Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Steel beam-to-column RBS connections with European profiles:

I. Static optimization
Dimitrios S. Sophianopoulos ⁎, Agoritsa E. Deri
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, 38334 Volos, Greece

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

Article history: In this work we present an optimization procedure for achieving best beam-to-column reduced beam section
Received 5 January 2017 connections in steel moment frames under static loading. The whole scheme is based on selecting European I-
Received in revised form 5 September 2017 profiles for beams and columns, using the component method of Eurocode 3 for evaluating the design moment
Accepted 20 September 2017
resistance of the joint, regression analysis to correlate the geometrical and inertial characteristics of the various
components and elementary principles of Mechanics. In doing this, were are led to a constraint optimization
Keywords:
Steel moment frames
problem, which is formed according to the design restrictions of European and North American Standards for
Reduced beam section RBS connections, regarding expected seismic behavior. Adopting advanced numerical procedures, optimum re-
Connections sults are obtained, regarding either combinations of connection components or existing steel frames, a fact vali-
Optimization dating the flexibility and applicability of the proposed method. The calibration, verification and validation of the
European I-profiles excellent seismic performance of the results obtained will be demonstrated in a companion paper, via FE analyses
Monotone (static) loading under cyclic loading. Hopefully, this work will contribute in adopting RBS connections in the design of steel mo-
ment frames in European engineering practice, as well as in the relevant codes.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Τhe reduced-beam-section (RBS) concept in steel moment resisting
frames is based on the selective removal of beam material adjacent to
the joint, either from the web or from the flanges of the beam. This re-
duction in cross-sectional area will lead to the consecutive reduction
of the moment bearing capacity at a discrete location of the beam,
where yielding will be concentrated, protecting in this manner the con-
nection from early fracture. After extensive theoretical and experimen-
tal work, as overviewed by the authors [1], the radius-cut RBS
configuration was prequalified in both USA and Canadian Standards
[2–6]. Contrary, it was only incorporated in EC8-Part 3 [7] – and not in
Eurocode 3 – for retrofitting, as a mere follow-up of the North
American Standards mentioned above, without any indication
concerning the type of connection or the profiles used for the beams
and the columns. The geometry of such a RBS is depicted in Fig. 1,
while the corresponding size limitations are given in expressions
(1) and (2) for AISC/CISC and EC8 respectively.
0:5bfb ≤ α ≤ 0:75bfb ; 0:65db ≤ b ≤ 0:85db ; 0:10bfb ≤ c ≤ 0:25bfb
α ¼ 0:60bfb ; b ¼ 0:75db ; c ¼ 0:20bfb
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dimsof@civ.uth.gr (D.S. Sophianopoulos), nagoritsa@civ.uth.gr
(A.E. Deri).
where db is the depth of the beam, while the radius of cut is equal
to
2
4c2 þ b
R¼ ð3Þ
8c
Extending a recent work by the authors [8], the goal of the present
study is to optimize symmetric extended end-plate RBS connections
with European I-profiles (for beams and columns) under monotone
loading, based on the above limitations and in conjunction with ele-
mentary principles of Mechanics.
More specifically, utilizing advanced regression analysis and
graphics software [9], in order to approximately produce functions
that relate the overall characteristics of the I-profiles used, the whole
problem is lead to the formulation of an objective function, to be numer-
ically minimized. This function accounts for required ductility of the
connection, desirable plastic deformation and formation of the plastic
hinge within the RBS, without exceeding the actual static design mo-
ð1Þ ment resistance of the joint Mj,Rd, which is calculated via the component
method [10], with guidelines and programming techniques based on a
ð2Þ relevant book [11]. Shear yielding and local buckling phenomena are
also avoided. The optimized results obtained will be validated and ver-
ified via FEM simulation under cyclic loading in a companion paper,
aiming in the whole to provide a tool for accepting the RBS as a reliable
seismic connection for European Steel Design Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.09.028
0143-974X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
102 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109

regression, as mentioned earlier. A typical outcome of this procedure

is illustrated in Fig. 3 for the web thickness of HEA sections. After
performing this lengthy task, Mj , Rd is evaluated according to the
component method of Eurocode 3. The determination of Mj, Rd is based
on the assumption that there is no moment-axial force interaction in
the connected members, i.e. that the inequality Ned/Npl,Rd ≤ 0.05 holds
(see §6.2.3 and 6.2.7.1(2) of EC3-Part1.8 [10]). The simplified recom-
mendation of §6.2.7.1(3) of EC3-Part1.8 [10] is considered extremely
conservative by the authors and hence not adopted herein. The whole
procedure leads to a strongly nonlinear and quite complex function,
which depends only on the height (depth) of the beams and columns.
The corresponding code in Mathematica [12] can be found in the Ph.D.
Thesis of the 2nd author [13].

