Rakenteiden Mekaniikka (Journal of Structural Mechanics)

Vol. 43, No 1, 2010, pp. 1-11

Minimum cost steel beam using semi-rigid joints

Jaakko Haapio and Markku Heinisuo

Summary. The question to be considered in the paper is: What is the benefit to use semi-rigid
joints in structures? A simple example is given to demonstrate the cost effects to a steel beam
using semi-rigid joints at both ends. The optimization is done manually step by step for hot
rolled beams using one material grade and end plate joints. It is shown, that 14 % savings can be
achieved, if semi-rigid joints are used instead of rigid joints. The savings are 30 % compared to
the costs when using hinged joints. Similar results can be found for entire frames in the
literature. It is believed, that for welded beams the savings can be nearer to the theoretical
maximums, 33 % and 100 %, respectively. The use of pre-chamfer to eliminate the deflection
constraints and the library for welded beams is almost infinite and these enable to use wider
design space for the search.

Key words: steel, semi-rigid joints, costs

Introduction
In Finland the question of the use of semi-rigid joints is often aroused. However, during
last 15-20 years it has been demonstrated considerable savings in frame designs when
using semi-rigid joints in steel frames [1], [2], [3].
Steel frame design can be done [4] using elastic theory or plastic theory. The most
recent European standard [5] includes rules to design semi-rigid joints. The costs of
members and joints are calculated typically very approximately.
In this paper a simplified case is solved exactly using the elastic theory. Three joint
layouts are considered and cost comparisons are done for all cases using a novel feature
based cost analysis [6]. Conclusions and needs for further studies are outlined.
The design space chosen is very simple and rather limited simulating real projects
with hot-rolled profiles. The design space in this case available is: steel members, steel
grades and end plate joints. The feasibility of the solution means that the requirements
of the EN standards are fulfilled. The manufacturing costs of the beams are taken into
account.

Case considered
Consider a one span steel beam between stocky columns and supported for shear forces
with small steel plates under the beam ends (requirement of the contractor). The beam is
supported against lateral torsion. Loads and a span of the beam are known. The ultimate

1
limit state uniform load is q and the serviceability limit state uniform load is qs. The
span of the beam is L. The elastic theory is used for the global analysis.
The design space is as follows:
• Symmetric IPE beams available, steel material grade is S235,
• Grade S235 steel plates available for the joints,
• Bolts of grade 8.8 available for the joints,
• End plate joints should be used.
The constraints are:
• Design requirements following the European standards [4], [5].
The task is to find the minimum cost beam.

Moment resistance
Consider at first the design without using semi-rigid joints, meaning that we use only
hinged or rigid joints at both ends of the beam. To begin with the bending moment
requirements are considered. The bending moment resistance check is:

M max  M R (1)
where ‫׀‬Mmax‫ ׀‬is the absolute maximum moment along the beam and MR is the bending
moment resistance of the cross-section.
For the hinged beam

q  L2 1
M max   M R   q  L2  0.125 q  L2 (2)
8 8

and for the rigidly jointed beam:

q  L2 1
M max   M R   q  L2  0.083  q  L2 (3)
12 12

The rigidly jointed beam requires smaller bending moment resistance, as is known.
Consider next the case where are rotationally elastic springs at both end supports of
the beam. The rotation stiffness of the springs are S. Fig. 1. illustrates three bending
moment diagrams, hinged beam, rigidly jointed beam and beam with semi-rigid joints at
both ends using the elastic theory.

Figure 1. Bending moment diagrams for three cases.

2
 The rotation spring can be adjusted so that the same absolute moment appears at the
supports and at the mid section of the beam as shown in Fig 1. Then:

q  L2 1
M max   M R   q  L2  0.0625  q  L2 (4)
16 16

It can be seen that now the required bending moment resistance is clearly the
smallest of the three cases. The relative moments are as follows:
• Hinged to semi-rigid: 100*0.125/0.0625 = 200 %,
• Rigid to semi-rigid: 100*0.083/0.0625 = 133 %.
Varying the rotation stiffness S the following equations can be derived:

q  L2
M span   M sup p (5)
8

q  L2  S L 
M sup p    (6)
12  S  L  2  EI 


M max  max M span ; M sup p  (7)
where EI is the bending stiffness of the beam.
The required moment resistance versus the joint stiffness is shown in Fig. 2.

