Doc. ECCSTC10533
ECCS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 10 « CONNECTIONS »
DESIGN SHEETS FOR THE DESIGN
OF SIMPLE STRUCTURAL JOINTS
WITH HEADER PLATE
by
J.P. JASPART and S. RENKIN
FIFTH DRAFT FOR PAST TWG10.3 THIRD DRAFT FOR PAST TWG10.1
March, 2003
LIST OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 SIMPLE JOINTS WITH HEADER PLATE CONNECTIONS
2.1 Geometrical data
2.2 Notations
3 DESIGN SHEET
4 REMAINING POINTS OF DISCUSSION
4.1 Verification of the header plate in shear (gross and net section) and in bending
4.2 Header plates with more than two vertical boltrows
4.3 Requirements for sufficient ductility and rotation capacity
5 WORKED EXAMPLE
5.1 Geometrical and mechanical data
5.2 Joint shear resistance
5.3 Shear design check
6 REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
The present paper is a updated version of the fourth draft presented at the ECCS TWG10.3 meeting in Coimbra. The first version (Doc. 174) has been presented and discussed at the ECCS TWG10.3 Innsbruck in March 2001, the second draft (Doc. 189) in Timisoara in October 2002 and the third one (Doc. 197) in Ljubljana in April 2002.
The four first draft were referring to the ENV Version of EC3, while the present one refer to the latest version of prEN1993 Part 1.8.
The scope of the document has been extended to header plates with four bolt columns instead of two in the previous versions.
All the discussion on weld design which took place in Coimbra are not yet included in the present document.
In order to facilitate the understanding of the proposed rules, an updated worked example is presented at the end of the paper.
2. SIMPLE JOINTS WITH HEADER PLATE CONNECTIONS
2.1 Geometrical data
In Figure 1, the geometry of the joint is given. For the supporting member, different configurations may be contemplated:
Connection to a column flange; Connection to a column web;
Connection to a beam web; …
The design rules presented in Section 3 cover all these possible configurations.
e1
p1
p1
e1
Figure 1 Joint with header plate connection
2.2
Notations
a
_{w}
A
A _{s}
d
d _{o}
f _{u}_{,}_{b}
f _{y}_{,}_{b}
n
n _{1}
n _{2}
e
e
_{2}
p _{1}
p _{2}
_{m} _{p}
_{1}
h _{p}
t _{p}
A
A
_{v}
_{v}_{n}_{e}_{t}
t
t _{w}
f _{u}
f _{y}
V
_{S}_{d}
_{R}_{d}
F _{v}_{.}_{R}_{d}
V
_{M}_{0}
_{M}_{2}
Throat thickness of the welds Correlation factor for the evaluation of the weld resistance
Nominal area of a bolt Resistant area of a bolt
Nominal diameter of a bolt shank Diameter of a bolt hole Ultimate strength of a bolt Yield strength of a bolt
Total number of bolts Number of horizontal rows Number of vertical rows Longitudinal end distance Transverse end distance Longitudinal bolt pitch Transversal bolt pitch Distance between the bolt columns and the toe of the weld connecting the header plate to the beam web (definition according to EC3 Annex J)
Height of the header plate Thickness of the header plate Gross shear area of the header plate Net shear area of the header plate
Thickness of the supporting plate (t _{c}_{f} and t _{c}_{w} for respectively a column flange and web, t _{b}_{w} for a beam web) Thickness of the supported beam web
Ultimate strength of a steel element (index p for header plate, wb for beam web, cf and cw for respectively column flange and web) Yield strength of a steel element (index p for header plate, wb for beam web, cf and cw for respectively column flange and web)
Shear force applied to the joint Shear resistance of the joint Design resistance in shear
Partial safety factor for steel sections
Partial safety factor
for net section at bolt holes for bolts for welds for plates in bearing
3. DESIGN SHEET: Resistance to shear forces

when the supporting element is a column flange : 

t 
= t _{c}_{f} 

_{b} = min ( 
p 
1 

1 
f ub 
ou 1,0 
) 

