EUROPEAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIMPLE JOINTS

IN STEEL STRUCTURES

J.-P. Jaspart* and J.-F. Demonceau*

* ArGEnCo Department, Liège University

E-mail: Jean-Pierre.Jaspart@ulg.ac.be

Keywords: Joint classification and modelling, simple joints, ductility, rotation capacity.

Abstract. In the last twenty years, numerous researches have been devoted throughout Europe to the
behaviour of semi-rigid and partial-strength joints in steel structures. These efforts progressively led to
the publication of normative documents, design recommendation and guidelines and to the development
of various design tools for practitioners. On the contrary rather little attention has been paid to the
design of simple joints. In this paper, design recommendations for such joints are presented. They result
from deep comparative studies of existing national codes and extensive discussions within the Technical
Committee 10 « Connections » of the European Convention for constructional Steelwork (ECCS). The
publication of this material as “European recommendations for the design of simple joints in steel
structures” should be achieved in 2008.

1 INTRODUCTION
In some countries of the European Union, design rules for simple structural joints already exist.
Unfortunately, these recommendations do not cover all the types of failure and give sometimes
significantly different design rules for a typical failure mode.
In a first step, a comparative study [1] of available design rules for simple connections has been
made. In this work, reference is made to different normative documents or design recommendations:
- Eurocode 3 [2] and its Part 1.8 [3];
- BS5950 [4] and BCSA-SCI recommendations [5];
- NEN 6770 [6, 7];
- German "Ringbuch" [8];
- …
Each of these documents possesses its own application field which favours different failure modes.
So, the comparison between them is difficult.
With the aim of establishing a full design approach according to the general design principles stated
in Eurocode 3, preliminary design sheets for header plate and fin plate connections have been prepared at
Liège University [9]and discussed at several meetings of the Technical Committee 10 « Connections » of
the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS). Progressively this has led to the drafting
of so-called “European recommendations for the design of simple joints in steel structures”. These ones
should be published in 2008 [11].
In a few years, it is expected that the practical design recommendations presented in this publication
or in its eventual revised version will replace, in every country, the national normative documents or
recommendations. In this way, it will simplify the free trade between the different European countries.
In the present paper, the main topics covered by this forthcoming publication are addressed: joint
classification, joint modelling, design requirements in terms of ductility and rotation capacity, resistance
properties … Finally a worked example illustrates the application of the proposed design rules to a
specific type of joint.
2 SCOPE AND FIELD OF APPLICATION
Simple structural joints are commonly met in steel framed buildings but they can be used also in
other types of structures, such as masts, bridges …
The field of application covered by the European recommendations may be summarized as follows:

- Types of connected elements:

I or H beams;
I or H columns (with a possible easy extension to RHS and CHS columns).

- Types of loading:

Joints subject to predominantly static or quasi-static loading. Fatigue aspects are not considered.
The resistance of the joints is checked under shear and tying forces. The shear forces correspond to
usual loading conditions of the structure during its life. Tying forces are also addressed; these ones
develop when the frame is subjected to an explosion or when a supporting column is lost under
exceptional events.

- Steel grades:

Steel grades S 235, S 275, S 355, S 420 and S 460.

- Possible joint configurations (few examples are illustrated in Figure 1):

Single-sided and double-sided beam-to-column major or minor axis joint configurations.

Single-sided or double-sided beam-to-beam joint configurations with un-notched, single-notched or
double-notched supported beams.
Beam splices.

(a) Double-sided beam-to-column minor axis joint configuration

(b) Single-sided beam-to-beam joint configuration with a double-notched supported beam

Figure 1: Examples of covered joint configurations

- Types of fasteners:

Fillet welds.
Normal bolts and high strength bolts. The second class can be used for preloaded bolts which are
characterized by a slip-type resistance mode in shear. In the design recommendations, only non-
preloaded bolts are explicitly covered. The extension of the rules to preloaded bolts is not at all a
difficulty and should be worked out when preparing a first revised version of the publication.

- Types of connections:

Three connection types traditionally used to connect a beam to a column or a beam to a beam are
considered; they are specified below.

Header plate connections

The main components of a header plate connection are shown in Figure 2: a steel plate, a fillet weld
on both sides of the supported beam web and two single or two double vertical bolt lines. The plate
is welded to the supported member and bolted to a supporting element such as a steel beam or
column. Its height does not exceed the clear depth of the supported beam. The end of the supported
steel beam may be un-notched, single notched or double notched.