Required bending m om ent resistance

2
qL
8

q  L2
12
q  L2
16

Scr Joint stiffness S

Figure 2. Required moment resistance versus joint stiffness.

The rotational stiffness Scr of the joints for the minimum bending resistance can be
derived from Eqs. (5)–(6). This critical stiffness means the stiffness, when the
maximum moment changes from the span moment to the support moment. The result is:

6  EI 
S cr  (8)
L

3
Example for moment resistance
Consider the beam with q = 33 kN/m and L = 5.0 m. The minimum required moment
resistance is then 0.0625*33*52 = 51.6 kNm. The required static moment W is:

MR
M R  f y W  W  (9)
fy

where fy is the design strength of the steel material using the material factor one.
The required static moments and corresponding minimum weight IPE cross-sections
available in the library are given in Table 1. The plastic static moments are used for the
cross-sections supposing the cross-section class 2 to be valid applying the standard [4].
In the table are given the minimum weight IPE profiles for hinged and rigid joints using
S235 steel grade for all cases.

Table 1. Profiles according to the required bending resistances.

Semi-Rigid Hinged Rigid

Required W (m3) 2.19x10-4 4.39x10-4 2.93x10-4
Profile IPE 200 IPE 270 IPE 240
W profile (m3) 2.21x10-4 4.84x10-4 3.67x10-4
I profile (m4) 1.94x10-5 5.79x10-5 3.89x10-5
Scr (kNm/mrad) 4.9 ≤ 0.9 ≥ 6.5
Support moment (kNm) 51.6 0 68.8

It can be seen that the moment resistance requirements do not follow the weights of
the beams. The relative weights of the IPE beams are as follows when comparing to the
semi-rigid solution:
• Hinged: 100x36.0/22.4 = 161 %,
• Rigid: 100x30.7/22.4 = 137 %.
The relative weights are not the same as the relative moments due to fact that the
library for hot rolled sections is not continuous.
In the standard [5] are given the following requirements for the joint classifications:

0.5  EI
Hinged joint: S (10)
2 L
8  EI
Rigid joint: S (11)
2 L

The values of Table 1 for hinged and rigid joints are calculated using these equations
(E = 210000 MPa). In the standard [5] are given the initial rotational stiffnesses which
are in this case (η = 2) two times the values given in Table 1 for hinged and rigid joints.

Deflections
The maximum deflection of the beam with semi-rigid joints at both ends is:

4
 2
5  qs  L4 M sup p  L
v  (12)
384  EI  8  EI 

where the support moment is calculated using Eq. (6) and the serviceability limit state
load qs. The deflection is decreasing when the rotational stiffness of the joint is
increasing as shown in Fig. 3.

Required bending m om ent resistance

2
qL
8

q  L2
12
q  L2
16

Scr Joint stiffness S

Deflection
5  q s  L4
384  EI

Case 1

Case 2
q s  L4
384  EI

Scr Joint stiffness S

Figure 3. Deflection versus joint stiffness and Cases 1-2.

Referring to Fig 3. there arise two cases:

• Case 1: If the allowed deflection (e.g. L/400) is greater than the deflection
calculated based on Eq. (12) using Scr, then the minimum resistance of Fig. 2 can be
used.
• Case 2: If the allowed deflection is smaller than the deflection calculated based
on Eq. (12) using Scr, then the allowed deflection defines the required stiffness and the
moment resistance as shown in the path of Fig. 3.

5
 The limit deflections for hinged and rigid joints can be seen in Fig. 3.

Example continues
Consider the same example as above for the moment resistance. The load in the
serviceability limit state is qs = 22 kN/m. The deflections for three cases are shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Deflections.

Semi-Rigid Hinged Rigid

IPE 200 IPE 270 IPE 240
Deflection (mm) 17.6 14.7 4.4
S used in calculations 4.9 0 ∞
(kNm/mrad)

Use the limit deflection L/400 = 5000/400 = 12.5 mm. Only rigid solution is
feasible. Using profile IPE 300 for hinged solution the deflection is 10.2 mm which is
feasible solution. For the semi-rigid solution we ended up to the Case 2 in Fig. 3. The
proper rotational stiffness for the profile IPE 200 is 13.8 kNm/mrad to get the deflection
12.5 mm. Then the maximum moment is 61.5 kNm which is too much to this profile, so
we must take bigger profile for the semi-rigid solution, such as IPE 220.
For IPE 220 the critical rotational stiffness is 7.0 kNm/mrad and the corresponding
deflection is 12.3 mm so we end up to the Case 1 in Fig.3. using this profile. In Table 3
are given the final solutions.