3d 
0 
4 
; 
f up 

k _{1} = min ( 
2,8 
e d ^{2} 0 

1,7 ; 
2,5 
) 


when the supporting element is a column web : 

t 
= t _{c}_{w} 

_{b} = min ( 
p 
1 

1 
f ub 
ou 1,0 
) 

3d 
0 
4 
; 
f up 

1,4 
p ^{2} 
1,7 ; 
2,5 

k _{1} = min ( 

) 

d 0 


when the supporting element is a beam web : 

t 
= t _{b}_{w} 

_{b} = min ( 
p 
1 

1 
f ub 
ou 1,0 
) 

3d 
0 
4 
; 
f up 

k _{1} = min ( 
2,8 
e d 
^{2} 0 
1,7 
; 
2,5 ) 

The formula as it is written here applies to major axis beamtocolumn joints (connection to a column flange), to singlesided minor axis joints and to singlesided beamtobeam joint configurations. In the other cases, the bearing forces result from both the left and right connected members, with the added problem that the number of connecting bolts may differ for the left and right connections. The calculation procedure may cover such cases without any particular difficulty. It could just bring some more complexity in the final presentation of the design sheet. 

Header plate in shear : 
2 h 
t 
f 

Gross section 
V 
Rd 
4 

p p yp
1
.27
3
M
0

(2 sections) 

Header plate in shear : 
f 

Net section 
V 

2 
A 
up
3
M 2

(2 sections) 

Rd 
5 
v net . 

with 
A _{v}_{,}_{n}_{e}_{t} = t _{p} ( h _{p} – n _{1} d _{0} ) 

Header plate in shear : 

Shear block 
V _{R}_{d} _{6} = 2 F _{e}_{f}_{f}_{,}_{1}_{,}_{R}_{d} 
(2 sections) 

F eff,1,Rd 

f
A
up
nt
1
A
f
nv
yp
3
M2
M0

Welds in shear
Shear resistance of the joint
Minimum weld size to be selected:
a
0,4 t
w
w
f
Steel 
Ultimate strength f _{u} 
Correlation factor _{w} 

