ECCS-TC10-03-528

1
PLASTIC ROTATION CAPACITY OF MR BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINTS
UNDER CYCLIC LOADING

Daniel Grecea, Aurel Stratan, Dan Dubin'
Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, The Politehnica University of Timisoara
Summary

The paper presents the rotation capacity of some beam-to-column joints subjected to cyclic loading.
After the presentation of the rotation capacity definition, it is interesting to present how this
characteristic of the joints is reflected in different national seismic design codes. The paper ends
with an original proposal for the evaluation of the rotation capacity for beam-to-column welded
joints established from some experimental tests.

1. Introduction

Modern design of steel structures has introduced in the last years the real behaviour of joints,
modifying the joint classification. This classification of joints has implemented the new definitions
of semi-rigid and partial resistant joints.
Modern codes like Eurocode 3 [1] are defining 3 main characteristics to be taken into account
for the design of steel structures. These characteristics are the moment resistance (M
u
), the initial
rotational stiffness (S
j,ini
) and the rotation capacity (u
u
).
In the last years, it was demonstrated by different authors [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], that, the first
two characteristics M
u
and S
j,ini
of the beam-to-column joints are not influencing very strongly the
structural behaviour of a building subjected to seismic actions. In fact, these two characteristics are
influencing only the storey drifts and the second order effects P-A, which can be very well
controlled.
It is quite normal that the seismic response of a structure to be influenced by the beam-to-
column joint ductility, characterised by the rotation capacity.

2. Definition of Rotation Capacity

Rotation capacity characterises the ability of a plastified joint to rotate while maintaining its design
moment resistance. Figure 1 illustrates this definition. The elastic rotation u
el
is reached at the level
of the elastic design moment resistance. Another rotation u
tr
is necessary to get to the plastic design
moment resistance M
pl,Rd
. The plastic rotation u
pl
is defined as the interval between the point where
the real moment rotation curve reaches the level of M
pl,Rd
and the point where the real curve reaches
this level again. Consequently the available rotation capacity of a joint is defined as the difference:

u uu upl
u uu u
Mj
Mpl,Rd
M
j,u
u uu uCd
Mel,Rd
u uu uel u uu uXd
u uu utr
Figure 1: Definition of rotation capacity for a joint
ECCS-TC10-03-528
2
Xd Cd pl
u u = u (1)

For the verification of sufficient rotation capacity of members a simplified procedure is given in
Eurocode 3 [1]. Due to their web and flange slenderness sections can be subdivided into four
classes that allow different methods of analysis. An explicit verification of sufficient rotation
capacity is not necessary.
Usually the semi-rigid steel joints are partial resistant, which means that their resistance is less
than that of the connected members, but as a matter of fact the highest moments often occur at the
joints and not in the beam or columns. Therefore in systems with semi-rigid and/or partial resistant
connections, plastic hinges will most probably form at the joints and not in the connected members.
To allow rigid-plastic analysis the rotation capacity of the joints has to be checked, after Eurocode
3, Part 1.8 [7], paragraph 5.1.3: Rigid-plastic global analysis:

(4) The rotation capacity of the joints shall be verified to be capable to accept the rotations of the
joints resulting from the analysis.

At present, Eurocode 3, Part 1.8 [7], paragraph 6.4: Rotation capacity gives only some basic
principles for the verification of sufficient rotation capacity for a limited number of beam-to-
column joints with a specific failure mode. No general methods of verification exist:

(4) A beam-to-column joint in which the moment resistance of the joint M
j,Rd
is governed by the
resistance of the column web panel in shear, may be assumed to have adequate rotation capacity
for plastic global analysis, provided that c s 69 t d
w
.
(5) In a welded beam-to-column joint in which the column web is stiffened in compression but
unstiffened in tension, provided that the moment resistance is not governed by the shear resistance
of the column web panel, see (4), the rotation capacity u
Cd
may be assumed to be not less than the
value given by:

b c Cd
h h 025 . 0 = u (3)

where: h
b
is the depth of the beam;
h
c
is the depth of the column.
(6) An unstiffened welded beam-to-column joint designed in conformity with the provisions of this
section, may be assumed to have a rotation capacity u
Cd
of at least 0.015 radians.
(7) A joint with a bolted connection with end-plates or angle flange cleats may be assumed to
have sufficient rotation capacity for plastic analysis, provided that both of the following conditions
are satisfied:
a) the moment resistance of the joint is governed by the resistance of either:
- the column flange in bending;
- the beam end-plate or tension flange cleat in bending.
b) the thickness t of either the column flange or the beam end-plate or tension flange cleat
(not necessary the same component as in (a)) satisfies:

y ub
f f d 36 . 0 t s (4)

where: d is the nominal diameter of the bolts;
f
ub
is the ultimate tensile strength of the bolts;
f
y
is the yield strength of the relevant basic component.
(8) In cases not covered by (3) to (7), the rotation capacity may be determined by testing in
accordance with EN 1990. Alternatively, appropriate calculation models may be used, provided
that they are based on the results of tests in accordance with EN 1990.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
3
As there should be a common basis for the definition for the rotation capacity of members and
joints, there should also be a common method for the verification of rotation capacity of members
and joints.
A first step towards a common method of verification of rotation capacity is a classification of
joints analogous to that of members. [8] and [9] refer to this point and give definitions for joint
classes:

Class 1 joints: Ductile joints.
A ductile joint is able to develop its plastic moment resistance and to exhibit a
sufficiently large rotation capacity.
Class 2 joints: Joints of intermediate ductility.
A joint of intermediate ductility is able to develop its plastic moment
resistance but exhibits only a limited rotation capacity once this resistance is
reached.
Class 3 joints: Non ductile joints.
Premature failure (due to instability or to brittle failure of one of the joint
components) occurs within the joint before the moment resistance based on a
full plastic redistribution of the internal forces is reached.

As for members this classification and the corresponding deemed-to-satisfy criteria must be based
on thorough scientific investigations. During this procedure a very strict distinction has to be made
between the test level and the model level.

3. Beam-to-column joint ductility in seismic design codes for MR steel frames

3.1. Eurocode 8 (EC8-94)

According to Eurocode 8 [10], connections in dissipative zones shall have sufficient overstrength to
allow for yielding of the connected parts. For these overstrength verifications an appropriate
estimation of actual value of the yield strength of the connected parts shall be made. Where more
precise values are not available, the maximum value of the yield strength shall be used.
Non dissipative connections of dissipative members made by means of butt welds or full
penetration welds are deemed to satisfy the overstrength criterion.
For fillet weld or bolted non dissipative connections, the following requirement should be
met:

fy ov d
R 10 . 1 R > (2)

where R
d
is the resistance of the connection according to clause 6 of EN 1993-1-1 and R
fy
is the
plastic resistance of the connected dissipative member based on the design yield stress of material
as defined in EN 1993-1-1.
The effectiveness of such connection devices and their strength under cyclic loading shall be
established by tests, to the satisfaction of the National Authorities.
For bolted shear connections, the design shear resistance of the bolts should be higher than 1.2
times the design bearing resistance.
Dissipative semi-rigid and/or partial strength connections are permitted, provided that all of the
following conditions are satisfied: a) the connections have a rotation capacity consistent with the
deformations; b) members framing into the connections are demonstrated to be stable at ultimate
limit state (ULS); c) the effect of connections deformation on global drift is taken into account
using non linear static (pushover) global analysis or non linear time history analysis.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
4
The overstrength condition for connections need not apply if the connections are designed in a
manner enabling them to contribute significantly to the energy dissipation necessary to achieve the
chosen q-factor.
The connection design should be such that the plastic rotation capacity
p
u in the plastic hinge is not
less than 35 mrad for structures of ductility class H and 25 mrad for structures of ductility class M
with q>2.

