Law Lichen Ba 070063 D 10 TTT

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.
1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
Authors full name :
LAW LI CHEN
Date of birth
12 JUNE 1986
Title
DESIGN OF BEAM SPLICE AND COLUMN SPLICE

CONNECTIONS USING BS 5950 AND EUROCODE 3
2009/2010
Academic Session :
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL
(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED
(Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS
I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by:
SIGNATURE
860612-52-5968
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)
Date: 17 APRIL 2010
NOTES :
SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
DR ARIZU SULAIMAN
NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date: 17 APRIL 2010
If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in my opinion this project
report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering.
Signature
: .
Name of Supervisor : DR ARIZU SULAIMAN

Date
: 17 APRIL 2010
DESIGN OF BEAM SPLICE AND COLUMN SPLICE CONNECTIONS USING

BS 5950 AND EUROCODE 3
LAW LI CHEN
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL 2010
ii
I declare that this thesis entitled Design of Beam Splice and Column Splice
Connections using BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 is the result of my own research except
as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not
concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature
: .
Name
: LAW LI CHEN
Date
: 17 APRIL 2010
iii
To Mom and Dad, the ones I love and trust.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor,

Dr Arizu Sulaiman for his guidance and help throughout this report for two semesters.
Thank you for your advice and patience.
Next, thank you to all my friends who have helped me directly and indirectly
throughout this project.
Last but not least, my deepest appreciation also goes to my beloved,

understanding and supportive family.
ABSTRACT
This project presents the study on the design process for splice connections (beam
splice and column splice) based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, where the type of
connections is of simple connection using bolts and cover plates. Subsequently one
of the parameters which is the thickness of the cover plate has been varied in order to
see whether the thickness would influence the design results. Besides varying the
cover plate thickness, different sizes of beams and columns are also used in the
design. From the results, it is observed that when the thickness of the cover plate
increases, the strength of the cover plate increases linearly for the design using both
the BS 5950 and Eurocode 3. However, no change of strength is observed for the
connecting members (beams and columns) when the cover plate thickness increases.
This shows that for simple design of splice connections, no relationship exists
between the cover plates and the connecting members. When comparison is made
between the values of BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, the usage of Eurocode 3 is seen to
be more economical. In almost all conditions, the values of the strength calculated
using Eurocode 3 are higher. It is just for the tension capacity (for connecting
members and cover plate) and slip resistance (for preloaded bolt) that higher values
are observed in the design using BS 5950.
vi
ABSTRAK
Projek ini adalah berkaitan dengan kajian terhadap proses rekabentuk sambungan
sambat (sambat rasuk dan sambat tiang) berdasarkan BS 5950 dan Eurocode 3, di
mana jenis sambungan yang digunakan adalah sambungan mudah menggunakan bolt
dan plat penutup. Seterusnya, salah satu parameter, iaitu ketebalan plat penutup telah
diubah untuk mengetahui sama ada ketebalan tersebut akan mempengaruhi
keputusan rekabentuk. Selain daripada mengubah ketebalan plat penutup pada
sambungan sambat, saiz rasuk dan tiang yang berbeza telah juga digunakan dalam
rekabentuk tersebut. Daripada keputusan, didapati bahawa apabila ketebalan plat
penutup bertambah, kekuatan plat penutup tersebut bertambah secara linear bagi
rekabentuk berdasarkan kedua-dua BS 5950 dan Eurocode 3. Walaubagaimanapun,
tiada perubahan didapati berlaku pada kekuatan anggota rasuk dan tiang yang
disambung pada plat penutup apabila ketebalan bertambah. Ini menunjukkan bagi
sambungan mudah, tiada hubungan wujud di antara plat penutup dengan anggota
rasuk dan tiang yang disambung. Apabila perbandingan dibuat di antara nilai yang
diperoleh melalui BS 5950 dan Eurocode 3, didapati bahawa penggunaan Eurocode 3
adalah lebih ekonomi. Dalam hamper kesemua keadaan, nilai kekuatan adalah lebih
tinggi bagi rekabentuk menggunakan Eurocode 3. Hanya kekuatan tegangan (pada
anggota yang disambung dan plat penutup) dan kekuatan gelincir (pada bolt
prabeban) yang nilai kekuatan adalah lebih tinggi bagi rekabentuk menggunakan BS
5950.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
TITLE PAGE
AUTHORS DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvii
LIST OF NOTATIONS
xix
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of Study
1.2
Statement of Problem
1.3
Objectives
1.4
Scope of Study
1.5
Significance of Study
viii
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
British Standard and BS 5950
10
2.2
Eurocodes and Eurocode 3
12
2.3
Main Difference between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3
15
2.4
Design Methods
17
2.5
Types of Steel Connections
18
2.6
Bolting
19
2.7
Splice connection
22
2.7.1 Beam Splice
25
2.7.1.1 Beam splice of end-plate arrangement
26
2.7.1.2 Spliced plated connection
27
2.7.3 Column Splice
29
2.7.2.1 Bearing column splice
31
2.7.2.2 Non-bearing column splice
33
2.8
Steel Connection Design based on BS 5950
34
2.9
Steel Connection Design based on Eurocode 3
35
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
36
3.2
Design Procedure for Spliced Connection
39
3.2.1 Design of Beam Splice Connection

using BS 5950
40
3.2.2 Design of Column Splice Connection

using BS 5950
44
3.2.3 Design of Beam Splice Connection

using Eurocode 3
47
3.2.4 Design of Column Splice Connection

using Eurocode 3
51
3.3
Change of Cover Plate Thickness
54
3.4
Beam Splice and Column Splice Design

with Microsoft Excel Worksheets
54
ix
4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
4.2
Practical Application of the design methods

for BS 5950 and Eurocode
55
Change of Thickness of the cover plates
76
4.2.1 Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for

Beam splice Connection Designed
using BS 5950
76
4.2.2 Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for

Column Splice Connection Designed
using BS 5950
90
4.2.3 Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for

Beam Splice Connection Designed
using Eurocode 3
98
4.2.4 Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for

Column Splice Connection Designed
using Eurocode 3
4.3
112
Comparison of results between BS 5950

and Eurocode 3
120
4.3.1 Comparison of results between BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 for Beam Spliced
connections
120
4.3.2 Comparison of results between BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 for Column Spliced
connections
4.4
Discussions of Results
128
132
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1
Conclusion
136
5.2
Recommendation
138
x
REFERENCES
140
APPRENDICES A F
142
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
1.1
The differences in axes between BS 5950 and the Eurocode 3
1.2
Comparison of frequently used symbols in BS 5950 and
PAGE
16
Eurocode 3
16
3.2a
Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950
40
3.2b
Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950
44
3.2c
Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3
47
3.2d
Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3
51
4.2a(i)
Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x *15 x 420)
4.2a(ii)

at web splice (2/140 x 8 x 340)
4.2b(i)
87

at web splice (cover plate 2/140 x 8 x 300)
4.2d (i)
82

at flange splice (cover plate 2/170 x 15 x 420)
4.2c (ii)
82

4.2c (i)
77

4.2b (ii)
76
87

88
xii
4.2d (ii)

4.2e (i)

4.2e (ii)
89

4.3b
89

at web splice 2/140 x 8 x 220
4.3a
88
90

93
4.3f
Column size and cover plate size used on columns flange
96
4.3c

4.3d

4.3e
99

4.4b (ii)
98

4.4b (i)
97

at flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x *15 x 420)
4.4a (ii)
97

4.4a (i)
96
104

at web splice (cover plate 2/140 x 8 x 340)
104
4.4f
Beam size and cover plate size used on beam
108
4.4c (i)

4.4c (i)

at flange splice (cover plate140 x 8 x 300)
4.4d (i)
109

4.4e (i)
109
110
xiii
4.4e (ii)

4.5a
111

4.5b
111
112

115
4.5f
Column size and cover plate size used on columns flange
118
4.5c

at flange Splice (cover plate 2/350 x 16 x 525)
4.5d

4.5e
121
Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for

moment capacity of beams web
4.7a
121

shear capacity of beams web
4.6d
121

bearing capacity of beams flange
4.6c
119

tension capacity of beams flange
4.6b
119

4.6a
118
122
Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the

strength of flange cover plate (2/150 x 15 x 420) and web
cover plate (2/140 x 8 x 340) when the cover plate thickness
is increased
4.7b
123

cover plate (2/140 x 8 x 300) when cover plate thickness
is increased
125
xiv
4.7c

is increased
4.7d
126

is increased
127
4.8
Comparison of the bearing capacity at columns flange
128
4.9a
Comparison of flange cover plate (2/350 x 16 x 525)

strength between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 when the
thickness is changed
4.9b:
129

4.9c
131

4.9d
131

132
4.10
Strength values for bolts
133
4.11
Equations for tension capacity based on BS 5950

and Eurocode 3
134
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Bolt Terms
20
2.2
HSFG bolted connection in shear
21
2.3
Ordinary bearing bolt in shear
21
2.4
Load transmission in a shear connection through friction

for preloaded (HSFG) bolts
21
2.5
Load transmission in a splice joint for ordinary bolts
21
2.6
Various types of splice arrangements
25
2.7
Splices in beams
25
2.8
End-plate beam connections between elements of different

serial size. (a) Coplanarity of compression flange;
(b) Coplanarity of tension flange
2.9
26
End-plate beam splices: (a) Short end plate.

(b) singly extended end plates; (c) doubly extended end
27
2.10
Loads acting on beam splice connection
28
2.11
Splice plate connections. (a) All bolted; (b) all welded;

(c) bolted and welded
28
2.12
Typical splice positions in a braced frame
30
2.13
Typical bearing column splices
33
2.14
Typical non-bearing column splices
34
3.1
Schematic Diagram of Project
38
4.2a (i)
Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.2a (i))
78
xvi
4.2a (ii)
Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2a (ii))
4.2b (i)

(Data from Table 4.2b (i))
4.2b (ii)
113

(Data from Table 4.5b)
4.7a
106

(Data from Table 4.5a)
4.5b
105

(Data from Table 4.4b (ii))
4.5a
101

4.4b (ii)
100

4.4b (i)
94

4.4a (ii)
91

4.4a (i)
84

4.3b
83
Graph of strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

4.3a
79
116
Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 vs Cover Plate Thickness.
4.9a
124
Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 vs Thickness of Cover Plate
130
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A1
TITLE
Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2c (i))
A2
150
Figure 4.4c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.4c (i))
C2
149
Figure 4.3e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3e)
C1
148
Figure 4.3d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3d)
B3
147
Figure 4.3c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3c)
B2
146
Figure 4.2e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (ii))
B1
145
Figure 4.2e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (i))
A6
144
Figure 4.2d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2d (ii))
A5
143
Figure 4.2d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2d (i))
A4
142
Figure 4.2c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2c (ii)
A3
PAGE
151
Figure 4.4c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.4c (ii))
152
xviii
C3
Figure 4.4d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.4d (i))
C4
Figure 4.4d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.4d (ii))
C5
158
Figure 4.5e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5e)
E1
157
Figure 4.5d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5d)
D3
156
Figure 4.5c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5c)
D2
155
Figure 4.4e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.4e (ii))
D1
154
Figure 4.4e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.4e (i))
C6
153
159
Figure 4.7b: Strength of Web and Flange Cover Plate

based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs thickness of Cover
Plate (Data from Table 4.7a)
E2
160
Figure 4.7c: Strength of Web and Flange Cover Plate

Plate. (Data from Table 4.7c)
E3
161
Figure 4.7d: Strength of Web and Flange Cover Plate

Plate. (Data from Table 4.7d)
F1
162
Figure 4.9b: Strength of Flange Cover Plate

based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs Thickness of Cover
Plate (Data from Table 4.9b)
F2
163
Figure 4.9c: Strength of the Flange Cover Plate

Plate (Data from Table 4.9c)
F3
164
Figure 4.9d: Strength of the Flange Cover Plate

Plate (Data from Table 4.9d)
165
xix
LIST OF NOTATIONS
BS 5950: PART 1: 2000
EUROCODE 3
Nominal Bolt diameter
Bolts hole diameter
d0
End distance
e1, e2
Shear Area
Av
Av
Effective net area
Ae
Ae
Elastic Modulus
Wel
Plastic Modulus
Wpl
Design strength
py
fy
Tension capacity
Pt
Nt,Rd
Slip resistance
PSL
Fs,Rd
Bearing capacity
Pbs
FbRd
Moment capacity
Mc
Mc,Rd
Shear capacity
Pv
Fv,Rd
Block shear failure
Pr
Veff,1,Rd
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Structural design is a process where a structure that is build for a certain

function, which will satisfy certain performance criteria or design specifications, thus
able to produce a safe, functional and economic structure to the public. This can be
achieved by referring to the Code of Practice, which is a written guidelines issued by
an official body or a professional association to its members, to set out principles for
the design of the structures and design rules. With the availability of logical and
clearly written codes, it is useful for helping design engineers. Furthermore,
structural failures can be reduced when good building codes are strictly enforced.
In Malaysia, for the structural design of steelwork, currently we refer to the

Code of Practice BS 5950 1:2000. BS 5950, which was written for use in the
United Kingdom, is also widely practiced in several countries around the world.
However with the introduction of the Eurocode Standards BS EN 1993, or more
commonly known as Eurocode 3, this new code of practice will supersede the
2
existing BS 5950. As a result, our country will have to follow suit as BS 5950 was
withdrawn by March 2010.
Countries which are bound to implement the European Standard include

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and United Kingdom. This phenomenon is effective in harmonizing the
technical specifications for construction product as well as eliminating the obstacles
to trade within the European countries (BSI, 2005). Other non-European countries
practicing the Eurocode 3 like Malaysia will also enjoy the advantages in the
construction industry. With a common understanding in construction projects, it will
be easier for us to exchange construction services with the Member States. Through
this process, we will also be able to learn from other countries in terms of their
construction skills and technology, thus increase our level of competitiveness. This
also fulfil the European Commissions objective, that is to establish a set of common
technical rules for the design of buildings and civil engineering works which will
ultimately replace the differing rules in the various Member States.
When the Eurocodes are introduced, it is important to take into consideration

that the safety measures taken for each country has its own uniqueness and choices.
In addition, the climates, geographical and geological conditions also vary from one
country to another. Therefore, these parameters are left opened for National choice
and are known as National Determined Parameters (NDPs). NDPs are contained in
National Annex, a new element in the Code of Practice, where it will be included
with each Eurocode part and give details of any NDPs specific to the individual
member states during their structural design of buildings and civil engineering works.
Generally, NDPs cover values, classes or methods to be chosen or determined at
national level, and will allow the EU member states to choose the level of safety,
including aspects of durability and economy applicable to works in their territory,
through their national annex.
3
Furthermore, to get more than 20 countries to implement to European
Standard and agreeing on such a large number of technical issues have been a long
and hard process. Countries which have well developed codes may not agree or feel
necessary to change to the new system. But there is the rational argument that, as the
laws of physics dont change, common codes should be possible (Davison and
Owens, 2003). Therefore, another reason for the introduction of NDPs is to make it
easier and more efficient for countries which wish to maintain certain codes that are
subject to their own national determination, at the same time implementing the
European Standard.
The Eurocode 3 will cover many forms of steel construction and provides the
most comprehensive and up to date set of design guidance. Therefore, familiarization
with this new code is inevitable.
1.2
Statement of Problem
The design practice of Malaysia usually follows the design of British. One of
it as mentioned just now is BS 5950, the British Standard for the design, fabrication
and erection of structural steelwork. Before BS 5950 was established, designers in
our country had been using the code of practice of BS449 which was introduced in
1932. For both these standards, a few amendments were made from time to time.
This shows that how our country has been following the British Design all this while.
However with the new Eurocode 3 which will eventually supersede both BS
5950 and BS 449, as well as the national standards of all the other countries of
Western Europe, Malaysia as one of the nations based on British practices would not
have other choice but to follow suit. This is because when BS 5950 was officially
4
withdrawn, there are no longer any further maintenance, in the form of updates and
amendments.
Furthermore in the age of globalization, if Malaysia does not change from BS

5950 to Eurocode 3, our construction industry will be greatly affected because we
will be unable to compete with other countries due to non-recognition of standard.
Not only many people are still unaware regarding the new Standard, the
attention and exposure given on this issue is still quite low. Therefore this report
aims to gain a better understanding of Eurocode 3 as well as to raise the awareness of
the changing of BS5950 to Eurocode 3 among students.
The general approach of Eurocode 3 is essentially the same as that of BS5950,

being based on limit state principles using partial safety factors (Gardner and
Nethercot, 2007). For the connection of joints, we can see that more emphasis is
given in Eurocode 3, where the joint design is covered in EN 1993-1-8- design of
joints, another sub-part of Part 1 of Eurocode 3 consisting 133 pages. Whereas in BS
5950, design of connections is part of design of steel structure in Part 1: Code of
Practice for Design Rolled and welded Section. Therefore, in Eurocode 3, the
separation of the design of joints from the general part 1.1 - General Rules and Rules
of Buildings, shows the importance of connections in design, where it provides a
much more detailed treatment of the whole subject area of connections.
Despite that the connection may account for less than 5% of the frame weight
for a typical braced multi-storey frame, but the connections cost maybe 30% of the
total cost (SCI, 1993). Other sources even state that the joints determine up to 50% of
the total cost (Biljlaard, 2006).
5
Furthermore, if compared with steel elements like beam and column, the
behaviour of connections is more complex. If the parts joined are inaccurately fit, the
loads maybe distributed unevenly through the joints. This may cause deformation of
the connected sections and the plane sections will no longer remain plane. Most
connections are highly indeterminate, with the distribution of the stress depending on
the deformation of the fasteners and the parent material. Local restraints may also
prevent the deformation necessary for simple stress distribution. As a result, a
rigorous theoretical approach to the design of connections is always difficult.
Therefore, the design of connections is approximate and most of the design methods
are based on simple formulae derived analytically (Joannidas and Weller, 2002).
In Eurocode 3, we can see that the design of joints is more comprehensive

than BS 5950, but the principles are essentially the same. The joints are considered
as structural components such as beams and columns having properties like stiffness,
strength and deformation capacity. By having these properties in Eurocode 3, the
design of joints is treated to have the same level as those of columns and beams
(Biljlaard, 2006).
Thus, this report will focus on studying the connection of joints based on
Eurocode 3. Comparisons will also be made between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 based
on the design procedure.
6
1.3
Objectives
The objectives of this project are:
1. To determine and demonstrate the design process of joints for splices

connections using BS 5950.
2.
To determine and demonstrate the design process of joints for splices

connections using Eurocode 3.
3. To determine the influence of the cover plate thickness on the capacity of the
splice connections using BS 5950 and Eurocode 3.
4. To compare and evaluate the difference between the results from BS 5950
and Eurocode 3.
1.4
Scope
In general, steel connections involve the use of bolts or weld, or the

combination of both, and the types of components used to connect steel members
together include double angle web cleats, flexible end plates, fin plate, splices and
others.
7
For this report, connections will be designed as simple connections.
According to Eurocode 3, simple connections are defined as those connections that
transmit end shear only and have negligible resistance to rotation and therefore do
not transfer significant moments at the ultimate limit state. In other words, this report
will be of simple design which is a conservative assumption, where the structure is
regarded as having pinned joints, and significant moments are not developed.
Focus of this report will be on the design of splice connections using bolts,
which is the design of column splices and beam splices. Column splice, which is
used to join successive parts of columns, will be of direct bearing arrangement and
joined together using angle cleats and flange cover plates. Division plate is also used
in between the connected columns (between upper column and lower column). The
types of bolts used will be the ordinary bearing bolts of size 20 mm diameters. For
this project, the size for upper and lower columns will be the same for easier design
and understanding. It is found out that when different size of columns are used on the
upper and lower part, the size of the lower column has no influence on the column
splice design, with condition that the lower column is of same size or bigger than the
upper column. Different in the size of upper and lower column will however
influence the division plate thickness. Since the thickness of division plate is not the
parameter tested for this project, thus we used constant thickness of 25 mm for all
design of column splices in this project.
For beam splices, successive parts of beams are joined together by web and
flange cover plates, using High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts of 20 mm
diameter. HSFG bolts are used for beam splices in order to reduce the splice length,
where HSFG bolts or also known as preloaded bolts will provide better stiffness and
reduce deflections because they prevent slip. This consideration is very important
where service conditions determine the beam design.
The grade used for the columns and beams used will be of S275 which is the
most commonly used in structural applications. Grade for the splice connection
8
which is the cover plates however will be higher, that is S355, meaning the yield
strength is 355N/mm2 which is higher than the structural elements it connects to. Use
of higher grade for cover plates is due to its smaller dimension compared to the
structural element (beams and columns), where the use of higher grade can increase
the strength or resistance of the plates.
The standard code of practice used for this report will be referring to:
a. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General rules and

rules for building.
b. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-8: Design of joints
c. BS5950: Structural use of steelwork in building Part 1: Code of
practice for design Rolled and welded Section.
1.5
Significance of Study
Apart from achieving the objectives of this project, this study also intend to
increase the understanding of the new Eurocode 3 which will eventually be our new
Code of Practice, replacing the current BS 5950. Some European countries like the
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Denmark and Greece have already adopted Eurocode 3 in
their construction industry, while majority of the other European countries will fully
adopt the code by the year 2010. In Malaysia, even though the specific date of
practicing Eurocode 3 has yet to be set, it is undeniable that one day, we will have to
switch to the new code for the better of our country, especially in the construction
field.
On top of that, the Eurocodes, which will be published by the National

