21] БДС, БДС EN 1993-1-1 Проектиране на стоманени конструкции Част 1-1: Общи правила и правила за сгради, 2007.
[22] D. Beg, E. Zupancˇicˇ и I. Vayas, „On the rotation capacity of moment connections,“ Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, том 60, № 3-5, pp. 601-620, 2004.
[23] O. Basquin, „The Exponential Law of Endurance Tests,“ American Society for Testing and Materials Proceedings, том 10,
pp. 625-630, 1910.
[24] Det norske veritas as, Determination of Structural Capacity by Non-linear FE analysis Methods, 2013.
[25] F. J. Davila-Arbona, Panel zone behaviour in steel moment resisting frames, 2007.
[26] ECCS, Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads,
1986.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 4
[27] A. Ghobarah, A. Osman и R. M. Korol, „Behaviour of extended end-plate connections under cyclic loading,“ Engineering
structures, том 12, pp. 15-27, 1990.
[28] ANSI/AISC, ANSI/AISC 341-10 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, 2010.
[29] S. Gang, Y. Shi and Y. Wang, "Behaviour of end-plate moment connections under earthquake loading," Engineering
structures, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 703-716, 2007.
[30] ANSYS, „Mechanical APDl (ANSYS) 14.0 Theory manual“.
[31] S. Yongjiu, W. Meng and W. Yuanqing, "Experimental and constitutive model study of structural steel under cyclic
loading," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 8, no. 67, pp. 1185-1197, 2011.
[32] O. S. Bursi и J. P. Jaspart, „Benchmarks for Finite Element Modelling of Bolted Steel Connections,“ Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, том 43, № 1-3, pp. 17-42, 1997.
[33] J.L. Chaboche, A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive theories, International Journal of Plasticity,
Volume 24, Issue 10, 1642–1693, 2008.

1 Formulation of thesis
Beam-to-column joint is typically detailed with endplate connection because easy assembly and
low price. The scope of the thesis is research of beam-to-column joint with endplate, subjected to
monotonic or cyclic loading, as the survey will be carried out by numerical simulations.
It is known from the literature that the prying force in the T-stub is not always situated on the
edge of the flange plate. Based on the parametric study of numerical simulations on T-stubs the
position of the prying force will be defined, considering bearing capacity and rigidity of the
components of the T-stub. This will allow proposing an appropriate expression for determining the
prying force position and correct the tension strength of the T-stub.
To evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of FEA for numerical simulation of beam-to-column
joint with endplate connection is necessary to make a comparison between the results of experimental
and numerical studies in applied monotonic or cyclic load. To properly simulate the behavior of steel
under cyclic load is necessary to use proper material model, which should be validated with result
from material cyclic test.
One of the significant advantages of numerical simulations is the low cost of the study and ease
of "what-if" analysis. Because this convenience a detailed study of the beam-to-column joint subjected
to cyclic load can be performed. This will assess the impact of strength and ductility of the individual
components of the beam-to-column joint to the joint ductility.
Typical end plate connection types are stiffened end plate, unstiffened end plate and end plate
with haunch. Even designed with the same resistance, a different performance is expected. By
comparing the strain in the connection subjected to cyclic loading the connection types could be
ranked. The comparison of different solutions for detailing of beam-to-column joint will allow
evaluation of the advantages of some details to others.

2 Equivalent T-stub
Equivalent T-piece is formulated by the endplate with adjacent bolt row as in Figure 1. The
endplate is working on bending while the bolts on tension mainly. Typical an equivalent T-stub for
each bolt row is defined. According to [1] the length of the equivalent T-piece leff is such that the
bearing capacity is identical to the capacity of the portion represents. The length of the equivalent T-
piece leff is conditional and does not correspond to the part that represents.
The behavior of T-piece subjected to tension has being researched from the early seventies.
Fundamental interest of researchers is the prying force influence to T-stub resistance. In the literature
are known analytical expressions for determining the bearing capacity of the T-stub, typically based on

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 5
plastic analysis. Thhe reader iss kindly invvited to acqquaint with the literatuure review in
i the PhD’’s first
headingg if interesteed in T-stubb analytical models.

a) b)
b c)
Figure 1 „Identification of T-stub in endplatee connectionn“
The analyticcal method for determining the yyield resistaance of T-sttub in [1] assumed
a thhat the
prying force
f is situuated at the end of the end plate annd calculateed with the requirmentt e  n  1.2
25* m ,
as on Figure
F 1 c). Jaspart [22] and Krisshnamurthyy [3] suggest that the prying forcce should not n be
situatedd at the endd T-stub when
w plate yielding
y occcurs. Based posed eq. (1) for
d on Figure 2 is prop
determiining the disstance n ' frrom the axiss of the boltt row to the prying forcce.
М
n'  l (1)
Q

Figure 2 „Determinaation of the distance

d n ' between
b the pprying force and the boltt row“
The value off the bendinng moment in the endpplate М l andd the pryingg force are Q unknow wn, but
may bee determinedd by numerrical simulaation of isollated T-stubb. By conduucting a parrametric stuudy of
numericcal simulatiion of T-stuub with varriable thickkness of enndplate and bolt tensio
on resistance also
further knowledge would be gained
g abouut T-stub dessign.

2.1 F
FEA of T-sttub for tenssion resistaance determ mination
Foor the numeerical studyy of T-stub are used frrame finite elements
e exxplained in detail in Taable 1
and Figgure 3. Moddeling of T-stub
T with frame finitte elementss is appliedd by Coelho o [4]. This is the
simplesst method ffor numerical simulatioon of T-stuub, but is onnly suitablee for calculaating the beearing
strengthh of the T-ppiece, not for
fo its initiall stiffness. A
Another beenefit of this simplisticc approach is
i that
the effeective lengthh leff of the T-piece is initially
i knoown.
V
Variables a the thickkness of the endplate t p , dimensioon ratio e / m , the
in the parameetric study are
bolt diaameter and ggrade. The structural
s stteel is simullated by bilinear materrial model without
w hard
dening
which complies
c med steel fllowchart in [1].
wiith the assum

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) page 6
Figure 3 „Finete element types used in T-stub FE model“

specimen “m” e <1.25m Bolts tp leff

V1 40mm 40mm М20 grade 8.8 variable 100mm
V2 40mm 50mm М20 grade 8.8 variable 100mm
V3 40mm 35mm М20 grade 8.8 variable 100mm
V4 40mm 35mm М20 grade 10.9 variable 100mm
V5 40mm 35mm М16 grade 8.8 variable 100mm
Table 1“Specimen V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 dimensions.
The results of the numerical study shows that by increasing the thickness of the endplate t p , the
prying force Q shifts to the edge of the endplate. Following the above 50 FEA tested T-stubs is
derived formula (2), which gives an expression for the determination of distance n ' from the axis of
the bolt row to the prying force.
4.5
n' M
(2)
 0.003 pl , where n '  d and М pl in kNcm
n
The relationship between t p and n '/ n obtained from the numerical study and eq. (2) is compared
in Figure 4, as reported the influence of n / m, the class and the diameter of the bolt connection. Based
on the comparisons in Figure 4 can be reported that relatively simple expression in eq. (2) well
suggests the numerical results trend.

Prying force location dependance Prying force location dependance Prying force location dependance
from n/m from bolt grade from bolt diameter
30 30 30
n/m=1.25 n/m=0.875 клас 8.8 n/m=0.875 M20 клас 8.8
tp - [mm]

25 n/m=1 25 n/m=0.875 клас 10.9 25 n/m=0.875 M16 клас 8.8

tp - [mm]

n/m=0.875
аналитичен израз аналитичен израз
tp - [mm]

20 аналитичен израз 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5
0.30 n'/n 1.00 0.50 n'/n 1.00 0.50 n'/n 1.00

Figure 4 „Analytical results with eq.(2) compared to FEA results”

2.1.1 Prying force in T-stub
Interesting result of the numerical study of the T-stub is that in first or second mode [1] always
has prying force, contrary to the analytical result obtained by the instructions in BDS EN 1993-1-8 [1].
Therefore it can be assumed that there is always prying force in T-stub endplate connection.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 7
2.2 Designation of the maximum tension resistance of the T-stub.

