1

7D DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES, BASE BOLT JOINT

1)

M. HEINISUO1), V. LAINE2) Tampere University of Technology, Faculty of Built Environment, Tampere 2) KPM-Engineering Oy, Tampere

ABSTRACT
7D design of steel structures includes 7 components: 3D space, time, cost, fire simulation and search of good solutions (optimization). The basic idea is to integrate these 7 components applying modern computer techniques (e.g. product modeling) enhancing so the entire building process of steel structures. In the paper the general concept of 7D design is presented. The introduction of fire simulation and search of good solutions to the integration means, that in the future it may be possible to search good solutions including cost effectivity with better fire safety of steel buildings. As a case study the design of base bolt joint is presented as a part of integrated design process. The component method of Eurocodes is enlarged into 3D in the paper.

KEYWORDS
Steel structure, joint, base bolt, 7D design.

INTRODUCTION
The next figure illustrates what means 7D for the design of metal structures.

Simulation of accidents (fire, explosions) => 1D

Solver Product model => 3D Duration => 1D Search engines (optimisation) => 1D

Cost functions and cost databases => 1D

Figure 1. Dimensions in 7D design Product model including timing are the normal 4D. If cost calculations are involved, then firstly the naming 4.5D design has been proposed [1]. Now they use name 5D of that frequently. Note, that here the structural analysis and the resistance checks are included in the product model. New dimensions introduced in this research are simulation of accidents and search of good solutions.

3 These two are by no means new items in the structural design, but when they are integrated applying the product model techniques, the we call the design procedure as a 7D design. The details of the 7D design will be explained in forthcoming reports. This paper illustrates a small part of the 7D design. The essential item is that all starts from the product model. There may be different feasible solutions available in the product model for e.g. joints of the steel skeleton. The product model (PM) representation should be such, that all needed information for the tasks shown in the previous figure are available from PM. E.g. the costs of the joints should be defined with the required accuracy. To be feasible, the joint should resist all the mechanical loads both in the normal use and in the accidental situation, e.g. in the fire. All the tasks to find the good group of feasible candidate joints and to search the best solution for the case under consideration should be integrated in order to make the designers life easier. E.g. when considering the base bolt joint, the designer may search the solutions with thick base plates compared to the solution with thin base plates with stiffeners. Typically there are a lot, millions of options to look at the good solutions. It is believed, that the computer may help the designer in making the decision which is the most suitable solution for the case under consideration. This paper deals with the joint appearing in almost all the buildings, the base bolt joint. It is a good starting point to describe the generation of the local joint analysis model from the geometrical model included in the product model of the steel skeleton. Moreover, the strength check of this joint is illustrated in the paper. The analysis model should include the stiffness properties of the joint. In this paper the EN 1993-1-8 [2] will be applied to check the resistance and the stiffness of the joint. Only the normal situation is considered in this paper, not fire. The base bolt joint is a good example for this, because typical base bolt joints appearing in the buildings behave very unsymmetric when loaded by the different base moments. Generally, the stiffness properties and the resistance check equations should be presented in such a form, that they can be applied for the fire case, too. When considering the real buildings then it is clear, that there are not many joints which behave in the reality in 2D. Moreover, in practical projects nowadays the steel skeletons are analysed by the engineers in 3D. The local joint models are presented in 3D in this paper meaning the extension of the component model of Eurocodes to 3D.

INTRODUCTION TO THE JOINT ANALYSIS

The check of the resistance and stiffness of structural steel joints is one of the major tasks when designing steel structures. It has been shown by many, that during the design the essential part of the costs of steel structures will be fixed. The stiffnesses of the joints may have effect to the behaviour of the entire structure and following the most novel Eurocodes [2], [3] these effects can be taken into account for the typical joints of steel structures. However, the definitions of the stiffnesses of the joints are typically not included into the design software widely used in the design of steel structures. There exist options to give the joint stiffnesses as numerical values, but the derivations of the final values of

