CBFEM - MC Lecture1-3

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 247

Introduction

Design models
Connection design
Global analyse

by Component Based
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction

Finite Element Method


Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Lecture 1
Summary
Beam to Column Moment Connection
List of lectures

1) Beam to column moment connection


Introduction
Design models
2) Joint of hollow to open section
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
3) Column base
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM 4) Seismically qualified joints
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

2
Aims and objectives

o Provide information on joint modelling

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

o This lecture describes principles


of FEA modelling
Introduction of beam to column moment connection.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
o Survey of both simple and FEM analyses
Component meth. and modelling are shown.
Interaction
Assessment I o Finally Validation, Verification and Benchmark
CBFEM
General
case is presented.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Material was prepared under the R&D project MERLION II supported by
Assessment II
Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, project No TH02020301.
Summary

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

Past and Present design models


An example of
For joint design are available models: component model for
fire design
o Experimental - history and contemporary design (Block et al 2005)

Introduction o Curve fitting – currently hollow section joints design


Design models
Global analyse o Analytical models
Classification o Component Method (CM)
Component meth.
Interaction o Research oriented finite element method
Assessment I o Design oriented finite element method
CBFEM
General o Component based FE Method (CBFEM)
Validation
Verification M Experiment
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
Function lt hb M
 = C1( kM )1 + C 3 ( kM ) 3 + C 5 ( kM ) 5

ta
 )
An example of curve fitting model, Kishi and Chen (1990) 8
Joints characteristics in bending

o Major characteristics for joint in bending are


o Initial stiffness Sj,ini
Introduction
Design models o Small influence to distribution of internal forces
Global analyse
o Design resistance Mj,Rd
Classification
Component meth. o Direct influence to resistance
Interaction
Assessment I o Deformation capacity φCd
CBFEM
General
o Influence to plastic and seismic design only
Validation
M
Verification
Benchmark case M j,Rd
Assessment II
Summary

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

o Joint deforms due to


o Shear force
Introduction
o No influence to global distribution of internal forces
Design models
Global analyse o Is closed during erection
Classification
Component meth.
o Normal force
Interaction
o No influence to global distribution of internal forces
Assessment I
CBFEM o Exception in space structures of course
General
Validation
o Bending moment
Verification o Significant influence to distribution of internal forces
Benchmark case
Assessment II o The highest is in rectangular closed frames
Summary

11
Joints in global analyses

o Example of frame with its joints

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

o In global analyses with 1D members are forces transferred


to beam ends.
Introduction o Forces are kept and moments are modified
Design models by action of forces on actual arms.
Global analyse
Classification o Theoretical joint should be in equilibrium,
Component meth. see example right below.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM F2
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
F1
Summary F3

F 1 + F2 + F3 = 0
13
Classification

o For global analyses of steel frames are joints classified to


simplify the modelling.
Introduction
(Preferable as pinned and rigid joints.)
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth. o According to Ch. 5 in EN1993-1-8:2006
Interaction
are joints classified based on
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
o Best engineering practice
Validation
Verification o Simplified assumption of frame behaviour
Benchmark case
Assessment II o Actual influence of particular joint to frame design.
Summary (This implicates recalculation.)

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

o Component method is analytical procedure


to evaluate joint resistance and stiffness.
It consist of steps:
Introduction
Design models 1) Decomposition of joint to individual components based
Global analyse on assumed distribution of internal forces.
Classification
2) Component description in terms of deformational stiffness
Component meth.
and resistance.
Interaction
Assessment I 3) Joint behaviour assembly from the behaviour of its
CBFEM components based on assumed distribution of internal forces.
General Column web in tension
Validation Connection
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Components in tension
Summary
Components in compression
Web panel in shear
Column web in compression
Joint 18
1) Decomposition of joint
o In simplified procedures are joints design in one plane
o Joint is decomposet to component based on best
engineering practice
Introduction
Design models o Example below is decomposition of the beam to column joint
Global analyse of open I/H sections with one end plate bolted connection is
Classification
o To components in column (❶❷❸❹), end plate connection (⑤⑩), and
Component meth.
connected beam (⑦)
Interaction
Assessment I o Finally to rigid bodyand one spring
CBFEM

  
General
Validation

Verification  z1 z z
Benchmark case  Mj  2 
 1
Assessment II
 2 3
Summary

   
  
 
  19
2) Component description

o The structural properties of basic joint components are


described in Chapter 6 of EN 1993-1-8 for some basic
V

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

o For composite joints are in EN1994-1-1:2005


o For another joints in literature
20
3) Joint assembly

o Joint are assembled


using the assumed lever arms of components zx
assumed according to best engineering practice
Introduction
Design models o E.g. for bolted connection with one bolt row
Global analyse may be guess simplified assembly
Classification
Component meth.
o Fc,Rd is compression force
Interaction recon in the middle of bottom flange
Assessment I o Ft,Rd is tensile force expected in the middle of bolt
CBFEM
General
o z is estimated lever arm
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary M j ,Rd = F
i ti ,Rd
zi

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

o Describe the influence to quality of design of the three major


characteristics of joint
Introduction o Principles of joint classification according to What Ch. 5 in
Design models EN1993-1-8:2006
Global analyse
Classification o What’s influence of joint deformation due to shear force,
Component meth. Normal force and bending moment
Interaction
Assessment I o Draw the four possible representation of joints in global
CBFEM
analyses.
General
Validation o Describe the three major steps of Component method.
Verification
Benchmark case o How is in Component method predicted the lever arm of
Assessment II
internal forces?
Summary

o Describe the three major steps of Component method.


o How to predict in a simple way interaction of bending
moment and normal force? 25
Component Based
Finite Element Method
Introduction
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
Material

o Bilinear ideal elastic plastic diagram is used in design oriented


models as CBFEM according to Ch. 7 in EN 1993-1-5:2006
and the slope of plastic branch is due to numerical stability E/1000.
Introduction
Design models o Plastic strain in plates is limited by 5%.
Global analyse o In research oriented models is calculated the true stress-strain
Classification diagram from the material properties obtained in tensile tests, which
Component meth.
is takin into account the necking of the coupon during its yielding
Interaction
Assessment I
before rupture.
CBFEM True stress-strain
General Experimental
Validation
Design
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

T-stub resistance [kN]


General 200
Validation 195
Verification 190 15%
Benchmark case 185
180
10%
Assessment II
175 5%
Summary
170
165
bf 160
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Half of flange width Number of elements [-]
28
Bolt

o Fan model with interpolation constrains to edges


of bolt holes is used in CBFEM, but is used also
Introduction
in research oriented models (Bursi, Jaspart, 1998).
Design models
o Nonlinear springs are connected for
Global analyse
Classification o Tension in contact of
Component meth.
Interaction
o bolt shank and bolt head
Assessment I o Shear in contact between
CBFEM
General
o plate and bolt head
Validation o bolt shank and plate
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Fan model of bolt


