CBFEM - MC Lecture1-3
CBFEM - MC Lecture1-3
CBFEM - MC Lecture1-3
Design models
Connection design
Global analyse
by Component Based
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
2
Aims and objectives
Introduction
o Introduce principles of CBFEM
Design models
Global analyse
o Provide an online training
Classification to students and engineers
Component meth.
Interaction o Illustrate differences
Assessment I
CBFEM between research and design oriented FEM
General
Validation o Show the process of Validation & Verification
Verification
Benchmark case o Offer list of references relevant to the topic
Assessment II
Summary
3
Beam to column
moment connection
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
František Wald, Lukáš Gödrich, Marta Kuříková,
Assessment II
Lubomír Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Summary
Tutorial
5
Outline of the lecture
o Introduction to design
o Design models
Introduction o Global analyses
Design models o Classification
Global analyse
o Component method
Classification
Component meth. o Interaction of internal forces
Interaction o Assessment I
Assessment I
o Component Based Finite Element Method
CBFEM
General o General
Validation o Validation
Verification
o Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
o Benchmark case
Summary o Assessment II
o Summary
6
Introduction
Introduction to design
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Lecture 1
General
Validation Beam to column moment connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
8
ta
)
An example of curve fitting model, Kishi and Chen (1990) 8
Joints characteristics in bending
S j,ini
Cd 9
Design model
and experimental behaviour
o The design model reflects the need of designers
to safe prediction of joint behaviour
Introduction o As structural elements are in joint designed
Design models
for its material yielding fy or its ultimate stress fu
Global analyse
Classification
o The experimentally reached resistance
Component meth.
Interaction
is never the asked design resistance
Assessment I
M, moment, kNm
CBFEM
Initial stiffness Sj, ini
General Joint
Validation resistance
M j, Rd Experimental curve
Verification
Benchmark case
Elastic Design curve
Assessment II limit
Summary 2/3 M j, Rd
Rotation, , mrad
Deformation capacity j,Cd 10
Joints deformability/stiffness
11
Joints in global analyses
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
o If part of joint is flexible is in global analyses modelled as
CBFEM
General
Flexible column web Stiff column web Stiff column web Stiff
Validation panel and panel and panel and semi-rigid column web panel
Verification
semi-rigid semi-rigid or pinned or pinned and
connections connections connections rigid connections
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
12
Physical and theoretical joint
F 1 + F2 + F3 = 0
13
Classification
14
Classification
based on resistance
o Bending moment resistance of connection to bending
moment resistance of connected beam is compared in
Introduction connections loaded in bending.
Design models
Global analyse
o Full strength joints/connections Mj,Rd > Mb,pl,Rd
Classification
Component meth.
o Partial strength joints/connections Mj,Rd < Mb,pl,Rd
Interaction
Assessment I Moment, M
CBFEM
General M b,pl,Rd Full strength connection
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case Partial strength connection
Assessment II Bending moment resistance
Summary
of connected beam
Rotation, 15
Classification
based on rotational capacity
o Rotational capacity of connection to rotational capacity of
connected beam is compared in connections loaded in
Introduction
bending.
Design models o Ductile connection
Global analyse
o Semi-ductile connection
Classification
Component meth. o Brittle connection
Interaction
Moment,
Assessment I Elastic rotation M
M M
CBFEM
of connected beam
General
Validation
Ultimate rotation
of connected beam
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Ductile connection (Class 1)
M
Summary Semi-ductile connection (Class 2)
Brittle connection (Class 3)
Rotation, 16
Classification
based on stiffness
o Bending stiffness of connection to bending stiffness of
connected beam is compared in connections loaded in
bending.
Introduction
Design models o Rigid joint Sj,ini ≥ 25 E Ib / Lb (for frames without bracing)
Global analyse o Semi-rigid joint Sj,ini,rigid ≤ Sj,ini ≥ Sj,ini,pinned
Classification
Component meth.
o Nominally pinned joint Sj,ini ≤ 0,5 E Ib / Lb
__
Interaction
Poměrný moment,
Relative moment M b __
Assessment I Mb
tuhé
Rigid Mb=
CBFEM 1,0 M b.pl.Rd
styčníky
joints
General
0,8 _ E Ib
Validation S j.ini.n = 25 =
Verification Lb M b.pl.Rd
0,6
Benchmark case _
S j.ini.s= 8 _
Assessment II 0,4 Sj.ini.p = 0,5
Summary
0,2 polotuhé styčníky
Semi-rigid joints
Pinned joints
kloubové styčníky
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Poměrná
Relative tuhost,
stiffness
17
Component Method
19
2) Component description
Introduction
components, eg. for Ed
Design models
Global analyse o Column web panel in shear
VEd
Classification
Fc,Ed
Component meth. o Column web in transverse compression
Ft,Ed
Interaction
Assessment I Ft,Ed
o Column web in transverse tension
CBFEM
General
Validation
o Column flange in bending
Verification
Benchmark case o End-plate in bending Ft,Ed
Ft,Ed
Assessment II
Summary o Flange cleat in bending
21
Interaction
of bending moment and normal force
o Many joints are exposed to interaction of bending moment
and normal forces,
Introduction o One example is simple portal frame, where the bolted eaves
Design models
moment connection transmits the normal force based on the
Global analyse
Classification
rafter inclination.
Component meth. o The Normal force may be neglectabe
Interaction
Assessment I
but for greater inclination is for connection significant.
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
22
Simplified prediction of interaction
of bending moment and normal force
o In EN 1993-1-8:2005 is recommended:
Introduction
o Design moment resistance of joint Mj,Rd does not take
Design models account of any axial force NEd in the connected member.
Global analyse Axial force in the connected member NEd should not
Classification exceed 5% of design plastic resistance of connected
Component meth.
Interaction
element Npl,Rd.
Assessment I
CBFEM
o Otherwise should be considered by:
General
N Ed M Ed
Validation o Linear interaction + 1
Verification N j , Rd M j , Rd
Benchmark case o Component method
Assessment II
Summary o Interaction ratio is calculated to the vectors between
points of the interaction curve.
23
s
Interaction
of bending moment and normal force
on beam to column joint with end plate
o The significant points are marked.
o The lines represents the limit of safe design by simple linear
interaction and by component method.
Introduction
Design models VSd M Sd
Global analyse
Classification NSd
Component meth.
Normal force, kN
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
5 % error
Validation
Verification Moment,
Benchmark case kNm
Assessment II
Summary
Component method
Linear interaction
24
Assessment I
5%
27
Plate
o Four node quadrangle shell elements are applied with six degrees
of freedom, i.e. three translations and three rotations, in every node.
Introduction
o End plates, element profiles, slender stiffener, T-stubs are modelled
Design models
as plates connected in joint by constrains and the connection check
Global analyse is independent on the element size.
Classification
o Example of T-stub shows the influence of mesh size on the T-stub
Component meth.
resistance.
Interaction
Assessment I o Dashed lines are representing 5%, 10% and 15% difference.
CBFEM
uel ut,Rd
Bolt shear deformation, mm 31
Bolt loaded in tension and shear
General Ft,Ed
Tension
Validation V Ft,Rd
Verification Ft,Rd
Ft,el
Benchmark case
Ft,el
Assessment II
V
Summary
Ft,Ed
Shear deformation Shear
ut,el ut,p ut,lim Fs,el Fs,Rd
32
Bolts
General
Validation δt,Rd
Verification
Benchmark case
r.δv,Rd
Assessment II
Summary δt,el
1,4 − 1
r.δv,el 𝑟=
1.4
34
Welds
Kwasniewski L. (2009)
36
Terminology
o Validation
o compares the numerical solution
Introduction with the experimental data.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification o Verification
Component meth.