3.2. French code PS-92

According to the French code PS-92 [11] there is no specification concerning the rotation capacity
of the beam-to-column joints.
Without a scientific specification established and validated by experience, using of semi-rigid
connections is not authorised.
Connections made by means of full penetration welds are deemed to satisfy the overstrength
criterion.
For fillet weld connections with partial or without penetration and for bolted connections the
following requirement shall be met :

S R
d d E
s / (5)

where:
R
d
is the resistance of the connection

E
is the partial safety factor
=1 for connections in non-dissipative zones
=1.2 for connections in dissipative zones
S
d
is the design value of acting efforts (bending moment, shear force and axial force).
Concerning bolted shear connections, only connections with pre-stressed high resistant bolts or
connections with calibrated bolts are allowed to be used in dissipative zones.
Tensioned bolted connections have to be used with pre-stressed high resistant bolts.

3.3. American code UBC-97

According to the UBC-97 [12], the purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to
safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit damage or maintain function.
Structures and portions thereof shall, as a minimum, be designed and constructed to resist the
effects of seismic ground motions as provided in this division.
For this purpose, Moment Resisting Frames (MRF), defined as a frame in which members and
joints are capable of resisting forces primarily by flexure, are divided as follows:
Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame (OMRF) is a moment -resisting frame not meeting special
detailing requirements for ductile behaviour.
Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) is a moment-resisting frame specially detailed to
provide ductile behaviour and comply with the specific requirements.
Intermediate Moment-Resisting Frame (IMRF) is considered for concrete frames only, which
are designed in accordance with specific requirements.

UBC-97 code has no specifications concerning the rotation capacity of the beam-to-column joints.
Anyhow, some interesting specifications are made for the first two categories of frames mentioned
above.
All beam-to-column and column-to-beam connections in OMRF which resist seismic forces
shall meet one of the following requirements:
a. For FR (fully restrained) connections, the required flexural strength, M
u
, of a column-to-beam
joint is not required to exceed the nominal plastic flexural strength of the connection.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
5
b. Either FR and PR (partially restrained) connections shall meet the following :
1. The connections have been demonstrated by cyclic tests to have adequate rotation capacity at
a story drift calculated as a horizontal load of 0.4R E, (where the term 0.4R is equal to or
greater than 1.0 and where E is the earthquake load and R is the response modification factor).
2. The additional drift due to PR connections shall be considered in design. FR and PR
connections are described in detail in Sect. A2 of the Specification.

For SMRF, the beam-to-column joints have to satisfy that the required flexural strength, M
u
,
of each beam-to-column joint shall be lesser of the following quantities:
1. The plastic bending moment, M
p
, of the beam.
2. The moment resulting from the panel zone nominal shear strength, V
n
.
No other precisely specification concerning the rotation capacity of the joints is made by the UBC
code.

3.4. American code AISC 2002 draft

According to AISC-97 [13], Moment Frame (MF) defined as a building frame system in which
seismic shear forces are resisted by shear and flexure in members and connections of the frame are
divided as follows:
- Special Moment Frame (SMF)
- Intermediate Moment Frame (IMF)
- Ordinary Moment Frame (OMF)
Special Moment Frames (SMF) are expected to withstand significant inelastic deformations when
subjected to the forces resulting from the motions of the Design Earthquake. SMF shall meet the
following requirements:
The connection must be capable of sustaining an Interstory Drift Angle of at least 0.04 radians.
The flexural strength of the connection, determined at the column face, must equal at least 80
percent of the nominal plastic moment of the connected beam at an Interstory Drift Angle of
0.04 radians.
These requirements could be demonstrated by one of the following:
Use a connection Prequalified for SMF.
Provide qualifying cyclic test results. Results of at least two cyclic connection tests shall be
provided and are permitted to be based on one of the following:
a. Tests reported in research literature or documented tests performed for other projects that are
demonstrated to reasonably match project conditions.
b. Tests that are conducted specifically for the project and are representative of project member
sizes, material strengths, connection configurations, and matching connection processes.

Intermediate Moment Frames (IMF) are expected to withstand limited inelastic deformations in
their members and connections when subjected to the forces resulting from the motions of the
Design Earthquake. All beam-to-column joints and connections used in the Seismic Load Resisting
System shall satisfy the following three requirements:
The connection must be capable of sustaining an Interstory Drift Angle of at least 0.02 radians.
The flexural strength of the connection, determined at the column face, must equal at least 80
percent of the nominal plastic moment of the connected beam at an Interstory Drift Angle of
0.02 radians.
These requirements shall be demonstrated by one of the following:
Use a connection prequalified for IMF.
Provide qualifying cyclic test results. Results of at least two non-identical cyclic connection
tests shall be provided and are permitted to be based on one of the following:
ECCS-TC10-03-528
6
a. Tests reported in research literature or documented tests performed for other projects that are
demonstrated to reasonably match project conditions.
b. Tests that are conducted specifically for the project and are representative of project member
sizes, material strengths, connection configurations, and matching connection processes.

Ordinary Moment Frames (OMF) are expected to withstand minimal inelastic deformations in their
members and connections when subjected to the forces resulting from the motions of the Design
Earthquake. OMF shall meet the following requirements.
Beam-to-column connections shall be made with welds and/or high-strength bolts. Connections are
permitted to be FR or PR moment connections as follows:
FR moment connections that are part of the Seismic Load Resisting System shall be designed
for a required flexural strength Mu that is at least equal to 1.1RyMp of the beam or girder or the
maximum moment that can be delivered by the system, whichever is less.
PR moment connections are permitted when the following requirements are met:
a. Such connections shall provide for the design strength as specified above
b. The nominal flexural strength of the connection shall be no less than 50 percent of Mp of the
connected beam or column, whichever is less.
c. The stiffness and strength of the PR moment connections shall be considered in the design,
including the effect on overall frame stability.

Even if the rotation capacity of the beam-to-column joints is connected with the classification of
frames, the AISC code is not providing any formula for the evaluation of this very important
characteristic.

Special attention was paid to the both American seismic design codes UBC-97 and AISC-2002,
because these two codes are the most recent and they are integrating the conclusions post-
Northridge earthquake (1994). These conclusions were very interesting for steel structures because
Northridge earthquake affected especially the joints of the steel structures.

3.5. Japanese code AIJ
LSD
- 90

The Japanese code AIJ
LSD
-90 [14] provides specifications concerning only the frame classification,
according to the classification of members and member cross-sections, storey-drift and overstrength
of joints in comparison with the connected members. Any specification concerning the rotation
capacity of beam-to-column joints is not made.

3.6. Romanian code P100 - 92

Romanian code P100 92 [15] is making a classification of structures similar with Eurocode 8,
with storey-drift specifications and overstrength conditions concerning the structural joints, but with
no specific provisions about the rotation capacity of the beam-to-column joints.