Supporting
element Plate Single-vertical
row bolt group

Supported beam Fillet

weld Double-vertical
row bolt group

Figure 2: Header plate connection

Fin plate connections

The main components of a fin plate connection are shown in Figure 3: a fin plate, a fillet weld on
both sides of the plate, and a single or double vertical bolt line. The plate is welded to a supporting
member such as a steel beam or column and bolted to the web of the supported beam. The end of
the supported steel beam may again be un-notched, single notched or double notched.

Single-vertical Double-vertical
row bolt group row bolt group
Supporting
element

Fin plate

Supported beam

Fillet
weld

Figure 3: Fin plate connection

 Web cleat connections

A web cleat connection is characterised (see Figure 4) by two web cleats and three single or double
vertical bolt lines (two on the supporting element and one on the supported member). The cleats are
bolted to the supporting and supported members. Un-notched, single notched or double notched
supported beams may be considered.

Single-vertical
row bolt group
Supporting
element

Supported beam

Web cleat
Web
cleat

OR WITH OR

Single-vertical Double-vertical
row bolt group row bolt group

Double-vertical
row bolt group

Figure 4: Web cleat connection

Reference code

The design rules presented in the present paper are based on resistance formulae provided by
Eurocode 3 Part 1.8, at least as far as information is available. When this is not the case, the basic
design principles prescribed by Eurocode 3 are followed.

3 JOINT MODELLING FOR FRAME ANALYSIS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Generalities
The effects of the actual response of the joints on the distribution of internal forces and moments
within a structure, and on the overall deformations, should generally be taken into account; but when
these effects are sufficiently small, they may be neglected.
To identify whether the effects of joint behaviour on the analysis need be taken into account, a
distinction should be made between the three following types of joint modelling:
- simple, in which the joint may be assumed not to transfer bending moments;
- continuous, in which the behaviour of the joint may be assumed to have no effect on the
analysis;
- semi-continuous, in which the behaviour of the joint needs to be explicitly taken into account in
the analysis.
The appropriate type of joint modelling depends on the classification of the joint and on the selected
procedure for structural analysis and design.
3.2 Eurocode 3 classification system for joints
The joints can be classified according to the values of their main structural properties, i.e. rotational
stiffness, strength in bending and rotational capacity (or ductility). The structural properties of all the
joints need to correspond to the assumptions made for the structural frame analysis and for the design of
the members. In particular, as far as simple joints are concerned, the available rotation capacity of the
joints should be sufficient to accept the rotations evaluated in the analysis process.
In Eurocode 3 Part 1.8, joints are classified by stiffness and by strength. Ductility aspects are also to
be considered; they will be more especially addressed in section 4 below.

- Classification by stiffness

This classification is only applicable to beam-to-column joint configurations. Through the

comparison of its actual rotational stiffness Sj,ini with classification boundaries (Figure 5), a joint
may be considered as pinned, rigid or semi-rigid.

Mj

Rigid

Semi-rigid

Sj,ini
Pinned
φ

Stiffness boundaries
Initial rotational stiffness

Figure 5: Boundaries for stiffness classification of joints

Nominally pinned

The joint shall be capable of transmitting the internal forces, without developing significant
moments which might adversely affect the structural members. It shall be also capable of accepting
the resulting rotations under the design loads.

⇒ Boundary: Sj,ini ≤ 0,5 EIb / Lb

Rigid

The joint behaviour is assumed not to have significant influence on the distribution of internal
forces and moments in the structure, nor on its overall deformation.

⇒ Boundary: Sj,ini ≥ kb EIb / Lb

where kb = 8 for frames where the bracing system reduces the horizontal displacement by at least
80%; kb = 25 for other frames.

Semi-rigid
 The joint provides a predictable degree of interaction between members, based on the design
moment-rotation characteristics of the joint. It should be able to transmit internal forces and
moments.

⇒ Boundaries: A joint which doesn't meet the criteria for a rigid or a nominally
pinned joint shall be classified as semi-rigid.

Key values: E is the elastic modulus of the beam material;

Ib is the second moment of area of the beam;
Lb is the beam span (distance between the axes of the supporting columns).

- Classification by strength

Through the comparison of its actual design moment resistance Mj,Rd with the design moment
resistances of the members that it connects (Figure 6), a joint may be classified as full-strength,
pinned or partial-strength.

Mj

Full-strength

Partial-strength
Mj,Rd

Pinned
φ
Strength boundaries
Joint moment resistance

Figure 6: Boundaries for strength classification of joints

Full-strength

The design resistance of a full strength joint shall be not less than that of the connected members
(Figure 7).

⇒ Boundary: Mj,Rd ≥ M full-strength

Mj,Ed Mj,Ed

Top column: Within column height:

M full-strength = min ( Mb,pl,Rd , Mc,pl,Rd ) M full-strength = min ( Mb,pl,Rd , 2 Mc,pl,Rd )
Figure 7: Full-strength resistance
 Nominally pinned

The joint shall be capable of transmitting the internal forces, without developing significant
moments which might adversely affect the members of the structure. It shall also be capable of
accepting the resulting rotations under the design loads.