Figure 5„von Mises stresses in Т-stub endplate, subjected to tension load“

Figure 5 shows the von Mises stresses in the endplate, while the T-stub has reached its
maximum tensile resistance, working in first mode (plate yielding only). It is noted that near the web
the endplate end fibers has reached tensile strength, while in the bolt line the yield stress is reached.
Following the concept T-stub solution in [2], the maximum tensile strength of a T-stub can be
expressed by eq. (3) - (5).

Figure 6 „Determination of maximum tension strength of T-stub“

Because of the equilibrium of the forces in Figure 6, equations (3) - (5) can be obtained.
Fu _ Rd _1 * m  2* M pl  2 * M pl _ ult  B * e (3)
Fu _ Rd _1  2 * Q  2 * B (4)
Q * n ' 0.5* B * e  M pl (5)
Solving the equations (3) to (5) resulted in eq. (6) which sets the maximum tensile strength of T-
stub operating in first mode Fu _ Rd _1 . Should be remind that the distance e  D *0.25 , where D is the
washer diameter or the average size of the nut/bolt head [1].
4* M pl * n ' 2* M ult (2* n  e)
Fu _ Rd _1  (6)
2* m * n  e *(m  n)
Eq. (7) is known in the literature to define the maximum bending resistance.
leff * t 2p   E  ET  *  y 3 
M pl _ ult  *  3*  E  ET  *  y  2 * ET *  u   (7)
12  u2
 
When considered  u   y eq. (7) is simplified as eq. (8).
leff * t 2p leff * t 2p
Mu  *  f y  2 * fu   * fp (8)
12 4
Maximum tension resistance of T-stub in second mode Fu _ Rd _ 2 in eq. (10) can be evaluated
assuming that the bending moment in the endplate is M pl _ ult from eq.(9). The bolt tension resistance is
assumed Bu  f ub * Ab .

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 8
 f y  2* fu
M pl _ ult  0.25* t p 2 * leff * f p , като f p  (9)
3
2* M pl _ ult  0.98 Bu * n '
Fu _ Rd _ 2  (10)
m  n'
2.3 Determination of parameters in Richard-Abott formula representing “Force-elongation” in
T-stub
Richard-Abott formula is based on a formula proposed to express the elasto-plastic behavior of
certain materials. It was later used to compile dependency "moment-rotation" of beam-to-column joint
subjected to monotonic load [5], [6]. With certain processing the formula is also applied to describe
the hysteresis loops of cyclic loading [6].
Richard-Abott formula is also known as the four power equation, as is defined by four
parameters: the initial stiffness ki , tangent stiffness kh , yielding resistance F0 and parameter 
defining the curve radius. Richard-Abott formula is described in detail in Figure 7.

( ki  k h ) *  F0
F ()   kh * , където  0 
1
ki  k h
   *(k  k )   
1   i h
 
  F0  

 ln 2

F kh 
ln  1  
 F k k
 y i h 

Figure 7 „Richard–Abott formula“

A numerical study of T-stubs considering the pretension bolt is performed. The endplate is
simulated by element type SHELL188 and the bolt with COMBIN39. The reader is kindly invited to
acquaint with results in the thesis.
2.3.1 Determining the initial stiffness of T-stub with no pretension bolts
Faella [7] have assumed that the initial stiffness of the T-stub can be evaluated as the stiffness of
simple beam with span 2*m, loaded with concentrated force in the middle and the bolts are ignored.
According Faella, the length leff ' of the equivalent T-stub for determining initial stiffness is taken by
eq. (11).

leff '  2 * m  d 0  leff (11)

leff ' depends also on the availability of endplate stiffener. The results in numerical study and [1]
suggest that leff ' in T-stub with endplate stiffener could be assumed that leff '  0.90 * leff .
t 3p * leff '* E
K i  0.5* (12)
m3
The initial stiffness according [1] and [8] is evaluated by eq.(13)

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 9
 1
Ki  3
m 0.63 (13)
3

t * leff '* E K b
p

From the results presented in the main text of the dissertation may be noted that in the initial
stiffness test VA1 is 2394kN/cm, while in the test VA3 is 2416kN / cm. The effective length of the
equivalent T-stub in the VA1 is 100mm while in VA3 is 150mm. Obviously, the effective length of for
T-stub should be with similar value in the determination of initial stiffness in both cases, so Faella’s
proposition in (11) is confirmed.
2.3.2 Determination of the initial stiffness of the T-stub with pretension bolts
Bolt pretension in the end plate connection will increase the stiffness and improve the fatigue
behavior of the bolts and the connection. In FEMA 350 [9] is stated that in end plate connection for
beam-to-column joint the bolts must be pretension.
There are known methods in the literature for the precise determination of the initial stiffness of
the T-piece with pretension bolts, but they are inconvenient for practical approach. By comparing the
results of numerical simulation of T-stub with the non-pretension and pretension bolts is revealed the
difference in their initial stiffness is in the range of 2.0 to 3.0. To simplify the initial stiffness
calculation of the T-stub with pretension bolts eq. (14) is proposed.
K i _ pret  2.5* K i (14)

2.3.3 Determination of the elongation at reaching maximum strength u of T-stub

Elongation at reaching maximum strength u can be evaluated by formula (15), which
corresponds to the proposed by Jaspart [2].
F F  FTRD
 u  TRD  u _ RD (15)
Ki Kh
The tangent stiffness of the T-stub K h is dependent on the tangent stiffness of the bolt and the
plate. For a simple set at K h , it can be assumed expression as eq. (16).
1
Kh  * Ki (16)
100
In [10] it is stated that the tangent modulus is recommended as 0.01 of the elastic modulus and
this is applied in eq.(16).
The elongation u was evaluated with eq. (15) for the numerical simulated T-stubs, but the
results are showing different trend.
2.3.4 Determination of the parameter 
From the results of numerical study, presented in the dissertation, it follows that it can be
assumed F1  0.6* Fu _ Rd . Then the parameter  can be defined as in eq. (17).
0.693

 0.6* Fu _ Rd kh  (17)
ln   
F
 y _ Rd  kh *  y ki  kh 

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 10
2.3.5 Comparison of the evaluated analytical expression with experimental study [11]

At the Polytechnic University of Timisoara was held extensive experimental research program of
beam-to-column joint in steel frame. In the experimental program is included study of T-subs and
partial of the results are used for comparison of the analytical expressions in this subsection.

Specimen Fy ,exp Fy Fmax,exp Fu Fu / Fmax,exp  max,exp u  u /  max,exp

kN kN kN kN mm mm
TST-12C-S235 397.8 394 582.6 466 0.80 20.2 9.6 0.48
TST-20C-S235 559.5 607 758.3 722 0.95 5.4 3.3 0.61
TST-10C-S460 423.8 462 550.2 513 0.93 17.6 12 0.68
TST-16C-S460 538.6 619 687.5 695 1.01 8.8 4.3 0.49
TST-8C-S690 379.6 441 474.2 482 1.02 17.9 19 1.06
TST-12C-S690 522.4 613 693.2 666 0.96 6.9 7.5 1.09
Table 2„Comparison between experimental research of T-stub in [39] with analytical”

Table 2 presents the results of experiments [11] and the analytical expressions from 2.3 to
determine the maximum Fu tension resistance and the elongation at maximum resistance u of T-
stub. The comparison of results shows that the obtained analytical tensile strength Fu is close to the
experimentally determined Fmax,exp and can be reported that the results from the proposed analytical
method in 2.2 are correct.
The ratio  u /  max,exp varies within the range of from 0.48 to 1.09 but analytically resulting
elongation u is less than the experimentally determined  max,exp in samples with steel S235, so that the
result is in favor of security. The large range of  u /  max,exp evaluated by different analytical method is
also reported by Coelho [4].