Interaction
o uses comparison of computational solutions
Assessment I with highly accurate analytical or numerical solution.
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
o Benchmark case
Assessment II o ais example for check of the software and its user
Summary by validated and simplified input and output.
37
Design and research oriented model
Current approval of design models consist of
1) Experiments
Introduction o Research oriented FE model (ROFEM)
Design models
2) is validated on experiment.
Global analyse Experiment
Classification 3) Numerical experiments are prepared.
Component meth.
Interaction o Design oriented
Assessment I analytical/numerical model (AM/DOFEM)
CBFEM
General
4) is verified to numerical experiments
Validation and/or another design models. Research model
Verification
5) Sensitivity study is prepared.
Benchmark case
Assessment II 6) Validity range is defined.
Summary
o Benchmark case (BC)
7) is prepared to help the users of model
to check up its correctness and proper use. Design model
38
Experiments with bolts in tension
Inductive sensors
arrangement
39
Failure modes of bolts in tension
40
Validation
for rupture of bolt close to head
o The figure shows the validation of research oriented model
in case of failure mode rupture of bolt close to the bolt head.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Force [kN]
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I Experiment
CBFEM
Research FEM
General Research oriented
Validation
model of bolt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Deformation [mm]
Summary
Rupture of bolt
close to head
41
Validation of stripping of nut thread
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I Experiment
CBFEM Research FEM
General Research oriented
Validation
model of bolt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Deformation [mm]
Summary
Stripping of nut
threads
42
Experiment with T-stub in tension
Measuring devices
arrangement
Testing machine 43
Validation of research model
of T-stub in tension
o The Figure shows the validation of the research oriented
model of T-stub from HEB300 loaded in tension.
Introduction
Design models
400
Force [kN]
Global analyse
Classification 350
Component meth. 300
Interaction
Assessment I 250
CBFEM 200 Experiment
General
Validation
150
Solid elements
Verification 100
Benchmark case
bolts
50
Assessment II
Summary 0
Research oriented
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deformation [mm]
model of T-stub
44
Experiments
with generally positioned end plates
o The experiments were prepared with three bolted beam to
beam end plate connections.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse 0°
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 30°
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
45°
Summary
45
Parameters of speciments
for the generally positioned end plate
o Plate P20 – 400 x 300 mm
o Steel S355 (fy,exp = 410 MPa; fu, exp = 582 MPa)
Introduction o Bolts M20 - 8.8
Design models
o Pitches vertical (35 – 230 – 100 - 35 mm)
Global analyse
Classification
horizontal (30 – 240 – 30 mm)
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 0°
General
45°
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
30°
46
Verification of T-stub in tension
Resistance [kN]
Global analyse
Classification 400
Component meth.
350
Interaction
Assessment I 300
CBFEM
250
General
Validation 200
Verification Component
Metoda method
komponent
150
Benchmark case
Assessment II 100 CBFEM
CBFEM
Summary
50 Validovaný
Research vědecký
FEM3D-FEM
0
Design oriented
tf10 tf12 tf15 tf20 tf25 tf30 tf35 tf40 tf45 tf50
model of T-stub
Flange thickness [mm]
47
Verification of T-stub in tension
Assessment I 400
CBFEM 350
General
300
Validation
250
Verification
200
Benchmark case
Assessment II
150 CM komponent
Metoda
Interaction
Assessment I 450
CBFEM 400
General 350
Validation 300
Verification 250
Benchmark case 200
Assessment II Variation of Plate thickness
150 Parametr-tloušťka pásnice
Bolt size
Summary Parametr-velikost šroubu
100 Bolt material
Parametr-materiál šroubu
50 Parametr-vzdálenost šroubů
Bolt distance
0 Parametr-šířka T-průřezu
T-stub thickness
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
(8n − 2ew ) Mpl,1,Rd 2M pl,2,Rd + 2nFt,Rd
Validation Ft ,1, Rd = Ft , 2, Rd = Ft ,3, Rd = 2Ft,Rd
2mn − e w ( m + n ) m+n
Verification
Benchmark case Component
Assessment II
Based FEM
Summary
Yielding of flange Bolt resistance
50
Verification of generally loaded
end plate
o Resistance calculated by CBFEM is compared with the results of CM and
experimental results. The sensitivity study is focused on ratio of bending
moments in strong and week axis, see Figure below.
o CM with linear interaction gives conservative values of resistance.
Introduction
o CM with quadratic interaction gives the highest resistances, which are to
Design models
experimental results still rather conservative.
Global analyse
o CBFEM gives similar results as CM with quadratic interaction.
Classification
Component meth.
Experiment
Experimenty
70
Moment Mz [kNm]
Interaction CM –komponent
Metoda Linear- interaction
lineární
interakce
Assessment I 60 CM –komponent
Metoda Quadratic interaction
- kvadratická
interakce
CBFEM
50 CBFEM
CBFEM
General
Validation 40
Verification
30
Benchmark case
Assessment II 20
Summary
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Moment My [kNm] 51
Verification of end plate
o Comparison of the global behaviour described by moment-rotation diagram is
prepared. Attention is focused to initial stiffness, resistance and deformation
capacity.
o Sample 0° with strong axis bending moment is chosen to present as
Introduction
reference, see Figure below.
Design models
o CM gives higher initial stiffness compared to CBFEM and experimental data.
Global analyse
Classification
o Resistance predicted by CM and CBFEM are similar.
Component meth.
o Experimentally reached resistance is higher.
100
Moment [kNm]
Interaction
Assessment I 90
CBFEM 80
General
70
Validation
60
Verification
50 CBFEM - 0°
Benchmark case
40 CM - 0°
Assessment II
30 Experiment - 0°
Summary
20
10
0
0 50 100 150
Rotation [mrad] 52
Benchmark case T-stub
o Inputs
o T-stub
Introduction o Steel S235
Design models
o Flange thickness tf = 20 mm
Global analyse
o Web thickness tw = 20 mm
Classification
Component meth. o Flange width bf = 300 mm
Interaction o Length b = 100 mm
Assessment I o Double fillet weld aw = 10 mm
CBFEM
General o Bolts
Validation o 2 x M24 8.8
Verification
o Distance of the bolts w = 165 mm
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Outputs
Summary
o Design resistance in tension FT,Rd = 175 kN
o Collapse mode - full yielding of the flange with maximal strain 5 %
o Utilization of the bolts 88,4 %
o Utilization of the welds 49,1 %
53
Benchmark case
end plate connection
o Inputs
o Steel S235
o Beam IPE 330
Introduction
o Column HEB 300
Design models
Global analyse o End plate height hp = 450 (50-103-75-75-75-73) mm
Classification o End plate width bp = 200 (50-100-50) mm
Component meth. o End plate P15
Interaction
o Column stiffeners 15 mm thick and 300 mm wide
Assessment I
o End plate stiffener 10 mm thick and 90 mm wide
CBFEM
General
o Flange weld throat thickness af = 8 mm
Validation o Web weld throat thickness aw = 5 mm
Verification o Bolts M24 8.8
Benchmark case
o Outputs
Assessment II
Summary
o Design resistance in bending MRd = 209 kNm
o Corresponding vertical shear force VEd= 209 kN
o Collapse mode - yielding of the beam stiffener on upper flange
o Utilization of the bolts 89,5 %
o Utilization of the welds 87,2 % 54
Assessment II
57
Summary
59
Global and local behaviour
M = 100 kNm
Fi = 3,2 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,6 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case Column flange plastification round bolts
Assessment II
Summary Well designed steel connection starts to classify early
to allow plastic distribution of forces between
connectors.
