DCB 68 Sliding Hinge Joint

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No.
68, June/July 2002

No. 68
The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the
beginning of the article.
J une/ J uly 2002
The procedure detailed herein has been the subject of
review by a number of people. The effort and input of these
reviewers is greatly appreciated.
I ntroduction
As readers will be aware, HERA and the University
of Auckland are engaged in a long-term research
project aimed at developing new forms of semi-
rigid joints for moment-resisting, steel framed
seismic-resisting systems (MRSFs). Two joint
types have been developed from this programme
as the preferred options for the beam to column
connections of MRSFs. These are the Flange
Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge Joint
(SHJ).
The experimental and analytical phases of this
project are now completed and the final phase
(writing up and presenting of results) has begun.
The FBJ was the first joint to be developed.
Design and detailing procedures for it have already
been published in DCB No. 58, principally, and
with a minor corrigenda in DCB No. 62 and an
extension to its original scope of application in
DCB No. 64. This joint has been used in at least
two building developments (one in Auckland and
one in Napier), which was the intention behind the
design and detailing requirements being published
prior to the release of the full research report [1].
With the completion of the analytical work on the
SHJ, the research has now reached the stage
where final design and detailing provisions for the
SHJ can be made. This issue presents these
recommendations, covering the design and
detailing of the joint itself and the design of
moment-resisting steel framed system
incorporating the joint. It also presents a detailed
design example on a particular SHJ.
Also covered is a short article on a specific design
issue that has arisen in recent times.
In This Issue

Page
The Sliding Hinge Joint

1
Member Compression Capacity of a
Solid Section
33

References

33

The Sliding Hinge J oint: Design
and Detailing Provisions and
Design Example
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer, John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at the
University of Auckland Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering and Tanja Miller, Undergraduate Student from the
Fachhochschule Weingarten on Study Leave (Industrial
Practice) at HERA.
1. Introduction and Scope of Article
1.1 Brief history of the overall project
HERA and the University of Auckland are in the
final stages of a long-term research project aimed
at developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
resisting systems (MRSFs).
These joints are designed and detailed to achieve
the following performance characteristics:
Remain fully rigid up to the design level
serviceability limit state earthquake moment
Remain reasonably rigid above the
serviceability limit state level and up to the
design level ultimate limit state earthquake
moment
Allow inelastic rotation between beam and
column to occur when the design ultimate limit
state earthquake moment is exceeded
17-19 Gladding Place
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
Email: structural@hera.org.nz

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 2 No. 68, June/July 2002
Be able to withstand the inelastic rotation
demand associated with the design level
earthquake with negligible damage, such that
the post-design earthquake building response
under serviceability conditions is not
significantly affected
Withstand greater levels of rotation demand
with increased damage but not failure.
Of the five joint types that have been researched
for this project, two joint details have emerged as
preferred options for the beam to column
connections of MRSFs. These are the Flange
Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge Joint
(SHJ).
These two joints are designed and detailed to meet
the performance criteria in different ways. Very
briefly:
The FBJ is designed for higher strength, low
design ductility demand applications. It is very
simple to fabricate and erect. It has a low
inelastic rotation damage threshold, but is
capable of withstanding high levels of inelastic
rotation demand if necessary.
The SHJ is designed for lower strength, high
design ductility demand applications. It is
slightly less simple than the FBJ to fabricate
and more complex to erect and is designed to
withstand fully ductile levels of design inelastic
rotation with minimum damage.
The FBJ development was completed in 2001.
Guidance on design and detailing of the FBJ and
MRSFs incorporating the FBJ has been given in
DCB No. 58, with a minor corrigenda in DCB No.
62. In the latter half of 2001, it became apparent
from the numerical integration time history (NITH)
analyses that the originally proposed scope of
application of the FBJ, which was for low ductility
demand applications only, could be widened, and
work on this was undertaken, with the results
published in DCB No. 64.
Up to the end of 2001, all NITH studies were
undertaken in accordance with NZS 4203:1992 [2].
However, the March 2002 version of the draft
replacement to that standard, which has been
under development for several years, contained
detailed guidance on the selection and scaling of
earthquake records for NITH. The selection and
scaling of earthquake records used up to the end
of 2001 was rather ad-hoc (see details in section
6.4 of HERA Report R4-88 [3] and summary
details in section 3.4, pp. 16-17 of DCB No. 64)
and so, in 2002, the opportunity has been taken to
use the provisions of DR1170.4 [4] to produce a
revised suite of earthquake records and scale
factors. Details of these will be summarised in
DCB No. 69. The FBJ designs were then
reanalysed under this new suite of earthquake
records. Given that the records were selected and
scaled in accordance with the new draft, [4], while
the FBJ frames had been designed to the existing
standard [2], some comparative 5 and 10 storey
frames were redesigned to the new standard to
see the differences in seismic design actions, P -
effects and subsequent member sizes. The
member sizes for a given application turned out to
be the same from both standards for each case
studied.
For the SHJ NITH studies, the frames were all
designed and analysed to the draft provisions.
Because the suite of earthquake records cover
three soil/fault conditions, the designs were
undertaken for these conditions. The three
conditions covered were:
(1) Class C shallow soil [4] with near fault
action
(2) Class C shallow soil [4] without near
fault action
(3) Class D soft soil [4] without near fault
action
Designs were undertaken for two seismic zones
(Auckland, Wellington). The near fault action
option is only applicable to Wellington.
The SHJ NITH studies were completed in June
2002. With their completion, the design and
detailing provisions for the SHJ have been
finalised and are presented herein.
Summary details of the NITH studies and the
frame options will be given in DCB No. 69. Writing
up of the entire project is also progressing
concurrently and is due for completion in the first
quarter of 2003 [1].
A summary paper [7] of the research into both
joints and systems was presented at the 2001
NZSEE Technical Conference.
1.2 Scope of This Article
This article presents the design and detailing
provisions for the SHJ and for MRSFs using the
SHJ. The former is presented in section 3 and the
latter in section 4. This is followed with a SHJ
design example, in section 5.
However, prior to presenting these provisions, this
article looks briefly at the performance of SHJs in
severe earthquakes, in terms of the design
philosophy, target performance requirements and
behaviour from experimental tests. These issues
have already been mentioned in DCB No. 59 and
that article will be cross-referenced as appropriate.
They will also be covered in detail in the thesis
report [1] on the whole project.

