17-19 Gladding Place

P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
Auckland,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
Email: [email protected]

No. 61 April 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The procedure detailed herein has been the subject of
beginning of the article. review by a number of people following its presentation in
draft form at a series of seminars. The effort and input of
these reviews is greatly appreciated.

Introduction Flexible Joint for Fire

Following the “blockbuster” size and scope of the Separations
February 2001 issue, this issue is much smaller This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
and covers a range of topics. Also, given the Structural Engineer, based on information supplied by Bill
emphasis on fire engineering in the last two Norman, PFP Systems (NZ) Ltd.
issues, that topic is not covered this time around,
although a product for application to prevent fire General
spread is described.
There are several instances where a fire
separation must withstand significant deformation
This issue covers a number of topics including
without compromising its fire separating function.
amendments to previously published connection
design guidance. It presents a connection design
The most common example is across seismic
example, illustrating the use of design concepts
gaps in floors and walls. In this instance, the
published in a previous DCB. It also briefly
separating element must be able to accommodate
describes an innovative steel application in an
reversing earthquake movements across the gap
apartment building.
of 250 mm or more, retaining its fire separating
role during and after the earthquake.
In This Issue Page
A new application is in fire separating walls
Flexible Joint for Fire Separations 1 between firecells on the same floor, where the
floor system above the wall is designed for
Design of Circular Flange Joints in dependable inelastic response in severe fire and
Tubular Structures: Update on 2 the wall is located beneath a region of the floor
Previously Published Guidance slab panel system that is designed to undergo
significant vertical deflection under severe fire
Amendment to Flexible Endplate conditions. The design for this slab panel is given
Connections in HERA Report R4- in DCB Issue No. 60, with the deformation of floor
3 system relative to separating wall shown in
100 Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide Fig. 60.5.

Design of Crane Runway Girders A suitable joint system for either application is
and Monorail Beams: Standard Now 6 now briefly described.
Available
Details of Flexible Joint
Design Example No. 61.1:
Design of a Brace / Beam / Column 9 The joint comprises a ceramic fibre blanket which
Connection in a Braced Steel Frame is pinned with a pin / flat plate washer system to a
galvanized wire mesh. See an example in
Innovative Structural Steelwork: Fig. 61.1. This mesh is then connected via.
Case Study : Scotia Place 21 Dynabolts / flat steel plates to the rigid elements
Apartments on each side of the flexible joint.

References 22

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 61, April 2001
 Fig. 61.1
Flexible Joint for Fire Separation

The light-weight joint is designed to accommodate Fig. 61.2 shows the type of joint under
a wide range of building movement situations consideration.
and fire resistance rating requirements. It has
a working temperature of up to 1350 oC and an An overview of the scope and content of the Cao
−/integrity /insulation rating of − /240/240. and Packer paper is presented in DCB Issue No.
46, on pages 17 and 18 therein.
For more details, contact the manufacturer and
supplier of the flexible joint; The paper is written for US application, with the
Bill Norman result that notation and grades of material
PFP Systems (NZ) Ltd presented in [1] are in US terminology. For this
PO Box 26-160 reason, the equivalent New Zealand grades of
Auckland steel and property class of bolt are given on page
Phone 0-9-636 6115 17 of DCB Issue No. 46. The equations and
Fax 0-9-636 6113 design charts are non-dimensional, so that the
different units are not a significant complication.
Use In Inelastic Floor Slab Panel System This is just as well, because efforts to obtain a
version of the paper [1] in SI units have not been
This is the application shown in Fig. 60.5, DCB
successful.
Issue No. 60. In this instance, one side of the
joint will be connected to the floor slab above the
wall, the other side to the top of the wall. Update on Application to CHS Members
Subject to Bending Moment
The separating wall will need to cantilever from
the floor slab below, for example with internal Cao and Packer’s procedure [1] is for bolted joints
SHS (structural hollow section) columns for lateral between CHS members subject to design tension.
support. However, the guidance can be expanded to
circular members subject to moment, through
Any unprotected supporting beams for the floor determining the equivalent tension force
above that cross the fire separation will need generated by the moment.
passive protection for (1.0 x beam depth) each
side of the separation to preserve insulation. In a circular member subject to moment and
responding elastically, 82% of the moment is
Design of Circular Flange Joints transferred by axial force through the top and
in Tubular Structures: Update bottom quadrants. This can be used to determine
on Previously Published an equivalent design tension force to apply to the
top quadrant; the bottom quadrant will transfer the
Guidance moment-induced compression by direct bearing
between the flanges.
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.
The design tension force for the top quadrant has
Background been given as equation 46.11 in DCB Issue
No. 46. Unfortunately, it is not clear from that
Results of a comprehensive research project into
description that the force determined from
the behaviour of bolted circular flange joints in
equation 46.11 is the tension force applying to the
tension members, along with a design procedure,
top quadrant alone.
have been published in a paper [1] by Cao and
Packer.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 2 No. 61, April 2001
 Fig. 61.2
Circular Flange Bolted Joint (from [1])
Note: This figure is also shown in DCB Issue No. 46 as Fig. 46.5

That force must be multiplied by 2 to determine This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
the equivalent uniform design tension force Structural Engineer, and Clark Hyland, SSAS Manager and
Nandor Mago, Research Engineer.
( T *joint ) to use in application of the design
procedure and design charts presented in [1]. Introduction and Background
The factor 2 comes from applying the top
quadrant tension force uniformly around the top HERA Report R4-100 Structural Steelwork
half of the section, which is the region in bending- Connections Guide [2] should, by now, be a
induced tension. familiar publication to all Bulletin readers. It
contains tables of pre-engineered and load-rated
Thus the equivalent uniform design tension force connections that comply with NZS 3404 [3].
induced by bending moment, to use when Design objectives, procedures and calculation
applying the Cao and Packer procedure to CHS formulae for each connection type are also
joints subject to bending moment, is given by included, as are a set of engineering drawings for
equation 61.1; each type of connection covered. The most
commonly used flexible and rigid connections are
included, including the flexible endplate (FE)
2 x 0.82 M *
*
Tjoint = *
61.1 connection.
dcq
Fig. 61.3 shows an isometric view of a FE-NC
where: connection (flexible endplate with no cope)
M * = design bending moment at joint between a beam and a column. Some notation
*
dcq = distance between the centroids of the additional to [2] has been added for this article.
top and bottom quadrants. HERA has an policy of encouraging feedback on
all our publications and any queries regarding the
*
This force, Tjoint , is then used in applying the adequacy of published design procedures are
design charts given in Figs. 4 to 7 and section 4.4 thoroughly investigated. Thus, when a query was
of [1]. raised as to the provisions in [2] regarding the
strength of the beam web supporting the flexible
Combinations of moment and axial force can be endplate, an investigation of these commenced.
dealt with by linear interaction of the moment-
induced axial tension force and the direct applied The query related to a difference between the
axial tension force. design provisions for supporting web shear
strength used in [2], and those used in the AISC
publication Design of Structural Connections,
Amendment to the Flexible Fourth Edition [4]. The difference lay in the depth
Endplate Connection Provisions of beam web used to develop the web’s design
shear capacity; in R4-100 the nominal web shear
of R4-100 Structural Steelwork yield stress of 0.6fyw is applied over the full depth
Connections Guide of section web in an uncoped section, whereas in
[4] it is applied over just the cleat depth, di.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 3 No. 61, April 2001
 460UB67 FE70NC
460UB67 FE70SWC
(70% shear, single web cope)
475HB63 FE70NC
800SB152 FE70NC

The considerations from first principles looked at

the interaction of shear and tension at the top and
bottom of the cleat (points A and B in Fig. 61.3).

The shear arises from the reaction from the

vertical load on the beam. Longitudinal tension
arises from beam end rotation causing out-of-
plane flexure in the endplate. A transverse
hanging tension force is developed in the web at
the bottom of the cleat. Similarly, a transverse
compression force is developed in the web at the
top of the cleat, as the web forces converge on
the endplate at that point.