Table 3. Final solution.

Semi-Rigid Hinged Rigid

IPE 220 IPE 300 IPE 240
Deflection (mm) 12.3 10.2 4.4
Scr (kNm/mrad) 7.0 ≤ 0.9 ≥ 6.5
Support moment (kNm) 51.6 0 68.8

The relative weights of the IPE beams are as follows when comparing to the semi-
rigid solution:
• Hinged: 100x42.2/26.2 = 161 %,
• Rigid: 100x30.7/26.2 = 117 %.
All the profiles belong to the cross-section class 2 following [4] so the plastic
moment resistances could be used.
The shear force at the ultimate limit state is 2.5*33 = 82.5 kN. All cross-sections can
resist this shear load.
The cross-sections fulfill all requirements of the standard [4], so they are feasible
solutions. Consider next the joints.

6
Joints
The requirements (support moment and stiffness) for the joints are given in Table 3.
End plate joints are used. The joint design was done using the program CoP [7]. The
joint layouts are shown in Fig. 4. The stocky columns used in the calculations were
HEM 220 (S355).

Figure 4. Semi-rigid (a), hinged (b) and rigid (c) joint (shear plates not shown).

The results are:

• Semi-rigid joint:
Moment resistance 51.6 kNm,
Rotational stiffness: 7.1 kNm/mrad,
End plate: S235, 240x150x20 mm3,
Bolts: 4M20, 8.8 (holes 22 mm),
Welds: flange 6.4 mm, web 4.1 mm.
• Hinged joint:
End plate: S235, 320x150x8 mm3,
Bolts: 2M20, 8.8 (holes 22 mm),
Welds: flange 3.0 mm, web 3.0 mm.
• Rigid joint:
Moment resistance 70.0 kNm,
Rotational stiffness: 14.4 kNm/mrad,
End plate: S235, 310x150x12 mm3,
Bolts: 6M20, 8.8 (holes 22 mm),
Welds: flange 6.9 mm, web 4.3 mm.
Comparing the semi-rigid solution to two other:
• Semi-rigid joints means the lighter beam and the joints than the rigid joints and
the moment to the column is smaller,
• Semi-rigid joints mean much lighter beam than the hinged solution.

7
Manufacturing costs
Manufacturing costs were calculated using a feature based estimation model. In this
model manufacturing is divided to fabrication processes, and each process is evaluated
based on time consumed for the process. Features of the fabricated parts determine the
time used. On the other hand fixed costs for workshop are estimated. These include
labour, equipment, maintenance, real estate and service (heating, cleanup, real estate
maintenance) cost for each cost center. In addition costs of raw material, consumables
and energy used for processing are considered. Overheads and effect of utilisation rate
of cost center are excluded. [6]
Using this type of approach it is possible to estimate cost variations of different
structural solutions, including main part (beam) and joints.
In this case following processes are included:
• blasting of beam and end plates,
• sawing of main part to proper length,
• fabricating of assemblies, i.e. end plates, including cutting of plates and bolt
holes,
• assembling of end plates, including tack welding and fillet welding,
• post treatment, including edge grinding,
• coating.
In addition the material costs for the main part, assemblies and bolts, nuts and
washers are included.
Blasting is executed with steel grains in automatic blasting line, sawing is executed
with band saw, cutting of plates and holes are done with plasma cutting machine,
welding is executed with MAG-method in flat position, and coating is carried out with
alkyd painting system AK160/3-FeSa2½.
In Table 4 are shown cost distributions for each beam-joint combinations and cost
components. In Fig 5. are shown the cost component distributions in Euros for three
solutions.

Table 4. Manufacturing cost distribution.