4 the stiffnesses should be done using some other programs which may not have direct links to the design softwares. The same holds for the checks of the resistances of the joints and for the cost estimation of the joints. If these are available with ease, then the real search of good solutions (some call this optimization) would be possible in practical projects, not only in research projects. The situation is getting better all the time with the commercial software used in structural engineering. More analysis options are coming to the modeling software and more modeling options are coming to the analysis programs. However, the development is always too slow when discussing with the engineers, and many kinds of efforts are going on to enhance the design process. The basic idea of this research is to enhance the steel design process by integration of the stiffness derivation and the resistance check to the design software, in this case to the product modeling software of steel structures widely used world wide, Tekla Structures. This program was taken for the reference, because all the industrial partners of the project use that software daily. The cost estimation and other possibilities to enhance the design process are not considered in this paper. Different levels of joint models are presented in the literature. An automatic derivation of the joint analysis models from the product models including geometrical representations is given in the reference [4]. In that report both local beam and continuum models were generated for joints and connecting of these to the main analysis model were considered. In the reference [4] the idea was to apply neutral product model files to the data transfer between geometrical modeling and analysis. In this research another method, where the analysis generation is embedded to the product model, is looked for. The total time for the data transfer and the computations should be minimized at all stages of the design process to enhance the design. The use of neutral models means program independence and the present techniques means the program dependence solution. Both have their own good features. Anyway it is believed, that the methods developed in this paper, can be at least partly implemented to both the systems in the long run. In this paper only beam models are considered and so called EN line for joint design (explained below) will be followed. The final goal is to cover the typical practical steel structures, an example is shown in the next figure. It can be seen, that the analysis model will be rather large without local joint models and then the first step to generate the local joint models should be kept as small as possible to perform the final calculations in the reasonable computational time.

Figure 2. Typical steel structure to be analysed

In the reference [2] is given a component model, which has been originally developed in [5]. This model has been modified in Sheffield University, see [6]. It should be noted, that the component model can be used for the resistance and the stiffness definitions in the normal situation and in the fire, too. Comprehensive literature for the model development of structural steel joints is given in [7]. The modifications done in Sheffield consider the separation of axial, bending and shear degrees of freedoms and the extension for the fire cases. In this project the Sheffield model will be modified further to six and enabling in the future the enlargement of the model to seven or more degrees of freedom per node. Six degrees of freedom (Bernoulli-Euler beam) are normal three displacements and three rotations in the node. The seventh degree of freedom is warping based on the wellknown beam theory of Vlasov. The enlargement of Vlasovs beam theory for eight and more degrees of freedom per node has been presented [8]. That theory includes the distortional modes of the steel members. The problem in practise is that there is a lack of programs for practising engineers where even Vlasovs beam elements are available. It should be noted too, that there exist a large lack of test results for the stiffnesses and resistances of joints in three dimensional loading cases, so the method given in this paper should be applied with care in three dimensions. However, the extension of the component model given in the Eurocodes, gives the possibility to the logical approach to the three dimensional method for the structural steel joints.

6 In this paper in maximum six degrees of freedoms per node are considered, meaning the use of Bernoulli-Euler beam elements for the members between the joints. Where the joint ends and the member starts in the analysis models will be demonstrated in the following. The basic components for the resistances and the stiffnesses of the joints are based in this study on [2] in the normal case. The brief history of the model development in this EN line is shown in the next figure.

EN 1993-1-8 Component model Tchemmemegg at al, 1987 Modified component model = Sheffield model

Modified Sheffield model = TUT model, This paper

Figure 3. Joint model development in EN line

The Sheffield model modification into the TUT model is explained in details in the following using the case study for the base bolt joint. One feature when designing the base bolt joints following [2] is, that the designer should know in advance, which are the stress resultants of the joint to apply the Tables 6.7 and 6.12 of [2]. This information is not needed when applying the TUT model, as seen in the following. The following figure illustrates the original component model and the modified component model. The figures are from [6].

Component model of EN 1993-1-8

Modified component model (Sheffield model)

Figure 4. Original component model of [2] and the modification (Sheffield model)

The modification of the Sheffield model is given in this report. The base bolt joint is used to illustrate the model in details. The modification is done by expanding the Sheffield model to connect the three dimensional beam element nodes representing the

8 connected member mechanical behaviour near the joint by applying the basic component model of [2] in three dimensions. The extension of this model to seven or more dofs per beam node is obvious, but it is not considered in this paper.

LOCAL ANALYSIS MODEL (TUT MODEL) OF THE BASE BOLT JOINT

Consider the base bolt joints, where the members having the cross-sections shown in the next figure are connected to the foundations.

Figure 5. Base bolt joints considered

As an introduction the double symmetric mid column joint with only the compressive axial load is considered. In this case only one vertical spring locating at the member end point is enough to represent the behaviour of the joint. The top end of the spring is connected to the member end analysis line node locating just above the base plate and the lower end of the spring is connected to the foundation. The foundation is supposed to be absolutely rigid. The spring represents the local displacements of the joint. When calculating the stiffness of the joint, then in this study the Eurocode [2] is used. In this compression case the stiffness of the joint is reduced only to the consideration of the effective compression zone around the parts of the connected member and stiffeners which are connected to the base plate. The effects of bolts to the compression stiffness are not taken into account in the final case, i.e. when the grout has been completed. The effect of the bolt stiffness to the compressive stiffness of the joint has been considered e.g. in [9].

