Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

C.T.A.

Collegio dei Tecnici dellAcciaio


GIORNATE ITALIANE DELLA COSTRUZIONE IN ACCIAIO
ANCONA: 2-3-4-5 ottobre 1997

STIFFNESS OF HANGER-TYPE CONNECTIONS: EXPERIMENTAL


ANALYSIS OF BOLT PRELOADING INFLUENCE

RIGIDEZZA ASSIALE DI COLLEGAMENTI FLANGIATI TESI: ANALISI


SPERIMENTALE DELLINFLUENZA DEL
PRETENSIONAMENTO DEI BULLONI

C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano


Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno

ABSTRACT
The rotational stiffness of bolted connections can be properly predicted by means of the so-called
"component method". In this method, the T-stub model, which is used to compute the stiffness
contribution of the most important joint components of hanger-type connections, plays a fundamental
role. For this reason, an experimental analysis on hanger-type connections (bolted T-stubs) has been
carried out. On the basis of this analysis, the possibility of predicting the axial stiffness of the connection
is investigated. In addition, as the joint behaviour is strongly influenced by the bolt preloading, three
different levels of bolt preloading have been considered in the experimental analysis. Finally, starting
from the obtained experimental results, simple rules to account for bolt preloading influence are
suggested.

SOMMARIO
La rigidezza rotazionale di collegamenti bullonati pu essere valutata in modo appropriato mediante
limpiego del "metodo delle componenti". In tale metodo, assume un ruolo fondamentale il modello
"T-stub" che fornisce il contributo deformativo delle componenti nodali maggiormente influenti. Per
questo motivo, stata effettuata unanalisi sperimentale su collegamenti elementari costituiti da due
elementi a T bullonati. Sulla base dei risultati sperimentali stata analizzata la possibilit di prevedere
la rigidezza assiale di tale collegamento. Inoltre, dal momento che il comportamento nodale risulta
fortemente influenzato dal pretensionamento dei bulloni, lanalisi sperimentale stata condotta
considerando tre differenti livelli di precarico dei bulloni. Lanalisi ha consentito di individuare
semplici regole di calcolo che consentono di portate in conto linfluenza della pretrazione dei bulloni
nella valutazione della rigidezza rotazionale dei collegamenti.

1. INTRODUCTION

Different levels of accuracy can be required in the modeling of the connection rotational behaviour,
depending on the type of structural analysis to be performed. In particular, the required accuracy
increases as the sophistication of the analysis increases. In fact, in the case of a structural design based
on linear elastic analyses, only the connection rotational stiffness is required. On the contrary, the use
of plastic analyses requires the knowledge of the flexural resistance only. Finally, non-linear analyses
generally require the prediction of the overall moment rotation curve.
The prediction of the overall rotational behaviour of beam-to-column joints starting from their
geometrical and mechanical properties assumes primary importance. For this reason, this topic is
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -2-

extensively dealt with in Eurocode 3 (1990) [1], which provides not only the rules for identifying the
structural situations requiring the beam-to-column connection behaviour to be accounted for, but also
the criteria for predicting the rotational response of connections.
In particular, the prediction of the moment-rotation curve of beam-to-column joints is faced by
means of the so-called component method. The main feature of the method is its ability to account for
any connection typology, provided that the basic components were properly identified and modelled.
The joint flexural resistance is computed accounting for any possible collapse mechanism involving
the joint components. The joint rotational stiffness is predicted by properly combining the axial stiffness
of the basic components.
With reference to bolted connections, many components are modelled through the so-called
equivalent T-stub [1-4]. This is the case of the column flange in bending, the end plate in bending and
the flange cleat in bending [1]. For this reason, the correct prediction of the axial stiffness of this
elementary connection (hanger-type connection) is of primary importance within the component
method.
Aiming at a reliable prediction of the connection rotational stiffness, another aspect deserving
particular attention is the influence of the bolt preloading [2,5,6,7]. Therefore, the distinction between
connection with snug tightened bolts and connections with pretensioned bolts is commonly made.
In order to assess the rules for predicting the axial stiffness of hanger-type connections with snug
tightened bolts and to gain insight into the important influence of bolt preloading, an experimental
program has been planned. The main results of the planned experimental activity are presented in [8],
while the same experimental tests are exhaustively dealt with in [9]. In this paper, only a summary of
the obtained results is given and, on the base of these results, a revision of the rules for predicting the
axial stiffness of hanger-type connections is suggested. In addition, a simple rule for including the
influence of bolt preloading is proposed. The reliability of the suggested rules is verified through the
comparison with the test results.

