S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R.

Simes, Page 1

Experimental behaviour of internal joints with beams of different heights, steel grade S690
S. Jordo, Research Assistant, Civil Engineering Dep., Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal L. Simes da Silva, Professor, Civil Engineering Dep., Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal R. Simes, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dep., Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract
Economy in construction is an issue that has become more and more important. It is searched by means of high performance materials and a closer knowledge of the structures behaviour. This article follows that trend on the two aspects referred: high strength steel grade S690 and the behaviour of internal steel connections with beams of different heights, which is still a gap on the knowledge of steel structures. The work presented is based on an experimental and numerical study of five joints, in a total of eight tests. The authors aim at being able to draw procedures that may lead to recommendations for the design of the studied joints in the perspective of EC3s component method. This paper outlines the main structure of the ongoing research and presents the experimental tests and its preliminary results.

Introduction
The behaviour of steel joints has been widely studied [4], [5], [6], [8] and [9], but only for external nodes and internal nodes with beams with similar heights. In both these cases the column web panel presents three relatively independent zones (shear, compression and tension) (figure1). On an internal node with beams of different heights, due to the fact that the load entering the web panel is no longer aligned on both sides, the stress fields are far more complex (figure1), and the referred zones are no longer separate [6] and [8].

Figure1. Stress state in an external node, and an internal node with different beams (Normal horizontal stress, shear stress and principal directions) This fact adds extra complexity to the problem, and a detailed study must be undertaken to assess the behaviour of such nodes.

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 2 The procedure chosen for the approach begins with the selection of a node that would be common in everyday design, and the development of a numerical model of the selected node. Experimental tests are then undertaken and its results will be used to calibrate the numerical model [6]. This model will then be used for a parametric study from which the behaviour of internal nodes with beams of different heights can be drawn. A similar study was undertaken for steel grade S355 [8], so that contact bases could be set to a known steel, and a fazed investigation could be attained. Since EC3s component method [1] concatenates a number of advantages in the design of steel connections, and is a widely used methodology, the study undertaken will be developed in this perspective. Being so, the main goal of the work is to establish the strength and deformation laws and parameters for internal nodes with beams of different heights, within the scope of component method.

Experimental tests
Geometry selection The node selected has a relation of two between the heights of the beams. The loading was chosen in a way that the most relevant and extreme cases would be covered, so that the numerical model could be calibrated with a wide and representative set of data. Some simpler nodes were also tested: external node, and internal node with similar beams. The purpose was to have contact bases relating to well known configurations, so that the individual aspects of the target joint could be assessed separately and a better understanding of the way in which they are combined in the internal node with different beams could be reached. For one of the external joint models the web of the beam was cut off on the section of the connection, so that the load would enter the panel thought the beam flanges alone. This is useful to assess the load introduction aspects, which are of great importance if the problem is to be looked into in the perspective of EC3s component method. For confirmation, two sets were tested for each node. Since rolled profiles steel grade S690 are not produced commercially, sections used were reconstructed from flat sheets by weld [7], as similarly as possible to the commercial sections indicated in table 1. Table 1. Summary of the experimental tests
Test E1.1 E1.2 E2A E2B E3A E3B E4A E4B Beam 1 HEB200 HEB200 IPE400 IPE400 HEB200 HEB200 Beam 2 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 IPE400 Column HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 HEB240 Loading MMM-/MM-/MM-/MM-/MM-/M+ M-/M+

Test and instrumentation layout The layout of the tests is shown in figure 3. The column is hinged on both ends, and the load is applied by means of hydraulic jacks, at the beam ends. The displacement of the beams ends is prevented in the plane perpendicular to the structure. The purpose of the displacement transducers (figure 4) is to characterize the rotational behaviour of the joint and to assess some relevant partial aspects that may bring in a better insight for characterization of the nodes behaviour.

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 3 The strain gauges (figure 4) were used mainly to supply information for the calibration of the numerical model, particularly about the strain field on the column web panel and the load introduction geometry.

HEB240

Figure 3. Test setup

Detail on the back view

Section B

Section B

Section A Rosette

Section A

Uniaxial strain gauge

Figure 4. Instrumentation setup (Displacement transducers and strain gauges) Tests As far as loading is concerned, the objective was to completely exhaust the deformation capacity of each connection, so the load was increased as far as the limit of the loading equipment. For internal nodes, a predefined relation between the rotations of the connections was defined. The loading was static-monotonic, and the speed was 0.1kN/s at elastic range and 0.05mm/s at plastic range. Figure 5 shows each node tested, before and after the test and a detail on the deformed panel web and connection after the test.

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 4

Figure 5. Test structures: Before and after the test, and detail on the web panel ( E1.1, E2A, E4B and E3A) A considerable rotation capacity was reached in all the tests (around 0.14 rad) to a maximum of 0.23 rad on the external node models. The resistance of the main components was close, but the weaker component was compression, in all tests. Instability deformation on the compressed part of the web panel was also present in all the tests. No rupture of the welds was observed. Results

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 5 The first view of the results is presented for each pair of homologous tests, in terms of load vs displacement at the tip of the beam.
500 400 300

400 300 E1.1 E1.2 100 200

E2A Tall Beam E2A Short Beam E2B Tall Beam E2B Short Beam

200 100

Displacement at the beam end (mm)

-275 -250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0

Displacement at the beam end (mm)

-160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

500 400 300

Load (kN) .

E3A B1 E3A B2 E3B B1 E3B B2

500 400 300

E4A Tall Beam E4A Short Beam E4B Tall Beam E4B Short Beam

200 100

200 100

Displacement at the beam end (mm)

-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15

Displacement at the beam end (mm)

-170 -155 -140 -125 -110 -95 -80 -65 -50 -35 -20 -5

Figure 6. Results for each pair of homologous tests The previous picture shows that there is a reasonable similarity between each pair of homologous tests, except for tests E2, were the resistance on test E2B is somewhat smaller than that of test E2A, and the plastic behaviour is also different. For a better insight on the differences in the behaviour of the different nodes, figure 7 shows a comparison between all the curves. For clarity, the results presented will refer only to the tall beam.
500 400 E1.1 E2A Tall Beam E3A B1 E4B Tall Beam 300 200 100

Displacement at the beam end (mm)

-275 -250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0

Figure 7. Comparison between the results of each different node Models E1.1 and E3 correspond to external node and internal node with equal beams. These configurations are well known and its behaviour well documented. In the case of E1.1 the curve indicates behaviour typical of a ductile connection with large rotation capacity. In the case of E3, and comparing with E1.1, there are some major differences. On one hand, the initial stiffness is higher, and on the other hand the maximum load is also higher, attained much sooner. The plastic part of the curve, with large slope, is typical of instability phenomena. These differences may be due to the fact that in the case of E3 there are no shear forces on the column web panel, interacting with tension and compression stress fields, and consequently diminishing their resistance. In this case there are two separate stress fields

Load (kN)

Load (kN) .

Load (kN) .

500

Load (kN) .

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 6 (tension and compression), and the resistance of the panel web to compression (instability) governs the resistance of the connection. Model E2 corresponds to the internal node with different beams and symmetrical load. This case is clearly in between E1.1 and E3, since only half the panel is subjected to shear stresses. The fact that shear is less than in E1.1, reduces the adverse influence of shear combined with the other stress fields, and leads to higher initial stiffness. The maximum load does not reach the value in E3, because the shear interacts with compression stress fields, reducing its resistance. Model E4 corresponds to the internal node with different beams and anti-symmetrical load. In this case shear is higher than it was in E1.1, reducing the resistance of both tension and compression areas. The effect can be observed on the smaller initial stiffness and smaller resistance. The homologous study for models steel grade S355 showed that the overall behaviour is the same as for models steel grade S690. The main different is quantitative, for the maximum load, for instance, the average difference in each configuration between S355 and S690 models is 30%, which corresponds approximately to the difference between the real yield stresses of the two steel grades. It is important to highlight that none of the cases presented is presently covered by EC3, because its updating for high strength steel [2] is not yet complete. Nevertheless, the study presented is to follow the procedures set by EC3, so a comparison between the experimental moment vs rotation curves and the homologous EC3s bilinear model (figure 8) is presented. This comparison is established separately for the cases of external node and internal nodes with similar beams; and for the cases of internal node with beams of different heights. The first are covered by EC3 in the case of steel grade S355, and the later are not covered by EC3 at all. In the latter, the initial stiffness for each connection was calculated with parameters equal to one, which means that the influence of each connection over the other is not accounted for.
Moment (kN.m) .
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 E1 E3 E1 (EC3) E3 (EC3)

Moment (kN.m) .

600 500 400 300

c

E2 Tall beam E2 Tall beam (EC3) E2 Short beam E2 Short beam (EC3)

200 100

Rotation (rad)
0

Rotation (rad)
0 0,012 0,024 0,036 0,048 0,06 0,072 0,084 0,096 0,108 0,12

0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18

0,2

Figure 8. Comparison between experimental results and EC3s model (S690) The previous charts highlight the differences that there would be between experimental results and EC3 results, if EC3 formulation was valid for steel grade S690 and internal nodes with different beams. In terms of initial stiffness, in the cases covered by EC3 for S355 (internal node and external node with similar beams) the adjustment between experimental and EC3 results is good. Nevertheless, in the case of internal node with different beams (not covered by EC3) the correlation is very poor. This emphasises the idea that a formulation is needed for this kind of nodes.