with constrains 29
Working diagram of spring model
for Component bolt in tension
o For bolt´s resistance is
expected maximum allowed Tensile force in bolt, kN
plastic strain εmpb as 25 % of
Introduction elongation to fracture Ft,Rd
Design models
of bolt according to EN ISO
Global analyse Ft,el kt
898-1:2013, the values are
Classification
Component meth.
summarised in Table below.
Fc,Ed
Interaction o The stiffness in tension is
Assessment I calculated as k = E As/Lb,
CBFEM where As is tensile area of bolt k
General
and Lb is the distance between
Validation
the centers of the head and the uel ut,Rd
Verification
Benchmark case
bolt nut. Bolt tesile deformation, mm
Assessment II
Summary
Maximum allowed plastic strains for bolts εt,Rd
Bolt grade 4.8 5.6 5.8 6.8 8.8 10.9
εmpb % 3,5 5,0 2,5 2,0 3,0 2,3
30
Working diagram of spring model
for Component bolt in shear
o Bolt in shear is simulated by bilinear diagram
with its initial linear part and nonlinear one,
which may be simplified as second linear one.
Introduction
Design models
o Values are obtained by experiments and
Global analyse summarised in design standards.
Classification
Component meth.
o The values in Ch. 6 EN1993-1-8:2006 represents well the bearing
Interaction
of plate and bolt and shearing of the bolts shaft.
Assessment I
Shear force in bolt, kN
CBFEM
General Ft,Rd
Validation
Ft,el kt
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Fc,Ed
Summary

uel ut,Rd
Bolt shear deformation, mm 31
Bolt loaded in tension and shear

o The bolt loaded to tensile resistance Ft,Rd has still significant


shear residual resistance Fs,res,Rd.
Introduction o The interaction is described by linear/nonlinear relation,
Design models
which is in CBFEM simplified for initial and second part of the
Global analyse
Classification
curve, see Figs below
Component meth.
𝐹𝑣,𝐸𝑑 𝐹𝑡,𝐸𝑑
+ ≤ 1,0
Interaction 𝐹𝑣,𝑅𝑑 1,4 𝐹𝑡,𝑅𝑑
Assessment I
CBFEM
Shear force

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

o Interaction diagram for deformation of the bolt loaded


in shear and tension, (Wald et al. 2016)
Introduction
Design models Bolts tension
Global analyse deformation, δt
Classification Ft.Rd
Component meth. Ft.Rd
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM Ft.el
Ft.el
Bolts tension force, Ft,Ed

General
Validation δt,Rd
Verification
Benchmark case
r.δv,Rd
Assessment II
Summary δt,el
1,4 − 1
r.δv,el 𝑟=
1.4

Bolts shear deformation, δv δv,el δv,Rd


33
Slip resistant bolt

o In the preloaded slip resistant bolt is transferred the shear


force by friction.
Introduction o As the friction force is reached slip resistance
Design models
the shear force is transferred by bearing of the plate
Global analyse
Classification
and shearing of bolt as regular non preloaded bolt.
Component meth.
Interaction
o Bolt is preloaded to 70% of its strength.
Assessment I
Bolt model
Ft,Ed Shear force
CBFEM
General
V Ultimate shear
Validation V force
Verification
𝜇 (𝐹𝑝 − 0.8𝐹𝑡,𝐸𝐷 )
Benchmark case Fp Fp Connection slippage
Assessment II
V
Summary
Shear deformation
Ft,Ed

34
Welds

o Filled weld is modelled by equivalent solid elastoplastic


element, which is added between plates to express the weld
behaviour, see Fig. below.
Introduction
Design models
o The element respects the weld throat thickness, position,
Global analyse and orientation to assure good representation of weld
Classification deformation stiffness, resistance and deformation capacity.
Component meth.
o The plastic strain in weld is limited to 5%.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Equivalent
Validation
Verification stresst σ
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Weld throat
Summary
section
Equivalent solid
element
Multipoint constraint
Multipoint constraint Wald et al. (2016)
35
Verification & Validation

o The need and position of Verification & Validation in


prediction of the reality is demonstrated on the diagram
Introduction
below.
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

o Out of dozens of published tests, 13 bolts of different lengths


and diameter were tested to obtain the detailed force-
deformation behaviour.
Introduction
Design models o Bolts elongation was measured by inductive sensors.
Global analyse
Classification o Bolts were fixed to the testing machine by special tools with
Component meth. bearing caps to ensure hinges on its ends.
Interaction Testing machine
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Inductive sensors
arrangement
39
Failure modes of bolts in tension

o There are four possible failure modes


of bolts loaded in tension:
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
Stripping of nut threads Rupture of bolt close to nut
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

Stripping of bolt threads Rupture of bolt close to head

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

o The validation of the research oriented model


in case of failure mode stripping of the nut thread
is presented below.
Introduction
Design models
Global analyse
Force [kN]

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

o Two specimens were prepared with T stubs,


cross sections HEB300 and HEB400 with bolts M24 8.8.
Introduction
o T-stub deformation was measured by inductive sensors.
Design models o Strains were measured on the expected yielding lines on
Global analyse
flanges by strain gauges.
Classification
Component meth. o Forces in the bolts were measured by KMR400 rings placed
Interaction under the bolt heads.
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

o The Figure shows the verification of the design oriented


model of T-stub from HEB300 loaded in tension to research
Introduction
oriented FE model. Comparison to component method is
Design models included. 450

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

o The sensitivity study of thickness of the flange shows higher


resistance according to CBFEM compared to CM for
samples with flange thicknesses up to 20 mm.
Introduction
Design models
o ROFEM gives even higher resistance for these samples.
Global analyse o Higher resistance of both numerical models is due to
Classification neglection of membrane effect in CM.
Component meth.
Interaction 450
Resistance [kN]

Assessment I 400
CBFEM 350
General
300
Validation
250
Verification
200
Benchmark case
Assessment II
150 CM komponent
Metoda

Summary 100 CBFEM


CBFEM
50 ROFEMvědecký 3D-FEM
Validovaný
0
tf10 tf12 tf15 tf20 tf25 tf30 tf35 tf40 tf45 tf50
Flange thickness [mm]
48
Verification of T-stub in tension
o To show the prediction of the CBFEM model, results of the studies
are summarized in graph comparing resistances by CBFEM and
component method. The results show that the difference of the two
Introduction calculation methods is mostly up to 10%.
Design models
o In cases with CBFEM/CM > 1,1 accuracy of CBFEM is verified by
Global analyse
Classification
the results of Research oriented FEM, which gives highest
Component meth. resistance in all selected cases.
500
Resistance CBFEM [kN]

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

0 100 200 300 400 500


Resistance - Component method [kN] 49
Verification of T-stub in tension

o Three failure modes of T-stub are considered.


Component Method
Yielding of flange and
Full yielding of flange Rupture of bolts
Introduction rupture of bolts

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

o How is limited plastic strain for design of resistances of


plates?
Introduction o How is simplified the convergence of finite elements
Design models procedure of steel members and plates?
Global analyse
Classification o How is modelled the bolt model in CBFEM?
Component meth.
Interaction o How is modelled interaction bolts loaded at the same time in
Assessment I shear and tension?
CBFEM
General o As how is transferred the shear force as the slip resistance
Validation bolt reach its resistance?
Verification
Benchmark case o Why is filled weld modelled by equivalent solid elastoplastic
Assessment II
element, which is added between plates?
Summary

o How differs validation from verification?


o What are two major purposes of benchmark cases in
application of FEA analyses? 55
Introduction
Summary
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
Summary

o The design of beam to column moment connections is


focussed to preferable yielding of steel plates and brittle
Introduction
failure of fasteners, bolts, welds.
Design models
Global analyse o The design of beam to column moment connection by
Classification
Component Method (CM) is very accurate in components
Component meth.
Interaction
behaviour modelling.
Assessment I
CBFEM o The lever arm is in CM estimated based on the best
General
engineering practice. Its prediction is good in well know and
Validation
Verification
tested connections and joints. Its educated guess affects the
Benchmark case resistance.
Assessment II
Summary
o The CM is prepared for software tools and design tables
not for had calculation.