Semi-rigid Hinged Rigid

IPE 220 IPE 300 IPE 240
Material unit cost [€]/kg 1.5 1.5 1.5
Beam material [€] 196.50 316.50 230.25
Blasting [€] 1.82 1.82 1.82
Sawing [€] 8.80 10.12 9.14
Assembly fabrication [€] 19.73 8.92 22.66
Assembling [€] 14.18 6.92 17.33
Post treatment [€] 0.22 0.31 0.24
Coating [€] 18.38 25.00 20.19
Total cost [€] 259.63 369.59 301.63
Cost difference 100 % 142 % 116 %
Total unit cost [€]/kg 1.98 1.75 1.97

8
 Figure 5. Cost component distributions in Euros of assembly.

Considerable cost savings may be achieved using semi-rigid joints. 80 % of the total
savings (-14 %) compared with rigid joint structure is due to the decreasing of cross
section resulted from smaller moment, while rest of the savings (20 %) is due to the
decreased manufacturing costs. Compared with beam having hinged joints a saving of
30 % is achieved with semi-rigid joint beam.
Although erection costs and fabrication costs of the column (hole drilling) were not
included in this study, it is rather obvious that these costs of semi-rigid joint are smaller
than with rigid joint due to the less amount of bolts, thus increasing the cost efficiency
of semi-rigid joint compared with rigid joint. Accordingly hinged joint will reduce the
cost difference with other solutions due to the smaller amount of bolts.

Frame optimisation
Only one beam was considered above. Similar results can be found in the literature for
frames. Two examples are given in Fig. 6 [1]. The costs are calculated by taking into
account profile costs and joint costs approximately. The designs that account for semi-
rigid joints weights 14 % (upper case) and 12 % (lower case) less than the designs found
when only fully rigid joints are considered.

9
 Figure 6. Optimum solutions for fully rigid joints (left) and for semi-rigid joints (right) [1].

Conclusions
One span beam with semi-rigid joints at both ends is considered in the paper. The
design space to search the cost optimum was hot-rolled IPE beams made of steel
material S235. Comparing the manufacturing costs of the beam with semi-rigid joints to
the beams with hinged and rigid joints the following result was got, including costs of
end plate joints to beam ends:
• Cost savings from semi-rigid to hinged solution: 30 %,
• Cost saving from semi-rigid to rigid solution: 14 %.
It was shown that theoretically the requirement for the bending moment resistance
means the following:
• From semi-rigid to hinged solution: 100 % greater moment resistance
requirement,
• From semi-rigid to rigid solution: 33 % greater moment resistance requirement.
When searching the feasible solutions in the hot-rolled section library this theoretical
difference is changed because the library is discrete. If the deflection requirement is
active then the differences between the solutions are getting smaller. This means that for
welded beams it may be possible to come close to the theoretical solution in savings,
because the “library of welded profiles” is practically infinite. The pre-chamfer of

10
welded beams is also frequently used so that deflection requirements will not be
typically determinate for welded beams.
Only the beam was considered in the paper and one steel grade (S235) for hot-rolled
profiles in one loading case. In the literature can be found similar results for frames with
semi-rigid joints. The use of semi-rigid joints seems to have potential to get savings in
steel structures. To achieve these savings, the designer should have:
• Proper tools to put the semi-rigid joint models into the frame analysis model,
• Proper tools to check the resistances of joints including semi-rigid joints,
• Proper tools to check the cost effects of different joint layouts during the design.
The goals of further researches are to get those tools for designers. The tool
integration to the product models widely used in the structural steel design seems to be
the most proper way to obtain the goal.

Acknowledgements
The financial support of Seinäjoen Seudun Elinkeinokeskus is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] Simoes L., Optimization of frames with semi-rigid connections, Computers &
Structures, Vol 60, No 4, 1996. pp. 531-539
[2] Anderson D., Bijlaard F., Nethercot D., Zandonini R., Analysis and design of steel
frames with semi-rigid connections, IABSE Surv., 4, 1987. pp. 61-78
[3] Grierson D., Xu L., Optimal design of steel frameworks accounting for semi-rigid
connections, in Optimization of Large Structural Systems, Ed. Rozvany G.,
Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992.
[4] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[5] EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-8: Design of joints,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[6] Haapio J., Feature based cost estimation of steel structures, Tampere University of
Technology, 2010. (under preparation)
[7] Jaspart J-P, Weynand K., Sedlacek G., CoP 2005R02, ECCS bv, Hoofddorp, The
Netherlands, 2005.

Jaakko Haapio
Metso Power Oy
BOX 109, 33101 Tampere, Finland
[email protected]

Markku Heinisuo
Tampere University of Technology
BOX 600, 33101 Tampere, Finland
[email protected]

11