The finite element analyses modelled a simply

supported length of beam, with FE connections to
supporting faces at each end. These beams were
laterally restrained along the top flange and
Fig. 61.3
loaded with a central point load applying vertically
Flexible Endplate Beam to Column Connection
downwards. The applied load and beam length
FE-NC (from [2]) With Added Notation
were established so that, when the shear from this
load reached the rating for the connection (ie.
This investigation, brief details of which are given
30%, 50% or 70%), the design section moment
below, showed the most accurate determination of
capacity was being developed at midspan. This
design capacity of the web to lie between these
ensured that maximum beam end rotations were
two values.
developed for the given level of applied shear
load.
As a result, changes to the FE design procedure
have been made and are published in
These analyses involved a model with a very fine
Amendment No. 1 [5] to R4-100, along with the
mesh size within the endplate and adjacent length
revised connection design capacities.
of beam, in order to accurately model the
The next section of this article very briefly development and spread of plasticity in and
overviews the research undertaken on this joint. around the connection. Endplate, weldmetal and
This is followed by a general description of the beam materials were modelled as bi-linear
changes to the design procedure and brief inelastic, with the three key input (stress, strain)
mention of the scope of the Amendment No. 1. points for the material plasticity characteristics
being:
Brief Overview of Research Undertaken
• (0; 0)
A two-pronged approach was employed, namely: • (fy,design ; ε y = fy / E)
• (fu,design ; ε u = fu / E)
• First principles consideration of the applied
stress state in the web, taking account of the where:
vertical shear, the anticipated longitudinal and fy,design = specified minimum yield stress to [3]
transverse axial forces and combinations of fu,design = specified minimum tensile strength
these considered appropriate
The applied load was applied in increments up to
• Detailed finite element analyses of 7 different
1.3 x the anticipated design shear capacity of the
FE connection types, covering differences in
joint, in each instance, so that the development
beam size, no-cope / single cope / double
and spread of plasticity approaching, at, and
cope and level of applied shear, to review /
beyond the design shear capacity of the joint
modify the design model. The seven
could be determined.
connection types analysed were:
Fig. 61.4 shows the ultimate limit state deformed
180UB16 FE30NC (30% shear, no cope) shape and stress distribution within the joint for a
400LB38 FE50NC (50% shear, no cope) FE-NC connection to a beam. The direction of
600LB60 FE70NC (70% shear, no cope) applied shear force on the beam at the support is

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 4 No. 61, April 2001
as shown in Fig. 61.3, forcing the beam • The interaction of vertical shear and
downwards relative to the endplate. longitudinal tension in the beam web is most
significant at the top of the cleat - ie. at point A
in Fig. 61.3. The longitudinal tension arises
from out-of-plane flexure in the endplate due
to rotation of the beam end under vertical
loading.

The design shear capacity associated with the

block shear mechanism described above is
associated with localised inelastic demand on the
web. To study the behaviour through to failure, an
experimental testing programme is being
developed for undertaking later this year.

The effect of these design procedure changes is

to downrate the design shear capacity of a
number of FE connections from those given in [2].

Changes to Design Procedure

There have been three changes made in the
amendment [5] to the procedure published in
R4-100. These changes are as follows:

(1) The design shear capacity of the beam web

is now based on block shear action, with
the depth of the web block being the cleat
depth and the width being 20 mm. This is
explained in diagrammatical form in [5].

(2) The longitudinal web tension developed

adjacent to the top of the cleat by the
endplate in out-of-plane flexure is based on
the overstrength flexural action, using a
Fig. 61.4 factor of (1.2/0.9). The 1.2 is the material
Finite Element Analysis of FE-NC Connection, variation factor from NZS 3404 [3] for grade
Subjected to Applied Shear Sufficient to Local 250/300 steels of Australia / New Zealand
Plastic Deformation of the Web origin. Previously it was based on design
flexural action.
The results of the FE analyses showed the
following: (3) The combination of transverse (vertical)
shear and longitudinal tension from (2) is
• The shear capacity of the beam web adjacent used to check the beam web capacity at the
to the cleat is greater than that associated top of the endplate (point A in Fig. 61.3)
with developing only the shield yield stress and to size the weld between the endplate
over the depth of the cleat (as used in [4]). and beam web.

• A better design model for determining the This caters more effectively for the three cases
shear capacity of the beam web adjacent to that will give rise to this out-of-plane flexure in the
the cleat, where the web extends past the endplate, namely:
cleat at both top and bottom, is given by block
shear action of a rectangle of web extending • Beam end rotation under maximum
20 mm into the beam from the beam face. vertical loading
The vertical design stresses on this block of • Beam to column joint inelastic rotation
web are shear yielding on the sides and axial under severe earthquake loading
tension / compression yielding on the top & • Inelastic rotation and cooling-induced
bottom. pull-in of unprotected beams away from
their supporting member, under severe
• In the web immediately below the cleat, ie. at fire conditions (see DCB No. 60).
point B in Fig. 61.3, critical actions are vertical
The effect of these changes has been to downrate
shear and hanging tension.
a number of the FE connection design capacities

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 5 No. 61, April 2001
published in [2]. In general terms, the changes achieving 70% of the design shear capacity of
are as follows: the steel beam require an increase in cleat
length from that specified in [2].
(i) The NC (no cope) connections are most • For connections selected on the basis of the
affected. published design shear capacity, a specific
comparison of new versus old capacity will
(ii) The most adversely affected connections
need to be made.
are those for beams with webs less
than 6 mm thick in the smaller UB range
Designers who have any questions about the
and in the Steltech LB and FB range. In
amended procedure are welcome to contact Clark
some of these, the new design capacity is
Hyland or Charles Clifton at HERA. However,
as low as 0.67 x the old design capacity.
they should also note the following:
(iii) The connection tables published in [2, 5]
• The design capacities and FE analyses are
are organised into percentages of the beam
based on minimum specified material
design shear capacity - ie. 30%, 50% and
strengths; in practice the average strengths
70%. In addition, the actual design shear
are 1.19 x the minimum specified values
capacity of each connection is given. In all
instances published in the original report, • The beams with high shear demand (ie. the
the actual connection design shear capacity 70% shear capacity series) tend to be shorter
span members and less commonly used.
has been in excess of the relevant
percentage of beam shear capacity and this
situation is retained with the revised Design of Crane Runway
connections. Some connections have had
their cleat lengths slightly increased to
Girders and Monorail Beams :
achieve this. Standard Now Available
Thus, designers who have selected a connection This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.
on the basis of the proportion of beam shear
capacity, as recommended by [2, 5] to resist the Introduction and Scope of Article
ultimate limit state design actions from [6], will find
that the revised connection capacities are still For the design of cranes, two standards are
satisfactory, albeit with longer cleats in a minority referenced from NZS 3404 [3] for the general and
of instances. specific design requirements. These are AS 1418
and NZS/BS 2573.
Scope and Content of Amendment No. 1
The AS 1418 series is easily the most
This amendment is set out in the same format as comprehensive and modern of the two, although
that of [2]. the NZS/BS 2573 series is referenced by the
Power Crane Association of New Zealand.
The new design criteria are incorporated into the
Design Features, Design Procedure and Design The design of the crane system itself (crane rail,
Formulae sections of the Amendment [5]. In crab, hoist and operating system) is typically
addition, a new section is added showing the undertaken by specialist design engineers
block shear mechanisms for each FE connection working for the crane manufacturers.
sub-type (NC, SWC, DWC).
However, cranes must be supported on a system
The connection design tables are presented in the which, in the case of cranes in buildings,
same format as those of the original report. comprises crane runway girders or monorail
beams. These supporting systems are generally
The amendment replaces all the current Section designed by the building designer.
Vlll of R4-100 [2] except for the connection
drawings (which have not changed). Users The design of both crane runway girders and
should simply replace that section with the monorail beams has been the subject of much
amendment for design of new connections. debate. This has not been helped by the age of
the existing design guidance on each item; that for
For checking the adequacy of existing crane runway girders [7] was published in 1983
connections, there are two situations: and for monorail beams [8] in 1978. Both of these
predate limit states design and the current
• Connections selected from [2] on the basis of generation of structural design standards.
achieving 30% or 50% of the design shear
capacity of the steel beam will still achieve Recognising this, the Joint Standards Australia /
this. Connections selected on the basis of Standards New Zealand Committee ME-005

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 6 No. 61, April 2001
Cranes set about developing a standard covering duty runways. These definitions are given in
design of both systems. This process generated Clauses 1.5.7 and 1.5.4 of [10] respectively and
a draft for comment in 1997. The draft received a are critical to the subsequent design requirements
mixed reception and generated much debate, for the runway girder.
along with a strong move to sort out the divergent
views and produce a final document. An excellent An important point is made in clause 1.5.9, which
paper [9] summarising the status of this debate, is that the term runway girder is used throughout
as of mid-1998, was presented at the 1998 [10] to denote both runway girders and monorail
Australasian Structural Engineering Conference in beams unless specifically stated otherwise. The
Auckland, October 1998. same practice is used here.