grade 

EN 10025 
S235 
360 
MPa 
0,8 
S275 
430 
MPa 
0,85 

S355 
510 
MPa 
0,9 

EN 10113 
S235 
390 
MPa 
0,8 
S355 
490 
MPa 
0,9 

Other cases 
1 
(clause 6.6.5.3 and Annex M in Eurocode 3)
VRd
8
min
i 1
V
Rdi
f
uwb
M0
4. OUTCOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN TWG10.3 ON SPECIFIC ITEMS
4.1 Verification of the header plate in shear (gross and net section) and in bending
Only two figures are shown here to illustrate the problem (Figures 2 and 3) which has been extensively discussed in Innsbruck, Timisoara and Ljubljana.
a – Shear (and possibly bending) in gross and net sections
b – Block shear
Figure 2 Critical sections in a header plate
Decision further to discussions in TWG10.3;
limitation of applied forces to M _{e}_{.}_{R}_{D} and (1/1.27)V _{p}_{l} , respectively for moment and shear, is kept in the design sheet. However a criterion should be given which defines a range of application where a simple shear check of the plate (applied force limited to V _{p}_{l} ) could be only performed.
the check of the header plate based on a
Proposal;
integrated in the design sheet for shear resistance (see 3.1) and applied in the worked example (see 5.). It should be discussed by TWG10.3 in the Coimbra meeting.
in Annex A to the present document, a proposal is made; the latter has been
4.2 Header plates with more than two vertical boltrows
V _{S}_{d} /2
V _{S}_{d} /2
Figure 4 Header plate with two vertical boltrows
In such situations, it is assumed that the shear force V _{S}_{d} applied to the joint distributes into two forces V _{S}_{d} /2 located at the centre of gravity of the two boltgroups connecting the header plate to the supporting element (see Figure 4).
This however raises some questions:
Can the shear resistance of the bolts still be checked by simply assuming that each individual bolt is subjected to a shear force equal to V _{S}_{d} /n, where n designates the total number of bolts?
Decision further to discussions in TWG10.3: yes, it can.
Can the resistance of the header plate still be carried out as for header plates with two vertical boltrows (verifications in shear  gross and net sections  and bending)?
Decision further to discussions in TWG10.3: yes, it can. The lever arm used for the verification of the header plate in bending should however be taken as the distance between the critical section in bending and the centre of gravity of the boltgroup.
4.3 Requirements for sufficient ductility and rotation capacity
Generals
A simple joint is nothing else than an idealisation of the reality. Joints like those studied in the
present document undergo a significant internal rotation but transfer anyway a certain bending moment.
This means that the assumption that the beam is simply connected to the supporting element is potentially unsafe as the joint is subjected to a bending moment in addition to the shear force which is considered in the design procedure.
Two different attitudes may be adopted as far as this aspect is concerned:
The joint is considered as semirigid. Its rotational stiffness, design bending resistance and shear resistance have to be evaluated and the actual properties of the joint have to be explicitly taken into consideration in the frame and joint design and analysis process. This approach is the more scientifically correct one, but no doubt that few engineers will follow
it in their daily practice, and it is well understandable!
The joint is assumed to be perfectly pinned. Only its design shear resistance has to be evaluated. It has been demonstrated that such an approach is safe as far as the joint possesses a
sufficient rotation capacity. In other words, the joint has to be able to rotate sufficiently during the life of the structure (and therefore, in reality, to develop a certain bending moment) without being affected by a lack of ductility (mainly through the brittle failure of
a weld or of a bolt).
As a result, requirements for sufficient ductility and rotation capacity have to be established to ensure an appropriate response of the simple joints.
Design requirements for sufficient rotation capacity
The risk of brittle failure in the bolts or in the welds is reduced if the bending moment developing in the joint remains low.
In order to achieve this goal in the particular case of simple joints with header plates, the contact between the lower beam flange and the supporting member has to be strictly avoided (Figure 5). As a matter of fact, if such a contact takes place, a compression force develops at the contact place; it is equilibrated by tension forces in the bolts and a significant bending moment develops. The level of rotation at which the contact occurs is obviously dependent on the geometrical characteristics of the beam and of the header plate, but also on the actual deformations of the joint constituents.
In order to derive a simple criterion that the user could apply, before any calculation, to check
whether the risk of contact may be disregarded, the following rough assumptions are made (see Figure 5):
 the supporting element remains undeformed;
 the centre of rotation of the beam is located at the lower extremity of the header plate.
On the basis of such assumptions, a safe estimation (i.e. a lower bound) of the socalled "available rotation of the joint" _{a}_{v}_{a}_{i}_{l}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} may be easily derived:
available
t
p
h
e
t p
h
(1)
Figure 5 Geometrical characteristics of the joint and illustration of the contact between the beam and the supporting element
This available rotation has to be greater than the "required rotation capacity" which varies according to the structural system and loading.
For the usual case of a beam (length L and inertia I) simply supported at its extremities and subjected to an uniformly distributed load (factored load p at ULS), the required rotation capacity writes:
required
pL
3
24 EI
(2)
By expressing that _{a}_{v}_{a}_{i}_{l}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} _{>} _{r}_{e}_{q}_{u}_{i}_{r}_{e}_{d} , a simple criterion ensuring a sufficient joint rotation capacity may be derived. It writes:
3
t pL
h
_{e}
24
EI
(3)
Similar criteria may be derived for other load cases.
Design requirements for sufficient joint ductility
The joint deformation assumed in Figure 5 is far from being a realistic one. In reality, as already said, bending moments develop in the joint and, as a result, the bolts and the welds are subjected to tension forces in addition to shear forces. The premature failure of these elements which exhibit a brittle failure and which are more heavily loaded in reality than in the calculation model has therefore to be strictly avoided. Simple related criteria should also be proposed.
Criterion to avoid premature bolt failure because of tension forces
In [11], a criterion is given which allows to verify that, under the action of the tension forces, the plate will exhibit a significant deformation before the bolt fail in tension. According this criterion, at least one of the two following inequalities has to satisfied:
where:
d :
:
:
f yp
f ysu
f 
ub 
: 
t p 
: 

