Law Lichen Ba 070063 d 10 Ttt

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

Author’s 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

Academic Session : 2009/2010 .

I declare that this thesis is classified as :

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 SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

860612-52-5968 DR ARIZU SULAIMAN

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR

Date: 17 APRIL 2010 Date: 17 APRIL 2010

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from

the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

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 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.

v

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 i

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xv

LIST OF APPENDICES xvii

LIST OF NOTATIONS xix

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Statement of Problem 3

1.3 Objectives 6

1.4 Scope of Study 6

1.5 Significance of Study 8

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

3 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 Practical Application of the design methods

for BS 5950 and Eurocode 55

4.2 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 3 112

4.3 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 128

4.4 Discussions of Results 132

5 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 PAGE

1.1 The differences in axes between BS 5950 and the Eurocode 3 16

1.2 Comparison of frequently used symbols in BS 5950 and

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) 76

4.2a(ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice (2/140 x 8 x 340) 77

4.2b(i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x 15 x 420) 82

4.2b (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice (2/140 x 8 x 340) 82

4.2c (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.2c (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice (cover plate 2/140 x 8 x 300) 87

4.2d (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


xii

4.2d (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice (2/140 x 8 x 250) 88

4.2e (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.2e (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice 2/140 x 8 x 220 89

4.3a Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.3b Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.3f Column size and cover plate size used on column’s flange 96

4.3c Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.3d Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.3e Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.4a (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at flange splice (cover plate 2/150 x *15 x 420) 98

4.4a (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.4b (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.4b (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at web splice (cover plate 2/140 x 8 x 340) 104

4.4f Beam size and cover plate size used on beam 108




at flange splice (cover plate140 x 8 x 300) 109

4.4d (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.4e (i) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

xiii


4.4e (ii) Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.5a Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.5b Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.5f Column size and cover plate size used on column’s flange 118

4.5c Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness

at flange Splice (cover plate 2/350 x 16 x 525) 118

4.5d Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.5e Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness


4.6a Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for

tension capacity of beam’s flange 121

4.6b Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for

bearing capacity of beam’s flange 121

4.6c Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for

shear capacity of beam’s web 121

4.6d Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for

moment capacity of beam’s web 122

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 123

4.7b Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the


cover plate (2/140 x 8 x 300) when cover plate thickness

is increased 125

xiv

4.7c Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the



is increased 126

4.7d Comparison between BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 for the



is increased 127

4.8 Comparison of the bearing capacity at column’s 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 129

4.9b: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/300 x 16 x 525)



4.9c Comparison of flange cover plate (2/250 x 12 x 525)



4.9d Comparison of flange cover plate (2/200 x 16 x 525)



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 26

2.9 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)) 79

4.2b (i) Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.2b (i)) 83

4.2b (ii) Graph of strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2b (ii)) 84

4.3a Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3a) 91

4.3b Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3b) 94

4.4a (i) Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4a (i)) 100

4.4a (ii) Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4a (ii)) 101

4.4b (i) Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4b (i)) 105

4.4b (ii) Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4b (ii)) 106

4.5a Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice


4.5b Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5b) 116

4.7a Strength of web and flange cover plate based on BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 vs Cover Plate Thickness.


4.9a Strength of the flange cover plate based on BS 5950

and Eurocode 3 vs Thickness of Cover Plate


xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2c (i)) 142

A2 Figure 4.2c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2c (ii) 143

A3 Figure 4.2d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2d (i)) 144

A4 Figure 4.2d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2d (ii)) 145

A5 Figure 4.2e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (i)) 146

A6 Figure 4.2e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (ii)) 147

B1 Figure 4.3c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3c) 148

B2 Figure 4.3d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3d) 149

B3 Figure 4.3e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.3e) 150

C1 Figure 4.4c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.4c (i)) 151

C2 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)) 153

C4 Figure 4.4d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.4d (ii)) 154

C5 Figure 4.4e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.4e (i)) 155

C6 Figure 4.4e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Web Splice (Data from Table 4.4e (ii)) 156

D1 Figure 4.5c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5c) 157

D2 Figure 4.5d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5d) 158

D3 Figure 4.5e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness

at Flange Splice (Data from Table 4.5e) 159

E1 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) 160

E2 Figure 4.7c: Strength of Web and Flange Cover Plate


Plate. (Data from Table 4.7c) 161

E3 Figure 4.7d: Strength of Web and Flange Cover Plate


Plate. (Data from Table 4.7d) 162

F1 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) 163

F2 Figure 4.9c: Strength of the Flange Cover Plate


Plate (Data from Table 4.9c) 164

F3 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 d d

Bolt’s hole diameter D d0

End distance e e1, e2

Shear Area Av Av

Effective net area Ae Ae

Elastic Modulus Z Wel

Plastic Modulus S 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 Commission’s 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 don’t 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 connection’s 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.

9

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 UK’s 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 Eurocode 3

Along the member X

Major Axis X Y

Minor Axis Y Z

Table 1.2: Comparison of frequently used symbols in BS 5950 and Eurocode 3

BS 5950 Eurocode 3

Area A A

Elastic modulus Z Wel

Plastic modulus S Wpl

Inertia about major axis Ix Iy

Inertia about minor axis Iy Iz

Warping constant H Iw

Torsion constant J It

Radius of gyration r i

Applied axial force F N

Resistance to axial force P NRd

Bending moment M M

Applied shear force Fv V

Shear Resistance Pv VRd

Yield stress py fy

17

Bending strength pb ᵡLTfy

Compressive strength pc

ᵡfy

2.4 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 2.3: 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 2.4: Load transmission in a

shear connection through friction for

preloaded (HSFG) bolts.