Global and local behaviour
M = 150 kNm
Fi = 4,8 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,6 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column web plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 180 kNm
Fi = 5,7 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 31,5
Global analyse
MNm/rad
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Progress of column web plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 220 kNm
Fi = 7,3 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 30,0 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Progress of column web plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 250 kNm
Fi = 10,7 mrad
Introduction
Si = 23,4 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column web full plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 260 kNm
Fi = 14,7 mrad
Introduction
Si = 17,4 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Column flange on opposite side plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 270 kNm
Fi = 23,4 mrad
Introduction
Si = 11,5 MNm/rad
Design models
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Beam above haunch starts yield
Global and local behaviour
M = 280 kNm
Fi = 43,6 mrad
Introduction
Design models
Si = 6,4 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation. mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Further plastification
Global and local behaviour
M = 290 kNm
Fi = 78,6 mrad
Introduction
Design models Si = 3,7 MNm/rad
Global analyse
Moment, kNm
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation Rotation, mrad
Verification
Benchmark case
Resistance reached
Assessment II
o By 5% strain in column web loaded in shear and compression.
Summary
o Well designed steel connection starts to plasticize early
to allow plastic distribution of forces between connectors/plates.
Global and local behaviour
Moment, kNm
Introduction Resistance
Design models
Global analyse
Classification Initial stiffness
Component meth.
Interaction
Deformation
Assessment I
capacity
CBFEM
General
Rotation, mrad
Validation
Verification
The major joint in bending design characteristics
Benchmark case
Assessment II where Sj,ini is the initial stiffness,
Summary
Mj,Rd is the design bending resistance,
φCd is the deformation capacity
are well described.
What is the major reason
?
of using CBFEM for Beam to column moment connections
72
Sources
To Component Mehod
Agerskov H., High-strength bolted connections subject to prying, Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE, 102 (1), 1976, 161-175.
Block F.M., Davison J.B., Burgess I.W., Plank R.J., Deformation-reversal in
Introduction
component-based connection elements for analysis of steel frames in fire,
Design models
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 86, 2013, 54-65.
Global analyse
Da Silva L., Lima L., Vellasco P., Andrade S., Experimental behaviour of end-
Classification
plate beam-to-column joints under bending and axial force, Database
Component meth.
reporting and discussion of results, Report on ECCS-TC10 Meeting in
Interaction
Ljubljana, 2002.
Assessment I
Da Silva L., Towards a consistent design approach for steel joints under
CBFEM
generalized loading, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, 2008,
General
1059-1075.
Validation
Chen, W.F., Abdalla K.M., Expanded database of semi-rigid steel connections,
Verification
Computers and Structures, 56, (4), 1995, 553-564.
Benchmark case
Kishi N., Chen W.F. Moment‐Rotation Relations of Semirigid Connections with
Assessment II
Angles, Journal of Structural Engineering, 116 (7), 1990, 1813-1834.
Summary
Zoetemeijer P., Proposal for Standardisation of Extended End Plate Connection
based on Test results - Test and Analysis, Ref. No. 6-83-23, Steven
Laboratory, Delft, 1983.
Zoetemeijer P., Summary of the research on bolted beam-to-column
connections, TU-Delft report 26-6-90-2, Delft, 1990. 73
Sources
Introduction Bursi O. S., Jaspart J. P., Benchmarks for Finite Element Modelling of Bolted
Design models Steel Connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 43 (1-3),
Global analyse 1997, 17-42.
Classification Kwasniewski L., On practical problems with verification and validation of
Component meth. computational models, Archives of Civil Engineering, LV, 3, 2009,
Interaction 323-346.
Assessment I
Oberkampf, W.L. TrucanoT.G., Hirsch C., Verification, validation, and
CBFEM
predictive capability in computational engineering and physics, Appl.
General
Mech. Rev. 57 (5), 345–384, 2004
Validation
Verification
Virdi K. S. et al, Numerical Simulation of Semi Rigid Connections by the Finite
Benchmark case
Element Method, Report of Working Group 6 Numerical, Simulation
Assessment II
COST C1, Brussels Luxembourg, 1999.
Summary Wald F. et al, Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel
connections, Česká technika ČVUT, 2016.
Wald F., Gödrich L., Šabatka L., Kabeláč J., Navrátil J., Component Based
Finite Element Model of Structural Connections, in Steel, Space and
Composite Structures, Singapore, 2014, 337-344. 74
Standards
75
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
Connection design
by Component Based
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
2
Aims and objectives
3
Lecture 2
Introduction
Joint
Failure mode meth.
General
5
Motivation
6
Outline of the lecture
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open K joint KT joint N joint
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
10
Basic geometrical types
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I DK joint X joint DY joint
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
KK joint TT joint
XX joint
11
Loading
12
Design of welds
o The welds are preferably designed for full resistance of joint not
be the weakest part. I.e. the design resistance of the weld, per
unit length of perimeter of a brace member, should not normally
Introduction
be less than the design resistance of the cross-section of that
Failure mode meth.
member per unit length of perimeter.
General o The full seam butt weld is recommended for ti > 8 mm
Joint parameters with a = ti
Component method
Hollow to open
o The fillet welds are recommended only
Assessment I for members thickness ti 8 mm
CBFEM with the weld effective thickness a for element thickness ti and
Principles for steel
Validation
S 235 as a = 0,92 ti
Verification
Benchmark case S 275 as a = 0,96 ti
Assessment II
S 355 as a = 1,10 ti
Summary
S 420 as a = 1,42 ti
S 460 as a = 1,48 ti
13
Design methods
14
Finite element method
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method Punching shear failure
Hollow to open
of the chord face
Assessment I
CBFEM Chord face failure
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open Local buckling
Brace failure
Assessment I of the brace member
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Local buckling
of the chord face
18
Excluded modes of failure
o Weld failure
o Excluded by use efficient throat thickness of the welds
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open o Lamellar tearing
Assessment I
o Excluded by material properties
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
o Local buckling of the chord or brace sections
Verification o Excluded by using sections with can be classified
Benchmark case
Assessment II
to a maximum cross section class 2
Summary
19
Design principle
o Welds are designed for full sectional resistance.
o Geometrical types are selected.
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o Range of validity is prepared based on available
General experiments for each geometrical type.
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
o Limited number of failure modes is possible by
Assessment I each geometrical type.
CBFEM
Principles o For each geometrical type is prepared
Validation
Verification
for each failure mode a curve fitting prediction
Benchmark case of resistance.
Assessment II
Summary
o The influencing joint parameters are derived
based on five analytical models.