Standards for the use in that country, would also come together with the National
Annexes, one for each part of the Eurocode programme. The introduction of the
National Annex shows the versatile style of the Eurocodes, where the National
Annex will contain country-specific data, and will state the method to be used if
there are alternative methods allowed in the Eurocode. Therefore, if Malaysia adopts
the new Eurocode 3, we may also publish our own National Annex, thus improving
the code to suit the design of our own country.
Most importantly, Eurocode 3 offers a lot of benefits such as being well

documented and the coverage is more extensive and detailed. With so many
advantages, it is hope that this report will increase the awareness of the importance of
adopting the new Eurocode 3 as soon as possible. Finally, this report also hopes to
serve as a reference for the design of steel joints, so that further improvement and
studies can be made in the near future.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
British Standard and BS 5950
British Standards are produced by BSI Group, a UKs national standards

organization that produces standards and information products that promote and
share best practice. There are over 27,000 current British standards, and each year,
1700 new or revised British, European or international standards are produced by
BSI British Standards. One of it is BS 5950.
The design of steel structures in Malaysia is based on BS5950, where this

standard combines the codes of practice covering the design, construction and fire
protection of steel structures and specifications for materials, workmanship and
erection. BS 5950 is divided into 9 parts:
11
1. Part 1: Code of practice for design Rolled and Welded Section;
2. Part 2: Specification for materials, fabrication and erection Rolled and
welded section;
3. Part 3: Design in composite construction Section 3.1: Code of practice for
design of simple and continuous composite beams;
4. Part 4: Code of practice for design of composite slabs with profiled steel
sheetings;
5. Part 5: Code of practice for design of cold formed thin gauge sections;
6. Part 6: Code of practice for design of light gauge profiled steel sheeting;
7. Part 7: Specification for materials, fabrication and erection Cold formed
sections and sheeting;
8. Part 8: Code of practice for fire resistant design;
9. Part 9: Code of practice for stressed skin design.
For the design on steel structures for buildings, we refer to Part 1, which is
also known as BS5950 1:2000 Structural use of steelwork in building Part 1:
Code of practice for design Rolled and Welded Section. This Part 1 of BS 5950
first arrived in May 2001 with an effective date of 15 August 2001.
BS 5950 uses the limit state concept in which various limiting states are
considered under factored loads. Limit state is a condition of a structure which is
unacceptable for some reason or other. In BS 5950, limit state can be of two types,
which are the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state. Ultimate limit
state if exceeded will cause the whole or part of the structure to collapse, and this
12
limit state is mostly used in the design of strength, stability against overturning and
sway, fracture due to fatigue, brittle fracture and so on. Serviceability limit state, on
the other hand if exceeded will cause the structure or part of it unfit to be used, but
not to the extend of collapsing. Therefore serviceability limit state is used in
checking deflection, vibration, repairable damage due to fatigue, corrosion and
durability (Dennis, 2004; Knowles, 1977).
2.2
Eurocodes and Eurocode 3
Eurocodes are the European standards for structural design, where the
Eurocodes come in a number of parts, covering a range of application as shown
below:
EN 1990
Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design
EN 1991
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
EN 1992
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1994
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structure
EN 1995
Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996
Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1997
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
13
EN 1998
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999
Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
The Structural Eurocodes above will eventually replace national codes like
BS 5950, where BS 5950 is replaced by the Eurocode 3.
Work on the Eurocode 3 started in 1979 and it was finally been finalized after
some 25 years. Thus, the Eurocode Standards BS EN 1993 is now a new Code of
Practice aims to provide common structural steel design rules.
Compared to BS 5950, Eurocode 3 covers many forms of steel construction

and provides the most comprehensive and up to date set of design guidance.
Therefore, Eurocode 3 is subdivided into 6 parts:
1. EN 1993 1 Design of Steel Structures: General rules and rules of buildings.

2. EN 1993 2 Design of Steel Structures: Steel Bridges
3. EN 1993 3 Design of Steel Structures: Towers, masts and chimneys.
4. EN 1993 4 Design of Steel Structures: Silos, tanks and pipelines.
5. EN 1993 5 Design of Steel Structures: Piling.
6. EN 1993 6 Design of Steel Structures: Crane supporting structures.
For Part 1 (which refers to EN 1993 1 Design of Steel Structures), it is

further subdivided into 12 part:
14
i)
EN 1993 1 1 Design of steel structures: General rules and rules of

buildings
ii)
EN 1993 1 2 Design of steel structures: Structural fire design.
iii)
EN 1993 1 3 Design of steel structures: Cold-formed thin gauge

members and sheetings.
iv)
EN 1993 1 4 Design of steel structures: Stainless Steels
v)
EN 1993 1 5 Design of steel structures: Plated structural elements.
vi)
EN 1993 1 6 Design of steel structures: Strength and stability of shell

structures.
vii)
EN 1993 1 7 Design of steel structures: Strength and stability of

planar plated structures transversely loaded.
viii)
EN 1993 1 8 Design of steel structures: Design of joints.
ix)
EN 1993 1 9 Design of steel structures: Fatigue strength of steel

structures.
x)
EN 1993 1 10 Design of steel structures: selection of steel for fracture

toughness and through-thickness properties.
xi)
EN 1993 1 11 Design of steel structures: Design of structures with

tension components made of steel.
xii)
EN 1993 1 12 Design of steel structures: Supplementary rules for high

strength steel.
15
The Eurocode 3 has similar approach to BS 5950 in the basis of design,

which is the use of limit state principles and partial safety factors in designing of
steel structures.
However, we can see that Part 1.1 of Eurocode 3 is just the basic document,
where designers will need to consult other sub-parts, for example Part 1.8, for the
information on bolts and welds, and Part 1.3 for cold-formed sections, or Part 1.10
for the selection of materials, since Eurocode 3 does not permit duplication of
content between codes.
2.3
Main Difference between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3.
One important factor of Eurocode 3 and other European Standards is that

there are no repetitions. Values and properties will only be given in one code. As an
example, for the design of composite structures, it is needed to refer to Eurocode 0
for load factors, Eurocode 1 for loads, Eurocode 2 for concrete properties, Eurocode
3 for steel properties and Eurocode 4 for the design information.
In Eurocode 3 as well as the other Eurocodes, the materials in the documents

are divided into Principles and Application Rules. The purposes is to produce
documents which are concise, able to describe the overall aims of design and can
provide specific guidance of how these aims can be achieved in practice (Arya,
2009). Principles set out the basic requirement comprising of general statements,
definitions, requirements and models for which alternative is not permitted. The
alternative Application Rules give guidance on how to satisfy the Principles and can
even be included in the National Annex, if they do not conflict with the published
16
rules. However, if alternative application rules are used, the design cannot be said to
be in accordance with the Eurocode.
Another key difference between Eurocode 3 and BS 5950 is their axes and
notation. The two tables summarize the differences in axes as well as a few main
notations.
Table 1.1: The differences in axes between BS 5950 and the Eurocode 3.
Axes
BS 5950
Along the member
Eurocode 3
X
Major Axis
Minor Axis
Table 1.2: Comparison of frequently used symbols in BS 5950 and Eurocode 3

BS 5950
Eurocode 3
Area
Elastic modulus
Wel
Plastic modulus
Wpl
Inertia about major axis
Ix
Iy
Inertia about minor axis
Iy
Iz
Warping constant
Iw
Torsion constant
It
Radius of gyration
Applied axial force
Resistance to axial force
NRd
Bending moment
Applied shear force
Fv
Shear Resistance
Pv
VRd
Yield stress
py
fy
17
Bending strength
Compressive strength
2.4
pb
pc
LTfy
fy
Design Methods
For both BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, there are three general types of design
methods or joint modeling, which is (Mckenzie, 1998):
1. Simple design/pinned joint. The structure is assumed to be pin jointed for

analysis. A pinned joint prevents any rotational continuity between the
connected member, thus it is assumed there is no development of moment
that adversely affect the members or structure as a while.
2. Continuous design/continuous joint. The joints of the structure are assumed to

be fully rigid with minimal deformations. A continuous joint ensures full
rotational continuity, where full continuity is assumed at connections
transferring shear, axial and moment forces between members. The structure
can be analysed elastically (all joints are rigid) or plastically (all joints are full
strength).
3. Semi-continuous design/semi continuous joint. Here the joints are assumed to

be semi-rigid, causing only partial rotational continuity. This method of
design is used when the joints have some degree of strength and stiffness, but
insufficient to developed full continuity. In BS 5950, very little guidance is
given on semi-rigid design. But in Eurocode 3, besides having the elastic and
plastic analysis given in BS 5950, Eurocode 3 also incorporates theories in
the first-order and second order which consider the effects of deformations. A
18
comprehensive information on the elastic-perfectly plastic and elastoplastic
methods for continuous and semi-continuous steel framing is also included
(Faridah et.all, 2001).
For this report, the design of connections will be based on simple design,
despite in reality joints are often not truly simple. But the advantage is that this
assumption provides a conservative and straightforward calculation.
2.5
Types of Steel Connections
In general, structural design for a steel building consists of two main parts.
The first part covers the design of steel elements such as beam, column, purlins and
sheeting rails, bracing of roof, wall and lower chord, and others. The second part is
the design of joints, which connect the structural elements together by the method of
bolting and welding.
Bolting, which uses ordinary or high strength friction grip (HSFG) bolts, is
the widely used method of connecting together elements at site. Welding such as
fillet weld and butt weld is an alternative way of connecting elements on site, but
most welding is done in factory conditions. This is because site welding is costly and
defects are more likely to happen if without close supervision. Thus usually after
welding in factory, the elements are then sent to site to be bolted together in position.
Despite that welded joints provide full moment continuity, the cost is high
due to the need of on-site welding for some connections. Bolted connections are
much preferred as they require less supervision than welded joints, having shorter
assembly time and able to support the load as soon as the bolts are in position. They
19
also have a geometry that is easy to comprehend and can accommodate minor
discrepancies in the dimensions of the beams and columns. The only drawback is
that when large forces are involved, bolted connection may require wider space,
which may conflict with the architectural need for a clean line (Davison and
Owens, 2003).
Apart from the used of bolt and weld, fitting components are sometimes
required such as the use of angle web cleat, flexible end plates, fin plate, splices and
others.
2.6
Bolting.
Since bolting the most common type of connection, this report will focus on
the use of bolts in connecting elements together. A bolt may be considered as a
simple pin inserted in holes drilled in two or more steel plates or sections to prevent
relative movement. Also sometimes, the bolt that presses the two plates together is
capable of strengthening the joint. But this strength is difficult to determine, unless
the bolt is tightened to a predetermined torque, for instance the High Strength
Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts. Therefore, the strength of an ordinary bolt (or black
bolts) is determined based on the assumption that only the shank of the bolt is
contributing to the strength (Joannidas and Weller, 2002). Figure 2.1 shows the
components generally found in a bolt.
20
Figure 2.1: Bolt Terms
Ordinary bolts are normally used in steel connections, with the most
commonly used bolt diameters are 16 mm, 20 mm, 24 mm and 30 mm. Bolt
diameters of 22 mm and 27 mm are also available but not preferably used. The
usual method of forming site connections is to use bolts with clearance holes 2mm
larger than the bolt diameter for bolts of size 22mm dia. or smaller, and 3mm larger
for bolts of greater diameter. These bolts are untensioned and they are also known as
Black bolts.
HSFG bolts, also known as preloaded bolts in Eurocode 3, are made from
high-tensile steel and the tightening of the bolts is controlled to give a predetermined
and high shank tension. The preloaded bolts will exert compressive stress on the
connected plates, where the compression gives rise to high frictional resistance. This
enables additional shear resistance (or additional load transfer) to develop between
the connected plates as a result of friction, as shown in Figure 2.2. In other words, by
pretensioning of the bolts, a clamping pressure occurs between the connected parts
which enables load to be transferred by frictional resistance. Ordinary bolts which
are not preloaded are only able to transmit shear loads by the bolt shear only. Shear
loadings are transferred directly by bearing between the bolts and the internal
surfaces of the holes in the plates in conjunction with shearing on the bolts (Owen &
Cheal, 1989), as shown in the Figure 2.3.
21
In addition, another two figures also show load transmissions for preloaded
and non-preloaded bolt (Figure 2.4 and 2.5). In figure 2.4, when the applied load F
exceeds the frictional resistance which is developed between the plates, the plates
will slip relative to each other allowing the bolt to act in bearing.
Figure 2.2: HSFG bolted connection

in shear, where the shear loads are
transmitted by friction between the
plies
Figure 2.4: Load transmission in a

shear connection through friction for
preloaded (HSFG) bolts.
Figure 2.3: Ordinary bearing bolt in

shear, where shear force is transferred
by the bolt shear at the interface and
the bearing at the bolts and plates
Figure 2.5: Load transmission in a

splice joint for ordinary bolts.
22
The installation of HSFG bolts are more critical and required expertise as the
bolts tightening are controlled to the required tension. Else, slip will occur and the
joint will only act as an ordinary non-preloaded bolted joint. The bolts must be used
with hardened steel washers to prevent damage to the connected parts. There are
three methods to achieve the correct shank tension (Owen & Cheal, 1989):
1. Part turning. The nut is tightened up and then forced a further half to three
quarters of a turn, depending on the bolt length and diameter.
2. Torque control. A power operated or hand-torque wrench is used to deliver a

specified torque to the nut. Power wrenches must be calibrated at regular
intervals.
3. Load-indicating washers and bolts. These are projections which squash down
as the bolt is tightened. A feeler gauge is used to measure when the gap has
reached the required size.
2.7
Splice connection
A spliced connection is a joint made within the length of a stanchion, a beam

or any other structural member, where the splice must be designed to hold the
connected members in place. Splice must be designed to transmit all the forces. i.e.
bending moment, shear and axial forces, which exist at the location of the connection.
Spliced connection is often needed to join structural members along their length
when the available or required length of sections is limited by transportation or
erection constraints.
23
For economy reason, splices should be located away from critical section. For
beams and columns, splice location should be at the point where the moment is small,
preferably very much smaller compared to the maximum moment. In beam, if
possible the splice should be located at a position where the shear force is well below
the section capacity. This is because the greatest rate of increase in connection cost
occurs when the connection design strength approaches the section capacity.
Therefore, a lot of cost may be saved even if the splice is just positioned at a point
where its design values for axial and shear forces and bending moments are only
reduced by 20% of the element capacity. Often, members like beams and columns
that are spliced are often subject to instability. Thus it is better to place the splice
near to a point of effective restraint. If this cannot be achieved, special considerations
will need to be given in the splice design (Owen & Cheal, 1989).
Most splices transfer loads from one structural member to the adjacent part of
a similar structural member through cover plates or end plates or both. No cover
plate is needed if it is of overlapped splices, where this connection is usually used in
splicing single plates or sheeting components. The various types of splice
arrangements are shown in Figure 2.6 below.
24
Figure 2.6: Various types of splice arrangements
25
2.7.1
Beam Splice
When long-span beams require site connections between successive lengths,

the type of joints that can be used is beam splices. Beam splice is used when it is
more economical compared to using a single, large beam. In addition, beam splice is
employed when there is a change of beam section, which is to achieve economy by
reducing member sizes in regions of low moment.
Some of the most common types of splices when beam parts have the same
serial size are shown in Figure 2.7.
.
Figure 2.7: Splices in beams
26
Apart from that, the use of splice connection when there is a change in beam
size is shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: End-plate beam connections between elements of

different serial size. (a) Coplanarity of compression flange;
From all the figures above, we can see that there are two basic forms of beam
splice, which is the end-plate arrangement and splice plate connection.
2.7.1.1 Beam splice of end-plate arrangement
For the end plate arrangement, the design method is similar to the beamcolumn end plate connection, where the shear is assumed to be shared equally
between all bolts with the moment being resisted by a group of tension bolts. Apart
from the end-plate arrangement shown in Figure 2.8 (end-plate beam connections
between elements of different serial size) earlier, Figure 2.9 below show another
three general forms of end-plate connection for beam splices.
27
Figure 2.9: End-plate beam splices.

(a) Short end plate; (b) singly extended
end plates; (c) doubly extended end
plates. flange;
2.7.1.2 Spliced plated connection
Next, the second form of beam splice is of splice plated connection, where
flange cover plates and web cover plates are used to join the beams together. For this
project, the design of beam splice will be based on this connection. When a rolled
section beam splice is located away from the point of maximum moment, for
simplicity of designing the splice, we can assume that the flange splice will resist all
the bending moment (Figure 2.10a) and the web splice resists the shear (Figure
2.10b). In addition, any co-existent axial load is being divided equally between the
flanges (Figure 2.10c).
28
Figure 2.10a: Flange splice resist all the bending moment
Figure 2.10b: Web splice resists the shear
Figure 2.10c: Co-existent axial load is divided equally between the flanges
In addition, the different types of splice plate connection are shown in Figure
2.11.
Figure 2.11: Splice plate connections.