⇒ Boundary: Mj,Rd ≤ 0,25 M full-strength

Partial-strength

A joint which doesn't meet the criteria for full-strength or nominally pinned joints should be
considered to have a partial-strength resistance.

Key values: Mb,pl,Rd is the plastic moment resistance of the beam;

Mc,pl,Rd is the plastic moment resistance of the column (possibly reduced by axial or
shear forces in the column).

3.3 Eurocode 3 joint modelling

The joint modelling depends on the joint classification (see above) and on the selected process for
structural frame analysis and design. As said before, Eurocode 3 considers three types of joint modelling
(simple, continuous and semi-continuous) according as the effects of joint behaviour on the analysis can
be neglected or no. The appropriate type of joint modelling should be determined from Table 1.

METHOD OF GLOBAL
JOINT CLASSIFICATION
ANALYSIS

Elastic Nominally pinned Rigid Semi-rigid

Rigid-Plastic Nominally pinned Full-strength Partial-strength

Rigid and partial-strength
Elastic-Plastic Nominally pinned Rigid and full-strength Semi-rigid and partial-strength
Semi-rigid and full-strength
TYPE OF JOINT MODEL Simple Continuous Semi-continuous

Table 1: Type of joint model

So, in the global analysis, the joint behaviour can be replaced by [10] (Figure 8):
- a hinge, for the simple modelling;
- a rotational spring, for the semi-continuous modelling;
- an infinitely rigid and resistant rotational spring, for the continuous modelling.
In the global structural analysis, the hinge or spring which models the joint is assumed to be located
at the intersection of the axes of the connected elements.
3.4 Simple joint modelling
The design rules in this guide are given for joints which are assumed not to transmit bending
moments. Thus, the joints should be modelled by hinges. Unfortunately, many joints which are
traditionally considered as a hinge do not fulfil the stiffness and/or strength limitations required by
Eurocode 3 for nominally pinned joints.
Two different attitudes may be adopted in such a case:
 - According to the Eurocode 3 requirements, the joint is modelled by a rotational spring and is
therefore considered as semi-rigid and partial-strength (what it is in reality). Its rotational
stiffness, design bending resistance and shear resistance have to be evaluated and the actual
properties of the joint have to be explicitly taken into consideration in the process for frame and
joint design and analysis. This approach is the more scientifically correct one but it needs more
complex calculations as far as the global analysis and joint design are concerned.
- Despite its actual properties, the joint is considered as a hinge and the design rules for simple
joints presented in the present paper can be applied, but under strict conditions which ensure the
safe character of the approach. The global analysis and the joint design are simpler in this case as
they are based on a more traditional hinged (simple) approach.

TYPE OF JOINT SINGLE-SIDED DOUBLE-SIDED

BEAM SPLICE
MODEL CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION

Simple

Continuous

Semi-continuous

Figure 8: Local joint modelling

If the second option is chosen, the joint is assumed not to transfer bending moments even if it is not
the truth. Therefore bending moments develop in the joints although they are designed to resist only shear
forces. This is potentially unsafe and at first sight is not basically acceptable.
But a careful examination of this problem leads to the conclusion that the "hinge assumption" is safe
if the two following requirements are fulfilled:
- the joint possesses a sufficient rotation capacity;
- the joint possesses a sufficient ductility.
The first requirement relates to the rotational capacity that the joint should have, in order to "rotate"
as a hinge, without developing too high internal bending moments.
The second requirement is there to ensure that the development of combined shear and bending
forces into the joint is not leading to brittle failure modes (for instance, because of a rupture of a bolt or a
weld). In other words, the design of the joint should allow internal plastic deformations instead of brittle
phenomena.
If these two requirements (sufficient rotation capacity and ductility) are fulfilled, it can be
demonstrated that to consider an actually semi-rigid joint as a nominally pinned one is safe for design
purposes and, in particular, for the evaluation of:
- the frame displacements:
 the stiffness of the actual structure is always greater than that of the hinged one, and all the actual
displacements are therefore lower than the calculated ones;
- the plastic failure loading:
as the actual bending strength of the joint is higher than the considered one (equal to zero), the
first order plastic resistance of the frame is higher than the one evaluated on the basis of a hinge
behaviour;
- the linear elastic critical instability load:
the transversal stiffness of the actual structure is larger than the one of the structure with
nominally pinned joints, and the rotational restraints at the end of the columns in the actual
structure are higher than those calculated with a hinge assumption; this ensures the safe character
of the hinge assumption as far as global and local instability are concerned;
- the actual elasto-plastic instability load:
the actual stiffness of the structure is greater than the considered one but the actual internal forces
are more important than those acting in the structure with nominally pinned joints; nevertheless,
various studies ([12], [13] and [14]) show that the “hinged” approach is safe.
For further explanations, see [9].
In the present paper, the design recommendations relate to the "hinge model". In [11], specific design
requirements ensuring safety will be presented for each connection type.
3.5 Summary of design requirements
As said before, the internal forces in the joint are here determined by a structural analysis based on
simple joint modelling. The hinges are assumed to be located at the intersection of the axes of the
connected elements. As a result of this structural analysis, the maximum applied shear force and rotation
in the joints, respectively VEd and φrequired, are obtained.
From the geometrical properties of the joints and the mechanical properties of their constitutive
materials, the available rotation capacity of any joint, φavailable, can be estimated, as well as its design
shear resistance, VRd. To ensure the validity of this approach, some ductility requirements have to be
satisfied and the available rotation of the joint has to be higher than the required one. Finally, the joint
will be considered as acceptable if the applied shear force does not exceed the design shear resistance.
Sometimes, the evaluation of the resistance to tying forces is requested for robustness purposes.

