See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266038627

Designing bolted end-plate connections in

compliance with eurocode and ukrainian codes:
Consistency and contradi....

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 375

4 authors, including:

Anatoly V. Perelmuter Vitalina Yurchenko

SCAD Soft Ltd Kyiv National University of Construction and …
39 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vitalina Yurchenko on 06 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGNING BOLTED END-PLATE CONNECTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
EUROCODE AND UKRAINIAN CODES: CONSISTENCY AND CONTRADICTIONS

Anatolii Perelmuter1, Eduard Kriksunov1, Igor Gavrilenko1, Vitalina Yurchenko2

1
SCAD Soft Ltd., I. Klimenko str. 4/20, 03037, Kyiv, Ukraine.
2
Kyiv National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Povitroflotskyj av. 31, 03680, Kyiv, Ukraine.
E-mail: vitalinay@rambler.ru

Abstract. The article attempts to reveal consistency and contradictions in design procedures for bolted connections in
steel structural joints in compliance with EuroCode on one hand and Ukrainian building codes on the other hand. The
need for such a comparison has emerged because European steel components are being imported intensively into the
market of Ukraine. A software application for design and analysis of steel structural joints in compliance with differ-
ent building codes has been developed and is presented in this paper.

Keywords: steel structural joints, bolted end-plate connections, bolted shear connections, design model, software im-
plementation.

Introduction The Ukrainian construction market imports a good

Bolted end-plate connections are widely used for
structural joints in steel frames (Fig 1) in the contempo-
rary building practice. The primary advantage of such
connections is a simplicity of their on-site assembling. In
addition, the end-plate connections make it possible to
erect a steel framework in any climatic conditions or to
dismount the framework without making any damage to
its structural members. Other characteristic features of he
bolted end-plate connections include their high reliability
under dynamic loadings and facility of the connection’s
supervision (Катюшин 2005). On the other hand, struc-
tural members to be connected by end-plate connections
must be manufactured with high accuracy because such
connections do not have a compensatory capability.
deal of steel structural components from Europe. Accord-
ingly, a lot of European manufacturers are going to the
Ukrainian market in order to supply steel components.
The basic approach is that the steel structural members
are designed and manufactured in Europe and further
delivered to Ukraine. Such structural components have to
be approved by the local Ukrainian authorities and com-
ply with Ukrainian building standards and regulations.
Therefore it seems interesting to consider and com-
pare design models and procedures for the bolted end-
plate connections used in Ukrainian design codes on one
hand and in EuroCode on the other hand, particularly in
EN 1993-1-8 which deals with the design and analysis of
steel structural joints.

a b c
Fig 1. Bolted end-plate connections in steel frames: (a) a joint between an external column and a rafter; (b) a joint be-
tween an internal column and a rafter; (c) a field joint on a rafter (photos were provided by ASTRON Buildings S.A.).

733
 where M x is the design bending moment in the joint; m
Design models of bolted end-plate connections
and k are the respective numbers of horizontal and verti-
The analysis of a bolted end-plate connection under cal rows in the bolted connection; ni is the number of
the simultaneous action of the bending moment and the bolts in i th horizontal row; yi , ymax are distances from
axial force in the case of an alternating-sign stress distri- the respective i th and extreme horizontal bolt row to the
bution is a fairly complicated task. The reason is that the neutral axis of the member around the end-plate. This
strain characteristics of the connection are different in its approach dictates that the thickness of the end-plate
respective areas of tension and compression. Therefore should be found from the bending strength condition for
both the localization of the neutral axis and the accurate the end-plate in the elastic phase; this value is too conser-
stress distribution are not known in advance in the design vative (Алпатов et al. 2009).
cross-sections of the connected structural members The design of bolted end-plate connections is regu-
around the end-plate connection. lated in Ukraine by the effectual Guidelines
An inaccurate and conservative analysis of a bolted (Рекомендации 1988, Руководство 1981) which were
end-plate connection can be performed under the assump- prepared as a supplemental standard to corresponding
tion that the stresses in bolts are proportional to the dis- chapters of SNiP ІІ-23-81* and SP 53-102-2004. Accord-
tance from the point of application of the resultant force ing to these Guidelines, the end-plate connection design
in the compressed area (actually, from the center of the should be based on the following criteria:
compressed flange) to a selected bolt (Fig 2). – the load-bearing ability of a bolt in tension and
In this case, the design force in the most stressed shear;
bolt can be found from the following equation: – the load-bearing ability of an end-plate in bend-
ymax ing, and in possible surface tearing (peeling) in
N max = Mx (1) a heat-affected zone;
∑
m
k ni yi2 – the load-bearing ability of fillet welds between
i =1 an end-plate and an adjacent section of a struc-
tural member.
f w
End-plate bolted connections of open-profile struc-
kff , kfw
tural members are considered to be a set of T-shaped
kff , kfw
elementary connections. The strength of a bolted end-
plate connection as a whole is treated as the sum of those
of its elementary connections. The design procedure for
the connections is based on an elastic behavior of the T-
a2 lf , l w a2
shaped elements that consist of bolts and adjacent pieces
Pf of the end-plates (Fig 3).
deformed axis
of end-plate To check the load-bearing ability, an additional
Nb Nb stress (a contact force) caused by a “prying lever” effect
should be taken into consideration. This contact force is a
c c resultant of whatever stresses appear when two contigu-
ous end-plates are pressed together. The location of the
Fig 2. A simplified design model of a bolted end-plate resultant depends on the thickness of the end-plates.
connection There is an additional factor in the bending analysis of
the end-plates: the design bending moment can be re-
duced by taking into account the end-plate being elasti-
tf , t w cally clamped under the bolt. Thereby we can reduce the
kff , kfw thickness of the end-plate. This approach is based on
kff , kfw experimental computations carried out by various re-
searches (Каленов и Глауберман 1985, De Lima et. al.
2002, Vértes and Iványi 2005).
According to (Рекомендации 1988, Руководство
a2 lf , l w a2 1981), the load-bearing ability of a bolted end-plate con-
Pf nection is considered to be sufficient when the following
condition is met:
Nb Nb