4. Tests and estimation of rotation capacity values for welded joints (INSA Rennes)

Aribert & Grecea [5] have developed an experimental research program at INSA Rennes. This
research program dealt with 8 beam-to-column welded joints of different sizes under monotonic and
repeated cyclic loading (Table 1). The specimens were major axis joints with a symmetrical
cruciform arrangement comprising a H or I column connected to two cantilever beams by full
penetration butt welds with double bevel in the beam flanges. No transverse stiffener was welded in
the compression zone of the column web, so that the static partial resistance of the joints was
governed by local buckling of the column web.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
7
The tests were performed according to the Recommended Testing Procedure of ECCS (1985).
Each type of joint was subject first of all to a monotonic loading (CPP11, CPP13, CPP15 and
CPP17), which allowed to determine the main static characteristics as the moment resistance, the
initial rotational stiffness, the maximum elastic rotation and the rotation capacity.
After the determination of these characteristics, the elements were subject to cyclic reversal
loading (CPP12, CPP14, CPP16 and CPP18). The cyclic moment-rotation curves for the four tested
joints are presented in Figure 2.
The cyclic behaviour of this type of joint may be characterised by a good regularity in the
loops shape with more or less deterioration between loops. This regularity could be explained by the
sufficient continuity of internal forces and the reasonable value of the local buckling slenderness of
the column web subject to transverse compression (non-dimensional slenderness s 08 . ). Generally
the failure mode occurred by local buckling of the column web. Nevertheless, due to plastic
deformations developed in the column web under alternate compression and tension, a crack in the
web panel near the flange was observed in a few cases. Simultaneously, in the column flange
subject to alternate bending, another crack started close to the weld connecting the column flange
with the beam flange. Experimental values of ultimate resistance moment and rotation capacity
obtained in both monotonic and cyclic reversal loading can be compared in Table 2.
From the moment-rotation curves, it is observed that the ultimate moment and the initial
stiffness of the joints are not strongly influenced by the repeated cyclic loading, so that in seismic
design the corresponding formulae given in Eurocode 3 for the case of static loading can be used, as
reasonable approximations.
On the other hand it appears clearly that the rotation capacity of the joints is systematically
reduced by a factor about 2. As in the literature there are no formulae to evaluate the rotation
capacity of the relevant joints, the present authors have proposed the following one for monotonic
loading:

u
u b c
h h = 0 030 . (6)

and the following one for cyclic loading :

u
u b c
h h = 0 015 . (7)

where h
b
is the beam depth and h
c
the column depth (it should be noted that o
u
would be
proportional to ratio h
b
/h
c
, and not to ratio h
c
/h
b
as mentioned in Clause J.5(5) of Annex J of EC3).
In addition the failure mode may be different under repeated cyclic loading in comparison with
the static one; for example fracture of the column flange and web may occur instead of local
buckling of the column web, which can be controlled only by design methods including low-cycle
fatigue phenomena and damage models.

Table 1 Experimental elements
Test specimens Column Beam Loading type Failure mode
CPP 11 HEB 200 IPE 360 Monotonic Buckling of column web
CPP 12 HEB 200 IPE 360 Cyclic Reversal Buckling of column web with
fracture of column flange and web
CPP 13 IPE 360 IPE 360 Monotonic Buckling of column web
CPP 14 IPE 360 IPE 360 Cyclic Reversal Buckling of column web
CPP 15 HEB 300 IPE 360 Monotonic Buckling of column web
CPP 16 HEB 300 IPE 360 Cyclic Reversal Buckling of column web
CPP 17 HEB 300 IPE 450 Monotonic Buckling of column web
CPP 18 HEB 300 IPE 450 Cyclic Reversal Buckling of column web with
fracture of column flange and web
ECCS-TC10-03-528
8
Test CPP 12
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
u uu u [rad]
M [kNm]
Test CPP14
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
u uu u [rad]
M [kNm]
Test CPP16
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03
u uu u [rad]
M [kNm]
Test CPP18
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02
u uu u [rad]
M [kNm]
Figure 2: Cyclic behaviour of the joints

Table 2 Comparison between joint characteristics under cyclic and monotonic loadings
CPP11 CPP12 CPP13 CPP14 CPP15 CPP16 CPP17 CPP18
M
u
[kNm] 230.0 253.0 166.9 180.3 349.2 368.5 467.5 486.2
u
u
[rad] 0.064 0.031 0.045 0.023 0.045 0.020 0.052 0.030
5. Tests and estimation of rotation capacity values for welded and bolted joints (U.P.
Timisoara)

The present work describes investigations on beam-to-column joints, carried out at the laboratory of
steel structures at the Civil Engineering Faculty of Timisoara. First are described the joints that have
been tested, their characteristics, the loading system and procedure. Further are given the theoretical
characteristics of the joints, computed according to EUROCODE 3. The results of the tests present
the experimental characteristics of the tested joints and the behavioural curves. Finally, a
comparison between the theoretical (by EUROCODE 3) and the experimental characteristics is
made, as well as the resulting conclusions.

5.1. Specimens and testing set-up description

Three typologies of beam-to-column joints have been tested from a total of 12 specimens. All the
joints are double sided. For all the specimens the design steel grade was S235 (f
y
=235 N/mm
2
,
f
u
=360 N/mm
2
), beams being IPE 360 and columns HEB 300 (Figure 3).

ECCS-TC10-03-528
9
1100 1100
Column HEB 300
Beam IPE 360
Connection
symmetrical loading
Applied force
(a)
supplementary support
Column HEB 300
1100 1100
Connection
anti-symmetrical loading
Beam IPE 360
Applied force
(b)
Figure 3: Static scheme and general description of the specimens: (a) symmetrical loading and (b)
anti-symmetrical loading

Actuator 1000kN
Supports
2
5
5
0
7
2
5
1
2
2
5
2200
Specimen
Figure 4: Testing set-up for symmetrical loading: scheme and real set-up

Two types of loading were applied: symmetrical and anti-symmetrical (Figure 4 and Figure 5) and
three connection typologies were tested (Figure 6):
Type 1 Figure 6 a:
- 2 symmetric cruciform extended end plate bolted connections (prestressed 10.9 M20
bolts) specimens XS-EP1 and XS-EP2
- 2 anti-symmetric cruciform extended end plate bolted connections (prestressed 10.9
M20 bolts) specimens - XU-EP1 and XU-EP2
Type 2 Figure 6 b:
- 2 symmetric cruciform welded connections (full-penetration welds) specimens - XS-W1
and XS-W2
- 2 anti-symmetric cruciform welded connections (full-penetration welds)
specimens - XU-W1 and XU-W2
Type 3 Figure 6 c:
- 2 symmetric cruciform connections with welded cover plates (full-penetration welds)
and welded web plate (bolted for erection) specimens - XS-CWP1 and XS-CWP2
- 2 anti-symmetric cruciform connections with welded cover plates (full-penetration
welds) and welded web plate (bolted for erection) specimens - XU-CWP1 and XU-
CWP2

ECCS-TC10-03-528
10
Supports
Specimen
Actuator 1000kN
2200
1
1
0
0
1
1
5
5
Figure 5: Testing set-up for anti-symmetrical loading: scheme and real set-up

10M20 gr 10.9
Column HEB 300
Beam IPE360
End Plate t=20
3M20 gr6.6 Equal strength weld
Column HEB 300
Beam IPE360
Equal Strenght weld
Column HEB 300
Supplementary web plate
Beam IPE360
Welded cover plate
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6: Connection configurations: (a) bolted, (b) welded and (c) with cover welded plate

The joints (three different joint configurations and two load types) have been designed according to
Eurocode 3, Annex J. The joints classification, according to the above mentioned code is given in
Table 3.