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.

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 beam-

column 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.

Figure 2.8: End-plate beam connections between elements of

different serial size. (a) Coplanarity of compression flange;

(b) Coplanarity of tension flange

27

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).

Figure 2.9: End-plate beam splices.

(a) Short end plate; (b) singly extended

end plates; (c) doubly extended end

plates. flange;

(b) Coplanarity of tension flange

28

In addition, the different types of splice plate connection are shown in Figure

2.11.

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

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 full-

strength 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

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

Figure 2.12: Typical splice positions in a braced frame.

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

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).

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

.

34

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.

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

.

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

Figure 3.1: Schematic Diagram of Project

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.

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 Design of Beam Splice Connection using BS 5950

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

on the arrangement of the

bolts which connects the

cover plate to the beam.

Therefore, this checking is

required at the flange

splice and web splice

connection.

a. Connections check:

Cl 6.2.2.4 (Table 29): Minimum edge, e2 and end

distances, e1 of bolts = 1.25D

Cl 6.2.2.5 : Maximum edge and end distances = 11tε

Cl 6.2.1.1 : Minimum spacing = 2.5d

Cl 6.2.1.2 : Maximum spacing = 14t

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,


42

Since preloaded bolts are

used, shear strength of the

bolt group is based on the

slip resistance of bolts.

Although the connection

is designed to be non-slip

under factored load, it is

required to make sure the

bolts have adequate

bearing capacity.

c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice

(Preloaded bolts are used)

Cl 6.4.2: Slip resistance of a preloaded bolt designed

under factored load, PsL = 0.9KsµPo

Cl 6.3.3.2: Bearing capacity of bolt, Pbb = dtppbb

Cl 6.3.3.3: Bearing capacity of the connected part

(cover plate), Pbs = kbsdtppbs but Pbs ≤ 0.5kbsetppbs


(beam flange), Pbs = kbsdtppbs but Pbs ≤ 0.5kbsetppbs

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

splice resist the shear. On

each side of the web splice,

the forces acting on the bolt

groups are the vertical

shear, F vs and torsional

moment, F tm. The resultant

d. Strength of web cover plate

Cl 4.2.3: Shear capacity of single cover plate,

Pv = 0.6pyAv

= 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

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

check is done. Also, bearing

resistance of the bolts is

checked.

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

e. Strength of the bolt group in web splice

(preloaded bolts are used)

Cl 6.4.2: Slip resistance at double shear= 2PsL



(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

cover plate used as well as

the arrangement of the



Both this checking is done

only on the flange cover

plate. There is no cover

plate on web beam for

column splice with end

prepared for bearing.


External Cover Plate Requirement

hfp ≥buc

tfp ≥tf,uc/2

bfp ≥buc

Connections check:

Cl 6.2.2.4 (Table 29): Minimum edge and end

distances of bolts = 1.25D

Cl 6.2.2.5 : Minimum edge and end distances = 11tε

Cl 6.2.1.1 : Minimum spacing = 2.5d

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

tension force or net

tension due to axial load

and moment, as shown at

figure above.


Cl 4.6.1: Tension capacity of cover plate,


c. Bolt suitability

Condition: Stress induced in column flange by tensile

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



(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 Design of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 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



Therefore, this checking is

required at the flange

splice and web splice

connection.


Cl 3.5 (Table 3.3):

Minimum edge and end distances of bolts = 1,2d0

Maximum edge and end distances = 4t + 40 mm

Minimum spacing = 2,2d0

Maximum spacing = the smaller of 14t or 200mm

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

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.


Choose category C connection:

Slip resistant at ultimate limit state.

Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance of cover plate,

Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /γM2

Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance of flange beam,

Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /γM2

49

Since preloaded bolts are

used, shear strength of the

bolt group is based on the

slip resistance of bolts.

Although the connection

is designed to be non-slip

under factored load, it is

required to make sure the

bolts have adequate

bearing resistance.

c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice

(Preloaded bolts are used)

Cl 3.9.1: Design slip resistance of a preloaded 8.8 bolt,

Fs,Rd = ( ks n μ/ γM3) Fp,C

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

cover plate, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2


beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

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

groups are the vertical

shear, F vs and torsional

moment, F tm. The resultant

force is expressed as:


Cl 6.2.6: Design (plastic) shear resistance of

single plate, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/√3)/ γM0

Cl 6.2.5: Bending moment resistance (about one

principal axis) of cover plate,

Mc,Rd = Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / γM2

50

FR = √ (F vs 2

+ F tm2)

The cover plate will need to

resist the maximum

resultant force which will

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.

Cl 6.2.6: Design (plastic) shear resistance of

beam web, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/√3)/ γM0

Cl 6.2.5: Bending moment resistance of beam web,

Mc,Rd = Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / γM2

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 αb fu d t / γM2

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 /γM0

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

cover plate used as well as

the arrangement of the



Both this checking is only

done on the flange cover

plate. There is no cover

plate on web beam for

column splice with end

prepared for bearing.


External Cover Plate Requirement

hfp ≥buc

tfp ≥tf,uc/2

bfp ≥buc

Connections check:

Cl 3.5 (Table 3.3):





*(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

that flange splice resist the

tension force or net

tension due to axial load

and moment, as shown at

figure above.