3 Shear of column web

The beam of frame structure transmits the bending moment to column by column web shear. The
relationship between the bending moment and the rotation of joint panel is the subject of much
research. In the literary review of this heading are partial described the researches of Krawlinker,
Ikarashi [13], Kawano [14], [15] and Charney [12].

Figure 8 „Shear in column web“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 11
 The relationsship betweeen the sheaar force in tthe column web and thhe beam yiielding resistance
M be  Wel * f y is shhown in eqq. (18), repoorted that thhe plastic hiinge is locaated in the beam
b intersection
with thee stiffening ribs accord ding FEMA3350 [9] and shown on Figure F 8.
 L  Lp   1 1 L 
V p  2 * M be *  *  *  (18))
 L  L p  2* Ls   H p L  L p H 
ween panel shear yiellding resisttance Vy   y * Avc an
Paarameter  p in eq. (19) betw nd V p
determiines the pannel participaation in the frame
f yield
ding mechan
nism.
V
p  y (19))
Vp
FE
FEMA350 [ and FE
[9] mmends a balanced ddesign as 0.70   p  1.10
EMA355D [16] recom
(expressed in [16] differ slighhtly from thoose used in eq.(18)). BDDS EN19988-1 [17] reccommended d shear
capacity
y of joint panel
p to be calculated based of thet plastic moment
m off beams, whhich significantly
reducess the particip
pation of joint panel in
n the frame yyielding meechanism.

3.1 M
Maximum sshear resisttance of join
nt panel
Frrom Figure 9 it is appaarent that th oint panel ((in the step of load, at which
he shear streess in the jo
reachedd 20% equiivalent straiin) does no ot have nonn-constant distribution.
d . When aveeraging the shear
stressess of Figure 9 is obtaineed eq. (20), wherein thee average value
v of the shear stresss was 93% of the
maximu um.
W known
With n value of  u (20) can easily idenntify the maaximum shear resistan nce of joint panel
dependiing on the column
c webb area.
0..93
u  * fu  0..53* fu (220)
3

Actuaal
distribbution of
shearr stress

Average shear stress

N/cm2
von Misees stresses в kN Actuual distributionn of shear strresses in joint panel and theeir
averrage value
Figure 9 „Shear pannel FEA simuulation resullts“

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 12
4 Numerical and analytical study of stiffened extended end plate connection subjected
to monotonic loading
4.1 Analytical expressions for determining the rotation capacity of end plate connection
Determining the rotational capacity is important for determining the ductility of the end plate
connection. There are known expressions in the literature for determining the rotational capacity of
end plate connection subjected to monotonic or cyclic load.
Zoetemeijer [18] proposes eq. (21) for determining the rotational capacity of end plate
connection cd subjected to monotonic load.
10.6  4*  Rd
cd  (21)
1.3* h1
In (22)  Rd is the ratio of the end plate bending resistance and bolt tension resistance, while h1
is the distance from the first bolt row to the center of compression as defined in [1].
l *t 2 * fy
 Rd  eff p (22)
m *  FtRd
Parameter  Rd is related to the mechanism of plasticizing T-stub and can be estimated in Figure
10. According Zoetemeijer if T-stub yielding mechanism is first mode (plate yielding only) with
2*
 Rd  the end plate connection will provide significant deformation capacity.
2*   1
If  Rd  2.0 end plate will work elastic and connection yielding will be carried out by bolt
yielding, so to avoid such a situation,  Rd  1.75 is proposed.

Figure 10 „Yielding mechanism of T-stub“

Adegoke and Kemp [19] conduct analytical and experimental study of thin flange plates and
propose eq. (23) to evaluate the rotational capacity of end plate connection cd .
m2f * f y m f * mx * f y
cd  1.4*  40* (23)
E * t p * h2 E * t p * hmrn
m f  (mep  m2 ) *0.50
In eq. (23) is the average of the distance from the bolt to the beam web
and the flange, while hmrn is the distance between the compression force to resultant tension force in
the connection.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 13
 FEMA356 [20] indicates that beam-to-column joint are classified as PR (partial restrained). The
initial stiffness of the joint, if not taken into account the participation of the RC slab is determined by
eq. (24) with MCE as the end plate yielding resistance.
M
K  CE (24)
0.005
4.2 Relationship end plate connection resistance and plastic moment of the beam
Ratio  y in eq. (25) represents the ration between end plate connection resistance and the beam
plastic moment.
M y_e_ p M y_e_ p
y  
M yRd _ b L  Lp (25)
M yRd *
L  L p  2 * Ls

4.3 Numerical simulation of isolated end plate connection

4.3.1 Study methodology
To determine the relationship “Moment-rotation” of end plate connection a FEA is performed on
the fragment in Figure 11.
In the model of the fragment is used axis of symmetry of the connection to reduce the number of
finite elements. The column web will be presented by supports prohibiting transfers in x, y and z.
Transverse stiffeners in the column are accounted for supports in x direction. The lower nodes of the
column web are supported in z.

Figure 11 „Partial joint of MR frame with end plate connection“

Stiffened extended end plate connections with different  y and  Rd ratios are simulated as
shown in Table 3. The bolt connection is assumed as pretension in half of the specimens.
Within the Abstract are presented only the most important results, the full study can be viewed
in the thesis.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 14
 Sppecimen Bolt tp Bolt row
w yielding End platte Beam  Rd  y
grade resistance connection plastic
Noon pretension Pretension 10.9 yielding moment
boolts bolts first seccond third resistance [21]
mm
m kN kN
N kN kNm kNm
F_25_24
_ Fp_25_24 М24 25 571 591 363 488 299 1.29 1.34
4
F_20_24
_ Fp_20_24 М24 20 479 4922 340 400 299 0.83 1.14
4
F_16_24
_ Fp_16_24 М24 16 413 421 218 331 299 0.53 0.94
4
F_20_20
_ Fp_20_20 М20 20 381 3944 303 326 299 1.25 0.95
5
F_16_20
_ Fp_16_20 М20 16 319 3277 213 264 299 0.76 0.75
5
F_12_20
_ Fp_12_20 М20 12 266 2733 136 193 299 0.49 0.55
5
Table 3 „Specimens analytical calculated characteristicss considered [1]“

4.3.2 Numerical simulation n of end plate connectiion partial results

r
The reader iss kindly inv vited to exaamine the detailed
d resu
ults in the mmain text off the disserttation.
From th he results in
n Figure 12 can be reported that thhe resultantt force of thhe contact stresses
s is lo
ocated
near thee beam flangge, which meets
m the gu
uidelines in [1].
The resultantt force of th he prying foorce near to the first annd second boolt row, how wever, is neear the
bolt so does not meet
m the asssumptions ini [1]. This reduce thee T-stub tennsion resistaance, at thee same
bolt forrce, and therreafter the resulting
r endd plate yieldding capacitty is smalleer than the designed
d onee.

Deform
mation Contactt stresses [kN//cm2] Endd plate strain

Figure 12
1 „Specimen F_20_24 ressults in rotattion 0.06rad”
4.3.3 Initial stiffn
fness of the end plate connection
c sspecimen
specimen K i   K i , pret   Ki , pret / K i  
F_25_24 279582 8849378 3.004
F_20_24 207710 5
585394 2.882
F_16_24 180014 4
456783 2.554
F_20_20 189163 5
534402 2.883
F_16_20 165145 4
428204 2.559
F_12_20 126814 3
332411 2.662
Table 4 „Comparisoon between thhe stiffness of the end plaate connectioon with preteension and noon-pretensioned
bolts“

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 15
 By comparison in Table 4 of the initial stiffness of the end plate with pretensioned bolts K i , pret
and non-pretension bolts K i   it  can be reported that the bolts pretension have increased the initial
stiffness of the flange connection with 2.5  3.0 times, which confirms the results in Chapter 2.3.2. At
Figure 13 can assess the influence of the pretension of the bolts on the deformation of the end plate.