20
Experiments and design resistance
by curve fitting procedures
The design resistance is derived from experiments from
o Ultimate load (in EN1993-1-8:2005)
Introduction o Deformation limit (in prEN1993-1-8:2017)
Failure mode meth. o chord width as b0/300
General
Joint parameters Force,
120,0kN
Experiment
Test data
Component method
100,0 Model model
Analytical
Hollow to open EN3-1-8:2006
EN3-1-8:2005
Assessment I Analytical
Model model
80,0 EN3-1-8:2020
EN3-1-8:2021
CBFEM
Principles 60,0
Validation
40,0
Verification
23.35 kN
Benchmark case
20,0
Assessment II 9,34 kN
Summary 0,0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0
Displacement, mm
Example behaviour and curve fitting predictions of joint
with RHS chord 150 x 100 x 4 mm and brace 50 x 30 x 4 mm 21
General limits of application
22
Analytical Models
for determination of influencing joint parameters
23
Yield line model
for the influencing joint parameters
24
Geometry
of K shape joint of rectangular hollow section
o In principle, N2
N1
the yield line model
is an upper bound g
Introduction approach Θ1 Θ2
Failure mode meth.
d
General d
Joint parameters
h0
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
b1 b0
Principles
κi li α
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Various yield line pattern have to be examined
Summary in order to obtain the lowest capacity
o Strain hardening effects and membrane action
not considered
25
Limits of application
of Yield line model
For joints with
o small ratios
Introduction the deformations may be too high to realise
Failure mode meth. the yield line pattern
General
Joint parameters o medium ratios
Component method
the yield line model gives a good estimate
Hollow to open
Assessment I
of the chord face plastification capacity
CBFEM
Principles o high ratios
Validation prediction of an infinite strength
Verification
Benchmark case where is the ratio of the mean diameter or width of the brace
Assessment II
Summary
members, to that of the chord.
For T, Y and X joints it is
d1/d0; d1/b0 or b1/b0.
brace diameter/chord diameter; brace diameter/chord width or brace width/chord width
26
Geometry of punching shear model
for the influencing joint parameters
N1
h1
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General Q1
Joint parameters t0
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM g = b0 – b2
Principles
Validation
Verification 0,5·be,p
Benchmark case 0,5·be,p Big gap
Assessment II
Summary
h1/sinΘ1
h2 / sinQ2
Punching shear model
for the influencing joint parameters
2h1 1
Benchmark case
f y0
Assessment II
N1 = t0 + 2be,p
Summary
3 sinQ1 sinQ1
Brace effective width model
for the influencing joint parameters
30
Chord side wall bearing/buckling
model for the influencing joint parameters
o T, Y and X joints with a high ratio generally fail by yielding
or buckling of the chord side walls.
N1 b1
h1
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
Q1
General 2,5·t0 t1
Joint parameters t0 2,5·t0
Component method
Hollow to open h0 t0
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
b0
Validation h1/sinQ1 +5t0
Verification
Benchmark case o For joints with = 1,0 the yield capacity of the chord webs is
Assessment II
determined as
Summary
h 1
N1 = 2f y0 t 0 1 + 5t 0
sin Q1 sin Q1
Chord side wall bearing/buckling
model for the influencing joint parameters
o For slender walls the yield stress fy0 is replaced by
a buckling stress fk which is obtained from the
Introduction
European buckling curve a
Failure mode meth.
General o For a Euler strut with a buckling length of h0 - 3t
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Chord shear model
for the influencing joint parameters
Ni,Rd
g
b0
Introduction
2
Q1
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters V N0,gap
Component method N0,gap M
h0 AV
Hollow to open M
Assessment I
V
CBFEM t0
Principles
AV − A0
Validation
2
Verification
Benchmark case b0
Assessment II
Summary o Resistance is calculated
based on the basic formulae for plastic design.
Chord shear model
for the influencing joint parameters
b0
o The plastic shear load capacity is 2
fy0
Introduction Vpl = AV
Failure mode meth. 3
General h0 AV
Joint parameters
t0
Component method
with an effective shear area
Hollow to open AV = (2h0 + α ∙ b0) t0
Assessment I AV − A0
CBFEM
Principles
o Based on b0 2
Validation the Huber Hencky-Von Mises
Verification
Benchmark case
criterion the following interaction
Assessment II formula for shear resistance of the
Summary
chord web 2
V
N o.gap (A 0 − A V ) f y0 + A V f y0 1 Sd
Vpl
Component based approach
Introduction
for hollow section joints
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Lecture 2
Joint of hollow to open section
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Principle
Chord
36
Defined lever arms and
components (failure modes)
o kfa factors transferred to
o beff effective widths
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o ra lever arm
General
Joint parameters
o The interaction of load limits the application.
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
37
7 failure modes are modelled
as 7 components
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General o Chord side wall
Joint parameters
Component method
in tension/ compression
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
o Chord side wall in in
Validation shear
Verification
Benchmark case
o Chord face under
Assessment II
Summary punching shear
o Brace flange and web
in tension/compression
38
Application of principles
Introduction
to hollow to open joints
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Lecture 2
Joint of hollow to open section
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Hollow to open joints
as example of application
o Types of joint available in failure mode method
o T, Y, X, K and K gap joint
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o Two failure modes only
General o Brace failure
Joint parameters
o Chord web failure T joint Y joint
Component method
Hollow to open o Chord shear failure (only for K joint)
Assessment I
CBFEM
o Range of validity
Principles
Validation o Class 1 and 2 with limited flange width
Verification
Benchmark case o Influencing parameters K joint
Assessment II
Summary o beff brace effective width
o bw chord web effective width
X joint
40
Design resistance
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords by failure mode method
o Brace failure
𝑁i,Rd = 2𝐶f 𝑓yi 𝑡i 𝑏effΤ𝛾M5
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o Chord web failure
General
Joint parameters
𝑓y0 𝑡w 𝑏w
𝑁i,Rd = ൗ𝛾M5
Component method sin 𝜃i t1
Hollow to open
Assessment I
o For K gap joints t1
CBFEM h1
Principles also chord web failure N1 d1
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case b1 b0
Assessment II 1 t0
Summary
tw
h0
r
41
Design resistance
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords by failure mode method
42
Effective width
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords for failure mode method
tw
h0
r
43
Range of validity
for welded joints between CHS or RHS brace members
and I or H section chord members for failure mode method
Joint parameters
Type of
Chord web 𝑏i Τ𝑡i and ℎi Τ𝑡I or 𝑑i Τ𝑡i
joint ℎi Τ𝑏i 𝑏0 Τ𝑡0 Gap
width dw Compression Tension
Class 1 or 2
Introduction Class 1 and and ℎi
X 𝑑w ≤ 400 mm ≤ 35
Failure mode meth. ℎi 𝑡i
≤ 35 𝑏i −
General 𝑡i 0,5 Class
≤ 35
Joint parameters T or Y 𝑏i 𝑡i ≤ ℎi Τ𝑏i ≤ 2,0 1 or 2
Class 1 or 2 and ≤ 35 𝑑i
Component method 𝑡i ≤ 50
𝑑w ≤ 400 mm 𝑑i 𝑡i
Hollow to open K gap 𝑔 ≥ 𝑡1 + 𝑡2
≤ 50
Assessment I 𝑡i
CBFEM
Principles d1
t1 t2 t1
Validation
Verification h1 t2 t1
b1 h2 h1
Benchmark case t1 N2 d2 N1 d1
Assessment II
N1 g b2 b1 b0
b0
Summary 1 2 t0 1 t0
tw tw
h0 h0
r r
44
Component approach
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords by failure mode method
tw
h0
r
45
Component approach
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords by failure mode method
t1
h1
Benchmark case
𝑓y0 𝑡0 𝑏w
Assessment II 𝑁1,Rd = 2 𝐾N,ch,b 𝐾N,ch,b ൗ𝛾M5 N1 d1
Summary sin 𝜃i
b1 b0
1 t0
𝑁1,Rd = 4[𝐹N,min,Rd ]
tw
𝑏eff,𝑒 = 𝑏𝑤 / sin 𝜃i r
h0
46
Assessment I
Introduction
o How are applied the analytically derived parameters in failure
Failure mode meth. mode design procedure?
