CZASOPISMO INŻYNIERII LĄDOWEJ, ŚRODOWISKA I ARCHITEKTURY

JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENT AND ARCHITECTURE

JCEEA, t. XXXV, z. 65 (2/18), kwiecień-czerwiec 2018, s. 187-196, DOI:10.7862/rb.2018.35

Jan ZAMOROWSKI1
Grzegorz GREMZA2

ON THE DESIGN OF A STEEL END-PLATE

BEAM-TO-COLUMN BOLTED JOINT
ACCORDING TO PN-EN 1993-1-8
Considering joints with unstiffened columns, the load capacity of an inner bolt-row
being a part of bolts group defined by a flange capacity is directly proportional to
a distance between bolts. In turn, a flexibility of the column flange in the inner
bolt-row area depends not only on that distance but also on a flexibility of other
basic joint components. Hence, that situation may occur, when internal forces in
inner bolt-row will be greater than its capacity estimated as an equivalent of
T-stub. This possibility has been taken into account in the standard [3] – see the
rule in the point 6.2.4.2 (3). In practice, this rule is not implemented in calculations
of this kind of joints. In this work, a simplified algorithm of these joints calculation
as well as an example, where the need for force reduction in the inner bolt-row to
the value of bolt resistance has occurred, were presented. Moreover, the influence
of the aforementioned reduction on the joint stiffness was estimated.

Keywords: component method, equivalent T-stub, joint capacity and stiffness

1. Introduction
In available publications in the field of bolted end-plate beam-to-column
joints calculation, e.g. [1], [2], it is recognized that the load capacity of analysed
joint is sufficient, if the condition M j,Ed < M j,Rd, introduced in point 6.2.7(1) of
standard [3] is fulfilled, what may result from the general rule contained in the
point 6.1.3 (4) of this standard. However, in specific provisions concerning the
capacity of an equivalent of T-stub in tension zone – see point 6.2.4.2(3) –
additional requirements regarding the values of forces in each bolt-rows and in
groups of these rows are introduced.

1
Corresponding author: Jan Zamorowski, University of Bielsko-Biala, Faculty of Materials, Civil
and Environmental Engineering, ul. Willowa 2, 43-360 Bielsko-Biała; tel. +48609654098;
[email protected]
2
Grzegorz Gremza, Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice, Department of Building
Structures, ul. Akademicka 5, 44-100 Gliwice; tel. +48662349538; [email protected]
188 J. Zamorowski, G. Gremza

It is required that:
a) forces transferred by each bolt-row should not exceed the design resistance
determined considering only that individual bolt-row, and,
b) the total force of each bolt-rows group, comprised two or more adjacent
bolt-rows within the same bolt-group, should not exceed the design resistance
of that group of bolt-rows.
These provisions indicate the necessity of estimation the values of forces in
individual bolt rows and groups of rows, in order to compare them with the
resistances of these rows and groups of rows. If the forces in some rows or group
of rows would be greater than their load capacity, the load capacity of the joint
should be reduced.
Such a case may occur in joint of a beam with an unstiffened column
(Fig. 1a), when the load capacity of these joint is determined by the resistance of
the column flange in tension zone.
a) b) c) d)

Fig. 1. Joint of a beam with an unstiffened column; a) side view and section a-a,
b), c) and d) yield lines of a column flange

According to the standard [3], the model of the destruction of the unstiffened
column flange is assumed analogously to the model of equivalent T-stub,
considering the individual bolt rows and groups of these rows. Bolt rows are
numbered starting from the most distant one from the centre of compression.
In case of unstiffened column flange, only one group of bolts with the 1st and next
rows may occur, while in case of the end plate – two groups, one group above
a beam flange and the second one under that flange. Thus, in a column with
an unstiffened web, group of rows 1-2, 1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4 may occur, if the fourth row
is present, while group 2-3 or 2-3-4 does not occur. However, such groups appear
for the modelling of end-plate with one row of bolts placed above a beam flange.
The yield lines for an equivalent of T-stub flange of the column for the
non-circular mechanism of failure is presented in Fig. 1d. If a group of bolts,
On the Design of a Steel End-Plate Beam-to-Column Bolted Joint… 189