9 The area of the compression zone, the elastic modulus of concrete at the area and the depth of the effective compression zone are included in the design equations following [2]. These together define the compression stiffness of the joint. Different compression stress distributions have been considered in [9] and the brief background for the equations appearing in [2] and the comparisons with different analytical and numerical solutions are given in [10]. In the references [11], [12] are given rather extensive background documentations for [2] dealing with the base bolt joints. In TUT model we do not use only one spring below the column although it would be enough for the symmetric case in the example above. Instead we use the following rules for the compressed zones all compressed flanges are divided into three equal parts and all parts have the own springs, all webs are divided into one part and these parts have only one spring, for rectangular tubes this rule is applied so that all the sides are considered as flanges, for round tubes the rule is applied as shown in the following figures, the division into 8 equal parts in the basic case.

The divisions of the compressed flanges are motivated with the more accuracy when analysing column bases in the general three dimensional cases. The division of flanges into two parts would be the minimum for e.g. I-profile weak axis bending, but the third part may produce more accurate results in the general case. Moreover, the effects of stiffeners appearing at the base bolt joints, can be taken into account with more ease when using in minimum three zones for one flange. The rules given above are illustrated in the following figure for the basic cases. The widths of the compressed areas are defined using the equations appearing in [2]. The springs at the compression areas are locating at the centroids of the compressed zones.

10

Figure 6. Basic rules for compressed areas

The rigid links shown in the previous figure ensure, that the Bernoulli hypothesis is valid for the connected column ends. Numerical tests should be done to ensure the rigidity of these links and to ensure, that the numerical stability will remain when solving the system matrix equations. In some programs exist possibilities to use the rigid links, but in this study steel members are used for those, so we can get program independent solution to this. In the previous studies [13] it has been found that square steel tubes 800x800x50 are good profiles to this purpose. In that study it was found that the minimum lengths of the rigid links should be 5 mm to ensure the stability when solving the system matrix equations. This rule should be checked for the program used in the structural analysis. The stiffnesses of the rigid links can be defined more systematically based on the stiffnesses of the springs at the end of the links [10]. It should be noted, that the rigid links should not be too rigid, when combining different level of finite elements, as shown in [4] for Bernoulli-Euler beam elements and for planar elements. In that problem Timoshenko beam elements was the proper solution for the connecting member to avoid numerical difficulties at the interface of two level elements. In the present case, where Bernoulli-Euler elements are goarsely connected to spring elements, this problem will not be active. It should be noted, that if this theory is applied for the Vlasov torsion, then the Bernoulli hypothesis should be compensated by the use of hypar surface yz at the column end deformation following the basic assumption of the Vlasov theory, but these cases are

11 not considered in this study. However, if the base plate can be considered as rigid against bimoments originating from the Vlasov theory, then the rigid links can be used. Whether the base plate can be considered as rigid in this sense, has been considered in [14]. One extra basic rule holds for the determination of the compressed area compressed area should not extent over the base plate or to the area without grout.

Some applications of the rules are given in the next figure. The spring locations are as in the previous figure. The spring stiffnesses should be reduced or enlarged (see the stiffener case in the figure) due to the sizes of the compressed areas.

Figure 7. Applications of the compressed areas

It can be seen, that in every case the compression spring does not remain to the mid plane of the compressed column flange, as is stated in [2]. If there exist no foundation within the allowed maximum width of the compressed area, then it seems to be reasonable to move the compression spring away from the mid line of the column flange, as is the situation in the two right hand cases of the previous figure. At least this assumption is on the safe side when considering the rules of [2]. The most important conclusion is that the local analysis model can be generated based on the geometrical entities connected at the joint. Consider next the tension side of the column base. The tensile resistance of the base bolt joint is originating from the tensile resistances of the base bolts. The tensile bolts and the base plate will deform during the tensile loading and the stiffness of the tensile side of the joint is calculated based on these deformations and the equations appearing in the Eurocode [2]. Now the following rules can be seen the springs at the compression side (see figures above) are compression only springs,

12 the springs at the tension side are tension only springs.

This means that we end up to the geometrical non-linear theory when applying the component model of [2]. If the program used does not include the possibility to construct this kind of geometrical non-linearity for all the load combinations, then we should find some other solution to the problem. There are given proposals to make the problem under consideration to the linear one in [10]. In this paper also one solution is shown. However, the component model mean, that we put the tensile springs at every bolt centre and the tensile stiffness of that spring is calculated using the equations of [2]. The major variables to determine the tensile stiffnesses are the effective widths of the base plates for each base bolts and the elongations of the individual bolts. The following figure illustrates the local analysis models of the base bolt joints in some cases.