General
Joint parameters o What failure modes are excluded and how?
Component method
Hollow to open
o Why are used range of validity?
Assessment I
CBFEM
o Is the failure mode method the curve fitting one?
Principles
o What is the principle of component method prepared based
Validation
Verification
on failure mode method?
Benchmark case
Assessment II
o What failure modes may be observed at hollow to open
Summary section joints?
47
Component Based
Introduction
Finite Element Method
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Lecture 2
Joint of hollow to open section
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Material
49
Plate and cross sections
50
Welds
ISO/FDIS 16730
Fire safety engineering - Assessment, verification and validation of calculation methods, Geneva, 2008.
52
Design and research oriented model
Current approval of design models consist of
1) Experiments
o Research oriented FE model (ROFEM)
Introduction
Failure mode meth. 2) Validated on experiments Experiment
General
Joint parameters
3) Numerical experiments
Component method o Design numerical model (DOFEM)
Hollow to open
Assessment I 4) Verified to numerical experiments
CBFEM and/or another design models
Principles Research model
Validation
5) Sensitivity study
Verification 6) Validity range
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Benchmark case (BC)
Summary
7) To help the users of model
to check up its correctness and proper use
Design model
53
Experiments with
T joint of hollow to open section
o In compression
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I o In bending
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
54
Experiments in compression
o Geometry
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
o Failure modes
CBFEM A3 - Brace failure A1 - Chord web failure
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
55
Results of experiments
in compression
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
56
Research oriented FEM
o ABAQUS 6.13
o Solid quadratic
element
Introduction
Failure mode meth. (20-node brick,
General C3D20)
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
o True stress-strain multilinear material model
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
57
Boundary conditions
for research oriented FEM
o Bottom flange boundary condition
o Rotation and translation restrain in all axis
Introduction
o Load point
Failure mode meth.
General o Coupling to top
Joint parameters of braces edges
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
58
Validation of failure modes
o Both
failure modes
were well predicted
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
o Failure
Joint parameters
Component method
of chord web,
Hollow to open
experiment
Assessment I A1
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case o Failure of brace,
Assessment II experiment A2
Summary
59
Mesh sensitivity study
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
60
Description of local
and global behaviour
Development of plastic zones
o The first yielding
in the chord web
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open o 5% strain
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Full plasticity
Summary at the peak load
61
Quality of prediction of resistance
62
Verification of T-joint and K-joint
CBFEM model to failure mode procedure
63
Verification of T-joint and K-joint
in compression
o The prediction by component based finite element method
(CBFEM) is verified with the failure modes (FM) implemented in EN
1993-1-8:2005.
Introduction o Three failure modes occur in joints of the welded rectangular hollow
Failure mode meth. sections to the open sections, e.g. the local yielding of brace (brace
General failure), the chord web failure and the chord shear.
Joint parameters
Component method
1000
Resistance by CBFEM [kN]
Component method
Hollow to open 35
Assessment I 30
CBFEM
Principles
25
Validation 20
Verification Chord web
15
Benchmark case Brace failure
Assessment II 10 CBFEM=FM
Summary 5 CBFEM=1,1 FM
CBFEM=0,9 FM
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Resistance by FM [kNm] 65
Benchmark case
Uniplanar T-joint between RHS brace and I chord
o Input
o Chord: IPE270, Steel S235
o Brace: RHS 140x70x10, Steel S235
Introduction o Weld: Throat thickness aw = 10 mm, Fillet weld around the brace
Failure mode meth.
General o Output
Joint parameters o Design resistance in compression/tension Fc,Rd = 431 kN
Component method
o Collapse mode is full yielding of the chord web
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Introduction
o What elements are recommended for plates?
Failure mode meth.
General
o How are modelled welds?
Joint parameters
o What is expected to be the accurate solution in mesh
Component method
Hollow to open
sensitivity study?
Assessment I
CBFEM
o How differs validation from verification?
Principles
o What are two major purposes of benchmark cases in
Validation
Verification
application of FEA analyses?
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
67
Summary
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Lecture 2
Joint of hollow to open section
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Summary
o The hollow sections to open sections joints belongs to family
of hollow section joints.
o There are three failure modes
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o Brace failure
General o Chord web failure
Joint parameters
Component method
o Chord web shear failure in case of gap
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case Brace failure Shear failure of the chord
Assessment II
Summary
Introduction
o Range of validity limits application of expressions to
Failure mode meth. experimentally approved solutions only.
General
Joint parameters
o Component based approach is for design of some
Component method rectangular hollow sections great simplification.
Hollow to open
Assessment I o For design of circular hollow sections brings unpleasant
CBFEM complexity.
Principles
Validation o For complex joints generally loaded can not be used.
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
70
Prediction
of global and local behaviour
T joint of RHS brace and HEA chord
o Chord HEA180
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o Brace RHS 180x100x8.8
General
Joint parameters
o Steel S355
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
o Weld throat thickness 11 mm
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
71
Global and local behaviour
Elastic stage
60
Moment [kNm]
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open
20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 10 kNm
Summary
φ = 0,9 mrad
Sj = 10,7 MNm/rad
72
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open
20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 19 kNm
Summary
φ = 1,8 mrad
Sj = 10,7 MNm/rad
73
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open
20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 21 kNm
Summary
φ = 2,0 mrad
Sj = 10,6 MNm/rad
74
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open
20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 25 kNm
Summary
φ = 2,5 mrad
Sj = 10,0 MNm/rad
75
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
50
Failure mode meth.
General 40
Joint parameters
30
Component method
Hollow to open 20
Assessment I
CBFEM
10
Principles 0
Validation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 33 kNm
Summary
φ = 4,4 mrad
Sj = 7,6 MNm/rad
76
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
50
Failure mode meth.
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method
30
Hollow to open 20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 40 kNm
Summary
φ = 7,7 mrad
Sj = 5,3 MNm/rad
77
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open 20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 47 kNm
Summary
φ = 18,8 mrad
Sj = 2,6 MNm/rad
78
Global and local behaviour
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
50
General 40
Joint parameters
Component method 30
Hollow to open
20
Assessment I
CBFEM 10
Principles
0
Validation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Verification
Rotation [mrad]
Benchmark case
Assessment II M = 48,5 kNm
Summary
φ = 25,4 mrad
Sj = 2,2 MNm/rad
79
What is the major reason
of using CBFEM for Hollow section joints?
80
Design tips
81
Design tips
83
Introduction
85
Sources
Batista P. N., Component based finite element model
of hollow to open section connection, Master theses,
Czech Technical University in Prague, 2017.
Introduction
Jaspart J.P., Weynand K., Design of hollow section joints using the component
Failure mode meth.
method, Tubular Structures XV, 2015, 403-410.
General Lu L.H., de Winkel G.D., Yu Y., Wardenier I., Deformation limit for the ultimate
Joint parameters strength of hollow section joints, Tubular Structures VI, Balkema,
Component method Rotterdam, 1994, 341-347.
Hollow to open Wald F. et al, Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel
Assessment I connections, Česká technika ČVUT, 2016.
CBFEM Wald, F.; Kočka, M. et al, To the advanced design models of hollow section
Principles joints, Stahlbau, Holzbau und Verbundbau, Stuttgart, 2017, 176-
Validation 181Wardenier, J., Hollow section joints. Delft University Press, 1982, Delft.