t su 
: 
nominal diameter of the bolt;
design yield strength of the end plate material;
design yield strength of the column flange;
ultimate tensile strength of the bolt material;
thickness of the end plate or flange cleat leg;
thickness of the column flange.
(4.a)
(4.b)
Obviously, such a criterion does not ensure that the whole shear capacity of the bolt may be considered when evaluating the shear resistance of the joint. And that is why a more restrictive criterion is here selected. This one, which is directly extracted from the revised Annex J of Eurocode 3, is of the same nature than the previous one (Formulae 4) but ensures that Mode 1 failure governs the behaviour of the plate (see [3]); its background is given in [12].
According to this criterion, at least one of the two following inequalities has to satisfied:
(5.a)
(5.b)
Unfortunately, when this requirement is satisfied, it may be demonstrated :

that the tension force in the bolts amount 0.5B _{t}_{.}_{R}_{d} , i.e. 50% of the tension resistance of 

the bolts; that, for such a tension force, the shear resistance only amounts 64% of the full shear resistance of the bolts according to the EC3 resistance formula for bolts in shear and tension. 
This looks at first side to be quite disappointing as the user tries to maximise the shear resistance of the joint. Obviously, it could be argued that only the bolt located in the upper half of the header plane are concerned by such a reduction, as the others are located in a compression zone, and are therefore not subjected to tension forces. Anyway, a reduction of the resistance of the joints when the "bolts in shear" is the governing failure mode is not welcome. In TWG10.3, it is agreed to take this reduction into consideration by multiplying the total resistance of the bolts in shear by a factor 0,8 (i.e. a reduction factor of 0,64 for half of the bolts located in the upper half of the header plate – 0,5.[1 + 0,64] 0,8).
Criterion to avoid premature weld failure because of tension forces
Decision further to discussions in TWG10.3: clear provisions should be given to ensure no brittle failure in the welds actually subjected to shear and bending stresses. Hereunder such provisions are proposed for discussion in Coimbra.
An easy way to avoid the brittle failure of the web is to design the latter so that the failure occurs by yielding in the beam web and not in the weld. A fullstrength weld is therefore recommended. According to clause 6.6.5.3 and Annex M in Eurocode 3, the following rule may be applied to estimate the weld resistance per unit length (see Annex B):
V
Rd Annex M
,
=
2 a
f uwb
( 2 welds).
(6)
Steel 
Ultimate strength f _{u} 
Correlation factor _{w} 

grade 

EN 10025 
S235 
360 
MPa 
0,8 
S275 
430 
MPa 
0,85 

S355 
510 
MPa 
0,9 

EN 10113 
S235 
390 
MPa 
0,8 
S355 
490 
MPa 
0,9 

Other cases 
1 
At first sight, the full strength condition requires that V _{R}_{d}_{,} _{A}_{n}_{n}_{e}_{x} _{M} is higher than:
V
Rd web
,
t
w
f
ywb
M
0
(7)
Then the minimum value of the throat thickness to get full strength welds may be derived as follows:
(8)
a
0,5 t
w
Values of a _{m}_{i}_{n} derived by means of Equation (8) are listed in Table 1 for different steel grades.
Steel grade (EN 10025) 
a _{m}_{i}_{n} ( _{M}_{2} =1,25; _{M}_{0} =1,1) 
S235 
0,514 t _{w} 0,535 t _{w} 0,617 t _{w} 
S275 