2. SPECIMENS AND TESTING DEVICES

The specimens are assemblied by the coupling of two properly shaped T-elements which have been
obtained from rolled profiles of series HEA and HEB, steel grade Fe430, cutting them along the web
plane. These T-elements are connected through the flanges by means of two high strength bolts (class
10.9). The connection of the flange with two bolts only has been adopted in order to investigate the
behaviour of the single bolt row without any interaction with adjacent bolt rows. This choice has
required great care in measuring axial displacements due to the important role of geometrical
imperfections. The specimens can be divided into two groups characterized by different bolt diameter.
The bolt diameter of the first group (6 specimens) is equal to 20 mm, while the second group (10
specimens) has bolt diameter equal to 12 mm.
Three different levels of bolt preloading have been applied. In particular, snug tightening is the first
level of preloading. The second level corresponds to a tensile stress in the bolts equal to 40% and 60%
of the bolt yield resistance, for bolt diameter equal to 20 mm and 12 mm respectively. Finally, these
stress ratios are increased to 80% for the third preloading level.
The geometrical properties of the specimens have been selected in order to investigate the influence
of bolt preloading in a wide range of the ratio between the flange flexural stiffness and the bolt axial
stiffness which can be related to the parameter = tf db
[4] where tf is the flange thickness, db is
the bolt diameter and = m db. The parameter m is a conventional distance between the bolt axis and
the web of the T-element accounting for the participation of the web-to-flange fillet to the flexural
deformation of the flange, it is defined as m = d 0.8 r, where d is the distance between the bolt axis
and the T-stub web and r is the radius of the web-to-flange fillet.
The tested specimens are characterized by values of the parameter ranging between 0.36 and 0.98,
covering the whole range of common structural details. With reference to Fig.1, the nominal and actual
values of the geometrical properties of the specimens are given in Appendix.
The specimens are subjected to a tensile axial force which is applied to the webs tightened by the
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -3-

jaws of the testing machine.


The experimental tests have Plan Section X-X Lateral view
been carried out at the Ma- X
terial and Structure Labora- tw
tory of the Department of

e1
Civil Engineering of Salerno d
University. The testing ma- L1
n m 0.8 r

B1
chine (Fig.2) is a Schenck df
Hydropuls S56 (maximum

B
test load 630 kN, piston
stroke 125 mm) equipped tf

B2
wit h i n duct i ve exten- L2
s ometer s DSA 25/2 0N e2
(max = 20%).
As the aim of the ex- b
perimental tests is an accur- X
ate evaluation of the axial
stiffness, they have been
limited to the elastic range t hb
focusing the attention on the t wb
measure of the axial dis- d b tf
placement under increasing
tensile axial force. The axial
displacements have been tf
measured by means of exten- t wb
someters directly applied on t nb
the specimen.
Four C-shaped rigid bars washers
bolt head nut
have been connected to the
T-stub webs as shown in
t
Fig.2, allowing the recor- d hbs d hbl d win d west d nbs dnbl
ding of the relative displace-
ments corresponding to the
four measuring points E1,
E2, E3 and E4 shown in Figure 1 - Geometrical parameters of tested T-stubs
Fig.2. The actual axial dis-
placement has been evaluated as the average value among the four measuring points. This displacement
provide an accurate measure, because it is not affected by any undesired rotation of the specimen which
could arise due to geometrical imperfections.

2. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The experimental tests, which have been carried out under force control, have been stopped at a force
level equal to 2/3 times the design resistance of the hanger-type connection. This level has been selected
to assure that the specimen remains in elastic range. This has been confirmed by the absence of residual
plastic deformations during the unloading. Therefore, the test repetition for different bolt preloading
levels has been possible. The force versus displacement relationship has been recorded.
As an example, with reference to specimen TS13, Fig.3 shows the influence of bolt preloading. A
similar behaviour has been observed for all specimens [4]. From the qualitative point of view (Fig.4),
it can be recognized that the influence of bolt preloading can be interpreted by means of two ideal
levels of the T-stub axial stiffness. The first level (line a) corresponds to a tightening force equal to
zero; the second level is given by the stiffness of the initial branch affected by bolt preloading. The
hatched curve (b), corresponding to the second stiffness level, represents the ideal case in which the
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -4-

E 1 ,E 3 E 2 ,E 4

inductive inductive
extensometers extensometers

E 3 ,E 4 E 1 ,E 2

C-shaped
rigid bar

specimen

Figure 2 - Testing machine and specimen with measuring devices

bolt preloading prevents the detach of the connected flanges for any given value of the external axial
load.
Obviously, with reference to the actual behaviour obtained from experimental tests, the load versus
displacement curve of specimens with snug tightened bolts only initially follows the straight line
corresponding to the second stiffness level, while, successively, the curve develops with a slope
approximately equal to that corresponding to the first stiffness level. In addition, it can be immediately
observed that the loading level corresponding to the leaving of the experimental curve from the ideal
pretensioned behaviour (line b) increases as the bolt preloading level increases.
Concerning the stiffness evaluation, reference has been made to the secant stiffness corresponding
to a load level equal to 2/3 times the T-stub design resistance which, in Eurocode 3, is assumed as the
conventional limit of the elastic range [1].
The design resistance of the T-stubs is computed as the smallest value among three possible failure
modes [1]:
Mode 1: complete yielding of flanges
4 M pl.Rd (1)
Ft1.Rd =
m
where M pl.Rd is the plastic moment of the flanges evaluated according to Eurocode 3
(M pl.Rd = 14 beff t2f f y with beff = min 2 m ; 4 m + 1.25 n ; b ) (Fig.1) where m is the distance between


the bolt axis and the plastic hinge, n is the distance between the bolt axis and the prying force and b is
the width of the T-stub [1].
Mode 2: bolt failure with flange yielding
Mpl.Rd + 2 B t.Rd n (2)
Ft2.Rd =
m + n
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -5-

T-STUB13: HEA260 db=12mm


120

100

80
LOAD (kN)

60

40 snug tightening

bolt preloading level = 60%


20 bolt preloading level = 80%

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3 - Influence of bolt preloading

T-STUB11: HEA220 db=12mm


120
fully pretensioned bolts non-pretensioned bolts
ideal behaviour ideal behaviour
100 80
%
(b) el
= (a)
ev
gl
80 d i n 0%
a =6
LOAD (kN)

elo ve
l
pr e
bo
lt gl
60 a din
elo ing
l t pr ten
o h
b tig
40 ug
sn

20

0
0 0.2
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 1.4 1.6
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 4 - Interpretation of bolt preloading influence

where B t.Rd is the design tension resistance of the single bolt.


Mode 3: bolt failure
Ft3.Rd = 2 B t.Rd (3)
In table 1, with reference both to snug tightened bolts and to preloaded, the values of the initial stiffness
and of the secant stiffness (corresponding to a load level equal to 2/3 times the T-stub designresistance)
are given.
It can be observed that the bolt preloading leads to a significant increase both of the initial stiffness
and of the secant stiffness. In particular, due to the increase of the loading level corresponding to the
leaving of the experimental curve from the ideal pretensioned behaviour, the secant stiffness increases
as the preloading level increases.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -6-

Table 1 - Initial and secant stiffness of tested specimens

Secant stiffness
specimen Initial stiffness snug 40% 60% 80%
(kN/mm) tightening bolt preloading bolt preloading bolt preloading
K0.exp K(0.5).exp K(0.75).exp K1.exp
(kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm)
TS-1 920 167 468 - 572
TS-2 210 112 132 - 150
TS-3 430 99 185 - 259
TS-4 430 103 186 - 227
TS-5 1300 229 307 - 410
TS-6 1400 214 388 - 568
TS-7 1430 237 - 265 640
TS-8 1000 213 - 309 376
TS-9 520 214 - 262 342
TS-10 800 266 - 295 353
TS-11 1100 82 - 124 155
TS-12 750 168 - 251 381
TS-13 1100 163 - 211 271
TS-14 1250 156 - 205 255
TS-15 370 192 - 225 258
TS-16 400 179 - 209 241