(a) All bolted; (b) all welded; (c) bolted and
welded.
29
In short, for beam splices which used either end-plate or splice plate
arrangement, the connection can be welded and bolted. Butt-welded connection is the
simplest form of beam splice connection where the elements are connected by fullstrength butt weld. No strength check is necessary in condition that the welds restore
at least the relevant plate thickness. But welding is one of the most expensive forms
of connection and execution of welded splices at site is rare compared to bolted
splice. Thus, bolted splice plate connection (Figure 2.3 (a)) are the type considered in
this project as it is one of the most common methods used in construction. To avoid
deformation associated with slip before bearing and to reduce the splice length as
well as the number of bolts to be used, High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts
will be required.
2.7.2
Column Splice
Column splice which main functions is to transfer the axial compressive force
can be manufactured in two ways generally: with butt-plates welded perpendicular to
the cut section of the two columns or with cover plates on the flanges and web. For
the latter, the adjacent column ends can be separated to create a small gap, or by
direct contact between the columns end. The types of arrangement for column splice
and its effects on how the loads are transferred are further discussed later. Each
column splice must be designed not only to carry axial compressive forces, but also
the tension (if any) resulting due to the axial load and bending moments as well as
any horizontal shear force (shear force usually can be neglected.).
30
Figure 2.12: Typical splice positions in a braced frame.
Column splices in multi-storey construction are usually provided every two

or three storeys and are located just above floor level, usually about 500 mm above
the floor level, i.e about one quarter up a story high column. Apart from providing
easy access for bolting up on site, by positioning the column splices just near to the
point of lateral restraint, it enables the effects of flexing of the column to be
neglected. Thus, the splice may be designed to be to transmit only axial load and
moments.
Besides that, for economy purpose, column splice does not provide full
continuity of stiffness (EIy and EIz) of the upper column section through the splice.
Although full continuity of stiffness is not provided, the local reduction in stiffness
will not adversely affect the overall behaviour of the frame in simple construction.
Again, it is a good practise to place column splice just above floor level.
It is recommended that when designing column splice, the cover plates are
sized to provide adequate stiffness, by making the moment of inertia of the splice
material at least as great as that of the member, considering both axes. We can
achieve this by providing at least as much area in the cover plate as in the relevant
31
element of the member cross section. This also shows that the size of the cover plates
to be used will depend on the size of the connecting members.
Designing of column splice connection will depend on the location of the

column splice within the building. As mentioned earlier, if the splice is positioned
near floor level which is near to a point of lateral restraint, and the column is
designed as pinned at that point, the splice may simply be designed for the axial load
and any applied moments. If, however, the splice is positioned away from a point of
lateral restraint (i.e. more than 500 mm above the level of the floor), or end fixity or
continuity has been assumed when calculating the effective length of the column, the
additional moment that is induced by strut action must be taken in to account.
Therefore, the design of the column splice for this project will be positioned
just above floor level, so that only axial load and applied moments are present. This
type of arrangement is more economy and more widely practiced.
2.7.2.1 Bearing column splice
Column splices can be of two types, the first one is the bearing type. For this
type, the loads are transferred in direct bearing from the upper floor to the lower
shaft either directly or through a division plate (SCI, 1993).
For direct contact, the ends of both column sections are assumed to be in
good contact and all the loads are transferred through the contact area. This
arrangement is usually for columns to be joined are of the same serial size. Splice
plates are placed to keep the columns aligned and to safeguard against any accidental
lateral forces. Splice plates may also possibly be needed to withstand any direct
tension if the splice has to be capable of resisting limited tensile forces. This is often
required nowadays when there maybe occurrence of uplift loading from internal
32
explosions in buildings (David, 1991). Packs are used when difference in the
thickness of flange and web exists, but they do not transfer any load. The flange
cover plates are arranged to connect either to the external faces of the column
(external flange cover plates) or to the inner flanges, using split cover plates (internal
flange cover plates).
Horizontal division plate is provided when columns to be joined are of

different serial size, where the division plate is used to transfer compressive forces
from one section to another. It is made of a plate or wide flat where the thickness will
depend on the upper and lower column sections. The division plate thickness should
be at least (Duc Dlc)/2, where Duc is the depth of the upper column and Dlc is the
depth of the lower column. Web cover plates may be replaced with pairs of cleats
when a division plate is used (SCI, 1993).
Normally, for column splices the use of grade 8.8 ordinary bolts, in M20 or
M24 will be adequate. If one of the flanges is subject to significant tension, the
column ends are not faced for bearing, or full continuity is required, then HSFG bolts
would have to be used. However for economy reason, the used of HSFG bolts should
be avoided where possible (Owen & Cheal, 1989).
The load bearing column splice provides simpler connection and is

commonly used in buildings. Thus this project will focus on the design of load
bearing column splice. The different types of arrangement for column splice with
ends prepared for bearing are shown in Figure 2.13 below.
33
Figure 2.13: Typical bearing column splices.

(a) External flange cover plates for section of the same serial size
(b) Internal flange cover plates for sections of the same serial size
(c) External flange cover plates and division plate for sections of a different
serial size
.
2.7.2.2 Non-bearing column splice
For non-load bearing column splices, loads are transferred via the bolts and
splice plates. Any bearing between the members is ignored, the connection usually
being detailed with a physical gap between the two columns (see Figure 2.14). All
the forces and moments are transmitted through the bolts and splice plates, and no
load is transferred through direct bearing. Axial load is shared between the web and
the flanges in proportion to their areas, while the bending moments are normally
assumed to be carried by the flanges (SCI, 1993).
34
Figure 2.14: Typical non-bearing column splices

a) External flange cover plates for sections of the same serial size
b) External and internal flange cover plates for sections of the same serial size
c) Internal flange cover plates for sections of the same serial size
d) External flange cover plates for sections of a different serial size
.
Design of non-bearing column splice is more lengthy because all the forces
and moments must be transmitted through the bolts and splice plates. Since a gap
exists between the member ends, no load is transferred through direct bearing. Axial
load is shared between the web and the flanges in proportion to their areas. Bending
moments are normally assumed to be carried by the flanges (SCI, 1992). This shows
that more bolts are required.
2.8
Steel Connection Design based on BS 5950
For steel connection design, our country currently refer to Part 1, which is
known as BS5950 1:2000 Structural use of steelwork in building Part 1: Code of
practice for design Rolled and Welded Section. This Part 1 also covers the
steelwork design for other sections such as beam, column, connections, trusses,
portal frames.
35
2.9
Steel Connection Design based on Eurocode 3
Steel Connection design is covered in EN 1993-1-8- design of joints, another

sub-part of Part 1 of Eurocode 3. The separation of the design of joints from the
general Part 1.1 shows that more attention is given on steel connection, where the
design code is much more detailed compared to BS 5950. In Eurocode 3, a
connection has three fundamental properties (Davisons and Owen, 2003):
1. Moment resistance, where the connection may be full strength, partial

strength or nominally pinned (i.e. not moment resisting).
2. Rotational Stiffness, where the connection may be rigid, semi-rigid or

nominally pinned (i.e not moment resisting).
3. Rotational capacity, where the connections may need to be ductile. This

criterion is less familiar to most designers and introduces the concept that
a connection may need to rotate plastically at some stage of the loading
cycle without failure. In reality, both pinned and moment (rigid)
connections have to perform in this way.
The three properties of steel connection show that the actual behavior of
joints is not nominally pinned or continuous, instead its behavior is the intermediate
between the two. Therefore, we can see that in Eurocode 3, it provides more
guidelines and explanation on the design of semi-rigid connection. In comparison BS
5950 give only brief guidance on semi-rigid (semi-continuous) design methods.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This chapter will discuss on the design procedure for beam splice and column
splice connection, where this project will focus only on bolted splice connections.
These splice connections will be designed using both BS 5950 and Eurocode 3.
From the design, the strength or capacity of the connection such as bearing capacity,
tension capacity, shear capacity and moment capacity are determined.
For the design of beam splice connection, a suitable beam size is chosen,
followed by choosing the suitable bolt size, numbers of bolts used and its
arrangement, as well as choosing a suitable cover plate size. Then, the beam splice
connections will be designed and analyzed using BS 5950 and Eurocode 3.
Similarly, the above method is repeated for the design of column splice
connections.
37
Next, one of the parameters of the splice connection (both beam and column
splice) will be changed to see how the changes affect their strength capacities. For
this project, the parameter chosen is the thickness of the cover plate.
The studies and methodology of this project is generally shown in the

schematic diagram below:
38
Phase 1
1. Determine of topic.
2. Determine of objective and scope.
3. Literature Review.
Phase 2 (Manual)
1. Determine the suitable beam size to be designed.
2. Design of the splice connection using BS 5950 and Eurocode 3.
3. Compare the result of both methods.
4. Repeat 1-3 for column design.
Phase 3 (M.Excel)
1. Change one of the parameters, i.e. thickness of the beam splice plate and
design using Eurocode 3.
2. Analyze the change of thickness towards the capacity of splice connection.
3. Choose another beam size and design the splice connection using Eurocode 3.
4. Repeat 1- 3.
5. Repeat 1- 4 for column design.
Phase 4
Comparisons of result and discussion.
Figure 3.1: Schematic Diagram of Project
39
3.2
Design Procedure for Spliced Connection
For spliced connection, the members are joined together using cover plates
and bolts. For this report, the beam splice will be designed where successive parts of
beams are joined together using web and flange cover plates. Whereas the type of
column splice will be of direct bearing arrangement and the successive column are
joined together using angle cleats and flange cover plates. The typical dimension and
arrangement of the splice connections for beams and columns are shown below at
Figure 3.2 and figure 3.6. The design of the splice connections will include the
followings, where the design procedures are shown in the table below:
i)
Table 3.2a: Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950
ii)
Table 3.2b: Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950
iii)
Table 3.2c: Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3.
iv)
Table 3.2d: Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3.
Subsequently, a suitable beam splice connection and column splice

connection are chosen and analyzed based on the design procedure of this report
(Table 3.2 (a) (d)). For one beam splice connection, it will be designed using BS
5950 as well as Eurocode 3. Similarly, a same column splice connection will be
designed using BS 5950 and Eurocode. This will then allow comparison to be made.
40
3.2.1
Table 3.2a: Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950

CHECK 1:
1. Recommended Detailing Requirement
Figure 3.2: Beam Splice Arrangement
The first checking is done
a. Connections check:
on the arrangement of the

bolts which connects the
cover plate to the beam.
Cl 6.2.2.4 (Table 29): Minimum edge, e2 and end

distances, e1 of bolts = 1.25D
Therefore, this checking is
Cl 6.2.2.5 : Maximum edge and end distances = 11t
required at the flange
Cl 6.2.1.1 : Minimum spacing = 2.5d
splice and web splice
Cl 6.2.1.2 : Maximum spacing = 14t
connection.
41
CHECK 2:
2. Flange Splice Check
Cover plate subjected to bending moment, results in compression and tension force
on cover plate.
It is assumed that the

flange splice resist the full
bending moment. Due to
bending moment, the top
cover plate will be subject
to compression while the
bottom cover plate is
subject to tension. It is
assumed that the top cover
plate in compression is
adequate where the
compression flange has
sufficient lateral restraint.
Thus only tension capacity
of the cover plate is
considered.
b. Strength of flange cover plate

Cl 4.6.1: Tension capacity of cover plate,
Pt = pyAe 1.2 An
Cl 4.6.1: Tension capacity of flange beam,
Pt = pyAe 1.2 An
42
Since preloaded bolts are
c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice
used, shear strength of the

bolt group is based on the
(Preloaded bolts are used)

Cl 6.4.2: Slip resistance of a preloaded bolt designed
slip resistance of bolts.
under factored load, PsL = 0.9KsPo
Although the connection
Cl 6.3.3.2: Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb
is designed to be non-slip
Cl 6.3.3.3: Bearing capacity of the connected part
under factored load, it is
(cover plate), Pbs = kbsdtppbs but Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs
required to make sure the
bolts have adequate
(beam flange), Pbs = kbsdtppbs but Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs
bearing capacity.
Strength of bolt group in flange splice

= min (PsL; Pbb; Pbs)
CHECK 3:
3. Strength of Web Cover plate
Shear force acting on the beam splice and the maximum resultant force at outermost
bolt A.
It is assumed that the web
d. Strength of web cover plate
splice resist the shear. On
Cl 4.2.3: Shear capacity of single cover plate,
each side of the web splice,
Pv = 0.6pyAv
the forces acting on the bolt

groups are the vertical
shear, F vs and torsional
moment, F tm. The resultant
= 0.9(tpw)(lp 4Dh)
Cl 4.2.5.2: Moment capacity of cover plate,
Mc = pyZgross
43
force is expressed as:
FR = (F vs 2 + F tm2)
The cover plate will need to
resist the maximum
resultant force which will
Cl 4.2.3: Shear capacity of Web Beam,

Pv = 0.6pyAv
= 0.9(tpw)(lp 4Dh)
Cl 4.2.5.2: Moment capacity of Web Beam,
Mc = pyZgross
occurs at the outermost

bolts, e.g. bolt A, as shown
in Figure 3.4.
Since HSFG bolts are also

used on web splice
connection, slip resistance
e. Strength of the bolt group in web splice

(preloaded bolts are used)
Cl 6.4.2: Slip resistance at double shear= 2PsL
check is done. Also, bearing Cl 6.3.3.2: Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb
resistance of the bolts is
checked.

(cover plate),
Pbs = 2*kbsdtppbs but Pbs 2*0.5kbsetppbs
(beam web),
Pbs = kbsdtppbs but Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs
Choose the minimum Pbs.
Strength of bolt group in web splice
= min (2PsL; Pbs,min)
f. Block Shear Failure
Cl 6.2.4: Block shear capacity, Pr = 0.6pyt[Lv +
Ke(Lt kDt )]
44
3.2.2
Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950
Table 3.2b: Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950

CHECK 1:
Figure 3.3: Direct Bearing column splice arrangement
on the suitability of the
External Cover Plate Requirement
cover plate used as well as
hfp
buc
the arrangement of the
tfp
tf,uc/2
bfp
buc

Both this checking is done
Connections check:
only on the flange cover
Cl 6.2.2.4 (Table 29): Minimum edge and end
plate. There is no cover
distances of bolts = 1.25D
plate on web beam for
Cl 6.2.2.5 : Minimum edge and end distances = 11t
column splice with end
Cl 6.2.1.1 : Minimum spacing = 2.5d
prepared for bearing.
Cl 6.2.1.2 : Maximum spacing = 14t

*(D = diameter of a standard clearance hole of a bolt;
d = nominal diameter of a bolt)
45
CHECK 2:
Forces acting on column splice,
Tensile capacity of cover plate
where the presence of tension is

due to axial load and bending moment
Shear capacity of bolt group and

bearing capacity of flange cover plate.
For flange splice

connection, it is assumed
that flange splice resist the

Cl 4.6.1: Tension capacity of cover plate,
Pt = pyAe 1.2 An
tension force or net

tension due to axial load
c. Bolt suitability
and moment, as shown at
Condition: Stress induced in column flange by tensile
figure above.
force 10% design strength of column, py.
46
d. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Ordinary
bolts are used)
d(i). Shear capacity of bolt group

Ps = psAs x Reduction factor
Where Reduction factor = 9d/(8d + 3tpa)
d(ii) Bearing capacity of bolt
Cl 6.3.3.2: Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb
(cover plate),
Pbs =kbsdtppbs 0.5kbsetppbs
Cl 6.3.3.3:* Bearing capacity of the connected part
(beam web),
Pbs = kbsdtppbs 0.5kbsetppbs
(*No need check on beam web if tf,column tf, cover plate)
Bearing capacity of bolt = min (Pbb; Pbs)
e. Horizontal Shear Check
(Can be neglected)
47
3.2.3
Table 3.2c: Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3

CHECK 1:
Figure 3.4 Beam splice arrangement.
on the arrangement of the
Cl 3.5 (Table 3.3):
Minimum edge and end distances of bolts = 1,2d0
Maximum edge and end distances = 4t + 40 mm
Therefore, this checking is
Minimum spacing = 2,2d0
required at the flange
Maximum spacing = the smaller of 14t or 200mm
splice and web splice

connection.
48
CHECK 2:
Cover plate subjected to bending moment, results in compression and tension force
on cover plate.
It is assumed that the
flange splice resist the full
Choose category C connection:
bending moment. Due to
Slip resistant at ultimate limit state.
bending moment, the top
Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance of cover plate,
cover plate will be subject

to compression while the
bottom cover plate is
subject to tension. It is
assumed that the top cover
plate in compression is
adequate where the
compression flange has
sufficient lateral restraint.
Thus only tension capacity
of the cover plate is
considered.
Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /M2

Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance of flange beam,
Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /M2
49
Since preloaded bolts are
c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice
used, shear strength of the

bolt group is based on the
(Preloaded bolts are used)

Cl 3.9.1: Design slip resistance of a preloaded 8.8 bolt,
Fs,Rd = ( ks n / M3) Fp,C
slip resistance of bolts.

Although the connection
Cl 3.6.1 (Table 3.4): Bearing resistance per bolt for

cover plate, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
is designed to be non-slip
under factored load, it is

beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
required to make sure the

bolts have adequate
bearing resistance.
Strength of bolt group in flange splice = min (Fs,Rd ;

Fb,Rd)
CHECK 3:
3. Strength of Web Cover plate
Shear force acting on the beam splice and the maximum resultant force at outermost
bolt A.
It is assumed that the web

splice resist the shear. On
each side of the web splice,
the forces acting on the bolt

Cl 6.2.6: Design (plastic) shear resistance of
single plate, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/3)/ M0
Cl 6.2.5: Bending moment resistance (about one
groups are the vertical
principal axis) of cover plate,
shear, F vs and torsional
Mc,Rd = Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / M2
moment, F tm. The resultant

force is expressed as:
50
FR = (F vs 2 + F tm2)
The cover plate will need to
resist the maximum
resultant force which will
Cl 6.2.6: Design (plastic) shear resistance of

beam web, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/3)/ M0
Cl 6.2.5: Bending moment resistance of beam web,
Mc,Rd = Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / M2
occurs at the outermost

bolts, e.g. bolt A, as shown
in Figure.
Since HSFG bolts are also

used on web splice
connection, slip resistance
check is done. Also, bearing
resistance of the bolts is
checked.
e. Strength of the bolt group in web splice

(preloaded bolts are used)
Cl 3.9.1: Design slip resistance of a preloaded bolt at
double shear = 2*Fs,Rd
Cl 3.6.1 (Table 3.4): Bearing resistance of bolt for
beam web, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
Cl 3.6.1 (Table 3.4): Bearing resistance of bolt for
= min (2Fs,Rd ; 2Fb,Rd)
Cl 3.10.2: Design block tearing resistance (web
cover plate), Veff,1,Rd = (1 / 3) fy Anv /M0
51
3.2.4
Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3
Table 3.2d: Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3.

