Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: The companion paper has reported the results from a test programme in which web cleat connections
Received 13 June 2008 were subjected to various combinations of shear, tying and moment actions at elevated temperatures.
Received in revised form These tests showed that web cleat connections have very good tying resistance and rotational capacity,
28 August 2008
mainly due to the large deformation of which the web cleats are capable. In this paper a mechanical
Accepted 3 November 2008
Available online 27 December 2008
model is developed to predict the behaviour of web cleats subjected to tying forces. This model considers
the formation of four plastic hinges on each angle and the effect of the angles opening in enhancing their
Keywords:
resistance. It is capable of representing the action of the angles in component-based models for web cleat
Web cleat connection connections, in which algorithms for other components, including bolts in tension, bolts in double shear
Fire and holes in bearing, are already available. Failure criteria determined from the tests have been introduced
Tying capacity into the models for components such as web cleats and bolts in double shear. This enables the component-
Component-based method based assembly to predict the occurrence and the sequence of connection failure. The behaviour of the
connection predicted by the component-based model shows good correlation with the test results, which
indicates that the developed model can be adopted in structural frame analysis to consider connection
failure.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2. Development of a mechanical model for the web cleat cantilever beams with concentrated forces at their ends, as shown
in Fig. 1. Each beam can form a plastic hinge at each end. The
Previously, one simple model has been developed by Owens and original lengths of these two beams are L1 and L2 respectively.
Moore [18] to predict the tying capacity of web cleat connections. When the angle is pulled by the force F applied to the beam web,
The load capacity was calculated on the basis of a plastic hinge it is assumed that Beam 1 is subjected to large deflection, and
mechanism without consideration of deformation history. The its effective span shortens to L0 . However, Beam 2 is assumed to
capacities predicted by this method were around 60% of those have only a small deflection, and its span remains at L2 . The total
found under tests when the connections were subjected to pure deformation of the angle due to the force F is therefore equal to
tying force, normal to the column face. Considering that in reality the deflection of Beam 1. A tri-linear material model with infinite
connections are rarely subjected to pure tension, it is apparent that ductility, shown schematically in Fig. 1, is adopted. The moments
the bolt rows cannot all reach their maximum resistances at the at the fixed ends of Beams 1 and 2 are denoted as Mr1 and Mr2 . The
same time. A model which can relate the displacement of each bolt moments at the ends of the two beams at the heel are the same,
row to the equivalent force generated by that bolt row, considering and are denoted as M0 . The moments My and Mu are the yield and
the deformation behaviour of the relevant parts of the web cleats, ultimate moment capacities of the cross-section.
is necessary to predict the connection behaviour. Ramli-Sulong In the subsequent formulations it is assumed that plastic hinges
et al. [17] state that they have incorporated a component-based can form at the ends of the legs. Before the moments at these
model for web cleat connections into the program ADAPTIC, positions reach My the behaviour at these positions is controlled
although no detail is given of the model’s principles or formulation. by elasticity and continuity; after they reach Mu , a plastic hinge
Their model appears to be based on the traditional two parameters is created. Between My and Mu , the behaviour at these positions
of initial stiffness and plastic resistance. This would not be enough is assumed as being described by a linear variation of moment
to describe the behaviour of the angles, which have the potential and rotation, as shown in Fig. 2. Before the force–deformation
for considerable enhancement of their resistance as the angles behaviour of the two beams can be resolved, the tangent rotational
open at large deformation. In this section, a mechanical model is stiffness Kr is derived on the basis of a bilinear stress–strain
developed on the basis of beam theory for a single bolt row working relationship, assuming the Young’s modulus to be infinitely large.
together with a finite-width strip of the web cleat angle section. A The ultimate moment Mu is practically unachievable. Taking the
complete connection can be treated as an assembly of a number of stress state shown in Fig. 2 as the final state, the tangent rotational
such bolt rows; each of which can have different but compatible stiffness can be defined as
deformations. Kr = Mu0 − My /θu0 .