The long process of resolving these issues was Section 2: materials

completed at the end of 2000 and AS 1418:18
(Design of) Crane Runways and Monorails was The provisions relating to materials are tied into
published [10] in February 2001. Although AS 4100 [12], which are the same as the
produced by a Joint Committee, it has been requirements of NZS 3404 [3] in that regard.
published as an Australian Standard by mutual
consent. The over-riding reason was its Section 3: classification of crane runway
relationship with the AS 1418 series of crane girders
standards, in particular AS 1418:1 [11], which
presents the general requirements for crane This section links into Section 2 of AS 1418 1 [11]
design / classification and which, as mentioned for determining the classification for the runway
earlier in this introduction, is referenced from girders. It then provides specific guidance on
NZS 3404. altering the classification for cases specific to
crane runway girders rather than applying to
AS 1418:18 [10] is one of the most keenly awaited cranes in general, such as with two or more
Australian Standards, in terms of its potential for cranes running on the same runway system.
application in New Zealand and its provision of
up-to-date guidance on a topic of some Section 2 of AS 1418.1 [11] determines the
contention. It is written in conjunction with either classification on the basis of the utilisation class
the permissible stress or the limit states methods and load spectrum, in the same manner as for the
of design. crane. The former relates to the frequency of use
and the latter to the spectrum of loads carried by
This article provides an introduction to the new the crane. For the designer of crane runway
Standard. systems, this information should be supplied
by the crane supplier / principal. If Appendix A of
The section below covers the scope and content AS 1418.18 has been completed, then the
of AS 1418:18. It is the principal section of this classification is calculated from that data. If not,
article. then the crane runway designer can use Appendix
D of AS 1418.1 [11] to derive this classification.
This is followed by guidance on the use of
AS 1418:18 in conjunction with the New Zealand The classification of the girder is very important in
Steel Structures Standard. Then there is brief terms of defining it as a light duty runway or a
coverage of the relevance of existing design heavy duty runway. Most applications will be light
guidance in relation to the new Standard. duty, but this must be calculated.

Section 4: loads and load combinations

The article ends with some of the important
design considerations that crane runway girder or This section specifies the loads and load
monorail beam designers need to consider when combinations to consider, again in conjunction
using AS 1418:18 and AS 1418:1. with Part 1 [11]. Guidance is given for two
situations, namely:
Scope and Content of AS 1418:18 • When all the necessary data is available from
the crane manufacturer
Section 1: scope and general • When this data isn’t available (use Appendix
B of Part 18 to determine the interim design
This presents the general requirements relating to criteria).
scope and application. It makes the important
point that the Standard is written for use in This section covers derivation of loads for the
conjunction with loads and classifications from crane runway and supporting structure, including
AS 1418.1 [11]. cases such as:
• Two or more cranes on one runway system
A very important distinction is made between light • Multiple crane bays
duty runways (crane runway girders) and heavy

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 7 No. 61, April 2001
The load factors to apply for limit state design are Sections 5.8 to 5.11 cover supports, box girders,
given in Clause 4.4.4. compound girders, latticed girders and details for
end stops.
Section 5: design of runway girders
Section 5.12: monorail beams
This is the core section of the Standard. It covers
the following: This section gives the specific design and
detailing requirements for monorail beams,
Section 5.2: forms of construction covering:
• types of beams
• Simply supported, continuous and cantilever • design of bottom flange and web elements
girders • supports
• curved beams
Section 5.3: application of crane loads
Section 5.13: serviceability
• Placing of the wheel train to generate design
actions This section gives the limits on vertical and lateral
• Where to apply the wheel loads to the crane deflection for the:
runway girder cross section (covers vertical • runway girder
and lateral loads and differentiates between • supporting structure
light and heavy duty runways).
• Torsion requirements (for heavy duty runways Section 6: verification of fatigue life
only).
This section gives the fatigue design
Section 5.4: methods of analysis requirements, covering:
• what structural classes require fatigue design
Linear elastic analysis is required. Loads are to • load condition and equivalent cycles
be placed so as to generate most unfavourable • method to use (eg. AS 4100 / NZS 3404)
effect (guidance is given).
Section 7: crane rail and rail accessories
Section 5.5: verification of (static) strength
adequacy This section provides general guidance on the
crane rail and fixing system selection. It is
This very useful section lists the critical locations suggested that the requirements be read in
where static strength checks should be made. conjunction with the guidance given on pages
Fatigue checks are covered in Section 6. 18 - 20 of DCB Issue No. 47 regarding Crane
rails: materials and attachment systems.
Section 5.6: method of design
Section 8: fabrication and erection
This section allows either permissible stress or
limit state design. There is a stipulation that This section calls up the fabrication and erection
whichever approach is adopted is then used requirements of Section 14, 15 of AS 4100
exclusively, except where directed by the (which are equivalent to those of Section 14, 15 of
Standard. NZS 3404).
This section also specifies the different Specific tolerances additional to crane runway
requirements for light duty runways (Clause 5.6.2) girders are given, such as:
and heavy duty runways (Clause 5.6.3). The • out of level across a bay
latter requirements are considerably more • out of level between girder ends
onerous, as the effects of torsion from rail
eccentricity and lateral loading must be Section 9: inspection and maintenance
considered.
This section covers:
Section 5.7: detailed design of girder webs
• scope of inspection
and flanges
• frequency of inspection
This clause, in conjunction with Appendix D, gives • critical areas / components to inspect
the specific design requirements for the flanges
and web. The provisions are well presented and Appendices
appear straight-forward to use.
There are four, the titles of which and status
(normative / informative) are as follows:

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 8 No. 61, April 2001
Appendix A: design information required provisions of AS 1418:18 Clause 5.12 use the
(normative) basic approach and principal equations from [8],
Appendix B: interim load criteria in the absence of which therefore still provides an effective
definitive crane data (informative) commentary and background.
Appendix C: determination of torsion effects
(normative; required for heavy duty In both cases, however, AS 1418:18 can be used
runways only) for detailed design without recourse to [7, 8], so
Appendix D: horizontal loadings applied to light the above two paragraphs will be relevant only for
duty runways (normative). designers who are familiar with these two
publications and who want to know how they
Use in Conjunction with The Steel Structures relate to the new Standard [10].
Standard
Section 2.3.3 of HERA Report R4-80 [14]
AS 1418:18 [10] is written for application with presents guidance on crane-induced structural
either AS 4100 [12] for limit states design or loadings for limit state design. The four loading
AS 3990 [13] for permissible stress design. classifications given therein are compatible with
the nominal load spectra given in Table 2.3.3 of
For limit states design, NZS 3404 [3] can be AS 1418.1 [11]. The general description of
directly substituted for AS 4100 [12]. Appendix Q loadings to apply to the structure is still relevant,
of NZS 3404 lists the correspondence between however the load factors for ultimate limit state
AS 4100 and NZS 3404 in terms of clause, design should be as specified in AS 1418.18 [10]
equation, section, table or figure, for just such Clause 4.4.4 rather than from [11] or [6].
applications.
Important Design and Detailing
For permissible stress design, AS 3990 [13] is Considerations
simply the now - superseded AS 1250-1981 with a
new cover. These are briefly stated as follows:

Given that many of the permissible stress • Determine the crane rail, attachment system
requirements of AS 1418:18 are actually and type of crane runway girder member to
expressed as permissible loads or actions, use
another option for designers who are familiar with • Determine the form of runway girder
NZS 3404 and wish to use that Standard is to construction to use (simply supported or
apply NZS 3404 through Appendix P. Appendix P continuous)
of [3] is a “filter” which adapts the provisions of • Determine if the girder is light duty or heavy
NZS 3404 into a working or permissible load / duty, as this affects the design requirements
action format. • Check that the strength and serviceability
(deflection) limits are met.
Previous DCB Advice in Relation to
AS 1418:18
Design Example No. 61.1:
There are only two items of previous DCB Design of a Brace / Beam /
guidance relating to crane runway girder design.
Column Connection in a Braced
The first item is in DCB No. 37, pp.9 - 10, on Steel Frame
vertical deflection limits for crane runway girders.
That is superseded by Section 5.13 of the new This design example has been prepared by G Charles Clifton,
HERA Structural Engineer.
Standard [10].
1. Introduction and Scope
The second item is in DCB No. 47, pp. 18 - 20, on
Crane rails: materials and attachment systems. DCB Issue No. 56, June 2000, contains two
That guidance is still relevant and expands on articles relating to design of brace / beam /
Section 7 of [10]. column connections, such as would be used in an
eccentrically braced frame (EBF) or a
Relevance of Existing Design Guidance concentrically braced frame (CBF). The first
article, on pages 2 - 5 of that Bulletin, covers
Crane runway girders [7] contains a mix of proportioning design actions from the braces into
general and specific technical guidance. The the supporting members of the connection. The
former is still applicable, however the latter is now second article, on pages 5 - 11 therein, presents
superseded by [10]. design concepts for brace / beam / column
connections in an EBF or CBF seismic resisting
Monorail beam design [8] contains principally system.
technical guidance. The monorail − specific

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 9 No. 61, April 2001
At the time of writing those articles, it was advised followed by design checks on the collector beam
that a connection design example for this type of to column connection in Section 5.
connection would be presented in planned
seismic design seminars, however these have not Section 6 covers design checks on the column to
been possible to date due to other commitments determine whether or not column stiffeners are
of higher priority. required. Section 7 performs the necessary
checks on the beam.
Therefore, it has been decided to present a fully Section 8 calculates the additional moment
worked design example for this type of connection required to be imposed on the column due to
in this issue of the DCB. design actions from the connection.

This design example uses the design guidance Section 9 summarises the joint details.
presented in DCB Issue No. 56 and applies it to a
brace / beam / column connection in the two The connection detail is made consistent,
storey EBF shown in Fig. 61.5. wherever practicable, with the provisions of HERA
Report R4-100 [2] and utilises that report to
The EBF example was originally from an actual reduce the designer effort required. It also utilises
building in 1994 which was used in the readily available material property data, eg. from
development of the EBF seismic design the Design Capacity Tables [16]. The third
provisions presented in HERA Report R4-76 [15]. important publication used in the design is SCI
Publication No. 207/95, Joints in Steel
Construction, Moment Connections [17]. The role
of the latter publication lies in calculating tension
capacities of the endplates, based on flexural
yieldline action. Guidance on its use in that
regard is given in DCB No. 56; see especially
Appendix A56 on pages 29 - 32 therein.

2. Input Data

The initial angle between the brace and collector

beam, based on the brace passing through the
work point (WP) is:

3.5
θinitial = tan−1 = 52.3o
2.7
The capacity design derived brace design axial
forces, determined using equation 11.7 from [15],
are as follows:
Fig 61.5
Braced Frame With Location of Brace / Beam /
com = - 58 − 622 = - 680 kN (compression)
*
Nbrace,
Column Connection Identified for Design
Example 61.1
ten = - 58 + 622 = 564 kN (tension)
*
Nbrace,
Notes to Fig. 61.5
For the joint under design, the member sizes and grades are:
• Brace 200UC46, Grade 300
The vertical reaction force from the collector beam
• Column 200UC60, Grade 300 into the column is as follows:
• Collector beam / active link 310UB46, Grade 300

com = - 41 + 46 = + 5 kN (acts upwards)

*
Rbrace,
The steel grade used in that design was 250; the
grade used now is 300 and the design actions
ten = - 41 − 46 = - 87 kN (acts downwards)
*
have been increased accordingly to keep the R bracec,
example more realistic.
Sign conventions for these input actions are as
Input data for the design example is presented in defined in DCB Issue No. 54, pp.1 and 2. The
Section 2 and in Fig. 61.5. signs are not used in this example except
where necessary to show direction of line of
The initial selection of connection components is force.
covered in Section 3.
The -58 kN in the brace and -41 kN in the
Design checks on the brace to column and beam collector beam are the compression and shear
connection components are covered in Section 4, forces generated by the gravity loads (G + Qu).

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 10 No. 61, April 2001
The variable sign components are the seismic - When repositioning the brace from its initial line to
induced forces (± 46 kN). make the connection more compact and cost-
effective, reposition so that the bolt layout on the
Note that the seismic-induced shear component in endplate not connected to the gusset plate is as
the collector beam to column is opposite in sign to shown in Fig. 61.6. Points to note in this regard
the seismic-induced axial force in the brace; for are:
more details on why this is so see Section 11 of
[15]. (1) The clear dimensions above and below the
bolt group on this endplate should be
3. Initial Selection of Connection similar. (These are the two dimensions
Components shown as >= af in Fig. 61.6).
(2) The mitred corner of the brace web should
This follows the recommendations on page 8 of lie close to the initial line of the brace.
DCB No. 56. Refer also to Fig. 61.6 below, which
corrects an error on layout in Fig. 56.3, as is now 3.2 Estimate of bolts required
described in Section 3.1.
brace, com = 680 sin 52.3 = 538 kN (vertical)
* o
Vinitial,
3.1 Correction to connection layout advice
given in DCB Issue No. 56
brace, com = 680 cos 52.3 = 416 kN
* o
H initial,
The connection layout advice given in DCB Issue (horizontal)
No. 56, Fig. 56.3, contains an error in application
of the R4-100 dimensions to the bolt arrangement (The larger brace axial force, N *brace, com , is used
and endplate dimensions between the brace
in this estimate)
and the column. The error has been corrected in
Fig. 61.6, which presents the advice on initial
connection layout that should be followed.

Fig. 61.6
Brace / Beam / Column Bolted Endplate Connection Guidance For Connection Layout

Notes to Fig. 61.6

(1) This figure replaces Fig. 56.3 from DCB No. 56, correcting an error in that figure
(2) Notes (1) - (6) from Fig. 56.3 should be read in conjunction with the above figure.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 11 No. 61, April 2001
 *
Vinitial, For gusset plate, target thickness
538
nbolt, brace - column = brace
= = 4.05
φ Vfn 133 ≈ tw,brace x 0.30 / 0.25 = 7.3 x 0.3/0.25 = 8.8 mm

φVfn for M24 8.8 = 133 kN, from [16]. The adjustment is for the difference in grade of
web to grade of gusset plate.
As the vertical design force will reduce slightly due
to the proportioning of brace actions into the beam Choose a 10 mm thick grade 250 gusset plate.
and column, try 4 M24 8.8 bolts between brace
and column. 3.4 Connection layout for brace to column
and beam
*
Hinitial, 416
nbolt, brace - beam = brace
= = 3.13 As θinitial > 45o, offset the brace upwards from the
φ Vfn 133
initial centreline position, so that the majority of
the mitred end frames into the column face, as
Try 4 M24 8.8 bolts between brace and beam. shown in Fig. 61.6.
3.3 Endplate and gusset plate thicknesses Use the guidance on layout shown in Fig. 61.6
for brace to column and beam and the notes in section 3.1 above to determine
the connection layout.
For endplate from brace to column, use the next
available plate thickness above the brace flange For an M24 bolt, from [2] this layout:
thickness.
ae1 = 45 mm
tf,brace = 11 mm ⇒ choose tep, brace - col = 12 mm. Sg = 90 mm
af = 65 mm
For endplate from brace to beam, use next plate
thickness higher ⇒ choose tep, brace - beam = 16 mm. This leads to the connection layout shown in Fig.
61.7. The layout is such that the mitred corner of
Endplate grade is 250. the brace web lies just above the initial centreline
of the brace.