∑ Nb,ext ,i
deformed axis next
of end-plate N ≤ nb Nb,int + (2)
i =1
c c
Q Q where Nb,int is the load-bearing ability of a bolt in an
Fig 3. An improved design model of a bolted end- internal zone which is assumed equal to the bolt’s
plate connection prestressing force, Nb,int = γ b0 Rbt Abn ; γ b0 is a factor to
take into account an individual bolt behavior, stress re-
734
laxation, and a non-uniformity in the stress distribution;
Rbt is a design strength of the bolt for tension; Abn is a
net cross-section area of the bolt; nb is the number of
bolts in the internal zone; Nb,ext ,i is a design force per
one bolt of the external zone of i th Т-shaped elementary
connection; the force is defined by the following formula:
⎧
⎪ α +1 ⎪⎫
Nb,ext ,i = min ⎨λi Rbt Abn ; 1,3 i Rbt Abn ⎬
⎪
⎩ μiαi ⎭⎪
where λi is a factor assumed to depend on the bolt’s
dimensionless stiffness parameter, χi :
λi = 0,5088 − 0, 23561lg χi
3
d2 ⎛b ⎞ collapse of the end-plate (Sokol et al. 2002, Urbonas and
χi = ×⎜
i
⎟ (5)
ω t
i( f + 0,5d ⎜t
) ⎝ f
⎟
⎠ If an end-plate has a considerable bending stiffness,
6
μi = 0,9 Rbt Abn bi ×
ωi t 2f Ry
where bi is the distance from the bolt’s axis to the edge
of the fillet weld of i th T-shaped elementary connection;
ωi is the end-plate’s width per one bolt of the external
zone of i th Т-shaped elementary connection, t f is the
end-plate’s thickness; αi is a parameter that expresses a
relation between the distances from the bolt center to the
application points of contact forces caused by the prying
lever effect and from the bolt center to the edge of the
connected structural member’s profile; parameter αi is
defined by the following equation:
1, 4 χi (αi − 1, 0 ) − αi2 + μiαi (αi − 1, 0 ) = 0
3
One of striking differences between EuroCode and
the Ukrainian building codes related to the design of
bolted end-plate connections is that EuroCode requires
the propagation of plastic deformations to be taken into
account. A lot of researches (Бирюлев и Катюшин 1989,
Катюшин 2005) have addressed the design analysis of
bolted end-plate connections in steel frameworks where
plastic deformations are taken into account. This ap-
proach provides an opportunity to use reserves of the
load-bearing ability of bolted end-plate connections by
allowing a plastic deformation to develop in those and in
adjacent sections of the connected structural members.
This will make the required thickness of the end-plate as
small as possible.
(3)
The analysis of bolted end-plate connections where
plastic deformations are taken into account is performed
using a limit equilibrium method (Sumner and Murray
2003, Undermann and Schmidt 2005). Tree potential
failure mechanisms are considered: (i) failure of bolts, (ii)
(4) failure of bolts with a simultaneous partial propagation of
plastic deformations in the end-plate, and (iii) a plastic
Daniunas 2004, Pisarek and Kozlowski 2006) (Fig 4).
then the failure of the end-plate connection occurs as a
(6) consequence of that of bolts loaded by external forces in
the absence of prying-lever contact forces. The load-
bearing ability of such a connection will be defined com-
pletely by that of bolts in tension (Urbonas and Daniunas
2004):
FT , I = ∑i Bt ,i (8)
If the bending stiffness of end-plates is lower (they
are designed with a smaller thickness), the failure of the
end-plate connection occurs as a result of that of bolts
together with a partial propagation of plastic deforma-
tions in the end-plate. The load-bearing ability of this
connection can be found from the equation of a balance
between the external and internal works (Urbonas and
Daniunas 2004, Kozlowski and Pisarek 2005):
(7)
M pl ,1 + eBt
FT , II = (9)
2 ( e + m)