(1)
2.1. Development of the mechanical model For a beam with equal but opposite moments at its ends, the length
of a plastic hinge can be assumed to be the length of the yielded
Fig. 1 shows one of the angles from a double web cleat part at each end. The moment and rotation of the hinge can then
connection. It has a finite width w and has one bolt through each be calculated as
leg. In the mechanical model, this is considered as two orthogonal 1
2
beams connected at the middle of the heel. The bolts attached to Mu0 = w t 2 f y + E t εu (2)
the column flange are assumed to be able to provide full fixity, 4 3
whereas those attached to the beam web allow movement in the L Mu − My
plane of the web. The two legs of the angle are then treated as θu0 = εu . (3)
t Mu
700 H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708
Substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1) and expressing My as Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (6) gives
1
4
wt 2 fy , the tangent rotational stiffness can be calculated from 1
L1 = L0 +
Et I Mu 2 (EI )2
Kr = 2 . (4)
L Mu − My 1 F 1
× F 2 L50 − (FL0 − M0 ) L40 + (FL0 − M0 )2 L30 . (10)
20 4 3
In the following sections, the forces and deformations of the angles
in web cleat connections are solved by considering the changes of Calculating θ1,end and θ2,end from Eq. (9) and substituting them into
the state in the regions of these plastic hinges. Eq. (8) gives
L32 L22
1. Deformation compatibility for Beam 1 dictates that the curved 1
L1 − L0 = H − M0 . (14)
length of Beam at any deflection should be equal to its original EI 3 2
length L1 .
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (14) and solving for M0 gives
L0 L0
Z Z
1
q
L1 = 1 + δ102 dx ≈ 1 + δ102 dx. (6) (L1 − L0 )EI + 13 FL20 L2
0 0 2 M0 = 1 2
. (15)
L
6 2
+ 23 L0 L2
2. Deformation compatibility at the joint of the two beams implies
that. Substituting M0 into Eq. (10) gives an equation in L0 , which can
be solved iteratively. When L0 is known, M0 and δ1,end can be
L1 − L0 = δ2,end (7) evaluated accordingly. The end of this phase is determined by
θ1,end + θ2,end = 0. (8) Mr1 = My .
Phase b. When My < Mr1 ≤ Mu and M0 ≤ My
These equations are solved for various yielding phases. During the
In the subsequent phases, the expression for the integration
loading, it is assumed that Mr1 > M0 > Mr2 . This is generally true.
in Eq. (6) becomes too complicated to be solved directly. An
In the elastic phase, for both Beams 1 and 2, δ 0 = 0x=0 ;
incremental method is adopted instead. The applied force F is
therefore, C1 = 0. For Beam 1, increased by a small amount ∆F in every step. Each step uses
the value of L0 from the previous step, and this value is updated
x2
1 again at the end of this step for use in the next. For convenience in
δ10 = F L0 x − − M0 x . (9)
EI 2 calculation, M0 is used as the controlling incremental parameter.
H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708 701
3EI (L1 − L0 ) + 3
2
M0 L22
H = (25)
L32
1
+ (Kr + HL0 ) 2∆M0 KEIr − 12 HL22 + M0 (L0 + L2 )
EI M0 + My − 2
HM0 L22
F = 1
EIL0 − 6
HL30 + 21 Kr L20
(26)
EI 1 1
C1 = 2∆M0 − FL20 − HL22 + M0 (L0 + L2 ) (27)
Kr 2 2
1 1 1
Fig. 3. Deformation of Beam 1 when both ends reach ultimate moment. δ1,end = FL30 − M0 L20 + C1 L0 . (28)
EI 3 2
FL0 − M0 − H δ − My
In this phase, Eq. (17) should be replaced by
= Kr (16)
C1 /EI FL0 − M0 − H δ1,end = Mu . (29)
in which dM = FL0 − M0 − H δ − My is the increment of the Then, for each increment in M0 , Eqs. (24), (14), (16) and
hinge moment, referred to the end of the linear–elastic phase, and (29) together give
dθ = C1 /EI is the increment of the corresponding rotation.
From Eq. (5), 3EI (L1 − L0 ) + 32 M0 L22
H = (30)
L32
1 1
EI δ1,end = FL30 − M0 L20 + C1 L0 (17) δ1,end
3 2
2∆M0 · EI
· L0 − 16 Mu L20 + M0 1 2
+ L0 L2 − 12 HL0 L22
Kr
L
3 0
Eqs. (11) and (14) remain valid for this phase. Eqs. (11), (14), (16) = (31)
and (17) together give the following parameters for each increment EI + 16 HL20
of M0 : Mu + M0 + H δ
F = (32)
3EI (L1 − L0 ) + 32 M0 L22 L0
H = (18)
L32 EI δ1,end − 13 FL30 + 21 M0 L20
C1 = . (33)
1 H Kr H
− 12 HL22 + M0 (L0 + L2 ) L0
M0 + My − 2 EI
M0 L22 + EI
+ L
EI 0
F = 1 H 3 1 2 Kr
+ EIH L0
L0 − L + L When the values of these parameters are known, L0 is updated
3 EI 0 2 0 EI
using Eq. (22). This phase terminates when M0 = Mu .