CHECK 1:
Figure 3.5: Direct Bearing column splice arrangement

on the suitability of the
External Cover Plate Requirement
cover plate used as well as
hfp
buc
the arrangement of the
tfp
tf,uc/2
bfp
buc

Both this checking is only
Connections check:
done on the flange cover
Cl 3.5 (Table 3.3):
plate. There is no cover
plate on web beam for
column splice with end
prepared for bearing.
*(D = diameter of a standard clearance hole of a bolt;

d = nominal diameter of a bolt)
52
CHECK 2:
Forces acting on column splice,
Tensile capacity of cover plate
where the presence of tension is

due to axial load and bending moment
Shear capacity of bolt group and

bearing capacity of flange cover plate.
For flange splice

connection, it is assumed

Cl 6.2.3 Design tension force resistance of cover plate,
that flange splice resist the
Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /M2 ;
tension force or net
where Anet = Afp,net = Afp 2tfpdo
tension due to axial load

and moment, as shown at
figure above.
53
c. Bolt suitability
Condition: Stress induced in column flange by tensile
force 10% design strength of column, py.
d. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Ordinary
bolts are used)
d(i). Shear capacity of bolt group

Use type A connection (Bearing type)
Cl 3.6.1 (Table 3.4): Shear resistance per shear plane
for individual bolt,
Fv,Rd = v fub A/M2
d(ii). Bearing capacity of bolt
beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
Choose minimum bearing resistance value.
e. Horizontal Shear Check

(Can be neglected)
54
3.3
Change of Cover Plate Thickness
From the design procedures above, it can be observed that there are many
parameters that can influence the results of the strength of the connections. The
possible parameters are the size of the bolts, the grade of the steel cover plate, the
size of the cover plates, the arrangement of the bolts and so on. However for this
report, only the cover plate thickness will be considered as the parameter.
After designing the beam splice and column splice connections according to
Part 3.2, the thickness of cover plate will be changed, where the thickness is
increased gradually to see how it effect the results. The results will then be tabulated
and displayed in the graph.
3.4
Beam Splice and Column Splice Design with Microsoft Excel Worksheets
The calculation of the splice connection will be done manually in table form
as shown in the next chapter (Part 4.1). After that, the design procedure of the beam
splice and column splice connection is also calculated with Microsoft Excel Software
by entering the required values and formulas. The use of Microsoft Excel is useful
and time-saving for continual and repeated calculations. For instance, in this project,
the thickness of the cover plates joined to the connecting beams will be changed,
where the relationship between the thickness of cover plate and the strength capacity
of the connection is analyzed. Apart from cutting down the calculation time, the use
of Microsoft Excel also prevent calculation error.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
Practical Application of the design methods for BS 5950 and Eurocode
In the previous chapter, in the design of column splice and beam splice, the
design procedures are shown in four tables:
v)
Table 3.2 (a): Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950
vi)
Table 3.2 (b): Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950
vii)
Table 3.2 (c): Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3.
viii)
Table 3.2 (d): Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3.
This chapter will show the application of the design methods by choosing
suitable beam splice and column splice connection. For the design of beam splice
connection, beam size of 457 x 152 x 60 UB is used and the size of cover plate are
2/150 x 15 x 420 (flange cover plate) and 2/140 x 8 x 340 (web cover plate). Further
details of the connections can be referred at the design table for beam splice
connection. On the other hand, for the design of column splice connection, the
column size is 305 x 305 118 UC with flange cover plate size 2/250 x 12 x 525.
56
Table 4.1(a): Design Calculation of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950

Design Code Based: BS 5950
Connection type: Beam to Beam Connection Bolted Cover Plate
Beam Size: 457 x 152 x 60 UB

Design Strength, py = 275 N/mm2
Section Properties: Mass = 59.8mm, D = 454.6 mm,
B = 152.9 mm, t = 8.1 mm, T = 13.3 mm,
Zx = 1120 cm3, Sx= 1290 cm3
Flange Cover Plates: 2/150 x 15 x 420
Web Cover Plates: 2/140 x 8 x 340
Bolts: M20 Grade HSFG bolts
Bolt diameter: 20 mm
Hole diameter: 22 mm
57
Reference: Checking
CHECK 1: Recommended Detailing Requirement:
Bolt Diameter = Dbolt
= 20 mm
Hole Diameter = Dhole
= 22 mm
End distance for web splice, e1,w
= 35 mm
End distance for flange splice, e1,f
= 35 mm
Edge distance of web splice, e2,w
= 35 mm
Edge distance of flange splice, e2,f
= 30 mm
Web splice bolt spacing
= 90 mm
Flange splice bolt spacing
= 70 mm
Minimum edge and end distances of bolts = 1.25D

1.25D = 1.25 x 22 = 27.5 mm < e1 and e2
Maximum edge and end distances = 11t
Cl 6.2.2.4
(Table 29)
Cl 6.2.2.5
For web splice: 11t = 11 x 8 x 1 = 88 mm > e1,w and e2,w

For flange splice: 11t = 11 x 15 x 1 = 165 mm > e1,f and e2,f
Minimum spacing = 2.5d
Cl 6.2.1.1
2.5d = 2.5 x 20 = 50 mm < 70 mm and 90 mm

Maximum spacing = 14t
For web splice: 14t = 14 x 8 = 112 mm > 90 mm
For flange splice: 14t = 14 x 15 = 210 mm > 70 mm
CHECK 2: Design Check

Assumption:
1. The flange splices resist the full bending moment.
2. The web splice resists the vertical shear and the torsional
moment induced by the eccentricity of this loading on the bolt
groups on each side of the joint.
Cl 6.2.1.2
58
2.1 Flange Splice Check
(Assume flange splice resist the full bending moment)
Tension capacity of cover plate, Pt = pyAe
Ae
= KeAn 1.2 An
Cl 4.6.1
(Ke = 1.1 for grade S 355)
= 1.1 (150 x 15 2x 22 x 15)

= 1749 mm2 1.2 An = 1.2 x 1590 = 1908 mm2
pyAe = 355 x 1749 x 10-3
Pt =
620.9 kN
= 620.9 kN
(for cover
plate)
Tension capacity of flange beam, Pt = pyAe

Ae
= KeAn 1.2 An
(Ke = 1.2 for grade S 275)
Cl 4.6.1
= 1.2 (152.9 x 13.3 2x 22 x 13.3)

= 1738 mm2 1.2 An
-3
pyAe = 275 x 1738 x 10

= 478 kN
Pt =
478 kN
(for flange
beam)
c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Preloaded bolts are

used)
Slip resistance of a preloaded bolt designed to be non-slip under
Cl 6.4.2
factored load,
PsL = 0.9KsPo
PsL
PsL =
= 0.9 x 1.0 x 0.5 x 144

= 64.8 kN
Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb

Pbb
= 20 x 15 x 1000 x 10-3
64.8 kN
(per bolt)
Cl 6.3.3.2
= 300 kN
Bearing capacity of the connected part (cover plate), Pbs = kbsdtppbs
but Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs
Pbs
= 1.0 x 20 x 15 x 550 x 10-3

= 165 kN 0.5kbsetppbs
0.5 x 1.0 x 35 x 15 x 550 x 10-3
Cl 6.3.3.3
59
144.4 kN
Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,cover plate = 144.4 kN
Pbs =
144.4 kN
(per bolt on
cover plate)
Bearing capacity of the connected part (flange beam),

Pbs = kbsdtppbs ,
Pbs
Cl 6.3.3.3
= 1.0 x 20 x 13.3 x 460 x 10-3

= 122.36 kN 0.5kbsetppbs
0.5 x 1.0 x 35 x 13.3 x 430 x 10-3
100.1 kN
Pbs =
Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,flange beam = 100.1 kN
100.1 kN
(per bolt on
flange
beam)
= min (PsL ; Pbs,cover plate ; Pbs,flange beam )

Slip resistance per bolt = 64.8 kN (Strength of bolt group is more
governed by slip resistance.)
Therefore, strength of bolt group = PsL = 6 x 64.8 = 388.8 kN
2.2 Web Splice Check

(Assume web splice resist the shear)
Cl 4.2.3
Shear capacity of single cover plate, Pv = 0.6pyAv,

where Av = 0.9(tpw)(lp 4Dh)
Av
= 0.9 (8) (340 4x22)

= 1814 mm2
Pv
= 0.6 x 355 x 1814 x 10-3
Pv =
= 386.4 kN
772.8 kN
For double plate, Pv = 2 x 386.4 = 772.8 kN
(for double
cover plate)
Cl 4.2.5.2
Moment capacity of cover plate, Mc = pyZgross
Mc =
Zgross = bd2/6 = 8 x 3402 /6 = 154133.3 mm3
54.7 kNm
Mc = 355 x 154133.3 x 10-6 =54.7 kNm
(for cover
plate)
60
Shear capacity of Beam Web, Pv = 0.6pyAv,
Cl 4.2.3
where Av = 0.9(tpw)(lp 4Dh)

Av
Pv
= 0.9 (8.1) (454.7 4x22)
Pv =
= 2673.2 mm2
441.1 kN
= 0.6 x 275 x 2673.2 x 10
-3
(at beam
web)
= 441.1 kN
Moment capacity of Beam Web, Mc = pyZgross
Cl 4.2.5.2
Mc =
308 kNm
(at beam
web)
Zgross = 1120000 mm3

Mc = 275 x 1120000 x 10-6 =308 kNm
e. Strength of the bolt group in web splice (Preloaded bolts are
used)
Slip resistance at double shear = 2PsL
Cl 6.4.2
= 2 x 64.8 = 129.6 kN
2PsL =
129.6kN
Bearing capacity of bolt (cover plate), Pbb = dtppbb

Pbb
= 20 x 8 x 1000 x 10-3
Cl 6.3.3.2
= 160 kN
Bearing capacity of the connected part (double cover plate),

Pbs =2*kbsdtppbs
Cl 6.3.3.3
but Pbs 2*0.5kbsetppbs
Assume e
-3
Pbs = 2 x 1.0 x 20 x 8 x 550 x 10 2 x 0.5 x 1 x 35 x 8 x 550 x10

= 176 kN 154.0 kN
Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,cover plate = 154 kN
-3
=35mm
Pbs =
154 kN
(for double
cover plate)
Bearing capacity of connected part (beam web), Pbs = kbsdtppbs
Cl 6.3.3.3
Assume e
= 35mm
Pbs =
65.2 kN
(for beam
web)
-3
Pbs = 1.0 x 20 x 8.1 x 460 x 10 0.5 x 35 x 8.1 x 460 x 10

= 74.5 kN
-3
65.2 kN
Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,beam web = 65.2 kN
61
= min (2PsL ; Pbs,cover plate ; Pbs,beam web )
Minimum bearing capacity = 74.5 kN (Strength of bolt group is more
governed by bearing capacity.)
Therefore, strength of bolt group = PsL = 6 x 74.5 = 447 kN
Block shear capacity, Pr = 0.6pyt [Lv + Ke(Lt kDt )]
Cl 6.2.4
454.7340
Lv = 454.7 (
) 35
2
Pr = 522.8
= 362.35 mm
Pr = 0.6 x 275 x 8.1 [362.35 + 1.2 (35 0.5x22)] x 10
= 522.8 kN
kN
-3
62
Table 4.1(b): Design Calculation of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950
Design of direct bearing Column splice using BS5950

Design Code Based: BS 5950
Connection type: Column to Column Connection Cover Plate
Upper and Lower Column: 305 x 305 x 118 UC
Section Properties: D = 314.5 mm, B = 307.4 mm,
t = 12.0 mm, T = 18.7 mm
Cleats: 4/90 x 90 x 8 Ls x 150LG
Division Plate: 265 x 25 x 310
Bolts: M20 Grade 8.8
63
Reference: Checking
a. External Flange Cover Plate:
Basic Requirement:
hfp
buc and 225mm
tfp
tf,uc/2 and 10 mm
bfp
buc
hfp = 525 mm buc = 254 mm

225mm
tfp = 12 mm
tf,uc/2 = 14.2/2 = 7.1 mm

10 mm
bfp = 250 mm buc = 254 mm

b. Cleats
Web Cleat (90 x 90 x 8 Ls is used to accommodate M20 bolts in
opposite positions on adjoining legs)
c. Connections check:
Bolt Diameter = Dbolt = 20 mm
Hole Diameter = Dhole = 22 mm
Edge distance of flange splice, e1 = 40 mm
End distance, e2 = 50 mm
Flange splice bolt spacing = 150 mm and 160 mm
Minimum edge and end distances of bolts = 1.25 Dhole
1.25 Dhole = 1.25*22 = 27.5 mm > e1 and e2
Maximum edge and end distances = 11t
Cl 6.2.2.4
(Table 29)
Cl 6.2.2.5
11t = 11*14.2*0.88 = 137.5 mm < e1 and e2

275
Where = (355 )0.5 = 0.88

Minimum spacing = 2.5d
2.5d = 2.5*20 = 50 mm < 160 mm
Cl 6.2.1.1
64
Maximum spacing = 14t
14t = 14 x 14.2 = 198.8 mm > 150 mm and 160 mm
Cl 6.2.1.2
Design Check Flange splice check.
CHECK 2:
Assumption
1. The column splice is just above floor level (about 500 mm

above) hence moment due to strut action is considered
insignificant.
2. The flange splice resists the tension force (or resists net
tension due to axial load and moment.
d. Strength of flange cover plate

Tension capacity of cover plate, Pt = pyAfp
(where Afp = Ae and Ae 1.2 An)
Cl 4.6.1
py = 355 N/mm2
An = Agross bolt holes
= (250 x 12) (2 x 22 x 12)
=2472 mm2
Afp = keAn
=1.2 x 2472
= 2966 mm2
Pt = 355 x 2966 x 10-3 = 1052.9 kN
Pt =
1052.9 kN
Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Ordinary bolts are used).

e. Bolt suitability
Condition: Stress induced in column flange by tensile force 10%
design strength of column, py = 10% x 275 = 27.5 N/mm2
f. Shear capacity of bolt group
(Bolt group connecting flange cover plate to column flange)
Shear capacity, Ps = psAs x Reduction factor
ps = 91.9 kN (Single shear)
Cl 6.3.2.2
Ps =
91.9 kN
(per bolt per
shear plane)
65
Reduction factor =
=
9d
(8d + 3tpa )
<1
9 x 20
(820 + 30)
= 1.125 > 1
Ps =
Joint length, Lj = 160 mm < 500mm
367.7 kN
Therefore, there is no long join effect.
(bolt
groups)
Total shear capacity = Ps = (4 x 91.9) x 1.0

= 367.6 kN
g. Bearing capacity of flange cover plate connected to column

flange
Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb
Pbb = 20 x 12 x 1000 x 10-3 = 240 kN
Bearing capacity of the connected part (cover plate), Pbs =kbsdtppbs
Pbs = 1.0 x 20 x 12 x 550 x 10-3 = 132 kN
0.5kbsetppbs = 0.5 x 1.0 x 40 x 12 x 550 x 10-3 = 132 kN
Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs.
Take smaller value of bearing capacity = 132 kN (per bolt)
Total bearing capacity = Pbs = 4 x 132 kN = 528 kN
Cl 6.3.3.2
Cl 6.3.3.3
Pbs =
132 kN
(per bolt)
Pbs =
528 kN
(bolt
groups)
h. Bearing capacity of the connected part (flange beam)

Bearing capacity at beam web, Pbs =kbsdtppbs
Cl 6.3.3.3
Pbs = 1.0 x 20 x 18.7 x 460 x 10-3 = 172 kN

0.5kbsetppbs = 0.5 x 1.0 x 40 x 18.7 x 460 x 10-3 = 172 kN
Pbs 0.5kbsetppbs.
Take smaller value of bearing capacity = 172 kN
Pbs =
172 kN
(per bolt)
Total bearing capacity = Pbs = 4 x 172 kN = 688 kN

i. Horizontal Shear Check
(Can be neglected)
Pbs =
688 kN
(bolt
groups)
66
Table 4.1(c): Design Calculation of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3

Design Code Based: Eurocode 3: Part 1.1 and Part 1.8
Connection type: Beam to Beam Connection Bolted Cover Plate
Beam Size: 457 x 152 x 60 UB
Yield Strength, fy = 275 N/mm2
Section Properties: Mass = 59.8mm, D = 454.6 mm,
B = 152.9 mm, t = 8.1 mm, T = 13.3 mm,
Wpl,y = 1120 cm3, Wel,y= 1290 cm3
Web Cover Plates: 2/140 x 8 x 340
Bolts: M20 Grade HSFG bolts
67
Reference: Checking
Bolt Diameter = Dbolt
= 20 mm
Hole Diameter = Dhole
= 22 mm
End distance for web splice, e1,w
= 35 mm
End distance for flange splice, e1,f
= 35 mm
Cl 3.5
Edge distance of web splice, e2,w
= 35 mm
(Table 3.3)
Edge distance of flange splice, e2,f
= 30 mm
Web splice bolt spacing
= 90 mm
Flange splice bolt spacing
= 70 mm

1,2d0 = 1.2 x 22 = 26.4 mm < e1 and e2
For web splice: 4t + 40 = 4 x 8 + 40 = 72 mm > e1,w and e2,w
For flange splice: 4t + 40 = 4 x 15 + 40 = 100 mm > e1,f and e2,f
2.2 d0 = 2.2 x 22 = 48.4 mm < 90 mm and 70 mm
For web splice: 200 mm or 14t = 14 x 8 = 112 mm > 90 mm
For flange splice: 200 mm or 14t = 14 x 15 = 210 mm > 70 mm
CHECK 2: Design Check

Assumption:
3. The flange splices resist the full bending moment.
4. The web splice resists the vertical shear and the torsional
moment induced by the eccentricity of this loading on the
bolt groups on each side of the joint.
68
2.1 Flange Splice Check
(Assume flange splice resist the full bending moment)
Choose category C connection: Slip resistant at ultimate limit state.
Tension force resistance of cover plate, Nt,Rd
Cl 6.2.3
= Nu,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /M2

For flange cover plate S355,
= 2250 mm2
A = btf = 150 x 15
Anet = 2250 (2 x 22 x 15)
= 1590 mm
-3
Nt,Rd = 0.9 x 1590 x 510 x 10 / 1.25 = 583.8 kN

For flange beam S275,
A = btf = 152.9 x 13.3
= 2033.6 mm2
Anet = 2033.6 (2 x 22 x 13.3)
= 1448.4 mm2
Nt,Rd =
583.8 kN
(for cover
plate)
Nt,Rd =
448.4 kN
-3
Nt,Rd = 0.9 x 1448.4 x 430 x 10 / 1.25 = 448.4 kN
(for beam
flange)
c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Preloaded bolts are

used)
Design slip resistance of a preloaded 8.8 bolt, Fs,Rd
Cl 3.9.1
Where Fs,Rd = ( ks n / M3) Fp,C