Cl 6.2.3 Design tension force resistance of cover plate,

Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /γM2 ;

where Anet = Afp,net = Afp – 2tfpdo

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 = αv fub A/γM2

d(ii). Bearing capacity of bolt




beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

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 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 cm

3

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 = 11tε

For web splice: 11tε = 11 x 8 x 1 = 88 mm > e1,w and e2,w

For flange splice: 11tε = 11 x 15 x 1 = 165 mm > e1,f and e2,f

Minimum spacing = 2.5d

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 6.2.2.4

(Table 29)

Cl 6.2.2.5

Cl 6.2.1.1

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 (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 mm

2

∴ pyAe = 355 x 1749 x 10-3

= 620.9 kN

Tension capacity of flange beam, Pt = pyAe

Ae = KeAn ≤ 1.2 An (Ke = 1.2 for grade S 275)

= 1.2 (152.9 x 13.3 – 2x 22 x 13.3)

= 1738 mm2 ≤ 1.2 An

∴ pyAe = 275 x 1738 x 10-3

= 478 kN

c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Preloaded bolts are

used)

Slip resistance of a preloaded bolt designed to be non-slip under

factored load,

PsL = 0.9KsµPo

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

= 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 4.6.1

Pt =

620.9 kN

(for cover

plate)

Cl 4.6.1

Pt =

478 kN

(for flange

beam)

Cl 6.4.2

PsL =

64.8 kN

(per bolt)

Cl 6.3.3.2

Cl 6.3.3.3

59

≤ 144.4 kN

∴Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,cover plate = 144.4 kN

Bearing capacity of the connected part (flange beam),

Pbs = kbsdtppbs , but Pbs ≤ 0.5kbsetppbs

Pbs = 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

∴Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,flange beam = 100.1 kN


= 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)

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

= 386.4 kN

For double plate, ∑ Pv = 2 x 386.4 = 772.8 kN

Moment capacity of cover plate, Mc = pyZgross

Zgross = bd2/6 = 8 x 340

2 /6 = 154133.3 mm

3

Mc = 355 x 154133.3 x 10-6

=54.7 kNm

Pbs =

144.4 kN

(per bolt on

cover plate)

Cl 6.3.3.3

Pbs =

100.1 kN

(per bolt on

flange

beam)

Cl 4.2.3

Pv =

772.8 kN

(for double

cover plate)

Cl 4.2.5.2

Mc =

54.7 kNm

(for cover

plate)

60

Shear capacity of Beam Web, Pv = 0.6pyAv,

where Av = 0.9(tpw)(lp – 4Dh)

Av = 0.9 (8.1) (454.7 – 4x22)

= 2673.2 mm2

Pv = 0.6 x 275 x 2673.2 x 10-3

= 441.1 kN

Moment capacity of Beam Web, Mc = pyZgross

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

= 2 x 64.8 = 129.6 kN

Bearing capacity of bolt (cover plate), Pbb = dtppbb

Pbb = 20 x 8 x 1000 x 10-3

= 160 kN

Bearing capacity of the connected part (double cover plate),

Pbs =2*kbsdtppbs but Pbs ≤ 2*0.5kbsetppbs

Pbs = 2 x 1.0 x 20 x 8 x 550 x 10-3

≤ 2 x 0.5 x 1 x 35 x 8 x 550 x10-3

= 176 kN ≥ 154.0 kN

∴Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,cover plate = 154 kN

Bearing capacity of connected part (beam web), Pbs = kbsdtppbs


Pbs = 1.0 x 20 x 8.1 x 460 x 10-3

≤ 0.5 x 35 x 8.1 x 460 x 10-3

= 74.5 kN ≤ 65.2 kN

∴Take smaller value of bearing capacity, Pbs,beam web = 65.2 kN

Cl 4.2.3

Pv =

441.1 kN

(at beam

web)

Cl 4.2.5.2

Mc =

308 kNm

(at beam

web)

Cl 6.4.2

2PsL =

129.6kN

Cl 6.3.3.2

Cl 6.3.3.3

Assume e

=35mm

Pbs =

154 kN

(for double

cover plate)

Cl 6.3.3.3

Assume e

= 35mm

Pbs =

65.2 kN

(for beam

web)

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 )]

Lv = 454.7 – (454.7−340

2) – 35

= 362.35 mm

Pr = 0.6 x 275 x 8.1 [362.35 + 1.2 (35 – 0.5x22)] x 10-3

= 522.8 kN

Cl 6.2.4

Pr = 522.8

kN

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 L’s 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 L’s is used to accommodate M20 bolts in

opposite positions on adjoining legs)

c. Connections check:



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 = 11tε

11tε = 11*14.2*0.88 = 137.5 mm < e1 and e2

Where ε = (275

355)0.5

= 0.88

Minimum spacing = 2.5d

2.5d = 2.5*20 = 50 mm < 160 mm

Cl 6.2.2.4

(Table 29)

Cl 6.2.2.5

Cl 6.2.1.1

64

Maximum spacing = 14t

14t = 14 x 14.2 = 198.8 mm > 150 mm and 160 mm

CHECK 2: Design Check – Flange splice check.

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)

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

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 6.2.1.2

Cl 4.6.1

Pt =

1052.9 kN

Cl 6.3.2.2

Ps =

91.9 kN

(per bolt per

shear plane)

65

Reduction factor = 9d

(8d + 3tpa ) < 1

= 9 x 20

(8∗20 + 3∗0) = 1.125 > 1

Joint length, Lj = 160 mm < 500mm

Therefore, there is no long join effect.