4. AXIAL STIFFNESS OF SNUG-TIGHTENED HANGER-TYPE CONNECTIONS

According to the component method, the axial stiffness of an hanger-type connection such as a couple
of T-elements connected by bolts, is provided by the following relationship:
1 (4)
Ko =
1 1 1
+ +
Kb Ku Kl
where K u, K l and K b represent the axial stiffness of the upper T-element, of the lower T-element and
of the bolts, respectively.
Concerning the axial stiffness of the upper and lower T-element, the following relationship can be
adopted:
0.5 E beff,j tf,j3 (5)
Kj = 3
m
where m is the distance between the bolt axis and the conventional restraining line, E is the modulus
of elasticity, tfj is the flange thickness of the T-element (being the index j=u or j=l for the upper and
lower T-element, respectively). The effective width (beff,j) has been computed by assuming a 45
spreading of the bolt action starting from the bolt head edge (Fig.5). It is important to underline that,
as a consequence of this assumption, the effective width values for stiffness calculation are different
from those suggested in Eurocode 3, where they are assumed to be coincident with those adopted for
strength calculations. According to previous studies on extended end plate connections [3,4], this
assumption leads to a significant improvement of the accuracy between computed and experimental
values of the joint rotational stiffness.
In order to account for the influence of geometrical imperfections, the stiffness of the T-element
has been evaluated considering an average value accounting for the different parameters (m 1.j or
m 2.j) defining the bolt location at the two flange sides (Fig.5).
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -7-

b eff,1j

b eff,2j
o
45

d hb 0.8 r 0.8 r d hb

m 1,j m 2,j

Figure 5 - Effective width of the equivalent cantilever

Therefore, the axial stiffness of the single T-element is computed by means of the following
relationship:
E tfj3 0.5 beff.1j 0.5 beff.2j (6)
Kj = 3 + 3
2
m 1.j m 2.j
where beff.1j and beff.2j represent the effective width values of each side of the T-stub flange.
With reference to the axial stiffness of a couple of bolts the following relationship has been adopted:
E Ab (7)
K b = 1.6
Lb
where A b is the resistant area of the bolt. The coefficient 1.6 accounts for the influence of the prying
forces which produce an increase of the bolt axial forces [10]. L b is the conventional bolt length given
by:
th + tn (8)
L b = tfu + tfl + 2 twh +
2
where twh, th and tn are the thicknesses of the washers, the bolt head and the nut, respectively. In
addition, tfu and tfl are the thicknesses of the flange of the upper and lower T-stub element, respectively.
In table 2, the predicted values of the axial stiffness (K o.c) of snug tightened specimens are compared
with the experimental ones (K o.exp). It can be observed that the stiffness prediction is sufficiently
accurate leading to an average overestimation equal to 27% and to a coefficient of variation equal to
0.13.
However, an improvement of this result can be obtained removing the conventional assumption
concerning the location of the restraining line. In fact, it has been pointed out by the experimental
results that the restraining line has to be considered more close to the T-stub web as the ratio d tf
decreases, being d the distance between the bolt axis and the web of the T-element. This behaviour
can be attributed to numerous phenomena such as the shear deformability, the influence of the fillet
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -8-

Table 2 - Prediction of the axial stiffness of snug tightened T-stubs

Prediction with Prediction with


Specimen Beam Experimental = 0.8 as eq.(10)
profile stiffness Ko.c Ko.c Ko.exp Ko.c Ko.c Ko.exp
(kN/mm) (kN/mm)
TS-1 HEA220 167 249 1.49 177 1.06
TS-2 HEA220 112 108 0.96 100 0.90
TS-3 HEA160 99 124 1.25 103 1.04
TS-4 HEA160 103 119 1.16 101 0.98
TS-5 HEB160 229 314 1.37 221 0.96
TS-6 HEB160 214 322 1.50 223 1.04
TS-7 HEB200 237 302 1.27 225 0.95
TS-8 HEB200 213 295 1.38 221 1.04
TS-9 HEB220 214 324 1.51 246 1.15
TS-10 HEB220 266 308 1.16 230 0.87
TS-11 HEA220 82 92 1.12 90 1.09
TS-12 HEA220 168 168 1.00 136 0.81
TS-13 HEA260 163 216 1.33 172 1.06
TS-14 HEA260 156 211 1.35 170 1.09
TS-15 HEA300 192 225 1.17 182 0.95
TS-16 HEA300 179 223 1.25 180 1.00
Average 1.27 1.00
Coefficient of variation 0.13 0.09