57
Summary

o The design of connections by finite element method is not


replication of the physical experiment. The designer is
interested into the limited yielding of steel plates and failure of
Introduction
Design models
fasteners.
Global analyse
Classification o Component based finite element method (CBFEM) is taking
Component meth. advantage of accurate modelling of component behaviour
Interaction
Assessment I
based on experiment and accuracy of discrete analyse of
CBFEM steel plate by FEM
General
Validation o The Validation and Verification procedure is integral part of
Verification
Benchmark case
any finite element analyses. The procedure is checking the
Assessment II software and the use by designer.
Summary

o CBFEM offers the designer a discrete view on the behaviour,


see next slides.
58
Prediction
of global and local behaviour
Beam to column connection
o Full depth end plate 25 mm
Introduction
o Rafter IPE 400
Design models
Global analyse o Column HEA 320
Classification
Component meth. o 12 bolts M24 8.8
Interaction
Assessment I o Haunch 700x300 mm
CBFEM
o Flange 15x150 mm
General
Validation o Stiffeners P20
Verification
Benchmark case o Steel S355
Assessment II
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

o Generally loaded complex


joints
is difficult to design in space
Introduction
Design models
accurately by
Global analyse Component or other methods.
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction o The example of design
Assessment I
procedure by CBFEM
CBFEM
General
is shown below.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

3D model Finite element analyses Design check70


Introduction
Design models

Thank your for attention


Global analyse
Classification
Component meth.
Interaction
Assessment I
CBFEM
General
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
URL: steel.fsv.cvut.cz
Summary

František Wald, Lukáš Gödrich, Marta Kuříková


Luboš Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Notes to users of the lecture

o Subject Design of the open sections joints.


o Lecture duration 60 mins.
Introduction
Design models
o Keywords Civil Engineering, Structural design, Steel structure,
Global analyse
Beam to column connection, Beam to beam connection,
Classification
Beam spices, Open section, Joint, Component Method,
Component meth.
Component based Finite Element Method, Eurocode.
Interaction
Assessment I o Aspects to be discussed Experiments, Reasons and methods
CBFEM of classification, Principles of CM, Major components in CM,
General Interaction of forces, Components in CBFEM, Principles of
Validation CBFEM, Validation and Verification.
Verification
Benchmark case o Further reading relevant documents in references and
Assessment II relevant European design standards, Eurocodes including
Summary National Annexes.
o Preparation for tutorial exercise see examples in References.

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

To Component Based Finite Element Mehod

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

EN1992-1-1, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1, General rules


and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
EN1993-1-5, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-5, Plated Structural
Introduction Elements, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
Design models
EN1993-1-8:2006, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
Global analyse
joints, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Classification
Component meth. EN1994-1-1:2010, Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete
Interaction structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 2010.
Assessment I ISO 898-1, Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and alloy
CBFEM steel, Part 1, Bolts, screws and studs with specified, property classes,
General Coarse thread and fine pitch thread, Geneva, 2013
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

75
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
Connection design
by Component Based
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open

Finite Element Method


Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Lecture 2
Summary
Joint of hollow to open section
List of lectures

1) Beam to column moment connection

Introduction 2) Joint of hollow to open section


Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters 3) Column base
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I 4) Seismically qualified joints
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

2
Aims and objectives

o Provide information on modelling


of hollow section joints
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o Provide an online training to students and
General engineers
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
o Introduce principles of Failure Mode model
Assessment I
CBFEM
o Introduce principles of Component Based Finite
Principles Element Method (CBFEM)
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
o Show the process of Validation & Verification
Assessment II
Summary
o Offer list of references relevant to the topic

3
Lecture 2
Introduction

Joint
Failure mode meth.
General

of hollow to open section


Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
František
Benchmark case Wald, Marta Kuříková, Martin Kočka
Assessment IILubomír Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Summary
Tutorial

o This lecture describes principles


of FEM modelling of hollow section joints
by applying the Component Based FEM (CBFEM).
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o The failure mode models are presented on one of the most
General simple case on hollow to open section joints.
Joint parameters
Component method o Survey of both simple and FEM analyses
Hollow to open
and modelling is shown.
Assessment I
CBFEM o Validation, Verification and Benchmark cases using
Principles
Component based Finite Element Method are presented.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
o Material was prepared under the R&D project MERLION II
supported by Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, project No TH02020301.
Summary

5
Motivation

o The aim of this lecture is


to explain the design of hollow sections joints
Introduction on joints
Failure mode meth. of hollow sections to open sections,
General
Joint parameters as a simple case of very large subject.
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

6
Outline of the lecture

o Introduction - hollow section joints


o Failure mode method
Introduction
o General
Failure mode meth. o Influencing joint parameters
General
o Component method
Joint parameters
Component method o Hollow to open joints
Hollow to open
o Assessment I
Assessment I
CBFEM o Component based FE method
Principles
o Principles
Validation
Verification o Validation
Benchmark case o Verification
Assessment II
Summary
o Benchmark case
o Assessment II
o Summary
7
Hollow section joints
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
Geometry

o The welded joints of circular, square or rectangular


hollow sections can be either:
Introduction o Uni-planar
Failure mode meth.
General
o Multi-planar
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II o The combination of hollow sections
Summary with open sections are used
in the uni-planar joints.
9
Basic geometrical types

o The typical uni-planar joints

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

T joint X joint Y joint

10
Basic geometrical types

o The typical multi-planar joints

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

o The design resistance of the joint is expressed as


maximum axial or moment resistances for the
Introduction
brace.
Failure mode meth.
General o The moment resistance can be reached for
Joint parameters in-plane or out-of-plane loading.
Component method
Hollow to open
NEd NEd
Assessment I
CBFEM
Mip,Ed
Principles
Validation
Verification
Mip,Ed
Benchmark case
Assessment II Mop,Ed
Summary

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

Design resistance of joints may be determined by:


o Failure mode method based on
Introduction o Curve fitting procedures with derived joint parameters
Failure mode meth. based on analytical models
General
Joint parameters o Component method
Component method
Hollow to open
o Using lever arms and component resistances determined
Assessment I
according to a failure mode procedure
CBFEM
Principles o Finite element method
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

14
Finite element method

o Research oriented model by numerical experiments


with geometric and material non-linear analysis
with imperfections and evaluation of safety as mechanical
Introduction experiments according to EN1990.
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
o Design oriented model with geometric and material
Benchmark case
non-linear analysis using design material model.
Assessment II
Summary o The Component based FEM (CBFEM)
is design procedure combining
analytical models for components and
FE analysis of plates. 15
Failure mode model
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
Failure modes on chord
demonstrated on rectangular hollow sections (RHS)

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

Overall shear Chord side wall failure


failure of the chord 17
Failure modes on brace
demonstrated on rectangular hollow sections (RHS)

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

o The members of lattice structures should satisfy


the requirements:
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o Class 1 (or Class 2) cross section only
General
Joint parameters
o The angle between the brace and the chord
Component method
Hollow to open should be larger than 30°
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
θ ≥ 30°
Assessment II
Summary