(19)
From Phases b to d, all the above equations have been derived
1 1 based on the assumption that the fixed end of Beam 2 remains
C1 = M0 (L0 + L2 ) − FL20 − HL22 (20)
2 2 elastic. Whenever it is detected that Mr2 > My , then the
appropriate Eqs. (18), (25) and/or (30) giving H should be modified
1 1 1
δ1,end = FL30 − M0 L20 + C1 L0 . (21) accordingly:
EI 3 2
As F , M0 and C1 are known for this step, the integration in Eq. (6)
Kr
∆Mr2 = HL2 − M0 − My = C2 (34)
can be expanded to give EI
1 1
1 EI δ2,end = HL32 − Mu L22 + C2 L2 . (35)
L1 − L0 = 3 2
2 (EI ) 2
Substituting the expressions for θ1,end and θ2,end into Eq. (23) gives dδ = L · dθ · cos θ . (37)
Therefore, the total deflection is
L20 L22
EI
F − M0 L0 + H − M0 L2 + C 1 = 2∆M0 . (24) δ1,end = δ1,end + dδ. (38)
2 2 Kr
702 H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708
Kr
∆Mr2 = Mr2 − My = C2 (44) Fig. 4. Determination of the equivalent support position.
EI
1 1 head/nut is positioned on the web cleat as shown in Fig. 4, the
EI δ2,end = HL32 − Mu L22 + C2 L2 . (45)
3 2 bolt head/nut is able to provide full restraint against lifting of the
Substituting Eq. (42) into Eq. (44) and eliminating C2 between web cleat along its inner edge. Beyond the circumference of the
Eqs. (44) and (45) gives bolt head/nut, the restraint is assumed to extend in the directions
of the hexagonal bolt head faces. The equivalent support position
EI δ2,end + 12 Mu L22 + Mu + My EI
Kr
L2 is calculated as the average distance of the supported edge to the
H = . (46)
1 3
L + EI
L22 centre-line of the bolt. If the horizontal distance between the two
3 2 Kr
lines of bolts connected to the column is defined as g, then the
If Mr2 = Mu , then length of Beam 1 can be calculated as
2Mu √ √ !
H = . (47) (g − tw ) t 3 3
L2 L1 = − − RH − w . (50)
2 2 2 12
During this phase the axial force is increased gradually, which
causes a progressive reduction in the moment capacity of the
plastic hinges. The interaction equation relating the capacity of 2.2.2. Determination of the material properties
a plastic hinge in a rectangular solid section subjected to a
This model assumes a tri-linear stress–strain relationship
combination of axial force and moment can be written as [19]
for the steel. When used in real applications, the stress–strain
N
2
Mu
relationship needs to be approximated to a tri-linear model.
+ = 1. (48) This section will discuss the determination of these properties,
Nn Mn especially Et on the basis of the stress–strain relationships
For every step, the axial force in Beam 1 can be calculated as proposed by EC3: Part 1.2 [20] for hot rolled steel. Two methods
are investigated to approximate the stress–strain curves into a
N = F sin θ + H cos θ . (49)
tri-linear model. The first is to simply use the secant modulus,
The moment capacity Mu of the plastic hinges should be and the other is based on a principle of minimum deviation. The
recalculated, considering the co-existence of axial force. The effects of these two approximations on the results produced by
ultimate capacity of the whole web cleat is reached when the angle the mechanical model are compared. At ambient temperature,
is in pure tension. the increase of stress beyond the yield point is due to strain-
hardening. Two typical stress–strain curves according to EC3: Part
2.2. Determination of parameters 1.2 are shown in Fig. 5. The higher curve represents stress–strain
relationships at 350 ◦ C and below, including a hardening phase,
2.2.1. Determination of L1 and the lower one represents the curves at higher temperatures.
When one bolt row of a web cleat connection is subjected It is easy to obtain both the linear–elastic phase and the plateau
to tension, the bending behaviour of the web cleat is three- phase from these two curves. When using the secant modulus
dimensional, as the restraint from the bolt diminishes towards the approach, the secant stiffness is determined by simply connecting
free edges at both sides. When this behaviour is approximately these two lines. When based on the minimum deviation principle,
considered using a two-dimensional model, an equivalent support the transition phase always ends at the start of the plateau.