Table 3 Joints stiffness and resistance classification according to EC3
SPECIMEN EC3 Stiffness
Classification
EC3 Resistance
Classification
Weakest
Component
XS-EP Semi-rigid Partial-resistant End-plate in bending
XS-W Rigid Equal-resistant Beam fl. & web in compr.
XS-CWP Rigid Full-resistant Beam fl. & web in compr.
XU-EP Semi-rigid Partial-resistant End-plate in bending
XU-W Semi-rigid Partial-resistant Web panel in shear
XU-CWP Semi-rigid Partial-resistant Web panel in shear
5.2. Loading history

The loading history was made according to the ECCS Recommendations simplified procedure,
(Figure 7), in which were performed three cycles for each even multiplier of the displacement e
y
,
which represents the characteristic conventional yielding displacement of the joint. It was assumed
as the displacement at the column end (for both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical). Prior the plastic
cycles, the simplified ECCS procedure was used in order to find the displacement e
y
and the
corresponding force F
y
, so as to ensure that at least four levels of displacement have been performed
before the conventional yielding displacement.

ECCS-TC10-03-528
11
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
e/e
y
time

Figure 7: Load history - recommended ECCS procedure

The end of the experiment was considered when, the final force load applied to the joint was at the
most half of the maximum load applied to that joint. In some cases, due to premature failure of
joints (XS-W1), or due to unexpected events during the test (one support felt during the XU-W2
testing), the experiment was stopped earlier. The applied loading speed was quasi-static. The total
duration of a cycle was 8 minutes, the loading speed depending on the amplitude of displacement
imposed. This slow rate of loading was imposed actually by the data acquisition system rate of
recording.

5.3. Testing results

XS-EP specimens Symmetrical Joints

XS-EP2
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [Rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(a)
XS-EP2
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad.]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(b)
Figure 8: Cyclic Moment-Rotation curve (a) and the envelope curve (b) for specimen XS-EP2

ECCS-TC10-03-528
12
Figure 9: Failure of specimen XS-EP2

XS-W specimens Symmetrical Joints

XS-W2
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad.]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(a)
XS-W2
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad.]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(b)
Figure 10: Cyclic Moment-Rotation curve (a) and the envelope curve (b) for specimen XS-W2

Figure 11: Failure of specimen XS-W2

ECCS-TC10-03-528
13
XS-CWP specimens Symmetrical Joints

XS-CWP1
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOIT ROTATION [rad.]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(a)
XS-CWP1
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad.]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(b)
Figure 12: Cyclic Moment-Rotation curve (a) and the envelope curve (b) for specimen XS-CWP1

Figure 13: Failure of specimen XS-CWP1

XU-EP specimens Anti-Symmetrical Joints

XU-EP1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
XU-EP1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
a) Cyclic behaviour b) Envelope of hysteresis loops

Figure 14: Total joint rotation versus moment relationships for XU-EP1 specimen

ECCS-TC10-03-528
14
a) XU-EP1 b) XU-EP2
Figure 15: Rupture of end plate (a) and failure of beam near the beam to end plate connection (b)

XU-W specimens Anti-Symmetrical Joints

XU-W1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
XU-W1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
a) Cyclic behaviour b) Envelope of hysteresis loops
Figure 16: Total joint rotation versus moment relationships for XU-W1 specimen

a) XU-W1 b) XU-W1
Figure 17: Rupture of column web (a) and failure of beam top flange (b)
ECCS-TC10-03-528
15
XU-CWP specimens Anti-Symmetrical Joints

XU-CWP1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.07 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
XU-CWP1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
a) Cyclic behaviour b) Envelope of hysteresis loops
Figure 18: Total joint rotation versus moment relationships for XU-CWP1 specimen

a) XU-CWP1 b) XU-CWP2
Figure 19: Failure of column web (a) and crack through the column flange and web (b)

General Results from the Tests

Table 4 comprises the main parameters monitored during the tests:
P
y
the force corresponding to joint yielding
o
y
, the yielding displacement corresponding to P
y
M
max
the maximul bending moment obtained at the column face for the test
o
u
the ultimate (maximum) rotation of the joint

Monitored parameters are also the maximum energy dissipated in a cycle and the total energy
dissipated during a test. The number of plastic cycles to failure is considered an important
parameter describing the plastic performances of the joint.

Table 4: Main characteristics of cyclic tests
SPECIMEN P
y
[kN]
o
y
[mm]
max
M
[kNm]
o
u
+
[rad]
o
u
-
[rad]
Max. En/cycl.
[kNm rad]
Total En.
[kNm rad]
Nr. of pl.
cycles
XS-EP 1 569.12 10 334.17 0.031 0.033 20.83 76.74 11
ECCS-TC10-03-528
16
XS-EP 2 522.38 6.5 337.94 0.039 0.037 20.84 120.15 16
XS-W 1 642.40 4.36 437.70 0.028 0.010 19.71 125.20 16
XS-W 2 677.88 4.85 412.12 0.017 0.013 18.05 64.69 10
XS-CWP 1 678.40 5.60 542.01 0.036 0.038 45.06 390.00 21
XS-CWP 2 Accidental failure of the column loading end plate
XU-EP 1 170.0 15.00 263.7 0.055 0.060 39.4 661.50 34
XU-EP 2 170.0 15.00 256.3 0.057 0.062 42.1 924.60 37
XU-W 1 177.0 12.80 247.8 0.052 0.051 39.3 721.00 30
XU-W 2 177.0 12.80 252.1 0.052 0.050 38.0 611.70 23
XU-CWP 1 178.3 11.00 287.2 0.054 0.064 45.7 1666.80 50
XU-CWP 2 178.3 11.00 301.5 0.060 0.060 52.0 1051.20 31
It can be observed that generally, there are not big differences between the two specimens of the
same type. Anyway, a few comments should be added. First, the XS-W1 specimen was deliberately
different from the XS-W2 specimen, by re-welding of the weld roots of the former specimen (as
explained earlier). Secondly, although the results are similar in terms of maximum values of
rotations and moments resisted by the joints, the failure mechanism and the number of plastic cycles
are sometimes substantially different. This is particularly true for the XU-CWP joints.

Due to the different statical schemes for the two types of loading, the bending moment in the node
for anti-symmetrical scheme is obtained by half the force needed for the symmetrical one. But this
is not the cause of the drastic drop in the yield force P
y
from the XS to XU series. A change in the
loading type caused also a change of the joint resistive components. Test results are in accordance
with the expected joint behaviour as it can be seen in Table 3.

In what concerns the XS series, joint resistance and rigidity are expected to increase in the range
EP-W-CWP. Results in terms of maximum moment attained during testing confirm this trend. It
should be noted that the maximum moment for all joints is computed at the column face. The
behaviour of the three types of joints is quite different:
XS-EP joints showed a good ductility mainly due to the end plate in bending and partially due
to local buckling of beam flanges. Anyway, failure was achieved not only by rupture of the end
plate, but also by rupture of the beam flange at its connection to the end plate (in the weld or in
the heat affected zone). Mean maximum rotation attained (0.035 radians) shows a good plastic
behaviour of XS-EP joints. The failure was a ductile one.
Ductility of XS-W joints was mainly affected by the brittle and sudden failure of the beam to
column connection. The mean maximum rotation (0.017 radians) proves this fact. This type of
joint is especially affected by the quality of welds at the beam to column connection.
The objective of XS-CWP joints, reinforced at the beam to column connection, was
accomplished, the plastic zone shifting from the column face connection into the beam.
Therefore, its ductility is practically given by the beam ductility. The equivalent rotation at the
column face (0.037 radians) is smaller than the real one in the plastic hinge.

The dissipated energy, both the maximum and the cumulated one have comparable values for XS-
EP and XS-W specimens, and are substantially greater for XS-CWP specimen. The number of
hysteresis loops to failure is again much greater for the latter case.