consisted of rows 1-2 in joint with three rows is considered (see Fig. 1c), the
length of the equivalent of T-stub is bigger only by (p1 + p2)/2 from the effective
length for row 1 of this group. Thus, there is a big difference of the effective
length values for bolts in row 1 and 2 from a group of rows (compare Fig. 1b
and 1c). Analysis of these lengths indicates that the design resistance capacity of
the inner bolt rows of the bolt group is much smaller than design resistance of
the end bolt-row and is directly proportional to the effective length of the inner
row. In turn, the distribution of forces for individual bolt rows is dependent on
the stiffness of all components of the joint - see Fig. 2, on which only the
stiffness coefficients relevant to the rotational stiffness of the joint are shown.

Fig. 2. Component model of joint with marking as in [N1]

For instance, decreasing of the effective length of an unstiffened column

flange in bending in the area of row 2 by 50% will also decrease the load
capacity of this flange by 50%, but decreasing of the connection stiffness in that
area does not exceed a dozen or so percent. This is due to the fact that the
flexibility of a joint in the area of the bolt-row 2 is the sum of the flexibility of
the joint components: column web in tension, column flange in bending, end-plate
in bending, bolts in tension and, in addition, a beam web flexibility in the tensile
zone, which was omitted in the algorithm of the stiffness of joints calculation
given in standard [3] as a negligible value. It can, therefore, be concluded that
when the effective length of the column flange in bending in the area of the inner
rows is changed, the redistribution of internal forces in the connection will be
different than the variation of the load capacity of these rows, which means that
the internal bolts may be overloaded.
The presented analysis indicates that checking the condition of the joint load
capacity in accordance with 6.2.7.1(1) in [3]: Mj,Ed < Mj,Rd where Mj,Rd – load
capacity according to 6.2.7.2 may not be sufficient. So, in order to ensure the load-
bearing capacity of individual bolt rows, it is necessary to fulfill the conditions
contained in point 6.2.4.2(3) of standards [3].
In the paper, the algorithm for calculating of an end-plate joint between
a beam and unstiffened column with three rows of bolts, with an indication of
what components should be considered for individual rows of bolts and groups of
rows, will be presented. In that algorithm, the requirements listed in point 6.2.4.2 (3)
190 J. Zamorowski, G. Gremza

of standards [3] will be taken into account. This algorithm will be supplemented
with a numerical example, in which there will be a need to reduce the load
capacity of the joint due to the need to ensure the safety of bolt group 1-2.
The influence of earlier plasticization of the T-stub flange (at lower values of
the bending moment in the frame girder) on the rotational stiffness of the joint will
also be assessed.

2. Algorithm of beam-to-column joint load capacity estimating

Analyzed joint consists of compression zone, shear zone and tension zone.
The load-bearing capacity of the tension zone is not greater than the minimum
load capacity of the compression and shearing zones. According to [3], in the
compression zone are located: column web, web and flange of a frame girder
(beam) or flange and web of a haunch, and the shear zone consists of a web of
a column. In the tension zone is located: column web, column flange, end-plate
with bolts and web of the frame girder. In general, the way of estimation the joint
load capacity according to the standard involves determining the minimum design
resistance of the joint parts in tension and in shear and then determining the
minimum design resistance of each bolt-row as individual as well as a part of
a group of them. Next, the sum of obtained design resistances in the rows from 1
to r is compared with the minimum load capacity of the joint parts in tension zone
and in the compression zone. If this sum is greater than the minimum load
capacity of the tension zone and compression zone, the load capacity of the row r
is reduced. The second stage is to determine the load capacity of the joint
according to the standard formula (6.23) [3]. In the third stage, the values of forces
in each bolt rows are determined, e.g. by use of the elastic model as in Fig. 2.
Then, the obtained values of forces are compared in individual bolt rows and in
bolt-row groups. In the case when the forces in the rows or groups of rows are
greater than their design resistances, the calculated load capacity of the joint is
proportionally reduced.
Details of the algorithm are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Details of algorithm of beam-to-column joint calculation