Figure 8. Axial load and bending moment, local analysis models

All the rigid links are connected absolutely rigidly at the shear center (called a mid node in the following) of the column cross-section to the analysis line of the column at the level of the base plate top. All the axial springs can be generated from the geometrical entities connected at the joint, as shown above. The four situations can appear, when the shear forces and the torsional moment are acting at the base bolt joint shear stresses are transferred by the friction from the column to the foundations,

13 shear stresses are transferred by the base bolts to the foundations, shear stresses are transferred by the distinct shear key embedded with the grout to the foundations, shear stresses are transferred by the combination of two or three previous transfer mechanisms described above.

The last three cases are not considered in this study. Typically the first option to transfer the shear stresses is to use friction, if possible. Following the Eurocode [2] the shear stresses can be transferred by the friction from the column to the foundations using the friction constant 0.2. In this case the compression zones shown as shaded areas in the previous figures are multiplied by the normal stress acting at the areas and the sum of these forces multiplied by the friction coefficient should be larger than the resultant shear force at the column base. If there exist no torsional moment at the joint, then the resultant shear force is easy to calculate as the vector sum of the horizontal forces. If there exists the torsional moment, then the plastic theory can be used to calculate the shear stresses appearing at the compression zones, meaning the uniform distribution of the shear stresses at the compressed zones. The resultants are locating at the centroids of the compressed zones. If the shear stresses of the joint are taken by the friction, then at the mid joint the corresponding degrees of freedoms are fully supported, meaning the displacements in horizontal directions and the rotation around the column axis. If the shear stresses are transferred by the base bolts to the foundations then, due to extra large holes at the base plates, the washers should be welded to the base plates. The welds and washers should be designed to resist the forces transferred. The forces are calculated from the shear forces and from the torsional moment e.g. using the elastic distribution of the shear forces to the bolts. Both compressive and tensile bolts are taken into consideration and the shear forces at the bolts should be added to tensile forces acting at the bolts. In this case there exist supports at the bolts in horizontal directions. These supports can be considered as absolutely rigid in typical cases. The situation before grouting should be considered, too. In this case the bolts can resist the compressive forces and the possibility of buckling of the bolts should be taken into account when checking the resistance of the compressed bolts. The buckling lengths of the bolts may be taken as the height of the grout. The local analysis model is like given above for the tensile axial force. As a conclusion it can be seen, that the local analysis model of the base bolt joint can be determined based on the geometrical entities connected at the joint. It can be seen, also, that the geometrical non-linear analysis model is the result where the non-linearity arise from the compression and tension only springs appearing at the local analysis model. It should be noted, that if the geometrical non-linear analysis is used to determine all the stress resultants of the entire frame, then no extra checks as given in [EN 1993-1-1,

14 5.2.2(5)] are needed for the analysis model, because they are involved in the present model. How the stiffnesses of the springs are determined in practical cases, is illustrated in the following for one example case. It should be noted, that the same logic holds for many other joints appearing in the steel structures. Moreover, the same or similar equations to determine the stiffnesses and the resistances of the components appear in many joints, too. The component based methods are generic in this sense and the same equations can be used for many practical joints.

EXAMPLES OF THE BASE BOLT JOINTS

Consider firstly the base bolt joint illustrated in the next figure. The initial data is the same as in [15] and in that reference the test result for this joint can be found. The horizontal load is given in the next figure acting at 1 m from the base plate top surface and the ultimate moment of the joint was 61.5 kNm in the test.

Figure 9. The base bolt joint [15]

The first thing to consider is the local analysis model for this joint. Then arise the question, how many compressed zones are at the joint? Typically in this kind of joints the tensile springs are more flexible than compressive springs allthough they are locating more far away from the mid node. Suppose, that there exist only three compressed zones at this joint. Typically at the base bolt joints the major parts of the

15 deformations of the tensile springs occur due to elongation of the bolts, not much due to deformation of the end plate. This can be seen in this case, too. The local analysis model of this joint is presented in the next figure. The model is made applying the rules given above.