-0.005 0.005 0.015 0.025 -0.005 0.005 0.015 0.025

deformation [cm] deformation, [cm]

F_25_24 Fn_25_24
F_20_24
F_16_24 Fn_20_24
F_20_20 Fn_16_24
F_16_20 Fn_16_20
F_12_20 Fn_12_20
Non-pretensioned bolts Pretensioned bolts
Figure 13“ End plate middle section nodes deformation on joint rotation 0.00912rad “

4.3.4 Proposal for an analytical expression for determining the rotation capacity of end plate
connection

According Beg [22] it can be conservatively assumed that the rotation capacity cd of end plate
connection is reached when the maximum load bearing capacity is achieved. Also according Adegoke
and Kemp [19] cd is the rotation at maximum load capacity. In the thesis the end plate rotation
capacity cd in monotonic load is accepted when reached 20% elongation in node from the FE mesh or
at maximum accepted bolt elongation.
The yield rotation  y is determined with the known eq. (26).
M y_e_ p
y  (26)
Ki
1
The tangent stiffness is assumed K h  * K i as in [19]. Using Jasper’s proposal cd is
75
evaluated with eq. (27)
M  M y_e_ p
 p ,cd  u _ e _ p  y (27)
Kh
Results in Table 5 have revealed that  p ,cd calculated according to Zoetemeijer eq. (21) have
good coincidence with the numerical results. Also  p ,cd determined by Adegoke and Kemp eq. (23) is
with good coincidence too. The result from eq. (27) shows large deviation with the numerical result.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 16
 Specimen FEA Analytical
 p ,cd  p ,cd  p ,cd by  p ,cd by Adegoke
Eq. (27) Zoetemeijer eq.(21) and Kemp eq.(27)
[rad] [rad] [rad] [rad]
F_25_24 0.017 0.035 0.014 0.014
F_20_24 0.027 0.030 0.018 0.017
F_16_24 0.030 0.028 0.021 0.021
F_20_20 0.017 0.032 0.015 0.017
F_16_20 0.026 0.028 0.019 0.021
F_12_20 0.024 0.028 0.022 0.028
Table 5 „Determinaton of rotational capacity  p ,cd by analytical methods and numerical“
The joint rotational capacity cd in relation with  Rd and  y is shown on Figure 14. It can be
reported that in case of partial strength connection with  y  1.0 higher value of cd is observed at
2*n / m
plate yielding mechanism of the end plate as  Rd  . It can be concluded that for  y  1.0
2*n / m 1
plate yielding mechanism is preferable.
1.5 first mode second mode
(plate yielding ) (plate and bolt yilednig)
1.25
full strength joint
1
у

partial strength joint

0.75

0.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 Rd 1 1.2 1.4
фcd на възела 0.07 фcd на възела 0.05

Figure 14 “Rotational capacity relationship with  Rd and  y “

5 Numerical and analytical study of beam-to-column joint with end plate connection
subjected to cyclic load
5.1 Low cycle fatigue literature review
Fatigue life is defined as the number of cycles required for the occurrence of damage in the
sample. If number of cycles to failure is less than 104 the fatigue is considered as low cyclic. In steel
structures, damage in low cycle fatigue occurs when the load relates to plastic deformation, typical
result from seismic load on ductile structures.
Basquin [23] equation provides a link between the stress range and cycles to failure, typically
applied for high cycle fatigue. If the stress is replace with elastic strain eq. (28) can be evaluated.
  '
 e  a  f *  2* N f 
B
(28)
E E
Coffin and Manson proposed relation between plastic strain range  p and number of cycles to
failure N f in eq (29).

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 17
  p (29)
  p   'f *  2* N f 
C

2
Basquin- Coffin-Manson eq. (30) is evaluated by sum of the elastic and plastic strain.
  f '
*  2* N f    'f *  2* N f 
B C
 (30)
2 E
In the literature eq.(30) is recognized as   N curve. The values of the parameters in (30) are
based on performed cycle tests. Evaluating the fatigue life of the specimen in the thesis is performed
by the   N curve recommended in [24].
For damage in weld joint in [24] is recommended eq. (31)
 175MPa
* N f   0.095*  N f 
0.10 0.50
 (31)
2 E
For damage in the base metal in [24] is recommended eq. (32)
 175MPa
* N f   0.091*  N f 
0.10 0.43
 (32)
2 E

  N при повреда
в основният метал

  N при повреда
в заварен възел

Figure 15 „   N curve applied in the thesis by [24]“

5.2 Research of beam-to-column joint 1 from frame 1

Figure 16 „Beam-to-column joint with end plate connection in Frame 1“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 18
 Static scheme of Figure 16 for the study of the beam-to-column joint with end plate connection
is selected same as in [12], [25]. A parametric study of the joint subjected to cyclic loading will be
done to determine the influence of different joint components on the behavior of the node. The
parameters to be traced are the thickness of the reinforcing plate t sp of the column panel, the thickness
of the end plate t p and the diameter of the bolt d b . Thickness tsp relates to panel ratio a p , t p and d b
relates to end plate resistance ratio a y and to the end plate yielding mechanism  Rd .
The initial axial force in the column is assumed 600kN which is  20% of the section axial force
resistance. In [13] Kawano has applied compression force in the column equal to 20% section
resistance, while Ikarashi [12] applies 30%.
0.1
0.074 0.08
0.0555 0.06
0.037 ф, [rad] 0.04
ф, [rad]

0.0185 0.02
0 0
-0.0185 0 21 -0.02 0 29
-0.037 -0.04
-0.0555
-0.06
-0.074
-0.08

Cyclic load by JISF recommendations on Cyclic load by ECCS recommendations on Applied rotation ф on
beam-to-column joint on frame 1 beam-to-column joint on frame 2 beam-to-column joint
Figure 17 „Cyclic load applied on beam-to-column joint with end plate on frame 1 and frame 2 “

The cyclic load for beam-to-column joint on frame 1 is by JISF recommendations, while the
cyclic load on frame 2 is by the ECCS [26] recommendation. Both load protocols are presented on
Figure 17.
Beam top flange is supported out-of-plane, this is needed to allow the beam to yield without
lateral-torsional buckling to occur [17]. Beam bottom flange is supported at the beam end.
The specimens’ characteristics are specified in Table 6. Panel ratio  p is from 0.70 to 1.10. The
end plate connection is designed with 0.94   y  1.34 , which covers full strength and partial strength
connections. The  Rd value is such that the eqivalent T-stub yields in first or second mode, and also
one specimen in third mode.

Specimen t sp tp , db , N col Pretensioned beam column y  Rd p

N _ tsp _ t p _ d b _ N col bolt grade 10.9
,mm mm mm ,kN
1 N_6_16_24_600 6 16 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 0.94 0.53 0.67
2 N_6_20_24_600 6 20 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 0.83 0.67
3 N_8_20_24_600 8 20 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 0.83 0.80
4 N_10_20_24_600 10 20 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 0.83 0.92
5 N_12_16_24_600 12 16 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 0.94 0.53 1.05
6 N_12_20_24_600 12 20 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 0.83 1.05
7 N_12_25_24_600 12 25 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.34 1.29 1.05
8 N_16_25_24_600 16 25 24 600 М24 IPE360 HEA320 1.34 1.29 1.34
9 N_12_20_20_600 12 20 20 600 М20 IPE360 HEA320 0.95 1.25 1.05
10 N_12_26_20_600 12 26 20 600 М20 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 2.02 1.05
11 N_12_22_22_600 12 22.3 22 600 М22 IPE360 HEA320 1.14 1.20 1.05
12 N_12_26_22_600 12 26 22 600 М22 IPE360 HEA320 1.25 1.51 1.05
13 N_12_23_20_600 12 23 20 600 М20 IPE360 HEA320 1.04 1.58 1.05
Table 6 „Beam-to-column joint specimen characteristics of frame 1“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 19
5.2.1 Results of beam-to-column joint of Frame 1
500 500 500 500

0 0 0 0
-0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08

-500 -500 -500 -500

tp=16mm; tsp=6mm; d=24mm tp=20mm; tsp=6mm; d=24mm tp=20mm; tsp=8mm; d=24mm tp=20mm; tsp=10mm; d=24mm
ay=0.94; ap=0.67; bRd=0.53 ay=1.14; ap=0.67; bRd=0.83 ay=1.14; ap=0.80; bRd=0.83 ay=1.14; ap=0.92; bRd=0.83
500 500 500 500

0 0 0 0
-0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08

-500 -500 -500 -500

tp=16mm; tsp=12mm; d=24mm tp=20mm; tsp=12mm; d=24mm tp=25mm; tsp=12mm; d=24mm tp=25mm; tsp=16mm; d=24mm
ay=0.94; ap=1.05; bRd=0.53 ay=1.14; ap=1.05; bRd=0.83 ay=1.34; ap=1.05; bRd=1.29 ay=1.34; ap=1.34; bRd=1.29
500 500 500 500

0 0 0 0
-0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08

-500 -500 -500 -500

tp=20mm; tsp=12mm; d=20mm tp=26mm; tsp=12mm; d=20mm tp=22mm; tsp=12mm; d=22mm tp=26mm; tsp=12mm; d=22mm
ay=0.95; ap=1.05; bRd=1.25 ay=1.25; ap=1.05; bRd=1.51 ay=1.14; ap=1.05; bRd=1.20 ay=1.25; ap=1.05; bRd=1.51

Figure 18“Hysteresis curves „Moment-rotation“ of frame 1 specimens“

On Figure 18 are presented hysteresis curves “Moment-rotation” of Frame 1 specimens,

subjected to cyclic load according to JISF. Also the values of the parameters  y ,  p and  Rd are
shown.
Based on Figure 18 it can be concluded that for  p  0.92 flange local buckling does not occure
for rotation to 0.056rad. But the specimens with  p  0.80 has lower resistance than the other
specimens.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 20
 Joint panel beam bolt balanced
500 500 500 500

0 0 0 0
-0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.08 0.00 0.08

-500 -500 -500 -500

tp=20mm; tsp=6mm; d=24mm tp=25mm; tsp=16mm; d=24mm tp=20mm; tsp=12mm; d=20mm tp=16mm; tsp=12mm; d=24mm
ay=1.14; ap=0.67; bRd=0.83 ay=1.34; ap=1.34; bRd=1.29 ay=0.95; ap=1.05; bRd=1.25 ay=0.94; ap=1.05; bRd=0.53

Figure 19 „Comparison of beam-to-column joint with end plate connection yielding mechanism from frame 1“

On Figure 19 can be compared yielding mechanisms of beam-to-column joint. Also are

presented deformed schemes of reversal 15 and for better visibilities are increased three times.
When panel ratio  p value is  p  1.0 , joint rotation ф is mainly concentrated in the panel.
According Kawano [13], [14] the panel yielding shows increased ductility compared with the beam
yielding.
FEMA355D [16] recommends a balanced design, wherein beam and joint panel are to yield
simultaneously and is recommended 0.70   p  1.10 .
BDS EN1998-1 [17] recommends beam yield mechanism and the participation of the joint panel
is limited. With increasing the joint rotation the beam flange local buckling occurs, which results not
only in a reduction of the bearing capacity, but also damage to the beam flage due to the accumulation
of plastic deformation of high value.
Bolt yielding may occur when designing the connection with bolt with insufficient resistance. A
hysteresis pinching is observed in such case which leads to less energy dissipated. Due to the
accumulation of plastic elongation in the bolt is observed bolt damage which leads to reduced fatigue
life.
Yielding in the end plate decreased the demand in the beam and nodal panel, but causes a
decrease in load capacity and stiffness of the beam-to-column joint; this is explained in detail in Figure
31 and the description thereof.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 21
5.3 P
Part of results for fram
me 1 specim
men.
5.3.1 Specimen N_6_20_24_6000
The cumulattive fatigue damage is evaluated b
by the Palm
mgren-Minerr rule, and cycle countting is
med by the rrain flow method.
perform m Forr reaching  Di  1.0 in node forrm FE mesh is conserrvative
assumed that the beam-to-colu d the fatiguee life of the joint.
umn joint haave reached
0.16 ribb
ребро
0.12 плоча
пояс nuumber  Nf Di
0.08 панел cyycles
0.04
0
0.50 0.15 1.63 0.311
strain

0.00
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1.00 0.14 1.88 0.533
-0.04
0
0.50 0.08 5.84 0.099 Cyccle count byy rain flow
w
-0.08 methhod
1.50 0.04 24.00 0.066
-0.12
D i =1.0
-0.16 reversal
Figure 20
2 „Low cyclle fatigue annalytical soluution on speccimen N_6_20_224_600“

The beam-to-column joiints are exaamined accoording to reccommended d proceduree for assessin
ng the
behavio
or of steel ellements und
der cyclic lo
oad ECCS [26].
[ The results are shoown on Fig
gure 20.
18.0
Resistan
nce ratio Full ductilitty
1.440

положи
ителен
отрицаттелен
0.990 1.0
1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10

1.000 Absorbed en
nergy ratio
Full ductility ratio
1.00

0.900 0.20
1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10
0

Figure 21
2 „Recordinng of behavio
oral parameters by [26] during the cyyclic test of sspecimen N_6_20_24_000
_ “
g moment M y and yiellding rotatioon  y are defined
The yielding d by tthe recomm mendation in n [26],
wn on Figuree 21. The reelation 0  i /  y is reccognized ass partial ducctility.
as show
The parametters needed for descrip ption of thee specimen subjected on cyclic load accord ding to
[26] aree:
1) Fuull ductility i  Ri / Ry is the ductillity in cyclicc loading, annd is the relaation of the absolute
a rotaation in
the posittive (or negaative) force raange Ri to the
t yielding rrotation Ry .

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 22
 2) Full ductility ratio  i   Ri  / ( Ry   ( Ri   Ry  )) shows the relation between specimen real full ductility and
the ductility of specimen with perfect elasto-plastic behavior.
3) Resistance ratio  i   Qi / Qy indicates specimen’s hardening and has reached value  i  1.32 , which
indicates that the resistance has increased due to hardening.
Ai
4) Absorbed energy ratio i   estimates the relation between the dissipated energy
Fy  *   i    y    i    y  
by the specimen for one half cycle to the energy that could be dissipated in idealized elasto-plastic conditions.
Value of i  indicates well plastic energy absorbing capacity of the reinforced joint.

[kNm] 350
M

0
-0.08 0.00 0.08

ф,
[rad]
-350

Figure 22 „Determination of yielding moment and yielding rotation“

5.3.2 Fatigue life of simulated specimens, subjected to JISF cyclic load

Specimen y p Final reversal Cumulative dissipated energy Rotational
capacity
kNm*rad
5 7 9 11 13 15 краен
N_6_20_24_600 1.14 0.73 12 3 10.3 22.5 49.4 81.5 100.4 0.037
N_8_20_24_600 1.14 0.83 12.3 3.1 10.9 24.2 53.8 89.5 111 0.037
N_10_20_24_600 1.14 1.0 14.2 3.2 11 24.6 55.5 93.1 150.9 0.0556
N_12_16_24_600 1.01 1.15 15.9 2.9 9.7 22.1 50.8 85.7 139.6 198.2 0.0556
N_12_20_24_600 1.14 1.15 16.2 3.6 11.9 26.6 58.6 97.4 157 185.3 0.0556
N_12_25_24_600 1.34 1.15 15 3.7 12.2 27.3 60.1 99.8 160.1 0.0556
N_16_25_24_600 1.34 1.43 14.2 4 13 28 63 104 133 0.0556
Table 7 „Fatigue life of simulated specimens“

In Table 7 is presented the fatigue life and the cumulative dissipated energy of the simulated
specimens.
17

16
final half cycle

15
ау
14 аp
13 Partial strength Full strength
connection connection
12
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Figure 23 „Fatigue life of specimen type N“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 23
 From Figure 23 and Table 7 is reported, that longer fatigue life when loaded with JISF cyclic
load is observed when panel ratio  p is in the interval 0.90   p  1.20 and end plate ratio  y is
0.90   y  1.30 . In the specimens with с  p  0.90 is observed damage in the endplate stiffener, but
this damage does not reduce significantly the connection resistance. If ignored the endplate stiffener
damage joints with  p  0.90 will show longer fatigue life.

Damage in
beam flange
ay
ap
Damage in
endplate stiffener
Partial strength Full strength Figure 24 „Definition on the joint
connection connection component with damage index equal to
1.0 related to ар и ау“
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

From Figure 24 is observed that damage in the endplate stiffener have occurred when a y  1.0
or a p  1.0 , otherwise the beam flange is damaged.
200
N_6_20_24_600
N_8_20_24_600
150 N_10_20_24_600
cumulative disipated energy

N_12_16_24_600
N_12_20_24_600
100 N_12_25_24_600
[kNm*rad]

N_16_25_24_600

50

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17
reversal
Figure 25 „Cumulative dissipated energy in frame 1 beam-to-column joint specimen”
From Figure 25 is reported, that the cumulative dissipated energy have increased when the
values  p и  у have increased. If  p  0.90 and  y  1.0 the difference in the hysteresis areas
between the strongest and the weakest specimen is in 10%.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 24
5.3.3 Beam flangge local bucckling

Figure 26
2 „Beam flaange local buuckling“

Тhe studied specimen

s sh
hows that after
a local bu
uckling of beam
b flangee subjected to cyclic lo
oading
the straain is increeasing whicch prerequiisite for low cyclic fatigue.
f Thee growth ofo rotation  as
indicateed in Figuree 26 indicaates when thhe local insstability is present.
p Thhe rotation is
i defined by
b the
differen
nce of verticcal displacements of no
ode 2747 annd node 130 04 divided bby the flangee width.
0.66 N_16_25_24
8 тс 13 N_10_20_24
N_12_20_24
0 N_12_25_24
2 21 N_8_20_24
-8
 [rad]

N_12_16_24
,

0
10 reversal 20
2 „Compariison of rotatiion  of specimens in dep
Figure 27 ependence off the reversall“

pecimen N_16_25_24_600 with a y  1.34 and a p  1.34 is designed according to [1] and
Sp d [17],
while the
t other samples aree within thee limits off the recom mmendationns of FEMA A355D [16 6] and
FEMA3 350 [9]. The compariso on of Figurre 27 showss that N_16_225_24_600 beaam flange lo ocal bucklin ng has
occur one cycle beefore the oth her specimen ns.
h the increasse a p the du
Itt can reporteed that with urability of joint
j subjeccted to cycliic load is reeduced
becausee the participation of joint
j panel in taking the
t node rotation was reduced wh
hich increaase the
demandd of the beamm.

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 25
5.3.4 Joint rotation distribution on the components

Joint rotation  Beam rotation b End plate rotation e Joint panel rotation s
Figure 28 „Rotation definition on joint and on joint components“

Joint rotation  is distributed between the beam, the panel and the end plate. Joint rotation  in
eq. (33) is equal to the sum of the beam rotation b , end plate rotation e and joint panel rotation s .
  b  e  s (33)

The rotation  is the same in the simulated joints, but is distributed in different way in the
specimens’ components.
The end plate rotation e is defined based on the end plate uplift u x 3 as shown on Figure 28 and
eq. (34).
u
e  x 3 (34)
Hp

The beam rotation b is written in eq.(35). The rotation  ux 2  ux1  / H p is distributed between the
beam and the end plate.
u u
b  x 2 x1  e (35)
Hp
The moment resistant frame is designed such than the column behaves in elastic manner, due to
the capacity design. The column contribution in the joint rotation can be expressed as eq. (36). It
should be mentioned that the rotation in the column c is much smaller than the other specimen so c
is not considered in the analytical study.
M *(0.5* H  H p )
c  (36)
2* E * I
Based on the known values of  , e and b joint rotation s can be evaluated based on eq. (37).
s    b  e (37)

From Figure 29 is reported, that in early stage of the loading  is distributed between the
components based on their. When the component with lower resistance has yield the rotation is mainly
in it. The rotation  in the balanced design joints is distributed between beam and column, which
allows joint rotation with lower components rotation.

.Joint panel Beam Balanced

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 26
 0.08 N_6_20_24_600
_ N_16_25_24_600 0.08
0.08 N_12_16_24_600

0.00 0.00 0.00

2 20
2 2 20
2 20
rotation

фе

rotation

rotation
фе
rad

фе

rad

rad
фs фs
фs фb
фb
фb
-0.08 reverssal -0.08 revversal -0.08 rev
versal
Figure 29
2 „Componnents rotationn in differentt specimens“
“

While evaluaating the rottation capaccity of partiial strength joint cd acccording to БДС EN 1998-1
W
[17], the panel rotaation s is reduced
r to 30%
3 of the joint rotation cd as show
wn in eq. (3
38).
cd  b  e  s , where s  0.30 * cd (38)

The limited value

v of cdd in eq. (38
8) difficult the wer value off  p в
t applicattion of joinnts with low
steel fraame in desirred high or medium du uctility levell.
The rotationn capacity cd against  p и  y is shown on o Figure 30. 3 From Figure
F 30 can
c be
ue of cd .
d that 0.90   p  1.10 and  y  1.10 results tto balanced design and higher valu
reported

0.055

0.045
Highh ductility level
0.035
Фcd

ay
y
Mediuum ductility leveel
ap
p
0.025
Low ductility
d level
0.015
Parttial strength Full strenggth
0.005
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Figure 30
3 „Rotationnal capacity of
o beam-to-ccolumn joint with end plaate connectioon [5]“

5.3.5 Influence of the endd plate con nnection reesistance too the jointt hysteresiss behavior when
subjected too cyclic
To express th he influence of the stifffened end pplate conneection to thee behavior of
o the joint under
cyclic load on Figu ure 31 are compared
c specimens N_12_16_24 wiith  y  0.944 , N_12_20_224 with  y  1.14
and N_112_25_24 with  y  1.34 .
The results shhows that th e plate raatio  y  1.114 and  y  1.34
he joint resiistance is siimilar with end
uced with 55% in speciimen with  y  0.94 . A
but redu Also the hy men  y  0.94 is
ysteresis areea in specim
reducedd compared d to the otheers. Lower end plate resistance
r has increasedd the upliftt and reduceed the
compreession resistance of the tensioned in previous rreversal T-sstub.

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 27
 500 500
Hysteresis curves Envelope of hysreresis curves
М-ф

момент kNm
0
0 0.00 ротация 0.06
-0.08 0.00 0.08
40
cumulative dissipated energy

kNm*rad
-500 0
N_12_25_24 N_12_20_24 N_12_16_24
5 reversal 17

Figure 31 “Hysteresis curves M-ф in specimens with different end plate 16mm, 20mm и 25mm and panel ratio
ap=1.05”

На Figure 32 is presented hysteresis curve „Force-elongation“ of T-stub when loaded with

cyclic load but with one full cycle. T-stub first load case is tension load, and then second load case is
performed with compression load. It is observed that the compression T-stub compression resistance is
lower than the tension resistance in position 1. The tension resistance of the bolt rows is not larger than
the T-stub compression resistance, because the forces are in equilibrium. As conclusion it can be
reported that the lower compression resistance of the end plate reduces the moment resistance and
stiffness of end plate connection, subjected to cyclic load.

Contact stress Hysteresis curve F-Uz of the tested T-stub

T-stub subjected to
cyclic load Tension in T-stub

Compression in T-stub

Figure 32 „T-stub behavior if loaded with one cycle loading“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 28
 a y  0.94 , t p  16mm a y  1.14 , t p  20mm a y  1.34 , t p  25mm
Figure 33
3 „von Misees strain in end
e plate in reversal
r 15“
O Figure 333 is presented the von Mises strain
On n in half cy
ycle 15. It iss reported th ng a y
hat increasin
value will
w reduce thhe strain. The
T results in
ndicate thatt the first an
nd second boolt row of th
he specimen
n with
a y  0.994 yields in first mode..
0.03
strain at bolt in bolt row 1

аy=0.9
94
аy=1.14
0.02 аy=1.34

0.01

0
mens
Figure 34“Bolt straain at specim
reversal subjecteed to cyclic loading
l “
2 21

Frrom the speecimen com

mparison on Figure 34 it i can be repported that bolt damag
ge is not exppected
due to bolt hat when redducing end plate ratio a y the
b strain vvalue under 0.08. Intereesting obserrvation is th
his is expectted becausee reducing a y increasess the end plaate demand.
bolt straain is increaasing, but th
0.08
straint in node FE mesh

0.06

0.04
ay=0.94
ay=1.14
0.02 ay=1.34

0
2 reversal 21 F
Figure 35 „SStrain at end plate“
p

Ductility of
o beam-to-column joint with
h endplate con
nnection (English version off author’s sum
mmary) p
page 29
5.3.6 Influence of Rd on the behavior of partial strength and full strength end plate connections,
when subjected to cyclic load.
According to [1] specimens N_12_20_20 and N_12_16_24 are partial strength connection because
 y  0.94  1.0 . Further the panel ratio is  p  1.05 . The end plate ratio  y  0.94 corresponds to the
requirements of ANSI/AISC 341-10 [28], in which  y  0.80 , but it should be mentioned that in
FEMA350 [9] is not recommended  y  1.0 .
500 Specimen N_12_20_20 Specimen N_12_16_24
[kNm]

 Rd  1.25;  y  0.94;  Rd  0.53;  y  0.94;

М,

 p  1.05  p  1.05

ф, [rad]
0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06

M_N_12_20_20
M_N_12_16_24
-500

Figure 36 „Comparison of specimen N_12_20_20 and N_12_16_24, designed with the same end plate and joint panel
resistance, but with different end plate yielding mechanism“
Based on [18] is evaluated  Rd =1.25 for specimen N_12_20_20 and  Rd =0.53 for specimen
N_12_16_24. In this specific case  Rd  0.654 is the limit between first and second mode, so the end plate
connection in specimen N_12_20_20 yields in second mode (bolt and plate yielding), and in N_12_16_24
yields in first mode (plate yielding).
On Figure 36 is recognisable the hysteresis curves pinching on specimen N_12_20_20, compared
with N_12_16_24, which indicatesd that the application of partial strength connection with end plate
yielding in second mode is not recommended design practice for moment resistant steel frame
structure.
0.20

0.16 N_12_20_20
N_12_16_24
bolt strain

0.12

0.08
bolt
0.04 pretension
Figure 37 „Comparison of bolt at first bolt
0.00 row strain at specimens N_12_20_20 and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N_12_16_24“
reversal

The strain of bolt М20 in N_12_20_20 is with higher value than the strain of bolt M24 from
N_12_16_24, as presented on Figure 37. The specimens have the same calculated yielding resistance but
the bolts with lower resistance have higher elongation. Further the bolts are damaged in reversal 13 at
bolt strain 0.08, which also leads to early connection failure.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 30
 Specimens N_12_26_20 and N_12_20_24 compared on Figure 38 are full strength joints, with equal
values of the end plate ratio  y  1.14 and panel ratio  p  1.05 . But bolt tension resistance and the
end plate thickness differs, and  Rd =2.02 for N_12_26_20 and  Rd =0.83 for N_12_20_24. First two bolt rows
on specimen N_12_26_20 yields in third mode (bolt yield) with  Rd >2.0, but N_12_20_24 yields in second
mode.
Hysteresis curve of the specimen N_12_26_20 with  Rd  2.02 have significant pinching because
the large bolt elongation, and the premature bolt yielding has reduced the joint fatigue life. It can be
concluded that T-stub yielding in third mode is not recommended, even for full strength end plate
connection.
500 Specimen N_12_20_24 Specimen N_12_26_20
огъващ момент,

 Rd  0.83;  y  1.14;  Rd  2.02;  y  1.14;

[kNm]

 p  1.05  p  1.05

0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
ротация,
[rad]

N_12_26_20
N_12_20_24
-500
Figure 38 „Comparison of full strength joints N_12_20_24 и N_12_26_20“
Based on the results in Heading 5.3 are defined certain limits for  y and  Rd for end plate
connection design, shown on Figure 39. In the recommended zone the rotation capacity is mainly
determined by the beam (panel ratio a p  1.05 ), and in the not recommended zone the rotational
capacity is determined by the bolts yielding.
1.40 first second third
mode mode mode
1.30
Recommended
1.20
ay

1.10
Figure 39 „Recommended
full strength
1.00 values for y и Rd for
partial strength Not recommended determination of the yielding
0.90 mechanism of beam-to-column
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 joint with end plate connection“
bRd
Болтове с достатъчна носимоспособност
Болтове с недостатъчна носимоспособност

Eq. (39) and (40) are describing the recommended zone on Figure 39.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 31
  Rd   I (39)

 y  1.0    I 
If , then  y  0.2*  Rd  1 (40)
 Rd  1.75  1.75   I 
2* n / m
, where  I  . Because of lack of simulation in the thesis of specimen with lower
2* n / m  1
value of  y is assumed that  y  0.94 . Further to increase the rotational capacity of the joint  y  1.10
as explained in 5.3.4.
Non recommended zone on Figure 38 can be evaluated with eq. (41) и (42). For specimen with
 Rd and  y in the non-recommended zone the numerical simulation shows that joint yielding
mechanism is bolt yielding which is not good connection design approach.
1.75   Rd   I и  y  1.0 (41)

  Rd  1.3   y  1.0
 y  0.15*    1 , ако 1.75    1.3 (42)
 0.7  Rd

5.4 Research of beam-to-column joint from frame 2

Typical end plate connections for detailing beam-to-column joint are extended unstiffened end
plate, extended stiffened end plate and end plate with haunch. Even if they are designed with the same
resistance, different behavior is noticed when subjected to cyclic load.
The beam-to-column joint on Figure 40 is simulated in the current part of the thesis, as applied
the indicated connections types. The joint yielding resistance is analytically determined in Table 8
according to [1].

Series H Series He

Static scheme of the joint with out-of-plane restrainsindicated

Series Hrib Series Hh

Figure 40 „Beam-to-column joint form frame 2“

The used static scheme of the simulated beam-to-column joint corresponds to the used in the
literature. The beam top flange is restrained out-of-plane, which typically is provided from the RC slab
and the dowel connection. This restrain is required to ensure that the beam can yield when subjected to
cyclic load without lateral-torsional buckling to occur [17].

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 32
 In first load case is applied bolt pretension, and in second load case the column is loaded with
1200kN axial force, assumed as  20% of column section resistance. In the following load cases is
applied the horizontal load, which corresponds to recommendations in ECCS [26].
образец Нe_5_22 Нe_5_28 Нe_8_28 Нe_10_32 Н_8_22 Н_10_28 Н_16_28 НRib_10_28 Нh_4_28 Нh_7_28
M yRd kNm 643 643 643 643 643 643 643 643 643 643
M y_b kNm 673 673 673 673 679 679 679 679 679 679
tp mm 22 28 28 32 22 28 28 28 28 28
tsp mm 5 5 8 10 8 10 16 10 8 (1бр.) 7
M y_e_ p kNm 584 637 637 641 805 992 992 992 732 732
y - 0.869 0.947 0.947 0.954 1.19 1.47 1.47 1.47 0.94 0.94
V ys kN 1691 1691 2113 2395 2113 2395 3241 2395 1550 1973
Vp kN 2164 2164 2164 2164 2164 2172 2172 2172 1637 1637
p - 0.781 0.781 0.977 1.11 0.977 1.097 1.492 1.097 0.971 1.236
Table 8 „Analytically determination of joint of frame 2 resistances “

Hysteresis curves “Moment-rotation” from the ten performed simulations are shown in Figure
41, and detailed description of the results is available in the thesis.