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

h. Bearing capacity of the connected part (flange beam)

Bearing capacity at beam web, Pbs =kbsdtppbs


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

Total bearing capacity = ∑ Pbs = 4 x 172 kN = 688 kN

i. Horizontal Shear Check

(Can be neglected)

∑Ps =

367.7 kN

(bolt

groups)

Cl 6.3.3.2

Cl 6.3.3.3

Pbs =

132 kN

(per bolt)

∑ Pbs =

528 kN

(bolt

groups)

Cl 6.3.3.3

Pbs =

172 kN

(per bolt)

∑ Pbs =

688 kN

(bolt

groups)

66

Table 4.1(c): Design Calculation of Beam Splice Connection using Eurocode 3

Design 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 cm

3


Web Cover Plates: 2/140 x 8 x 340


Bolts: M20 Grade HSFG bolts



67

Reference: Checking





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


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.

Cl 3.5

(Table 3.3)

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

= Nu,Rd = 0,9AnetFu /γM2

For flange cover plate S355,

A = btf = 150 x 15 = 2250 mm2

Anet = 2250 – (2 x 22 x 15) = 1590 mm2

∴ Nt,Rd = 0.9 x 1590 x 510 x 10-3

/ 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 = 0.9 x 1448.4 x 430 x 10-3

/ 1.25 = 448.4 kN

c. Strength of bolt group in flange splice (Preloaded bolts are

used)

Design slip resistance of a preloaded 8.8 bolt, Fs,Rd

Where Fs,Rd = ( ks n μ/ γM3) 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 (137.2) = 43.9 kN (per bolt)

Bearing resistance per bolt for cover plate, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

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

1.25 x10

-3

= 243.27 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,

αb = min (αd ; 𝑓 𝑢𝑏

𝑓𝑢; 1.0)

αd = e1 / 3d0 = 35/ 3x22 = 0.795

𝑓 𝑢𝑏

𝑓𝑢 =

800

510 = 1.57

Cl 6.2.3

Nt,Rd =

583.8 kN

(for cover

plate)

Nt,Rd =

448.4 kN

(for beam

flange)

Cl 3.9.1

Fs,Rd =

43.9kN

(per bolt)

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

Fb,Rd

=243.27 kN

(per bolt on

cover plate)

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

69

Bearing resistance per bolt for beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

Fb,Rd = 2.5 x 0.795 x 430 x 20 x 13.3

1.25 x10

-3

= 181.86 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,


𝑓𝑢; 1.0)

αd = e1 / 3d0 = 35/ 3x22 = 0.795

𝑓 𝑢𝑏

𝑓𝑢 =

800

430 = 1.86


= 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)

Design (plastic) shear resistance of single plate, Vpl, Rd = Av(fy/√3)/

γM0

Av = ῃ ∑(hwtw) = 1.0 (340 – 4x22) (8) = 2016 mm2

Vpl, Rd = 2016 (355/√3

1.0) x 10

-3 = 413.2 kN

For double plate, Vpl, Rd = 2 x 413.2 = 826.4 kN

Bending moment resistance of cover plate, Mc,Rd

= Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / γM2

(About one principal axis)

Fb,Rd

=181.86 kN

(per bolt on

beam

flange)

Cl 6.2.6

Vpl, Rd =

826.4 kN

(for double

cover plate)

Cl 6.2.5

70

Wpl = bd2/4 = 8 x 340

2 / 4 = 231200 mm

3

Mpl,Rd = 231200 x 355

1.0 x 10

-6 = 82.08 kNm

Design (plastic) shear resistance of beam’s web, Vpl, Rd

= Av(fy/√3)/ γM0

Av = ῃ ∑(hwtw) = 1.0 (454.7 – 4x22) (8.1) = 2970.3 mm2

Vpl, Rd = 2933.6 (275/√3

1.0) x 10

-3 = 471.6 kN

Bending moment resistance of beam’s web, Mc,Rd

= Mpl,Rd = Wplfy / γM2

Mpl,Rd = 1290000 x 275

1.0 x 10

-6 = 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 αb fu d t / γM2

Fb,Rd = 2.5 x 0.75 x 510 x 20 x 8

1.25 x 10

-3

= 122.4 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,


𝑓𝑢; 1.0)

αd = e1 / 3d0 = 49.5/ (3x22) = 0.75

[Assume e1 = √(352 + 35

2)= 49.5 mm]

𝑓 𝑢𝑏

𝑓𝑢 =

800

510 = 1.57

Mpl,Rd =

82.08 kNm

(for cover

plate)

Cl 6.2.6

Vpl, Rd =

471.6 kN

(at beam’s

web)

Cl 6.2.5:

Mpl,Rd =

354.8 kNm

(at beam’s

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

Bearing resistance of bolt for beam web, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

Fb,Rd = 2.5 x 1.0 x 430 x 20 x 8 .1

1.25 x 10

-3

= 139.3 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,


𝑓𝑢; 1.0)

αd = e1 / 3d0 = 96.6/ 3x22 = 1.46

[Assume e1 = √(352 + 90

2)= 96.6 mm]

𝑓 𝑢𝑏

𝑓𝑢 =

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 /γM0

Anv = twLv

= 8.1 x [454.7 – (454.7−340

2) – 35 ]

= 2935 mm2

Veff,1,Rd =

(1 / √3) x 275 x 2935

1.0 x 10

-3

= 466 kN

Fb,Rd =

206.4 kN

(for double

plate per

bolt)

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

Fb,Rd =

139.3 kN

(per bolt at

beam web)

Cl 3.10.2

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 L’s 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 L’s is used to accommodate M20 bolts in

opposite positions on adjoining legs)