Design resistance of basic components in compression and shear

Column web panel Column web in Beam flange and web
in shear transverse compression in compression
Fc , v, min, Rd =
Vwp , Rd / β

min  Fc , wc , Rd
 F
 c , fb, Rd

Vwp ,Rd / β acc. 6.2.6.1 Fc, wc , Rd acc. 6.2.6.2 Fc, fb, Rd acc. 6.2.6.7
On the Design of a Steel End-Plate Beam-to-Column Bolted Joint… 191

Table 1. (cont.) Details of algorithm of beam-to-column joint calculation

Algorithm of the design resistance of the bolt-row 1 determination

Column web Column flange
End-plate in bending
Ft1, Rd = in transverse tension in transverse bending

 Ft1, wc , Rd

min  Ft1, fc, Rd
F
 t1, ep, Rd
acc. 6.2.7.2(6)
Ft1, wc , Rd acc. 6.2.6.3 Ft1, fc, Rd acc. 6.2.6.4 Ft1,ep, Rd acc. 6.2.6.5
Limiting the design resistance due to the compression and shear of the joint parts, acc. 6.2.7.2(7)
Ft1, Rd ≤ Fc ,v,min, Rd
Design resistance of individual bolt-row 2
Column web in Column flange in End-plate in Beam web in
Ft 2, Rd ,ind transverse tension transverse bending bending tension

 Ft 2,wc , Rd

 Ft 2, fc, Rd
= min 
 Ft 2,ep, Rd
 Ft 2,wb , Rd

acc. 6.2.7.2(6) Ft 2,wc , Rd Ft 2, fc, Rd Ft 2,ep , Rd Ft 2, wb , Rd
acc. 6.2.6.3 acc. 6.2.6.4 acc. 6.2.6.5 acc. 6.2.6.8
Limiting the design resistance due to compression and shear of the joint parts
Ft 2, Rd ,ind ≤ Fc,v,min, Rd − Ft1, Rd .

Design resistance of row 2 as a part of group of bolt rows 1-2

Column web in transverse tension Column flange in transverse bending

Ft1−2, Rd
 Ft1−2,wc , Rd
= min 
 Ft1−2, fc, Rd

Ft1− 2, wc , Rd acc. 6.2.6.3 Ft1−2, fc, Rd acc. 6.2.6.4

Limiting the design resistance of the bolt-row due to design resistance of the group of bolt-rows
according to 6.2.7.2(8): Ft 2, Rd = min( Ft 2, Rd ,ind , Ft 2, Rd , group ), where Ft 2, Rd , group = Ft1− 2, Rd − Ft1, Rd .
If in connections exposed to dynamic actions and vibrations Ft1, Rd > 1.9 Ft 2 , Rd
then Ft 2, Rd ≤ Ft1, Rd ⋅ h2 / h1 - acc. 6.2.7.2 (9) +NA.5.
192 J. Zamorowski, G. Gremza

Table 1. (cont.) Details of algorithm of beam-to-column joint calculation

Design resistance of individual bolt-row 3

Column web in Column flange in End-plate in Beam web in
transverse tension transverse bending bending tension
Ft 3, Rd ,ind
 Ft 3,wc ,Rd