In the case of XU series, the maximum moment attained is expected to have close values, taking
into consideration that the main resisting component is the web panel in shear. This was proved to
be true, with the specification that the XU-W joint showed the smallest maximum moments and the
XU-CWP the biggest values. Their ductility is comparable (0.051-0.059 radians mean values), all
the joints proving good ductility. Behaviour of the three types of joints is in general similar, being
governed by the shear behaviour of the column web panel, but there are also some particularities:
ECCS-TC10-03-528
17
Beside shear in the panel zone, behaviour of XU-EP joints was influenced by the end plate in
bending. At the first plastic cycles the ductility demand was distributed between the two
components, participating together to the plastic excursions. While panel zone had stable
hysteresis loops, the behaviour of the end plate was characterised by significant degradation
(due to loosening of bolts and rupture of the extended part of the end plate).
In the case of XU-W joints, plasticity was spread between the panel zone and in a smaller extent
the beam flanges. These joints have been the least ductile, failure occurring by brittle fracture of
beam flanges and pullout of the column flange.
The web panel governed exclusively the behaviour of XU-CWP joints. Failure was due to
ductile degradation of the panel zone, which was finally torn apart. A concern should be
expressed here about this type of joints, as the second specimen failed by complete rupture of
the column flange.

The maximum dissipated energy is higher for the XU-CWP joints. The cumulated energy is
considerably higher for the same type of joints. This is partially caused by the increased number of
plastic cycles.

In what concerns the differences between the XS and XU series, change of loading type led to
important differences between the two series. Generally, a drop in maximum moment is observed
for the anti-symmetrical loading. Anyway, this drop is different among the connection types as
follows: 15% for the end plate joints and about 40% in the case of welded and cover plated joints.
This fact is explained by close resistance of the extended end plate and the web panel, both
components being involved in the plastic mechanism. While for the other two cases the web panel
was the main participating component. Joint rotations are considerably higher for XU series.
Improved ductility in the case of XU joints is given by good rotation capacity and stable hysteresis
loops of the web panel in shear. Anti-symmetrical joints have generally increased energy dissipation
capacity with respect to the symmetrical ones. This fact is given by the increase of both maximum
energy dissipated per cycle and number of cycles (case of EP and W joints), or only increased
number of cycles (case of CWP joints).

5.4. Comparison between the EC3 and Experimental Results

Table 8 comprises the results of the experimental tests compared to that of EC 3 Annex J, in terms
of joint bending moments, rotational stiffness and ultimate rotation attained. It should be noted that
for this comparison, the joint characteristics are computed with the measured strengths and
dimensions of the joint components.

Table 8 Comparison between computed and experimental joint characteristics
SPECIMEN
(exp)
, Rd j
M
[kNm]
) (
,
th
Rd j
M
[kNm]
(exp)
,ini j
S
[kNm/rad]
) (
,
th
ini j
S
[kNm/rad]
(exp)
y
o
[rad]
(exp)
u
o
[rad]
XS-EP 1 255.6 262.7 69539 142932.2 0.0038 0.033
XS-EP 2 288.9 261.3 44205 140886.8 0.0063 0.038
XS-W 1 305.6 309.3 333953 M 0.0009 0.029
XS-W 2 277.8 317.6 321569 M 0.0009 0.016
XS-CWP 1 316.7 452.1 366309 M 0.0009 0.038
XS-CWP 2 ** 449.0 ** M ** **
XU-EP 1 146.7 169.2 44081 43727.2 0.0033 0.060
XU-EP 2 157.8 169.1 49004 43718.2 0.0028 0.062
XU-W 1 113.3 163.6 63102 68792.1 0.0020 0.052
XU-W 2 131.1 164.1 49681 69062.1 0.0026 0.052
XU-CWP 1 131.1 178.6 60712 75597.2 0.0022 0.064
ECCS-TC10-03-528
18
XU-CWP 2 164.4 177.4 58453 74963.1 0.0026 0.060
The yielding bending moment
(exp)
Rd
M is computed according to the ECCS procedure, as in Figure
20, resulting at the intersection of the S
j,ini
line and the tangent to the envelope curve S
j,ini
/10 line.
The intersection point corresponds to the pair (
(exp)
Rd
M ,o
y
).

Comparing the experimental and computed values of joint moment capacity, it can be observed that
generally, close values are obtained for the XS series. An exception is the XS-CWP joint, which
showed considerably lower experimental value. In the case of XU series, all experimental values are
lower than the ones computed by Annex J of EC3. The difference between the computed and
measured yielding bending moment could be explained by several causes:
Annex J of EC3 does not consider cyclic loading neither strain hardening
On the other hand, the procedure applied for determining the experimental yielding moments is
a conventional one and is greatly influenced by the initial stiffness of the joint

XS-EP2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
JOINT ROTATION [RAD]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
Sj,ini/10
S
j,ini
M
j,Rd
F FF F
y
Figure 20: Definition of
(exp)
Rd
M and o
y.

In what concerns the initial stiffness of the joints, numerical and experimental results agree fairly
well for the XU series, while significant differences are noticed for XS series. Anyway, stiffness is
much lower for the anti-symmetrical joints both from experimental and computed stiffness values.
This fact is again given by the deformability of the panel zone.

5.5. Concluding remarks

As it was expected, the loading type (symmetrical or anti-symmetrical) significantly affects the
response parameters of beam-to-column joints. The main component that brings the difference is
the panel zone in shear. The most important consequences on the cyclic behaviour of beam-column
joints are the reduced moment capacity and, (in general) increased ductility with more stable
hysteresis loops in the case of anti-symmetrical loading.

These tests were conducted under limiting cases of load asymmetry. The two loading types affect
significantly joint properties in terms of initial stiffness, moment and rotation capacities. Therefore,
when modelling the joint for structural analysis, different characteristics should be used for
gravitational and lateral loading.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
19
Investigation of the different joint typologies revealed the importance of detailing of the connection
and the welding procedure, as well as its quality. Defective welding was responsible for such
phenomena as crack initiation and early cracks in welds or heat-affected zone.

Bolted end-plate joints showed an increased rotation capacity and more ductile behaviour with
respect to welded joints. Extended end plate connections should be designed so as to prevent brittle
failure by bolt rupture. Loosening of bolts during cycle reversals has lead to stiffness degradation.
Another aspect characteristic to anti-symmetrical bolted joints is the distribution of ductility
demands between the end-plate (connection) and the panel zone.

Generally, failure was brittle for welded joints and ductile for the other ones in the case of
symmetrical loading. The ductile behaviour was due to connection (bolted joint) and due to shifting
of the plastic hinge away from the column face in the case of CWP joint. Participation of panel zone
to the plastic mechanism significantly increased the ductility of the anti-symmetrically-loaded
joints. Anyway, welded joints failed in a brittle manner in this case, too.

Generally, the joint with cover and web plates showed a good behaviour. Anyway, care should be
taken when designing such joints due to potential problems caused by increased moment at the
column face.

6. Cyclic Tests on Bolted Steel and Composite Double-Sided Beam-to-Column Joints (U.P.
Timisoara)

An alternative to the standard European column cross-section (hot-rolled I profiles) is the use of
X-shaped cross-sections, built-up of two hot-rolled profiles welded along the median axis or built-
up sections made out from welded plates, as shown in Figure 21.

712 PC52 712 PC52 210 PC52
212 PC52
212 PC52
310 PC52
8M20 gr.10.9
2
9
0
20 360 20
14
1
2
Beam
170
Column
8 top & bot. fl.
5 .
1
2
6M20 gr.10.9
Column
2
9
0
5 .
8 top & bot. fl.
Beam
1
2
0
6
0
0
R20
r.c. slab
R20
(a) (b)
Figure 21: Connection configurations for BX-S series (a) and BX-C series (b) of joints.