Length ≥ 0.5 D1

c. Connections check:



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

Design tension force resistance of cover plate, Nt,Rd = 0,9AnetFu

/γM2 ;

where Anet = Afp,net = Afp – 2tfpdo

Afp = btf = 250 x 12 = 3000 mm2

Anet = 3000 – (2 x 12 x 22) = 2472 mm2

Nt,Rd = 0.9 x 2472 x 510

1.25 x 10

-3

= 907.7 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

Use type A connection (Bearing type)

Shear resistance per shear plane for individual bolt

= Fv,Rd = αv fub A/γM2

Fv,Rd = 0.6 x 800 x 245

1.25 x 10

-3

= 94.08 kN

∴ Total shear capacity = ∑Fv,Rd = (4 x 94.08) = 376.3 kN

Cl 6.2.3

Nt,Rd =

907.7kN

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

Fv,Rd =

94.08 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 αb fu d t / γM2

Fb,Rd = 2.5 x 0.61 x 510 x 20 x 12

1.25 x 10

-3

= 149.3 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,

αb = min (αd ; f ub

fu; 1.0)

αd = e1 / 3d0 = 40 / 3x22 = 0.61

f ub

fu =

800

510 = 1.57

Bearing resistance per bolt for beam flange, Fb,Rd = k1 αb fu d t / γM2

Fb,Rd = 2.5 x 0.76 x 430 x 20 x 18.7

1.25 x 10

-3

= 244.5 kN

Where

k1 = 2.5,

αb = min (αd ; f ub

fu; 1.0)

αd = 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)

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

Fb,Rd =

149.2 kN

(per bolt at

cover plate)

Cl 3.6.1

(Table 3.4)

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)

plate

thickness

t (mm)

flange plate flange beam PSL Pbs (kN)

Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) (kN) cover

plate

flange

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)

t

(mm)

double plate beam web P SL P bs (kN) block

failure

Pr

(kN)

P v (kN) M c

(kNm) P v (kN)

M c

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

8 772.93 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:

Figure 4.2a (i): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data

from Table 4.2a (i))

Figure 4.2a (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.2a (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)

Cover Plate thickness (mm)

Strength at Flange Splice

Pt(c.plate) Pt (f.beam) Psl Pbs(c.plate) Pbs(f.beam)

F.Beam Tension capacity, Pt

Slip Resistance, PSL

F.Beam Bearing Capacity, Pbs

79

The graph for the strength of web splice is shown below:

Figure 4.2a (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2a (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)


Strength at Web Splice

Pv(c.plate) Mc(c.plate) Pv(w beam)Mc(w beam) Psl Pbs (c.plate)Pbs (web beam) Pr

W.Beam Shear capacity, Pv

W.Beam Moment capacity, MC


C.Plate Momentcapacity, MC

W.BeamBearing capacity, Pbs

W.Beam Block Failure, Pr

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)

Fig 4.2a (ii): Enlarged Graph of Strength Capacity vs Plate Thickness at Web Splice

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)

Plate thickness (mm)


Mc(c.plate) Pv( web beam) Mc(web beam) Psl

Pbs (c.plate) Pbs (web beam) Pr

W.Beam Tension capacity, Pt




W.Beam Bearing capacity, Pbs

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 beam’s flange tension capacity, Pt,

slip resistance, PSL , beam’s 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 beam’s web shear capacity, Pv,

moment capacity, Mc, bearing capacity, Pbs , bolt’s 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)

plate

thickness,

t (mm)

cover plate flange beam P SL P bs (kN)

Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) (kN) cover

plate

flange

beam

16 1865.60 662.29 1417.87 389.91 64.80 154.00 87.75

18 2098.80 745.07 1417.87 389.91 64.80 173.25 87.75

20 2332.00 827.86 1417.87 389.91 64.80 192.50 87.75

22 2565.20 910.65 1417.87 389.91 64.80 211.75 87.75

24 2798.40 993.43 1417.87 389.91 64.80 231.00 87.75

Table 4.2b (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at web

splice (2/140 x 8 x 340)

t

(mm)

cover plate web beam P SL P bs (kN) block

failure

Pr

(kN)

P v (kN) M c

(kNm) P v (kN)

M c

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

8 772.93 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.

Figure 4.2b (i): Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data from

Table 4.2b (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)







84

Next, the graph for the strength of web splice is shown below.

Figure 4.2b (ii): Graph of strength vs plate thickness at web splice (Data from Table

4.2b (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pv(c.plate) Mc(c.plate) Pv(web beam) Mc(web beam)

Psl Pbs (c.plate) Pbs (web beam) Pr

C.Plate Shear capacity, Pv

W.Beam Shear capacity, Pv



C.Plate Bearing capacity, Pbs




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. Beam Size Flange Cover Plate Web Cover Plate

I 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. 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


plate

thickness,

t (mm)

flange plate flange beam P SL P bs (kN)

Ae (mm2) Pt (kN)

Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) (kN) cover

plate

flange

beam

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

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)

t

(mm)


failure

P v (kN) M c

(kNm)

P v

(kN)

M c

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam Pr (kN)

8 650.25 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

thickness

t, (mm)


Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) (kN) cover

plate

flange

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)

t

(mm)


failure

P v (kN) M c

(kNm)

P v

(kN)

M c

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam Pr (kN)

8 803.61 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


plate

thickness,

t (mm)


Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) Ae

(mm2)