S355 
Table 1 Minimum weld size according EC3 Annex M
But a less conservative approach may be followed by recognising, as in [14], that: “In Eurocode 3 (Version of April 1990), it is stated that the requirement for full strength will be satisfied if the design of the weld is not less than 80% of the design resistance of the weakest of connected parts”.
By applying this principle to the present situation, Equation (8) becomes :
a
0,5 t
w
(8)
and a significantly lower weld size is to be recommended (see Table 2).
Steel grade (EN 10025) 
a _{m}_{i}_{n} ( _{M}_{w} =1,25; _{M}_{0} =1,1) 
S235 
0,411 t _{w} 0,428 t _{w} 0,493 t _{w} 
S275 

S355 
Table 2 Minimum weld size according EC3 Annex M
This last approach is suggested in the present design recommendations.
5. WORKED EXAMPLE 5.1 Geometrical and mechanical data
HEA200
Main joint data
Configuration Column Beam Type of connection Header plate
Beam to column flange HEA 200 S 235 IPE 300 S 235 Header plate connection 230x200x10, S 235
Detailed characteristics
Column HEA 200, S235
Depth Thickness of the web Width Thickness of the flange Root radius Area Inertia
Yield strength Ultimate strength
Beam IPE 300, S235
Depth Thickness of the web Width Thickness of the flange Root radius Area Inertia
h
t _{w}
b _{f}
t _{f}
r
A
I
f _{y}
f _{u}
h
t _{w}
b _{f}
t _{f}
r
A
I
= 190.00 
mm 