4 PRACTICAL WAYS TO SATISFY THE DUCTILITY AND ROTATION

REQUIREMENTS

4.1 General principles

A simple joint is nothing else than an idealisation of the reality. Joints like those studied in this paper
undergo a significant internal rotation but transfer some bending moments. As explained above, to ensure
the safety of the simple joint model, some requirements for sufficient ductility and rotation capacity are
necessary.
These requirements can be written for each considered connection type, in the form of simple criteria
based on the mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the different components forming the
connection.
The rotation capacity requirements provide to the hinge a sufficient rotation without developing too
significant bending moments which might adversely affect the members of the structure. These criteria
are often expressed as geometrical limitations.
The ductility requirements avoid the occurrence of brittle failures, especially in bolts and welds, and
possibly buckling. Their derivation is more complex. In the "hinged" structural analysis, the joint is
assumed to be only subjected to a shear force. In reality, a bending moment and a shear force are acting
simultaneously on the joint. In an "applied shear force – applied bending moment" graph (Figure 9), the
evolution of the actual and idealised loading histories can be represented by two paths. The first is a
horizontal one (MEd = 0) and the second an oblique one. The inclination of the actual loading path
depends on the relative stiffness between the joint and the connected elements.
MSdEd
M MEdSdEd
M
M a Design loading path for the external
Actual loading path d face of the supporting member
c b Design loading path for the
section of the bolt group centre

b c Actual loading path for the external

face of the supporting member

z
d Actual loading path for the section
of the bolt group centre
VEd 1 a
VEd
Design loading path

Figure 9: Loading paths Figure 10: Loading paths for a fin plate connection

Note: For fin plate connections, two different cross-sections inside the joint have to be considered
separately. The first is located at the external face of the supporting member; while the
second is through the centre of the bolt group. The actual loading situation is different in
these two sections, so leading to two distinct MEd – VEd paths in the diagram shown in
Figure 10.
If a "hinge" model is considered, the first section is assumed to transfer only shear forces
(MEd = 0) while the second one, in accordance with equilibrium, transfers the same shear
force VEd and a bending moment MEd equal to VEd . z. z is defined as the distance between the
external face of the supporting element and the centre of the bolt group.

The design resistance of each component of the joint can also be represented in a "shear force –
bending moment" graph. Depending on whether this resistance is influenced by the applied bending
moment, its representation will be a curve or a vertical line. Figure 11 illustrates it for three possible
failure modes in a fin plate connection. The relative positions of the different resistance curves or lines
depends on the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the joint components.

M
MEdSd
Fin plate in shear
(gross section)

Fin plate in bearing

Bolts in shear

z
VV
Ed Sd
VRa VRd

Figure 11: Design resistances for some components of a fin plate connection and principle for the
derivation of the shear resistance of the joint

In reality, the actual shear resistance, VRa, of the joint could be defined at the intersection between the
actual loading path, in the appropriate cross-section, and the design resistance curves or lines of the
weakest component (Figure 11). If a similar principle is applied to the design loading path, a design shear
resistance, VRd, is then obtained.
If the failure mode corresponding to the VRa value is a brittle one, the design shear resistance VRd is
seen to be an unsafe estimation of the joint resistance (Figure 12.a). The only way to reach the design
shear resistance VRd, is to rely on a plastic redistribution of internal forces inside the joint, as shown on
Figure 12.b.