ECCS-TC10-03-528
20
6.1. Experimental tests on Bare-steel joints

The testing program comprised six specimens: three joints under symmetrical loading (BX-SS, see
Figure 22a), and three joints under anti-symmetrical loading (BX-SU, see Figure 22b). The bolts
have been fully preloaded, except for the last joint of each series, which have been preloaded to
50% only. Tests were performed in accordance with the ECCS Recommendations complete
procedure (ECCS 1985). The first specimen from each series was tested monotonically, in order to
determine the conventional yield displacement e
y.
Specimen failure was considered at 50%
reduction of the maximum load applied during the loading history. The load was applied quasi-
statically, under displacement control.

Actuator 1000kN
Supports
Specimen
Supports
Specimen
Actuator 1000kN
(a) (b)
Figure 22: Testing set-up for symmetrical loading (a) and for anti-symmetrical loading (b).

Table 9 and Figures 23, and 24 synthetically present the main experimental results expressed in
terms of maximum plastic rotation
max
m mm m , maximum moment attained
max
M , and the cumulated
energy dissipated by the specimens during the entire loading history E
tot
.
Table 9 Experimental results for bare-steel joints.
Specimen
+
max
m , rad

max
m , rad
+
max
M , kNm

max
M , kNm
E
tot
, kNm rad
BX-SS-M 0.043 - 263.3 - 9.0
BX-SS-C1 0.028 0.021 271.6 259.1 41.5
BX-SS-C2 0.017 0.018 261.8 259.8 23.4
BX-SU-M 0.106 - 258.4 - 24.0
BX-SU-C1 0.073 0.055 269.4 240.6 135.8
BX-SU-C2 0.039 0.047 240.1 236.6 88.4
BX-SS-C1
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(a)
BX-SU-C1
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(b)
Figure 23: Moment - rotation relationships for cyclic specimens of the BX-S series
ECCS-TC10-03-528
21
(a) (b)
Figure 24: BX-SS-C2: Weld failure (a); BX-SU-C1: End plate failure (b)

6.2. Experimental tests on Composite joints

The steel part of the composite joints is similar to the bare-steel joints, except the end-plate, which
is extended only at the bottom part (Figure 21), following the rationale that the slab reinforcement
will compensate the missing bolt row at the top. The r.c. slab has a total depth of 120 mm, lying on
a LINDAB LTP45x0.7 corrugated sheet. The slab width was taken equal to the effective width of
the slab, computed according to Eurocode 4 (1992). Member dimensions and effective slab width
have been determined by designing a three-bay (3x4.5m), three-storey (3x3.5m) moment resisting
frame. The effective width of the slab is relatively small (600 mm), this needs to be recognised
when considering the conclusions of the present study. Nelson connectors have been used, to
achieve a full shear connection between the beam and the slab.
The experimental program comprised three symmetrically loaded specimens (BX-CS series: one
tested monotonically to negative moments BX-CS-M1, one tested monotonically to positive
moments BX-CS-M2, and the third one tested under cyclic loading BX-CS-C1) and three anti-
symmetrical loading (BX-CU series: one tested monotonically BX-CU-M, and the other two
cyclically BX-CU-C1 and BX-CU-C2). In the case of the BX-CU-C2 specimen, the ECCS
procedure was not applied; instead, constant cycles of 6e
y
were used. In the case of composite joints
all the bolts have been preloaded to 100% of the full preloading value.
The results of tests on composite joints are summarised in Tables 10, and Figures 25 and 26. It is to
be mentioned that in the case of anti-symmetrically loaded joints, the moments on the opposite sides
of the column are not equal, due to different moment capacities and connection stiffness on the two
sides. Only actuator force was recorded during the tests, so that it is not possible to determine
directly the moments on the two sides of the column. Therefore, a mean value of the positive and
negative moments was considered in the present study.

Table 10 Experimental results for composite joints.
SPECIMEN
+
max
m , RAD

max
m , RAD
+
max
M , KNM

max
M , KNM
E
TOT
, KNMRAD
BX-CS-M1 - 0.087 - 244.3 16.6
BX-CS-M2 0.033 - 316.1 - 8.4
BX-CS-C1 0.045 0.014 305.5 196.9 32.0
BX-CU-M* 0.090 198.2 15.2
BX-CU-C1* 0.058 190.2 104.5
BX-CU-C2* 0.032 200.9 32.2
* Mean values

ECCS-TC10-03-528
22
BX-CS-C1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(a)
BX-CU-C1
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
(b)
Figure 25: Moment - rotation relationships for cyclic specimens of the BX-C series

(a)
(b)
Figure 26: Failure of cyclically tested specimens form the BX-C series:
BX-CS-C1 (a) and BX-CU-C1 (b)

6.3. Comparison of test results to code results (Annex J of EC3 and EC4)

Table 11 and Table 12 present the joint characteristics obtained from the tests and computed
analytically in accordance to the Annex J of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4, respectively. For the
analytical results, the real strengths and the measured dimensions of the members have been used.

Steel joints

The Annex J of Eurocode 3 gives the possibility of computing joints having I or H cross-sections
(hot rolled or built-up profiles). The main difference between the behaviour of the I shaped profiles
and the X-shaped ones is the increase in the shear area of the panel zone in the latter case, due to the
presence of the supplementary flanges of the column. The X-shaped cross-sectional columns can be
considered in Annex J by increasing accordingly the shear area of the panel zone.
On the other hand, the Annex J specifications states that the shear area given by the panel
zone can be supplemented by means of supplementary web plates, welded on one or both sides of
the column web. In this way the shear area can be increased by a maximum area of b
s
t
wc
(b
s
- web
plate width, t
wc
the column web thickness) from one or two supplementary web plates (Figure
27b). In the case of X-shaped columns, due to the presence of horizontal web stiffeners, the full
shear area approach should be used (Figure 27a). The values of M
y
presented in the Table 11 have
been computed using both approaches, but only the full shear area approach is close to the
maximum moment obtained from the tests (in the case of anti-symmetrical loading).

ECCS-TC10-03-528
23
Table 11 Comparison of test to the analytical results given by Annex J of EC3 for steel joints
Total EnergyS
max
+
S
max
-
M
max
M
min
S
j,ini
+
S
j,ini
-
S
y
+
S
y
-
M
y
+
M
y
-
Specimen kNm rad mrad kNm x10
3
kNm/rad mrad KNm
Symmetrically loaded joints
EC3-full A
s
--- --- --- 55.64 2.97 165.40
EC3red. A
s
--- --- --- 55.64 2.97 165.40
BX-SS-M 9.01 43.20 263.34 48.03 3.26 180.79
BX-SS-C1 41.5 28.0 21.0 271.6259.1 55.91 59.60 3.26 2.60 197.2 188.0
BX-SS-C2 23.4 17.4 18.1 261.8259.8 71.24 63.5 2.66 2.39 194.8 206.8
Anti-symmetrically loaded joints
EC3-full A
s
--- --- --- 32.99 4.76 156.91
EC3red. A
s
--- --- --- 25.19 4.24 106.77
BX-SU-M 24.0 105.5 258.36 51.50 2.28 137.66
BX-SU-C1 135.8 72.5 55.3 269.4240.6 35.07 29.08 3.77 4.44 153.1 161.2
BX-SU-C2 88.37 39.2 46.8 240.1236.6 27.82 40.53 5.54 3.37 179.8 161.2
full A
s
full shear area approach
red A
s
reduced shear area approach, according to Annex J of EC3

shear area
FULL SHEAR
AREA
SUPPLEMENTARY
WEB PLATE
shear area
(a) (b)
Figure 27: Full shear approach (a) and EC3 Annex J approach (b)

The experimental curves of the monotonic tests, as well as the envelopes of the cyclic tests, are
presented in Figure 28, compared to the analytical results given by the Annex J of Eurocode 3. In
the case of symmetrically loaded joints, it can be observed that the values of the experimental
stiffness are close to those computed by Annex J, but the values of the computed yielding bending
moment is generally 10-20% smaller than the experimental ones. For the anti-symmetrically loaded
joints, only the full-shear area approach gives close agreement to the analytical results given by
Annex J. The monotonic test is different from the cyclic tests in stiffness, maximum resistance and
maximum rotation, as can be seen in Table 11. As usual, the maximum rotation in monotonic tests
is 1.5-2 times greater than the maximum rotation attained under cyclic loading. The conventional
values of yielding moment and of yielding rotation for the case of load reversal are closer to the
computed values by Annex J.
BX-SS
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
BX-SU
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
EXP MON. EXP CYCLIC THEORETICAL (EC3)

ECCS-TC10-03-528
24
Figure 28: Comparison of experimental results for steel joints to the EC3 Annex J predictions.