Figure 10. Local analysis model of the example joint

It should be noted, that the width of the compressed zone c is different (smaller) when constructing the local analysis model and when checking the resistance of the compressed zone following [2]. For the stiffness calculations (the more general equation is from the reference [11] and the approximative version (1.25 t ) is from the Eurocode [2])
c = 0.66 3 E 210000 t = 0.66 3 29 = 37.69 mm 1.25 t = 36.25 mm Ec 27500

(1)

is the elastic modulus of the concrete. If 0.2 times the smaller size of the base plate is larger than the grout thickness, then this is the foundation concrete elastic modulus, if not, then this is the grouting concrete elastic modulus [11], in this case the smaller size of the base plate is 190 mm and then 0.2*190 = 38 mm, which is larger than the grout thickness, E = 210000 MPa is the elastic modulus of steel, t = 29 mm is the thickness of the base plate.

E c = 27500 MPa

The stiffnesses of each compressed zones are calculated using the empirical equation (background, see [10])
k ci = E c Aeffi 1.275 kN / m

(2)

16 where

Aeffi is the compression area i .

In our example (the dimensions are rounded to the integer values in mms) the spring stiffnesses of the compressed springs are
Aeff 1 = Aeff 3 = 6208 mm 2 Aeff 2 = 4507 mm 2 k c1 = k c 3 = k c2 = 27500 6208 = 1699000 kN / m 1.275

(3)

27500 4507 = 1448000 kN / m 1.275

The stiffnesses of the tensile springs are

k ti = 1 1 1 + k bi k pi

(4)

where is the spring stiffness of the base bolt i , k pi is the spring stiffness of the base plate at the base bolt i .
k bi

Note, that in [2] is written, that the final tensile stiffness is the sum of the tensile stiffnesses k bi and k pi . It should be calculated as shown above. The spring stiffness of the base bolt is
k bi = E bi Abi Leffbi

(5)

where
E bi is the elastic modulus of the base bolt i , Abi is the area of the base bolt i ,

Leffbi is the elongation length of the base bolt i .

In this case the elongation length was given in the test report [15] Leffbi = 450 mm . Typically it should be calculated using the equations of the Eurocode [8]. It can be noted from the Eurocode, that the elongation length in the foundations is the traditional 8 d , where d is the diameter of the base bolt and this rule is based on old American tests on 1950s [16]. In our example

17
E bi Abi 210000 (19 / 2 )2 210000 283 = = = 132000 kN / m 450 450 Leffbi

k b1 = k b 2 =

(6)

The spring stiffness of the base plate is calculated applying the modified deflection equation of the cantilever beam of the length m1 = 120 76 = 44 mm [background to this, see [10]) and using the effective width beffi = 190 / 2 = 95 mm of the beam in our case. It should be noted, that the weld can be taken into account when calculating the length m1 following the Eurocode, but it was not done in this case. Typically there exist no prying forces at the base bolt joint due to large deformations of the tensile springs. The existence of the prying forces should be checked in the general case following the Eurocode. In our example
k p1 = k p 2 = 0.2125 k t1 = k t 2 = 1 1 1 + k p1 k b 2 E pi beffi t 3
3 m1

= 0.2125

210000 95 29 3 44 3

= 1214000 kN / m

= 119300 kN / m

(7)

and it can be seen, that the effect of bolt elongation is the major part of the tensile stiffness. It can be seen, also, that the tensile spring constants are much smaller than compressive spring constant, so our proposal of three compressed zones was correct. The total compressive and tensile spring stiffnesses are
k c = 1699000 + 1448000 + 169900 = 4847000 kN / m k t = 2 119300 = 238600 kN / m

(8)

Supposing that there exists no axial load the resultant compressive and tensile forces are
Fc = Ft = M M = e 0.190 m

(9)

The compressive and tensile forces at the springs are

Fc1 = Fc 3 = Fc 2 = 1.699 Fc = 0.35 Fc 4.847

1.448 Fc = 0.30 Fc 4.847 Ft1 = Ft1 = 0.50 Ft

(10)

Consider now the case where the bending moment of the joint is 40 kNm. Then the total axial forces are in this case
Fc = Ft = M 40 kNm = = 210 kN e 0.190 m

(11)

18 The compressive forces at the compressed zones and at the tensile springs are
Fc1 = Fc 3 = 0.35 Fc = 0.35 210 = 74 kN Fc 2 = 0.30 Fc = 0.30 210 = 63 kN Ft1 = Ft1 = 0.50 Ft = 105 kN

(12)

These are used to check the resistance of the joint. The displacements at the springs are as follows
74 1000 = 0.0443 mm 1669000 105 1000 t = = 0.880 mm 119300

c =

(13)

The rotation at the joint is for the bending moment 40 kNm and using the linear theory up to that moment
=
0.0443 + 0.880 = 0.0048 = 4.865 mrad 190

(14)