Fp,C = 0.7 fubAs = 0.7 x 800 x 245 x 10-3 = 137.2 kN
Fs,Rd =
1.0 x 1 x 0.4
1.25
43.9kN
(137.2) = 43.9 kN (per bolt)
Bearing resistance per bolt for cover plate, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2

Fb,Rd
2.5 x 0.795 x 510 x 20 x 15

1.25
= 243.27 kN
Where
k1 = 2.5,
b = min (d ;
Fs,Rd =
x10-3
(per bolt)
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
Fb,Rd
=243.27 kN
(per bolt on
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 35/ 3x22 = 0.795

800
=
= 1.57
510
cover plate)
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
69
Bearing resistance per bolt for beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
Fb,Rd
2.5 x 0.795 x 430 x 20 x 13.3

1.25
x10-3
Fb,Rd
=181.86 kN
(per bolt on
beam
flange)
= 181.86 kN
Where
k1 = 2.5,
b = min (d ;
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 35/ 3x22 = 0.795

800
=
= 1.86
430
= min (Fs,Rd ; Fb,Rd,cover plate ; Fb,Rd,beam flange)
= 43.9 kN. Strength of bolt group is more governed by slip
resistance.
Therefore, strength of bolt group (total slip resistance)
= 43.9 x 6 = 263.4 kN
2.2 Web Splice Check

(Assume web splice resist the shear)
Cl 6.2.6
Design (plastic) shear resistance of single plate, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/3)/
M0
Av = (hwtw) = 1.0 (340 4x22) (8) = 2016 mm2
Vpl, Rd
355/3
= 2016 (
) x 10-3 = 413.2 kN
1.0
Vpl, Rd =
826.4 kN
(for double
cover plate)
For double plate, Vpl, Rd = 2 x 413.2 = 826.4 kN
Bending moment resistance of cover plate, Mc,Rd

= Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / M2
(About one principal axis)
Cl 6.2.5
70
Wpl = bd2/4 = 8 x 3402 / 4
Mpl,Rd =
231200 x 355
1.0
= 231200 mm3
x 10-6
= 82.08 kNm
Mpl,Rd =
82.08 kNm
(for cover
plate)
Design (plastic) shear resistance of beams web, Vpl, Rd

= Av(fy/3)/ M0
Cl 6.2.6
Av = (hwtw) = 1.0 (454.7 4x22) (8.1) = 2970.3 mm2

Vpl, Rd
275/3
= 2933.6 (
) x 10-3 = 471.6 kN
1.0
Vpl, Rd =
471.6 kN
(at beams
web)
Bending moment resistance of beams web, Mc,Rd

= Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / M2
Mpl,Rd =
1290000 x 275
1.0
Mpl,Rd =
-6
x 10 = 354.8 kNm
e. Strength of the bolt group in web splice (Preloaded bolts are

used)
Design slip resistance of a preloaded bolt at double shear = 2*Fs,Rd
2*Fs,Rd = 2 x 43.9 = 87.8 kN
Bearing resistance of bolt for single cover plate, Fb,Rd
= k1 b fu d t / M2
Fb,Rd =
2.5 x 0.75 x 510 x 20 x 8

1.25
x 10
= 122.4 kN
Where
k1 = 2.5,
b = min (d ;
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 49.5/ (3x22) = 0.75

[Assume e1 = (352 + 352)= 49.5 mm]

800
=
= 1.57
510
Cl 6.2.5:
-3
354.8 kNm
(at beams
web)
Cl 3.9.1
2*Fs,Rd =
87.8 kN
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
*bearing
resistance
withstands
force
caused by
shear &
eccentric
moment.
71
Thus, bearing resistance of bolt for two web plates
= 2*Fb,Rd = 206.4 kN
Fb,Rd =
206.4 kN
(for double
plate per
bolt)
Bearing resistance of bolt for beam web, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2

Cl 3.6.1
Fb,Rd
2.5 x 1.0 x 430 x 20 x 8 .1

x 10-3
1.25
= 139.3 kN
(Table 3.4)
Fb,Rd =
139.3 kN
Where
(per bolt at
beam web)
k1 = 2.5,
b = min (d ;
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 96.6/ 3x22 = 1.46

[Assume e1 = (352 + 902)= 96.6 mm]

800
430
= 1.86

= min (2Fs,Rd ; Fb,Rd,beam web; 2Fb,Rd,cover plate)
= 87.8 kN (Strength of bolt group is more governed by slip
resistance.)
f. Block Shear Failure (Occur at beam web)

Design block tearing resistance (web cover plate),
Veff,1,Rd = (1 / 3) fy Anv /M0
Anv
Cl 3.10.2
= twLv
454.7340
= 8.1 x [454.7 (
) 35 ]
2
= 2935 mm2
Veff,1,Rd =
(1 / 3) x 275 x 2935
= 466 kN
1.0
x 10-3
Veff,1,Rd =
466 kN
72
Table 4.1(d): Design Calculation of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3
Design of direct bearing Column splice using Eurocode 3

Design Code Based: Eurocode 3: Part 1.1 and Part 1.8
Connection type: Column to Column Connection Bolted Cover
Plate
Upper and Lower Column: 305 x 305 x 118 UC
Section Properties: D = 314.5 mm, B = 307.4 mm, t = 12.0
mm,
T = 18.7 mm
Yield Strength, , fy = 355 N/mm2
Cleats: 4/90 x 90 x 8 Ls x 150LG
Division Plate: 265 x 25 x 310
Bolts: M20 Grade 8.8
73
Reference: Checking
a. External Flange Cover Plate:
Basic Requirement:
hfp
buc and 225mm
tfp
tf,uc/2 and 10 mm
bfp
buc
hfp = 525 mm buc = 254 mm

225mm
tfp = 12 mm
tf,uc/2 = 14.2/2 = 7.1 mm

10 mm
bfp = 250 mm buc = 254 mm

b. Cleats
Web Cleat (90 x 90 x 8 Ls is used to accommodate M20 bolts in
opposite positions on adjoining legs)
Length 0.5 D1
c. Connections check:
Bolt Diameter = Dbolt = 20 mm
Hole Diameter = Dhole = 22 mm
Edge distance of flange splice, e1 = 40 mm
End distance, e2 = 50 mm
Flange splice bolt spacing = 150 mm and 160 mm

1,2d0 = 1.2 x 22 = 26.4 mm < e1 and e2
4t + 40 = 4 x 14.2 + 40 = 96.8 mm > e1 and e2
2.2 d0 = 2.2 x 22 = 48.4 mm < 150 mm and 160 mm
200 mm or 14 t = 14 x 14.2 = 198.8 mm > 150mm and 160mm
Cl 3.5
(Table 3.3)
74
CHECK 2: Design Check Flange Splice Check
Assumption
3. The column splice is just above floor level (about 500 mm
above) hence moment due to strut action is considered
insignificant.
4. The flange splice resists the tension force (or resists net
tension due to axial load and moment.
d. Strength of flange cover plate
Cl 6.2.3
Design tension force resistance of cover plate, Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu

/M2 ;
where Anet = Afp,net = Afp 2tfpdo
Afp
= 250 x 12 = 3000 mm2
= btf
= 2472 mm2
Anet = 3000 (2 x 12 x 22)

Nt,Rd
0.9 x 2472 x 510

1.25
x 10-3
= 907.7 kN
Nt,Rd =
907.7kN
Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Ordinary bolts are used)

e. Bolt suitability
Condition: Stress induced in column flange by tensile force 10%
design strength of column, py = 10% x 275 = 27.5 N/mm2
f. Shear capacity of bolt group
Use type A connection (Bearing type)
Shear resistance per shear plane for individual bolt
= Fv,Rd = v fub A/M2
Fv,Rd =
0.6 x 800 x 245

1.25
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
Fv,Rd =
94.08 kN
x 10
-3
= 94.08 kN
Total shear capacity = Fv,Rd = (4 x 94.08) = 376.3 kN
(per bolt per

shear plane)
Fv,Rd =
376.3 kN
(bolt groups)
75
g. Bearing capacity of bolt
Bearing resistance per bolt for cover plate, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
Fb,Rd
2.5 x 0.61 x 510 x 20 x 12

1.25
x 10-3
Fb,Rd =
= 149.3 kN
149.2 kN
= 2.5,
(per bolt at
cover plate)
Where
k1
b = min (d ;
f ub
fu
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 40 / 3x22 = 0.61

f ub
fu
800
510
= 1.57
Bearing resistance per bolt for beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 b fu d t / M2

2.5 x 0.76 x 430 x 20 x 18.7
Fb,Rd
1.25
x 10-3
Cl 3.6.1
(Table 3.4)
= 244.5 kN
Where
k1 = 2.5,
b = min (d ;
f ub
fu
; 1.0)
d = e1 / 3d0 = 50 / 3x22 = 0.76

f ub
fu
800
430
= 1.86
Total bearing capacity = Pbs = 4 x 149.3 kN = 597.2 kN

h. Horizontal Shear Check
(Can be neglected)
Fb,Rd =
244.5 kN
(per bolt at
beam flange)
76
4.2
Change of Thickness of the cover plates
In this section, for the splice connection, all the existing thickness of the
cover plate will be increased gradually with an increment of 2 mm at one time, and
their outcomes are analyzed. Thus, it is required to refer to the table that shows the
practical application of the splice connection design. Furthermore in this section,
besides changing the thickness of the cover plates, the size of the beam and column
connected to the cover plate are be varied at the same time during analysis. By using
Microsoft Excel Software, all the results are shown in the form of tables and graph.
4.2.1
Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for Beam splice Connection

Designed Using BS 5950
For beam splice connection which use beam size 457 x 152 x 60 UB (refer to
table 4.1(a)), the thickness of the cover plates at flange splice and web splice are now
changed and the result is shown below.
Table 4.2a (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x *15 x 420)
flange plate
plate
thickness Ae
t (mm)
(mm2)
Pt (kN)
flange beam
Ae
(mm2)
PSL
Pt (kN)
(kN)
Pbs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
16
1865.60
662.29
1738.04
477.96
64.80
154.00
107.07
18
2098.80
745.07
1738.04
477.96
64.80
173.25
107.07
20
2332.00
827.86
1738.04
477.96
64.80
192.50
107.07
22
2565.20
910.65
1738.04
477.96
64.80
211.75
107.07
24
2798.40
993.43
1738.04
477.96
64.80
231.00
107.07
(*Thickness of 15 mm for the cover plate is not shown in the table for the purpose of
consistent values of the plate thickness, t.)
77
Table 4.2a (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness web
splice (2/140 x 8 x 340)
double plate
t
(mm) P v (kN)
beam web
Mc
(kNm)
P v (kN)
P SL
Mc
(kNm)
(kN)
P bs (kN)
cover
web
plate
beam
block
failure
Pr
(kN)
772.93
54.72
441.09
308.00
129.60
154.00
65.21
522.77
10
966.17
68.40
441.09
308.00
129.60
192.50
65.21
522.77
12
1159.40
82.08
441.09
308.00
129.60
231.00
65.21
522.77
14
1352.64
95.76
441.09
308.00
129.60
269.50
65.21
522.77
16
1545.87
109.43
441.09
308.00
129.60
308.00
65.21
522/77
78
The graph for the strength at flange splice is shown below:
Strength at Flange Splice

1200.00
1000.00
Strength/Capacity (kN)
800.00
600.00
F.Beam Tension capacity, Pt
400.00
200.00
F.Beam Bearing Capacity, Pbs

Slip Resistance, PSL
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Cover Plate thickness (mm)
Figure 4.2a (i): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data
Pt(c.plate)
from Table 4.2a (i))
Pt (f.beam)
Psl
Pbs(c.plate)
Pbs(f.beam)
Figure 4.2a (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
79
The graph for the strength of web splice is shown below:
Strength at Web Splice

1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
W.Beam Block Failure, Pr

W.Beam Shear capacity, Pv
400.00
W.Beam Moment capacity, MC
200.00
C.Plate Moment
capacity, MC
0.00
8
10
12
14

Pv(c.plate)
Mc(w beam)
Pbs (web beam)
Mc(c.plate)
Psl
Pr
16
W.Beam
Bearing
capacity, Pbs
Pv(w beam)
Pbs (c.plate)
Figure 4.2a (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
80
Part of the graph above (Figure 4.2a (i)) is enlarged to have a clearer view of
the plotted line.
Figure 4.2a (ii)

600.00

500.00
W.Beam Tension capacity, Pt

400.00
300.00
200.00

100.00
W.Beam Bearing capacity, Pbs

0.00
8
10
12
14
Mc(c.plate)
Plate thickness (mm)

Pv( web beam)
Mc(web beam)
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (web beam)
16
Psl
Pr
Fig 4.2a (ii): Enlarged Graph of Strength Capacity vs Plate Thickness at Web Splice
81
From the graph Strength of Web Splice (Figure 4.2a (i)) and Strength of
Flange Splice (Figure 4.2a (ii)),
1. Horizontal straight line and a line increasing linearly are developed.
2. When thickness of cover plate is increased,
a. At flange splice:
i)
No changes is observed on the beams flange tension capacity, Pt,

slip resistance, PSL , beams flange bearing capacity, Pbs .
ii)
Strength increased linearly for flange cover plate tension capacity,

Pt and flange cover plate bearing capacity, Pbs.
b. At web splice:
i)
No changes is observed on the beams web shear capacity, Pv,

moment capacity, Mc, bearing capacity, Pbs , bolts slip resistance,
PSL and block failure, Pr.
ii)
Strength increase linearly for web cover plate shear capacity, Pv,
moment capacity, Mc and its bearing capacity, Pbs.
3. We can summarize that thickness of cover plates has no effect on the strength
to its connected part, or the beam in this analysis. Increase in the thickness of
cover plate will only increase the strength of the cover plate itself, where it is
observed that the strength increased linearly.
Next, the analysis above is repeated with different beam sizes but the size of
cover plates remain the same. Beam size of 457 x 152 x 52 UB is used to replace the
beam 457 x 152 x 60 UB, but the cover plates size remain the same.
82
Table 4.2b (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x 15 x 420)
cover plate
flange beam
thickness,
Ae
Ae
t (mm)
(mm2)
16
1865.60
662.29
18
2098.80
20
plate
P SL
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
64.80
154.00
87.75
389.91
64.80
173.25
87.75
1417.87
389.91
64.80
192.50
87.75
910.65
1417.87
389.91
64.80
211.75
87.75
993.43
1417.87
389.91
64.80
231.00
87.75
Pt (kN)
Pt (kN)
(kN)
1417.87
389.91
745.07
1417.87
2332.00
827.86
22
2565.20
24
2798.40
(mm2)
Table 4.2b (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at web
splice (2/140 x 8 x 340)
cover plate
t
(mm) P v (kN)
Mc
(kNm)
web beam
P v (kN)
Mc
(kNm)
P SL
(kN)
P bs (kN)
cover
web
plate
beam
block
failure
Pr
(kN)
772.93
54.72
408.33
261.25
129.60
154.00
61.18
487.43
10
966.17
68.40
408.33
261.25
129.60
192.50
61.18
487.43
12
1159.40
82.08
408.33
261.25
129.60
231.00
61.18
487.43
14
1352.64
95.76
408.33
261.25
129.60
269.50
61.18
487.43
16
1545.87 109.43
408.33
261.25
129.60
308.00
61.18
487.43
83
The graph for the strength of flange splice is shown below.

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00

0.00
8
10
12
14
16

Pt(c.plate)
Pt (f.beam)
Psl
Pbs(c.plate)
Pbs(f.beam)
Figure 4.2b (i): Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data from
Table 4.2b (i))
84
Next, the graph for the strength of web splice is shown below.

1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
C.Plate Shear capacity, Pv
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
W.Beam Shear capacity, Pv
400.00
C.Plate Bearing capacity, Pbs

200.00
C.Plate Moment
capacity, MC
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
W.Beam Bearing
capacity, Pbs
Pv(c.plate)
Mc(c.plate)
Pv(web beam)
Mc(web beam)
Psl
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (web beam)
Pr
Figure 4.2b (ii): Graph of strength vs plate thickness at web splice (Data from Table
4.2b (ii))
85
From the graph Strength of Web Splice (Figure 4.2b (i)) and Strength of
Flange Splice (Figure 4.2b (ii)), the same graph pattern is developed, and again we
can summarize that thickness of cover plates has no effect on the strength value of
the beam. Increase in the thickness of cover plate will only increase the strength of
the cover plate itself.
By comparing both the table data for Beam Size 457 x 152 x 60 UB (Table
4.2a (i) and (ii)) and 457 x 152 x 52 UB (Table 4.2b (i) and (ii)),
1. The strength values are the same in the table columns that is highlighted.
a.
It is observed that all the highlighted columns are referring to the

strength of cover plates.
b. We can summarize that as long as the same type (same size and
properties) of cover plates are used, the strength of the cover plate
remains the same even though it is connected to different beam size.
2. The values in the columns not highlighted are different between the two
tables (except for the strength of the bolts, PSL).
a. It is observed that when different beam size is used, the strength of the
beam will change.
b. We can summarize that different beam size has different properties,

thus the strength of the beam will depend on its size.
3. No relationship exists between the beam and cover plate.
The changes of cover plate have no effect on the beam in terms of the
strength, and the changes of the beam size have no effect on the cover
plates.
86
The analysis above uses the same cover plate for different beam size.
However when the beam size changes significantly, the cover plate size will need to
be changed as well.
For example, referring to the calculation above, for beam size 457 x 152 x 60
UB and 457 x 152 x 52 UB which dimensions are not much different, the cover
plates used for both beams are same size; flange splice is 2/150 x 15 x 420 and web
splice is 2/140 x 8 x 340.
However, if beam size of 354 x 171 x 67 UB is used, different cover plate