Verification Wardenier, J., Hollow section joints. Delft University Press, 1982, Delft.
Benchmark case
Wardenier J. at al, Design Guide for Structural Hollow Sections in Mechanical
Assessment II
Applications, CIDECT, Köln, 1995.
Summary
Wardenier, J., Packer, J.A., Vegte, G.J. van der, Zhao, X.-L., Hollow sections in
structural applications, CIDECT, 2nd Edition, Bouwen met Staal, Delft, 2010.
86
References CIDECT
http://www.cidect.org/design-guides.html
https://www.aisc.org/technical-resources/cidect-design-guides/
Dutta, D., Wardenier, J. Yeomans, N., Sakae, K. Bucak, Ö., Packer, J.A. 1998.
Design guide for fabrication, assembly and erection of hollow section
Introduction structures. CIDECT Construction with hollow steel sections. TÜV Verlag
Failure mode meth. Köln.
General
Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Yeomans, N., 2004. Design guide for
Joint parameters
structural hollow section column connections. CIDECT Construction with
Component method
hollow steel sections. TÜV Verlag Köln.
Hollow to open
Assessment I
Lu, L.H., de Winkel, G.D., Yu, Y. & Wardenier, J. 1993. Deformation limit for the
CBFEM
ultimate strength of hollow section joints. In P. Grundy & A. Holgate & B.
Principles
Wong (eds), Proc. intern. Symp. on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, 14-16
Validation
December 1994. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Verification Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., Yeomans, N. 1995. Design
Benchmark case Guide for circular hollow sections (CHS) joints under predominantly static
Assessment II loading. CIDECT Construction with hollow steel sections. TÜV Verlag Köln.
Summary Wardenier, J. 1982. Hollow section joints. Ph.D. Thesis. Delft University Press,
The Netherlands.
Wardenier, J. 2002. Hollow Sections in Structural Applications. Bouwen met
Staal, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
87
CIDECT Materials
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters o Publication
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I www.cidect.org/en/Publications
CBFEM
Principles
o Design tolls
Validation
Verification www.cidect.org/en/Software
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Fire design
Summary
www.cidect.org/en/Software/tubeFire.php
88
Standards
89
Introduction
Connection design
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
by Component Based
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM Finite Element Method
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case Lecture 3
Column base
Assessment III
Summary
List of lectures
2
Aims and objectives
3
Introduction Lecture 3
Anchor bolts
Classification
Column base
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
5
Outline of the lecture
o Introduction
Introduction
o Anchor bolts
Anchor bolts
o Classification
Classification o Assessment I
Assessment I o Component method
Component meth. o Component in compression
In compression o Component in tension
In tensions
o Assembly of components
Assembly
o Assessment II
Assessment II
CBFEM
o Component Based Finite Eelement Method
Validation o Validation
Verification o Verification
Sensitivity study o Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Benchmark case
Assessment III o Assessment III
Summary
o Summary
6
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Introduction
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
Introduction
8
Introduction
12
Column base classification
To simplify global analyses are classified joints
in Ch. 5 of EN1993-1-8:2006 based on
Introduction
Anchor bolts o Best engineering practice
Classification
Assessment I o Actual influence of particular joint to current frame design,
Component meth.
which implicates recalculation.
In compression
In tensions o Simplified assumption of frame behaviour
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation According to initial joint bending stiffness
Verification are column bases classified
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Similar to beam-to-column joints
Assessment III
Summary
o Related to the column bending stiffness
13
Column base classification
by bending stiffness
Limit between rigid and semi-rigid column bases
Introduction based on simplified assumption of frame behaviour.
Anchor bolts
Classification o For non-sway frames is derived from column resistance
Assessment I
for o 0,5 Sj,ini 0
Component meth.
In compression for 0,5 < o < 3,93 Sj,ini 7 (2 o - 1) E Ic / Lc
In tensions
and for o 3,93 Sj,ini 48 E Ic / Lc
Assembly
Assessment II
where o is relative slenderness for simple supported column
CBFEM
at both ends.
Validation
Verification Is valid for limited stiffness 12 E Ic / Lc
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
o For sway frames is derived from limiting sway
Assessment III S j,ini 30 E Ic / Lc
Summary
The limit between pinned and semi-rigid is expected 0,5.
14
Column base classification
by bending stiffness
Below are shown the limits between rigid, semi-rigid column
Introduction
and pinned column bases
Anchor bolts based on simplified assumption of frame behaviour.
Classification
Assessment I Mj / Mpl,Rd
Component meth.
1,0 Rigid
In compression
In tensions
0,8
Assembly S j,ini,c,n = 30 E I c / L c
Assessment II 0,6
CBFEM
Validation 0,4 S j,ini,c,s = 12 E I / L c o = 1 ,36
Verification
Sensitivity study 0,2 Semirigid
Benchmark case
Pinned
Assessment III 0
Summary 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 Rotation,
0,6 _
0,0001 0,01 1,00 100,0 log S 16
Classification of column base
in sway frame
Below is shown the influence of bending stiffness of column bases in
sway portal frame.
Introduction On the vertical axes is parameter of sway ys/yp; ys/yp = 0,33 for rigid column
Anchor bolts base and ys/yp = 1,0 for pin one. On the horizontal axes is the relative
Classification slenderness of base plate to column in logarithmic scale. The points represent
Assessment I influence of the real column bases on buckling length of columns.
Component meth. 115 kN 115 kN
In compression 5 kN
In tensions y
HE 200 B
Assembly yS / yP
Assessment II HE 200 B 4m
CBFEM 1,0
Validation
0,8
Verification 5m
Sensitivity study 0,6
Benchmark case S j,ini,pin
0,4
Assessment III
Summary
S j,ini,stif
0,2
0
0,01 100
log S
0,0001 1 17
Assessment I
18
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Component method
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
Component method
for column bases
o In the first step of component method is the joint
Introduction divided into components.
Anchor bolts
Classification Anchor bolts in tension
Assessment I and base plate in bending
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions Concrete block in compression
and base plate in bending
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Anchor bolts in shear
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
tw
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case c c
Assessment III
Summary
t
L
Base plate fj
21
Concrete design strength in joint fjd
Area h 23
Concrete resistance
to concentrated force FRd,u
Concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u
Introduction is calculated from geometry of concrete block as
Anchor bolts
Ac1 Area
FRd,u = Ac0 fcd 3,0 Ac0 fcd
Classification
Assessment I
Ac0
Component meth.
In compression Ac0 = b1 d1
In tensions Load axes
Assembly Ac1 = b2 d2
Assessment II
CBFEM h b2 – b 1 ; h d2 – d1
Validation
Verification
3 b1 b2 and 3 d1 d2
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case where Area h
Assessment III
fcd is concrete compressive strength
Summary
Ac0 is area of crushing of the concrete
Cl. 6.7(2) in EN 1992-1-1
24
Effective flexible plate
on the concrete block
Effective flexible plate on the concrete block,
Introduction
where is reached the concrete design strength in joint fjd,
Anchor bolts is limited by elastic deformation of the base plate.
Classification From this assumption is calculated effective width c
Assessment I round the column´s flanges/webs as
Component meth.