M
MEdSd M
MEdSd
Fin plate in shear Fin plate in shear
(gross section) (gross section)

Fin plate in bearing Brittle failure Ductile failure

Bolts in shear
Bolts in shear Fin plate in bearing

No possible Possible
redistribution redistribution
of internal of internal
forces forces

V V
VEd
VEdSd Sd

VRa VRd VRa VRd

(a) Premature brittle failure (b) Possible plastic redistribution of internal forces
Figure 12: Determination of the shear resistance of the joint

As a conclusion, the ductility requirements will aim to ensure that the move from the actual to the
design shear resistances may occur, as a result of a plastic redistribution of internal forces inside the joint.
4.2 Header plate connection
In the next paragraphs, the design requirements to be fulfilled to allow sufficient rotation capacity
and ductility are specified for one of the connection types: the header plate connection. For other types,
reference is to be made to [11].

- Design requirements for sufficient rotation capacity

To enable rotation without increasing too much the bending moment which develops into the joint,
contact between the lower beam flange and the supporting member has to be strictly avoided. So, it
is imperative that the height hp of the plate is less than that of the supported beam web (Figure 14):

hp ≤ db

where db is the clear depth of the supported beam web.

If such a contact takes place, a compression force develops at the place of contact; it is equilibrated
by tension forces in the bolts and a significant bending moment develops (Figure 13).
 Bending
moment

Tension forces in the bolts

Bending Contact between

moment the supported beam
and the supporting
element
Compression force

Rotation

φavailable

Figure 13: Contact and evolution of the bending moment

The level of rotation at which the contact occurs is obviously dependent on the geometrical
characteristics of the beam and of the header plate, but also on the actual deformations of the joint
components.
In order to derive a simple criterion that the user could apply, before any calculation, to check
whether the risk of contact may be disregarded, the following rough assumptions are made (see
Figure 14):
- the supporting element remains un-deformed;
- the centre of rotation of the beam is located at the lower extremity of the header plate.
On the basis of such assumptions, a safe estimation (i.e. a lower bound) of the so-called "available
rotation of the joint" φavailable may be easily derived:
tp
φ available =
he

φavailable

hp db hb

he

tp
Figure 14: Geometrical characteristics of the joint and illustration of
contact between the beam and the supporting element

This available rotation has to be greater than the "required rotation capacity" which varies
according to the structural system and loading. A simple criterion ensuring the sufficient joint
rotation capacity may be written as:
φavailable > φrequired
For instance, the required rotation capacity, for a beam (length L and inertia I) simply supported at
its extremities and subjected to a uniformly distributed load (factored load γ p at ULS), is given by:
φrequired = γ p L
3

24 EI
By expressing that φavailable > φrequired , a simple criterion ensuring a sufficient joint rotation may be
derived:
 t γ p L3
>
h e 24 EI

Similar criteria may be derived for other load cases [11].

- Design requirements for sufficient joint ductility

As bending moments develop in the joint, the bolts and the welds are subjected to tension forces in
addition to shear forces. Premature failure of those elements which exhibit a brittle failure and
which are more heavily loaded in reality than in the calculation model has therefore to be strictly
avoided. Simple related criteria should therefore be proposed.

Criterion to avoid premature bolt failure because of tension forces

In Eurocode 3, a criterion based on the T-stub approach ensures that a yield lines mechanism
develops in the plate before the strength of the bolts is exhausted (see [3]); its background is given
in [15].
According to this criterion, at least one of the two following inequalities (1) and (2) has to be
satisfied:

(1) d ≥ 2,8 f yp
tp f ub

(2) d ≥ 2,8 f ycf for a supporting column flange

t cf f ub
where: d is the nominal diameter of the bolt shank;
tp is the thickness of the header plate;
tcf is the thickness of the supporting column flange;
fyp is the yield strength of the steel constituting the header plate;
fycf is the yield strength of the steel constituting the supporting column flange;
fub is the ultimate strength of the bolt.
However, such a criterion does not ensure that the whole shear capacity of the bolt may be
considered when evaluating the shear resistance of the joint. In fact, when this requirement is
satisfied, it may be demonstrated: that the tension force in the bolts may amount 0,5 Bt.Rd, i.e. 50%
of the design tension resistance Bt,Rd of the bolts and that, for such a tension force, the actual shear
resistance only amounts 64% of the full shear resistance of the bolts (according to the EC 3
resistance formula for bolts in shear and tension).
This looks at first to be disappointing as the user tries to maximise the shear resistance of the joint.
It may be argued though that only the bolts located in the upper half of the header plane are
affected by such a reduction, as the others are located in a compression zone, and are therefore not
subjected to tension forces.
So finally a reduction is taken into consideration by multiplying the total resistance of the bolts in
shear by a factor 0,8 (i.e. a reduction factor of 0,64 for half of the bolts located in the upper half of
the header plate – 0,5.[1 + 0,64] ≈ 0,8).