= 
6.50 
mm 
= 200.00 
mm 

= 
10.00 
mm 
= 
18.00 
mm 
= 
53.83 
cm² 
= 3692.16 
cm ^{4} 

= 235.00 
N/mm² 

= 360.00 
N/mm² 

= 300.00 
mm 

= 
7.10 
mm 
= 150.00 
mm 

= 
10.70 
mm 
= 
15.00 
mm 
= 
53.81 
cm² 
= 8356.11 
cm ^{4} 
Yield strength Ultimate strength
Header plate 230x200x10, S 235
Vertical gap
Depth
Width
Thickness
Direction of load transfer (1)
Number of bolts rows Edge to first bolt row distance Pitch between bolt row 1 and 2 Pitch between bolt row 2 and 3 last bolt row to edge distance
f _{y}
f _{u}
g
h
b
t _{p}
_{v}
_{p}
_{p}
= 235.00
= 360.00
=
= 230.00
= 200.00
=
35.00
10.00
=
e _{1}_{1} =
^{p}
^{p}
e _{1}_{n} =
n
_{1}
_{1}_{[}_{1}_{]}
_{1}_{[}_{2}_{]}
3
45.00
^{=}
^{=}
45.00
N/mm²
N/mm²
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
70.00mm
70.00mm
mm
Direction perpendicular to Load transfer (2)
Number of bolts rows Edge to first bolt row distance Pitch between bolt row 1 and 2 last bolt row to edge distance
Yield strength Ultimate strength
Bolts M20, 8.8
Resistant area Diameter of the shank Diameter of the holes Yield strength Ultimate strength
Welds
Throat thickness of the weld Length of the weld
n _{2} =
e _{2}_{1} = p _{2}_{[}_{1}_{]} e _{2}_{n} =
f _{y}_{p}_{l} = f _{u}_{p}_{l} =
A _{s}_{b} = d _{b} d _{0}_{b} = f _{y}_{b} = f _{u}_{b} =
=
2
50.00
=
50.00
235.00
360.00
245.00
20.00
22.00
640.00
800.00
a _{w} =
l _{w}
4.00
= 230.00
mm
100.00
mm
N/mm²
N/mm²
mm²
mm
mm
N/mm²
N/mm²
mm
mm
mm
Safety factors
_{M}_{0}
_{M}_{1}
_{M}_{2}
= 
1.10 
= 
1.10 
= 
1.25 
Applied shear force
V _{S}_{d} = 200 kN
5.2 Joint shear resistance
Bolts in shear
V _{R}_{d}_{1} = 0,8 n F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 451.58 kN
n = 6
F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = _{v} A f _{u}_{b} / _{M}_{2} = 94.08 kN
Header plate in bearing
_{v}
A = A _{s} = 245.00 mm²
f _{u}_{b}
= 0.6
= 800.00 N/mm²
V _{R}_{d}_{2} = n F _{b}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 589.09 kN
n
= 6
F _{b}_{,}_{R}_{d} = k _{1} _{b} d t _{p} f _{u}_{p} / _{M}_{2} = 98.18 kN
_{b}
_{1}
_{2}
_{3}
k _{1}
d
t _{p}
f _{u}_{b}
f _{u}_{p}
Column flange in bearing
= min( _{1} , _{2} , _{3} , 1 ) = 0.68
= e _{1} / 3d _{0} = 0.68
= p _{1} / 3d _{0}  1/4 = 0.81
= f _{u}_{b} / f _{u}_{p} = 2.22
= min(2.8 e _{2} / d _{0} – 1.7 ; 2.5)
= min(4.66 ; 2.5) = 2.5
= 20.00 mm
= 10.00 mm = 800.00 N/mm² = 360.00 N/mm²
V _{R}_{d}_{3} = n F _{b}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 700.36 kN
n = 6
F _{b}_{,}_{R}_{d} = k _{1} _{b} d t _{c}_{f} f _{u}_{c}_{f} / _{M}_{2} = 116.73 kN
_{1}
_{2}
k _{1}
d
= min( _{1} , _{2} , 1) = 0.81
= p _{1} / 3d _{0}  1/4 = 0.81
= f _{u}_{b} / f _{u}_{c}_{f} = 2.22
= min(2.8 e _{2} / d _{0} – 1.7 ; 2.5)
= min(4.66 ; 2.5) = 2.5
= 20.00 mm
t _{c}_{f}
f _{u}_{b}
f _{u}_{c}_{f}
= 10.00 mm = 800.00 N/mm² = 360.00 N/mm²
Gross section of the header plate in shear
V _{R}_{d}_{4} = 2 F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 446.75 kN
F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = A _{v} f _{y}_{p} / (1.27
3 _{M}_{0} ) = 223.38 kN
A _{v} = h _{p} t _{p} = 23.00 cm² f _{y}_{p} = 235.00 N/mm²
Net section of the header plate in shear
V _{R}_{d}_{5} = 2 F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 545.39 kN
^{F} v,Rd ^{=} ^{A} v,net ^{f} up ^{/} ^{(}
^{3} ^{} M2 ^{)} ^{=} ^{2}^{7}^{2}^{.}^{6}^{9} ^{k}^{N}
A _{v}_{,}_{n}_{e}_{t} = ( h _{p}  n _{1} d _{0} )t _{p} = 16.40 cm²
h _{p} = 230.00 mm
n _{1}
d _{0} = 22.00 mm
t _{p}
= 6
= 10.00 mm
f _{u}_{p} = 360.00 N/mm²
Shear block of the header plate
V _{R}_{d}_{6} = 2 F _{e}_{f}_{f}_{,}_{1}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 545.33 kN
F _{e}_{f}_{f}_{,}_{1}_{,}_{R}_{d} = f _{u}_{p} A _{n}_{t} / _{M}_{2} + f _{y}_{p} A _{n}_{v} / (
3 _{M}_{0} ) = 272.66 kN
A
A
_{n}_{t}
_{n}_{v}
f _{y}_{p}
f _{u}_{p}
= t _{p} ( e _{2}  d _{0} /2 ) = 390.00 mm²
t _{p}
e _{2} = 50.00 mm
d _{0} = 22.00 mm
= t _{p} ( h _{p} – e _{1} – ( n _{1} – 0.5 ) d _{0} ) = 1300.00 mm²
n _{1}
h _{p} = 230.00 mm e _{1} = 45.00 mm = 235.00 N/mm² = 360.00 N/mm²
= 10.00 mm
= 3
Header plate in bending
^{V} Rd7 ^{=} ^{}
Beam web in shear
h _{p} = 230.00 mm 1,364 p _{2} = 136.40 mm
V _{R}_{d}_{8} = F _{v}_{,}_{R}_{d} = 201.42 kN
F _{v}_{.}_{R}_{d} = A _{v} f _{y}_{w}_{b} / (
3 _{M}_{0} ) = 201.42 kN
A _{v} = h _{p} t _{w} = 16.33 cm²
Welds in shear
a min =
f _{y}_{w}_{b} = 235.00 N/mm²
f _{u}_{w}_{b} = 360.00 N/mm²
_{w}
= 0.80
= 2,92 mm
as a = 4.00 mm, then a > a _{m}_{i}_{n}
h _{p} > 1,364 p _{2}
Joint shear resistance
Shear resistance of the joint V _{R}_{d} = 201.42 kN
Failure Mode:
Beam web in shear
5.3 Design check
Applied shear force:
Shear resistance:
V
V _{R}_{d}
_{S}_{d}
= 200 kN 