Q Q Q
e ϕ M ϕ
B B pl,2
B Q
δ
t t t

2
M
m M M
pl,2

FT
pl,1

FT ϕ pl,1

FT
δ M δ M
m M
pl,1 1 pl,1

Q
1

B t
B t
pl,2
B t

e M pl,2

Q Q Q
Fig 4. Design models of bolted end-plate connections according to EN 1993-1-8

735
 If a thin end-plate is used, the failure of a bolted
connection occurs by propagation of plastic deformations
in the body of its end-plate. The load-bearing ability of
the bolted connection in this case will be defined purely
by that of the end-plate:
2M pl ,1 + 2M pl ,2
FT , III =
m
It should be noted that the propagation of plastic de-
formations in end-plates and adjacent sections of con-
nected structural members increases the overall deform-
ability of a structure, and this fact should be taken into
account appropriately in a subsequent nonlinear structural
analysis (Cerfontaine and Jaspart 2002, Jaspart 2000).
Consistency and contradiction
The primary and most significant difference between
the European design regulations and those of Ukraine is
that the former require that the influence of the actual
stiffness of a steel structural joint on the real behavior of
a loaded steel framework should be analyzed. This is an
implementation of one of prospective contemporary
trends in the structural design and analysis. The service-
ability of structural joints can be assessed not only by
their strength, as in the Ukrainian building regulations,
but also by their deformability or compliance (Da Silva
et. al. 2002).
EuroCode defines a procedure for calculating the ro-
tation stiffness, S j , of a structural joint. It depends on
stiffness factors ki of particular structural members in-
cluded in the joint (see Table 6.11 in EN 1993-1-8). For
end-plate bolted connections in frame structures, the ini-
tial rotation stiffness S j ,ini can be calculated by the fol-
lowing formula:
z2 E
S j ,ini =
∑ 1
i ki
where E is an elasticity modulus; z is a lever arm (see
Fig 6.15 in EN 1993-1-8).
Mj Mj
rigid
semi-rigid
S j,ini
nominally pinned
Fig 5. A rotation stiffness-based classification of joints
The value of rotational stiffness S j ,ini is a criterion
suggested by EuroCode to classify joints into nominally
pinned, rigid, and semi-rigid ones (Fig 5). It is important
that structural properties of joints remain in compliance
with design assumptions made in the global analysis of
the entire structure and in the design procedures of par-
(10) ticular structural members. In particular, the calculated
joint compliance must be sufficient to permit the same
rotation angle as that obtained by the static analysis
(Faella et. al. 2000, Urbonas and Daniunas 2003).
It should be noted that the effect of an actual joint
stiffness in steel frameworks becomes especially signifi-
cant for structural joints with bolted connections of bear-
ing type that possess a higher deformability comparing to
both welded connections and other types of bolted con-
nections. The reason is primarily a bearing deformation
that emerges in bolt holes of connected members
(Krumm 1991, Kuhlmann et. al. 1998).
There is a European categorization of bolted connec-
tions which needs to be made consistent with the national
design codes for EuroCode to be implemented in
Ukraine.
According to Ukrainian building standards and regu-
lations (SNiP ІІ-23-81*, a draft DBN V.2.6-…: 200…), all
bolted connections of steel structures are divided into (i)
shear connections and (ii) frictional (or slip-resistance)
connections depending on their external force transfer
mechanism. Flange connections (or bolted end-plate con-
nections) make up a separate class of bolted connections,
and specific standard documents (Рекомендации 1988,
Руководство 1981) are used to regulate the design and
analysis of such connections.
In its turn, EuroCode identifies five categories of
bolted connections: three categories А, В and С of shear
connections, and two categories D and E of tension con-
nections (see Table 1). Bolted connection of the A cate-
gory (bearing type) is a prototype for our usual shear
(11) connection where external forces are resisted by shearing
in bolts and bearing of connected members in holes.
In bolted connections of the В and С categories,
high-strength preloaded bolts of grades 8.8 and 10.9 are
used. An external shear force that acts on the joint is re-
sisted by friction forces between the contact surfaces of
the connected members due to the preloading of the bolts.
Bolted connections of the В and С categories are, as we
can see from EuroCode, essentially the same as bolted
frictional connections identified in the Ukrainian design
code. Meanwhile, one of the most significant differences
of EuroCode from the Ukrainian design code is that the
former requires the check of the load-bearing ability of
bolted connections to be based on design load combina-
tions in both the ultimate limit state and the serviceability
limit state.
The following categories of bolted connections,
where the bolts are in tension, are usually employed in
bolted end-plate connections between steel structural
joints. If preloaded high-strength bolts of grades 8.8
and 10.9 are used, then those bolted connections belong
to category E, otherwise to category D.
736
Table 1. Categories of bolted connections
Category of bolted connections Criteria of load-bearing Analog from Ukrainian
Notes
according to EuroCode ability design code
А Fv, Ed ≤ Fv, Rd Bolt grades from 4.6 through 10.9 or Shear connection
(bearing type) non-preloaded high-strength bolts
Fv, Ed ≤ Fb, Rd
В (slip resistance in ser- Fv, Ed , ser ≤ Fs, Rd , ser
Shear connections