Criterion to avoid premature weld failure

The welds must be designed according to EC3 Part 1.8. In the case of relatively small loads in
relation to the capacity of the web, application of the rules in 4.5.3.2 of Part 1.8 may lead to rather
thin welds. If the rupture strength of those thin welds is lower than the yield strength of the weakest
 of the connected parts, the connection has so little deformation capacity that it usually is not
sufficient to accommodate effects due to imposed deformations, etc. In such a case the connection
will behave in a brittle way.
To avoid this, the welds can be designed "full strength". The rupture strength of full strength welds
is greater than the rupture strength of the adjacent plate; so, in the case of overloading, the plate
will fail before the welds. This is a safe design but not always necessary, taking into account the
requirement that the welds should at least be able to ensure yielding of the plate before rupture in
the welds. In the IIW recommendations of 1976 it is stated that, if the welds are designed at 70 %
of the full strength, yielding of the plate is ensured before rupture of the welds. After the re-
evaluation of weld design formulae included in the ENV version of EC3, which gave some smaller
weld sizes than in IIW rules, it was decided in the Dutch standard NEN 6770 [6] to modify the 70
% to 80 %. This recommendation is adopted here and in [11] even if the rule does not exist in Part
1.8 of EC3.

- Conclusions

If the rotation capacity and ductility requirements specified above are satisfied, the shear
resistances of all the constitutive components are then evaluated and the design shear resistance of
the connection corresponds to the weakest one, as illustrated in Figure 15. This is permitted because
all the possible detrimental effects linked to “bending-shear” interaction phenomena are integrated
into the ductility requirements.
In reality, the first component to yield is not necessarily the weakest one, in terms of shear
resistance, and two different situations may occur (Figure 15). In the first case (Figure 15.a), the
same failure mode is obtained by following the actual and design loading paths. For the second case
(Figure 15.b), the failure mode obtained with the actual loading path is not the weakest one, but is
ductile enough to allow a plastic redistribution of internal forces to take place until the design shear
resistance is reached.
Finally – and this is of importance for practice - it has to be noted that the design requirements are
first to be checked before any evaluation of shear resistance is made. This avoids unnecessary
calculations.
MEd MEd
MSd Plastic mechanism in the header plate MSd Plastic mechanism in the header plate
Header plate in shear (shear block)
Header plate in shear (gross section)

Header plate in shear (shear block)

Header plate in shear (gross section)
Header plate in shear (net section)

Header plate in shear (net section)

Supporting element in bearing

Supporting element in bearing

Beam web in shear

Header plate in bearing

Beam web in shear

Header plate in bearing

Bolts in shear

Bolts in shear

VVEdSd VVEdSd
Design shear Design shear
resistance resistance

(a) One single failure mode (b) Different failure modes

Figure 15: Possible failure modes for a header plate connection
5 DESIGN SHEETS
In [11], design sheets for practical applications are presented. They allow to check whether the
connection under consideration fulfils the design requirements described in section 4, but also to evaluate
easily the design shear resistance and the tying ultimate capacity of the joint.

6 WORKED EXAMPLE
The full design procedure is illustrated hereafter in the case of a single-sided beam-to-column joint
with a header plate connection (Figure 16). Explicit references are made to clauses of Eurocode 3 Part 1-
1 [2] and Part 1-8 [3] whenever it is possible.

e11
p1[1]
M20
p1[2]
IPE300
HEA200 e1n

e21 p’2 e2n

Figure 16: Single-sided beam-to-column joint with a header plate connection

- Main joint data

Configuration: Beam to column flange

Column: HEA 200 S 235
Beam: IPE 300 S 235
Connection type: Header plate connection
Header plate: 230 x 200 x 10, S 235

- Detailed characteristics

Column HEA 200, S235

Depth: h = 190.00 mm
Web thickness: tcw = 6.50 mm
Width: bc = 200.00 mm
Flange thickness: tcf = 10.00 mm
Root radius: r = 18.00 mm
Area: A = 53.83 cm²
Inertia: I = 3692.16 cm4

Yield strength fyc = 235.00 N/mm²

Ultimate strength fuc = 360.00 N/mm²

Beam IPE 300, S235

Depth: h = 300.00 mm
Web thickness: tbw = 7.10 mm
Width bb = 150.00 mm
 Flange thickness: tbf = 10.70 mm
Root radius: r = 15.00 mm
Area: A = 53.81 cm²
Inertia: I = 8356.11 cm4