 Ft 3, fc, Rd
= min 
 Ft 3,ep, Rd
 Ft 3,wb , Rd
 Ft 3, wc , Rd Ft 3, fc, Rd Ft 3,ep, Rd Ft 3, wb , Rd
acc. 6.2.6.3 acc. 6.2.6.4 acc. 6.2.6.5 acc. 6.2.6.8
Limiting of the bolt-row resistance due to components in bending and shear
Ft 3, Rd ≤ Fc , v , min, Rd − ( Ft1, Rd + Ft 2, Rd ) - acc. 6.2.7.2(7).
Design resistance of row 3 as a part of group of rows 1 – 3 and 2 – 3
Column web in Column flange in End-plate in Beam web in
Ft1−3, Rd = transverse tension transverse bending bending tension
 Ft1−3, wc , Rd
min 
 Ft1−3, fc, Rd
Ft 2−3, Rd =
 Ft 2−3,ep , Rd
min  Ft1−3, wc , Rd Ft1−3, fc, Rd Ft 2−3,ep , Rd Ft 2−3,wb , Rd
 Ft 2−3, wb , Rd
acc. 6.2.6.3 acc. 6.2.6.4 acc. 6.2.6.5 acc. 6.2.6.8
Limiting of resistance due to resistance of the group of rows – acc. 6.2.7.2(8)
Ft 3, Rd = min( Ft 3, Rd ,ind , Ft 3, Rd , group ,c , Ft 3, Rd , group ,b ),
where Ft 3, Rd , group , c = Ft1− 3, Rd − ( Ft1, Rd + Ft 2, Rd ), Ft 3,Rd , group ,b = Ft 2−3, Rd − Ft 2, Rd .
If in connections exposed to dynamic actions and vibrations
Ft 3, Rd > 1.9 Ftx , Rd , where x = 1.2 to Ft 3, Rd ≤ Ftx , Rd ⋅ h3 / hx - acc. 6.2.7.2 (9) +NA.5.
Design bending resistance Mj,Rd acc. to formula (6.25)
Stiffness coefficients of the joint basic components – acc. to point 6.3.
Values of forces in each bolt-row (Ni,Ed)
may be calculated e.g. using the model shown in Fig. 2.
The requirements contained in point 6.2.4.2(3) a), omitted in algorithms:
If N i, Ed > Fti , Rd ,ind , then wi = Fti , Rd ,ind N i, Ed for i = 1, 2, 3
The requirements contained in point. 6.2.4.2(3) b), omitted in algorithms
r r
If ∑ N i, Rd > Ft1−r , Rd , then wr + 2 = Ft1− r ∑ N i , Rd for r = 2, 3 - for group of column flange.
i =1 i =1
3 3
If ∑ N i, Rd > Ft 2 − 3, Rd , then w6 = Ft 2 − 3 ∑ N i , Rd - for end-plate
i =2 i =2

If wi < 1.0, then wmin = min( wi ) for i = 1, by 1, to 6 and

M j , Rd , red = wmin ⋅ M j , Rd .
On the Design of a Steel End-Plate Beam-to-Column Bolted Joint… 193

3. Calculation example
As an example, a joint in frame that was made of S235 steel, with end-plate
bolted connection category E between IPE 500 and column HE 300 B with
geometrical characteristics as in Fig. 3, was selected.

Fig. 3. Analyzed beam-to column joint with bolts M20-10.9

The obtained results of calculations are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Design resistance of a joint without reduction resulting from the rule in point 6.2.4.2 (3)

Design resistance of joint basic components in compression and in shear

Vwp , Rd / β Column web Column web in Beam flange and

 panel in shear transverse compression web in compression
Fc ,v,min, Rd = min  Fc ,wc , Rd
 F 579.4 kN 588.1 kN 1 068 kN
 c , fb, Rd
= 579.4 kN Vwp ,Rd / β Fc, wc , Rd Fc , fb, Rd
Algorithm of the design resistance of the bolt-row 1 determination
 Ft1,wc , Rd Column web in Column flange in End-plate
 transverse tension transverse bending in bending
Ft1, Rd = min  Ft1, fc, Rd
F 411.0 kN 266.5 kN 264.3 kN
 t1,ep , Rd
= 264.3 kN Ft1, wc , Rd Ft1, fc, Rd Ft1,ep, Rd
There is no need to limit the resistance due to joint components in bending and shear
Ft1,Rd = 264.3 kN < Fc,v ,min,Rd = 579.4 kN
194 J. Zamorowski, G. Gremza

Table 2. (cont.) Resistance of a joint without reduction resulting from the rule in point 6.2.4.2 (3)

Design resistance of individual bolt-row 2

 Ft 2, wc , Rd Column web in Column flange in End-plate Beam web
 transverse tension transverse bending in bending in tension
 Ft 2, fc, Rd
Ft 2, Rd ,ind = min 
411.0 kN 266.5 kN 323.1 kN 624.2 kN
 Ft 2,ep , Rd
 Ft 2, wb , Rd
 Ft 2, wc , Rd Ft 2, fc, Rd Ft 2,ep, Rd Ft 2, wb , Rd
=266.5 kN
There is no need to limit the load capacity due to joint components in bending and shear
Ft 2, Rd , ind = 266.5 kN ≤ 579.4 − 264.3 = 315.1 kN
Resistance of row 2 as a part of a the group of rows 1-2
Column web in transverse Column flange in transverse
 Ft1−2, wc , Rd tension bending
Ft1−2, Rd = min 
 Ft1− 2, fc, Rd 506.6 kN 348.5 kN
= 348.5 kN Ft1− 2, wc , Rd Ft1−2, fc, Rd
Limiting of the row resistance due to the resistance of the group of rows:
Ft 2, Rd , group = 348.5 − 264.3 = 84.2 kN, Ft 2, Rd = min(266.5, 84.2) = 84.2 kN
Connection is not exposed to dynamic actions and vibrations.
Design resistance of individual row 3
 Ft 3,wc , Rd Column web in Column flange in End-plate Beam web
 transverse tension transverse bending in bending in tension
 Ft 3, fc, Rd
Ft 3, Rd ,ind = min  411.0 kN 266.5 kN 303.7 kN 537.6 kN
 Ft 3,ep , Rd
Ft 3,wb , Rd
 Ft 3, wc , Rd Ft 3, fc, Rd Ft 3,ep , Rd Ft 3, wb , Rd
= 266.5 kN
Limiting of the resistance due to components in bending and shear:
Ft3,Rd ≤ 579.4-(264.3+84.2)= 230.9 kN, hence Ft3,Rd = 230.9 kN.
Design resistance of row 3 as a part of group 1 – 3 and 2 – 3
Ft1−3,wc , Rd Column web in Column flange in End-plate Beam web
Ft1−3, Rd = min  transverse tension transverse bending in bending in tension
 Ft1−3, fc, Rd
= 569.2 kN 688.1 kN 569.2 538.0 kN 768.0 kN
 Ft 2−3,ep , Rd
Ft 2−3, Rd = min 
 Ft 2−3,wb , Rd Ft1−3,wc , Rd Ft1−3, fc, Rd Ft 2−3,ep , Rd Ft 2−3, wb , Rd
= 538.0 kN
Limiting of the resistance due to the resistance of group of row – acc. 6.2.7.2(8)
Ft 3, Rd , group , c = 569.2 − (364.3 + 84.2) = 220.7 kN, Ft 3, Rd , group , b = 538.0 − 84.2 = 453.8 kN
Ft 3, Rd = min( 230.9, 220.7, 453.8) = 220.7 kN
Design resistance of a joint in bending
M j , Rd = ∑ Ftr , Rd ⋅ hr = 264 .3 ⋅ 0.526 + 84.2 ⋅ 0.442 + 220 .7 ⋅ 0.382 = 260 .54 kNm
r
On the Design of a Steel End-Plate Beam-to-Column Bolted Joint… 195

Table 2. (cont.) Resistance of a joint without reduction resulting from the rule in point 6.2.4.2 (3)

Stiffness coefficient of the basic joint components

Bolt-row
Component Stiffness coefficient
1 2 3
Column web in transverse tension k3·103 [m] 4.620
2,116 4.267
Column flange in transverse bending k4·103 [m] 44.683
20.466 41.272
Beam web in tension k5·103 [m] 25.129
17.328 13.810
Bolts in tension k10·103 [m] 6.374
6.374 6.374
The effective stiffness coefficient keff, r·103 [m] 2.296
1.359 2.050
The equivalent lever arm zeq [m] 0.463
Column web panel in shear k1·103 [m] 3.894
Column web in compression k2·103 [m] 8.655
Bolt forces calculated according to the model as in Fig. 2 for MEd = Mj,Rd = 260,5 kN
and design resistances of bolts
Bolt-rows Force [kN] Design resistance [kN] wi
1 173.9 264.3
2 247.7 266.5
3 155.9 230.9
1-2 173.9+247.7 = 421.6 348.5 0.827
1-3 421.6+155.9 = 577.5 569.2 0.986
2-3 247.7+155.9 = 403.6 538.0
wmin = 0.827
M j , Rd , red = 0.827 ⋅ 260.5 = 215.5 kNm

Using the standard formula (6.27) in [3], the effect of the joint load capacity
reduction on its stiffness Sj was evaluated. The stiffness ratio µ given in formulas
(6.28a) and (6.28b) was taken into account. Obtained results in the form of the
M - ø relationship, where ø = M/Sj is shown in Fig. 4.
After load capacity reduction, a secant stiffness Sj of analysed joint under
load M = 2/3Mj,Rd is equal
to 60% of its stiffness
calculated without that
reduction.

Fig. 4. Relationship M - ø: 1 – for Mj,Rd, 2 – for Mj,Rd,red

196 J. Zamorowski, G. Gremza

4. Concluding remarks
In this work, the algorithm for calculating of a joint between the beam and
unstiffened column with end-plate and three rows of bolts, with an indication on the
components for each row of bolts and groups of bolt rows which should be
considered, was described. In this regard, many available examples are not in
compliance with the requirements contained in [3]. In such a joint, other groups of
bolt rows for the column flange than for the end-plate should be considered.
According to the standard [3], groups of rows starting from the row most distant
from the compression zone are taken into account. Therefore, in a flange of
an unstiffened column the groups of rows 1-2, 1-2-3, etc. may occur, whereas in
extended end-plate it would be the row of bolt placed above upper flange of a beam
and group of rows 2-3. So, in the case of an unstiffened column flange, the group of
bolt rows 2-3 cannot be considered. Such a group will occur only in a joint with
a stiffened column.
A calculation example of a beam-to-column joint was also presented. It was
demonstrated that in joint under the load equal to load capacity Mj,Rd derived from
the formula (6.25) in [3] it may happen, that the load capacity of the column flange
is exceeded in the area of the group of bolt rows 1-2. For this reason, the reduction
of this capacity is necessary as follows from the point 6.2.4.2 (3) in the standard [3].
In the presented example, forces in each bolt rows were estimated on the basis
of a linear model using stiffness coefficients adopted in the standard [3]. This way
of calculation may be easily applied by a designer. In order to better understanding
of the state of forces and deformations in a joint of a beam with an unstiffened
column, it would be advisable to make a model of a joint by using the finite
element method and to determine the values of these forces using elastic, elastically
plastic and plastic models, e.g. as in [4]. These analyses would allow estimating the
accuracy of simplified models and their suitability for design purposes.

References
[1] Kozłowski A., Pisarek Z., Wierzbicki S.,: Projektowanie doczołowych połączeń
śrubowych według PN-EN 1993-1-1 i PN-EN 1993-1-8. Inżynieria i Budownictwo
4/2009, s. 103–204.
[2] CSI Hellas: Dimensioning of Metallic Connections per EC3. Manual of Analysis and
verification examples. Analysis reference and verification. Sparta, Greece 2007.
[3] PN-EN 1993-1-8: 2006+AC: 2009+Ap1:2010 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures,
Part 1.8: Design of joints.
[4] Butterworth J.: Finite Element Analysis of Structural Steelwork. Beam to Column
Bolted Connections. Constructional Research Unit, School of Science & Technology,
University of Teesside.

Przesłano do redakcji: 12.04.2018 r.

Przyjęto do druku: 15.06.2018 r.