Pt (kN) (kN) cover

plate

flange

beam

16 2041.60 724.77 2020.48 555.63 64.80 154.00 110.29

18 2296.80 815.36 2020.48 555.63 64.80 173.25 110.29

20 2552.00 905.96 2020.48 555.63 64.80 192.50 110.29

22 2807.20 996.56 2020.48 555.63 64.80 211.75 110.29

24 3062.40 1087.15 2020.48 555.63 64.80 231.00 110.29

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 P SL P bs (kN)

block

failure

t,

(mm)

P v

(kN)

M c

(kNm)

P v

(kN)

M c

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam Pr (kN)

8 404.87 22.91 260.91 207.35 129.60 154.00 63.60 337.61

10 506.09 28.64 260.91 207.35 129.60 192.50 63.60 337.61

12 607.31 34.36 260.91 207.35 129.60 231.00 63.60 337.61

14 708.52 40.09 260.91 207.35 129.60 269.50 63.60 337.61

16 809.74 45.82 260.91 207.35 129.60 308.00 63.60 337.61

Refer graph at Appendix A6: Figure 4.2e (ii)

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 P t Ps P bs (kN)

(mm) mm2 kN kN

cover

plate

flange

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:

Figure 4.3a: Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3a)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)

Cover Plate Thickness (mm)


Pt (c.plate)

Ps (bolt)

Pbs (c.plate)

Pbs (fl beam)

Shear Capacity of bolt, PS



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 column’s 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



(mm) mm2 kN kN

cover

plate

flange

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


Figure 4.3b: Graph of Strength vs Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3b)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pt (c.plate)

Ps (bolt)

Pbs (c.plate)

Pbs (fl beam)




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

column’s 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 column’s flange

No. Column Size Flange Cover Plate

I 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

I. 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)


(mm) mm2 kN kN

cover

plate

flange

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,

t

(mm)

A net P t Ps P bs (kN)

(mm2) (kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

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

Refer graph at Appendix B2: Figure 4.3d

IV. For Column 203 x 203 x 86 UC,

Table 4.3e: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange


plate thickness,

t

(mm)

A net P t Ps P bs (kN)

mm2 kN kN

cover

plate

flange

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 flange beam F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

t (mm) A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 1696.00 622.77 1448.37 448.42 43.90 259.49 181.86

18 1908.00 700.62 1448.37 448.42 43.90 291.92 181.86

20 2120.00 778.46 1448.37 448.42 43.90 324.36 181.86

22 2332.00 856.31 1448.37 448.42 43.90 356.80 181.86

24 2544.00 934.16 1448.37 448.42 43.90 389.23 181.86

(*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 web beam F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

block

failure

t

(mm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M pl,Rd

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

Veff,1,Rd

(kN)

8 826.40 82.08 471.59 354.75 87.80 172.99 73.84 466.00

10 1033.00 102.60 471.59 354.75 87.80 216.24 73.84 466.00

12 1239.59 123.11 471.59 354.75 87.80 259.49 73.84 466.00

14 1446.19 143.63 471.59 354.75 87.80 302.74 73.84 466.00

16 1652.79 164.15 471.59 354.75 87.80 345.98 73.84 466.00

100


Figure 4.4a (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4a (i))

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

16 18 20 22 24

Cap

acit

y/St

ren

gth

(kN

)



Nt,Rd (c.plate) Nt,Rd(f.beam) Fs,Rd

Fb,Rd (c.plate) Fb,Rd (f.beam)

C.Plate Tension Resistance, Nt,d

F.Beam Tension Resistance, Nt,Rd

Slip Resistance, FS,Rd

F.Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd

C.Plate Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd

101


Figure 4.4a (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4a (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

8 10 12 14 16

Ste

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



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

W.Beam Block Failure, Veff,1,Rd

C.Plate Shear Resistance, Vpl,Rd


W.Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd


W.Beam Moment Capacity, Mpl,Rd

C.Plate Moment Capacity, Mpl,Rd

W.Beam Shear Resistance, Vpl,Rd

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)

Fig 4.4a (ii): Enlarged Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



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







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 beam’s flange tension force

resistance, Nt,d, beam’s 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 beam’s 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


plate

thickness, t

(mm)

flange plate flange beam F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 1696.00 622.77 1181.56 365.81 43.90 259.49 149.05

18 1908.00 700.62 1181.56 365.81 43.90 291.92 149.05

20 2120.00 778.46 1181.56 365.81 43.90 324.36 149.05

22 2332.00 856.31 1181.56 365.81 43.90 356.80 149.05

24 2544.00 934.16 1181.56 365.81 43.90 389.23 149.05

Table 4.4b (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at Web


t

(mm)

double plate web beam F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN) block

failure

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

Veff,1,Rd

(kN)

8 826.40 82.08 436.57 302.50 87.80 172.99 69.28 434.28

10 1033.00 102.60 436.57 302.50 87.80 216.24 69.28 434.28

12 1239.59 123.11 436.57 302.50 87.80 259.49 69.28 434.28

14 1446.19 143.63 436.57 302.50 87.80 302.74 69.28 434.28

16 1652.79 164.15 436.57 302.50 87.80 345.98 69.28 434.28

105


Figure 4.4b (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4b (i))

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

16 18 20 22 24

Cap

acit

y/St

ren

gth

(kN

)

Plate Thickness (mm)








106


Figure 4.4b (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4b (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

8 10 12 14 16

Ste

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)













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 beam’s flange and web

No: Beam Size Flange Cover Plate Web Cover Plate

I 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,



plate

thickness,

t (mm)


A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 2016.00 740.28 2168.00 671.21 43.90 259.49 218.78