Yield strength: fyb = 235.00 N/mm²

Ultimate strength: fub = 360.00 N/mm²

Header plate 230 x 200 x 10, S 235

Vertical gap: gv = 35.00 mm

Depth: hp = 230.00 mm
Width: bp = 200.00 mm
Thickness: tp = 10.00 mm

Direction of load transfer (1)

Number of bolts rows: n1 = 3

Edge distance to first bolt row: e11 = 45.00 mm
Pitch between bolt rows 1 and 2: p1[1] = 70.00 mm
Pitch between bolt rows 2 and 3: p1[2] = 70.00 mm
Distance from last bolt row to edge: e1n = 45.00 mm

Direction perpendicular to load transfer (2)

Number of bolts rows: n2 = 2

Edge distance to first bolt row: e21 = 50.00 mm
Pitch between bolt rows 1 and 2: p2' = 100.00 mm
Distance from last bolt row to edge: e2n = 50.00 mm
Distance from last bolt row to edge: e2s = 50.00 mm
(column flange)

Yield strength: fyp = 235.00 N/mm²

Ultimate strength: fup = 360.00 N/mm²

Bolts M20, 8.8

Tensile stress area: As = 245.00 mm²

Shank diameter: d = 20.00 mm
Hole diameter: d0 = 22.00 mm

Yield strength: fyb = 640.00 N/mm²

Ultimate strength: fub = 800.00 N/mm²

Welds

Throat thickness: aw = 4.00 mm

Length: lw = 230.00 mm

Safety factors
 γM0 = 1.00
γM2 = 1.25
γMu = 1.10

Applied shear force

VEd = 200 kN

- Ductility and rotation requirements

Rotation requirements

(1) hp ≤ db

hp = 230.00 mm
db = h – 2 tbf – 2 r
= 300.00 – 2 10.70 – 2 15.00 = 248.60 mm
→ O.K.

(2) φavailable > φrequired we suppose that this requirement is fulfilled.

Ductility requirements

(1) d ≥ 2.8 f yp
tp f ub

d / tp = 2.00
fyp / fub = 0.29
→ 2.00 ≥ 1.52 O.K.

(2) a ≥ 0.4 tbw βw 3 (fybw γM2/fubw γM0) = 3.21 mm

tbw = 7.1 mm
fybw = 235.00 N/mm²
fubw = 360.00 N/mm²
βw = 0.80
a = 4.00 mm
→ O.K.

- Joint shear resistance

Bolts in shear

VRd 1 = 0,8 n Fv,Rd = 451.58 kN

n=6
Fv,Rd= αv A fub / γM2 = 94.08 kN (EC3 Part 1-8 Table 3.4)
αv = 0.6
 A = As = 245.00 mm²
fub = 800.00 N/mm²

Header plate in bearing

VRd 2 = n Fb,Rd = 589.09 kN

n=6

Fb,Rd= k1 αb d tp fup / γM2 = 98.18 kN (EC3 Part 1-8 Table 3.4)

αb = min(α1 , α2 , α3 , 1) = 0.68
α1 = e1 / 3d0 = 0.68
α2 = p1 / 3d0 - 1/4 = 0.81
α3 = fub / fup = 2.22
k1= min(2.8 e2 / d0 – 1.7; 2.5) = min(4.66; 2.5) = 2.5
d = 20.00 mm
tp = 10.00 mm
fub = 800.00 N/mm²
fup = 360.00 N/mm²

Column flange in bearing

VRd 3 = n Fb,Rd = 700.36 kN

n=6
Fb,Rd= k1 αb d tcf fucf / γM2 = 116.73 kN (EC3 Part 1-8 Table 3.4)
α = min(α1 , α2 , 1) = 0.81
α1 = p1 / 3d0 - 1/4 = 0.81
α2 = fub / fucf = 2.22
k1 = min(2.8 e2s / d0 – 1.7; 2.5) = min(4.66; 2.5) = 2.5
d = 20.00 mm
tcf = 10.00 mm
fub = 800.00 N/mm²
fucf = 360.00 N/mm²

Gross section of the header plate in shear

VRd 4 = 2 Fv,Rd = 491.44 kN

Fv,Rd = Av fyp / (1,27 3 γM0) = 245.72 kN (based on EC3 Part 1-1 Clause 6.2.6(2))
Av = hp tp = 23.00 cm²
fyp = 235.00 N/mm²

Net section of the header plate in shear

VRd 5 = 2 Fv,Rd = 545.39 kN

Fv,Rd = Av,net fup / ( 3 γM2 ) = 272.69 kN

Av,net = ( hp - n1 d0 ) tp = 16.40 cm²
hp = 230.00 mm
 n1 = 6
d0 = 22.00 mm
tp = 10.00 mm
fup = 360.00 N/mm²