= 201.42 kN 

Design O.K.
6. REFERENCES
[1] 
GUILLAUME MarieLaure Development of an European procedure for the design of simple joints (in French), Diploma work, University of Liège / CUST ClermontFerrand, July 2000. 

[2] 
EUROCODE 3 ENV : Design of steel structures. Part 11: General rules and rules for buildings, ENV 199311 : 1992 E. 

[3] 
Revised Annex J : Joints in building frames 199311 : 1992/A2, October 1998. of Eurocode 3, CEN Bruxelles, ENV 

[4] 
BS 5950 : « British Standard: Structural use of steelwork in building », Part 1. Code of practice for design in simple and continuous construction: hot rolled section. 

[5] 
BCSA  SCI : Joints in Simple Construction, volume 1 : Design Methods, Second Edition, 1993. 

[6] 
BCSA  SCI : Joints in Simple Construction, volume 2 : Practical Applications, Dec 

1992. 

[7] 
NEN 6770 : 
Nederlands Nonnalisatie Instituut, NEN 6770 Staalconstructies TGB 
1990, basiseisen. 

[8] 
Report SG/TC1OA : Verbindingen : Aanbevelingen voor normaalkrachtverbindingen en dwarskrachtverbindingen, avril 1998. 

[9] 
G. Sedlacek, K. Weynand, S.Oerder : « Typisierte Anschlüsse im Stahlhochbau », DSTV, StahlhbauVerglagsges, Düsseldorf, 2000. 

[10] 
French NAD for EUROCODE 3: Calcul des structures en acier. Partie 11: Règles générales et Règles pour les Bâtiments, P 223110, ENV 199311, Eyrolles 1996. 

[11] 
ECSC Research Contracts 7210SA/212 and 320: "Frame Design including Joint Behaviour", 19931996, Final draft (forthcoming ECCS publication from TC10). 

[12] 
Jaspart, J.P.: "Recent advances in the field of steel joints. Column bases and further configurations for beamtocolumn joints and beam splices", Professorship Thesis, Department MSM, University of Liège, 1997. 

[13] 
Jaspart, J.P.: "Etude de la semirigidité des assemblages poutrecolonne et de son influence sur la résistance et la stabilité des ossatures en acier", Ph. D.Thesis, Department MSM, University of Liège, 1991. 

[14] 
Gresnigt, A.M. : “Calculation of fillet welds in Eurocode 3”, Rivista Italiana della Saldatura, Anno XLII, n° 6, Novemberdecember 1990. 
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.