22
Analytical Models
for determination of influencing joint parameters

o The curve fitting procedure is used for evaluation


of joint´s resistance on each possible failure mode.
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o For the determination of the influencing joint
General parameters of welded joints between
Joint parameters
Component method
rectangular hollow sections are used analytical
Hollow to open models:
Assessment I
CBFEM o Yield line
Principles
Validation
o Punching shear
Verification
Benchmark case
o Brace effective width
Assessment II o Chord side wall bearing or buckling
Summary
o Chord shear

23
Yield line model
for the influencing joint parameters

o The typical case of searching for influencing parameters by


yield line model is chord face failure, as is shown below on
deformed shape of K joint of RHS after experiment and its
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
cut.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

Very small gap

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

o Punching shear is caused by the brace load


component perpendicular to the chord face.
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o Since of the non-uniform stress distribution at
General connection and not sufficient deformation
Joint parameters
Component method
capacity may be available, only parts of
Hollow to open connection perimeters are effective for punching
Assessment I
CBFEM
shear failure.
Principles
Validation o Therefore the punching shear criterion is
Verification

 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

o Similar to punching shear failure but the complete


brace load has to be taken into account.
Introduction
h1
Failure mode meth. N1
General
Joint parameters
o For a T, Y and X joint, 0,5·beff
the effective width
Q1
Component method
Hollow to open
criterion is
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
N1 = fy1 t1 (2h1+2be– 4t1)
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary
o As for punching shear failure the gaps are
important for the effective lengths.
29
Brace effective width model
for the influencing joint parameters

o For K-joints with gaps in the allowed range


the brace effective width criterion is
Introduction
Failure mode meth. N2 = fy2 t2 (2h2+b2+be– 4t1)
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open o No regulations for small gaps available
Assessment I
CBFEM o For big gaps the criterion for T-, Y- and X-joints
Principles
Validation can be used
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

o Component based approach for hollow section design is


formal reorganisation of equations to be engineering user
friendly.
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o Failure modes are represented as components.
General
Joint parameters o The same equations are used by curve fitting approach but in
Component method different formulation.
Hollow to open
Joint configuration
Assessment I
CBFEM Joint 2 Joint 1
Principles
Validation
Brace 2 Brace 1
Verification
Benchmark case θ2 θ1
Assessment II
Summary

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

o Chord face in bending

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

Chord shear failure for K gap joints and for X joints


with cos 𝜃i > ℎi Τℎ0 use 𝛼 = 0
𝑓y0 𝐴V,0,gap
Introduction
𝑁i,Rd = ൗ𝛾M5
3 sin 𝜃i
Failure mode meth.
2
General 𝑉0,gap,Ed
Joint parameters 𝑁0,gap,Rd = 𝐴0 − 𝐴V,0,gap 𝑓y0 + 𝐴V,0,gap 𝑓y0 1− ൘𝛾M5
Component method
𝑉0,gap,pl
Hollow to open
𝐴V,0,gap = 𝐴0 − 2 − 𝛼 𝑏0 𝑡0 + 𝑡w + 2𝑟 𝑡0
Assessment I
CBFEM
d1
Principles 1
𝛼= t1 t2
Validation 1 + 4𝑔2 Τ 3𝑡02 h1 t2
Verification b1 h2
Benchmark case 𝑓y0 t1 N2 d2
Assessment II 𝑉0,gap,pl = 𝐴v,0,gap N1 b2
Summary
3 1
g
t0 b0
2
𝑉0,gap,Ed = 𝑁i,Ed sin 𝜃i max tw
r h0

42
Effective width
of welded joints between RHS or CHS brace members and I or
H section chords for failure mode method

For RHS braces


𝑓y0
𝑏eff = 𝑡w + 2𝑟 + 7𝑡0 but ≤ 𝑏i + ℎi − 2𝑡i
Introduction 𝑓yi
Failure mode meth. ℎi 2𝑡i
General 𝑏w = + 5 𝑡0 + 𝑟 but ≤ + 10 𝑡0 + 𝑟
Joint parameters
sin 𝜃i sin 𝜃i
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I t1
CBFEM
Principles t1
h1
Validation
N1 d1
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
b1 b0
1 t0
Summary

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

Brace failure from failure mode method


𝑁i,Rd = 2𝐶f 𝑓yi 𝑡i 𝑏eff Τ𝛾M5
Introduction 𝑓y0
Failure mode meth. 𝑏eff = 𝑡w + 2𝑟 + 7𝑡0 but ≤ 𝑏i + ℎi − 2𝑡i
General 𝑓yi
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I can be overwritten for component method as t1
CBFEM
Principles 𝐹e,Rd = 𝐶f 𝑓yi 𝑡1 𝑏effΤ𝛾M5 t1
h1
Validation
Verification
𝑁1,Rd = 4[𝐹N,min,Rd ] N1 d1
Benchmark case
𝑏eff,𝑒 = 0,5𝑏eff b1
Assessment II
t0 b0
Summary 1

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

Chord web failure from failure mode method


𝑓y0 𝑡w 𝑏w
𝑁i,Rd = ൗ𝛾M5
Introduction sin 𝜃i
Failure mode meth.
General
ℎi 2𝑡i
𝑏w = + 5 𝑡0 + 𝑟 but ≤ + 10 𝑡0 + 𝑟
Joint parameters sin 𝜃i sin 𝜃i
Component method
Hollow to open 𝐾N,ch,b = 1,0; 𝐾b,ch,b = 1,0; 𝑡0 = 𝑡𝑤 /2
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
can be overwritten for component method as t1

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

o What limits the application of component method to hollow


section joint design?

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

o Bilinear ideal elastic plastic diagram is used in design oriented


models as CBFEM according to Ch. 7 in EN 1993-1-5:2006
and the slope of plastic branch is due to numerical stability E/1000.
Introduction o Plastic strain in plates is limited by 5%.
Failure mode meth.
General
o In research oriented models is calculated the true stress-strain
Joint parameters diagram from the material properties obtained in tensile tests, which
Component method is taking into account the necking of the coupon during its yielding
Hollow to open before rupture.
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

49
Plate and cross sections

o For modelling of plate are applied four node quadrangle shell


elements with six degrees of freedom.
I.e. there are three translations and three rotations in every
Introduction
node.
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles o The cross section is build from plates with independent
Validation meshes, which are connected by constraints, to simplify the
Verification
meshing procedure.
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

50
Welds

o Filled weld is modelled by equivalent solid elastoplastic


element, which is added between plates to express the weld
behaviour, see Fig. below.
Introduction o The element respects the weld throat thickness, position,
Failure mode meth. and orientation to assure a good representation of weld
General
Joint parameters
deformation stiffness, resistance and deformation capacity.
Component method o The plastic strain in weld is limited to 5% as in basic material.
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles Equivalent
Validation
stresst σ
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II Weld throat
Summary section
Equivalent solid
element
Multipoint constraint
Multipoint constraint Wald et al. (2016)
51
Verification & Validation
o The need and position of Verification & Validation in
prediction of the reality is demonstrated on the diagram
below
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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

o The Figure below shows the importance of the mesh size


to the prediction of behaviour of joint

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

o The validation should answer the quality of prediction on


global behaviour namely in important points of design.
o Table below shows the prediction of resistance by
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
deformation of upper surface b0/300 (used by curve fitting
General models) and 5% of strain (used by numerical models) for
Joint parameters experiment in compression A1 with failure of chord web.
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

62
Verification of T-joint and K-joint
CBFEM model to failure mode procedure

o A uniplanar T-joint and K-joint of a rectangular hollow section


brace to an open section chord.
o The brace section is RHS 140x70x10.
Introduction
Failure mode meth. o The chord sections are IPE, IPN, HEA a HEB.
General
o The brace is loaded in tension/compression or by in-plane
Joint parameters
Component method bending moment.
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

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]

Hollow to open 900


Assessment I 800
CBFEM 700
Principles 600
Validation 500
Verification 400 Chord web
Benchmark case
300 Brace failure
Assessment II Chord shear
200 CBFEM=FM
Summary
100 CBFEM=1,1 FM
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Resistance by FM [kN] 64
Verification of T-joint
in bending
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 Two 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) and the chord web failure.
Joint parameters
40
Resistance by CBFEM [kNm]

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

Plastic strain [%] 66


Assessment II

o How is modelled the material for research and how for


design models?