Shear block of the header plate

VRd 6 = 2 Feff,Rd = 577.40 kN

1,36 p2' = 136.00 mm → hp > 1,36 p2'

n1 = 3 → n1 > 1
Feff,Rd = Feff,1,Rd = fup Ant / γM2 + fyp Anv / ( 3 γM0 ) = 288.70 kN (EC3 Part 1-8 Clause 3.10.2(2))
Ant = tp ( e2 - d0/2 ) = 390.00 mm²
tp = 10.00 mm
e2 = 50.00 mm
d0 = 22.00 mm
Anv = tp ( hp – e1 – ( n1 – 0.5 ) d0 ) = 1300.00 mm²
n1 = 3
hp = 230.00 mm
e1 = 45.00 mm
fyp = 235.00 N/mm²
fup = 360.00 N/mm²

Header plate in bending

VRd 7 = ∞
hp = 230.00 mm
1,36 p2' = 136.4 mm → hp > 1,36 p2'

Beam web in shear

VRd 8 = Fv,Rd = 221.56 kN

Fv.Rd = Av fybw / ( 3 γM0) = 221.56 kN (EC3 Part 1-1 Clause 6.2.6(2))

Av = hp tbw = 16.33 cm²
fybw = 235.00 N/mm²

Joint shear resistance

Shear resistance of the joint: VRd = 221.56 kN

Failure Mode: Beam web in shear

- Design check

Applied shear force: VEd = 200 kN

Shear resistance: VRd = 221.56 kN ⇒ Design O.K.

7 CONCLUSIONS
In Eurocode 3 Part 1.8 devoted to the design of the structural joints, rules are provided for the
evaluation of the resistance of moment resisting joints, but only little information is available as far as
simple joints are concerned. In order to fill this gap, research works have been initiated at Liège
University and, on the basis of these preliminary works, European recommendations have been later on
prepared and agreed within the Technical Committee 10 “Connections” of the European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork. The publication of these recommendations is scheduled in 2007. In a first
possible future revision of the book it is intended to extend the scope of these recommendations to
column bases and column splices.

REFERENCES
[1] Guillaume M.-L., Development of an European procedure for the design of simple joints (in
French), Diploma work, Liège University/ CUST Clermont-Ferrand, July 2000.
[2] Eurocode 3 EN1993 Part 1-1, Design of Steel structures - General Rules and Rules for Buildings,
CEN Brussels, EN 1993-1-1, May 2005
[3] Eurocode 3 EN1993 Part 1-8, Design of Steel structures – Design of Connections, CEN Brussels,
EN 1993-1-8, May 2005
[4] BS 5950-1:2000, British Standard: Structural use of steelwork in building, Part 1, Code of practice
for design - rolled and welded cross-sections.
[5] BCSA - SCI: Joints in Simple Construction, simple Connections, Publication 212, 2002.
[6] NEN 6770: Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut, NEN 6770 Staalconstructies TGB 1990, basiseisen.
[7] Report SG/TC-1OA:Verbindingen: Aanbevelingen voor normaal krachtverbindingen en
dwarskrachtverbindingen, April 1998.
[8] Sedlacek G., Weynand K. and Oerder S.,Typisierte Anschlüsse im Stahlhochbau, DSTV,
Stahlhbau-Verglagsges, Düsseldorf, 2000.
[9] Renkin S., Development of an European process for the design of simple structural joint in steel
frames" (in French), Diploma work, Liège University, June 2003.
[10] ECSC Research Contracts 7210-SA/212 and 320, Frame Design including Joint Behaviour, 1993-
1996, Final draft.
[11] Jaspart J.P., Renkin, S. and Guillaume M.L., European recommendations for the design of simple
joints in steel structures, to appear in 2008 as a publication of the European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork, Brussels.
[12] Gibbons C., Nethercot D., Kirby P. and Wang Y., An appraisal of partially restrained column
behaviour in non-sway steel frames, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Structs & Bldgs, 1993, 99, pp 15-28.
[13] Gaboriau M., Recherche d'une méthode simple de prédimensionnement des ossatures contreventées
à assemblages semi-rigides dans l'optique de l'approche élastique de dimensionnement, Diploma
work, Liège University, July 1995.
[14] Braham M. and Jaspart J.P., Is it safe to design a building structure with simple connections when
they are know to exhibit a semi-rigid behaviour ?, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Volume 60, Issues 3-5, 2004, pp. 713-723.
[15] Jaspart J.P., Recent advances in the field of steel joints. Column bases and further configurations
for beam-to-column joints and beam splices, Professorship Thesis, Department MSM, Liège
University, 1997.