Composite joints

Table 12 shows the test results, compared to the numerical ones given by Annex J. For the case of
composite joints, the full shear area of the panel zone has been considered, too. Figure 29 shows
graphically the same comparison (symmetrical loading - a, anti-symmetrical loading - b). In the
case of cyclic loading are shown only the envelope curves. The shear connection was computed
according to EC4, part 1.6 in order to have a full-shear connection between the concrete slab and
the steel beam. The studs were distributed according to the shear force pattern under gravitational
loads.

Table 12 Comparison of test to the analytical results (Annex J of EC4) for composite joints
Total EnergyS
max
+
S
max
-
M
max
M
min
S
j,ini
+
S
j,ini
-
S
y
+
S
y
-
M
y
+
M
y
-
Specimen kNm rad mrad kNm x10
3
KNm/rad mrad KNm
Symmetrically loaded joints
EC4 Mom - --- --- --- 57.11 2.34 133.80
EC3
*
Mom + --- --- --- 99.68 2.30 230
BX-CS-M1 16.60 86.7 244.25 98.47 1.27 155.51
BX-CS-M2 8.4 32.7 316.09 105.27 2.52 231.32
BX-CS-C1 32.0 44.8 14.1 305.5196.9 102.5 75.05 1.60 1.73 195.2 149.9
Anti-symmetrically loaded joints
EC4-comb.
**
--- --- --- 41.78 3.84 160.55
BX-CU-M 15.2 90.1 198.24 47.19 2.34 126.23
BX-CU-C1 104.5 60.5 53.8 187.1193.3 36.87 37.92 3.49 3.38 142.67 137.3
BX-CU-C2 32.2 32.7 30.9 191.3210.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
EC3
*
- computed according to Annex J of EC3, by translation of the centre of compression
EC4-comb.
**
- mean value between the positive and negative values

The analytical computations according to Annex J of EC4 in the case of symmetrical positive
bending leads to safer values in terms of resistance (15% approx.) and smaller stiffness. Due to slab
degradation in cyclic tests, the resistance and stiffness values are smaller.
The Annex J of EC4 does not give the possibility of computing composite joints subjected to
positive moments. For this case, the values of stiffness and moment resistance presented in Table 12
are computed according to Annex J of EC3 by a translation of the centre of compression from the
upper beam flange to the middle of the concrete slab (considered without corrugated sheet). These
assumptions lead to comparable values to the tests in terms of resistance and stiffness. For the case
of cyclic loading, there can be observed a decrease in both resisting moment and stiffness due to
rapid slab degradation.
Analytical values of moment resistance and stiffness for anti-symmetrical loading have been
obtained by the mean values for the two connections subjected to anti-symmetrical loading, taking
into account the full shear area approach. This prediction remains only an attempt of computing the
composite joints under anti-symmetrical loading.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
25
BX-CS
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
BX-CU
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
TOTAL JOINT ROTATION [rad]
M
O
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
H
E
C
O
L
U
M
N
F
A
C
E
[
k
N
m
]
EXP MON. EXP CYCLIC THEORETICAL (EC4)

Figure 29: Comparison of experimental results for composite joints to the EC4 Annex J predictions

6.4. General conclusions and remarks

The use of X-shaped columns makes possible a convenient design for three- and four- way
connections for space moment resisting frames. Also, it brings important advantages to the joint
behaviour under anti-symmetrical loading over usual I or H shaped columns. Column flanges
parallel to the considered web lead to a natural stiffening of the column panel zone. This increase in
the panel zone shear area reduces significantly the drop in moment capacity for anti-symmetrically
loaded joints with respect to symmetrical ones, but reduces to some extent the initial stiffness.
Anyway, the stiffened panel zone participates to the plastic mechanism, assuring a significantly
increased ductility of anti-symmetrically loaded joints.
Cyclic loading introduces differences between the type of failure of both bare steel and composite
joints. While for monotonic tests the failure was mainly by bolt failure and column flange / end
plate deformations, in the case of cyclic tests it was by brittle failure of the fillet welds. Therefore,
particular care is needed in design and manufacture of the welds in zones with load reversals. Full-
penetration welds could be more reliable. However, weld quality is of paramount importance.
The cyclic loading reduces the ductility of bare steel and composite joints. Roughly, the maximum
rotation of cyclically loaded joints is 50% of the monotonically loaded ones for bare steel joints and
anti-symmetrically loaded composite joints, and 33% for symmetrically loaded composite joints.
However, in the case of anti-symmetrically loaded joints (which is the case under seismic loading),
the plastic rotation capacity is greater then the generally accepted requirement of 0.03 rad. for
special MRFs (AISC 1997). This is valid both bare steel and composite joints considered in this
study. The maximum bending moment
max
M is affected by the cyclic loading in the case of
composite connections only. A 10% reduction of the maximum bending moment attained under
monotonic loading could be considered as a safe estimation of the maximum bending moment
under seismic loading.
Composite action of the concrete slab on the steel beam has a positive effect on the ductile
behaviour of the symmetrically loaded joints under negative moments. Under positive moments, the
centre of compression is shifted into the concrete slab, leading to a higher lever arm for the extreme
bolt rows, and higher stiffness and moment capacity of the joint. Consequently, in the case of
composite joints under positive moments, the lower steel part of the joint should be proportioned
accordingly, in order to resist the increased demand due to composite action.
In the case of composite joints with partially extended end plate (at the bottom part only), the steel
reinforcement in the slab is not able to compensate for the missing bolt row in the extended end
plate, even if a relatively high reinforcement ratio is used (1.8% for the joint zone). A pinching
behaviour could be observed for the anti-symmetrically loaded specimens, after cracking of the
concrete slab. A higher strength concrete is believed to postpone this phenomena, and to result in
more stable behaviour. Due to rapid degradation of the concrete slab in the case of anti-
ECCS-TC10-03-528
26
symmetrically loaded composite joints and pinching behaviour, the dissipated energy per cycle is
relatively low.
A total shear connection between the concrete slab and the beam as defined by EC 4 (ENV 1994-1-
1 1992) leads to an adequate performance of the connectors in the joint zone. There have been no
recorded failures of the connectors in tests performed.
Analytical model of Annex J - EC3 for steel joints and EC4 for composite joints respectively -
provides a reliable prediction for behaviour of I beam to X shaped columns with extended end plate
connections, but an appropriate modeling of the panel zone should be used. When transverse
stiffeners are used, the effective shear area of the X-shaped column panel zone should be considered
as the sum of the shear areas of the column web and the two flanges parallel to the considered web
(Dubina et al, 2000b).
The experimental results of composite joints and the EC 4 Annex J predictions show a good
agreement, the code offering a good basis for design of composite joints under negative bending.
For design of composite joints under positive bending, Annex J provisions could be used, but taking
the centre of compression shifted into the concrete slab. In case of anti-symmetrical loading an
adequate modeling should be found.
New modern seismic codes (AISC 1997), based on experimental proofs of structural beam-to-
column joints, classify the joints by different levels of ductility and resistance but they do not offer
the verification tool for structural analysis. The joint modeling that is permitted by element 14 of
DRAIN 2DX, accompanied by similar models for structural members can offer a solution to this
issue. These models give results close to reality, for an accurate structural analysis, especially in the
post-elastic domain where the quantity and location of energy dissipation becomes important. In the
case of a design based on performance criteria (Bertero, 1997), such modeling could be considered
as the controlling tool for the required criteria.