In compression
fy
In tensions
c =t
Assembly 3 f jd M0
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study where
Benchmark case
t is the plate thickness
Assessment III
Summary
fy is the base plate yield strength
fjd is the design bearing strength of the joint
M0 is the partial safety factor for concrete
25
Effective area under the base plate
Benchmark case c c c c
Assessment III c c c c
c c c c
beff beff
Summary beff beff
27
Comparison to experiments
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 Deformation, mm
Influence of grout
to column base resistance
o Grout with higher strength than concrete block
Introduction
may be taken into account to improve resistance.
Anchor bolts
o Grout with lower strength than concrete block
Classification
Assessment I
behaves under base plate as liquid
Component meth. and is taken into account by joint reduction factor βj.
In compression j = 2 / 3
In tensions
Assembly f c.g 0,2 f c
Assessment II t g 0,2 min (a ; b)
CBFEM
t g 0,2 min (a ; b)
Validation
Verification tg
Sensitivity study t tg
Benchmark case
Assessment III
tg
Summary
o tg
h 45
o
45
Component anchor bolts in tension
and base plate in bending
T-stub created by the base plate, column flange/web
Introduction
and anchor bolts behaves differently compared
Anchor bolts to the T-stub created by end plate, beam flange/web and bolts
Classification in the bolted end plate connection because
Assessment I
o Base plate is thicker
Component meth.
In compression o Anchor bolt free length is longer
In tensions
Assembly
Column flange F
Assessment II FRd,1-2
CBFEM e m
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case t
Assessment III
eff
Summary B B
Base plate
30
When the prying force
may not develop?
The base plate contact to concrete block depends on ration between
bolt tensile stiffness and base plate bending stiffness.
Introduction
Anchor bolts Prying forces may develop if
8,82 ∙ 𝑚3 ∙ 𝐴s
Classification
where 𝐿b ≤
Assessment I 𝐿eff 𝑡 3
Component meth. Lb is the anchor bolt elongation length, taken equal to the grip length
In compression
(total thickness of material and washers), plus half the sum of the
In tensions
height of the anchor bolt head and the height of the nut, or the
Assembly
anchor bolt length, taken equal to the sum of 8 times the nominal
Assessment II
CBFEM
anchor bolt diameter, the grout layer, the plate thickness, the washer
Validation
and half the height of the nut,
Verification
A is the tensile stress area of the anchor bolt F
s
Sensitivity study b = p n
Benchmark case t is the base palte thickness
Assessment III m n
Summary
Leff is the T stub effective lenght
p b
Q=0 Q=0
31
Failure mode 1-2 without prying
32
Graphical representation
of the failure mode 1-2
of the T-stub of anchor bolts in tension and base plate in bending
The difference between failure mode 1 and 2 and failure mode
1-2 is shown on the diagram below, where on vertical axes is
Introduction
Anchor bolts
acting force F divided by the anchor bolts resistance and on
Classification horizontal axes is T-stub bending resistance of base plate
Assessment I divided by the anchor bolts resistance.
Component meth.
F / B T,Rd
In compression
1,0
In tensions Failure mode 2
Failure mode 3
Assembly
0,8
Assessment II
Tvar
Failure
CBFEM
0,6 porušení
mode 1 1
Validation
Verification Failure mode 1-2
0,4
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III 0,2
Summary 4 eff m pl,Rd / B T,Rd
0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Bt.Rd is anchor bolt tensile resistance
mpl,Rd is base plate bending resistance of unique length 33
Anchor bolt effective length Leff
Anchor bolt effective length Leff consists of bolt free length Lbf
Introduction and free embedded length Lbe .
Anchor bolts
Leff = Lbf + Lbe
Classification
Assessment I Leff ≈ 8 d
Component meth.
In compression
where d is anchor bolt diameter.
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
L bf L
CBFEM b
Validation L be
Verification
Sensitivity study d
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
Effective length of T-stub
is different in case of prying/no prying
1 = 2 m − (4 m + 1,25 e )
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions 2 = 2 m
Assembly e m
Assessment II
CBFEM o in no prying case
1 = 2 m − (4 m + 1,25 e)
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 2 = 4 m
Assessment III
Summary
35
Stiffness
is different in case of no prying
Assembly 160
Assessment II 140 Experiment W13/98
CBFEM Experiment W14/97 24 - 355
120 315 365
Prediction
Validation 5
100 P6 - 40 x 50 40
Verification
80 50
Sensitivity study 10
60 10
Benchmark case 6
40 5
Assessment III P10 - 95 x 95
Summary 20
0
95 95
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
Deformation, mm
Comparison to experiments
39
Interaction diagram
Ft.Rd 0 N N
M=0
40
Bending stiffness
Validation
e0 NSd
Verification S j.ini
Sensitivity study 0 Rotation
Benchmark case Non-proportional
Assessment III Moment loading
Summary Proportional
loading
Column base
resistance
0 Normal force 42
Comparison to experiment
Assessment III
Summary
44
Comparison to experiment
45
Sensitivity study
47
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Component Based FEM
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
Concept of Component Based Finite Element Method
for column bases
50
Component anchor bolt in tension
o The resistance
Introduction
of the anchor bolt in tension Vertical force in anchor bolt, kN
Anchor bolts is taken from concrete
Classification components resistance Ft,Rd
Assessment I and from the steel one. Ft,el kt
Component meth.
In compression
o Maximum allowed plastic
In tensions strain for anchor bolts εmpb Fc,Ed
Assembly is taken as 25 %
Assessment II
of elongation till fracture. k
CBFEM
Validation o The stiffness in tension uel ut,Rd
Verification is calculated as
Sensitivity study
k = E As/Lb, Vertical deformation, mm
Benchmark case
Assessment III
where
Summary
As is tensile area of anchor bolt and
Lb is the distance between the
centers of the head and the bolt nut.
51
Component anchor bolt in shear
uel ut,Rd
Horizontal deformation, mm 52
Normal force and bending
moment interaction diagram
o The cross section under base plate consists
of anchor bolts and contact to concrete.
Introduction
Anchor bolts o The significant points on interaction diagram
Classification reflects changes of geometry of compressed part. Point -1
Assessment I
o The cross section exposed to normal force and
Component meth.
In compression
bending behaves like concrete column cross Point 0
180
Assessment II Point 1
2 160
CBFEM
3 1 140
Validation
120 Point 2
Verification
Sensitivity study 100
Benchmark case 80
Point 3
Assessment III 60
Summary 40
0
20 Point 4
4 0 -1
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Normal force NRd [kN] 53
Experiments for validation
In tensions Fh Fh
z
1000
330
Assembly
y
2035
Assessment II
440
CBFEM 1500
Validation
2020
Joints 3,bending
Biaxial 4
1830
Verification 880
100
0
Benchmark case
330
485
Base plate
Fh
Assessment III
20
26,56
Summary y
°
30
250
Grout 0
z 44
400
00
15
Shear lug Concrete pad
Bolts anchored to the ground
Anchor rods
54
Experiment´s general data
55
Behaviour of base plate
in case of uniaxial bending
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation Deformed base plate
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
57
Validation of models
to experiments in uniaxial bending
60
Validation of model
to experiments in biaxial bending
200 o Figure left shows on
Bending moment M [kN]
moment rotation
Introduction 180
Anchor bolts
diagram a good
Classification 160 prediction capacity
Assessment I
140 of resistance
Component meth.
of Component Based
In compression 120
In tensions
FE model.
100
Assembly
o The bending stiffness
Assessment II
80 of experiments is lower
CBFEM CBFEM
Validation 60 compared to prediction.