Fig. 61.7
Connection Layout for Design Example 61.1

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 12 No. 61, April 2001
3.5 Connection between collector beam and 105 *
ten =
*
column H C, Nbrace, ten = + 143 kN
414
105 *
com =
As advised in Note 4 to Fig. 56.3, make this a *
H C, Nbrace, com = - 172 kN
modified MEPS - 4 connection from [2]. 414
 127 + 154  *
com = 
*
VC,  Nbrace, com = - 462 kN
Components are sized initially for an MEPS - 4  414 
30/15 connection - see layout details from [2].
 127 + 154  *
ten = 
*
The top of endplate is flush with top of beam; use VC,  Nbrace, ten = + 383 kN
a butt weld between these two components.  414 
The signs denote direction of force.
t ep, beam - column = t i from [2] = 16 mm
4.1.2 Actions from beam into column
Bolts are 4 M20 8.8. There are two cases to consider for the beam to
column connection, namely:
3.6 Modifications to component sizing for
constructability Case 1: Brace in compression

Make all endplates 16 mm thick. As shown in Fig. 56.1, DCB Issue No. 56, the
brace in compression generates a horizontal
Make all bolts M24. compression component against the column of
*
H C, com . This is trying to push the column away
This gives one endplate thickness and one bolt from the beam and must be resisted by a
size throughout. horizontal tension component of the same
magnitude acting between column and beam,
4. Design Check on Brace to Column and along the beam centreline and through the beam
Brace to Beam Connections to column connection.

4.1 Proportioning design actions on the The brace in compression also generates a
connection downwards compression component against the
beam of VB,* com . This is another applied vertical
4.1.1 Actions from brace into beam and into
column load on the beam, which generates a vertical
compression force on the column, through the
This uses the procedure presented on pages 3 beam to column connection.
and 4 of DCB Issue No. 56; the aim being to place
the line of action of the brace forces transmitted The actions are:
through the connection back through the work
point, as initially assumed in the analysis and as (1.1) Horizontal component from beam into
shown in Fig. 61.5. column
brace, com = - HC, com = 172 kN (tension)
* *
H beam,
Determining dimensions (see Fig. 56.1, DCB No. (1.2) Vertical component from beam into column
56 and Fig. 61.7):
brace, com = VB, com
* *
Vbeam,
α = 16 + 73 + 65 + 90/2 = 199 mm = - 253 kN (downwards)
β = 16 + 66 + 90/2 = 127 mm R *brace com , from section2,
eB = db/2 = 307/2 = 154 mm = + 5 kN (upwards)
eC = dc/2 = 210/2 = 105 mm *
Vtotal, brace, com = - 253 + 5
= - 248 kN (downwards)
r= (199 + 105)2 + (127 + 154)2 = 414 mm
Case 2” brace in tension
 199 + 105  *
*
H B, com =  Nbrace, com = - 499 kN
 414  The brace in tension generates a horizontal
*
tension component against the column of H C, ten .
 199 + 105  *
H *B, ten =   Nbrace, ten = + 414 kN This must be resisted by a horizontal compression
 414 
component of the same magnitude through the
154 *
VB,* ten = Nbrace, ten = + 210 kN beam to column connection.
414
154 * The brace in tension also generates an upwards
VB,* com = Nbrace, com = - 253 kN
414 tension component against the beam of VB,* ten ,

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 13 No. 61, April 2001
which in turn generates an upwards tension force
on the column, through the beam to column
ten = 383 kN (for 4 bolts)
*
VC,
connection.
ten = 143 x 1.4 = 200 kN (for 4 bolts)
*
H C,
The actions are: (The 1.4 factor is to allow for prying; see item 3 (ii)
on page 10 of DCB No. 56).
(2.1) Horizontal component from brace into
column 2 2
 VC,* ten   HC,
* 
  + ten 
≤ 1.0 is required
 φVfn   φNtf 
brace, ten = - HC, ten
* *
H beam,    
= - 143 kN (compression)  383 x 0.25 
2
 200 x 0.25 
2

(2.2) Vertical component from beam into column   +  = 0.56 < 1.0 √ OK
 133   234 
The 4 M24 bolts are satisfactory.
brace, ten = VB, ten
* *
Vbeam,
= 210 kN (upwards) 4.2.2 Adequacy of endplate

* Design actions are:

Rbrace,ten , from section2,
= - 87 kN (downwards) *
HC, ten = 143 kN

ten = 383 kN
*
VC,
brace, ten = 210 - 87
*
Vtotal,
= 123 kN (upwards) (Flexural resistance to H *C, ten will be critical.)

4.1.3 Checking moments about work point The dimensions for yieldline based tension
from brace actions into beam and capacity determination are given in Fig. 61.8.
column

This is not an essential part of the design

procedure, but is included to illustrate that the
proportioning of the brace input actions into the
beam and column in the manner described in
DCB Issue No. 56 and implemented in section
4.1.1 above does achieve the input brace forces
passing through the work point (WP).

If this is the case, then taking moments about the

WP should give ΣMwp = 0, ie.:

H C* (eB + β ) + HB* eB - VC eC - VB (eC + α ) = 0

Inputting the values for the brace in compression

(largest brace force) gives

ΣMwp = - 0.24 kNm ≈ 0

4.2 Checking adequacy of bolts and

endplate from brace to column
Fig. 61.8
4.2.1 Adequacy of bolts Dimensions for Brace to Column Endplate
Tension Capacity Determination
Case 1: shear due to compression brace force Notes to Fig. 61.8:
(1) The endplate width of 250 mm is from [2] for a MEPS
com = 462 kN (ignoring sign)
*
VC, connection to a 200UC46.
(2) A 5 mm fillet weld is assumed between brace web and
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > VC,
*
com √ OK endplate, as this is the minimum size possible and the
smaller the weld size, the lower the tension capacity.
Thus m = 41 - 0.8 x 5 = 37 mm.
Case 2: combined shear and tension due to (3) The bolt gauge (distance between bolts in a row) is
tension brace force taken as Sg, from [2].

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 14 No. 61, April 2001
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by φVC,ep ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 225 x 0.250 x 2
Case 3, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17]. = 1345 kN
φVC, ep >> VC,* ten or VC,
*
com √ OK
0.7 bf,brace = 0.7 x 203 = 142 mm

Sg = 90 mm < 0.7 bf,brace. Thus; Endplate is adequate in shear and in tension;

combined shear and tension check is not
Leff = Max (248/2; (232 - 248/2)) + 90/2 required.
= 124 + 45 = 169 mm (value for 1 row of
bolts) 4.3 Checking adequacy of bolts and
endplate from brace to beam
Leff,ii = 4m + 1.25e = 4 x 37 + 1.25 x
80 4.3.1 Adequacy of bolts
= 248 mm
Case 1: shear due to compression brace force
Leff,iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 232 mm
com = 499 kN (ignoring sign)
*
HB,
m1 = 37 mm
m2 = max (65; 66) = 66
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > VB,* com √ OK
λ 1 = 0.32 
 α , from Fig. 2.16 of [17], = 2π Case 2:combined shear and tension due to
λ 2 = 0.56
tension brace force
Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 169 = 338 mm
ten = 210 x 1.4 = 294 kN (for 4 bolts, maximum prying)
*
VB,

ten = 414 kN (for 4 bolts)

Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using *
HB,
step 1A, page 18 of [17]:
2 2
 HB,
*   VB,* ten 
 ten 
+  ≤ 1.0 is required
2
Leff t ep 0.9 x 250  φVfn   φNtf 
φMp = = 4.87 kNm    
4 x 106 2 2
Leff = 338 mm  414 x 0.25   294 x 0.25 
  +  = 0.70 < 1.0 √ OK
 133   234 
Mode 1
4 φM p 4 x 4.87 The 4 M24 bolts are satisfactory.
φPr,1 = = -3
= 526 kN
m 37 x 10

Mode 2

φPr,2 =
( )
2 φM p + n ΣPt'
m+n

2 x 4.87 + 60 x 10-3 x 4 x 234

= = 679 kN
(37 + 60) x 10-3

n = min (nendplate ; ncol flange )

 250 - 90   210 - 90  
n = min  ;   = 60
 2   2 

Mode 3
Fig. 61.9
φPr,3 = ΣPt' = 4 x 234 = 936 kN Dimensions for Brace to Beam Endplate Tension
Capacity Determination

φHC, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 526 kN > HC,

*
ten = 143 kN
Note to Fig. 61.9
90 10
* This dimension, m = m1 = - - 0.8 x 8 = 33 mm
Horizontal tension capacity of endplate is easily 2 2
adequate.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 15 No. 61, April 2001
4.3.2 Design adequacy of endplate φVB, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 438 kN > VB,* ten = 210 kN √ OK
Design actions are:
Vertical tension capacity of endplate is adequate.
VB,* ten = 210 kN Check on horizontal shear capacity.
*
HB, ten = 414 kN
φHC,ep, shear ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 273 x 0.250 x 2
= 1631 kN
The dimensions for yieldline based tension
capacity determination are given in Fig. 61.9
φHC, ep, shear >> HB,
* *
ten or HB, com √ OK
The effective yieldline length is determined from
Case 1, right-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17] for the Endplate is adequate in shear and tension.
inner row of bolts and Case 2, right-hand side of
that table for the outer row of bolts. 4.4 Brace and gusset plate adequacy in
shear and axial force
 232  232   90
Leff ,inner row = Max  ;  207 -  + = 161mm
2   2
4.4.1 Adjacent to column face
 2 
This involves checking the cross section of brace
Leff,ii = 4 x 33 + 1.25 x 80 = 232 mm shown in Fig. 61.8 for combined shear and axial
Leff, iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 207 mm capacity. The critical case is for the brace in
e = 80 mm compression.
m1 = 33 mm
m2 = 65 mm 203 x 11
λ1 = 0.29 A*braceface,col = + 221x 7.3 = 5265 mm 2
cos 52.3
  α, from Fig. 2.16 of [17] = 2 π
λ2 = 0.58 221 = length of mitred web

 232  90 φVbraceface, col ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 0.6 x 0.32 x 5265 = 755 kN

Leff , outer row = Min  e x1 ; + = 90 mm
 2  2 φNs,braceface,col ≈ 0.9 x 5265 x 0.320 = 1516 kN
ex1 (from [17]) = ae1 = 45 mm
2 2
Leff,both rows = 90 + 161 = 251 mm  VC, *   HC, * 
 com  + com  ≤ 1.0 is required
 φVbraceface,col   φNs, braceface, col 
Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using    
step 1A, page 18 of [17]
2 2
 462   172 
2   +  = 0.37 + 0.01= 0.38 < 1.0 √ OK
φMp =
251x 16 x 0.9 x 250
= 3.61 kNm  755   1516 
4 x 106
4.4.2 Adjacent to beam face
Mode 1
4 x 3.61 This involves checking the cross section of the
φPr,1 = = 438 kN brace and gusset plate shown in Fig. 61.9 for
33 x 10-3
combined shear and axial capacity. The critical
case is for the brace in compression.
Mode 2
2 x 3.61+ 38 x 10-3 x 4 x 234
φPr,2 = = 603 kN A*braceface, beam =
203 x 11
+ 60 x 7.3
(33 + 38) x 10-3 cos 52.3
n = min (nendplate ; nbeam flange ) + 200 x 10 x 0.26/0.30= 5714 mm 2

 250 - 90   166 - 90   The 0.26/0.32 adjusts for the grade 250 gusset
n = min   ;   = 38 plate, normalising the area to an equivalent area
 2   2  of grade 300 steel.
Check n > min. edge distance, NZS 3404 Table
9.6.2. As the area is greater than that from 4.4.1 and the
n = 38 mm > 1.25df = 30 mm √ OK applied forces are similar, this face is satisfactory
by comparison with Section 4.4.1.
Mode 3

φPr,3 = ΣPt' = 4 x 234 = 936 kN

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 16 No. 61, April 2001
4.5 Check of gusset plate against buckling in This intersection is shown in the closeup in Fig.
compression 61.6 and 61.7 and occurs at the mitred corner of
the beam web.
This check is as given on page 10 of DCB No. 56,
involving the slenderness ratio of the unsupported The vertical endplate is extended half way down
edge, bgp, shown in Fig 61.7. past the horizontal endplate.

bgp  250  Make the welds between the endplates the same
≤ 40   is required size as the endplates to beam web weld - ie. 6
t gp  fy 
  mm FW.
275  250 
= 27.5 ≤ 40   = 39 √ OK 5. Design Check of Collector Beam to
10  260 
  Column Connection

4.6 Design of welds between brace, This check is first undertaken using the equivalent
endplates and gusset plate moment and shear check of DCB No. 56
equations 56.10 and 56.11 in conjunction with the
4.6.1 Welds between brace flanges and published connection design moment and shear
endplates capacity of R4-100 [2].

These are butt welds. Refer to Note (3), Fig. 56.3 Because that simple check fails in shear, in this
of DCB Issue No. 56 for caution on the weld detail instance, a more detailed check involving
not being prequalified to AS/NZS 1554.1 [18], due checking the adequacy in shear, tension and
to the angle between brace and endplate being combined actions is then made.
outside of the prequalified range and how to
account for this. 5.1 Check using equivalent moment and
shear
4.6.2 Welds between brace web and endplate
These are double sided fillet welds. In H C* = Hbeam,
*
brace com (section 4.1.2,case 1.1) = 172 kN
accordance with page 10, DCB Issue No. 56,
these should be sized to develop the design HC* (di - ae1 - af ) x 10-3
tension capacity of the brace web, so as to
= 172 (340 - 15 - 100) x 10 -3 = 38.7 kNm
accommodate global design actions plus any
di = 340; ae1 = 15; af = 100 from [2]
localised increase in tension action generated
around the bolts.
com (section 4.1.2, case 1.2) = - 248 kN
*
Vbrace,
v* = 0.9 x 0.5 x fyw,brace tw,brace = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.32
x 7.3 = 1.05 kN/mm From page 151 of [2]:
φvw for a 6 mm category SP FW, from [16],
= 0.98 kN/mm φMcon for MEPS - 4 30/15 = 79 kNm > 38.7 √ OK

This is 7% overstressed - accept √ OK φVcon for MEPS - 4 30/15 = 185 kN < 248 X NG

Use a 6 mm FW each side between brace web Need to check capacity from first principles, as the
and endplate. design moment is lower and the shear higher than
that assumed in [2], plus the bolt size used is
4.6.3 Welds between gusset plate and larger, which increases the capacity.
connected elements
5.2 Checking adequacy of bolts
The gusset plate connects between the brace and
endplate. Using the same approach as in Section 5.2.1 Connection subject to compression and
4.6.2: shear

v* = 0.9 x 0.5 x fygp tgp = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.26 x 10 This is generated by the brace in tension case -
= 1.17 kN/mm see Section 4.1.2 Case 2.
φvw for an 8 mm category SP FW, from [16]
brace, ten(section 4.1.2, case 2.1) = - 143 kN (comp)
= 1.3 kN/mm *
Hbeam,
Use an 8 mm FW each side to gusset plate.
brace, ten (section 4.1.2, case 2.2) = 123 kN (upwards)
*
Vtotal,
4.6.4 Welds between two intersecting
endplates The compression force is transferred by direct
bearing.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 17 No. 61, April 2001
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > Vtotal
*
√ OK 0.7 bf,beam = 0.7 x 166 = 116 mm
Sg = 90 mm < 0.7 bf, beam. Thus:
5.2.2 Connection subject to tension and shear
 252  252   140
Leff = Max  ;  238 -  + = 196 mm
This is generated by the brace in compression
 2  2   2
case - see Section 4.1.2 Case 1
(value for 1 row of bolts)
brace, com (Section 4.1.2, Case 1.1) = 172 kN (tension)
*
Hbeam,

brace, com (Section 4.1.2, Case 1.2) = - 248 kN (downwards )