18 2268.00 832.81 2168.00 671.21 43.90 291.92 218.78

20 2520.00 925.34 2168.00 671.21 43.90 324.36 218.78

22 2772.00 1017.88 2168.00 671.21 43.90 356.80 218.78

24 3024.00 1110.41 2168.00 671.21 43.90 389.23 218.78

Refer graph at Appendix C1: Figure 4.4c (i)


flange splice (cover plate140 x 8 x 300)

t

(mm)

double plate beam web F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

Block

failure

(web)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M pl,Rd

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

Veff,1,Rd

(kN)

8 695.22 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)

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

thickness flange plate flange beam F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

t (mm) A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 2016.00 740.28 2028.44 628.01 43.90 259.49 214.68

18 2268.00 832.81 2028.44 628.01 43.90 291.92 214.68

20 2520.00 925.34 2028.44 628.01 43.90 324.36 214.68

22 2772.00 1017.88 2028.44 628.01 43.90 356.80 214.68

24 3024.00 1110.41 2028.44 628.01 43.90 389.23 214.68

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 F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN) block

failure

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

Veff,1,Rd

(kN)

8 531.25 44.38 397.90 332.75 87.80 172.99 82.96 392.56

10 664.07 55.47 397.90 332.75 87.80 216.24 82.96 392.56

12 796.88 66.56 397.90 332.75 87.80 259.49 82.96 392.56

14 929.70 77.66 397.90 332.75 87.80 302.74 82.96 392.56

16 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)

111

IV. For Beam 305 x 165x 54 UB,

Table 4.4e (i): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at


plate

thickness,

t (mm)


A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN)

A net

(mm2)

Nt,rd

(kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 1856.00 681.52 1683.73 521.28 43.90 259.49 187.33

18 2088.00 766.71 1683.73 521.28 43.90 291.92 187.33

20 2320.00 851.90 1683.73 521.28 43.90 324.36 187.33

22 2552.00 937.09 1683.73 521.28 43.90 356.80 187.33

24 2784.00 1022.28 1683.73 521.28 43.90 389.23 187.33

Refer graph at Appendix C5: Figure 4.4e (i):

Table 4.4e (ii): Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at


t (mm)

double plate beam web F s,Rd F b,Rd (kN)

block

failure

(web)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c,Rd

(kNm) (kN)

cover

plate

web

beam

Veff,1,Rd

(kN)

8 432.87 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)

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 F b,rd (kN)

(mm) (mm2) (kN) (kN)

cover

plate

flange

beam

16 4096 1504.05 94.08 199.10 244.45

18 4608 1692.06 94.08 223.99 244.45

20 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


Figure 4.5a: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5a)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)

Cover plate thickness (mm)


Nt.Rd (c.plate)

Fv,Rd (bolt)

Fb,Rd (c.plate)

Fb,Rd (fl beam)

Bolt Shear Resistance , Fv,Rd


Fl. Beam Bearing Resistance, Fb,Rd

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




cover

plate

flange

beam

16 4096 1504.05 94.08 199.10 326.80

18 4608 1692.06 94.08 223.99 326.80

20 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


Figure 4.5b: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5b)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Nt.Rd (c.plate)

Fv,Rd (bolt)

Fb,Rd (c.plate)

Fb,Rd (fl beam)



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 column’s flange

No: Column Size Flange Cover Plate

I 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

I. 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. For Column 356 x 368 x 202 UC,

Table 4.5c: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange




cover

plate

flange

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




cover

plate

flange

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. For Column 203 x 203 x 86 UC,

Table 4.5e: Strength of connection with increase of cover plate thickness at flange



(mm) mm2 kN kN

cover

plate

flange

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

beam’s flange

Beam Size Beam’s 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

beam’s flange

Beam Size Beam’s 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

beam’s web

Beam Size Beam’s 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

beam’s web

Beam Size Beam’s 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 Web Cover Plate

Tension Capacity 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)

P v

(kN)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c

(kNm)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

8

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

16 662.3 622.8 154.0 259.5 1545.9 1652.8 109.4 164.2 308.0 346.0

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

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)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)


Strength of web and flange cover plates

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)

Shear capacity at web cover plate

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

BS

BS

BS

BS

BS

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




thickness,t

(mm)

Pt

(kN)

Nt,rd

(kN)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

P v

(kN)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c

(kNm)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

8

650.2 695.2 42.6 63.9 154.0 173.0

10

812.8 869.0 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

16 787.2 740.3 154.0 259.5 1300.5 1390.4 85.2 127.8 308.0 346.0

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





thickness,t

(mm)

Pt

(kN)

Nt,rd

(kN)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

P v

(kN)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c

(kNm)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

8 803.6 531.3 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

16 787.2 740.3 154.0 259.5 1607.2 1062.5 59.2 88.8 308.0 346.0

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


` Flange Cover plate Web Cover Plate



thickness,t

(mm)

Pt

(kN)

Nt,rd

(kN)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

P v

(kN)

V pl,Rd

(kN)

M c

(kNm)

M pl,Rd

(kNm)

P bs

(kN)

F b,Rd

(kN)

8

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

16 724.8 681.5 154.0 259.5 809.7 865.7 45.8 68.7 308.0 346.0

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 column’s flange

Column Size Bearing capacity at column’s 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 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

130

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)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)


Capacity of flange cover plates

Pt, fl plate (BS) Nt,Rd fl plate (EC3)

Pbs, fl plate (BS) Fb,Rd, fl plate (EC3)