7. General Concluding Remarks

The values of moment resistance M
u
and initial rotational stiffness S
j,ini
of the joints subjected to
cyclic loading are remaining practically the same as the values obtained for the same joints but
subjected to monotonic loading.
Concerning the rotation capacity of the joints under cyclic loading, this very important
characteristic could be evaluated with a good approximation as half of the rotation capacity
determined on the joints under monotonic loading.
It is clear for all specialists of the field that the rotation capacity of beam-to column joints is one of
the main characteristics which are influencing the seismic behaviour of the steel MR frames. That is
the reason why in the last period, this characteristic has been introduced with some arbitrary values
of reference for different types of frames. Unfortunately, formulae for evaluating this characteristic
are very few. It is evident that the researches have to be continued in both directions experimental
test research and numerical modelling, to establish new definitions for the evaluation of the rotation
capacity of beam-to-column joints.

References

1. Eurocode 3. 1992. Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
European prestandard.
2. Grecea D. 1999. Caractrisation du comportement sismique des ossatures mtalliques -
Utilisation dassemblages rsistance partielle. Thse de Doctorat. INSA de Rennes, France.
3. Aribert, J.M. & Grecea, D. 1997. A new method to evaluate the q-factor from elastic-plastic
dynamic analysis and its application to steel frames. Proceedings of STESSA97, Kyoto, 3-8
August 1997.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
27
4. Aribert, J.M., Dubina, D., Grecea, D. & Dinu, F. 1997. Parametrical study on a new method for
q-factor evaluation. Proceedings of STESSA97, Kyoto, 3-8 August 1997.
5. Aribert, J.M. & Grecea, D. 1998. Experimental behaviour of partial-resistant beam-to-column
joints and their influence on the q-factor of steel frames. The 11
th
European Conference of
Earthquake Engineering, Paris, 6-11 September 1998.
6. Aribert, J.M. & Grecea, D. 2000. Numerical investigation of the q-factor for steel frames with
semi-rigid and partial-strength joints. Proceedings of STESSA2000, Montreal, 21-24 August
2000.
7. Revised Annex J of Eurocode 3, Joints in Building Frames, Edited approved draft, CEN
Document CEN/TC 250/SC 3 N 671 E, January 1997.
8. Dubina, D., Grecea, D. & Dinu, F. 1997. ESDEP WG14: Structural systems: Buildings. Lecture
14.13: Design of Multi-Storey Frames with Partial Srength and Semi-Rigid Connections,
WIVISS Wider Vocational Initiative in Structural Steelwork, 1997.
9. COST C1-Recent advances in the field of structural steel joints and their representation in the
building frame analysis and design process, Edited by Jean-Pierre Jaspart, Brussels-
Luxembourg, 1999.
10. CEN-Eurocode 8-Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. ENV 1998-1.2.
October 1994.
11. AFNOR-Rgles PS 92 appliquables aux btiments, NFP 06.013, Dcembre 1995.
12. Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions. International
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, USA, 1997.
13. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois, USA, 1997.
14. Standard for Limit State Design of Steel Structures (draft). Architectural Institute of Japan,
1990.
15. Code for Aseismic Design of Residential Buildings, Agrozootechnical and Industrial Structures.
Ministry of Public Works and Territory Planning, Romania, 1992.
16. Kuhlmann, U. & Kuhnemund, F. 2000. Rotation capacity of steel joints, NATO Advanced
Research Workshop The Paramount Role of Joints into the Reliable Response of
Structures, From the Rigid and Pinned Joints to the Notion of Semi-rigidity, Ouranoupolis,
Greece, 21-23 May 2000.
17. Ciutina A., Stratan A. 1999. Cyclic tests on beam to column connections. Second international
conference of PhD students, Miskolc, Hungary
18. Eurocode 3 Part 1.1 1992. General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium
19. ECCS, 1986. Recommended Testing Procedures for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural
Elements under Cyclic Loads, European Convention for Constructional Steelworks, Technical
Committee 1, TWG 1.3 Seismic Design, No.45
20. SAC Joint Venture 1995. Connection Test Summaries. Report No. SAC-96-02, Sacramento,
California, USA
21. SR EN 10002-1 1990. Metallic materials tensile testing. CEN, Brussels, Belgium
22. Suita K., Nakashima M., Morisako K. 1998. Tests of welded beam-column subassemblies.
Journal of structural engineering. November, 1236-1252
23. AISC 97 (1997). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
24. Bertero V. (1997). General Report on Codification, Design and Applications, - STESSA 97
Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference 3-8 Aug. 1997, Kyoto, Japan.
25. Ciutina, A, Stratan A., Dubina D. 2001 RYspunsul seismic al cadrelor metalice multietajate n
func[ie de modelele M-\ utilizate pentru mbinYri ]i elemente structurale. Proceedings of the
Second National Conference on Earthquake Engineering - UAICR, Bucure]ti, 8-9 November,
2001, Vol 2, 3.113-3.123.
ECCS-TC10-03-528
28
26. Dubina, D., Grecea, D., Ciutina, A., Stratan, A. (2000). "Influence of Connection Typology and
Loading Asymmetry", Chapter 3.2 in: Moment Resistant Connections of Steel Building Frames
in Seismic Areas -, (Mazzolani F.M. ed.) E&FN SPON (London).
27. Dubina, D., Stratan, A., Ciutina, A. (2000). "Cyclic tests on bolted steel double-sided beam-to-
column joints". NATO Advanced Research Workshop. The Paramount Role of Joints into the
Reliable Response of Structures. From the Rigid and Pinned Joints to the Notion of Semi-
rigidity. Ouranoupolis, Greece, 21-23 May 2000.
28. Dubina, D., Ciutina, A., Stratan, A. (2001). "Cyclic Tests of Double-Sided Beam-to-Column
Joints", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.127, No.2, Feb.2001, pp.129-136
29. ECCS (1985). Recommended Testing Procedures for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural
Elements under Cyclic Loads, European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Technical
Committee 1, TWG 1.3 Seismic Design, No.45
30. ENV 1993-1-1. (1997) EUROCODE 3: Part 1.1. Revised Annex J: Joints in Building Frames.
Approved Draft: January 1997; CEN, European Committee for Standardisation.
31. ENV 1994-1-1. (1992) EUROCODE 4: Part 1.1. General rules and rules for buildings; CEN,
European Committee for Standardisation.
32. Moisa, T., Pascu, R., Romanu, R. (2000). "Study on causes of weld fractures in extended end-
plate connections under cyclic loads", Report No. 409/1999. Institute of Welding and Testing of
Materials (ISIM) - 2000.
33. Prakash V., Powell G.H., Campbell S. (1993) DRAIN 2DX Base Program Description and
User Guide, Berkeley University of California, 1993.