and the flexural stiffness of the bolts. All these phenomena can be approximately accounted for by
assuming for the parameter m the following relationship:
m = dr (9)
where is a function of d tf. The correlation between the values of , which provide predicted values
of the axial stiffness equal to the experimental ones, and the ratio d tf has been obtained by means of
a regression analysis:
d (10)
= 0.16 0.08
tf
In table 2, the prediction of the stiffness of tested T-stubs obtained with the application of the
coefficient is given. It can be noted that, adopting the coefficient in predicting the stiffness of tested
specimens, a good accuracy has been obtained both in terms of average value and of coefficient of
variation. However, as it has been underlined in [8,9], this influence becomes less important when the
overall behaviour of more complex joints, with different bolt rows interacting each other, is considered.
In fact, in the case of actual beam-to-column bolted connections, such as extended end plate
connections, the number of involved components significantly increases reducing the influence of the
factor affecting only the stiffness of the column flange in bending. Therefore, for sake of simplicity,
the value = 0.8 can be used.
The most important result of the presented tests on snug tightened bolted T-stubs is the experimental
confirmation, based on the analysis of the single component, of the accuracy of the stiffness prediction
based on effective width values obtained by a 45o spreading of the bolt action starting from the bolt
head edge.

5. AXIAL STIFFNESS OF PRETENSIONED HANGER-TYPE CONNECTIONS

Bolt preloading plays an important role in the evaluation of the rotational stiffness of bolted connec-
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano -9-

tions, leading to its increase with respect to the case of snug-tightened bolts [2,4,5,7].
The stiffening effect of bolt preloading is related to two phenomena. On one hand, bolt preloading
gives rise to an increase in the axial stiffness of the system made of the bolt and the connected plates
considered as a whole. With reference to this first effect, the need to account for the influence of bolt
preloading has also been pointed out by other Authors [7]. On the other hand, the bolt preloading
modifies the overall behaviour of the T-stub affecting both the flange span and its restraining
conditions. This latter effect depends on the ratio between the flexural stiffness of the connected plates
and the bolt axial stiffness, which can be taken into account by means of the parameter defined in
Section 2.
With reference to the first effect, the bolt preloading provides an increase of the axial stiffness of
the bolt-plate system due to the decompression of the connected plates (T-stub flanges). This effect
has also been analysed in a previous work [4] by considering a 45o spreading of the bolt head action
into the washer and plate thickness. On the basis of this assumption, the ratio between the pretensioned
bolt axial stiffness K bp and the non pretensioned one K b = Eb A b L b has been obtained:
K bp tp (11)
= 4.10 + 3.25
Kb db
where tp, is the mean value of the thickness of the connected plates, and db is the bolt diameter. This
relationship covers the range of variation of the ratio K bp K b suggested by other Authors [5,11].
As already stated the bolt preloading affects the axial stiffness of the T-stub governing the flexural
deformability of its flanges through the location and the stiffness of the restraining action due to the
bolts. These two effects can be directly related to the parameter which accounts for the ratio between
the flexural stiffness of the flanges and the bolt axial stiffness [4]. In the case of very thick T-stub
flanges, the bolts are not able to prevent the detachment of the connected flanges and, therefore, the
bolt restraining action can be modelled as simple supports located at the bolt axis. On the contrary, in
the case of very thin plates, the bolt preloading prevents the detachment of the T-stub flanges which
can be assumed to be clamped at the edge line of the bolt head. Furthermore, the location of the prying
forces moves away from the bolt axis as the plate thickness-to-bolt diameter ratio increases. In addition,
Tab. 3 - Prediction of the secant stiffness of pretensioned T-stubs (bolt preloading level: 80%)