3. Optimization procedure – formulation of the objective function

We consequently examine a typical moment resisting steel frame,

with a distance between columns (beam length) equal to L and RBS at
Fig. 1. Radius-cut RBS. both sides. Under seismic loading, it is desired that plastic hinges will
firstly form at the weakest RBS sections. At this situation, the allocation
2. Geometry of the connections and regression – curve fitting and the equilibrium of seismic and non-seismic generalized forces is
dealt with. A schematic representation of these forces is given in
Let us consider the symmetric extended end-plate beam-t-column Fig. 4, for the half of the beam.
connection shown in Fig. 2, with continuity plates and radius-cut RBS. Gravity forces are owed to a uniformly distributed load w along the
The columns are made of HEB or HEA sections, while the beams are length of the beam, while the expected maximum moment at the face of
made of HEA or IPE sections, following standard European design prac- the column is designated as Mfc. Evidently, this moment is equal to
tice. The geometric limitations of the RBS are the ones given in the
Introduction, while the following constraints, based on Eurocode 3, Mfc ¼ M RBS þ ðV RBS Þs ð5Þ
Part 1.8 [10] are employed for the various connection components:
where
9
hp hb bp b
 >   
¼ ⇔ ¼ b ; bb bc ; bp bb ; minðe; e1 Þ ¼ 1:5d0 >
>
= MRBS ¼ W pl;RBS f RBS ¼ W pl;b −2ctfb hb −t fb f RBS ð6aÞ
bp bb hp hb
ð4Þ
bp ¼ 2e þ x; hp ¼ 2e1 þ 4y >
>
>
; or
3do ≤ x ≤ 5do ; 3do ≤ y ≤ 5do
   
MRBS ¼ W pl;b −ck f RBS ; k ¼ 2t fb hb −t fb ð6bÞ
The connection is acted upon by a bending moment M, being the
monotone type of loading considered. For all the four I-profiles adopted, Moreover, one may write that
their geometrical, cross-sectional and inertial properties are thereafter
expressed as functions of only the height (depth) of the profile via V RBS ¼ V seismic
RBS þ Vw
RBS ð7Þ

Fig. 2. Geometry of the RBS connection studied herein.

 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109 103

Fig. 3. Typical regression results for HEA profiles.

in which The second term in the right hand side of the above is directly corre-
lated to MRBS by writing
M RBS 2MRBS
V seismic
RBS ¼ ⇒V seismic
RBS ¼ ð8aÞ Mfc ¼ 1:1MRBS þ μM RBS ð12Þ
L−2s L−2s
2
Parameter μ is evaluated in order that the following two require-
and ments are met: (a) for Eq. (12) to be valid for a wide range of values
of L and w, and (b) no effect of shear force on the bending resistance ap-
pears at the position of the 1st plastic hinge. The 2nd requirement dic-
wL
Vw
RBS ¼ ð8bÞ tates that
2
V Ed
Combining Eqs. (5), (7) and (8a), (8b) we get ≤ 0:50 ð13Þ
V pl;Rd
 
2MRBS wL Since the acting shear is equal to VRBS, using Eq. (12) we can write
Mfc ¼ M RBS þ þ s ð9Þ
L−2s 2 that
 
In Eqs. (6a), (6b) fRBS is the maximum expected stress that will μΜRBS W pl;b −ck f RBS
V Ed ¼ ⇒V Ed ¼ μ ð14Þ
develop in the RBS. Under cyclic loading conditions and large in- s s
elastic deformations this stress – at the weakest RBS section – pffiffiffi
may reach the ultimate strength f u . In the sequel, we Taking into account that V pl;Rd ¼ Apv ffiffif3u and after setting γ ¼ μ 3
choose maxfrbs = fu, satisfying in this manner the overstrength re- inequality (13) is expressed as
quirements of clauses 6.5.2, 6.5.5 and 6.6.4 of Eurocode 8 – Part 1
 
[14]. γ W pl;b −ck W pl;b 0:5sAv
For an optimum connection as in Fig. 2, it is required that ≤ 0:50 ⇔ c ≥ − ð15Þ
sAv k γk

ΔΜ ¼ M j;Rd −Mfc ≥ 0 and ΔΜ minimum ð10Þ Since for every beam cross-section the quantities s, Wpl, b, Av and k
are known, the smaller accepted value of c depends only on parameter,
Obviously, one should avoid a situation that corresponds toΔΜ= 0, namely γ, to be determined. As it can be perceived from the limitations
i.e. simultaneous failure of joint and RBS. For this reason, a safety factor given in expressions (1)–(3), c must always be b 0.25bfb. If this restric-
equal to 1.1 is introduced in Eq. (9) yielding tion is combined with inequality (13), then one may establish the max-
imum value of γ, which will satisfy the 2nd requirement regarding the
  shear force. The evaluation of this value is performed graphically, and
2M RBS wL its outcome is shown in Fig. 5 for IPE beam profiles and in Fig. 6 for
Mfc ¼ 1:1MRBS þ þ s ð11Þ
L−2s 2 HEA beam profiles.
104 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109

Fig. 6. Graphical evaluation of the maximum value of γ for HEA beam profiles.

The maximum values found are γ = 0.64 and γ = 0.58 for IPE and
HEA beams respectively, which are equivalent to μ = 0.37 and μ =
0.335. Thus, based on Eq. (12), it is evident that

Μfc ¼ 1:1MRBS þ 0:37MRBS for ΙΡΕ beams ð16aÞ

Μfc ¼ 1:1MRBS þ 0:335M RBS for HEA beams ð16bÞ

We proceed at this point to fulfill the 1st of the requirements men-

tioned earlier, i.e. whether or not the replacement of the contribution
of shear at the face of the column with quantities 0.37MRBS or
0.335MRBS represents realistic combinations of frame width L and load-
ing w. In doing this, two individual tasks are performed. In the 1st of
these, the seismic shear and the static load shear are correlated in the
following manner:
 
σM RBS
Mfc ¼ 1:1MRBS þ s ð17Þ
L−2s

Fig. 4. Generalized forces in the beam of a typical RBS steel moment frame.
In the present work, and without loss of generality of the proposed
methodology, parameter σ is varied between σ = 2 (neglecting the
gravity forces on the beam) and σ = 4, a situation where the seismic
shear is equal to the shear of the gravity loads.
In the 2nd task, we calculate the values of L, as a function of s, for
which Eqs. (16a) or (16b) are valid, where appropriate. The results ob-
tained are given in Table 1.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the Introduction, RBS connections are
prequalified in the US Standards, and more specifically for Special Mo-
ment Frames (SMF) and Intermediate Moment Frames (IMF). For W-
beams, these Standards recommend that the ratio between the length
of the beam L and the height (depth) of the beam hb should be kept
not smaller than 7 for SMF and not smaller than 5 for IMF. These recom-
mendations may be also extended for the use of RBS with European pro-
files, with slight modifications. Keeping the lower limit of the
aforementioned ratio as benchmark, one may plot the curves (hb, Lmin)

Table 1
Results concerning the calculation of L as a function of s.

IPE beams
μ Lmin, σ = 2 Lmin, σ = 4
0.37 7.40541s 12.8108s

HEA beams
μ Lmin, σ = 2 Lmin, σ = 4
0.335 7.97015s 13.9403s
Fig. 5. Graphical evaluation of the maximum value of γ for IPE beam profiles.
 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109 105

Table 2
Connection data involved in the optimization procedure.

Connection Data
combination
Column Beam End plate Bolt diameter Bolt
thickness (mm) (mm) quality

1 HEB IPE 20 M20 8.8

2 30 M24 10.9
3 HEA 20 M20 8.8
4 30 M24 10.9
5 HEB HEA 20 M20 8.8
6 30 M24 10.9
7 HEA 20 M20 8.8
8 30 M24 10.9

Table 3
Results of the optimization procedure.

Connection Optimization results

number
Objective function x (mm) y (mm) hb hc c (mm)
value (kNmm) (mm) (mm)
Fig. 7. Limits of beam lengths with IPE profiles.
1 0.03678080 98.3977 73.7539 224.278 379.034 25.945
2 0.00002401 95.3295 87.9345 266.094 465.859 32.8589
of the above results; these are given in Figs. 7 and 8 for IPE and HEA 3 0.00000480 101.534 69.7096 224.809 545.241 26.8303
beams respectively. From these plots it is evident that the minimum di- 4 0.00001018 85.3441 95.5925 267.77 478.626 32.7745
mensions of frame widths L that resulted from this study are to a very 5 0.00000304 107.472 107.675 209.867 386.487 52.966
6 0.00000156 111.132 88.050 204.017 473.534 46.978
satisfying extent acceptable for every day practice, i.e. for realistic steel 7 0.00000542 100.608 100.584 206.695 461.655 52.243
moment resisting frames. 8 0.00006089 98.894 91.472 218.321 370.747 48.109
According to all the above, we now focus attention on the optimum
combinations of the components within the RBS, so that – under the
monotone loading chosen – the configurations obtained are governed
by the following relations:
introduce the thickness of the end-plate (under a probable restriction
ΙΡΕ : f ðpÞ ¼ M j;Rd −ψMRBS ≥ 0; f ðpÞ ¼ min; ψ ¼ 1:1 þ μ ¼ 1:470 that it is not notably larger than the web thickness of the column). In ad-
ð18aÞ dition, the diameter and the quality of bolts may vary, but on any event
engineering practice does not allow lesser than 8.8 quality and bolts
smaller than M20 and larger than M24. As far as end-plate thickness is
ΗΕΑ : f ðpÞ ¼ M j;Rd −ψM RBS ≥ 0; f ðpÞ ¼ min; ψ ¼ 1:1 þ μ ¼ 1:435 concerned, for the numerical results that follow 20 and 30 mm where
ð18bÞ chosen, while S235 steel grade was the material of the connection
components.
where p is the total set of parameters involved in the evaluation of both Furthermore, for a moment resisting frame with specific width,
Mj,Rd and MRBS, determined as previously stated. gravity forces and beam/column cross-sections, the objective func-
We are faced with a strongly nonlinear problem of constrained opti- tion will possess as free parameters only the characteristics of the
mization, where f(p) is the objective function, to be minimized. The con- bolts, the thickness of the end-plate and the continuity plates as
straints are given in expression (4). As free parameters, one may well as dimensions x and y, as defined in Fig. 2. Parameter c will
also stand as a free one, under the restriction of inequality (15),
while the definition of parameter σ results directly from existing
data.

Table 4
Design dimensions and properties of the optimized connections.

No Beam/column Connection design dimensions and properties

x y c O = A or B R = O/Mpl,b⁎⁎ V RBS
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kNm)⁎ V pl;RBS
(%)
1 IPE220/HEB400 100 75 25 3.98 0.05934 42
2 IPE270/HEB450 95 90 33 2.3 0.02022 42
3 IPE220/HEA550 100 70 27 4.2 0.06262 39
4 IPE270/HEA500 85 95 33 2.398 0.02108 42
5 HEA220/HEB400 110 110 53 2.314 0.01732 33
6 HEA220/HEB500 100 90 47 10.182 0.07621 37
7 HEA220/HEA450 100 100 52 10.134 0.07585 34
8 HEA220/HEA360 100 90 48 4.68 0.03503 36
⁎ A = Mj,Rd − 1.470MRBS (IPE beams), B = Mj,Rd − 1.435MRBS (HEA beams).
Fig. 8. Limits of beam lengths with HEA profiles. ⁎⁎ M pl;b ¼ Wγpl;b f y .
Μ0
106 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109

Local instability phenomena within the RBS are also unlikely to occur, For more details, the reader may refer to the link http://www.
since IPE and HEA beam sections under pure bending (excluding rare stalbyggnadsinstitutet.se/uploads/source/files/Artiklar/Tvarsnittsklasser
combinations of profiles and steel grade) are of Class I and II. %20fr%20valsade%20IPE-%20och%20HE-tvarsnitt.pdf.

(a) Optimized Connection 2

(b) Optimized Connection 6

Fig. 9. Geometry of optimized connections (a) No 2 and (b) No 6 (see Table 4).
 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109 107

Table 5
Results of the optimization scheme for the exemplary moment frame.

Mj,Rd − Mfc (kNm)/Ra ttp tep Bolts x y c

(mm) (mm) diameter/quality (mm) (mm) (mm)

Optimum values
6.70/0.05891 11.58 28.17 M24/10.9 127.10 128.43 21.3

Design values
8.95/0.07869 12 30 M24/10.9 130 130 21
a
R defined in Table 4.

4.2. Application for an existing steel moment resisting frame

The applicability and flexibility of the proposed optimization proce-

Fig. 10. Steel moment frame considered and its static loading.
4. Numerical results
4.1. Optimum connections
We use the powerful NMinimize Command embedded in
Mathematica [12] to solve the optimization problem at hand. The data
introduced to provide optimum solutions are those contained in
Table 2 that follows.
The results obtained are given in Table 3.
The final geometry and properties of the optimized connections –
accounting for constructability – are the ones given in Table 4.
From these eight optimized connections, Nos. 2 and 6 are depicted in
Fig. 9a and b, respectively.
The seismic performance of all optimum solutions will be validated
and verified via FEM analysis under cyclic loading in a companion
paper due.
dure is thereafter demonstrated for an everyday practice moment
resisting steel frame with RBS connections under static loading. Its di-
mensions, cross-section properties, gravity and live loading (subscripts
g and q) are shown in Fig. 10.
The corresponding diagrams of generalized forces developing on the
frame members, for combinations g + q (serviceability limit state) and
1.35 g + 1.5q (ultimate limit state) are shown in Fig. 11a and b respec-
tively. In these diagrams the self-weight of each member is included.
Initially, we check whether the component method is applicable for
the evaluation of Mj,Rd, i.e. if the ratio NEd/Npl ,Rd is b0.05 for each mem-
ber of the frame. It is easily found that this check is true (the relevant
calculations are not included), so one may proceed with the application
of the proposed methodology.
Beyond this, dimensions a and b, and thus dimension s, are all
known, hence
0:75
s ¼ a þ 0:5b ¼ 0:60bfb þ h ¼ 182:25 mm ð19Þ
2 b
The geometry and loading of the frame are also known, and if gsw is
the self-weight of the beam, we find that
w ¼ g þ q þ g sw ¼ 1:00 þ 1:45 þ 0:3611 ¼ 2:8111 kN=m ð20Þ