position as the supported edge of Beam 1, as shown in Fig. 4. Its intersection with an extension of the linear phase gives its
Ignoring the effect of the washer and assuming that the bolt beginning. The slope of this phase is determined such that the area
H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708 703
Fig. 6. Comparison of the mechanical model using different tri-linear model against
the finite element analysis results.
analysis allows parametric studies to be performed at little cost, 3.1. Introduction to the component behaviour
and hence the validity of the model can be checked for a wide
range of applications. This section compares the mechanical model A typical web cleat connection involves 4 springs in series for
to finite element analysis results for a simple case, in which two each bolt row, as shown in Fig. 11. These represent bolts in tension,
web cleats were used to connect the beam web to a fixed rigid web cleats in bending, bolts in shear and the beam web in bearing.
plate, as shown in Fig. 7. A pulling force normal to the rigid In this section, this model is used to simulate the twelve web cleat
plate was applied to the beam web. A three-dimensional finite connection tests reported in the companion paper [6]. Considering
element model was created using solid elements, and all bolts were that, in the current set of tests, the behaviour of the web cleat in
explicitly modelled. The material properties of the web cleats are bearing is not critical, it is not considered, but can be added where
shown in the figure. To prevent bolt failure, the bolts were assumed necessary. The properties of the springs are introduced separately.
to remain elastic. Both the beam web and the fixed plate were
assumed to be rigid. a. Bolts in tension
Two parameters were studied; the width w of the web cleat The properties of bolts in tension are simply derived from
and the distance g between the bolt lines. A comparison of the the tested stress–strain relationships [21] at high temperatures
results from the mechanical model against those from the finite for the bolt material. Given the existence of threads, the net
element analysis is shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The displacements from cross-sectional area of 254 mm2 is used for the M20 bolts. The
the finite element model were measured at the axis of the bolt effective length of the bolt is calculated as the total connected
connecting the two web cleats to the beam web. The mechanical plate thickness plus half of the nut thickness. This component
model is very stiff in the elastic phase, because it assumes that the is generally both stiff and strong, and its properties have little
two bolts connecting the angles to the plate create a fixed boundary influence on the overall behaviour of the connection.
condition. At larger deflections the mechanical model generally b. Web cleat in bending
gives good correlation with the finite element analysis. It can be The force–displacement relationship for the web cleat has been
seen from Fig. 8 that the equivalent restraint position works very derived in the previous section.
well for different web cleat widths.
c. Bolts in double shear
2.3.2. Verification against test results Generally, bearing failure of bolts is not critical. However, it
It is always best to test the applicability of a simple model has been observed in the current tests that bolts can experience
to be used in practical design against test results. Owens and significant bearing deformation at elevated temperatures. It has
Moore [18] performed 11 tests on web cleat connections subjected been explained in the companion paper [6] that this is due
to normal tension. Among these, five tests were repeated, and to the combined effect of the bending and bearing forces. One
therefore a total of six tests were modelled using the mechanical inherent shortcoming of the component-based model is that it
model. The geometrical and material data of the tested connections cannot consider the interactions between different components.
are given in their paper, and this data will not be repeated here. As the bolt bending is caused by the opening of the angles, this
No information was provided about the steel’s elastic properties effect cannot be considered directly. However, a simple model is
and so, in the mechanical model, the Young’s modulus was set to introduced to consider the possible bearing deformation of the
210 kN/mm2 and the tangent modulus was calculated assuming bolts. Considering the bolt behaviour described in the previous
that the ultimate stress was achieved at a total strain of 0.04. paper, it is assumed here that the bolt starts to deform by bearing.