Preloaded high-strength bolts of grades –

viceability limit state) 8.8 and 10.9
Fv, Ed ≤ Fv, Rd
Fv, Ed ≤ Fb, Rd
С (slip resistance in ulti- Fv, Ed ≤ Fs , Rd Preloaded high-strength bolts of grades Frictional connection
mate limit state) 8.8 and 10.9. For N net , Rd , see
Fv, Ed ≤ Fb, Rd
EN 1993-1-1
Fv, Ed ≤ N net , Rd
D (non-preloaded) Ft , Ed ≤ Ft , Rd Bolt grades from 4.6 through 10.9 or Flange connections in
non-preloaded high-strength bolts tension
connections

Ft , Ed ≤ B p, Rd
Tension

E (preloaded) Ft , Ed ≤ Ft , Rd Preloaded high-strength bolts of grades Flange connections in

8.8 and 10.9 tension
Ft , Ed ≤ B p, Rd

Table 2. Minimum permissible spacing, end, and edge distances

Limit value
Minimum permissible distance
SNiP II-23-81 DBN В.2.6 (draft) EN 1993-1-8
1. between centers of the holes in the following direction:
а) along external force, p1,min :
when R yn < 375 N/mm2 2,5d0 2d0 2, 2d0
when R yn > 375 N/mm2 2,5d0 3d0 2, 2d0

b) across external force, p2,min :

when R yn < 375 N/mm2 2,5d0 2d0 2, 4d0

when R yn > 375 N/mm2 2,5d0 3d0 2, 4d0
2. from the center of hole to the element edge:
а) along external force, e1,min :
when R yn < 375 N/mm2 2d0 1,5d0 1, 2d0
when R yn > 375 N/mm2 2d0 2,5d0 1, 2d0
b) across external force, e2,min :
with sheared edges 1,5d0 1,5d0 1, 2d0
with rolled edges 1, 2d0 1, 2d0 1, 2d0
c) for slip-resistance bolted connection on any edge and with 1,3d0 1,3d0 1, 2d0
any external force direction, e1,min , e2,min

Legend: d0 is the diameter of a hole; R yn = f y is a nominal yield strength.

737
 It seems also interesting to compare different build-
ing code requirements to bolt spacing, end, and edge
distances. EuroCode and the Ukrainian building code
regulate minimum and maximum permissible spacing,
end, and edge distances between holes in bolted connec-
tions (see Tables 2 and 3). For connected members in
tension, the maximum permissible distances are set
mainly in order to ensure an appropriate closeness of a
bolted connection and thereby to avoid corrosion. For
connected members in compression, the maximum per-
missible distances are to prevent local buckling.
As it can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, in all cases
EuroCode defines lower values for both minimum and
maximum permissible distances between holes in bolted
connections. Additionally, it defines special cases where
a local buckling analysis should be performed for plates
in compressed connected members in the area between
bolts, in the external force’s direction.
As for the distribution of external forces in bolted
connections, EuroCode takes into consideration a certain
non-uniformity of the distribution between bolts in a long
lap joint (a shear multi-bolted connection). For such cases
EuroCode suggests using factor β L when calculating
shear resistance Fv, Rd of bolts as shown below:
Fv, Rd = β Lα v fub ns A γ M2 (12)
where A is the gross cross-section area of a bolt; γ M 2 is
a partial safety factor for bolted connections; fub is a
given ultimate tensile strength of the bolts; ns is the
number of shear surfaces; α v is a factor calculated ac-
cording to Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8 depending on a
bolt’s strength grade.
The value of factor β L varies from 1,0 to 0,75 and
depends on the distance between the centers of end holes
in a bolted connection, L j (Fig 6), and on the bolt diame-
ter d according to the following formula:
β L = 1 − 0, 005 ( L j d − 15) , β L ≥ 0, 75 (13)
In similar design cases, SNiP II-23-81* uses only the
service factor γ b = 0,9 for shear multiple-bolted connec-
tions when calculating both the shear and the bearing bolt
resistance. In this way, SNiP II-23-81* actually allows
for the case where bolts in a joint might not start resisting
the load at the same time.