The stresses of the tensile bolts and of the end plate are
bi = pi
105000 = 372 MPa 282 105000 44 4 = 231 MPa = 95 29 2

(15)

and it can be seen, that the tension resistance of the base bolt and the end plate bending are critical in this case. It can be seen, also, that the tensile base bolts are yielding with this load ( f yb = 310 MPa, f ub = 500 MPa ), but the ultimate stresses have not yet been reached. Note also, that the areas of bolts were not clear when taken from the test report referred. Note, it is recommended, that the stresses are calculated for every parts allthough any code does not require it. So you can keep the touch to the results. The compression area width when checking the compression resistance of the concrete should be calculated using the equation
c =t f yp

3 f j

(16)

where
t is the thickness of the base plate, f yp is the yield strenght of the base

plate, f j is the cylindrical strength of the concrete and this is chosen (either the grout or the foundation) as the elastic modulus above applying the rule by Weynand.

19

In this case
c =t f yp

3 f j

= 29

250 = 43 mm 3 38

(17)

The compressive stresses at the compression parts are

c1 = c 3 = c2
74000 = 11.3 MPa 6576 63000 = = 12.5 MPa 5044

(18)

and it can be seen, that the compression resistance of the concrete is not critical in this case. The tensile resistance of the bolt is according to the Eurocode using the material factor M 2 = 1.0 (note, that in the design case the value 1.25 should be used)
Rb =

0.9 f ub Ab

M2

= 0.9 f ub Ab = 0.9 500 283 = 132 kN

132 = 1.257 105

(19)

The end plate bending stresses are more critical because 250/231=1.08. So the bending moment resistance according to the Eurocode [2] of the joint is 1.08*40 = 43 kNm. The linear phase of the moment-rotatio curve can be drawn up to the moment 2/3*43 = 29 kNm and after that the curve is non-linear. The following figure illustrates the moment-rotation curve based on Eurocodes [2], tests [15] and ANSYS simulations [10].

Figure 11. Moment-rotation curve of the example joint

20

The initial rotational stiffness in the linear phase for this joint is according to the Eurocodes
S ini = kNm kNm 40 = 8221 = 8.2 0.0048 rad mrad

(20)

and this holds up to the moment 29 kNm and after that the non-linear moment-rotation relationship according to [2] should be used. The end plate bending is the most critical for the bending and using the material factor 1.25 for the ultimate tension resistance of the bolts, then the bolt tension resistance is the most critical. As a summary of the example the following results are got Moment resistance of the joint in the test: 61.5 kNm. Moment resistance using the Eurocodes: 43 kNm. Initial rotational stiffnes of the joint using the Eurocodes: 8.2 kNm/(mrad). The utility ratios (using material factors 1.0) at the ultimate moment 43 kNm following the Eurocodes: Base plate: 1.00, Base bolts: 43*105/(40*132) = 0.86, Concrete compression: 43*12.5/(40*38) = 0.35.

Other comparisons between the proposed method and test results are given in [10]. The following example illustrates the analysis of the entire frame including the local joint models described above. Consider the portal frame including two HEB240 (S355) columns and one IPE500 (S355) beam. The mid planes of the profiles webs are at the plane of the frame without eccentricities. The joints between the beam ends and the column tops are absolutely hinged. The mid distance of the columns is 10 m and the height from the base plate top to the mid line of the beam is 4 m. The base bolt joints at the column bases are as described in the following figure. The steel material is S355, the bolt are type Peikko and the grouting and the foundation concrete is C40/50 and the elastic modulus used in the calculations is 35000 MPa.

21

Figure 12. Base bolt joints of the frame example

Only one load case is considered here to demonstrate the effect of the joint stiffness to the behaviour of the frame. Other load cases including the 3D behaviour of the same case are given in [10]. The loads of the frame are acting at the plane of the frame and they are dead load of two columns and one beam, total: columns 2*4*83.2 + beam 1*10*90.7 = 666 + 907 =1573 kg, no dead load is supposed to the joint entities. This load may be derived from the product model and put to the mid node, the uniform load acting downwards at the mid line of the beam at the entire beam 30 kN/m, the horizontal point load 20 kN acting at the left corner of the frame.

The frame and its loads are given in the following figure.

Figure 13. The portal frame and the loads

22 The local candidates for the joint models are given in the following figure. The locations and stiffnesses of the compression and tension only springs have been determined using the rules given above.