A comparison of the predictions from the mechanical model With further deformation, this bearing resistance increases, but the
against the test results is shown in Fig. 10. For connections with bolt’s shear resistance decreases. Beyond the point at which they
multiple rows of bolts, the total resistance is simply calculated become equal, the deformation of the bolt is controlled by shear
as the sum of the resistances of all the bolt rows. It should alone. According to EC3: Part 1.8 [8], the nominal shear and bearing
be mentioned that the reported test displacements were total resistances of an individual bolt are given by
displacements measured at the beam web. For small deflections,
it is to be expected that the test results will show much larger FV ,Rd = αV fub A (51)
deformations than the mechanical model. The failure mode for Fb,Rd = k1 αb fub dt . (52)
each test is shown in the figure. At large deflections, when the
failure is by fracture of the web cleat, the contribution from To simulate the current tests, use 0.6 for αV , 1.0 for αb and 2.5 for k1 .
other components to the total deformation is probably negligible. The behaviour of Grade 8.8 M20 bolts in double shear has been
Therefore, Tests 4 to 6 seem to indicate that the mechanical investigated experimentally at the University of Sheffield. One test
model gives high resistance, or smaller displacements, at large at ambient temperature was reported by Yu et al. [22]. The bolt
deflections. When the failure is not controlled by the web cleat, the reached a maximum resistance of 311 kN and fractured suddenly;
displacements from the tests can include significant contributions its pure shear deformation at fracture was about 2.5 mm. At
from other components, which partially explains why the test elevated temperatures, bolts in shear behaved differently, in that
result for Test 3 gives significantly higher deflection. the parts on either side of the shear planes were sheared gradually
with a progressively decreasing resistance. Several double-shear
3. Component-based model tests were performed; one of the test curves, at 450 ◦ C, is
shown in Fig. 12. Based on these test results, it is proposed that
The test results are of limited direct use in practical design, bolts are assumed to reach their maximum shear resistance at a
since in real structural detailing, the type of a connection and its displacement of 2 mm, and maintain this resistance up to 3 mm.
loading condition can differ significantly from those tested here. From 20 ◦ C to 400 ◦ C, bolts fracture in a brittle manner at about
One of the major objectives of this research project was to develop
3 mm; from 400◦ C upwards, the shear resistance reduces linearly
a set of component-based models for commonly-used types of
to zero. A mathematical description is
connection. The component-based method divides the joint into
a set of uncoupled standard components, the behaviour of which −0.2δ 2 + 0.9δ δ ∈ (0, 2)
can be described mathematically as nonlinear springs. The overall
1 δ ∈ (2, 3)
FV
behaviour of the joint can then be calculated by assembling these = 0 δ ∈ (2, 3) &T < 400◦ C (53)
springs. The test results can be used to assess the validity of the FV ,Rd
1 (20 − δ)
δ ∈ (3, 20) &T > 400 C . ◦
component-based method.
17
H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708 705
Fig. 10. Comparison of the predictions from the mechanical model against test results.
Fig. 12 shows a comparison of Eq. (53) against test results. resistance, the net resistance is assumed to drop linearly to zero
Little research has been done on the behaviour of bolts in at 20 mm displacement.
bearing deformation. The force–displacement relationship for a d. Beam web in bearing
bolt in bearing is simply derived by considering the change of the Sarraj [15] proposed a model for plates in bearing at the edges
bearing surface with the bearing deformation as shown in Fig. 13. of bolt holes. This model has been used successfully to construct
At any displacement δ , the bearing width perpendicular to this a component-based model for fin plate connections, and this has
displacement is B. The bearing resistance is then been directly adopted here. However, it should be borne in mind
that this model was developed for fin plate connections, and
therefore considers out-of-plane bending of the connected plates.
2.5 × fub × B × t δ < d/2
Fb = (54) In web cleat connections, the beam web is subjected to pure in-
2.5 × fub × d × t δ > d/2 plane loading and the bearing resistance may be higher.
p The bottom spring in Fig. 11 simulates the effect of the bottom
where B = 12 d2 + (d − 2δ)2 . flange of the beam coming into contact with the column flange at
With the increase of the bearing deformation δ , the shear high rotation. The stiffness of this spring is initially zero, but when
resistance is then calculated based on the reduction of the its displacement is equal to the initial gap between the beam end
shear area. After the bearing resistance has exceeded the shear and the column flange, its stiffness becomes infinitely large.
706 H. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 697–708
Table 1
Tri-linear material properties for the web cleat.
Temperature (◦ C) fy fu E Et
Acknowledgments
References
[1] NIST. Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. USA:
National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2005.
[2] Newman GM, Robinson JT, Bailey CG. Fire safety design: A new approach
to multi-storey steel-framed buildings. UK: The Steel Construction Institute;
2004.