*
Vtotal, Leff,ii = 4 x 38 + 1.25 x 80 = 252
Leff,iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 238
The signs are ignored for the rest of this section. m1 = 38 mm
m2 = max (70; 73) = 73.
2 2 λ 1 = 0.32 
 Vtotal,
*   H* x 1.4   α , from Fig. 2.16 of [17],
 brace, com 
+  beam,brace, com ≤ 1.0 is required λ 2 = 0.62
 φVfn   φNtf 
    = 2π
The 1.4 factor allows for prying effects Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 196 = 392 mm.
2 2
 248 x 0.25   172 x 1.4 x 0.25  Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using
  +  = 0.28 < 1.0 step 1A, page 18 of [17], gives:
 133   234 
√ OK
φMp = 5.65 kNm
Bolts are adequate. φHbeam, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 610 kN > Hbeam
*
= 172 kN

5.3 Checking adequacy of endplate Horizontal tension capacity of endplate is easily

adequate.
5.3.1 Adequacy of endplate in tension
5.3.2 Adequacy of endplate in shear
The dimensions for yieldline based tension
capacity determination are shown in Fig. 61.10. φVbeam, ep ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 325 x 0.250 x 2 = 1942 kN

φVbeam, ep >> Vtotal,

* *
brace, com or Vtotal, brace, ten

Endplate is adequate in shear and in tension or

shear and compression; combined check for
shear and tension is not required.

5.4 Checking adequacy of beam web

The collector beam web must be able to transfer

the design shear force into the endplate.

*
Vbeam =Vtotal,
*
brace, com = 248 kN

φVv , from Table 5.2 - 5 of [16], = 356 kN > Vbeam

*
OK
Fig. 61.10
Dimensions for Beam to Column Endplate 5.5 Checking adequacy of welds between
Tension Capacity Determination beam and endplate
Note: 5.5.1 Beam flange to endplate weld
1. The connection layout is a modified MEPS - 4 detail
2. The modification relates to terminating the top of the For the MEPS connections in [2], this weld is
endplate flush with the beam top flange. sized to develop the design tension capacity of
3. The dimensions af, ae1 from [2] are for the M24 8.8 bolt the beam flange, which will be satisfactory in this
size used.
application. However, the need to make the
endplate flush with the top of beam necessitates a
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by
butt weld connection between the endplate and
Case 3, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17].
beam top flange.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 18 No. 61, April 2001
Thus the weld details are: 199 90
Leff = + = 144 mm
2 2
• beam top flange : BW
• beam bottom flange : double sided FW, (Value for 1 row of bolts)
twf = 10 mm
Leff,ii = 4 x 31 + 1.25 x 60 = 199 mm
5.5.2 Beam web to endplate weld

This is sized to develop the design tension Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 144 = 288 mm
capacity of the beam web, thus accommodating
high local tension forces from the bolts acting on
the endplate. Leff tC2 φ fyc 288 x 14.22 x 0.9 x 300
φMp = = = 3.93 kNm
4 4 x 106
v * = 0.9 x 0.5 fyw, b t w,b = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.32 x 6.7 = 0.96 kN/mm
4 x 3.93
φPr,1 = = 507 kN
φv w for a 6 mm category SP FW, from [16], = 0.98 kN/mm 31 x 10- 3
Use a 6 mm FW instead of the 5 mm FW from [2].
By comparison with the previous tension capacity
6. Check Adequacy of Column Flange to calculations, mode 1 will give the lowest design
Accept Input Connection Forces tension capacity.
Without Stiffeners
φNcol, ten,brace = 507 kN > Ncol,
*
ten,brace = 143 kN
6.1 Unstiffened tension capacity check

As shown in Fig. 61.7, the column flange is Column flange has adequate unstiffened tension
subject to design tension actions from the capacity, irrespective of the level of design axial
endplate to the brace and the endplate to the force in the column. (This is because the
beam. maximum level of design axial force possible in
the column, at 0.7φNs for a category 2 column in
ten from brace = HC, ten = 143 kN
* * an EBF (Table 12.8.1 from [3]), generates a value
Ncol,
of η = 0.81. When φNcol, ten, brace is multiplied by
ten from beam = Hbeam,brace, com = 172 kN
* *
Ncol, *
0.81, it is still greater than Ncol, ten, brace . Thus the
6.1.1 Check for column flange unstiffened influence of axial force is not critical).
tension capacity at brace bolt group
level 6.1.2 Check for column flange unstiffened
tension capacity at beam bolt group
The dimensions for yieldline based tension level
capacity determination are shown in Fig. 61.11.
The effective yieldline length at the beam
will be greater than at the brace, making
φNcol, ten, beam > φNcol, ten, brace. The latter is greater
ten, beam = 172 kN, so the former will also
*
than N col,
be greater and hence will be satisfactory.

6.2 Unstiffened compression capacity check

This can be checked very quickly using the

tabulated design web capacities from [16] and a
bearing length equal to the depth of endplate in
contact with the column.

bb = 266 mm (see Fig. 61.8)

φRbb
for 200UC60, from Table 5.2-6 of [16],
bb
Fig. 61.11 = 2.08 kN/mm
Dimensions for Determining Column Flange φRbb = 2.08 x 266 = 553 kN > Ncol,
*
com,brace
Unstiffened Tension Capacity
com,brace = HC, com (Section 4.1.1) = 172 kN
* *
Ncol,
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by
Case 1, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17].

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 19 No. 61, April 2001
7. Check Adequacy of Beam to Accept Mode 1
Input Connection Forces Without
Stiffeners 4 x 2.54
φPr,1 = = 507 kN = 307 kN
33 x 10-3
7.1 Unstiffened transverse tension capacity
check on beam flange Mode 2
The adequacy of the endplate between brace and
2 x 2.54 + 38 x 10-3 x 4 x 234
beam to resist the design tension forces has been φPr,2 = = 572 kN
determined in Section 4.3.2. (33 x 38) x 10-3

The adequacy of the beam flange to resist the n = min (nendplate ; nbeam flange) = 38 mm
same force (VB,* ten = 210 kN ) must now be
checked. This starts with the unstiffened capacity φVB, beam, ten = φPr,1 = 307 kN > VB,
*
ten = 210 kN
check.
Unstiffened beam flange capacity to resist
The effective yieldline length is determined from transverse (out-of-plane) tension is adequate.
Case 1, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17] for the
row of bolts furthest away from the beam end (the 7.2 Unstiffened transverse compression
far row) (see Fig. 61.7) and Case 2, right-hand capacity check on beam web
side of that table for the bolts nearest the beam
end (the near row). This can be checked quickly using the tabulated
design web capacities from [16] and the bearing
Leff,ii = 4 m + 1.25n = 4 x 33 + 1.25 x 38 length for web yielding and web buckling given by:
= 180 mm
90 6.7 bbf = bs + 2.5 tfb = 273 + 2.5 x 11.8 = 303 mm
m = - - 0.8 x 11.4 = 33 mm bs = 73 + 65 + 90 + 45 = 273 mm
2 2
bb = bbf + db / 2 = 303 + 307/2 = 456mm
(6.7 = twb; 11.4 = beam root φRbb
for 310UB46, from Table 5.2-5 of [16],
radius) bb
= 0.740 kN/mm
 t fb - Sg   166 - 90 
n =   =
  = 38 mm *
 2   2  φRbb = 0.740 x 456 = 337 kN > VB,com = 253 kN

p = Sg = 90 mm *
VB,com = 253 kN compression

ex = distance from bolt row closest to (section 4.1.1)

beam end to end of beam
= 73 + 65 = 138 mm φRby
for 310UB46 = 2.41 kN/mm
bbf
180 90
Leff, far row = + = 135 mm
2 2 φRby = 2.41 x 303 *
= 730 kN > VB,com