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 7 In terms of resistance, the EC3s formulation does not yield similar values than those from the experimental tests. This may indicate that EC3 formulation for the component method may need update for the case of steel grade S690. To clarify this matter, next picture shows a comparison between S355 and S690 experimental results, and its homologous results from EC3. This comparison is established for tests E1 and E3, which are covered by EC3 in the case of S355.
Moment (kN.m) .
Moment (kN.m) .
600 500 400 300

700 600 500 400 300

200 100 0 0

200

S355E1.2 S690E1.2 S355E1.2 (EC3) S690E1.2 (EC3) S i 4

0,012 0,024 0,036 0,048 0,06

E3S355 E3S690 E3S355 (EC3) E3S690 (EC3) Rotation (rad)

100
Rotation (rad)

0 0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08

0,072 0,084 0,096 0,108 0,12

Figure 8. Comparison between experimental results and EC3s model (S690 vs S355) These charts emphasise the previous conclusion, in fact EC3s formulation describes very accurately the experimental results in the case of S355 models, but the agreement is poorer in the case of S690 models. This situation may be more blatant in those cases were the component compression governs design. In fact, a comparative analysis between S355 and S690 models in terms of theoretical resistance of the main components of the column web panel (shear, compression and tension), indicates that there is a gain of around 16% in terms of shear, 20% in terms of tension, but little gain, or no gain at all when it comes to compression, which does not correspond to what was observed on the experimental tests. Since the weaker component, for these models is compression, the EC3s Mj,RD lies far of the experimental value. This may be due to a number of factors that are related to the delicate phenomenon of compression resistance [3], [4], [9] and [10] (frontier conditions of the differential equation that describes the plate associated with the column web panel, the confinement materialized by the column flanges around the panel, the consideration of imperfections, the orthotropic behaviour of the panel web material, the pos-critical reserve of resistance due to plate effect, etc).

Conclusions
This article shows the preliminary results of a study on the behaviour of internal nodes with beams of different heights made of high strength steel grade S690. This study concatenates two subjects: on one side the behaviour of internal nodes with beams of different heights, that is still a gap on the wide knowledge of steel structures, and on the other hand the very actual problem of updating known rules for the future materials, such as high strength steel. The study is conducted within the scope of EC3s component method. The procedure is to draw the behaviour of the referred connections from the study of a numerical model calibrated by means of experimental tests. The study is supported by the work previously done on similar connections steel grade S355. The experimental results are presented, and some preliminary conclusions are drawn. The first conclusion is that there is a real necessity to find a method that would allow the design of internal nodes with beams of different heights, since there are no formulations for this kind

S. Jordo; L. Simes da Silva, R. Simes, Page 8 of analysis. The second conclusion is that the ECs formulation for the compressed component on the column web may need improvement, in the case of steel grade S690.

References
[1] Cen, Eurocode 3, En 1993-1-8, 2005, Part 1.8: Design Of Joints, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, 2005. Brussels: Cen, European Committee For Standardization. [2] Cen, Eurocode 3, prEn 1993-1-12, 20xx, Part 1.12: Additional rules for the extension on EN1993 up to steel grades S 700, Stage 32 draft (2004.03.30) Eurocode 3: Design Of Steel Structures, 2005. Brussels: Cen, European Committee For Standardization. [3] Aribert, J. M.: Plastic analysis and simplified design of the compression zone of a beamto-column connection,1991. Pittsburgh. Second International workshop on connections in steel structures. [4] Faella, C., Piluso, V. e Rizzano, G. Structural Steel Semirigid Connections Theory, Design And Software. 2000. Crc Press Llc. [5] Jaspart, J.P. - Recent advances in the field of structural steel joints and their representation in the building frame analysis and design process, COST C1: semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections. 1999. Luxembourg: University of Liege. [6] Jordo, S., Simes da Silva, L. & Simes R. Numerical evaluation of the response of the column web panel under asymmetrical patch loading. Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Computational Structures Technology, 7-9 Setembro 2004. Lisboa. [7] Jordo, S., Simes da Silva, L. & Simes R. Mechanical and geometric properties: S690 prototypes, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Coimbra, Internal report: GCOM2006-9, Outubro, 2006 [8] Jordo, S., Simes da Silva, L. & Simes R. Comportamento de ligaes soldadas em n interno com vigas de alturas diferentes, 4as Jornadas Portuguesas de Engenharia de Estruturas, Lisboa, Portugal, LNEC, 13-16 Dezembro, 2006 [9] Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V. V. & Popov, E. P. Inelastic behavior of steel beam-tocolumn subassemblages, report UCB/EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Bekerley 1971 [10] Kuhlmann, U. & Khnemund, F. Proposal of a new design resistance of the joint component column web in compression. Report 2001-7x. Institut fr Konstruktion und Entwurf Universitt Stuttgart, 2001 [11] Weynand K., Jaspart J.P. & Steenhuis M. -. The Stiffness Model Of Revised Annex J Of Eurocode 3. Connections In Steel Structures Iii - 3rd International Workshop On Connections:. Bjorhovde R., Colson A. & Zandonini R. (Eds.) 1995. Trento: Pergamon.