Figure 14. Local joint model candidates for the frame example, left and right and the coding of left joint

Next thing to do is to solve the system equations of the static problem. This was done in this study applying the program Robot Millenium 20. The calculations in the non-linear case were performed using the Newton-Raphson procedure available in the program. The details of the calculations are given in [10]. After solving the statics the strength check of the entire frame can be done using the results of the non-linear case. In principle we do not need any classification of the joints in this case, because the effects of joint stiffnesses are taken into account by the analysis. If we want to know the classifications of the base bolt joints based on [2] then we calculate the initial stiffnesses of the left and the right joints as follows
S inileft = S iniright kNm 35.18 = 21.3 0.00165 mrad kNm 49.18 = = 58.5 0.00084 mrad

(21)

23

where the moments and rotations are taken from the analysis results. It can be seen, that the stiffness of the used base bolt joint differs depending on the bending moment direction applied to the joint. The classification parameters following [2] are
Rleft = S inileft H left E left I left = 213000 4 10 5 = 3.6 210000 11259 55800 4 10 5 = 9.9 = 210000 11259

R right =

S iniright H right E right I right

(22)

Both these are in the range [0.5; 25] meaning that the base bolt joints are classified as semi-rigid. The maximum utility ratios for the second load case are for the left joint 0.27 and for the right joint 0.53 [10] meaning that the right joint is the critical. The maximum utility ratio also means, that the load may be enlarged proportionally about 47%. The effects of the base bolt stiffnesses to the buckling lengths of the columns can be calculated from the lowest eigenvalue for the proper buckling case. It is known, that for the absolutely rigid base bolts in this case the buckling lengths for both columns are twice the lengths H of the column, i.e. 8 meters. The lowest plane frame buckling eigenvalue is cr = 17.68 and the buckling lengths of the columns are then
Lcr = EI 210000 11259 10 4 = 9.38 m = 2.35 H = Pcr 17.68 150000

(23)

To linearize the problem we may assume, that the rotational stiffnesses are defined without axial forces, as was done above for the example of the tubular column joint, knowing, that the solution will be approximative. Moreover, it is known, that the rotational stiffness is dependent on the direction of the bending moment. Next we assume, that it is not so, but we use the mean of the rotational stiffnesses to calculate the linear rotational stiffness for the joint. Now we have linearized the problem and we can use the linear theory. The computational time will not increase compared to the traditional case without any stiffnesses at the joints. When we have solved the bending moments and the axial forces at the base bolt joints, then we can define the resistances of the joints according to [2]. The results for the frame example are collected to the following tables. The case TUT linear means the approximative theory described above. There are given the means of the rotational stiffnesses, which are used in the calculations in the case TUT linear for both column bases. The detailed calculations are given in [10].

24

Table 1. Results for the frame case

Case Stiffness/left kNm/rad
21321 13016/26978

Stiffness/right kNm/rad
58548 40929/26978 Lcr / H

Moment/left kNm

Moment/right kNm

Rigid TUT non-linear TUT linear

Case

40.09 35.18 40.06

Lcr m 8.00 9.38 9.71

39.91 49.18 39.94

Max utility left

Horizontal disp. column top mm 9.1 14.6 15.0 Max utility right

Rigid TUT non-linear TUT linear

cr of Eurocodes 24.31 17.68 16.51

2.00 2.35 2.42

0.27 0.32

0.53 0.42

It can be seen, that the maximum utility ratios may be about 20% either on the safe or on the unsafe side, when considering the components of the base bolt joint in this example and using the linearized theory, and compared to the non-linear theory. Moreover, the buckling lengths of the columns and the horizontal displacements are a little bit larger in the linearized case as they are when using the non-linear theory. However, when designing steel structures these kinds of errors may be accepted e.g. in the preliminary design stage. This means that we propose the following user interface for the base bolt macro including the choice of the applied theory when analysing the structures. Before this screen there are the necessary user interfaces to choose all the geometrical entities of the joint. There are two extra choices appearing in the following figure. These are meant for estimating only. When using the two first theories, then no geometrical entities are needed. The second method (rigid) is as a default, meaning this can be used without any work of the designer, the designer need not even open the whole interface of the macro, simply only put this macro active to the joint. When using TUT linear or TUT nonlinear models for the base bolt joint, then all the geometrical entities must have some values, because the stiffnesses and the resistance checks are calculated based on the information of the geometrical entities of the joint. The given displacements or stiffnesses for the entire foundation should be given in this interface or somewhere else. The column should be vertical and the orthogonal layout of the column profile with respect to the base bolt group is required. Moreover, the base bolts should locate between the lines connecting the flange edges of I-profile columns. This requirement for the tubular rectangular columns may be removed in the near future. The equations have been derived for this case [10], other theory see [17]. The tests to verify these theories will be reported in the near future in TUT.