will be required to suit the beam size. Thus, the cover plates used at flange splice is
2/170 x 15 x 420 and at web splice is 2/140 x 8 x 250.
Therefore, for this report, another 3 beam size will be analyzed and their
results are compared.
Table 4.2f: Beam size and cover plate size used on the beam
No.
I.
Beam Size
Flange Cover Plate Web Cover Plate
457 x 152 x 60 UB
2/150 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 340
II
406 x 178 x 74 UB
2/170 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 300
III
356 x 171 x 67 UB
2/170 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 250
IV
305 x 165x 54 UB
2/160 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 220
For beam 457 x 152 x 60 UB, the results and analysis for this beam size
can be referred from table 4.2a (i) and (ii) above, together with the graphs
plotted (Figure 4.2a (i) and (ii)).
87
II.
For beam 406 x 178 x 74 UB, the results are shown on table below.
Table 4.2c (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange plate
plate
thickness,
flange beam
Ae
P SL
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
Ae (mm2)
Pt (kN)
15
2079.00
738.05
2601.60 715.44
64.80
144.38 128.80
16
2217.60
787.25
2601.60 715.44
64.80
154.00 128.80
18
2494.80
885.65
2601.60 715.44
64.80
173.25 128.80
20
2772.00
984.06
2601.60 715.44
64.80
192.50 128.80
22
3049.20
1082.47 2601.60 715.44
64.80
211.75 128.80
24
3326.40
1180.87 2601.60 715.44
64.80
231.00 128.80
t (mm)
(mm2)
Pt (kN) (kN)
Refer graph at Appendix A1: Figure 4.2c (i)
Table 4.2c (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at web
splice (cover plate 2/140 x 8 x 300)
double plate
beam web
P SL
block
P bs (kN)
failure
t
(mm)
P v (kN)
Mc
Pv
Mc
(kNm) (kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
cover
web
plate
beam
Pr (kN)
650.25
42.60
458.21
363.00
129.60
154.00
76.48
547.37
10
812.81
53.25
458.21
363.00
129.60
192.50
76.48
547.37
12
975.37
63.90
458.21
363.00
129.60
231.00
76.48
547.37
14
1137.93
74.55
458.21
363.00
129.60
269.50
76.48
547.37
16
1300.49
85.20
458.21
363.00
129.60
308.00
76.48
547.37
Refer graph at Appendix A2: Figure 4.2c (ii)
88
III.
For beam 356 x 171 x 67 UB, the results are shown on table below.
Table 4.2d (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
plate
flange plate
thickness Ae
t, (mm)
flange beam
Ae
Pt (kN)
(mm2)
(mm2)
P SL
P bs (kN)
Pt (kN) (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
16
2217.60
787.25
2434.13
669.39
64.80
154.00
126.39
18
2494.80
885.65
2434.13
669.39
64.80
173.25
126.39
20
2772.00
984.06
2434.13
669.39
64.80
192.50
126.39
22
3049.20 1082.47
2434.13
669.39
64.80
211.75
126.39
24
3326.40 1180.87
2434.13
669.39
64.80
231.00
126.39
Refer graph at Appendix A3: Figure 4.2d (i)
Table 4.2d (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at web
splice (2/140 x 8 x 250)
double plate
beam web
P SL
block
P bs (kN)
failure
t
(mm)
P v (kN)
Mc
Pv
Mc
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
cover
web
plate
beam
Pr (kN)
803.61
29.58
372.16
294.25
129.60
154.00
73.26
451.20
10
1004.51
36.98
372.16
294.25
129.60
192.50
73.26
451.20
12
1205.41
44.38
372.16
294.25
129.60
231.00
73.26
451.20
14
1406.31
51.77
372.16
294.25
129.60
269.50
73.26
451.20
16
1607.21
59.17
372.16
294.25
129.60
308.00
73.26
451.20
Refer graph at Appendix A4: Figure 4.2d (ii)
89
IV.
For beam 305 x 165x 54 UB, the results are shown on table below.
Table 4.2e (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange plate
flange beam
thickness,
Ae
Ae
t (mm)
(mm2)
16
2041.60
724.77
18
2296.80
20
plate
P SL
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
64.80
154.00
110.29
555.63
64.80
173.25
110.29
2020.48
555.63
64.80
192.50
110.29
996.56
2020.48
555.63
64.80
211.75
110.29
3062.40 1087.15
2020.48
555.63
64.80
231.00
110.29
Pt (kN)
Pt (kN)
(kN)
2020.48
555.63
815.36
2020.48
2552.00
905.96
22
2807.20
24
(mm2)
Refer graph at Appendix A5: Figure 4.2e (i)
Table 4.2e (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness Web
Splice 2/140 x 8 x 220
double plate
beam web
t,
Pv
Mc
Pv
Mc
(mm)
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
404.87
22.91
260.91
207.35
10
506.09
28.64
260.91
12
607.31
34.36
14
708.52
16
809.74
P SL
P bs (kN)
block
failure
cover
web
plate
beam
129.60
154.00
63.60
337.61
207.35
129.60
192.50
63.60
337.61
260.91
207.35
129.60
231.00
63.60
337.61
40.09
260.91
207.35
129.60
269.50
63.60
337.61
45.82
260.91
207.35
129.60
308.00
63.60
337.61
Refer graph at Appendix A6: Figure 4.2e (ii)
(kN)
Pr (kN)
90
By observation, the graphs developed from the four different beam size have
similar pattern of graphs. In summary, for the calculation and analysis on the change
of the cover plate thickness of the beam splice connection, despite different beam
sizes and cover plate sizes are used, it is observed that similar results are obtained in
terms of the shape and data distribution on the graph. Therefore, we can conclude
that the discussions above (Part 4.2.1) apply for all beam splice connections.
4.2.2
Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for Column Splice Connection

Designed Using BS 5950
Similar to earlier methods at part 4.2.1, for column size 305 x 305 x 118 UC
used in column splice design (refer table 4.1 (b)), here the thickness of the flange
cover plate is changed and the result is shown below.
Table 4.3(a): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
Pt
Ps
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
mm2
kN
kN
plate
beam
16
4096
1599.49
91.9
176.00
172.04
18
4608
1799.42
91.9
198.00
172.04
20
5120
1999.36
91.9
220.00
172.04
22
5632
2199.30
91.9
242.00
172.04
24
6144
2399.23
91.9
264.00
172.04
91
The graph for the strength of flange splice is shown below:

3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Pt (c.plate)
1500.00
Ps (bolt)
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (fl beam)
1000.00
500.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
Cover Plate Thickness (mm)
24
Shear Capacity of bolt, PS
Figure 4.3a: Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

92
From the graph Strength of Flange Splice (Figure 4.3a),
1. Two types of lines are plotted; horizontal straight line and straight line
increasing linearly.

a. No changes is observed on columns flange bearing capacity, Pbs and
shear capacity of bolt, Ps .
b. Strength capacity increased linearly for flange cover plate tension
capacity, Pt and flange cover plate bearing capacity, Pbs.
3. We can summarize that thickness of cover plates has no effect on the strength
of its connected part, which is the column in this analysis. Increase in the
thickness of cover plate will only increase the strength of the cover plate itself,
where it is observed that the strength increased linearly.
Next, the analysis above is repeated with different column sizes but the size
of cover plates remain the same. Column size of 305 x 305 x 158 UC is used to
replace the beam 305 x 305 x 118 UC, but the cover plates size (2/300 x 16 x 525)
remain the same.
93
Table 4.3(b): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
Pt
Ps
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
mm2
kN
kN
plate
beam
16
4096
1599.49
91.9
176.00
230.00
18
4608
1799.42
91.9
198.00
230.00
20
5120
1999.36
91.9
220.00
230.00
22
5632
2199.30
91.9
242.00
230.00
24
6144
2399.23
91.9
264.00
230.00
94

3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Pt (c.plate)
1500.00
Ps (bolt)
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (fl beam)
1000.00
500.00
C.Plate Bearing
capacity, Pbs
0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 4.3b: Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

95
From the graph Strength of Flange Splice (Strength Vs Flange Cover Plate
thickness), the same graph pattern is developed, and again we can summarize that
thickness of cover plates has no effect on the strength capacity of the beam. Increase
in the thickness of cover plate will only increase the strength of the cover plate itself.
By comparing both the table data for column size 305 x 305 x 158 UC (Table
4.3a) and 305 x 305 x 118 UC (Table 4.3a),
1. All the strength values are the same except for the bearing capacity of the
columns flange.
a. We can say that as long as the same type (same size and properties) of
cover plates are used, the strength of the cover plate remains the same
even though it is connected to different column size.
b. It is observed that when different column size is used, the strength of the
column will change, which we refer to the bearing capacity of the column
flange here.
c. We can summarize that different column size has different properties,

thus the strength of the column will depend on its size.
2. No relationship exists between the column strength and cover plate strength.
The changes of cover plate thickness have no effect on the column in

terms of the strength, and the changes of the column size have no effect
on the strength of cover plates.
The analysis above uses the same cover plate for different column size.
However, similar to the design of beam splice in part 4.2.1, when the column size
changes significantly, the cover plate size will need to be changed as well.
96
Therefore, for this report, another 3 column size will be analyzed and their
results are compared.
Table 4.3f: Column size and cover plate size used on columns flange
I.
No.
Column Size
Flange Cover Plate
305 x 305 x 118 UC
2/300 x 16 x 525
II
356 x 368 x 202 UC
2/350 x 16 x 525
III
254 x 254 x132 UC
2/250 x 12 x 525
IV
203 x 203 x 86 UC
2/200 x 12 x 525
For Column 305 x 305 x 118 UC, the results and analysis for this column
size can be referring from table 4.3a above, together with the graphs
plotted (Figure 4.3a).
II.
For Column 356 x 368 x 202 UC,
Table 4.3c: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
Splice (cover plate 2/350 x 16 x 525)
plate thickness, t
A net
mm2
(mm)
Pt
kN
Ps
kN
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
16
4896
1911.89
91.9
176.00
248.40
18
5508
2150.87
91.9
198.00
248.40
20
6120
2389.86
91.9
220.00
248.40
22
6732
2628.85
91.9
242.00
248.40
24
7344
2867.83
91.9
264.00
248.40
Refer graph at Appendix B1: Figure 4.3c
97
III.
For Column 254 x 254 x132 UC,
Table 4.3d: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness,
A net
Pt
Ps
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
(mm)
(mm2)
12
2472
965.32
91.9
132.00
232.76
14
2884
1126.20
91.9
154.00
232.76
16
3296
1287.09
91.9
176.00
232.76
18
3708
1447.97
91.9
198.00
232.76
20
4120
1608.86
91.9
220.00
232.76
(kN)
(kN)
Refer graph at Appendix B2: Figure 4.3d
IV.
Table 4.3e: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness,
A net
Pt
Ps
P bs (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
mm2
kN
kN
plate
beam
12
1872
731.02
91.9
132.00
188.60
14
2184
852.85
91.9
154.00
188.60
16
2496
974.69
91.9
176.00
188.60
18
2808
1096.52
91.9
198.00
188.60
20
3120
1218.36
91.9
220.00
188.60
Refer graph at Appendix B3: Figure 4.3e
98
By observing the graph developed from the four different column size,
similar pattern of graphs is developed even though during the analysis, different
column size and cover plate size are used. Therefore, we can also conclude that the
discussions above (Part 4.2.2) apply for all column splice connections with end
bearing arrangement.
4.2.3
Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for Beam Splice Connection

Designed Using Eurocode 3
For beam splice connection using beam size 457 x 152 x 60 UB (refer to table
4.1(c)), the thickness of the flange splice and web splice is changed, and the result is
shown below. At this section, the same process as part 4.2.1 is repeated but the
results here are calculated based on Eurocode 3.
Table 4.4a (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x *15 x 420)
plate
thickness
flange plate
Nt,rd
A net
Nt,rd
(mm )
(kN)
(mm )
(kN)
16
1696.00
622.77
1448.37
448.42
18
1908.00
700.62
1448.37
20
2120.00
778.46
22
2332.00
24
2544.00
t (mm)
A net
flange beam
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
43.90
259.49
181.86
448.42
43.90
291.92
181.86
1448.37
448.42
43.90
324.36
181.86
856.31
1448.37
448.42
43.90
356.80
181.86
934.16
1448.37
448.42
43.90
389.23
181.86
(kN)
(*Thickness of 15 mm for the cover plate is not shown in the table for consistent
purposes of values of the plate thickness, t.)
99
Table 4.4a (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
double plate
t
V pl,Rd
web beam
M pl,Rd
V pl,Rd
M pl,Rd
(mm) (kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
826.40
82.08
471.59
354.75
10
1033.00 102.60
471.59
12
1239.59 123.11
14
16
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
block
failure
cover
web
plate
beam (kN)
87.80
172.99
73.84 466.00
354.75
87.80
216.24
73.84 466.00
471.59
354.75
87.80
259.49
73.84 466.00
1446.19 143.63
471.59
354.75
87.80
302.74
73.84 466.00
1652.79 164.15
471.59
354.75
87.80
345.98
73.84 466.00
(kN)
Veff,1,Rd
100

1000.00
900.00
C.Plate Tension Resistance, Nt,d

800.00
700.00
Capacity/Strength (kN)
600.00
500.00
F.Beam Tension Resistance, Nt,Rd
400.00
C.Plate Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd

300.00
F.Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd
200.00
100.00
Slip Resistance, FS,Rd

0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Nt,Rd (c.plate)
Nt,Rd(f.beam)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (f.beam)
Fs,Rd
Figure 4.4a (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
101

1800.00
1600.00
C.Plate Shear Resistance, Vpl,Rd

1400.00
Stength/Capacity (kN)
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
W.Beam Shear Resistance, Vpl,Rd

400.00
W.Beam Block Failure, Veff,1,Rd

W.Beam Moment Capacity, Mpl,Rd
C.Plate Moment Capacity, Mpl,Rd
200.00

W.Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Vpl,Rd (c.plate)

Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Figure 4.4a (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
102
Part of the graph above (Figure 4.4a (i)) is enlarged to have a clearer view of
the plotted line.
Figure 4.4a (i)

500.00

450.00
400.00

350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
8
Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Fs,Rd
10
12
14
16
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Fig 4.4a (ii): Enlarged Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
103
From the graph Strength at Web Splice (Figure 4.4a (i)) and Strength at
Flange Splice (Figure 4.4a (ii),
1. Horizontal straight line and straight line increasing linearly are developed
(similar result as part 4.2.1).
a. At flange splice:
i)
No changes is observed on the beams flange tension force

resistance, Nt,d, beams flange bearing resistance, Fb,Rd and bolt
slip resistance, FS,Rd, (similar result as part 4.2.1).
ii)
Strength capacity increased linearly for flange cover plate tension

force resistance, Nt,d and flange cover plate bearing resistance,
Fb,Rd (similar result as part 4.2.1)
b. At web splice:
i)
No changes is observed on the beams web shear resistance, Vpl,Rd,

its bending moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, its bearing capacity, Fb,Rd
and bolt slip resistance, FS,Rd (similar result as part 4.2.1).
ii)
Strength increase linearly for web cover plate shear resistance,

Vpl,Rd, its moment capacity, M pl,Rd and its bearing resistance, Fb,Rd
3. In summary, for beam splice calculation using both BS 5950 and Eurocode 3,
we have the same outcome, where thickness of cover plates has no effect on
the strength of its connected part, or the beam in this analysis. Increase in the
104
Again, the analysis above is then repeated with different beam sizes but the
size of cover plates remain the same. Beam size of 457 x 152 x 52 UB is used to
replace the beam 457 x 152 x 60 UB, but the cover plates size remain the same.
Table 4.4b (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange plate
plate
flange beam
thickness, t
A net
Nt,rd
A net
Nt,rd
(mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(mm2)
(kN)
16
1696.00
622.77
1181.56
365.81
18
1908.00
700.62
1181.56
20
2120.00
778.46
22
2332.00
24
2544.00
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
43.90
259.49
149.05
365.81
43.90
291.92
149.05
1181.56
365.81
43.90
324.36
149.05
856.31
1181.56
365.81
43.90
356.80
149.05
934.16
1181.56
365.81
43.90
389.23
149.05
(kN)
Table 4.4b (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at Web
double plate
web beam
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
t
(mm)
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
826.40
82.08
436.57
302.50
10
1033.00
102.60
436.57
12
1239.59
123.11
14
1446.19
16
1652.79
block
failure
cover
web
Veff,1,Rd
plate
beam
(kN)
87.80
172.99
69.28
434.28
302.50
87.80
216.24
69.28
434.28
436.57
302.50
87.80
259.49
69.28
434.28
143.63
436.57
302.50
87.80
302.74
69.28
434.28
164.15
436.57
302.50
87.80
345.98
69.28
434.28
(kN)
105

1000.00
900.00

800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00

0.00
16
18
Nt,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
20
22
24
Plate Thickness (mm)

Nt,Rd(f.beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (f.beam)
Figure 4.4b (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
106

1800.00
1600.00

1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00

400.00
W.Beam Moment Capacity, Mpl,Rd W.Beam Block Failure, Veff,1,Rd

200.00
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Vpl,Rd (c.plate)

Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Figure 4.4b (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
107
From the graph Strength of Web Splice (Figure 4.4b (i))) and Strength of
Flange Splice (Figure 4.2b (ii)), the same graph pattern is developed, and again we
can summarize that for calculation based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, the thickness
of cover plates has no effect on the strength capacity of the beam. Increase in the
thickness of cover plate will only increase the strength of the cover plate itself.
By comparing both the table data for Beam Size 457 x 152 x 60 UB (Table
4.4a (i) amd (ii)) and 457 x 152 x 52 UB (Table 4.4b (i) amd (ii)):
1. The strength values are the same in the table columns that is highlighted.
a.
It is observed that all the highlighted columns are referring to the

strength capacity of cover plates.
b. We can summarize that as long as the same type (same size and
remains the same even though it is connected to different beam size.
(similar result as part 4.2.1)
2. The values in the columns not highlighted are different between the two
tables (except for the strength of the bolts, FS,Rd).
a. It is observed that when different beam size is used, the strength of the
beam will change (similar result as part 4.2.1).
b. We can summarize that different beam size has different properties,