Fig. 16. Comparison of the component-based model against the test results at 45◦ . [3] Ding Jun. Behaviour of restraint concrete filled tubular columns and their joints
in fire. Ph.D. thesis. UK: The University of Manchester; 2007.
[4] Leston-Jones LC. The influence of semi-rigid connections on the performance
of steel framed structures in fire. Ph.D. thesis. UK: The University of Sheffield;
1997.
[5] Al-Jabri KS. The behaviour of steel and composite beam-to-column connec-
tions in fire. Ph.D. thesis. UK: The University of Sheffield; 2000.
[6] Yu Hongxia, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Typing capacity of web cleat
connections in fire part 1: Test and finite element simulation. Eng Struct 2009;
31(3):651–63.
[7] Tschemmernegg F, Tautschnig A, Klein H, Braun Ch, Humer Ch. Zur
Nachgiebigkeit von Rahmenknoten – Teil 1. Stahlbau 56. Heft 10. 1987.
p. 299–306.
[8] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). BS EN 1993-1-8. Eurocode
3: Design of steel structures. Part 1.8: Design of Joints. UK: British Standards
Institution; 2005.
[9] Da Silva LS, Santiago A, Real VP. A component model for the behaviour
of steel joints at elevated temperatures. J Construct Steel Res 2001;57:
1169–1195.
[10] Al-Jabri KS, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Spring-stiffness model for flexible end-plate
bare-steel joints in fire. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61:1672–91.
[11] Al-Jabri KS. Component-based model of the behaviour of flexible end-
plate connections at elevated-temperature. Compos Struct 2004;66:
215–221.
Fig. 17. Comparison of the component-based model against the test results at 55◦ . [12] Spyrou S, Davison JB, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Experimental and analytical
investigation of the tension zone component within a steel joint at elevated
temperatures. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:867–96.
4. Conclusions [13] Spyrou S, Davison JB, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Experimental and analytical
investigation of the compression zone component within a steel joint at
Component-based models, which can describe the behaviour elevated temperatures. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:841–65.
[14] Block Florian. Development of a component-based finite element for steel
of a connection using an assembly of springs, provide a practical beam-to-column connections at elevated temperatures. Ph.D. thesis. UK: The
solution to include realistic behaviour and possible failure of University of Sheffield; 2006.
connections in structural analysis for fire safety. A component- [15] Sarraj Marwan. The behaviour of steel fin plate connections in fire. Ph.D. thesis.
UK: The University of Sheffield; 2007.
based model for web cleat connections is proposed in this paper. [16] Yu Hongxia, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation
It includes four springs for each bolt row, representing bolts in of the behaviour of fin plate connections in fire. J Construct Steel Res
tension, web cleats, bolts in shear, and the beam web in bearing. A [in press].
[17] Ramli-Sulong NH, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Behaviour and design of
mechanical model has been developed to describe the behaviour of beam-to-column connections under fire conditions. Fire Safety J 2007;42:
the angle in a web cleat connection. This model is based on classical 437–451.
beam theory, and considers the formation of four plastic hinges for [18] Owens GW, Moore DB. The robustness of simple connections. Struct Eng 1992;
each angle. The effect of large deformation and opening of the angle 70:37–46.
[19] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). BS EN 1993-1-2. Eurocode 3:
is included. This model has been validated against finite element Design of steel structures. Part 1.2: General rules and rules for buildings. UK:
simulations and previous test results, and is found to give a very British Standards Institution; 2005. p. 54.
good prediction of the responses of web cleats in pure tension up [20] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). BS EN 1993-1-2. Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures. Part 1.2: General rules- structural fire design. UK:
to very high deflections. British Standards Institution; 2005.
Failure criteria have been introduced for most components and, [21] Theodorou Y. Mechanical properties of Grade 8.8 Bolts at elevated tempera-
when used to simulate the behaviour of the tests on connections tures. Master’s Dissertation. UK: The University of Sheffield; 2003.
[22] Yu HX, Burgess IW, Davison JB, Plank RJ. Experimental investigation of the
reported in the companion paper, have enabled predictions of behaviour of fin plate connections in fire. In: Proceedings of ICSCS 2007; 2007.
both their peak resistance and rotational capacity. The simulation p. 541–548.
results are generally satisfactory. It should be highlighted that the [23] ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual Version 6.5. ABAQUS Inc.; 2004.