25

Analysis model of the joint Take one of the following. If you dont take any, then the absolutely rigid model is used. Absolutely rigid for Three moments Three forces

Hinge for two moments Rigid for torsional moment Rigid for three forces

TUT linear Stiffnesses for two moments Rigid for torsional moment Rigid for three forces (Calculates the spring stiffnesses as means without axial force according to report/TUT)

TUT non-linear (Component method of EC in three D according to report/TUT) This choice leads to the geometrical non-linear theory

Figure 23. Proposal for the user interface of the base bolt macro, structural analysis

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be done based on the results of the paper. Local analysis models (TUT models) can be generated from the geometrical entities of the joints. This means automatic generation from the product model. The TUT model enlarges the component method of Eurocodes to three dimensions. The use of non-linear TUT model leads to the very good agreement in the cases considered when comparing the results to the test results available dealing with o the resistances of the joints and o the stiffnesses of the joints in the normal situation. In the fire situation the similar research will be done in the near future. The use of non-linear TUT model leads to the application of the geometrical non-linear theory for the entire frame. The stiffnesses of joints are automatically taken into account in the structural analysis. No extra checks due to the second order theory is needed after the analysis, because they are involved into the non-linear analysis. The proposal is given to reduce the non-linear case as series of linear cases and the algorithm seems to work in the case considered [10]. The algorithm was not implemented in this research. The proposal is given (TUT linear) to linearize the non-linear case using the mean of rotational stiffnesses without axial forces. This may be used in the

26 preliminary design stage. The errors of 20% in the utility ratios of the joints (safe and unsafe) are shown using this approach in one extremely simple case. It is recommended, that the final design will be done using the non-linear theory if the computational times are reasonable. The computational times are highly dependent on the sizes of the problems. Applications to other structural steel joints are given in the near future. Next task is to implement the results to the design software in the near future including the fabrication cost information and the development of the cost estimation module for the practical use for the engineers. The user interface to the joint macro dealing with the choice of the analysis model of the base bolt joint was proposed. Estimating variations are given, too. After the implementation the search of good solutions can be done fluently also in the preliminary design stage. Modern computers, computational tools and programs have made it possible to develop this kind of method and the results can be used by the practising engineers, because they have these modern systems in every day use nowdays. This project has been completed in the close interaction between practising engineers and the research staff. Term near future means that the tasks are included in the on-going national 7D project.

REFERENCES
[1] Salonen M., Rautakorpi J., Heinisuo M., Proposal for 4.5 Dimensional Design via Product Models and Expert System, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1454, Subseries on Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Ian Smith (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Structural Engineering, Information Technology for Design, Colloboration, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. 464-468 [2] EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-8: Design of joints, CEN, Bryssels, 2005 [3] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, Bryssels, 2005 [4] Heinisuo M., Rautakorpi J., Tersrungon rakenneanalyysin tuotemallin generointi geometrian tuotemallista, Report 25, Tampere University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Mechanics, Tampere, 1998 (in Finnish) [5] Tchemmemegg F., Tautschnig A., Klein H., Braun Ch., Humer Ch., Zur Nachgiebigkeit von Rahmenknoten Teil 1 (Semi-rigid joint of frame structures, Vol 1 in German), Stahlbau 56, Heft 10, 1987, pp. 299-306 [6] Burgess I., Connection modelling in fire, Proceedings of Workshop Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events, COST C26, Prague 30-31.3.2007, pp. 25-34

27 [7] Block F. M., Development of a Component-Based Finite Element for Steel Beamto-Column Connections at elevated Temperatures, PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, 2006 [8] Heinisuo M., Liukkonen V.-P., Tuomala M., New beam element including distortion, Nordic Steel Construction Conference 95, Malm, Sweden, June 19-21, Swedish Institute of Steel Construction, Publication 150, Vol I, 1995, pp. 65-72 [9] Raiskila M., Diplomity, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu, Tampere, 1985 (in Finnish) [10] Laine V., Diplomity, Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, Tampere, 2008 (in Finnish) [11] Weynand K., Semi-Rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering Structural Connections, COST C1, Column Bases in Steel Building Frames, European Comission, Brussels, 1999 [12] Wald F., Column Bases, CVUT, Praha, 1995 [13] Nevalainen P., Diplomity, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu, Tampere, 1990 (in Fnnish) [14] [15] Picard A., Beaulieu D., Behaviour of a simple column base connection, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1984 [16] Salmon C. G., Shenker, Moment-Rotational Characteristics of Column Anchorages, Transactions of the ASCE, 1956 [17] Wald F., et al, Effective Length of T-stub of RHS Column Base Plates, Czech Technical University, 2000