Prediction neglecting Prediction with


Specimen Beam Experimental the bolt preloading coefficient
profile stiffness Ko.c Ko.c K1.exp K1.c K1.c K1.exp
(kN/mm) (kN/mm)
TS-1 HEA220 572 249 0.43 410 0.72
TS-2 HEA220 150 108 0.72 217 1.45
TS-3 HEA160 259 124 0.48 261 1.01
TS-4 HEA160 227 119 0.53 251 1.11
TS-5 HEB160 410 314 0.77 465 1.13
TS-6 HEB160 568 322 0.57 478 0.84
TS-7 HEB200 640 302 0.47 406 0.63
TS-8 HEB200 376 295 0.78 394 1.05
TS-9 HEB220 342 324 0.95 450 1.32
TS-10 HEB220 353 308 0.87 415 1.18
TS-11 HEA220 155 92 0.59 141 0.91
TS-12 HEA220 381 168 0.44 235 0.62
TS-13 HEA260 271 216 0.80 285 1.05
TS-14 HEA260 255 211 0.83 278 1.09
TS-15 HEA300 258 225 0.87 292 1.13
TS-16 HEA300 241 223 0.92 290 1.20
Average 0.69 1.03
Coefficient of variation 0.27 0.23
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 10 -

the restraining action of the bolts depends on their axial and flexural stiffness [4].
The influence of bolt preloading on the flange span of the T-stub and its restraining conditions is,
therefore, accounted for by means of a correcting coefficient depending on the parameter (i.e. the
ratio between the flexural stiffness of the flanges and the bolt axial stiffness):
3 (12)
0.5 E beff,j tf,j
Kj = 3
m
The relationship between and has been determined on the base of the experimental results. To
this scope, the values of providing predicted values of the T-stub stiffness equal to the experimental
ones have been preliminarly evaluated with reference to the prediction of the secant stiffness (K 1)
corresponding to 2/3 times the T-stub design resistance and considering a bolt preloading level equal
to 80% (which is usually suggested for high strength bolts). Successively, the regression analysis of
versus has provided the following relationship:
1.28 (13)
tp
= 0.57
db

In table 3, the values of the T-stub stiffness predicted taking into account the bolt preloading
(K1.c) (eq. (11), (12), (13) with m evaluated according to eq. (9) with = 0.8) are compared with the
experimental ones (K1.exp). It can be observed that a significant underestimation of the axial stiffness
is obtained when the bolt preloading is neglected. On the contrary, the use of the bolt preloading
coefficient leads to a very good agreement between numerical and experimental results.
The axial stiffness (secant value corresponding to 2 3 Ft.Rd) for bolt preloading levels () different
from the reference one ( = 1 corresponding to 80%) can be approximately evaluated according to the
procedure represented in Fig.6 corresponding to the following relationship:

bolt preloading snug tightening


= 1 (80%) = 0
2/3 Ft.Rd K0 K0 K0
LOAD

F*
K1
F*
K
K0
DISPLACEMENT

Figure 6 - Stiffness evaluation for intermediate bolt preloading levels


C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 11 -

K1 (14)
K =
K1
+ (1)
Ko
where the bolt preloading level is expressed as a fraction of that leading to a bolt tensile stress, due
to the tightening, equal to the 80% of the yield one.
With reference to the prediction of the stiffness K corresponding to the tested specimens reported
in Tab.1, the use of the above relationship leads to an average overestimation equal to 2% with a
coefficient of variation equal to 0.23.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The experimental results presented in this paper have confirmed that bolt preloading significantly
affects the stiffness of bolted connections. In particular, it has been evidenced that two ideal stiffness
levels can be identified. The first level corresponds to a tightening force equal to zero, while the second
level represents the ideal case in which bolt preloading prevents the detach of the connected plates for
any given value of the external force.
In addition, it has been verified that the axial stiffness of snug tightened bolted T-stubs can be
accurately predicted by assuming a 45 spreading of the bolt action starting from the bolt head edge.
The same procedure can be used to predict also the stiffness of pretensioned connections provided that
a properly calibrated coefficient representing the influence of bolt preloading is used.