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

Chord web failure 69


Summary

o The curve fitting methods are used for evaluation of design


resistances by each possible failure mode.

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

Plastification of the upper flange of RHS brace


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 = 19 kNm
Summary
φ = 1,8 mrad
Sj = 10,7 MNm/rad
73
Global and local behaviour

Initial plastification in the open section web


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 = 21 kNm
Summary
φ = 2,0 mrad
Sj = 10,6 MNm/rad
74
Global and local behaviour

Initial plastification in the weld


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 = 25 kNm
Summary
φ = 2,5 mrad
Sj = 10,0 MNm/rad
75
Global and local behaviour

Initial plastification in the open section flange


60
Moment [kNm]

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

Initial plastification in the RHS brace roundings


60
Moment [kNm]

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

Full plastification through the open section web


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 = 47 kNm
Summary
φ = 18,8 mrad
Sj = 2,6 MNm/rad
78
Global and local behaviour

The open section web reaches plastic strain 5%


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 = 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?

o The design resistance of generally loaded complex


hollow section joints may be by failure mode method only
estimated.
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
o The example of design procedure by CBFEM is shown
General below.
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary 3D model Finite element analyses Design check

80
Design tips

o The most economical and common way to connect


hollow to open sections is by direct connection
Introduction
without any intersecting plates or gussets, this also
Failure mode meth. gives the most efficient way for protection and
General
Joint parameters
maintenance.
Component method
Hollow to open o The connections between hollow and open
Assessment I
sections can be easily made, since the connecting
CBFEM
Principles members are provided with straight end cuts only.
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II
Summary

81
Design tips

o Tips to optimize design


o Select relatively stocky chord
Introduction o Select relatively thin brace
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
t1
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM b1
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment II b0
Summary
t0

b1/b0 as high as possible t1/t0 as low as possible


82
Design tips

o Tips to optimize joint design


o Consider virtues of gapped K-connections
Introduction
Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
o Gapped joints are easier o Overlapped joints have
Verification
Benchmark case and cheaper to fabricate. higher static and fatigue
Assessment II strength and produce
Summary stiffer truss (reduced truss
deflections).

83
Introduction

Thank your for attention


Failure mode meth.
General
Joint parameters
Component method
Hollow to open
Assessment I
CBFEM
Principles
Validation
Verification
Benchmark case
URL: steel.fsv.cvut.cz
Assessment II
Summary
František Wald, Marta Kuříková, Martin Kočka
Luboš Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Notes to users of the lecture

o Subject Design of hollow section joints of steel structures.


o Lecture duration 60 mins.
Introduction o Keywords Civil Engineering, Structural design, Steel
Failure mode meth. structure, Trusses, Truss girder, Joint, Hollow section joint,
General Hollow to open section joint, Component Method,
Joint parameters Component based Finite Element Method, Eurocode.
Component method
Hollow to open o Aspects to be discussed Curve fitting models of joints,
Assessment I Failure mode models of joints, FE models of joints, Failure
CBFEM modes, Component method principle, Application of
Principles analytical modelling
Validation
o Further reading relevant documents in references and
Verification
relevant European design standards, Eurocodes including
Benchmark case
National Annexes.
Assessment II
Summary o Preparation for tutorial exercise see examples in
References.

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

ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural


Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, 2010.
IIW XV-1439-13 ISO/FDIS 14346, Static Design Procedure
Introduction
for Welded Hollow-Section Joints – Recommendations, Brussels, 2012.
Failure mode meth. EN1993-1-8:2005, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
General joints, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Joint parameters
prEN1993-1-8:2018, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
Component method
joints, CEN, Brussels, 2018.
Hollow to open
Assessment I EN 10210-1:2006, Hot finished structural hollow sections on non-alloy and fine
CBFEM grain steels, Part 1: Technical delivery conditions, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Principles
EN 10210-2:2006, Hot finished structural hollow sections on non-alloy and fine
Validation
grain steels, Part 2: Tolerances dimensions and sectional properties, CEN,
Verification
Brussels, 2016.
Benchmark case
Assessment II EN 10219-1:2006, Cold formed structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine
Summary grain steels, Part 1: Technical delivery conditions, Part 2: Tolerances,
dimensions and sectional properties, CEN, Brussels, 2006.

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

1) Beam to column moment connection


Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification 2) Joint of hollow to open section
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression 3) Column base
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II 4) Seismically qualified joints
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

2
Aims and objectives

o Provide information on column base behaviour


Introduction
Anchor bolts o Introduce principles of Component Method (CM)
Classification
Assessment I
for column base design
Component meth.
In compression
o Introduce principles of Component Based Finite
In tensions Element Method (CBFEM) for column base
Assembly
Assessment II
o Provide an online training to students and
CBFEM
Validation engineers
Verification
Sensitivity study o Show the process of Validation & Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment III o Offer list of references relevant to the topic
Summary

3
Introduction Lecture 3
Anchor bolts
Classification

Column base
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification

František Wald, Marta Kuříková, Martin Vild


Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Lubomír Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Assessment III
Summary
Tutorial

o This lecture describes principles


Introduction of Finite Element Method of column base
Anchor bolts by applying the Component Based FEM (CBFEM).
Classification
Assessment I o On the analytical design by Component Method
Component meth. is shown
In compression the behaviour of base plate
In tensions
exposed to compression and bending
Assembly
Assessment II o Validation, Verification and Benchmark cases using
CBFEM
Component based Finite Element Method are presented.
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
o Material was prepared under the R&D project MERLION II supported by Technology
Summary Agency of the Czech Republic, project No TH02020301.

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

o Steel structures are fixing to concrete


Introduction foundation/structure
Anchor bolts
by base plate/end plates, embedding and its
Classification
Assessment I combination.
Component meth.
In compression o The aim of this lecture are joints with base plate
In tensions
Assembly
fixed to concrete structure by anchor bolts.
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

8
Introduction

o The same principles are used for


end plate fixed to concrete structure
Introduction
Anchor bolts
by anchor bolts.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
o The base plate is usually positioned on the concrete block
Assessment II by pickings or levelling nuts and fixed by grout. The erection
CBFEM has no substantial influence
Validation
to design resistance.
Verification
Sensitivity study
If the anchor bolts
Benchmark case are designed
Assessment III not embedded
Summary (during erection or use)
it takes into account
in design.
9
Design resistance
of anchor bolt in tension
Anchor bolts are designed for its resistance in tension
Introduction
according to EN1992-4:2018 for all possible failure modes.
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
o Basic failure modes in tension are:
Component meth. • Steel failure of fastener
In compression
In tensions
• Concrete cone failure
Assembly • Pull-out failure of fastener
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Note: In structural steel column bases is asked the ductile steel


fastener´s failure mode, if structurally possible, compared to
anchoring of secondary structures. 10
Distribution of forces between
anchor bolts in tension
o EN1992-4:2018 expects, that forces
between anchor bolts are distributed elastically.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
It meets the column base with one anchor bolt row.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
o Plastic analyses according to CEN/TR 17081:2018 is used
Assessment III
Summary
for distribution of bolt forces for more anchor bolt rows in
tension. In this case is asked to be the govern failure ductile,
e.g. the steel failure of fastener. The developed prying forces
are taken into account . 11
Design resistance
of anchor bolt in shear
Anchor bolts for resistance in shear are designed
Introduction according to EN1992-4:2018 for all possible failure modes.
Anchor bolts Basic failure modes in shear are:
Classification
Assessment I o Steel failure of fastener
Component meth. o Concrete edge failure/Pry-out failure
In compression
In tensions o Pull-out failure of fastener
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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, 

The limits assure accuracy in design of frame


5% for resistance and 20% for serviceability. 15
Classification of column base
in non-sway frame
Below is shown the influence of bending stiffness of two column bases
to the column buckling length on example of column HEB200.
Introduction On the vertical axes is parameter of buckling length β; β = 0,7 for rigid
Anchor bolts column base and β = 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.
Component meth. t = 12 mm
In compression a 1 = b1 = 280 mm
In tensions a = b = 500 mm
Assembly
h = 1000 mm
Fcr.pin M 24 -420
Assessment II  = S j,ini,pin = 7 100 kNm / rad
CBFEM Fcr,res
t = 40 mm
1
Validation a 1 = b1 = 420 mm
Verification a = b = 500 mm
0,9 h = 1000 mm
Sensitivity study
M 24 -420
Benchmark case S j,ini,pin S j,ini,stif = 74 800 kNm / rad
0,8
Assessment III
Summary S j,ini,stif
0,7

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

o What are the basic failure modes of anchor bolts in tension?


Introduction
o What should be the failure mode of anchor bolt in case of
Anchor bolts
Classification
plastic distribution of forces in column base with more bolt
Assessment I rows?
Component meth.
In compression
o What are the basic failure modes of anchor bolts in shear?
In tensions
o What is the reason of classification of joints by bending
Assembly
Assessment II
stiffness?
CBFEM
o What principles are used for classification of joints by
Validation
Verification
bending stiffness?
Sensitivity study
o For what accuracy was derived the limit between rigid and
Benchmark case
Assessment III
semi-rigid column bases for simplified assumption of frame
Summary behaviour?

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

Column web in shear


20
Component base plate in bending
and concrete block in compression
o Base plate is flexible under rigid flange/web plates
Introduction
and is taken into account in design by
Anchor bolts
Classification o Effective rigid area under the flexible plate Aeff.
Assessment I
o Concrete block occurs in spatial stress
Component meth.
In compression and is taken into account in design by
In tensions
Assembly
o Concrete design strength in joint fjd.
Assessment II
CBFEM FSd FRd
Validation Column flange
Verification

tw
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case c c
Assessment III
Summary
t
L
Base plate fj
21
Concrete design strength in joint fjd

Concrete design strength in joint fjd is derived


Introduction from the concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u.
Anchor bolts
Ac1
Classification  j Ac0 f cd
Assessment I  j FRdu Ac0 Ac1 3,0 Ac0 f cd
Component meth. f jd = = =  j f cd  = 3,0 f cd
In compression
bef lef Ac0 Ac0 Ac0
In tensions
Assembly
where
Assessment II
CBFEM j is joint coefficient due to
Validation
lower quality of grout Load axes
Verification
Sensitivity study compared to concrete
Benchmark case
and is taken 2/3
Assessment III
Summary fcd is concrete
compressive strength
h
22
Concrete resistance
to concentrated force FRd,u
Concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u is taken as
Introduction
homogenous force FRd,u on the loaded area Ac0. It is limited
Anchor bolts by geometry of concrete block.
Classification Area
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression Note:
In tensions In spatial stress
Assembly is failure mode
Assessment II crushing
of concrete Load axes
CBFEM
Validation under
Verification
the base plate.
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

The effective area of design contact under the base plate


is created around the column´s web and flanges
Introduction
Anchor bolts
by the T-stub effective width c
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
c c
Verification c c

Sensitivity study leff leff leff leff

Benchmark case c c c c

Assessment III c c c c
c c c c
beff beff
Summary beff beff

Into account is taken only real the projection of the physical


length of the basic joint component represented by the T-stub.
Stiffness of component concrete
in compression and base plate in bending
Stiffness coefficient of concrete in compression under base
Introduction
plate is taken as deformation of elastic hemisphere
Anchor bolts
Classification F Ec aeq,el L Ec aeq,el L
kc = = =
E 1,5  0,85 E
Assessment I
Component meth.
1,275 E
In compression
In tensions
where aeq,el is effective width of T-stub
Assembly L is the flange/web length
Assessment II
CBFEM
Effective T-stub width aeq,el in elastic stage may be assumed
Validation as
Verification
Sensitivity study aeq,el = t w + 2,5 t  aeq,st =
Benchmark case
Assessment III fy
= tw + 2 c = tw + 2 t
3 f jd M0
Summary

27
Comparison to experiments

On the graph is compared the prediction of stiffness of


component concrete in compression and base plate in bending.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
On the vertical axes is the applied force and on horizontal
Classification axes the deformation.
Assessment I
Component meth.
1800 Force, kN F
In compression
In tensions 1600 tw L
t
Assembly 1400 Calculated strength
Assessment II
1200 Experiment d
CBFEM
Concrete and grout
Validation 1000
Concrete
Verification
800
Sensitivity study Prediction based on local and global deformation,
Benchmark case
600
Assessment III 400
Summary
200 Prediction based on local deformation only

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

The failure mode 1-2 is derived to avoid contact of the base


Introduction
plate to the concrete surface.
Anchor bolts
Design resistance for failure mode 1–2 is governed by plate
Classification
failure 2M
FT,1−2,Rd = pl,1,Rd
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
m
In tensions where m is the lever arm of the anchor bolt.
Assembly
Mpl,1,Rd = 0,25  ef f t f /  M0
2
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation is the plastic moment resistance of the base plate
Verification
Sensitivity study
with
Benchmark case
ℓeff is the effective length of the T-stub and
Assessment III
Summary teff is the base plate thickness.

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

E.g. for base plate with bolts inside the flanges


Introduction
is the effective length
Anchor bolts
o in prying case
Classification

 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

The stiffness coefficient for plate without prying


Introduction
is derived the stiffness coefficient
Anchor bolts for plate as
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
0,425  ef f t 3
In compression kp =
In tensions m3
Assembly F
Assessment II and for anchor bolt as
CBFEM
Validation m n
Verification As
Sensitivity study kb = 2,0
Benchmark case Lb
Assessment III Q=0 Q=0
Summary

where t is the base plate thickness


36
Comparison to experiments

The model of anchor bolt in tension is validated against the


Introduction
experiment in Figure below and
Anchor bolts the good prediction of the resistance
Classification and stiffness of the current models is shown.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression Force, kN
In tensions 180 40

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

The model of the T-stub of component anchor bolt in tension


Introduction
and base plate in bending is validated against the experiment in
Anchor bolts Figures below and
Classification the good prediction of the resistance
Assessment I and stiffness of the current component model is shown.
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
350 Force, kN 350 Force, kN
Assembly
Assessment II 300 300 W97-12
CBFEM
250 Simplified prediction 250
Validation Experiment
Verification 200
200
Sensitivity study m = 32
Complex calculation 150 Complex calculation m = 67
Benchmark case 150
Assessment III Simplified prediction
100
100
Summary
50
50
W97-02 Deformation, mm
Deformation, mm 0
0 0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8 38
Bending resistance

The calculation of the column base resistance is based on the


plastic equilibrium of forces on the cross section created by
Introduction
Anchor bolts
anchor bolts in tension and part of the concrete under base plate
Classification in compression.
Assessment I
M Ed N Ed zc Activated part
Component meth. − = Ft,pl,Rd of affective area
In compression z z
In tensions
M Ed N Ed z t
Assembly + = Fc,pl,Rd
Assessment II z z Affective area
CBFEM MEd
Validation
Then, the column base Axis of compressed part
Verification moment resistance MRd NEd
Neutral axis
Sensitivity study is
Benchmark case
Assessment III Ft,pl,Rd Fc,pl,Rd
Summary  Ft,Rd  z + NEd  zc 
M Rd = min   zt zc
F
 c,Rd  z − N Ed  z t
z

39
Interaction diagram

Moment – normal force interaction diagram describes


Introduction
the design resistance of base plate by changing the
Anchor bolts eccentricity of loading with significant point at changes of
Classification
effective area.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
M1 , N 1
In tensions M
Assembly
Assessment II M 2, N 2
CBFEM
Validation
M N=0
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Tension Compression
Summary

Ft.Rd 0 N N
M=0
40
Bending stiffness

The column base bending stiffness is derived on simplified


Introduction
model with acting compression force under column flange and
Anchor bolts tension force in centre of bolt row from the component
Classification deformation for two cases
Assessment I
Component meth.
o Bolts are activated
In compression
In tensions
o Bolts are not activated
Assembly
Assessment II
MEd MEd
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
NEd NEd
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case  
Assessment III
 t,l  c,r
Summary c,l  c,r
zt,l zc,r zc,l zc,r
z z
41
History of loading

The column base bending stiffness depends on history


Introduction
of loading. It is higher, if the column base is first loaded by
Anchor bolts compression and then by bending compared to, if it is loaded by
Classification reverse. M
Moment
Rd
Assessment I Non-proportional loading
Component meth. Proportional loading
In compression
Nonlinear part of the curve
In tensions
Plastification of one component
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Anchor bolts in tension and one flange in compression

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

On Figures below is validated the model of the column


Introduction base against the experiment to show the good prediction
Anchor bolts of the resistance and stiffness of the current component
Classification
model.
Assessment I
Component meth. Components Assembly
In compression
Force, kN Moment, kNm
In tensions
200 80
Assembly Ekb
Assessment II 100 Experiment
CBFEM Anchor bolt
0 60 W7-4.20-prop
Validation 0,5
200 Force, kN M
Verification N
Sensitivity study 100 E k p 40 Prediction HE 160 B
Benchmark case Base plate
0
Assessment III
0,5 t = 20
20 h = 500
Summary 200 E k c Force, kN
100
0,5 Concrete
0 0
Deformation,  , mm
0 10 Rotation, mrad 43
Comparison to experiment

On Figure below is validated the model of the column base


Introduction
proportionally loaded by moment and normal force with the
Anchor bolts bolt steel failure mode against the experiment to show the
Classification good prediction of the resistance and stiffness of the current
Assessment I component model.
Component meth.
In compression
Moment, kNm Moment, kNm
In tensions 80 W7-4.20-prop 80
W7-4.20-prop
Assembly HE 160 B- 480 70
60
Assessment II 4 M 24- 4.6- 420 60
P 20- 300 x 220 50
CBFEM 40 30 x 330 x 250 40
550 x 550 x 550
Validation 30
20 Model 20
Verification
Experiment 10 Normal f orce, kN
Sensitivity study
0 0
Benchmark case 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Rotation, mrad 0 500 1000

Assessment III
Summary

44
Comparison to experiment

On Figure below is validated the model of the column


Introduction base non-proportionally loaded by moment and normal
Anchor bolts force with the concrete cone failure mode against the
Classification
Assessment I
experiment to show the good prediction of the
Component meth. resistance and stiffness of the current component
In compression model.
In tensions
Assembly
HE 220 B - 900
Assessment II
Moment, kNm 2 M 20 - 10.9 - 320 160 Moment, kNm S220-190
CBFEM 140 P 20 - 280 x 280 140
120 30 x 250 x 250 120
Validation S220-190 1200 x 600 x 600
100 100
Verification
80 80
Sensitivity study 60 60
Benchmark case 40 Model 40
20 Experiment 20
Assessment III
0 0
Summary 0 5 10 15 20 Rotationí, mrad
0 500 1000 Normal f orce síla, kN

45
Sensitivity study

Figure below shows the sensitivity of the bending moment


resistance and the bending stiffness of the column base
Introduction
Anchor bolts
proportionally loaded by normal force with eccentricity.
Classification From base plate thickness are governing anchor bolts.
Assessment I
Component meth.
400 kN M
Rd
In compression
HE 160 B M 20 - 10.9
In tensions Moment, kNm
Assembly 120 t = 30 t
Assessment II 25
CBFEM 100
Validation
80 20
Verification
Sensitivity study 60
Benchmark case
40 15
Assessment III
10
Summary
20
0 Rotation, mrad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 46
Assessment II

o What are the basic components on base plate?


Introduction
o What are the major question in design of component
Anchor bolts
Classification
in compression?
Assessment I
o What is the reason for introducing the joint coefficient?
Component meth.
In compression o What is the reason of limiting the effective width of the base
In tensions
plate?
Assembly
Assessment II o What is the reason, that prying may in case of Failure mode
CBFEM
1-2 not develop?
Validation
Verification o How is simplified the model of acting compression force
Sensitivity study
for prediction of the column base stiffness?
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

o Steel part of column base, column base, column, base plate


Introduction and stiffeners are simulated by shell models.
Anchor bolts Resistance is limited by 5% of plastic strain.
Classification
Assessment I o Concrete block is taken as component with elastic-plastic
Component meth. surface.
In compression
In tensions o Anchor bolts/welds are modelled as components.
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Stress in Plastic strain


concrete in column 49
Component
concrete in compression
For resistance is considered the part of the concrete block
Introduction under effective area Aeff only using overlap c,
Anchor bolts where the base plate deforms in its elastic stage,
Classification
Assessment I
following the engineering assumption formulated
Component meth. in EN1993-1-8:2006.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

o The resistance of anchor bolt in shear is calculated


Introduction according to EN1992-4:2018 and EN1993-1-8:2006.
Anchor bolts o Stiffness of anchor bolt in shear includes
Classification
bearing of concrete and
Assessment I
Component meth.
bending of bolt.
In compression
Shear force in anchor bolt, kN
In tensions
Assembly
Ft,Rd
Assessment II
Ft,el kt
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Fc,Ed
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III k
Summary

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

In tensions section of effective contact area.


Assembly
Bending moment MRd [kNm]

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

o For validation were prepared two experiments


in uniaxial and two in biaxial bending at TU Brno.
Introduction
Anchor bolts o The experimental set ups is presented below.
Classification
Transverse beam Joints 1, 2bending
Uniaxial
Assessment I
Loading cylinder and dynamometer 880
Component meth. Threaded rods pinned at the end
In compression Fv Column HEB 240

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

Sensitivity study Stabilizing beams

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

o Column HEB 240


Introduction o Concrete block 1000x1200x9000 C20/25
Anchor bolts o Base plate 330x440x20 S235
Classification
Assessment I o Anchor bolts 4 x M20
Component meth.
o Grout 30 mm
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Bending of set up
Assessment III
Summary
in biaxial bending

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

Set up in uniaxial bending


56
FE prediction of column
base behaviour in uniaxial bending

o Figure below shows


the equivalent stresses
Introduction
Anchor bolts
in base plate and in concrete
Classification calculated by CBFEM.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

57
Validation of models
to experiments in uniaxial bending

Bending moment My [kNm]


200 o Figure left shows
180 on moment rotation
Introduction
diagram a good prediction
Anchor bolts 160
capacity
Classification 140 of resistance of both
Assessment I
Component meth.
120 Component (CM) and
In compression 100 Component Based FE
In tensions model (CBFEM).
80 CM
Assembly
60 CBFEM o CBFEM compared
Assessment II
Exp_1 to CM predicts higher
CBFEM 40
Validation Exp_2 resistance. It includes real
20 space stress in concrete.
Verification
0
Sensitivity study
o The bending stiffness
Benchmark case 0 20 40
of experiments is lower
Assessment III Rotation 𝜙 [mrad] compared to prediction.
Summary

o The predictive model shows compared to experiments


the safety due to conservative proposal of anchor bolt.
58
Validation of CBFE model
to experiment in uniaxial bending
200 o Figure left shows
Force in anchor Ft [kN]
Introduction 180
on anchor force –
Anchor bolts bending moment
Classification 160 B3+B4 diagram a good
Assessment I
Component meth.
140 1_B3 prediction capacity
In compression
of Component Based
120 1_B4
In tensions Finite Element Model.
Assembly 100 2_B3
Assessment II o The predicted bolt
80 2_B4
CBFEM force is conservatively
Validation 60 higher compared to
Verification
measured ones on
Sensitivity study 40
Benchmark case
both experiments.
20
Assessment III
Summary 0
0 50 100 150
Bending moment My [kNm]
59
FEA model for column
base in biaxial bending
o Figure below shows
Introduction
the equivalent stresses
Anchor bolts in base plate and in concrete
Classification in Component Based FE model
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

Force in anchor Ft [kN]


200 o Figure left shows on
B3
Introduction the anchor forces –
B4
Anchor bolts bending diagram a
Classification 3_B3 good prediction
150
Assessment I 3_B4 capacity of
Component meth.
4_B3 Component Based FE
In compression
4_B4 model for the most
In tensions
Assembly 100 loaded anchor bolt.
Assessment II
CBFEM o The predicted bolt
Validation force is conservatively
Verification 50
higher compared to
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
the measured ones.
Assessment III
Summary 0
0 50 100 150
Bending moment M [kNm]
62
Verification
column base for SHS 160
o In following example, the column from square hollow section
Introduction SHS 150x16 is connected to concrete block with the area
Anchor bolts dimensions 𝑎′ = 750 mm, 𝑏′ = 750 mm and height ℎ =
Classification 800 mm from concrete grade C20/25 by the base plate 𝑎 =
Assessment I
350 mm; 𝑏 = 350 mm; 𝑡 = 20 mm from steel S420. Anchor
Component meth.
In compression
bolts are designed 4 x M20, As = 245 mm2 with head
In tensions diameter a = 60 mm from steel 8.8 with offset at top 50 mm
Assembly and left -20 mm. Grout has the thickness of 30 mm.
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

Bending moment [kNm]


80
Assessment I -1070; 68
Component meth. -913; 64
70
In compression CM -1 070; 62
-756; 62
In tensions 60
CBFEM
Assembly -913; 62
50
Assessment II
CBFEM -756; 55
40
Validation
Verification 30
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 20
Assessment III 0; 14
10
Summary -1 947; 0 -1788; 0 73; 0
0 80; 0
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Normal force [kN]
64
Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses at the edge of the thin base plate


(10 mm) loaded in pure tension show the plate contact and
Introduction
Anchor bolts
possible development of prying forces.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Pure tension Pure bending 65


Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses and the design effective area


of the contact of base plate to concrete block.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Flange in compression Half of cross section


in compression 66
Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses and the design effective area


of the contact of base plate to concrete block.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Webs in compression Pure compresion


67
Verification
for pure compression
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared
to resistance predicted by CM in case of pure compression in
Introduction Figure below.
Anchor bolts o The graph shows similar prediction capability of both methods.
Classification
Assessment I -4000
CBFEM [kN]

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

Bending moment, MRd [kNm]


Classification An_10
180
Assessment I An_20 CM
Component meth. 160 An_30
In compression
140 IC_10
In tensions
IC_20 CBFEM
Assembly
120
Assessment II IC_30
CBFEM 100
Validation
80
Verification
Sensitivity study 60
Benchmark case
40
Assessment III
Summary 20

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

o How is limited in CBFEM the resistance of base plate?


Introduction
o How is modelled in CBFEM for column base design the
Anchor bolts
Classification
concrete block?
Assessment I
o Which part under base plate is considered in roe resistance?
Component meth.
In compression o How is limited the design of anchor bolts?
In tensions
Assembly o What is difference between design of column base and
Assessment II concrete column in compression?
CBFEM
Validation o What is the reason for higher resistance of column base in
Verification tension with base plate in failure mode 1-2?
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

Introduction o The column bases are designed with plastic


Anchor bolts distribution of forces under base plate.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth. o Concrete in compression under the base plate
In compression is designed taking into account its spatial stress.
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II o The homogenous stress under the flexible base plate
CBFEM is expected for elastically deformed base plate.
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study o Column bases are often exposed to interaction of
Benchmark case normal force and bending moments.
Assessment III
Summary

76
Summary

Introduction o If more anchor bolts rows are activated,


Anchor bolts only the steel failure of anchor bolt is allowed
Classification
Assessment I
to ensure the ductile failure.
Component meth.
In compression o In Component Method limits the prying
In tensions
Assembly
of anchor bolts failure mode 1-2.
Assessment II
CBFEM o In CBFEM are taken into account prying forces.
Validation
Verification
if it decides on the bearing capacity and
Sensitivity study the anchoring to concrete is strong enough,
Benchmark case
the predicted resistance may be higher.
Assessment III
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

Thank your for attention


Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification

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

CEN/TR 17081:2018 Design of fastenings for use in concrete - Plastic design of


fastenings with headed and post-installed fasteners, CEN, Brussels, 2018,
Introduction ready for release.
Anchor bolts
EN1992-1-1:2006, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1,
Classification
General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Assessment I
Component meth. EN1992-4:2018 Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures – Part 4: Design of
In compression fastenings for use in concrete , CEN, Brussels, 2018, ready for release.
In tensions EN1993-1-8:2006, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
Assembly joints, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Assessment II EN1994-1-1:2010, Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete
CBFEM structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 2010.
Validation
ETAG 001: 2010, Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors
Verification
for Use in Concrete – Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages, Brussels,
Sensitivity study
EOTA, 2010.
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

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

You might also like