Table 3. Maximum permissible spacing, end and edge distances

Limit value
Maximum permissible distance
Draft EuroCode 3
SNiP II-23-81*
DBN V.2.6 EN 1993-1-8

1. between centers of bolt holes, p1,max , p2,max :

а) in end rows in the absence of curb angles, either in 8d0 or 12tmin 8d0 or 12tmin 14tmin or 200mm
tension or compression

b) in inner rows and in the end row in the presence of

curb angles:

in tension 16d0 or 24tmin 16d0 or 24tmin 14tmin or 200mm

in compression 12d0 or 18tmin 12d0 or 18tmin 14tmin or 200mm

2. from the center of a hole to the element’s edge:

e1,max , e2,max 4d0 or 8tmin 4d0 or 8tmin 4tmin + 40mm

p1 e1
e2

F F
p2

lef =0,6p1

Legend: d0 is the diameter of a hole; tmin is the thickness of a thinner outer element of the bolted connection.
Note: The maximum permitted distances between the centers of holes and that from the center of a hole to the element’s edge are
presented here for steel structures made of steel as defined in EN10025, except for steel defined in EN10025-5.

738
 Lj
F F
Lj Lj
F F
L b
1,0
СНиП II-23-81*
0,9
0,75 ДБН В.2.6
EN 1993-1-8
Lj
15d 16d0 65d 66d0
Fig 6. Reduction of load-bearing ability of bolts in a
long lap joint
The draft of a new Ukrainian building code for steel
structures (DBN В.2.6-…: 200…) defines the usage of a
service factor with the value of 0,9 for bolted connections
that resist shear and bearing. In addition, the DBN draft
includes a correction introduced to allow for a non-
uniform distribution of external forces between fasteners
in a connection, for design cases where the distance be-
tween the end bolt holes in the direction of the force ex-
ceeds 16 diameters of the holes (Fig 6).
If a bending moment acts in a connection, the distri-
bution of the internal forces between the fasteners should
be assumed dependent on the bolted connection type.
According to the Ukrainian building code, the distribu-
tion of the internal forces between the fasteners can be
assumed uniform (i. e. as in a rectangular stress diagram)
for frictional bolted connections, and non-uniform (as in a
triangular stress diagram) for shear bolted connection.
As for EN 1993-1-8, it has a strict requirement that
the distribution of the external forces between the fasten-
ers in a connection should be elastic for C category bolted
connections, i.e. for frictional high-strength grade 8.8 and
10.9 preloaded bolt connections designed for ultimate
limit states. In addition, an elastic distribution of the ex-
ternal forces is required also for other categories of bolted
connections in cases where the design bearing resistance
of bolts exceeds the shear resistance. In other cases
EN 1993-1-8 assumes a plastic distribution of the exter-
nal forces between the fasteners in steel structural joints.
Software implementation
A software implementation of the design and analy-
sis procedures for bolted end-plate connections between
steel joints in framework structures is the COMET appli-
cation included in the SCAD Office software suite
(Карпиловский et al. 2008). The COMET software ap-
plication is used to perform a structural assessment of
design decisions and to develop designs of typical joints
of steel structural systems widely used in civil and indus-
739
trial engineering. The application helps perform a struc-
tural appraisal of a steel joint according to the require-
ments of SNiP ІІ-23-81*, SP 53-102-2004 and EN 1993-
1-8 and design a steel structural joint based on a particu-
lar prototype.
Unlike invention, a prototype-based engineering
consists of choosing and utilizing an available solution.
This is the approach implemented in the COMET soft-
ware; it is based on choosing from a set of parametrized
standard structural designs of joints (prototypes)
(Карпиловский et al. 2008). The set of parameters for a
prototype depends on what design conditions are prede-
fined (material, internal forces etc.); they cannot be de-
termined independently because a certain interrelation-
ship might exist between them.
The COMET application uses the above approach
and thereby enables an engineer to improve his efficiency
by providing him with a wide range of prototypes. In this
way, a highly qualified personnel does not have to do a
routine technical work of checking and correcting a mul-
titude of parameters to comply with building codes and
design specifications.
After a structural scheme is selected for a joint, the
system helps determine all parameters of it (they must
comply with building codes, a number of structural or
design constraints, and catalogues of steel members).
Both the building requirements and structural constraints
are mandatory, and any violation of those is not an op-
tion. However, there are also design constraints violating
which would only cause a warning, and the application
can generate a decision with the violations thus made.
The input data for computer-aided design of steel
structural joints include a joint’s type or configuration,
types and sizes of cross-sections of connected structural
members, and internal forces acting in adjacent sections
of the connected members.
The user has the options of either accepting the sug-
gested decision or modifying it to his preferences, in
order to take into account a technology used to manufac-
ture the involved steelwork members, requirements of
unification of the structural scheme within the framework
of a project or anything else (design team, manufacturing
plant etc.), the usage of standard decisions commonly
used in the project or team as well as the quality assur-
ance system, marking system etc.
Having done this, the software performs an appraisal
of the joint’s design and generates a drawing: a sketch of
the design where all involved parameters and properties
are laid out. In order to be able to make additions or
changes to the design thus generated, or to alter the repre-
sentation format (such as dimensioning, legends etc.), the
system can export the graphical results of the design pro-
cedure as a DXF (AutoCAD) file.
A set of incoming parameters and a set of outgoing
parameters are defined for each of joint prototypes (de-
sign parameters for structural decisions); methods have
been determined to identify those groups of parameters.
The representation of the structural joint becomes a basis
on which a mathematical model of the design problem is
formulated. The mathematical model includes a set of
design variables (unknown parameters of the design deci- – criterial constraints such as a minimum weight
sion for the joint) and a set of constraints. of auxiliary elements in a designed joint (gusset
The set of constraints comprises: plates, ribs, support tables etc.) or a minimum
– constraints by the load-bearing ability of con- labor content of manufacturing.
nected structural members and auxiliary struc- The COMET software provides the following
tural elements (strictly speaking, the load- groups of prototypes for steel structural joints: nominally
bearing ability of connected members should be rigid and nominally pinned column bases, beam and raf-
ensured before starting the design or structural ter splices, hinged and rigid joints between columns and
assessment of the joint; the checks performed rafters, truss joints. A considerable part of structural steel
here are just additional majority-decision joints use bolted end-plate connections (such as beam and
checks which ensure the members are strong rafter splices as well as rigid joints between rafters and
enough in the elastic phase of their behavior); columns). In order to analyze and design such joints, the
these constraints are defined by building re- COMET software implements actual Guidelines
quirements; (Рекомендации 1988, Руководство 1981), as well as
– assortment-based constraints for shaped and EN1993-1-8, and uses the design models of bolted end-
sheet steel; plate connections presented above.
– structural constraints which reflect the way The nomenclature of prototypes of beam-to-rafter
parts are manufactured; geometrical constraints splices using bolted end-plate connections implemented
posed by mutual arrangement of the structural in the “Beam-To-Beam Joints” mode of the COMET
members due to localization of welding and application is presented in Fig 7.
bolted connections; possibility of welding to-
gether elements of different thickness etc.);