7. REFERENCES

[1] CEN/TC250/SC3-PT9:"Eurocode 3, Part 1.1: Joints in Building Frames (Annex J)", ENV, January,
1997.
[2] Y .L. Y ee,R.E.Melchers: "Moment-Rotation Curves for Bolted Connections", Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.112, January, 1986.
[3] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: "Reliability of Eurocode 3 Procedures for Predicting Beam-to-
Column Joint Behaviour." Third International Conference on Steel and Alluminium Structures,
Istanbul, May, 1995
[4] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: "Some proposals to improve EC3-Annex J approach for predicting
the moment-rotation curve of extended end plate connections." Costruzioni Metalliche, N.4, 1996.
[5] H. Agerskov: "High-Strength Bolted Connections Subject to Prying." ASCE Structural Division,
Vol.102, pp.161-175, January, 1976
[6] R.B. Fleischman, C.P. Chasten, Le-Wu Lu, G.C. Driscoll: "Top-and-seat Angle Connections and
End-plate Connections: Snug vs. Fully Pretensioned Bolts." Engineering Journal, AISC, First
Quarter, 1991
[7] J.P. Jaspart, R. Maquoi: "Effect of Bolt Preloading on Joint Behaviour", Steel Structures, Eurosteel
95, edited by Kounadis, Balkema, 1995.
[8] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: "Experimental Analysis of Bolted Connections: Snug Vs.
Preloaded Bolts", submitted for publication in ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering on March
1997 and recommended for acceptance on June 1997.
[9] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano: "Experimental analysis of T-Stub assemblies with snug tightened
or pretensioned bolts", Rapporto N.73, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Universit di Salerno,
1996.
[10] J.P. Jaspart, M. Steenhuis, K . W einand: "The stiffness model of Revised Annex J of Eurocode
3", Third International Workshop on Connection in Steel Structures, Trento, 28-31 May, 1995.
[11] O. Bursi: "Behaviour of High Strength Bolts in Bolted Beam-to-Column Connections." Proc. of
Applied Stress Analysis Conference, Nottingham, August.
C. Faella, V. Piluso, G. Rizzano - 12 -

APPENDIX: GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES OF TESTED SPECIMENS

In the following table the nominal and actual values of the geometrical properties of tested specimens,
depicted in the Fig.2, are given.