Leff, near row =

The beam has adequate unstiffened transverse
 180  90
min  138; + = 90 + 45 = 135 mm compression capacity.
 2  2
7.3 Unstiffened longitudinal tension
Leff, both rows = 135 + 135 = 270 mm capacity check on beam flange

Calculation of unstiffened beam flange tensions This is a check against the beam flange
capacity, using step 1A, page 18 of [17]: undergoing local yielding from the horizontal input
force from the brace. Critical case is under brace
270 x 11.82 x 0.9 x 300 compression, which puts the beam top flange into
φMp = = 2.54 kNm tension. Critical location is under the far row of
4 x106 bolts from the beam end.
t fb = 11.8 mm φNt = min (φAgfy; φ0.85Anfu)
= min (529; 452) = 452 kN
fyfb = 300 MPa φAgfy = 0.9 x 166 x 11.8 x 0.300
= 529kN

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 20 No. 61, April 2001
 φ0.85Anfu = 0.9 x 0.85 x (166 - 2 x 26) x The line of Rmax *
= edge of column flange. The
11.8 x 0.440 = 452 kN connection is a semi-rigid connection, hence the
100 mm eccentricity specified by Clause 4.3.4.2 of
*
The critical design action is HB, com = -499 kN [3] is not required to be considered.
com > φNt,min but < φNt,fy . As the calculation
*
HB,
This moment is distributed into the column above
does not include web contribution, accept this and below the connection in accordance with
slight undercapacity. √ O.K. NZS 3404 Clause 4.3.4.3.

8. Calculation of Additional Moment into 9. Conclusion

Column
The joint details are as follows:
8.1 General

As described on pages 4-5 of DCB Issue No. 56, • Endplates are 16 mm thick
because of the proportioning method used in the • Gusset plate is 10 mm thick
brace / beam / column design (see also the • Bolts are M24 8.8 / TB mode
moment balance check in section 4.1.3), there is • Weld sizes are as given in sections 4.6 and
no design moment transferred into the column 5.5.
from noding eccentricity.
Dimensions are as shown in Figs. 61.7 and 61.11.
Thus, the only design moment transferred into the
column from the connection is that due to the Innovative Structural Steel
collector beam shear force, R*.
Case Study : Scotia Place
8.2 Calculation of moment magnitude Apartments
*
Rmax = Rbrace
*
ten (see section 2) = - 87 kN (downwards )
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.

*
M ecc = Rmax
*
ec = 87 x 0.105 = 9.1 kNm (ignoring sign) Introduction

One of the aims of the DCB is to present case

studies of buildings or other structures that
incorporate the innovative use of structural steel.
Examples have been presented in past issues of
the DCB.

This issue continues the theme, with details of a

unique 14 storey apartment building that features
the combination of timber and steel.

The method of presentation of this case study is

also unique, in that the majority of information is
referenced to a paper on the building presented in
one of the (at times) opposition’s publications.

The building in question is the Scotia Place

apartments, in central Auckland.

The paper in question is entitled Scotia Place - A

Case Study of High-Rise Construction Using
Wood and Steel [19], published in the New
Zealand Timber Design Journal. It is written by
Mark Moore, Structural Designer with Holmes
Consulting Group. To obtain a copy of the paper
see the accompanying order form.

The building comprises 12 levels of steel framing

Fig. 61.12 (gravity and lateral) supporting glue-laminated
Scotia Place Apartments From North -East timber floors and dry wall construction, supported
on a basement of concrete floor slab and masonry
wall construction.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 21 No. 61, April 2001
General Description of the Building Scope of Paper

The design and construction aspects very briefly

mentioned above are presented in more detail in
Moore’s paper [19]. This covers:

• Introduction
• Structural form
• Basis of design
• Design considerations specific to the wood
floor
− Including forming a rigid diaphragm for
earthquake
− Adding damping for wind serviceability
performance
− Meeting acoustic separation requirements
− Allowing for differential movement between
timber and steel
• Comparison to concrete floor solution

The Scotia Place apartments show, in a very good

manner, the advantages that can be gained by
combining steel gravity and lateral framing with
timber floor construction. The result has been a
cost-effective, solution to inner city apartment
living that warrants wider application.

Fig. 61.13
Floor Plan, Steel Framing (from [19]) References
It has a small floor plate and only a single means 1. Cao, J and Packer, J A; Design of Tension
of internal access, with an external fire escape Circular Flange Joints in Tubular Structures;
which has been made into a prominent Engineering Journal, First Quarter, 1997, pp.
architectural feature, as shown in Fig. 61.12. 17-25

The gravity system comprises laminated timber 2. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Connections
floor planks, 65 mm thick, spanning onto Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1999, HERA
supporting steel gravity beams and gravity Report R4-100.
columns. The lateral load resisting system
comprises four concentrically braced steel frames, 3. NZS 3404:1997, Steel Structures Standard;
as shown in Fig. 61.13. These are inclined to the Standard New Zealand, Wellington.
principal axes and so each frame acts in both
directions. 4. Hogan T and Syam A; Design of Structural
Connections, Fourth Edition; Australia
Designing to meet the Building Control System Institute of Steel Construction, North Sydney,
acoustic performance levels (see pp. 2-14 of DCB Australia, 1994.
Issue No. 57 for detailed coverage of these levels)
was one of the most difficult considerations to 5. Hyland, C; Amendment No1 to Structural
address. Part of this involved hiding all steelwork Steelwork Construction Guide; HERA,
behind linings, which were also shown through Manukau City, 2001.
specific Fire Engineering Design to provide
sufficient radiation shielding not to require specific 6. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
passive fire protection to the steel members. and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington.
The end result is a unique, light-weight apartment
building, featuring the appearance of laminated 7. Gorenc, BE; Crane Runway Girders;
timber. It combines the structural and aesthetic Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
benefits of laminated timber with the strength and North Sydney, Australia 1983.
stiffness of structural steel to create the country’s
tallest commercial or residential building not using 8. Monorail Beam Design; BHP Ltd, Melbourne,
concrete in the floors. Australia 1978.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 22 No. 61, April 2001
9. Wilyman, K and Kelly, B; Recent
Developments in the Design of Crane Runway
Girders; 1998 Australasian Structural
Engineering Conference, Auckland, 1998,
Volume 2, pp 875-882; Structural Engineering
Society of New Zealand, Auckland, 1998.

10. AS 1418.18; 2001, Cranes (Including Hoists

and Winches) Part 18: Crane Runways and
Monorails; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.

11. AS 1418.1 : 1994 (Plus Amendment No1 :

1997), Cranes (Including Hoists and Winches)
Part 1 : General Requirements; Standards
Australia, Sydney, Australia.

12. AS 4100 : 1998, Steel Structures; Standards

Australia, Sydney, Australia.

13. AS 3990 : 1993, Mechanical Equipment :

Steelwork ; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.

14. Clifton, G C; Structural Steelwork Limit State

Design Guides Volume 1; HERA, Manukau
City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80.

15. Feeney M J and Clifton G C; Seismic Design

Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA,
Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76.

16. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel,

Third Edition, Volume 1 : Open Sections;
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
Sydney, Australia, 2000.

17. Joints in Steel Construction: Moment

Connections; The Steel Construction
Institute, Ascot, England, 1995, SCI
Publication P207.

18. AS/NZS 1554.1:2000, Structural Steel

Welding Part 1: Welding of Steel Structures;
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

19. Moore, M; Scotia Place - A Case Study of

High-Rise Construction Using Wood and
Steel; NZ Timber Design Journal, Issue 1,
Volume 10, 2000.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 23 No. 61, April 2001