Verification Exp_3
Sensitivity study 40 o The predictive model
Exp_4 shows compared to
Benchmark case
20
Assessment III experiments
Summary 0 the safety due to a
0 50 100 conservative proposal
Deformation δh [mm]
of anchor bolt.
61
Validation of CBFE model
to experiment in uniaxial bending
63
Bending moment - normal
force interaction diagram
o The resistance of column base predicted by
CBFEM is compared to CM on moment –
Introduction normal force interaction diagram for base plate
Anchor bolts 10 mm in Figure below.
Classification
Component meth.
In compression -3500
In tensions
-3000
Assembly
Assessment II -2500
CBFEM
-2000
Validation
Verification -1500
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case -1000
Assessment III
-500
Summary
0
0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000
Component Method [kN]
68
Verification
for pure bending
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared to
resistance predicted by CM in case of pure bending in Figure below.
Introduction o The graph shows similar prediction capability of both methods.
Anchor bolts CBFEM predicts a bit higher resistance due to taking into account
Classification prying forces.
Assessment I
50
CBFEM [kNm]
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions 40
Assembly
Assessment II 30
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
20
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 10
Assessment III
Summary
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Component Method [kNm]
69
Sensitivity study
base plate thickness; 10; 20; 30 mm
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared
to CM on moment – normal force interaction diagram for base
Introduction plates 10 mm, 20 and 30 mm in Figure below.
Anchor bolts 200
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
Normal force, NRd [kN] 70
Open section column
loaded in compression
Inputs
Introduction
o Column, cross section HEB 240, steel S235
Anchor bolts o Base plate, thickness 20 mm, offsets top 100 mm, left 45 mm,
Classification steel S235
Assessment I
o Concrete block, concrete C20/25, offset 335 mm, depth 800 mm,
Component meth.
In compression
grout thickness 30 mm, grout quality C20/25
In tensions o Anchor bolt, M20 8.8
Assembly
Assessment II Output
CBFEM o Axial force resistance Fj.Rd = -1744,2 kN
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
71
Hollow section column
loaded in compression and bending
Inputs
Introduction
o Column cross section: SHS 150/16, steel S460
Anchor bolts o Base plate: thickness 20 mm, offsets at top 100 mm, on left 100
Classification mm, welds 8 mm, steel S460
Assessment I
o Anchor bolts: M20 8.8., anchoring length 400 mm, offsets top
Component meth.
In compression
layers 50 mm, left layers -20 mm, shear plane in thread
In tensions o Foundation block: concrete C20/25, offset 200 mm, depth 800 mm,
Assembly shear force transferred by friction
Assessment II
o Grout thickness 30 mm
CBFEM
Validation o Loading
Verification
o Axial force N = -913 kN
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Bending moment My = 62,1 kNm
Assessment III
Summary
72
Hollow section column
loaded in compression and bending
Outputs
Introduction
o Plate 𝜀 = 0,3 %;
Anchor bolts o Anchor bolts 99,7 % (𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 30,3 kN ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 30,4 kN
Classification (critical component concrete cone breakout)
Assessment I
Component meth.
o Welds 57,7 %
In compression
(𝜎𝐸𝑑 = 239.9 MPa ≤ 𝜎𝑅𝑑 = 416 MPa)
In tensions o Concrete block 83,0 %
Assembly (𝜎 = 33,4 MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑗𝑑 = 40 MPa)
Assessment II
MNm
CBFEM o Secant rotational stiffness 𝑆𝑗𝑠 = 7,4
rad
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
73
Assessment III
74
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Summary
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Lecture 3
Column base
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
Summary
76
Summary
77
What is the major reason for using
CBFEM for column bases?
o Generally loaded complex column base
Introduction
is very difficult to design by Component Method.
Anchor bolts o The example of design by CBFEM is shown below.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification Strain
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III o Resistance limited
Summary by anchor bolt failure
o Strain 3,4 %
o Prying forces
Foot print Stress are taken into account 78
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
URL: steel.fsv.cvut.cz
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
František Wald, Martin Vild, Marta Kuříková,
Luboš Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Notes to users of the lecture
o Subject Design of column bases of steel structures.
Introduction
o Lecture duration 60 mins
Anchor bolts o Keywords Civil Engineering, Structural design, Steel structure,
Classification Column base, Steel to concrete connection, Joint,
Assessment I Component Method, Component based Finite Element
Component meth. Method, Anchor bolts, Eurocode.
In compression
In tensions
o Aspects to be discussed Design of anchor bolts, Reasons
Assembly
and methods of classification, Principles of CM, Components
Assessment II
in column base for CM, Components in column base for
CBFEM
CBFEM, Principles of CBFEM, Spatial stresses in concrete
Validation
block, Model of stress distribution under the base plate.
Verification o Further reading relevant documents in references and
Sensitivity study relevant European design standards, Eurocodes including
Benchmark case National Annexes.
Assessment III
Summary
o Preparation for tutorial exercise see examples in References.
80
Sources
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification Bajer M., Vild M., Barnat J., Holomek J., Influence of Selected Parameters on
Assessment I
Design Optimisation of Anchor Joint, in Steel, Space and Composite
Component meth.
Structures, Singapore, 2014,149–158.
In compression Kuhlman U., Krimpmann M., Hofmann J., Wald F., et al, Design of steel-to-
In tensions concrete joints, Design manual II, ECCS Brussels, 2013.
Assembly Steenhuis M., Wald F., Sokol Z., Stark J.W.B., Concrete in Compression and
Assessment II Base Plate in Bending, Heron, 2008, 53, 1/2, 51-68.
CBFEM
Wald F. et al, Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel
Validation
connections, Česká technika ČVUT, 2016.
Verification
Sensitivity study
Wald F., Gödrich L., Šabatka L., Kabeláč J., Navrátil J., Component Based
Benchmark case
Finite Element Model of Structural Connections, in Steel, Space and
Assessment III
Composite Structures, Singapore, 2014, 337-344.
Summary Wald F., Sokol Z., Steenhuis M., Jaspart, J.P., Component Method for Steel
Column Bases, Heron, 53, 2008, 3-20.
Wald F., Sokol, Z., Jaspart J.P., Base Plate in Bending and Anchor Bolts in
Tension, Heron, 2008, 53, 1/2, 21-50. 81
Standards
82
The standards related to anchor bolts
o Till the end of last century were anchor bolts designed according to
experimental results summarised in design tables.
Introduction o Majority or current standards for anchorages to concrete are based on
Anchor bolts failure mode method, Concrete capacity design method, developed by prof.
Classification R. Eligehausen and his students at University of Stuttgart, see Eligehausen
Assessment I R., Mallée R., Silva J. F., Anchorage in concrete construction, Ernst &
Component meth. Sohn, 2006.
In compression o Currently is used in Europe for design Annex C in ETAG 001:2010 Metal
In tensions anchors for use in concrete, https://www.eota.eu/en-GB/content/etags-
Assembly used-as-ead/26/.
Assessment II o Prestandard prEN 1992-4 was published in 2010 and valid for three years.
CBFEM In 2018 is expected to be published EN 1992-4:2018, which will replace
Validation Annex C in ETAG 001.
Verification o American and Canadian standards are nearly identical. American standard
Sensitivity study ACI 318 used to contain anchorage design in Annex D. In the version from
Benchmark case the year 2014 is described in Ch.17. Canadian standard A23.3 contains
Assessment III anchorage design in Annex D.
Summary o Australian standard SA TS 101:2015 is fully compatible with ETAG,
http://www.aefac.org.au.
83