T-STUB GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES


Specimen B b tf tw r e1 e2 L1 L2 B1 B2 df
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
N 220.00 190.00 11.00 7.00 18.00 62.50 62.50 95.00 95.00 106.50 106.50 21.00
TS-1 AU 218.10 189.00 11.50 7.30 - 64.05 62.25 95.20 93.95 104.40 106.50 22.10
AL 218.10 189.00 11.30 7.20 - 61.75 62.65 96.05 94.60 104.20 106.50 22.10
N 220.00 190.00 11.00 7.00 18.00 50.50 50.50 95.00 95.00 106.50 106.50 21.00
TS-2 AU 217.50 189.00 11.00 7.25 - 48.65 50.85 93.45 94.50 106.10 104.15 22.10
AL 218.00 189.00 11.00 7.20 - 49.75 50.15 95.30 93.80 106.50 102.50 22.00
N 160.00 190.00 9.00 6.00 15.00 33.50 33.50 95.00 95.00 77.00 77.00 21.00
TS-3 AU 159.20 189.00 9.10 7.20 - 33.40 34.20 94.80 94.70 77.10 74.90 21.00
AL 159.60 189.00 9.10 7.10 - 34.60 34.20 95.45 94.05 77.60 74.90 21.50
N 160.00 190.00 9.00 6.00 15.00 33.50 33.50 95.00 95.00 77.00 77.00 21.00
TS-4 AU 159.65 189.00 9.45 7.20 - 32.70 33.10 95.45 93.95 76.20 76.25 21.90
AL 159.90 189.00 9.25 7.30 - 33.75 32.85 94.35 92.55 77.20 75.40 21.90
N 160.00 190.00 13.00 8.00 15.00 32.50 32.50 95.00 95.00 76.00 76.00 21.00
TS-5 AU 161.50 189.00 13.90 8.80 - 32.65 31.95 95.05 94.75 76.50 76.20 21.50
AL 161.15 189.00 13.60 8.75 - 32.40 31.85 95.40 93.70 76.90 75.50 21.00
N 160.00 190.00 13.00 8.00 15.00 32.50 32.50 95.00 95.00 76.00 76.00 21.00
TS-6 AU 159.80 189.00 13.50 8.70 - 33.15 32.65 95.10 94.25 76.80 74.30 21.10
AL 160.60 189.00 13.40 8.80 - 33.25 32.85 95.95 94.60 76.50 75.30 21.70
N 200.00 190.00 15.00 9.00 15.00 51.50 51.50 95.00 95.00 95.50 95.50 13.00
TS-7 AU 196.05 187.00 15.00 10.25 - 51.25 51.20 95.30 94.30 92.20 93.60 13.20
AL 198.00 189.00 14.70 10.30 - 51.35 51.75 95.05 94.05 93.10 94.60 13.10
N 200.00 190.00 15.00 9.00 18.00 51.50 51.50 95.00 95.00 95.50 95.50 13.00
TS-8 AU 198.80 189.00 15.00 10.20 - 51.25 51.75 96.25 94.05 95.70 92.90 13.10
AL 197.70 189.00 14.80 10.20 - 50.68 51.18 95.78 94.83 94.50 93.00 12.95
N 220.00 190.00 16.00 9.50 18.00 61.30 61.30 95.00 95.00 105.25 105.25 13.00
TS-9 AU 220.60 189.00 16.60 10.20 - 61.65 60.95 94.95 95.05 107.20 103.20 12.90
AL 219.30 189.00 16.40 10.10 - 60.85 61.85 94.95 94.35 107.10 102.10 12.90
N 220.00 190.00 16.00 9.50 18.00 61.30 61.30 95.00 95.00 105.25 105.25 13.00
TS-10 AU 219.80 189.00 15.50 10.20 - 61.40 62.40 96.10 94.50 102.50 107.10 12.80
AL 220.80 189.00 15.50 10.10 - 62.00 61.20 95.80 94.10 102.50 108.20 12.80
N 220.00 190.00 11.00 7.00 18.00 50.50 50.50 95.00 95.00 106.50 106.50 13.00
TS-11 AU 217.90 190.00 11.30 7.50 - 50.15 50.25 95.75 94.65 104.10 106.30 12.50
AL 218.00 189.00 10.80 7.30 - 50.25 50.35 95.85 95.05 103.50 107.20 12.70
N 220.00 190.00 11.00 7.00 18.00 62.50 62.50 95.00 95.00 106.50 106.50 13.00
TS-12 AU 218.00 190.00 10.60 7.30 - 62.85 63.35 94.95 93.95 106.10 104.60 12.70
AL 219.10 189.00 10.80 7.40 - 62.95 63.25 95.15 94.35 106.80 104.90 12.90
N 260.00 190.00 12.50 7.50 24.00 76.30 76.30 95.00 95.00 126.25 126.25 13.00
TS-13 AU 260.10 189.00 12.60 8.00 - 77.05 76.95 95.25 94.65 124.90 127.20 12.90
AL 258.80 189.00 12.70 8.00 - 76.85 76.95 95.25 93.85 126.40 124.40 12.90
N 260.00 190.00 12.50 7.50 24.00 76.30 76.30 95.00 95.00 126.25 126.25 13.00
TS-14 AU 260.00 189.00 12.70 8.30 - 74.45 76.65 96.65 94.35 125.30 126.40 12.90
AL 258.30 189.00 12.70 8.10 - 76.45 76.85 95.25 94.35 125.20 125.00 12.90
N 300.00 190.00 14.00 8.50 27.00 92.80 92.80 95.00 95.00 145.75 145.75 13.00
TS-15 AU 299.60 188.00 13.80 8.00 - 92.25 92.65 93.65 94.65 146.30 145.30 12.70
AL 299.90 190.00 13.80 8.00 - 92.25 92.15 95.25 95.35 145.60 146.30 12.90
N 300.00 190.00 14.00 8.50 27.00 92.80 92.80 95.00 95.00 145.75 145.75 13.00
TS-16 AU 299.00 189.00 13.80 8.00 - 93.15 91.95 94.55 95.25 144.30 146.70 12.90
AL 298.90 190.00 13.10 8.30 - 93.00 92.40 96.10 94.20 145.10 145.50 13.00
N= Nominal measure AU= Actual measure-upper T-stub AL= Actual measure-lower T-stub
BOLTS GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES
bolt type db dhbs dhbl thb dnbs dnbl tnb dwint dwest twb
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
M12 12 21.60 19.00 8.90 21.50 18.90 11.90 23.50 13.30 2.50
M20 20 36.40 31.60 13.10 34.30 30.00 16.00 36.50 21.50 2.95