Fig. 11. Diagrams of generalized forces of the frame dealt with for (a) serviceability and (b) ultimate limit states.
108 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109
Consequently, Eq. (11) can be written as
2s wL
Mfc ¼ ðA1 þ 1:1ÞM RBS þ A2 ; A1 ¼ ; A2 ¼ s ð21Þ
L−2s 2
In Eq. (21) the only free parameter is c, which for an IPE 270 beam
should be less or equal to 33.75 mm. The objective function, according
to all the aforementioned analysis, takes the following form:
f ðp; cÞ ¼ M j;Rd ðpÞ−Mfc ðcÞ
The rest of the free parameters involved in the calculation of Mj,Rd
are:
• The thickness of the continuity plates ttp
• The thickness of the end-plate tep
• The diameter of the bolts d, which will affect the diameters of the
holes d0
• The bolt quality (fyb, leading to fub or vice versa)
• The geometry of the bolt arrangement (x, y)
The constraints involved are those given in expression (4), with the
addition of the ones given below:
t tp ≥ t fb ⇔ t tp ≥ 10:20 mm; t ep ≥ t fc ⇔ t ep ≥ 19 mm
From the nature of the problem no regression (curve fitting) is re-
quired, a fact reducing to a very large extent the nonlinear nature of
the objective function, while the increase of the number of constraints
will work favorably in seeking an optimum solution. Its existence how-
ever premises that the flange panel of the beam possesses enough shear
resistance to withstand the loads imposed.
In the present example, where all combinations of M20, M24 bolts
and 8.8, 10.9 qualities are used, an optimum solution did result. This cor-
responds to the data given in Table 5, and schematically in the connec-
tion shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12. Optimum RBS connection geometry for the exemplary steel frame.
The moment resistances of the final connection design are equal to:
M j;Rd ¼ 166:76 kNm; Mfc ¼ 157:81 kNm and M RBS ¼ 134:15 kNm;
while – as expected – VRBS/Vpl,b,Rd = 0.122 b 0.50.
Moreover, the values of parameters σ, μ and γ (defined in earlier sec-
tions) for this example are found equal to 37.42, 1.21 and 2.096
respectively.
The proposed optimum design scheme can be extended to include
ð22Þ axial vs. moment interaction, by replacing the component method of
Eurocode 3 for the evaluation of Mj,Rd with the one proposed by Del
Savio et al. [15]. In their work, a generalized component-based method
was demonstrated, to account for M-N interaction in semi-rigid moment
frame connections. As far as the RBS is concerned – and since fRBS = fu (as
stated earlier) – this interaction will have no effect on the level of the MRBS
value, for monotone loading. For a cyclic (seismic one) Mpl,RBS will be re-
placed by MN,RBS according to EC3 Part1.1 §6.2.9.1(4) [16], considering the
weakest section as an individual I-beam section.
5. Conclusions
The most important conclusions drawn from this study are the
following:
ð23Þ • Beam-to-column RBS connections using European I-profiles may be
optimized, using standard procedures of Mechanics, advance regres-
sion analyses, numerical procedures, and existing North-American
and European recommendations.
• The proposed scheme is theoretically justified, combines all the re-
quirements of postulated seismic response, satisfies all related con-
straints and, moreover, can be rather easily extended to apply on
every day practice design.
• The calibration, verification and validation of the optimum results ob-
tained herein will be demonstrated in a companion paper, aiming to
include the RBS concept in European Practice and Codes for the design
of steel moment resisting frames.
 D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 139 (2017) 101–109
References
[1] D.S. Sophianopoulos, A.E. Deri, Parameters affecting response and design of steel
moment frame reduced beam section connections: an overview, Int. J. Steel Struct.
10 (2) (2011) 133–144, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-011-2003-5.
[2] FEMA 350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frames,
2000 (Washington D.C., USA).
[3] FEMA 355D, State of the Art Report on Connection Performance, 2000 (Washington
D.C., USA).
[4] ANSI/AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, 2010 (Chicago,
Illinois, USA).
[5] ANSI/AISC 358-10, s1-11, s2-14, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermedi-
ate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, 2010 (Chicago, Illinois, USA).
[6] CISC/ICCA, Moment Connections for Seismic Applications, 2008 (Markham, Ontario,
Canada).
[7] EN 1993-8, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 3:
Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, 2005 (Brussels, Belgium).
[8] A.E. Deri, D.S. Sophianopoulos, Parametric analysis and optimization of reduced
beam section steel frame connectionsProceedings of the 7th European Conference
on Steel and Composite Structures, Naples, Italy, September, 2014.
109
[9] Origin Pro, Data Analysis and Graphing Software, OriginLab Corporation, Northampton,
MA, USA, 2016.
[10] EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures – Part 1–8: Design of Joints,
2005 (Brussels, Belgium).
[11] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano, Structural Steel Semirigid Connections: Theory,
Design, and Software, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2000.
[12] Mathematica V. 11. , Wolfram Research, Oxfordshire, UK, 2016.
[13] A.E. Deri, Parametric Analysis and Optimization of Steel Moment Frame Beam-to-
Column RBS Connections (in Greek)(Ph.D. Dissertation) University of Thessaly,
Volos, Greece, 2013, http://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/28151.
[14] EN 1998.01, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1:
General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, 2005 (Brussels, Belgium).
[15] A.A. Del Savio, D.A. Nethercot, P.C.G.S. Velassco, S.A.L. de Andrade, L.F. Martha, Gen-
eralized component-based model for beam-to-column connections including axial
versus moment interaction, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (8–9) (2009) 1876–1895,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.02.011.
[16] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures – Part 1–8: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, 2005 (Brussels, Belgium).