bf Kff

C2
bf bf
Dp

Dp

Kff Kff
C

C
tf

tf

tf
D D D

C1
n n n

Hp
Hp
hw

hw

hw
Kfw Kfw Kfw
Hp
C1
tf

tf

tf
C

S
Dp

Dp

Tp Tp S Tp Tp
C2

Tp Tp S
Bp
Bp
Bp

a b c
bf
bf
Lo Lo Kfw To Kff
S
Dp

Kff
C

tf

tf

D D
C

n n
Hp
hw

hw

Kfw Kfw
Hp
C

C
C1
tf

tf

Lo Lo
Dp

Tp Tp S
Kfw
C2

Tp Tp To
Bp
Bp

d e
bf
bf Kff Lo Lo S Kff
C2

tf

tf

D D
C1

n n
Hp

Hp
hw

hw

Kfw Kfw
C
C1

C1
tf

tf
C

Lo Lo
Kfw
C2

C2

Tp Tp S Tp Tp To

Bp Bp

f j
Fig 7. Prototypes of structural designs of splices between beams and rafters using bolted end-plate connections

740
 These joints are most often designed to match the
outer dimensions of an end-plate to the height of a beam
(Fig 7, а). If the bending moment acting in the joint can-
not be taken on completely by the bolts located between
the beam flanges, then there appears a necessity to de-
velop design decisions with extended end-plates and out-
side bolt rows which increase the end-plate height down-
wards (Fig 7, b, d) or upwards (Fig 7, c, e) depending on
the bending moment’s sign. If there are considerable
alternating-sign bending moments, designs of bolted end-
plate joints with extended end-plates and outside bolt
rows on either beam flange (Fig 7, f, j) are used.
The nomenclature of prototypes of rigid joints be-
tween rafters and columns using bolted end-plate connec-
tions, which are implemented in the “Beam-To-Column
Joints” mode of the COMET application, is presented in
Fig 8. If a considerable bending moment acts in the joint,
and the value of this moment exceeds the load-bearing
ability of the rafter, then the COMET software provides
several prototypes of joint design decisions with
haunches (see Fig 8, e, f). For several prototypes of joints
between rafter and columns, a feature for specifying a
rafter slope (Fig 8, d, f) also has been implemented.
The design and analysis of bolted end-plate connec-
tions in beam and rafter splices as well as rigid joints
between columns and rafters can be performed for several
design load combinations when the joint experiences a
simultaneous action of a bending moment, axial and shear
forces. In addition, internal forces in the abutting column
sections can be specified for joints between rafters and
columns: an axial force, two bending moments about the
main axes of the column’s cross-section, and correspond-
ing shear forces.
Interfaces of the “Beam-To-Beam Joints” and
“Beam-To-Column Joints” modes of the COMET soft-
ware are presented in Fig 9 and Fig 10, respectively.