EC3

EC3

BS

BS

131

II. For flange cover plate 2/300 x 16 x 525 used on Column 305 x 305 x 118

UC,

Table 4.9b: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/300 x 16 x 525) strength


Flange Cover plate



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. For flange cover plate 2/250 x 12 x 525 used on Column 254 x 254 x 132

UC,

Table 4.9c: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/250 x 12 x 525) strength


Flange Cover plate




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. For flange cover plate 2/200 x 16 x 525 used on Column 203 x 203 x 86

UC,

Table 4.9d: Comparison of flange cover plate (2/200 x 16 x 525) strength


Flange Cover plate




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 BS 5950 Eurocode 3

Types of bolt

Strength (kN)

Ordinary bolts

M20 Grade 8.8

(Column splice connection)

HSFG bolts

M20 Grade HSFG

(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,

Pt = pyAe

Cl 6.2.3 Tension force resistance,

Nt,Rd = 0,9Anetfu /γM2

py = 275 N/mm2 for S 275*

= 355 N/mm2 for S 355*

= 460 N/mm2

for S 460*

(* Thickness of the element ≤ 16 mm)

fu = 430 N/mm2 for S 275*

= 510 N/mm2

S 355*

= 550 N/mm2

for S 460*

(* Thickness of the element ≤ 16 mm)

Ae = KeAn ≤ 1.2 An

An = Ac.plate – Abolt holes

Ke = 1.2 for grade S 275

= 1.1 for grade S 355

= 1.0 for grade S 460

Anet = Acover plate – Abolt holes

No γM2 γM2 = 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 (γM2 = 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

Figure 4.2c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice (Data

from Table 4.2c (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)




C.Plate Tension capacity, Pt




C.Plate Bearing Capacity, Pbs

143

APPENDIX A2

Figure 4.2c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2c (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)






W.Beam shear capacity, Pv



C.Plate Moment capacity, MC



144

APPENDIX A3

Figure 4.2d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.2d (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)









145

APPENDIX A4

Figure 4.2d (ii): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2d (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pv(c.plate) Mc(c.plate) Pv(web beam)

Mc(web beam) Psl Pbs (c.plate)





C.Plate Moment capacity, MC




146

APPENDIX A5

Figure 4.2e (i): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange

Splice (Data from Table 4.2e (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)









147

APPENDIX A6

Figure 4.2e (ii): Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.2e (ii))

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

8 10 12 14 16

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)













148

APPENDIX B1

Figure 4.3c: Graph of Strength Capacity vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3c)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

3500.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pt (c.plate)

Ps (bolt)

Pbs (c.plate)

Pbs (fl beam)




149

APPENDIX B2

Figure 4.3d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3d)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

12 14 16 18 20

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pt (c.plate)

Ps (bolt)

Pbs (c.plate)

Pbs (fl beam)


C.Plate Bearing capacity, PbsF.Beam Bearing Capacity, Pbs

150

APPENDIX B3

Figure 4.3e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.3e)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

12 14 16 18 20

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Pt (c.plate)

Ps (bolt)

Pbs (c.plate)

Pbs (fl beam)




151

APPENDIX C1

Figure 4.4c (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4c (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

16 18 20 22 24

Cap

acit

y/St

ren

gth

(kN

)










152

APPENDIX C2

Figure 4.4c (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4c (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

8 10 12 14 16

Ste

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)












153

APPENDIX C3

Figure 4.4d (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4d (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

16 18 20 22 24

Cap

acit

y/St

ren

gth

(kN

)









154

APPENDIX C4

Figure 4.4d (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4d (ii))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

8 10 12 14 16

Ste

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)












155

APPENDIX C5

Figure 4.4e (i): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.4e (i))

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

16 18 20 22 24

Cap

acit

y/St

ren

gth

(kN

)









156

APPENDIX C6

Figure 4.4e (ii): Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Web Splice

(Data from Table 4.4e (ii))

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

8 10 12 14 16

Ste

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)














157

APPENDIX D1

Figure 4.5c: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5c)

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Nt.Rd (c.plate)

Fv,Rd (bolt)

Fb,Rd (c.plate)

Fb,Rd (fl beam)




158

APPENDIX D2

Figure 4.5d: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5d)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

12 14 16 18 20

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Nt.Rd (c.plate)

Fv,Rd (bolt)

Fb,Rd (c.plate)

Fb,Rd (fl beam)



159

APPENDIX D3

Figure 4.5e: Graph of Strength vs Cover Plate Thickness at Flange Splice

(Data from Table 4.5e)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

12 14 16 18 20

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

(kN

)



Nt.Rd (c.plate)

Fv,Rd (bolt)

Fb,Rd (c.plate)

Fb,Rd (fl beam)



160

APPENDIX E1

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)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)


Capacity of web and flange cover plates

Pt, fl plate (BS) Nt,Rd fl plate (EC3) Pbs, fl plate (BS)




Shear capacity at web cover

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

BS

BS

BS

BS

BS

161

APPENDIX E2

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)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)








EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

BS

BS

BS

BS

BS

162

APPENDIX E3

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)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)








EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

EC3

BS

BS

BS

BS

BS

163

APPENDIX F1

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)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)





EC3

EC3

BS

BS

164

APPENDIX F2

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)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)





EC3

EC3

BS

BS

165

APPENDIX F3

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)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

16 18 20 22 24

Stre

ngt

h/C

apac

ity

of

pla

te (

kN)





EC3

EC3

BS

BS

Law Lichen Ba 070063 d 10 Ttt

Documents

Transcript of Law Lichen Ba 070063 d 10 Ttt