thus the strength of the beam will depend on its size. (similar result as
part 4.2.1)
108
3. No relationship exists between the beam and cover plate.
The changes of cover plate have no effect on the beam in terms of the
strength, and the changes of the beam size have no effect on the cover
plates. (similar result as part 4.2.1)
4. Finally, we also conclude that the same outcome is observed for the design of
beam splice based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3. The only difference is the
value of the strength.
Another 3 beam size (similar to the beam size and cover plate size used for
BS 5950 at part 4.2.1) will be analyzed and their results are compared.
Table 4.4f: Beam size and cover plate size used on beams flange and web
No:
Beam Size
Flange Cover Plate
Web Cover Plate
457 x 152 x 60 UB
2/150 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 340
II
406 x 178 x 74 UB
2/170 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 300
III
356 x 171 x 67 UB
2/170 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 250
IV
305 x 165x 54 UB
2/160 x 15 x 420
2/140 x 8 x 220
I.
The results and analysis for this beam size (Beam 457 x 152 x 60 UB) can
be referred from table 4.2a (i) and (ii) above, together with the graphs
plotted based on the table data (Figure 4.2a (i) and (ii)) .
109
II.
For beam 406 x 178 x 74 UB,
flange plate
plate
flange beam
thickness,
A net
Nt,rd
A net
Nt,rd
t (mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(mm2)
(kN)
16
2016.00
740.28
2168.00
671.21
18
2268.00
832.81
2168.00
20
2520.00
925.34
22
2772.00
24
3024.00
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
43.90
259.49
218.78
671.21
43.90
291.92
218.78
2168.00
671.21
43.90
324.36
218.78
1017.88
2168.00
671.21
43.90
356.80
218.78
1110.41
2168.00
671.21
43.90
389.23
218.78
(kN)
Refer graph at Appendix C1: Figure 4.4c (i)
flange splice (cover plate140 x 8 x 300)
Block
t
(mm)
double plate
beam web
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
failure
(web)
V pl,Rd
M pl,Rd
V pl,Rd
M pl,Rd
cover
web
Veff,1,Rd
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
plate
beam
(kN)
695.22
63.90
489.90
412.50
87.80
172.99
86.60
484.78
10
869.03
79.88
489.90
412.50
87.80
216.24
86.60
484.78
12
1042.83
95.85
489.90
412.50
87.80
259.49
86.60
484.78
14
1216.64
111.83
489.90
412.50
87.80
302.74
86.60
484.78
18
1390.44
127.80
489.90
412.50
87.80
345.98
86.60
484.78
Refer graph at Appendix C2: Figure 4.4c (ii)
(kN)
110
III.
For Beam 356 x 171 x 67 UB,
Table 4.4d (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
plate
flange plate
thickness
A net
flange beam
Nt,rd
A net
Nt,rd
(mm )
(kN)
(mm )
(kN)
16
2016.00
740.28
2028.44
628.01
18
2268.00
832.81
2028.44
20
2520.00
925.34
22
2772.00
24
3024.00
t (mm)
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
43.90
259.49
214.68
628.01
43.90
291.92
214.68
2028.44
628.01
43.90
324.36
214.68
1017.88
2028.44
628.01
43.90
356.80
214.68
1110.41
2028.44
628.01
43.90
389.23
214.68
(kN)
Refer graph at Appendix C3: Figure 4.4d (i)
Table 4.4d (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at web
t
(mm)
double plate
beam web
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
531.25
44.38
397.90 332.75
10
664.07
55.47
12
796.88
14
16
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
block
failure
cover
web
Veff,1,Rd
plate
beam
(kN)
87.80
172.99
82.96
392.56
397.90 332.75
87.80
216.24
82.96
392.56
66.56
397.90 332.75
87.80
259.49
82.96
392.56
929.70
77.66
397.90 332.75
87.80
302.74
82.96
392.56
1062.51
88.75
397.90 332.75
87.80
345.98
82.96
392.56
Refer graph at Appendix C4: Figure 4.4d (ii)
(kN)
111
IV.
For Beam 305 x 165x 54 UB,
Table 4.4e (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
flange plate
plate
flange beam
thickness,
A net
Nt,rd
A net
Nt,rd
t (mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(mm2)
(kN)
16
1856.00
681.52
1683.73
521.28
18
2088.00
766.71
1683.73
20
2320.00
851.90
22
2552.00
24
2784.00
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
43.90
259.49
187.33
521.28
43.90
291.92
187.33
1683.73
521.28
43.90
324.36
187.33
937.09
1683.73
521.28
43.90
356.80
187.33
1022.28
1683.73
521.28
43.90
389.23
187.33
(kN)
Refer graph at Appendix C5: Figure 4.4e (i):
Table 4.4e (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at
block
double plate
beam web
F s,Rd
F b,Rd (kN)
failure
(web)
t (mm)
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
V pl,Rd
M c,Rd
cover
web
Veff,1,Rd
(kN)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kNm)
plate
beam
(kN)
432.87
34.36
278.95
232.65
87.80
172.99
72.02
288.74
10
541.09
42.96
278.95
232.65
87.80
216.24
72.02
288.74
12
649.31
51.55
278.95
232.65
87.80
259.49
72.02
288.74
14
757.53
60.14
278.95
232.65
87.80
302.74
72.02
288.74
16
865.75
68.73
278.95
232.65
87.80
345.98
72.02
288.74
Refer graph at Appendix C6: Figure 4.4e (ii)
(kN)
112
From the graphs developed based on different beam size and cover plate size,
it is observed that all the graphs pattern are the same. This outcome is similar to Part
4.2.1. Therefore, we can conclude that the discussions above (Part 4.2.3) apply for all
beam splice connections designed based on Eurocode 3.
In short, when we analyze the change of the plate thickness on the capacity of
the beam splice connection based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, the outcome is the
same. The only difference between the two results is just the values due to different
formulas used.
4.2.4
Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for Column Splice Connection

Designed Using Eurocode 3
Instead of BS 5950, the steps in part 4.2.2 is repeated by using Eurocode 3.

Thus, for the design of column splice connection using column size 305 x 305 x 118
UC (refer table 4.1 (d)), here the thickness of the flange cover plate is changed and
the result is shown below.
Table 4.5(a): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
N t,rd
F v,rd
(mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(kN)
16
4096
1504.05
18
4608
20
F b,rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
94.08
199.10
244.45
1692.06
94.08
223.99
244.45
5120
1880.06
94.08
248.88
244.45
22
5632
2068.07
94.08
273.77
244.45
24
6144
2256.08
94.08
298.66
244.45
113

2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Nt.Rd (c.plate)
Fv,Rd (bolt)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
1000.00
Fb,Rd (fl beam)
500.00
Fl. Beam Bearing Resistance,

C.Plate Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd F
b,Rd
0.00
16
18
20
22
Bolt Shear Resistance , Fv,Rd

24
Cover plate thickness (mm)
Figure 4.5a: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

114
From the graph Strength at Flange Splice (Figure 4.5a),
1. Two types of lines are plotted; horizontal straight line and a line increasing
linearly. (similar result as part 4.2.2)
a. No changes is observed on column flange bearing capacity, Pbs and shear

capacity of bolt, Ps (similar result as part 4.2.2).
b. Strength capacity increased linearly for flange cover plate tension
capacity, Pt and flange cover plate bearing capacity, Pbs (similar result as
part 4.2.2).
3. We can summarize that the outcome is the same as part 4.2.2 (Change of
Thickness of Cover Plate for Column Splice Connection Designed Using
BS5950), where the thickness of cover plates has no effect on the strength
capacity to its connected part, or the column in this analysis. Increase in the
115
Next, the analysis above is repeated with different column sizes but the size
of cover plates remain the same. Column size of 305 x 305 x 158 UC is used to
replace the beam 305 x 305 x 118 UC, but the cover plates size (2/300 x 16 x 525)
remain the same.
Table 4.5b: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
N t,rd
F v,rd
(mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(kN)
16
4096
1504.05
18
4608
20
F b,rd (kN)
cover
flange
plate
beam
94.08
199.10
326.80
1692.06
94.08
223.99
326.80
5120
1880.06
94.08
248.88
326.80
22
5632
2068.07
94.08
273.77
326.80
24
6144
2256.08
94.08
298.66
326.80
116

2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Nt.Rd (c.plate)
Fv,Rd (bolt)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
1000.00
Fb,Rd (fl beam)
500.00
Fl. Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd

0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 4.5b: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

117
From the graph Strength at Flange Splice of Figure 4.5b, the same graph
pattern is developed, and again we can summarize that thickness of cover plates has
no effect on the strength of the beam. Increase in the thickness of cover plate will
only increase the strength of the cover plate itself (similar result as part 4.2.2).
By comparing both the table data for column size 305 x 305 x 158 UC and
305 x 305 x 118 UC,
1. All the strength values are the same except for the bearing capacity of the
column flange.
a. We can summarize that as long as the same type (same size and
remains the same even though it is connected to different column size
b. It is observed that when different column size is used, the strength of

the column will change, which we refer to the bearing capacity of the
column flange here (similar result as part 4.2.2).
c. We can also summarize that different column size has different

properties, thus the strength of the beam will depend on its size
2. No relationship exists between the column strength and cover plate strength.
The changes of cover plate thickness have no effect on the column in
terms of the strength capacity, and the changes of the column size have no
effect on the cover plates.
The analysis above uses the same cover plate for different column size, where
the outcome is seen similar when designed with BS 5950 (Part 4.2.2). Next, another
3 column size (similar to the column size and cover plate size used for BS 5950 at
part 4.2.2) will be analyzed and their results are compared.
118
Table 4.5f: Column size and cover plate size used on columns flange
I.
No:
Column Size
Flange Cover Plate
305 x 305 x 118 UC
2/300 x 16 x 525
II
356 x 368 x 202 UC
2/350 x 16 x 525
III
254 x 254 x132 UC
2/250 x 12 x 525
IV
203 x 203 x 86 UC
2/200 x 12 x 525
For column 305 x 305 x 118 UC, the results and analysis for this column
size can be referred from table 4.5a above, together with the graphs
plotted (Figure 4.5a).
II.
Table 4.5c: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
2
N t,rd
F v,rd
F b,rd (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
(mm )
(kN)
(kN)
plate
beam
16
4896
1797.81
94.08
199.10
352.94
18
5508
2022.54
94.08
223.99
352.94
20
6120
2247.26
94.08
248.88
352.94
22
6732
2471.99
94.08
273.77
352.94
24
7344
2696.72
94.08
298.66
352.94
Refer graph at Appendix D1: Figure 4.5c
119
III.
For Column 254 x 254 x132 UC,
Table 4.5d: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
N t,rd
F v,rd
F b,rd (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
(mm2)
(kN)
(kN)
plate
beam
12
2472
907.72
94.08
149.33
330.72
14
2884
1059.00
94.08
174.22
330.72
16
3296
1210.29
94.08
199.10
330.72
18
3708
1361.58
94.08
223.99
330.72
20
4120
1512.86
94.08
248.88
330.72
Refer graph at Appendix D2: Figure 4.5d.
IV.
Table 4.5e: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange
plate thickness, t
A net
N t,rd
F v,rd
F b,rd (kN)
cover
flange
(mm)
mm2
kN
kN
plate
beam
12
1872
687.40
94.08
149.33
267.98
14
2184
801.96
94.08
174.22
267.98
16
2496
916.53
94.08
199.10
267.98
18
2808
1031.10
94.08
223.99
267.98
20
3120
1145.66
94.08
248.88
267.98
Refer graph at Appendix D3: Figure 4.5e
120
From the graphs developed based on different column size and cover plate
size, it is observed that all the graphs pattern are the same. This outcome is similar
to Part 4.2.2. Therefore, we can conclude that the discussions above (Part 4.2.4)
apply for all column splice connection with end bearing.
In short, when we analyze the change of the plate thickness on the capacity of
the column splice connection based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3, the outcome is the
same. The only difference between the two results is just the values due to different
formulas used.
4.3
Comparison of results between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3
4.3.1
Comparison of results between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for Beam

Spliced connections
It is observed that for the design of beam splice using BS 5950 and Eurocode
3, there are no changes on the value of the strength of the beam when the thickness
of the cover plates are changed.
Therefore, the strength of the beam obtained by BS 5950 and Eurocode 3

are compared as follow.
121
Table 4.6a: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for tension capacity of
beams flange
Beam Size
Beams flange tension capacity

BS 5950 (Pt)
Eurocode 3 (Nt,Rd)
457 x 152 x 60 UB
478.0
448.4
406 x 178 x 74 UB
715.4
671.2
356 x 171 x 67 UB
669.4
628.0
305 x 165x 54 UB
555.6
521.3
Table 4.6b: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for bearing capacity of
beams flange
Beam Size
Beams flange bearing capacity

BS 5950 (Pbs)
Eurocode 3 (Fb,Rd)
457 x 152 x 60 UB
107.1
181.9
406 x 178 x 74 UB
128.8
218.8
356 x 171 x 67 UB
126.4
214.7
305 x 165x 54 UB
110.3
187.3
Table 4.6c: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for shear capacity of
beams web
Beam Size
Beams Web Shear Capacity

BS 5950 (Pv)
Eurocode 3 (Vpl,Rd)
457 x 152 x 60 UB
441.1
471.6
406 x 178 x 74 UB
458.2
489.9
356 x 171 x 67 UB
372.2
397.9
305 x 165x 54 UB
260.9
279.0
122
Table 4.6d: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for moment capacity of
beams web
Beam Size
Beams web moment capacity

BS 5950 (Mc)
Eurocode 3 (Mpl,Rd)
457 x 152 x 60 UB
308.0
354.8
406 x 178 x 74 UB
363.3
412.5
356 x 171 x 67 UB
294.3
332.8
305 x 165x 54 UB
207.4
232.7
Next, for the cover plate, it is observed that the strength of the cover plates
will increase when its thickness is increased for both BS 5950 and Eurocode 3
method. Comparison is made on the strength value of the cover plates calculated
using the two methods as shown in the table and graph below.
123
1. For cover plates used on Beam 457 x 152 x 60 UB,
Table 4.7a: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the strength of flange cover plate (2/150 x 15 x 420) and web cover plate (2/140 x
8 x 340) when the cover plate thickness is increased
Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity
Web Cover Plate

Bearing Capacity
Shear Capacity
Moment Capacity
Bearing Capacity
Standard
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
thickness,t
Pt
Nt,rd
P bs
F b,Rd
Pv
V pl,Rd
Mc
M pl,Rd
P bs
F b,Rd
(mm)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kNm)
(kNm)
(kN)
(kN)
772.9
826.4
54.7
82.1
154.0
173.0
10
966.2
1033.0
68.4
102.6
192.5
216.2
12
1159.4
1239.6
82.1
123.1
231.0
259.5
14
1352.6
1446.2
95.8
143.6
269.5
302.7
1545.9
1652.8
109.4
164.2
308.0
346.0
16
662.3
622.8
154.0
259.5
18
745.1
700.6
173.3
291.9
20
827.9
778.5
192.5
324.4
22
910.6
856.3
211.8
356.8
24
993.4
934.2
231.0
389.2
124
Strength of web and flange cover plates

1800
EC3
1600
BS
1400
Shear capacity at web cover plate
Strength/Capacity of plate (kN)
1200
BS
1000
EC3
800
600
EC3
400
EC3
BS
BS
200
EC3
BS
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Nt,Rd fl plate (EC3)
Pbs, w plate (BS)
Fb,Rd, fl plate (EC3)
Pv,w plate (BS)
V,pl,Rd w plate (EC3)
Mc, w plate (BS)
Mpl,Rd,w plate (EC3)
Pbs,w plate (BS)
Fb,Rd, w plate (EC3)
Figure 4.7a: Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and
Eurocode 3 vs Cover Plate Thickness. (Data from Table 4.7a)
125
2. For cover plates used on Beam 406 x 178 x 74 UB,
Table 4.7b: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the strength of flange cover plate (2/170 x 15 x 420) and web cover plate (2/140 x
8 x 300) when cover plate thickness increased
Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity
Web Cover Plate

Bearing Capacity
Shear Capacity
Moment Capacity
Bearing Capacity
Standard
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
thickness,t
(mm)
Pt
(kN)
Nt,rd
(kN)
P bs
(kN)
F b,Rd
(kN)
Pv
(kN)
V pl,Rd
(kN)
Mc
(kNm)
M pl,Rd
(kNm)
P bs
(kN)
F b,Rd
(kN)
650.2
10
812.8
695.2
42.6
63.9
154.0
173.0
869.0
53.3
79.9
192.5
216.2
12
975.4
1042.8
63.9
95.9
231.0
259.5
14
1137.9
1216.6
74.6
111.8
269.5
302.7
1300.5
1390.4
85.2
127.8
308.0
346.0
16
787.2
740.3
154.0
259.5
18
885.7
832.8
173.3
291.9
20
984.1
925.3
192.5
324.4
22
1082.5
1017.9
211.8
356.8
24
1180.9
1110.4
231.0
389.2
Refer graph at Appendix E1: Figure 4.7b.
126
3. For cover plates used on Beam 356 x 171 x 67 UB UB,
Table 4.7c: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the strength of flange cover plate (2/170 x 15 x 420) and web cover plate (2/140 x
Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity Bearing Capacity
Web Cover Plate

Shear Capacity
Moment Capacity
Bearing Capacity
Standard
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
thickness,t
(mm)
Pt
(kN)
Nt,rd
(kN)
P bs
(kN)
F b,Rd
(kN)
Pv
(kN)
V pl,Rd
(kN)
Mc
(kNm)
M pl,Rd
(kNm)
P bs
(kN)
F b,Rd
(kN)
803.6
531.3
29.6
44.4
154.0
173.0
10
1004.5
664.1
37.0
55.5
192.5
216.2
12
1205.4
796.9
44.4
66.6
231.0
259.5
14
1406.3
929.7
51.8
77.7
269.5
302.7
1607.2
1062.5
59.2
88.8
308.0
346.0
16
787.2
740.3
154.0
259.5
18
885.7
832.8
173.3
291.9
20
984.1
925.3
192.5
324.4
22
1082.5
1017.9
211.8
356.8
24
1180.9
1110.4
231.0
389.2
Refer graph at Appendix: Figure 4.7c.
127
4. For cover plates used on Beam 305 x 165x 54 UB,
Table 4.7d: Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the strength of flange cover plate (2/160 x 15 x 420) and web cover plate (2/140 x
`
Standard
thickness,t
(mm)
Flange Cover plate

Tension Capacity Bearing Capacity
Web Cover Plate

Shear Capacity
Moment Capacity
Bearing Capacity
BS
BS
BS
BS
Pt
(kN)
EC3
Nt,rd
(kN)
BS
P bs
(kN)
EC3
F b,Rd
(kN)
EC3
EC3
EC3
Pv
(kN)
V pl,Rd
(kN)
Mc
(kNm)
M pl,Rd
(kNm)
P bs
(kN)
F b,Rd
(kN)
404.9
432.9
22.9
34.4
154.0
173.0
10
506.1
541.1
28.6
43.0
192.5
216.2
12
607.3
649.3
34.4
51.5
231.0
259.5
14
708.5
757.5
40.1
60.1
269.5
302.7
809.7
865.7
45.8
68.7
308.0
346.0
16
724.8
681.5
154.0
259.5
18
815.4
766.7
173.3
291.9
20
906.0
851.9
192.5
324.4
22
996.6
937.1
211.8
356.8
24
1087.2
1022.3
231.0
389.2
Refer graph at Appendix: Figure 4.7d.
128
4.3.2
Comparison of results between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for Column
Spliced connections
It is observed that for the design of column splice using BS 5950 and
Eurocode 3, there are no changes on the value of the strength of the column when the
thickness of the cover plates are changed. For the design of direct bearing column
splice, only one strength is considered for the column, which is the flange beam
bearing capacity. The bearing capacity obtained by BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 are
compared as shown below.
Table 4.8: Comparison of the bearing capacity at columns flange

Column Size
Bearing capacity at columns flange

BS 5950 (Pbs)
Eurocode 3 (Fb,Rd)
356 x 368 x 202 UC
248.40
352.9
305 x 305 x 118 UC
172.04
244.45
254 x 254 x132 UC
232.76
330.72
203 x 203 x 86 UC
188.60
267.98
Next comparison is made on the strength of the cover plate when its
thickness is changed.
129
I.
For flange cover plate 2/350 x 16 x 525 used on Column 356 x 368 x 202
UC,
Table 4.9a: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/350 x 16 x 525) strength

between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 when the thickness is changed
Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity
Standard
thickness,t
(mm)
BS
Pt (kN)
Bearing Capacity
EC3
BS
EC3
Nt,rd
P bs
F b,Rd
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
16
731.02
687.40
132.00
149.33
18
852.85
801.96
154.00
174.22
20
974.69
916.53
176.00
199.10
22
1096.52 1031.10
198.00
223.99
24
1218.36 1145.66
220.00
248.88
130
Capacity of flange cover plates

3500
3000
BS
EC3
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
EC3
BS
0
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Figure 4.9a: Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs
Thickness of Cover Plate (Data from Table 4.9a)
131
II.
UC,
Table 4.9b: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/300 x 16 x 525) strength

Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity
Bearing Capacity
Standard
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
thickness,t (mm)
Pt (kN)
Nt,rd (kN)
P bs (kN)
F b,Rd (kN)
16
1599.488 1504.051
176
199.104
18
1799.424 1692.058
198
223.992
20
1999.36
1880.064
220
248.88
22
2199.296
2068.07
242
273.768
24
2399.232 2256.077
264
298.656
Refer graph at appendix: Figure 4.9b
III.
UC,
Table 4.9c: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/250 x 12 x 525) strength

Standard
Flange Cover plate

Tension Capacity
BS
EC3
Bearing Capacity
BS
EC3
thickness,t (mm)
Pt (kN)
Nt,rd (kN)
P bs (kN)
F b,Rd (kN)
12
965.32
907.72
132.00
149.33
14
1126.20
1059.00
154.00
174.22
16
1287.09
1210.29
176.00
199.10
18
1447.97
1361.58
198.00
223.99
20
1608.86
1512.86
220.00
248.88
Refer graph at appendix: Figure 4.9c
132
IV.
UC,
Table 4.9d: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/200 x 16 x 525) strength

Flange Cover plate
Tension Capacity
Bearing Capacity
Standard
BS
EC3
BS
EC3
thickness,t (mm)
Pt (kN)
Nt,rd (kN)
P bs (kN)
F b,Rd (kN)
16
731.02
687.40
132.00
149.33
18
852.85
801.96
154.00
174.22
20
974.69
916.53
176.00
199.10
22
1096.52
1031.10
198.00
223.99
24
1218.36
1145.66
220.00
248.88
Refer graph at appendix: Figure 4.9d
4.4
Discussions of Results
For the design of both beam splice and column splice connections, the change
on the thickness of the cover plate has no effect on the strength of the elements
(beam and column). As long as the same element size is used, its strength will remain
the same regardless to the change of thickness of the cover plates connected to it.
Thus for the comparison made between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the strength of
elements (beam and columns), it is observed that the strength value calculated using
BS 5950 is lower compared to the value from Eurocode 3 (Refer to table 4.6a table
4.6d for beam splice connections and table 4.8 for column splice connections.).
133
Next, for the strength of the cover plate, when the thickness of the plate is
increased, it is observed that all the strength value increase linearly when calculated
based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3. For both beam splice and column splice design,
the strength value for the cover plates are observed to be higher compared to values
of BS 5950. However, the result for the tension capacity is the opposite, where the
value from BS 5950 is higher instead. (Refer to table 4.7a table 4.7b for beam
splice connection and table 4.9a table 4.9d for column splice connection.)
For this project, two types of bolts are used, which are ordinary black bolts
used for column splice connections, and HSFG bolts used for beam splice
connections. Since the number of bolts is the same throughout the studies, it is
observed that the strength of the bolts is always the same, regardless of the change of
cover plate thickness or member sizes. It is observed that for ordinary bolts, the
strength (shear capacity) determined based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 is almost the
same, but the strength (shear capacity) based on Eurocode 3 is higher. However for
HSFG bolts, the strength (slip resistance) calculated based on BS 5950 is higher
compared to Eurocode 3. This shows that design of friction grip fasteners is more
conservative in Eurocode 3.
Table 4.10: Strength values for bolts

Standard
BS 5950
Eurocode 3
Types of bolt Ordinary bolts
BS 5950
Eurocode 3
HSFG bolts
M20 Grade 8.8
M20 Grade HSFG
Strength (kN)
(Column splice connection)
(Beam splice connection)
Slip resistance per bolt
64.8
43.9
Shear capacity per bolt
91.9
94.08
Besides the strength related to the slip resistance of bolts, it is observed that
in the design of beam splice and column splice, another strength that gives a different
outcome compared to the others would be the tension capacity. The tension capacity
134
calculated based on BS 5950 is higher than Eurocode 3, again indicating that tension
capacity based on BS 5950 is more conservative.
Thus the formulas for tension capacity based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 are
compared.
Table 4.11: Equations for tension capacity based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3
BS 5950
Eurocode 3
Cl 4.6.1: Tension capacity,
Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance,
Pt = pyAe
py = 275 N/mm2 for S 275*
Nt,Rd = 0,9Anetfu /M2

fu = 430 N/mm2 for S 275*
= 355 N/mm2 for S 355*
= 510 N/mm2 S 355*
= 460 N/mm2 for S 460*
= 550 N/mm2 for S 460*
(* Thickness of the element 16 mm)

= KeAn 1.2 An
Ae
(* Thickness of the element 16 mm)

Anet = Acover plate Abolt holes
An = Ac.plate Abolt holes

Ke = 1.2 for grade S 275
= 1.1 for grade S 355
= 1.0 for grade S 460
No M2
M2 = 1.25
It is seen that despite the use of higher value for the ultimate tensile strength,
fu in Eurocode 3 compared with use of design strength, py used in BS 5950, the
tension capacity from Eurocode 3 is still lower because of the value 0.9 in the
formula, as well as the partial safety factors (M2 = 1.25), which cause the results to
become smaller. Furthermore in BS 5950, the net area of the cover plate is multiplied
with the coefficient, Ke which also contribute to bigger tension capacity value in BS
5950.
In general we can summarize that Eurocode 3 is more conservative, where the

strength of the connections calculated based on Eurocode 3 is higher compared to BS
135
5950. However the differences are not significant, since the general approach of BS
5950 and Eurocode 3 is essentially the same, being based on limit state principles
using partial safety factors as mentioned before in the previous chapter.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has achieved the objectives of determining and

demonstrating the design process of beam splice and column splice connections
using BS 5950 and Eurocode 3. This study is followed by determining the influence
of the cover plate thickness on the capacity of the beam splice and column splice
connections, where it is observed that in simple design, when thickness of the cover
plate increases, only strength of the cover plate increases but not the connecting
members (beam and column). The strength of the connecting members remains the
same when thickness of the cover plate changes.
From all the results obtained, the difference of results between BS 5950 and
Eurocode 3 are compared and evaluated. It is seen that the use of Eurocode 3 for the
design of column splice and beam splice connections is more economical in almost
all conditions. This is proven by comparing the strength values, where the strength of
connections calculated based on Eurocode 3 is higher. This shows that the
connection design based on Eurocode 3 allows for bigger withstand of loadings.
However, for the tension capacity of the connecting members and the cover
137
plate, as well as the slip resistance of the preloaded (HSFG) bolts, higher values are
observed for the design using BS 5950.
In short, we can still say that design of steel connections based on Eurocode 3
can contribute towards cost-saving on steel construction, where the coverage of
Eurocode 3 is more extensive and detailed. Due to lack of knowledge and research
previously, particular rules in the old code of BS 5950 are over-conservative and
may not be economical to be used for design.
Finally, it is undeniable that the new Eurocode 3 will eventually be our new
Code of Practice, replacing the current BS 5950. Even though BS 5950 will still
continue to be used for many years from now, we should also be placing more
attention on the usage of Eurocode 3 at the same time.
138
5.2
Recommendations
The method chosen by the designer on how the structure is analysed will
usually determine the type of connection design. Both BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 give
four approaches for the design of structure; simple design, semi-continuous design,
continuous design and experimental verification. For this report, the type of
connection is of simple design or simple connection where the connections are
classified as nominally pinned. The connections between members are assumed not
to develop moments that can adversely affecting either the members or structure as a
whole.
However research has shown that most connections are capable of developing
some moment capacity, where the assumption that the connections permit free
rotation without developing significant moment is not true in the real situation.
Therefore, for future recommendation, the design of steel connection can be

based on semi-rigid or semi-continuous method which is more realistic and practical.
The introduction of the modern design code, Eurocode 3 provides the concept that
the actual joints behave in an intermediate way between the simple and rigid joint.
We can see that more emphasis is given on the semi-continuous design, where is it
more comprehensive in Eurocode 3. Also, for this recommendation, the design of the
steel connection is of course not only limited to splice connections using cover plates,
which is analysed in this report, but can also includes other types of connections
such as double angle web cleats, end plates and fin plates, where connecting
members can be beam-to-column.
According to Part 1.8 of Eurocode 3, it is stated that for semi continuous joint
models, the behaviour of the joint needs to be taken into account in the analysis.
Therefore, the behaviour includes the three fundamental properties, which are
moment resistance (strength in bending), rotational stiffness and rotational capacity
139
(ductility). With the application of semi continuous design, the design results provide
the real situation that all connections are capable of providing some degree of
strength and stiffness, but their moment capacity may be limited or the joint is said to
be insufficient to develop full continuity.
Last but not least, since semi-continuous design is more complex than simple
and continuous design, the studies of the connection will require the use of software,
for structural analysis and finite element.
140
REFERENCES
Arya, Chanakya (2001). Design of Structural Elements, Second Edition. London:

Spon Press.
Baddoo, N. R., Morrow, A. W. & Taylor, J.C. (1993). C-EC3 Concise
Eurocode 3 for the Design of Steel Building in the United Kingdom. The Steel
Construction Institute: Berkshire.
Biljlaard, Frans (2006). Eurocode 3, a basis for further development in joint

design. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62, 1060 1067. Elvevier.
British Standards Institution (2001). British Standard Structural Use of
Steelwork in Building: Part 1: Code of Practice for Design Rolled and Welded
Sections. London: British Standards Institution.
British Standards Institution (2005). Eurocode 3 : Design of Steel Structure, Part

1-1 : General Rules and Rules for Buildings. London: British Standard.
British Standards Institution (2005). Eurocode 3 : Design of Steel Structure, Part

1-8 : Design of Joints. London: British Standard.
Faridah Shafii, Wahid Omar, Shahrin Mohammad and Ahmad Mahir Makhtar
(2001). Standardisation of Structural Design: A Shift from British Standard to
Eurocodes. Jurnal Teknologi, 34(B), 21 30. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Gardner L. and Nethercot D.A. (2007). Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures general rules and rules for buildings. The
Steel Construction Institute: Thomas Telford.
141
Joannidas, Frixos and Weller, Alan (2002). Structural steel design to BS 5950:
part 1. London: Thomas Telford.
Lam Dennis, Ang Thien-Cheong & Chiew Sing-Ping (2004). Structural

Steelwork: Design to Limit State Theory, 3rd Edition. Great Britain: Elsevier.
Nethercot, David A. (2001). Limit States Design of Structural Steelwork: Based

on revised BS 5950: Part 1, 2000 Amendment, Third Edition. London: Spon
Press.
Owen, Graham W. & Cheal, Brian D. (1989). Structural Steelwork Connections,

London: Butterworth.
The Steel Construction Institute. (1993). Joints in Simple Construction, Volume 1:

Design Method, Second Edition. London: BCSA.
The Steel Construction Institute. (1992). Joints in Simple Construction, Volume 2:

Practical Applications, 1st Edition. London: BCSA.
APPENDICES
142
APPENDIX A1

1400.00
1200.00
C.Plate Tension capacity, Pt
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
C.Plate Bearing Capacity, Pbs

200.00

0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Pt(c.plate)
Pt (f.beam)
Psl
Pbs(c.plate)
Pbs(f.beam)
Figure 4.2c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data
from Table 4.2c (i))
143
APPENDIX A2

1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00

W.Beam shear capacity, Pv
400.00
200.00

C.Plate Moment capacity, MC
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Pv(c.plate)
Mc(c.plate)
Pv(web beam)
Mc(web beam)
Psl
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (web beam)
Pr
Figure 4.2c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.2c (ii))
144
APPENDIX A3

1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00

600.00
400.00

200.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Pt(c.plate)
Pt (f.beam)
Psl
Pbs(c.plate)
Pbs(f.beam)
Figure 4.2d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
(Data from Table 4.2d (i))
145
APPENDIX A4

1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00

400.00
200.00

C.Plate Bearing capacity,
Pbs

C.Plate Moment capacity, MC
0.00
8
10
12
14
16

Pv(c.plate)
Mc(c.plate)
Pv(web beam)
Mc(web beam)
Psl
Pbs (c.plate)
Figure 4.2d (ii): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.2d (ii))
146
APPENDIX A5

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00

200.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Pt(c.plate)
Pt (f.beam)
Psl
Pbs(c.plate)
Pbs(f.beam)
Figure 4.2e (i): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange
Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (i))
147
APPENDIX A6

900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00

300.00
C.Plate Bearing
capacity, Pbs

200.00

100.00
0.00
8
10
12
14
C.Plate Moment
capacity, MC
16
Pv(c.plate)
Mc(c.plate)
Pv(web beam)
Mc(web beam)
Psl
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (web beam)
Pr
Figure 4.2e (ii): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.2e (ii))
148
APPENDIX B1

3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Pt (c.plate)
Ps (bolt)
Pbs (c.plate)
1500.00
Pbs (fl beam)
1000.00
500.00 C.Plate Bearing capacity, Pbs
0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 4.3c: Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
(Data from Table 4.3c)
149
APPENDIX B2

1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Pt (c.plate)
Ps (bolt)
800.00
Pbs (c.plate)
Pbs (fl beam)
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4.3d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3d)
150
APPENDIX B3

1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
Pt (c.plate)
Ps (bolt)
Pbs (c.plate)
600.00
Pbs (fl beam)
400.00
F.Beam Bearing
Capacity, Pbs

200.00

0.00
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4.3e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3e)
151
APPENDIX C1

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00

200.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Nt,Rd (c.plate)
Nt,Rd(f.beam)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (f.beam)
Fs,Rd
Figure 4.4c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
(Data from Table 4.4c (i))
152
APPENDIX C2

1600.00
1400.00

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00

400.00
200.00

0.00
8
10
12
14
Slip Resistance,
FS,Rd
16
Vpl,Rd (c.plate)

Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Figure 4.4c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.4c (ii))
153
APPENDIX C3

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00

200.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Nt,Rd (c.plate)
Nt,Rd(f.beam)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (f.beam)
Fs,Rd
Figure 4.4d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
(Data from Table 4.4d (i))
154
APPENDIX C4

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00

400.00
200.00

0.00
8
10
12
14
16
Vpl,Rd (c.plate)

Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Figure 4.4d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.4d (ii))
155
APPENDIX C5

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Nt,Rd (c.plate)
Nt,Rd(f.beam)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (f.beam)
Fs,Rd
Figure 4.4e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice
(Data from Table 4.4e (i))
156
APPENDIX C6

1000.00
900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00


200.00
C.Plate Bearing Resistance,

Fb,Rd
100.00
0.00

8
10
12

14
16
Vpl,Rd (c.plate)

Mpl,Rd (c.plate)
Vpl,Rd (web beam)
Mpl,Rd (web beam)
Fs,Rd
Fb,Rd (web beam)
V eff,1,Rd
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Figure 4.4e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice
(Data from Table 4.4e (ii))
157
APPENDIX D1

3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Nt.Rd (c.plate)
1500.00
Fv,Rd (bolt)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (fl beam)
1000.00

500.00

0.00
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 4.5c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5c)
158
APPENDIX D2

1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Nt.Rd (c.plate)
800.00
Fv,Rd (bolt)
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
600.00
400.00
Fb,Rd (fl beam)
200.00

0.00
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4.5d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5d)
159
APPENDIX D3

1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
Nt.Rd (c.plate)
Fv,Rd (bolt)
600.00
Fb,Rd (c.plate)
Fb,Rd (fl beam)
400.00

200.00

0.00
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4.5e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5e)
160
APPENDIX E1
Capacity of web and flange cover plates

1600
EC3
1400
BS
BS
1200
Shear capacity at web cover

EC
3
1000
800
600
400
EC3
EC3
BS
BS
200
EC3
BS
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Pv,w plate (BS)
Mc, w plate (BS)
Pbs,w plate (BS)
Figure 4.7b: Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and
Eurocode 3 vs thickness of Cover Plate. (Data from Table 4.7a)
161
APPENDIX E2

1800
EC3
1600
1400

1200
BS
BS
1000
EC3
800
600
EC3
400
EC3
BS
200
BS
EC3
BS
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Pv,w plate (BS)
Mc, w plate (BS)
Pbs,w plate (BS)
Figure 4.7c: Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode
3 vs thickness of Cover Plate. (Data from Table 4.7c)
162
APPENDIX E3

1800
EC3
1600
1400

BS
1200
BS
EC3
1000
800
600
EC3
400
EC3
BS
BS
200
EC3
BS
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Pv,w plate (BS)
Mc, w plate (BS)
Pbs,w plate (BS)
Figure 4.7d: Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode
3 vs thickness of Cover Plate. (Data from Table 4.7d)
163
APPENDIX F1

3000
BS
2500
EC3
2000
1500
1000
500
EC3
BS
0
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Figure 4.9b: Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs
Thickness of Cover Plate (Data from Table 4.9b)
164
APPENDIX F2

1800.00
1600.00
BS
1400.00
EC3
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
EC3
200.00
BS
0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Figure 4.9c: Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs
Thickness of Cover Plate (Data from Table 4.9c)
165
APPENDIX F3

1400.00
1200.00
BS
EC3
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
EC3
200.00
BS
0.00
16
18
20
22
24

Pt, fl plate (BS)
Pbs, fl plate (BS)
Figure 4.9d: Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 vs
Thickness of Cover Plate (Data from Table 4.9d)

Law Lichen Ba 070063 D 10 TTT

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Law Lichen Ba 070063 D 10 TTT

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Authors full name :

DESIGN OF BEAM SPLICE AND COLUMN SPLICE

I declare that this thesis is classified as :

(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

(Contains restricted information as specified by the

I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

Date: 17 APRIL 2010

Date: 17 APRIL 2010

Name of Supervisor : DR ARIZU SULAIMAN

DESIGN OF BEAM SPLICE AND COLUMN SPLICE CONNECTIONS USING

Faculty of Civil Engineering

To Mom and Dad, the ones I love and trust.

First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor,

Last but not least, my deepest appreciation also goes to my beloved,

British Standard and BS 5950

Eurocodes and Eurocode 3

Main Difference between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3

Types of Steel Connections

2.7.1 Beam Splice

2.7.1.1 Beam splice of end-plate arrangement

2.7.1.2 Spliced plated connection

2.7.3 Column Splice

2.7.2.1 Bearing column splice

2.7.2.2 Non-bearing column splice

Steel Connection Design based on BS 5950

Steel Connection Design based on Eurocode 3

Design Procedure for Spliced Connection

3.2.1 Design of Beam Splice Connection

3.2.2 Design of Column Splice Connection

3.2.3 Design of Beam Splice Connection

3.2.4 Design of Column Splice Connection

Change of Cover Plate Thickness

Beam Splice and Column Splice Design

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Practical Application of the design methods

Change of Thickness of the cover plates

4.2.1 Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for

4.2.2 Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for

4.2.3 Change of Thickness of the Cover Plate for

4.2.4 Change of Thickness of Cover Plate for

Comparison of results between BS 5950

4.3.1 Comparison of results between BS 5950

4.3.2 Comparison of results between BS 5950

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The differences in axes between BS 5950 and the Eurocode 3

Comparison of frequently used symbols in BS 5950 and

Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950

Design of Column Splice Connection using BS 5950

Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3

Design of Column Splice Connection using Eurocode 3

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness