SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002

Sustainable Structures
ISSN: 2789-3111 (Print); ISSN: 2789-312X (Online)
http://www.sustain-dpl.com/picnews.asp?id=155
DOI: 10.54113/j.sust.2021.000002

Semi-rigid behaviour of stainless steel beam-to-column bolted connections

Mahmud Ashrafa,*, Mohammad Jobaer Hasanb, Safat Al-Deenb
aSchool of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong Waurn Ponds 3216, Australia.
bSchool of Engineering and IT, University of New South Wales, Canberra 2600, Australia.
*
Corresponding Author: Mahmud Ashraf; Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Stainless steel is increasingly used in structural applications but

there is still significant lack of experimental evidence on the moment-rotation
(M-) behaviour of moment resisting beam-to-column connections. The
current paper presents experimental test results obtained from full scale tests
conducted on three widely used connection types i.e., double web angle
(DWA), top seat angle (TSA) and top seat with double web angle (TS-DWA)
connection. Considered beam, column and angle sections were fabricated
using austenitic stainless steel plates and M20 high strength bolts were used
for connection assembly. M- curves for all connections were carefully
recorded and were used to determine initial stiffness (Ki) and moment capacity
(M20mrad) for each of the connections. Eurocode 3 guidelines were used to
check the classification i.e., whether or not the connections were semi-rigid in
nature. Although the considered DWA connection failed to achieve partial-
strength, both TSA and TS-DWA connections showed obvious semi-rigid
nature despite the connection capacities were limited by bolts. In addition,
extensive ductility of stainless steel ensured that all three connection types
achieved a minimum connection rotation of 30 mrad, which is specified by
FEMA as a requirement for earthquake design of ordinary moment frames.

Keywords: Stainless-steel; semi-rigid connection; moment-rotation

behaviour; beam-to-column connection; full scale test; partially-restrained
connection.

1 Introduction
Beam-to-column connections are often considered as one of the most critical elements in bare
metallic frame construction as the overall structural performance is highly influenced by the connection
response. Ordinary steel construction has been dominating the construction field for centuries and
significant research evidence are readily available on design, integrity and performance of various
structural elements such as beams, columns and connections. Use of stainless steel in structural
applications is relatively new. Stainless steel exhibits nonlinear stress-strain response followed by
significant strain hardening, which is not appropriately considered in the current design codes, resulting
in conservative predictions for member resistances. Emergence of new stainless steel alloys such as
duplex and lean duplex offer high strength and corrosion resistance in addition to other obvious
advantages of metallic construction [1-3]. Significant research on stainless steel members has been
reported in the recent past [4-9], but research on beam-to-column connections is still scarce.
The behaviour of stainless-steel bolted connections under axial loading has recently been reported
by several researchers. Experimental and numerical investigations were conducted on cover plate
connections made from austenitic grade [10-11]; effect of curling on bolted connections has been
investigated through a comprehensive parametric study [12]; experimental and numerical investigations
were reported on the effect of net section on connection response and its bearing failure mode [13-14].
Numerical investigations were reported on bolted connections using SS angles and gusset plates [15].
000002-1
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
However, all reported research predominantly focused on the in-plane connection resistance and the
corresponding failure modes. In recent times, few studies reported investigations on the moment-
rotation (M-) behaviour of SS beam-to-column connections [16,17]. FE models for stainless steel
flange cleat connections were developed based on experimental results reported for carbon steel
connections, and analytical models were proposed to capture connection M- behaviour. An
experimental study has been reported on small scale specimens for end plate connections with and
without extended end plates, and for top-seat connections with and without double web angles [18];
obtained results were later compared against Eurocode 3 [19] guidelines. The effects of combined
tension and shear on stainless steel bolts were investigated recently – both experimentally and
numerically [20].
Full-scale experimental tests were conducted on three widely used connection types such as double
web angle (DWA), top-seat angle (TSA) and top-seat with double web angle (TS-DWA) as part of a
recent PhD research in the University of New South Wales [21]. In addition to full scale testing,
extensive parametric analysis was conducted using FE modelling technique and analytical models were
proposed to simulate M- behaviour of considered beam-to-column connections. This paper presents
an overview of the M- behaviour of all three full scale connection specimens, and assessment of the
observed behaviour against Eurocode 3 classification system for semi-rigid behaviour.

2 M-φ behaviour of beam-to-column connections and their classifications

Fig. 1. M-φ response of fully restrained (FR), partially restrained (PR) and simple connections [22]
Beam-to-column connections are typically subject to axial force, shear force, and bending moment
for its in-plane behaviour. However, the deformations caused by axial and shear forces are usually small
when compared to that caused by bending moment. Small deformation typically means it is significantly
less than the deformation experienced by the gravity action of bending dominated connections. Since
the analysis of semi-rigid connection is a complicated and iterative process, the effect of axial and shear
can be neglected to make the structural analysis less cumbersome. However, serviceability limits
including lateral sway of structures should be appropriately checked for axial and shear forces to ensure
satisfactory performance of structural systems. For practical purposes, only the effect of moment on the
rotational deformation of connections is considered in connection classification. Over the last three
decades, significant research activities were reported on semi-rigid connections to accurately
incorporate this observed behaviour in structural design. M-φ curves are used to classify connections
as simple, semi-rigid or partially restrained (PR) and fully restrained (FR) based on their stiffness,
strength and ductility. AISC [22] presents an up-to-date and straightforward classification scheme as
shown in Fig. 1, where Mp,beam refers to the plastic moment capacity of connected beam and Mn refers
to the peak nominal moment obtained from test; other symbols used in Fig. 1 are explained in Table 1.

Table 1. AISC requirements for semi-rigid or partially restrained connections [22].

000002-2
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002

Stiffness Strength Ductility

Must be adequate to resist Satisfies rotation demand at the

where Ks is secant stiffness at moment demand by implied strength limit state or φu = 0.03rad.
service load, L and EI are the design loads. Rotation capacity φu can be
length and bending rigidity of If the moment-rotation response calculated rotation corresponds to
connected beam, respectively. does not exhibit a peak load, connection moment dropped to
then strength can be taken as 0.8Mn. If no loss in strength
where Ms is moment at service the moment at a rotation of 0.02 observed beyond 0.03rad then φu =
load (N-mm) and φs is the rotation rad. 0.03rad.
at service load (rad).

On the contrary, Eurocode 3 [19] defines connections by their stiffness or strength. Eurocode 3
recommends that rigid frame should be analysed and designed as either braced or unbraced frames.
Braced frames are defined as a framing system, which reduces the horizontal displacement by at least
80%. A connection is classified as rigid connection if the initial stiffness Ki obtained from the M-φ
curve meets the following conditions: Ki  8EIb/Lb for braced frames and Ki > 25EIb/Lb for unbraced
frames. However, if Ki is equal or less than 0.5Kb, the connection is considered as nominally pinned.
Initial stiffness of a connection lying between these two extremes is classified as semi-rigid as shown
in Fig. 2. The beam stiffness Kb can be taken as Kb = EIb/Lb, where EIb is the flexural stiffness of the
beam and Lb is the beam span length.

Fig. 2. M-φ characteristics of connections according to EC3 [19].

In addition, considering the connection strength, Eurocode 3 [19] specifies three types of
connections such as full-strength, partial-strength and nominally pinned connections. If the ultimate
moment capacity of the connection Mu is not less than the beam plastic moment Mp, beam, the connection
is classified as a full-strength connection, whereas if Mu ≤ 0.25Mp, beam, the connection is classified as
nominally pinned connection. When Mu of a connection lies between the limits specified for nominally
pinned connection and full-strength connection, the connection is classified as partial-strength (semi-
rigid). Analysis and design of semi-rigid connection is an iterative process, and the strength requirement
is not as strict as that for the full-strength connection. The strength of connection may sometimes be
higher than those of the connected beams. However, semi-rigid connection must have the rotational
capacities that meet rotational demands similar to those for simple connections. These criteria are also
true for the interior connections in a structural frame.

3 Background of partially restrained (semi-rigid) connection

000002-3
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
Partially restrained (PR) or semi-rigid connections exhibit an intermediate level of rigidity that lies
somewhere between a simple shear connection and a fully rigid (FR) moment connection. PR moment
connections are permitted upon evidence that the connections to be used are capable of furnishing, as a
minimum, a predictable percentage of full end restraint. A beam line approach usually characterises the
relationship between the end moment and the end rotation for a given beam. As illustrated in Fig. 3, a
simple shear connection has the zero-end moment corresponds to maximum end rotation, however, the
FR moment connection shows the fixed-end moment corresponds to a zero end rotation. If the M-φ
curve of the given PR moment connection, for instance - type A or B, are superimposed on the beam
line as shown in Fig. 3, the point of intersection of the connection M-φ curve with the beam line defines
the beam end moment and the required strength for which the PR moment connection must be designed.
Since the exact location of this intersection point is largely dependent on test results and experience
with similar situations, appropriate use of PR moment connections is dominated by the actual or
accurately predicted M-φ behaviour of the connection in consideration.
FR moment
connection

Fixed End PR moment

Beam Line
Moment connection

B
End Moment

Simple shear
connection
A B

Rotation
Fig. 3. PR moment connection behaviour [22]
Design guidelines provided by the AISC [22] clearly recommend that design of PR connections
would require the M-φ characteristics, which should then be incorporated into the analysis and member
design. Such connections must be designed for the combined effect of moment and shear such that their
rotational capacity satisfies the rotational demand at the strength limit state. Typical M-φ curves for
many PR connections are available from one of several databases [23-26] but it is worth noting that the
tabulated M-φ curves should not be readily extrapolated to sizes or conditions beyond those used to
develop the database because the failure modes may be significantly different. When the connections
to be modelled do not fall within the range of the databases, it may be possible to determine the response
characteristics from tests, simple component modelling, or finite element studies from the relevant
resources. Accurate knowledge on semi-rigid nature of stainless steel connections would require
extensive full scale testing to gather reliable experimental evidence on their M-φ behaviour. This paper
presents one such experimental effort to investigate the M-φ response of typical beam-to-column
connections such as DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections produced from austenitic stainless steel.

4 Connection configurations
Connection components and configurations considered in the current study were similar to those
used in widely cited research on carbon steel beam-to-column connections in 1980s [27-29]. Results
from these studies have been used in numerous analytical and numerical research related to beam-to-
column connection. Azizinamini et al. [28] considered a pair of beams connected by a stub column and
the load was applied at the centre of the stub column by using a hydraulic actuator of a 254 kN (55 kip)
capacity. The overall length of the beam was considered to be 6.10 m to replicate a typical occupancy
in a residential building framing system. The column section was reasonably heavy and compact so that
the failure concentrated on the connection element. In the current study, built-up sections resembling
the dimensions of AISC sections W14×38 and W12×96 were fabricated using stainless steel plates to
act as beam and column respectively. Connecting elements such as angles and bolts were collected from
000002-4
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
the local stainless steel suppliers. All necessary technical support in fabricating and conducting the
experimental tests were provided by the Structures Laboratory at The University of New South Wales,
Canberra, Australia.

4.1 Double web angle (DWA) connection

DWA bolted connection is composed of two angles, which are used to connect a beam to a column
using bolts as fasteners. Fig. 4(a) shows the geometric details of the connection considered in the current
study consisting of a 600 mm long stub column embedded in the ground and a 1200 mm long beam
connected to the column using bolts. Web angles were used to connect the beam web to the column
flange. Metric standard M20 austenitic grade bolts with compliant nut and washer were used as fasteners.
Fig. 4(b) shows all required geometric details of the DWA connection used in the current study.

(a) Elements of connection (b) Bolt spacing in connection

Fig. 4. Geometric details of DWA connection (all dimensions are in mm).

4.2 Top-seat angle (TSA) connection

Beam
24

Beam 1200 Long Beam

Seat Angle
150 100 12
70 354 70
Top Angle Beam Dimension ELEVATION Column
150 100 12
Beam

All Bolts M20 65 with M20 Nut and Washer 16

Column

PLAN C
L
Column Dimension

(a) Elements of connection (b) Bolt spacing in connection

Fig. 5. Geometric details of TSA connection (all dimensions are in mm).
TSA bolted connections produced from austenitic stainless steel was composed of two angles that
were used to connect the beam flanges to the column flanges using bolts as fasteners. Beam and column
sections were arranged in such a manner so that the 600 mm long stub column was fixed at the base and
the 1200 mm long beam was connected to the column using bolts to achieve TSA type connection as

000002-5
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
shown in Fig 5(a). Metric standard M20 austenitic grade bolts with compliant nut and washer were used
as fasteners. Fig 5(b) shows all required geometric details of the TSA connection type used in the current
study.

4.3 Top-seat with double web angle (TS-DWA) connection

TS-DWA type connection is composed of four angles, which are used to connect both the flanges
and the web of the beam to the column using bolts as fasteners. Connection components and
configurations were taken to resemble, as much as possible, an earlier research on carbon steel beam-
column connection [27, 29]. Built-up sections were formed using austenitic stainless steel plates to
achieve geometric dimensions similar to the standard AISC sections W14×38 and W12×96, which were
used as the beam and the column in the current study. Fig 6(a) shows the geometric details of the
connection; a 600 mm long stub column was fixed at the base and a 1200 mm long beam was connected
to the column using bolts to achieve TS-DWA connection arrangement. 150×100×12 mm angles were
used as top seat to connect beam flanges to the column flange, whereas 100×100×10 mm web angles
were used to connect the beam web to the column flange. Metric standard M20 austenitic grade bolts
compliant with equivalent nut and washer were used as fasteners. Fig 6(b) shows all required geometric
details of the TS-DWA connection type used in the current study.

Beam

24
Beam 1200 Long

Seat Angle
150 100 12 Web Angle
100 100 10
70 70
Top Angle Beam Dimension ELEVATION Column
150 100 12
Beam

All Bolts M20 65 with M20 Nut and Washer 16

Column

PLAN C
L
Column Dimension

(a) Elements of connection (b) Bolt spacing in connection

Fig. 6. Geometric details of top-seat with DWA connection (all dimensions are in mm).
Loading Direction
Load Cell
Pin

CL

Reaction Frame
RHS 150 100 10mm
Web Angle

Seat Angle
Top Angle Base Floor
Nut
Heavy Duty Floor
Threaded Bar

Fig. 7. Test setup showing restraining arrangement and load application.

000002-6
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
5 Test setup and instrumentation
All considered beam-to-column connections were tested using the same loading arrangement in
the Structures Laboratory at The University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia. The schematic
of the test setup used for TS-DWA connection is shown in Fig 7, where a monotonic load was applied
to the free end of the beam to observe connection behaviour. The connection to be tested was placed
between two bearing plates to restrain the column from any unwanted movement. The connection and
the bearing plates were tightened by 8 rectangular hollow sections (RHS) with a cross-section of
150×100×10 mm. RHSs were fastened by two layers of long-threaded 24 mm bar, which were 700
mm apart from each other. 6 long bolts of similar diameter were used to fix the whole arrangement to
the strong floor. Necessary nuts and 8 small bearing plates (150×100×10 mm) were used to restrain the
frame in the lateral direction. Uniform pressure was applied at the beam end using a loading fixture, in
which a pin was placed parallel to the beam flange as illustrated in Fig 7. Connection moment was
determined by multiplying the reaction force at the end of the beam with the lever arm calculated from
the application of load at free end of the beam to the column face adjacent to the connection (Fig 7).
Loading Direction Loading Direction Loading Direction

Beam

Beam

Column
Column

LVDT Backside View LVDT Front View

(a) Elevation (b) Plan view
Colour Code Location and Quantity Used Designation

Beam free end -1 LVDT 1

Beam middle -1 LVDT 2

Beam flange at connection -4 LVDT 3,4,5,6

Column flange diagonal -2 LVDT 7,8

Beam flange thickness side -2 LVDT 9,10

First RHS near column -2 LVDT 11,12

Top angle beam end -1 LVDT 13

Column flange thickness side -2 LVDT 14,15

Small metal sheet to place LVDT - 7

(c) LVDT designation

Fig. 8. LVDT installation scheme for data acquisition (all dimensions are in mm)
Loading was applied by using a 250 kN Instron machine equipped with a special fixture mounted
close to the free end of the beam at a distance of 1125 mm from the connection face. This fixture
facilitated the transfer of lateral movement of the hydraulic ram to the beam while allowing the beam
end to rotate as a result of the deformation occurring in the connection assembly. Testing was carried
out using hydraulic actuator at a loading rate of 1 mm/min for the first 15 mm of beam end displacement
and later was increased to 3 mm/min up to 50 mm, and finally to a rate of 5 mm/min until the test was
stopped. All LVDTs were connected to the data logger to capture the load-deformation response of all
000002-7
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
connecting elements during the full loading regime. Both the DWA and TSA connections failed at their
ultimate conditions i.e., the peak moment capacities were reached during the test condition before
failure. However, the TS-DWA connection showed significant rotation and strength, and due to
displacement restriction of the Instron machine, the test was stopped when the connection rotated
around 127.4 mrad and the beam free end moved 181.6 mm from its initial position due to the applied
loading. The complete failure was, therefore, not achieved under experimental condition for this
connection. Hence, the ultimate condition for TS-DWA connection in the current study refers to the
case when the connection rotation reached 127.4 mrad.

5 Material coupon tests

Tensile coupon tests were performed to evaluate accurate material properties for the plate materials
that were used to fabricate the considered beam and column sections resembling AISC sections W14×38
and W12×96. Tension coupons were taken from the machining of the web angles, TS angles and bolts.
The dimensions of all the tensile coupons were set according to relevant ISO standard [30]. All the
tensile coupons were necked at the middle as shown in Fig 9(a) and (b). A submersible wire cutting
technology was used to prepare the test coupons so as to minimize the heat effect during the cutting
process. At least, three widths and three thickness measurements were taken using a digital vernier’s
calliper along the coupon necked length, and the average width and thickness values were used to
calculate the cross-sectional area. Average results from three coupons for each of the web angles, TS
angles and bolts are presented in Table 2 and Fig 10.

(a) flat coupon specimens (WA and TSA) (b) round coupons (bolt)
Fig. 9. Tension test coupons according to EN ISO6892-1 (2009)
Shimadzu Z100 kN electromechanical universal testing machine (UTM) were utilized to perform
all tensile coupon tests as shown in Fig 10, in accordance with EN ISO6892-1 [30]. To measure the
longitudinal strain over a specified gauge length, video extensometer was used. Moreover, to record
more accurate measurements for the initial elastic part of the stress-strain curves, a linear electrical
resistance strain gauge was also attached to the face of each tensile coupon.
Table 2. Material properties of austenitic stainless steel plates used in the current study.
Connection t or d E 0.2 1.0 u εpl,f
n m
Element (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
Beam, Column 5.76 199505 335 365 586 57.50 9.7 2.2
Top-seat angle 5.75 201338 326 361 602 54.29 9.8 2.3
Web angle 4.63 191535 278 310 566 59.62 6.3 2.5
Bolt 4.9 195380 470 517 639 10.37 4.5 3.8

Key material parameters such as Young’s modulus E, 0.2% proof stress 0.2, ultimate tensile
strength u and Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) nonlinearity parameters n and m were extracted from the
recorded stress-strain curves. The best fit Young's modulus E was calculated based on the strain gauge
measurements. Compound Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) nonlinearity parameters n and m were also
000002-8
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
calculated from the strain gauge data. Plastic strain at fracture pl,f was also measured. Results obtained
from all tested coupons are summarized in Table 2. Stress-strain curves are shown in Fig 10.

Fig. 10. Complete stress-strain curves of different stainless steel plates and bolt.

5 M-φ behaviour of stainless steel beam-to-column connections

5.1 Measuring technique used to capture M- response

Accurate knowledge of connection M-φ behaviour plays a crucial role is structural design of bare
metallic frame structures. In this study, the connection rotations φ were determined at three different
sections as shown in Fig 11. Section 1-1 was considered at 35 mm away from the column face.
Displacements h1 and h2 were taken from the left and the right flanges of the beam, and the connection
rotation was calculated as  = (d1-d2)/h; where, h is the beam depth and d1 and d2 are the measured
displacements. Section 2-2 was considered along the centreline of web angle bolts, which was located
76 mm away from the column face, and the connection rotation was measured from the relative
displacement of bolts along the section 2-2 as shown in Fig 11. Section 3-3 was considered along the
beam centreline; the rotation of the connection was measured from the relative displacement of the free
end of the beam with respect to the connected web angle at the intersection of section 1-1 and 3-3.

(3)
Beam

76mm 35mm

(2) (2)
(1) (1)

Column
(3)
Fig. 11. Critical sections used in rotation measurement in the current experiment.
Fig 12 compares the M-φ behaviour of TS-DWA connection obtained from three techniques
showing some minor differences among rotations measured at the considered 3 sections. Rotation
measurements conducted along section 3-3 produced reduced initial stiffness but relatively higher
moment carrying capacity for the connection. Rotation measurements along web bolt line i.e., section
2-2 produced the highest initial stiffness, but almost similar moment capacity as observed at section 1-
1. This increased initial stiffness at section 2-2 was due to relatively smaller displacements experienced
by the web bolts during the initial loading stage. However, very little differences were observed, overall,
between the initial stiffness and the moment capacities obtained from three sections. Hence, the best-fit
000002-9
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
curve of three measurements was taken as the representative M-φ behaviour of the considered
connection.

Fig. 12. M-φ curves obtained from different methods of rotation measurement.

5.2 M- curves obtained for DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections
Fig 13 (a), (b) and (c) show the M-φ curves obtained for DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections
considered in the current study along with those defined as the boundary lines for connections in
Eurocode 3 [19], which defines connections by their stiffness or strength. As discussed in section 2, a
connection is classified as rigid connection if the initial stiffness Ki > 8Kb for braced frames or Ki > 25
Kb for unbraced frames. However, if Ki ≤ 0.5Kb, the connection is categorised as nominally pinned.
Initial stiffness of a connection lying between these two extremes is classified as semi-rigid.
Considering a typical low-rise residential building structure [28], the beam stiffness Kb was determined
as EIb/Lb = 4667 kNm/rad. Hence, in the current study, Eurocode 3 specified boundaries for initial
stiffness Ki may be taken as 25EIb/Lb =116,676 kNm/rad and 0.5EIb/Lb = 2333 kNm/rad.
Initial stiffness Ki for DWA, TSA and TS-DWA were determined from their M- curves, as shown
in Fig. 13, which were 1685, 9865 and 29244 kN-m/rad, respectively. Obtained test results show that
DWA connections can be treated as a pinned connection whilst TSA and TS-DWA connections fall
within the semi-rigid category. Use of TS angles can significantly enhance the moment resisting
capacity of beam-to-column connection in stainless steel frames. TS angles specifically provide
significant bearing to the beam and enhance the moment transfer capacity of the connection.
300
Rigid (unbraced frame) Beam Plastic Moment, (Mp,beam)
Full-strength
250

200 Partial-strength
Moment (kN-m)

25EIb/Lb
150

100 Semi-Rigid 0.5EIb/Lb

50
Pinned
0.25Mp,beam
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rotation (mrad)
(a) M- response and classification for stainless steel DWA (double web angle) connection

000002-10
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
300 Beam Plastic Moment, (Mp,beam)
Rigid (unbraced frame)
Full-strength
250

200
Moment (kN-m) Partial-strength
25EIb/Lb
150

0.25 Mp,beam
100

50
0.5EIb/Lb
Pinned
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Rotation (mrad)
(b) M- response and classification for stainless steel TSA (top seat angle) connection
300 Beam Plastic Moment, (Mp,beam)
Rigid (unbraced frame)
Full-strength
250

200 Partial-strength
25EIb/Lb
Moment (kN-m)

150

100
0.25 Mp,beam
50
Semi-rigid 0.5EIb/Lb
Pinned
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Rotation (mrad)
(c) M- response and classification for stainless steel TS-DWA (top seat with double web angle) connection
Fig. 13. M-φ characteristics of stainless steel connections according to Eurocode 3.

5.3 Deformations and rotational characteristics observed in stainless steel connections

In addition to the initial stiffness Ki of a connection, Eurocode 3 [19] specifies three types of
connections based on the ultimate moment capacity Mu of a connection. A connection is classified as
“full-strength” if Mu ≥ Mp, beam (plastic moment capacity of the beam), whereas if Mu ≤ 0.25Mp, beam, the
connection is classified as “nominally pinned”. When Mu of a connection lies between 0.25Mp, beam and
Mp, beam, the connection is classified as “partial-strength”. In the current study, the limits for pinned and
full strength connections were 62.5 kNm and 250 kNm, respectively, based on the beam geometry and
the material strength for the austenitic stainless steel grade used for fabricating test specimens. Moment
capacities measured at 20 mrad rotation M20mard for DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections were 6.84
kNm (pinned connection), 65.55 kNm (partial strength connection) and 91.66 kNm (partial strength
connection). This clearly shows that DWA stainless steel connections considered in the current study
failed to meet the criteria for semi-rigid or partial strength connections whereas TSA and TS-DWA
connections showed sufficient stiffness and strength to be classified as semi-rigid behaviour.
Connection rotation capacity is essential to satisfy the serviceability criteria, structural ductility
and distribution of internal forces. Eurocode 3 [19] considers only the behaviour of a connection at the
ultimate limit states and does not explicitly consider the serviceability criteria. FEMA 350 [31] specifies
000002-11
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
that a minimum connection rotation of 30 mrad as a requirement for earthquake design of ordinary
moment frames. It is worth noting that all considered stainless steel connections clearly met this
criterion for serviceability highlighting the impact of high ductility of austenitic stainless steel.
Figure 14 (a), (b) and (c) show the deformed shapes of DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections at
failure or when the test was stopped due to excessive deformations. It was observed that one of the bolts
in DWA connection failed due to shear, which caused a sudden drop in M- response as shown in Fig
13(a). However, the connection still kept deforming without any abrupt failure of any bolt or connecting
angles due to the high ductility of austenitic stainless steel.

6 Summary of observations from stainless steel connection tests

Section enlargement after failure

Ovalization of web angle hole

Failure of Bolt1 due to shear

(a) Deformations observed in DWA connection showing shear failure of bolt

(b) Deformations observed in TSA connection showing tension failure of bolts.

Uniformly distributed
bearing pressure Web angle

Seat angle Top angle

Centre of
rotation

(c) Deformations observed in TS-DWA connection when the test was stopped (no obvious failure).
Fig. 14. Deformations observed in stainless steel beam-to-column connections.
Deformations of various connecting elements for all considered beam-to-column connection were
carefully recorded and analysed [21] revealing that TSA connections, with or without DWA, rotated at
a critical section of the seat angles; significant plastic deformations were observed in the top angle as
well as in connecting bolts. Part of the top angle that was attached to the beam flange behaved like a
rigid body whereas the other part of the top angle that was on the column side was flattened and
000002-12
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
deformed significantly. Seat angle carried the bearing pressure uniformly through the legs attached to
the beam flange. Plastic hinges developed on the top angle in the vicinity of bolt rows in column flanges
and at the junction of the angle’s beam-column leg. On the other hand, DWA connection, which is
typically assumed to carry only the shear force through the bolt assembly, also deformed significantly
and noticeable bolt slippages were observed at the initial stage of loading. Whilst the web angle leg
attached to the beam acted as rigid parts, the other leg connected to the column suffered significant
plastic deformations. Due to gradual increase in loading, substantial enlargement was experienced in
the vicinity of the web angle top bolt creating ovalization of bolt holes as shown in Fig 14(a).
Study of failure mechanism in the current experimental investigation demonstrated that failure
primarily occurred after gradual yielding and severe necking at the bolt section. In the case of TSA
connection, bolt attached to the top angle and column flange failed at the ultimate condition due to
combination of bending and tensioning of top bolts. Similar failure characteristics were obtained for
TS-DWA connection, although the test was stopped prior to complete failure. Failure in the DWA
connection occurred in the top beam bolt due to shearing of the bolt section. Overall, in all tested
connection specimens, failure was limited by the connecting bolts due to the low ductility of the bolts
compared to the high ductility exhibited by all other stainless steel connection components. Strain
distributions in the connection confirmed that top and seat angles were more capable of transmitting
bending resistance than the web angles.

7 Conclusions
Experimental investigations on the moment-rotation (M-) behaviour of three typical full scale
stainless steel beam-to-column connections such as double web angle (DWA), top seat angle (TSA)
and top seat with double web angle (TS-DWA) are presented in the current paper. These connection
types are widely used in bare metallic construction, especially in ordinary steel construction, and
significant research has been reported on connections produced from carbon steel. Full scale tests on
such connections produced from stainless steel are scarce albeit their importance for promoting use of
stainless steel in structural applications. All connection elements were manufactured from austenitic
stainless steel, and M20 grade high strength bolts were used to form the connection assemblies. M-
curves obtained for DWA, TSA and TS-DWA connections were used to determine their initial stiffness
Ki and moment capacities at 20 mrad M20mrad to check against connection classifications recommended
by Eurocode 3. The considered DWA connection performed within the category of pinned connection
due to its low Ki = 6.84 kNm, which was well below 0.25Kb (= 62.5 kNm) threshold to warrant
recognition as a semi-rigid connection. The moment capacity of DWA connection was also well under
the limit for partial strength connection as recommended by Eurocode 3. DWA connection failed due
to shear failure in one of bolts but still showed significant ductility and easily surpassed the minimum
connection rotation of 30 mrad as a requirement for earthquake design of ordinary moment frames
recommended by FEMA. TSA connections, on the other hand, showed a remarkable increase in both
Ki and M20mrad and, hence, can be considered as a semi-rigid connection. Top and seat angles were more
effective in resisting bending moments when compared against that by the alternative angle assembly
arrangement in DWA connections. When top-seat angle and double-web angles were combined in TS-
DWA connection assembly, the connection performance enhanced by a significant margin both in terms
of Ki and M20mrad. All the considered connections easily surpassed the minimum serviceability criteria
recommended by FEMA highlighting the benefit of extensive ductility of stainless steel.

References
[1] Lui EM, Ashraf M, Young B. Tests of cold-formed duplex stainless steel SHS beam–columns. Engineering
Structures 2014; 74; 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.009.
[2] Anbarasu M, Ashraf M. Behaviour and design of cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel lipped channel
columns. Thin-walled structures 2016; 104; 106-115. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tws.2016.03.012.
[3] Theofanous M, Gardner L. Experimental and numerical studies of lean duplex stainless steel beams. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2010; 66(6): 816-825. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.012.
[4] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2005; 7
(2): 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.190.
[5] Anwar-Us-Saadat M, Ashraf M, Ahmed M. Behaviour and design of stainless steel slender cross-sections

000002-13
 Ashraf et al, SUST, 2021, 1(1): 000002
subjected to combined loading. Thin-Walled Structures 2016; 104; 225-237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.03.020.
[6] Ahmed S, Ashraf M. Numerical investigation on buckling resistance of stainless steel hollow members.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017; 136; 193-203. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.05.017.
[7] Anwar-Us-Saadat M, Ashraf M. The continuous strength method for lateral-torsional buckling of stainless
steel I-beams. Thin-Walled Structures 2018; 130; 148-160. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tws.2018.05.017.
[8] Ahmed S, Al-Deen S, Ashraf M. Design rules for stainless steel welded I-columns based on experimental
and numerical studies. Engineering Structures 2018; 172; 850-868.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.080.
[9] Ahmed S, Ashraf M, Anwar-Us-Saadat M. The Continuous Strength Method for slender stainless steel cross-
sections. Thin-Walled Structures 2016; 107; 362-376. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tws.2016.06.023.
[10] Bouchaïr A, Averseng J, Abidelah A. Analysis of the behaviour of stainless steel bolted connections. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2008; 64(11): 1264-1274. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.07.009.
[11] Averseng J, Bouchaïr A. Modelling and analysis of bolted stainless steel cover plate joints. European Journal
of Environmental and Civil Engineering 2011; 13(4): 443-456.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2009.9693122.
[12] Kim TS, Kuwamura H, Cho TJ. A parametric study on ultimate strength of single shear bolted connections
with curling. Thin-Walled Structures 2008; 46(1): 38-53. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tws.2007.08.009.
[13] Salih EL, Gardner L, Nethercot DA. Bearing failure in stainless steel bolted connections. Engineering
Structures 2011; 33(2): 549-562. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.013.
[14] Nethercot DA, Salih EL, Gardner L. Behaviour and Design of Stainless Steel Bolted Connections. Advances
in Structural Engineering 2011; 14(4): 647-658.
[15] Salih EL, Gardner L, Nethercot DA. Numerical investigation of net section failure in stainless steel bolted
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2010; 66(12): 1455-1466. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.05.012.
[16] Hasan MJ, Ashraf M, Uy B. Moment-rotation behaviour of top-seat angle bolted connections produced from
austenitic stainless steel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017; 136; 149-161. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.05.014.
[17] Hasan MJ, Al-Deen S, Ashraf M. Behaviour of top-seat double web angle connection produced from
austenitic stainless steel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2019; 155; 460-479. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.12.015.
[18] Elflah M, Theofanous M, Dirar S, et al. Behaviour of stainless steel beam-to-column joints—Part 1:
Experimental investigation[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 152: 183-193.https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.02.040.
[19] EN1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-8: Design of joints, European Standard CEN
2005, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
[20] Song Y, Wang J, Uy B, Li D. Experimental behaviour and fracture prediction of austenitic stainless steel
bolts under combined tension and shear. Journal of Construction Steel Research 2020. 166; 105916.
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105916.
[21] Hasan MJ. Semi-rigid behaviour and design of stainless steel bolted connections. Australian Defence Force
Academy, 2019.
[22] Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institution of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2010.
[23] Goverdhan A V. A collection of experimental moment-rotation curves and evaluation of prediction equations
for semi-rigid connections. Vanderbilt University, 1983.
[24] Kishi N, Chen W F. Data base of steel beam-to-column connections. Structural Engineering Area, School of
Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.
[25] Ang KM, Morris GA. Analysis of three-dimensional frames with flexible beam-column connections.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1984; 11; 245-254. https://doi.org/ 10.1139/l84-037.
[26] Azizinamini A, Radziminski JB. Static and Cyclic Performance of Semirigid Steel Beam‐to‐Column
Connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 1989; 115; 2979-2999. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)
0733-9445(1989)115:12(2979).
[27] Azizinamini A, Bradburn J H, Radziminski J B. Static and cyclic behavior of semi-rigid steel beam-column
connections. University of South Carolina, 1985.
[28] Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski JB. Initial stiffness of semi-rigid steel beam-to-column
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1987; 8; 71-90. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0143-974X
(87)90054-X.
[29] ISO E N. 6892-1. Metallic materials-Tensile testing-Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. International
Organization for Standardization, 2009.
[30] FEMA F. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. FEMA-350, 2000.

000002-14