See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283009454

Simplified model for connections of steel structures in OpenSees

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 1,418

3 authors:

Ricardo Joel Teixeira Costa Filippo Gentili

University of Coimbra University of Coimbra
32 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Luís Simões da Silva

University of Coimbra
535 PUBLICATIONS   3,567 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Symposium on Structural Integrity of Old Steel Bridges (ISSI-Bridges 2017) View project

Affordable Houses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Filippo Gentili on 29 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015
Tampere, Finland
23-25 September 2015

SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR CONNECTIONS OF STEEL STRUCTURES

IN OPENSEES

R. Costaa, F. Gentilib and L. Simões da Silvac

a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Portugal
b
filippo.gentili@uc.pt, +351 239797254, ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra,
Portugal,
c
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract: According to a modern approach, based on the so-called component method, Euro-
code allows characterizing the moment-rotation curve of semi-rigid connections. This paper
deals with the formulation of a simplified mechanical model composed of extensional springs
and rigid links, for the characterization of a cruciform configuration where the left and right
connection are modelled by two separate moment-rotation curves and the web panel by one
additional moment-rotation curve. Two macro-elements are described, covering nodes con-
necting beams with the same and with different beam depths. The developed FEM elements
were implemented in OpenSees and were validated with some benchmark examples.

1 Introduction
The appropriate modelling of beam-to-column joints in the design of framed steel structures is
essential not only for the accurate simulation of the overall structural behaviour but also in
order to achieve economical and sustainable structures. Accordingly, in the last decades, sig-
nificant effort was dedicated to the development of accurate and easy-to-use analysis and de-
sign procedures for beam-to-column joints, leading to the so called component method that
constitutes the basis of EN 1993-1-8: 2005 [1]. In the framework of the component method,
joints are decomposed in several parts, called components that represent a specific part of a
joint that, dependent on the type of loading, make an identified contribution to one or more of
its structural properties [2]. The constitutive relations of the components and the way they are
assembled determine the joint behaviour: the relation between the components and the joint’s
mechanical properties is determined through equilibrium and compatibility relations.
Nowadays, developments in structural analysis and the increased capacity of personal com-
puters allow for robust and rigorous analyses without increased burdens on the user. On the
other hand, the continuous search for economical solutions require the accurate modelling of
the of beam-to-column joints in structural analysis and the component method is recognized
as an effective procedure to account for it. Focussing on beam-to-column joint modelling, this
requirement may be accomplished through the formulation and implementation of 2D and 3D
joint macro-elements developed in the framework of component method in structural analysis
software packages [3]. These macro-elements will be materialized through new FEM struc-
2 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015

tural elements suitable for global analysis of structures and will allow a refined modelling of
joints effortlessly [4]. In this paper, the formulation of two FEM macro-elements developed
based on two mechanical models suitable for symmetric and asymmetric steel beam-to-
column internal joints are presented and their implementation in the Open System for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [5] is explained. Finally, these beam-to-column
joint elements and their implementation are validated and some case studies are presented.

3 Formulation of beam-to-column joint model

The rigorous analysis of beam-to-column joints requires to distinguish separate sources of
deformability, namely those due to the column web panel and those due to the connection.
In the model represented in Fig. 1 (on left) the shear force in the column web can be assumed
constant and, accordingly, a single shear panel was considered (SP). On the other hand, in
case the depth of the beams connected by a beam-to-column joint is different, the shear stress
distribution in the column web can no longer be assumed constant [6], leading to the model
represented in Fig. 1 (on right) with a double shear panel (DP).
8
9
node 3
7
(external)
8 11
9 5
0

node 3 12 2
(external) 7
5
10

dbR/2
6
5 3
0

2 7 14
11
dbL/2

11
11
5 12 node 6 4
12 6 node 2

dbR/2
6
db /2

node 7 (internal) (external)

6 3 13
7 14 (internal)
13 10 
node 4 node 5
10 node 2 4
node 4 node 5 node 6 (external) (internal)
15
db /2

(internal) (internal) (external) 1

(external)
dbL/2


8
9
4 1 
0

8
node 1 10
4
0

(external) 1 9

2 3 node 1
(external) 1

0 dc/2 dc/2 0 2 3

0 dc / 2 dc / 2 0

Fig. 1: Single panel (SP) (on left) and Double panel (DP) (on right)nbeam-to-column joint model.

In these models the arrows 1 to 14 in Fig. 1 (on left) and 1 to 15 in Fig. 1 (on right) represent
degrees of freedom (DOF), the numbers inside circles correspond to the numbering of the
springs and db and dc are the lever arms of the beams and columns – in Fig. 1 (on right) dbR is
the lever arm of the right beam and dbL is the lever arm of the left beam. In both models,
spring 3 represents the behaviour of the connection of the right beam and spring 6 represents
the behaviour of the left spring and their stiffness may be computed according to section 5 of
EN 1993-1-8: 2005 [1] disregarding the column web components as they are explicitly con-
sidered in the model. If required, the models represented in Fig. 1 (on left) can also be modi-
fied to allow for the explicit consideration of all the components in the connections instead of
the rotational springs 3 and 6. Springs 1, 2, 4 and 5 represent the column web load introduc-
tion components, i.e. the column web in tension and in compression. Their stiffness can be
computed making use of Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8: 2005 [1]. Spring 7 in Fig. 1 (on left)
and springs 7 and 8 in Fig. 1 (on right) represent the column web panel in shear and their
stiffness can also be computed making use of Table 6.11 from EN 1993-1-8: 2005 [1]. How-
ever due to the differences in the topological configuration of the component column web
panel in shear between the EN 1993-1-8: 2005 [1] standard model and the models represented
Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015 3

in Fig. 1, an adjustment is required for the stiffness of this component. In Fig. 1 (on left),
springs 8 and 10 are intended to account for the axial deformation mode of the column inside
the beam-to-column joint and springs 9 and 11 in Fig. 1 (on right) are intended to represent
the bending deformation modes of the column also inside the beam-to-column joint.

4 Implementation and validation

Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) is not a code but an object-
oriented software framework for simulation applications in earthquake engineering using fi-
nite element methods [5]. As an open-source software, the OpenSees applications allows de-
velopers to use their own element modules within the application. Unlike most other pro-
grams, the elements are added at run-time and not at compile time.
The joint element for SP and DP has been implemented using C++. It required the preparation
of two files, the header file (*.h), and the implementation file (*.cpp). The first one defines
the interface and variables for the new class that should be a subclass of the Element class. In
the second one, the code explains in a detailed way what the constructors, destructor and
methods do. In the implementation file, the C routine that is searched for upon loading of the
dynamic library by the interpreter is also provided. The dynamic link library (*.dll) has been
built using the software Microsoft VisualStudio 2012 [7]. In order to validate the implementa-
tion of the beam-to-column joint elements in OpenSees, the behaviour of two isolated beam-
to-column joint models was assessed through a model in a general purpose nonlinear finite
element software – Abaqus FEA [8] and using a simple analytical procedure implemented in
algebra package Mathematica [9]. The implementation of the models represented in Fig. 1 in
Abaqus was made by defining the coordinates of some reference nodes and then assigning
simple kinematic and static constraints between them. These constraints are represented by
straight lines identified by the reference LE (link type constraint) and RE (rigid element type
constraint). The components in the interface between the column web panel and the beams
(left and right connections) are condensed in the model through a rotational spring. The load
introduction components into the column web panel are represented as axial springs parallel
to the beams centrelines and aligned with the beam flanges and the column web shear panel is
represented through a diagonal spring. The mechanical properties required for the models are
shown in Table 1 and the load cases considered are shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Mechanical properties of the springs

stiffness
column web panel in shear (kN/m) 2 041 293
column web in compression (kN/m) 2 162 110
column web in tension (kN/m) 2 359 957
connections (without column web components) (kNm) 137 444
axial stiffness column of SP (kN/m) 30364035
bending stiffness of DP (kNm) 885439
axial stiffness column of DP (kN/m) 11130000
bending stiffness of DP (kNm) 118230

Table 2: Load cases

load case coordinate load (kNm) load case coordinate load (kNm)
6 -200 6 -400
Symmetric Asymmetric
12 200 12 200
load case load case
1, …, 5, 7,…, 11 0 1, …, 5, 7,…, 11 0
4 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015

The boundary conditions assumed for the isolated beam-to-column joint models are a double
support in node 1 (DOF 1 and 2) and a vertical support in node 4 (DOF 11). The geometry for
the beam-to-column joints is defined by dbSP  273.6 mm , dcSP  400 mm , dbL DP  400 mm ,

DP  200 mm and d DP  240 mm .

d bR c
The procedure comprises four steps:
Step 1 - Compute the internal forces for all springs. The support reactions were computed by
equilibrium considerations for single and panel isolated beam-to-column joint validation ex-
amples.
Step 2 - From the free body diagram of the beam-to-column joint models, the internal forces
in the components were computed static equilibrium for both beam-to-column joints
Step 3 - Compute the deformations in all the components. The deformations in the compo-
nents were computed making use of the internal forces and the stiffness of the springs shown
in Table 1.
Step 4 - Compute the nodal displacements of external nodes. The displacements were com-
puted making use of the Second Castigliano’s Theorem.
The results computed with OpenSees, Abaqus and Mathematica matched perfectly as shown
in Table 3 for Single Panel and Table 4 for Double Panel.

Table 3: Results of validation procedure for SP

Load Case Output Unit Abaqus Mathematica OpenSees
Symmetric Rotation Right Side [mRad] -3.82 -3.823 -3.82
Tension Right Side [kN] 730.994 730.994
Compression Right Side [kN] 730.994 -730.994
Shear Displacement [mm] -2.9e-16 0.000
Asymmetric Rotation Right Side [mRad] -9.73 -9.732 -9.73
Tension Right Side [kN] 1461.990 1461.990
Compression Right Side [kN] -1461.990 -1461.990
Shear Displacement [mm] 0.43386 0.433

Table 4: Results of validation procedure for DP

Load Case Output Unit Abaqus Mathematica OpenSees
Symmetric Rotation Right Side [mRad] -7.96 -7.962 -7.96
Tension Right Side [kN] 1000. 1000.
Compression Right Side [kN] -1000. -1000.
Shear Displacement Top [mm] 0.319 0.319
Shear Displacement Bottom [mm] -0.319 -0.319
Asymmetric Rotation Right Side [mRad] -19.24 -19.24 -18.50
Tension Right Side [kN] 2000. 2000.
Compression Right Side [kN] -2000. -2000.
Shear Displacement Top [mm] 0.957 0.957
Shear Displacement Bottom [mm] -0.319 -0.319

The former procedure is suitable for statically determinate structures for the elastic and for the
post-elastic range when the behaviour of the components is holonomic and has no softening.
It must be highlighted that, as would be expected, the results show that the SP joint model un-
der symmetric load conditions does not show any shear deformation and the DP joint model
shows shear deformations irrespective of the loading condition considered.
Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015 5

5 Case studies
5.1 Case Study 1
Consider the frame represented in Fig. (a) under the indicated loading. The steel is S275 with
a Young Modulus (E) equal to 210 GPa. Consider pinned column base joints, and full-
strength rigid joints at the external nodes. At the internal node, the left and right joints are
flush end-plate according to Fig. 2(b), with 20mm thick end plates and M24 class 10.9 bolts.
Using the software COP® [10], the main design properties of the two joints are the following:
M j , Rd  200.2 kNm , S j ,ini  556.8kNm /  .
p1= 15kN/m
85 85
p2= 5kN/m 20
70

1 2 3e 3d 4 5
60
IPE 360 3p IPE 360

360
10m 170 410

HEA HEB HEA

240 400 240

110

12m 8m 30
42 116 42
6m 6m 4m 4m (a)
100 100 (b)

Fig. 2: Case study 1: (a) geometry, sections, loads; (b) detail of internal connection.

Table 1 lists level arm (z) and stiffness coefficients (ki) for all components.

Table 1: Lever arm and stiffness coefficient of joint components.

Lever arm Stiffness coefficient
Component
[mm] [mm]
k1 Column web panel in shear 244.1 10.89
k2 Column web in compression 244.1 10.21
k3,1 Column web in tension, Row 1 303.7 3.171
k3,2 Column web in tension, Row 2 243.7 3.647
k3,3 Column web in tension, Row 3 73.65 3.808
k4,1 Column flange in bending, Row 1 303.7 50.23
k4,2 Column flange in bending, Row 2 243.7 57.76
k4,3 Column flange in bending, Row 3 73.65 92.00
k5,1 End-plate in bending, Row 1 303.7 11.99
k5,2 End-plate in bending, Row 2 243.7 7.049
k5,3 End-plate in bending, Row 3 73.65 13.59
k10,1 Bolts in tension, Row 1 303.7 8.525
k10,2 Bolts in tension, Row 2 243.7 8.525
k10,3 Bolts in tension, Row 3 73.65 8.525

The rotational stiffness may be determined according to Eq. 6.27 of EN1993-1-8 (1).
1
Si  Ez2 i (1)
ki
6 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015

In order to explore the performance of the developed macro-element, various modeling alter-
natives have been considered for the internal beam-to-column joint:
 Case 1a
A rigid internal node joint is modelled and a full transmission of bending moment is guaran-
teed.
 Case 1b
The internal node joint is modeled by three rotational springs (Fig. 3b), therefore avoiding an
iterative procedure, as described in Simões da Silva et al [11]. The rotational springs repre-
senting the left and right connections consider the contribution of column web panel in com-
pression (k2) and in tension (k3), column flange in bending (k4), end-plate in bending (k5),
bolts in tension (k10). The middle spring reflects the contribution of the column web panel in
shear.
Case 1a Case 1b
SCL SCR

Case 1e
SWPS
SLITL SLITR

Case 1c Case 1d
SeqL SeqR
SLICL SLICR
SCL SWPS SCR
S8
S9 SWPS

SWPC

Fig. 3: Models for the internal beam-to column joint: (a) rigid; (b) three rotational springs; (c) Altoon-
tash model; (d) Bayo model; (e) Single Panel model.

 Case 1c
The internal node joint is modeled using the Altoontash [12] element available in OpenSEES.
The column web panel in compression (k2) and in tension (k3), the column flange in bending
(k4), the end-plate in bending (k5) and the bolts in tension (k10) contribute to the external rota-
tional springs that represent the stiffness of the left and right connections (Fig. 3c). The inter-
nal rotational spring depends only on the column web panel in shear and is determined by Eq.
(1).
 Case 1d
The internal node joint is modeled following Bayo et al [13]. The axial springs for shear and
compression are determined according to Eq. (2) and (3).
E 1
SWPS  (2)
 cos  2
k1
1
SSWC  E (3)
k2
The external axial springs depend on the remaining components and are determined according
to Eq. (4) for the right and left connections (Fig. 3d).
1
Seq ,L  Seq ,R  E (4)
 i keq,i
Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015 7

 Case 1e
The internal node joint is modeled according to the Single Panel model described in section
4.1. The axial springs for shear and compression (Fig. 3e) are computed according to Eqs. (2)
and (3). The rotational springs for the left and right connections depend on the column flange
in bending (k4), the end-plate in bending (k5) and the bolts in tension (k10) and are determined
using Eq. (1). Finally, the axial springs for load introduction in tension depend on the compo-
nent column web panel in tension (k3) according to Eq. (5).
1
SLITL  SLITR  E (5)
k3
Table 6 summarizes the adopted stiffness for the different cases according to the models de-
picted in Fig. 3.

Table 6: Equivalent stiffness adopted for all modelling alternatives.

Component Unit Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
SCL Connection
[kNm/rad] - 40762 40762 - 134462
left side
SCR Connection
[kNm/rad] - 40762 40762 - 134462
right side
SWPS Column web pan-
[kNm/rad] - 136264 136264 - -
el in shear
SeqL Connection
[kN/m] - - - 1004650 -
left side
SeqR Connection
[kN/m] - - - 1004650 -
right side
SWPS Column web pan-
[kN/m] - - - 4139289 4139289
el in shear
SWPC Column web in
[kN/m] - - - 2144100 -
compression
SLICL LI in compression 2144100
[kN/m] - - - -
left side
SLIRL LI in compression 2144100
[kN/m] - - - -
right side
SLITL LI in tensile
[kN/m] - - - - 1834395
left side
SLITR LI in tensile
[kN/m] - - - - 1834395
right side
S8 Axial stiffness of
[kN/m] - - - -
bottom column 20769000
S9 Bending stiffness
[kNm/rad] - - - -
of bottom column 605640

Table 7 compares the results in terms of bending moment (absolute values) of significant
cross-sections for all five cases. The locations of these cross-sections are illustrated in Fig.
(a): sections 1 and 5 are located in the external nodes; sections 2 and 4 in the mid-span; sec-
tions 3e and 3d at the interface between the beams and the column and 3p at the top of the col-
umn before the web panel. The applied bending moments do not reach the plastic moment
resistance of the beams (280.2 kNm). Comparing the results for the SP model (case 1e) and
the other cases in terms of bending moment (Table 7) shows firstly that the consideration of
rigid nodes leads to significant differences that require the evaluation of the deformability of
the joints in the structural analysis [1]. Secondly, reasonable agreement is noted between the
SP and the remaining models.
8 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015

Table 7: Comparison between bending moments

Case 1a Case 1b Case 1c Case 1d Case 1e
[kNm] [%] [kNm] [%] [kNm] [%] [kNm] [%] [kNm]
M1 71.2 -2.0 75.0 3.2 73.9 1.8 75.8 4.2 72.6
M2 138.0 -4.0 152.9 6.1 148.4 3.2 138.4 -3.8 143.6
M 3e 183.8 12.6 159.3 -0.9 150.0 -7.1 167.9 4.3 160.7
M 3d 101.2 10.8 78.1 -15.5 80.4 -12.2 75.5 -19.6 90.2
M 3p 82.4 0.9 81.2 -0.6 81.0 -0.9 87.8 7.0 81.7
M4 7.9 60.3 4.0 22.6 0.9 -234.2 6.0 47.6 3.1
M5 12.9 18.3 6.2 -71.1 8.5 -23.9 13.6 22.4 10.6

5.2 Case Study 2

In order to assess the double panel (DP) model, the frame of Fig. was modified such that the
internal node connects two beams with different depths: a IPE400
( M Rd  359.4 kNm ) in the left beam and a IPE220 ( M Rd  78.4 kNm ) in the right beam. As
for case study 1, the left and right joints are flush end-plate with 20mm thick end plates and
M24 class 10.9 bolts. Using COP®, the main design properties of the joints are the following:
left side: M j , Rd  256 kNm , S j ,ini  760.2kNm /  ,
right side: M j , Rd  61.6 kNm , S j ,ini  166.7kNm /  .
Three strategies were considered for the modeling of the internal node: assuming rigid behav-
ior (Case 2a); disregarding the asymmetric joint, using a Single Panel element were db is as-
sumed equal to 220 mm (Case 2b); and applying the Double Panel element (Case 2c). Starting
from the stiffness coefficients for the various components (in 8 for both sides), the joint stiff-
ness is calculated according to the previous sections.

Table 8: Lever arm and stiffness coefficient of joint components

Left Side Right Side
Stiffness Stiffness
Lever arm Lever arm
Component coefficient coefficient
[mm] [mm]
[mm] [mm]
k1 Column web panel in shear 282.1 9.426 142.2 18.7
k2 Column web in compression 282.1 10.32 142.2 10.1
k3,1 Column web in tension, Row 1 343.3 3.33 303.7 4.281
k3,2 Column web in tension, Row 2 273.3 4.281 243.7 4.314
k3,3 Column web in tension, Row 3 73.25 4.314 - -
k4,1 Column flange in bending, Row 1 343.3 128.7 165.4 165.5
k4,2 Column flange in bending, Row 2 273.3 165.5 35.4 166.8
k4,3 Column flange in bending, Row 3 73.25 166.8 - -
k5,1 End-plate in bending, Row 1 343.3 21.96 165.4 17.68
k5,2 End-plate in bending, Row 2 273.3 15.14 35.4 19.36
k5,3 End-plate in bending, Row 3 73.25 25.8 - -
k10,1 Bolts in tension, Row 1 343.3 8.525 165.4 8.525
k10,2 Bolts in tension, Row 2 273.3 8.525 35.4 8.525
k10,3 Bolts in tension, Row 3 73.25 8.525 - -

For case 2c, the shear stiffness is split into two components according to Eqs. (6) and (7).
Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015 9

E 1
SWPS ,top  (6)
 cos  2
k1
E 1
SWPS ,bottom  (7)
 cos   2
k1
Table 9 summarizes the calculated values for the 3 cases.

Table 9: Stiffness adopted for all three modelling alternatives

Component Unit Case 2a Case 2b Case 2c
SCL Connection left side [kNm/rad] - 231467 231467
SCR Connection right side [kNm/rad] - 92007 92007
SWPS Column web panel in shear [kN/m] - 3958920 -
SWPS,top Top column web panel in shear [kN/m] - - 3958920
SWPS,botto
[kN/m] - - 2380300
m Bottom column web panel in shear
SLICL LI in compression left side [kN/m] - 2167200 2167200
SLIRL LI in compression right side [kN/m] - 2121000 2121000
SLITL LI in tensile left side [kN/m] - 3472622 3472622
SLITR LI in tensile right side [kN/m] - 1957211 1957211
S8 Axial stiffness of bottom column [kN/m] - 20769000 10384500
S9 Bending stiffness of bottom column [kNm/rad] - 605640 302820

Table 10 compares the results in terms of bending moment (absolute values) for relevant
cross-sections for the 3 cases. The results from Case 2c are taken as reference, since the DP
model represents the most appropriate modelling strategy.

Table 10: Comparison between bending moment

Case 2a Case 2b Case 2c
[kNm] [%] [kNm] [%] [kNm]
M1 77.8 -12.4 75.8 -9.6 69.2
M2 163.1 -0.7 164.7 -1.8 161.9
M 3e 117.7 8.1 116.1 9.4 128.1
M 3d 52.0 -8.4 53.1 -10.9 47.9
M 3p 76.8 16.1 74.5 18.5 91.5
M4 11.6 -0.2 10.9 6.6 11.6
M5 0.8 79.5 0.2 94.5 3.7

Comparing the results for the DP model (case 2c) and the other cases in terms of bending
moment (Table 10) shows significant differences either when comparing to rigid modelling of
the node or when disregarding the asymmetric node.

7 Conclusions
This paper demonstrated the advantages of using macro-elements for beam-to-column joint
modeling. Bearing in mind that it is mandatory [1] to consider the influence of the behavior of
joints in structural analysis whenever results vary by more than 5% (as it happens for most
situations in buildings, semi-rigid behaviour), comparing against the simplified modeling op-
tion of EC3-1-8 of combining the column web panel shear deformability with the left and
 10 Nordic Steel Construction Conference 2015

right connections shows that massive savings in user-time and accuracy of results are ob-
tained, as a manual iterative procedure per load combination is avoided [11]. Secondly, when
compared to a three rotational springs implementation (case 1b) or alternative macro-elements
available in the literature (cases 1c or 1d), the proposed macro-elements remove the limita-
tions of those approaches, as they easily allow for double shear panels or axial force in the
beams. It is therefore concluded that this modeling strategy allows to: (i) reduce the computa-
tional cost; (ii) reduce modeling time; (iii) overcome numerical difficulties due to nonlineari-
ties; and (iv) provide a more rigorous modeling of the beam-to-column joints. Two macro-
models suitable for steel beam-to-column joints with beams of equal and unequal depth were
presented and their modeling in Abaqus was explained. The formulation of these new finite
elements was subsequently implemented in the open-source code OpenSees. These models
were validated by means of an analytical procedure, and further verified in a 2D steel frame.
The structural analysis of the second case study highlighted the potentialities of the proposed
models showing that the inaccurate modeling of the beam-to-column joints may lead to sig-
nificant errors in the results. Further work on the extension to nonlinear component behavior
is currently actively being carried out by the authors.

Acknowledgments
Financial support from the Portuguese Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Ministério
da Ciência e Ensino Superior) under contract grant PTDC/ECM/116904/2010 is gratefully
acknowledged.

References
[1] CEN. EN 1993-1-8. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-8: Design of joints.
European Committee for Standardisation. Brussels: 133, 2005.
[2] Simões da Silva L, Santiago A, Real PV. “Post-limit stiffness and ductility of end-plate
beam-to-column steel joints”, Computers & Structures; 80:515–31, 2002.
[3] Simões da Silva L. “Towards a consistent design approach for steel joints under general-
ized loading”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64: 1059–1075, 2008.
[4] Gentili F, Costa R, Simões da Silva L, “Formulation and implementation of a 2D FEM
macro-element for steel beam-to-column joints”. Computer & Structures (submitted).
[5] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH, and Jeremic B. Open System for Earthquake Engi-
neering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
[6] Jordão S, Simões da Silva L, Simões R. “Behaviour of welded beam-to-column joints
with beams of unequal depth”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 91: 42-59, 2013.
[7] Microsoft Corporation, Visual Studio, 2012.
[8] Simulia, Abaqus FEA, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, 2014.
[9] Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 6.0, Champaign, IL, 2007
[10] Weynand K, Klinkhammer R, Oerder R, Jaspart JP, CoP ArcelorMittal Edition, Program
for the design of joints according to EN 1994. www.arcelormittal.com/sections, 2008.
[11] Simões da Silva L, Simões R, Gervásio H. Design of Steel Structures. ECCS Eurocode
Design Manuals. ECCS Press and Wiley, 2010.
[12] Altoontash A, “Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced
concrete beam-column joints”, Ph.D., Stanford University, 2004.
[13] Bayo E, Cabrero JM, Gil B, “An effective component-based method to model semi-rigid
connections for the global analysis of steel and composite structures”. Engineering Struc-
tures 28: 97–108, 2006.

View publication stats