bf
Tp Tp L Tr
bf
V
C1

tf

tf
D
C2

C2
C

C
D

C1
C1

S
Hp

Hp
n K1
hw

hw
Bp

K1
C

C
tf

tf
Dp

Dp

Ts S
Hs

Bs
Торец
фрезеровать Bp

а b
Tp
Dp

Tp bf bf
tf
Dp

tf

C
D D
hw

n K1 n K1
Hp

Hp
hw

C
tf

a
tf

b
Dp

Dp

S S
Bp Bp

c d
Dp

Tp
Tp bf bf
tf
Dp

tf

D D
hw

n1 K1 n1 K1
hw

Hp

Hp
tf

a
C

b
n2 n2
tf

Lv
Hv

Hv

Lv
C

C
Dp

Dp

S S
Bp Bp

e f
Fig 8. Prototypes of structural designs of rigid joints between a rafter and
a column using bolted end-plate connections

741
 Fig 9. Interface of the “Beam-To-Beam Joint” mode
of the COMET software
Conclusion
This paper presents principles for the design of
bolted end-plate connections in structural joints of steel
frames according to EuroCode and the Ukrainian building
codes. Consistency and contradictions in the design pro-
cedures for bolted connections based on different design
codes have been identified.
A software implementation for the design and analy-
sis of bolted end-plate connections in steel joints of frame
structures has been presented. The application helps per-
form a structural assessment of design decisions and de-
velop designs of typical joints for steel structural systems
widely used in civil and industrial engineering.
References
Алпатов, В. Ю.; Соловьев, А. В.; Холопов, И. С. 2009. К
вопросу расчета фланцевых соединений на прочность
при знакопеременной эпюре напряжений [On strength
analysis of flange connections with an alternating-sign
stress distribution], Промышленное и гражданское
строительство [Industrial and Civil Engineering] 2: 26–
30.
Бирюлев, В. В.; Катюшин, В. В. 1989. Проектирование
фланцевых соединений с учетом развития
пластических деформаций [Design of flange connec-
tions taking into account a propagation of plastic deforma-
tions], Труды международного коллоквиума
«Болтовые и специальные монтажные соединения в
стальных строительных конструкциях» [In Proc. of
the International Colloquium “Bolted and Special Field
Joints in Structural Steel Constructions”], vol. 2. Москва:
ВНИПИ Промстальконструкция, 32–36.
Cerfontaine, F.; Jaspart, J. P. 2002. Analytical study of the
interaction between bending and axial force in bolted
joints, in Proc. of III European Conference on Steel and
Composite Structures “Eurosteel 2002”, Coimbra, 2002,
997–1006.
СНиП ІІ-23-81*. Стальные конструкции. Нормы проекти-
рования [Steel structures. Codes of structural design].
Москва, ЦИТП Госстроя СССР, 1990. 96 с.
742
Fig 10. Interface of the “Beam-To-Column Joint”
mode of the COMET software (rigid joints)
СП 53-102-2004. Общие правила проектирования стальных
конструкций [General rules for design of steel struc-
tures]. ЦНИИСК им. Кучеренко, ЗАО ЦНИИПСК им.
Мельникова, ОАО Ин-т «Энергосеть».
ДБН В.2.6-: 2000. Сталеві конструкції. Норми проек-
тування, виготовлення і монтажу [Steel structures.
Design, manufacturing and installation requirements]
[online]. Київ, Мінрегіонбуд України. Available on
Internet:
<http://www.urdisc.com.ua/arhiv/dbn_steel.pdf>.
De Lima, L. R. ; da Silva, L. S. ; da S. Vellasco, P. C. G. ; de
Andrade, S. A. L. 2002. Experimental analysis of ex-
tended end-plate beam-to-column joints under bending
and axial force, in Proc. of III European Conference on
Steel and Composite Structures “Eurosteel 2002”, Coim-
bra, 2002, 1121–1130.
Da Silva, L. S.; Santiago, A.; Real, P. V. 2002. Post-limit stiff-
ness and ductility of end-plate beam-to-column steel
joints, Computer and Structures 80(2002): 515–531.
doi:10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00014-7
EN 1993-1-8. Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1.8:
Design of Joints. CEN Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
Faella, C.; Piluso, V.; Rizzano, G. 2000. Structural steel semi-
rigid connections: theory, design and software. Boca Ra-
tion: CRC Press LLC. 494 p.
Jaspart, J. P. 2000. General report: session on connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research. vol. 55: 69-89.
doi:10.1016/S0143-974X(99)00078-4
Каленов, В. В.; Глауберман, В. Б. 1985. Исследования Т-
образных фланцевых соединений на моделях из
оптически активного материала [Researches on T-
shaped flange connections using mockups made of an op-
tically active material], Известия вузов. Строи-
тельство и архитектура [In Proc. of Academic Institu-
tions “Civil Engineering and Architecture”] 9: 14–17.
Карпиловский, В. С.; Криксунов, Э. З.; Маляренко, А. А.;
Перельмутер, А. В.; Перельмутер, М. А. 2008. SCAD
Office. Вычислительный комплекс SCAD [SCAD Soft-
ware Suite]. Москва: Издательство АСВ. 592 с.
Катюшин, В. В. 2005. Здания с каркасами из стальных рам
переменного сечения [Buildings with variable-section
steel frameworks]. Москва: Стройиздат. 450 с.
 Kennedy, N. A.; Vinnakota, S.; Sherbourne, A. 1981. The split-
tee analogy in bolted splices and beam-column connec-
tions, Joints in Structural Steelwork 2.138–2.157.
Kozlowski, A.; Pisarek, Z. 2005. Characteristics of bolted end
plate joints with four bolts in the row, in Proc. of 10th Sci-
entific Conference Rzeszow-Lviv-Kosice “State of Art,
Trends of Development and Challenges in Civil Engineer-
ing”. September 11-13, 2005, Košice, Slovakia.
Krumm, R. 1991. Calculation of rigid face plate connections
according to the DSTV/DASt Guidelines. Stahlbau.
vol. 60/3. Berlin.
Kuhlmann, U.; Davison, J. B.; Kattner M. 1998. Structural
systems and rotation capacity. In Proceeding of COST
Conference on Control of the Semi-rigid Behavior of Civil
Engineering Structural Connections, Liège, Belgium,
1998, 167–76.
Pisarek, Z.; Kozlowski, A. 2006. End-plate steel joint with four
bolts in the row, in Proc. of the International Conference
“Progress in Steel, Composite and Aluminium Struc-
tures”. Ed. by Gizejowski, Kozlowski, Sleczka & Ziolko.
London: Taylor & Francis Group, 257–826.
Рекомендации по расчету, проектированию, изготовлению
и монтажу фланцевых соединений стальных
строительных конструкций [Guidelines for analysis,
design, manufacturing and assembling of flange connec-
tions of steel structures]. СО Стальмонтаж, ВНИПИ
Промстальконструкция, ЦНИИ Проектстальконструк-
ция им. Мельникова. Москва, 1988, 83 с.
Руководство по проектированию, изготовлению и сборке
монтажных фланцевых соединений стропильных
ферм с поясами из широкополочных двутавров [Guide
743
View publication stats
for design, manufacturing, and assembling of flange con-
nections of roof trusses with chords made from H-
sections]. Москва, ЦНИИПСК им. Мельникова, 1981.
Revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. Joints in Building Frames.
European Prestandard ENV 1993-1-1: 1992/A2. CEN
Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
Sokol, Z., Wald, F., Delabre, V., Muzeau, J. P., Svarc, M. 2002.
Design of end plate joints subject to moment and normal
force. In Proc. of III European Conference on Steel and
Composite Structures “Eurosteel 2002”, Coimbra, 2002,
1219–1228.
Sumner, E. A.; Murray, T. M. 2003. Behavior and design of
multi-row extended end-plate moment connections, in
Proc. of International Conference of Advances in Struc-
tures (ASCCA’03), Sydney, 2003.
Undermann, D., Schmidt, B. 2005. Moment resistance of bolted
beam to column connections with four bolts in each row.
In Proc. of IV European Conference on Steel and Com-
posite Structures “Eurosteel 2005”. Maastricht, 2005.
Urbonas, K.; Daniunas, A. 2003. Numerical tests of steel beam-
to-column semi-rigid connections, Journal of Civil Engi-
neering and Management 9(4): 292–296.
Urbonas, K.; Daniunas, A. 2004. Behaviour of steel beam-to-
beam connections under bending and axial force, in Proc.
of 8th International Conference “Modern Building Mate-
rials, Structures and Techniques”. May 19–21, 2004, Vil-
nius, Lithuania, 650–653.
Vértes, K.; Iványi, M. 2005. Investigation of minor axis and 3D
bolted end-plate connections – experimental and numeri-
cal analysis – load tests. Periodica Polytechnica. Ser. Me-
chanical Engineering 49(1): 47–58.