Specemen Hе Specimen H Specimen Hrib Specimen Hh

900

0
-0.06 0.10

-900
ay=0.947; ap=0.781
900 900 900

0 0 0
-0.06 0.10 -0.06 0.10 -0.06 0.10

-900 -900 -900

ay=0.947; ap=0.977 ay=1.19; ap=0.977 ay=0.94 ap=0.971
900 900 900 900

0 0 0 0
-0.06 0.10 -0.06 0.10 -0.06 0.10 -0.06 0.10

-900 -900 -900 -900

ay=0.954 ap=1.11 ay=1.47 ap=1.097 ay=1.47 ap=1.097 ay=0.94 ap=1.236
Figure 41 „Hysteresis curves „M-ф“ of frame 2 specimens“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 33
5.4.1 Comparison of the maximum strain in the simulated specimens in frame 2
A suitable criterion for comparison of different joint types is the value of the equivalent strain 
due to the reversals, as in Figure 42. High  value predispose to damage due to low cycle fatigue.
Нe_5_22
0.384 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
reversal Нe_5_28
0.192
Нe_8_28
(log scale)
strain

0.096 Нe_10_32
0.048 Н_8_22

0.024 Н_10_28
Н_16_28
0.012
НRib_10_28
0.006
Нh_4_28
0.003 Нh_7_28
0,02rad 0,04rad 0,06rad
0.002
Figure 42„Comparison of equivalent strain of frame 2 specimens“
The comparisson between the results for specimens Н_10_28 and НRib_10_28 leads to the conclusion,
that the beam web ribs prevented the flange buckling when the rotation is more than 0.04 but has
increased the strain in the joint for the smaller rotation. It can be concluded that these ribs are not
necessary.
In specimens series Hh the haunch has increased the joint resistance with translating the plastic
hinge away from the column face.
750
Нe_5_22
700
Нe_5_28
650
bendin moment Mh, [kNm] Нe_8_28
600 Нe_10_32
550 Н_8_22

500 Н_10_28
Н_16_28
450
НRib_10_28
400
Нh_4_28
350 Нh_7_28
equivalent strain (log scale)
300
0.0015 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.024 0.048 0.096 0.192 0.384
Figure 43„Comparison of connection resistance Mh and equivalent strain of frame 2 specimens“

From Figure 43 can be reported that specimen series Hh has higher resistance than the other
specimens. Further in Figure 42 is visible that the strain in the end plate with haunch is with lower
value, which have increased the joint fatigue life.
The presence of end plate stiffener in specimen Hh has increased the end plate resistance, but the
strain in the rib are with high value, which will lead to rib damage from low cycle fatigue. It is
reasonable to assume that the end plate stiffener works as connection defence [29].
The application of unstiffened extended end plate is less favorable, because a damage will occur
in the beam flange, without developing the beam full rotational capacity.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 34
 It appears that end plate conection with haunch has lower strain values but higher resistance, so
this makes it a better connection for detailing steel frame.
6 Appropriate material models for cyclic loading appication from the ANSYS material
library
The initial behavior of structural steel is linearly elastic and isotropic. When the material starts to
yield, it can be described by the von Mises criterion and normality yield law. Structure steel in
monotonic load application can be simulated by material model with isotropic or kinematic hardening.
In cyclic load application is suitable kinematic hardening and also combined hardening (kinematic and
isotropic). The kinematic hardening rule involves a shifting of the yield surface due to a reversal of
loading and is preferred for analyses involving cyclic loading [30].
The Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening model is suitable for describing cyclic metal
material behavior and is applied in the simulation.
The yield function f is expressed in eq. (43).
f  I 2 (  X )  k (43)
Moreover in eq. (43) is understood that  is the stress tensor, I 2 is the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor, and k is the initial yield surface size
The simplest way to present kinematic hardening is by using Prager’s model [5], in which the
kinematic variable tensor X is collinear with the evolution of the plastic strain  pl eq. (44).
2
dX  * C * d  pl (44)
3
The linearity associated with the stress–strain response is rarely observed. A better description is
given by the model proposed initially by Armstrong and Frederick introducing a recall term, called
dynamic recovery:
2
dX  * C * d  pl   * X * dp (45)
3
The increment of the kinematic hardening tensor dX is expressed by two parameters, the initial
hardening modulus C and the nonlinear recovery parameter  , which controls the rate at which the
hardening modulus decreases to zero. In eq. (45) the first term is the hardening modulus, and the
second term is the recall term that produces a nonlinear effect.
The increment of the accumulated plastic strain p is shown in eq. (46).
2
dp  d  pl : d  pl (46)
3
For a selection of material model in the thesis is performed comparison of numerical simulation
of different material models and the experimental studies in [31]. In [31] Shi explores specimens from
structural steel Q345B and Q235B used in China. The specimens were tested in a monotonic and
cyclic load, using different protocols for cyclic loading.
The comparison on Figure 44 between numerical simulation with combined hardening and the
experimental test results from [31] shows well coincidence between the hysteresis curves.
Based on the accurate comparison is concluded that the experimental test results are accurately
predicted when used combined hardening with Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening and Voce
isotropic hardening.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 35
 Experimental [31]
Numerical with material models
of Chaboche and Voce

Cyclic load protocol

Figure 44 „Comparison from hysteresis curves from experimental study and from numerical study for steel
Q345B“
With applied displacement on tension/compression with the same value the specimen is tested
for shake down. The experimental and the numerical results are compared on Figure 45 with well
coincidence.
Experimental [31]
Numerical with material models of
Chaboche and Voce

Cyclic load

Figure 45 „Comparison with shake down from hysteresis curves from experimental study and from numerical
study for steel Q345B“

7 Numerical simulating of experiments

7.1 Bursi and Jaspart [32] experimental study on T-stub loaded on tension.

The authors report T-stubs loaded on tension. One group of the T-stub specimens is cut from hot
rolled section IPE300, and the other from HEB220. Bolts are assembled as pretensioned and non-
pretensioned in the specimens. In this study is performed and presented in detail material tension test,
so it is convenient for numerical simulation.
In Figure 46 are presented the applied in the model finite elements types from ANSYS element
library [30]. The end plate and web is modeled with planar shell elements SHELL181, while the bolt is
simulated with LINK180. The interference between the knee brace element and the plates is simulated
by contact pairs with surface target elements TARGE170 and surface-to-surface contact elements
CONTA174.

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 36
SHELL181 – planar objects LINK180
LINK180 - bolt
MPC184
TARGE170 and CONTA174
–contact pairs

MPC184

Figure 46 „T-stub FE discretization “

The T-stub tension-elongation comparison on Figure 47 between experimental and numerical
results indicates well coincidence regard the applied finite elements types.
250
T-stub tension resistance

200

150
[kN]

100

50 експеримент Т1 - ненапрегнат
числов модел - болт с LINK180
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
elongation - [cm]
Figure 47 „T-stub tension resistance comparison between experimental [31] and numerical test“
7.2 Gang Shi study on beam-to-column joint with end plate connection, subjected to cyclic
loading [29]
Gang Shi [29] tests eight specimens on beam-to-column joints with end plate connections in
Figure 47, subjected to cyclic loading.
Authors reported that joint with end plate connection can provide enough rotational capacity and
ductility. They recommended stiffened extended end plate connection, while flush end plate is not
recommended.

Figure 48 „Experimental setting in [29]“

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 37
 On Figure 48 is observed good coincidence between the hysteresis curves from the experiment
and from the numerical simulation. The conclusion is that the performed simulation can predict well
the behavior of beam-to-column joint with end plate connection regard the applied finite elements
types.

Experimental [29]
Numerical

Figure 49 „Numerical and experimental hysteresis curve of beam-to-column joint with end plate connection
comparison”

Authors publications related to the thesis

1. Zhelev D., Numerical simulation of cyclic load on end plate connection”, Proceedings of the METNET Seminar 2014 in
Moscow.

2. Желев Д., Числени модели за определяне на носимоспособността на огъващ момент на възел ригел–колона,
решен с фланцево съединение, Годишник на УАСГ 2015.
3. Желев Д., Лостови ефект при еквивалентно Т-парче, Годишник на УАСГ 2015

Ductility of beam-to-column joint with endplate connection (English version of author’s summary) page 38