Fig. 68.1
Sliding Hinge Joint: Isometric and Exploded View

Fig. 68.2
Layout and Notation for the
Sliding Hinge Joint
Fig. 68.3
Lever Aims for Moment Capacity Determination

Before commencing with the performance in
earthquakes, a description of the SHJ is in order.
Fig. 68.1 shows an isometric and exploded view
of the joint. Fig. 68.2 shows an elevation with the
layout and notation, while Fig. 68.3 shows the
lever arms for determination of the joint moment
capacity.
2. Performance of the Sliding Hinge J oint
in Severe Earthquakes
2.1 Design philosophy and modes of
operation
The design philosophy behind this joint has been
to establish dependable behavioural
characteristics for the SHJ and for the MRSF
system for the serviceability limit state condition
and for two levels of ultimate limit state conditions.
These are described in section 2.3. The first level
of ULS condition is the design level ultimate limit
state earthquake, as stipulated by NZS 4203 [2] or
DR 1170.4 [4] and the second is the more severe
maximum considered event. All the experimental
and analytical work undertaken on the SHJ has
been planned and executed with this philosophy
in mind.
The mode of operation of the SHJ is relatively
simple. The beam is pinned laterally at the top
flange level, using nominal sized bolt holes and
FBJ details. This keeps lateral movement in the
floor slab to 2-3 mm, thus minimising undesirable
floor slab participation and slab damage. Joint
rotation is achieved through sliding at the
bottom flange and the web bottom bolt level (see
Fig. 68.1 for the location of these components and
Fig. 64.10, DCB No. 64, for an illustration of this
mechanism).
The sliding details are shown in the isometric view
of Fig. 68.1. The sliding layers are between the
brass shims and plate (web plate, bottom bolts for
bottom flange plate). The holes for the web
bottom bolts in the web plate and for the bottom
flange bolts in the bottom flange plate are slotted
to allow this sliding to occur. The beam flange or
web and the associated cap plates all have
nominal sized holes.
When the moment demand on the SHJ from
earthquake generates internal beam axial forces
which exceed the sliding resistance available
through the bottom flange bolts and web bottom
bolts, the joint will slide, allowing beam rotation to
occur. As sliding occurs, the cap plate is
anchored in position relative to the beam flange or
web by the bolts, allowing the cap plate to also
slide relative to these surfaces. Once the
imposed moment reduces, there comes a point
where the sliding stops and the joint becomes
rigid again. This is illustrated in Fig. 59.28 of DCB
No. 59, which shows the joint rotation versus
moment from the large-scale test 4 and in
Fig. 68.4 herein, which shows the joint rotation
versus moment from the large-scale test 3.
On rotation reversal, the joint unloads abruptly,
then the moment capacity builds up in the reverse
direction, as shown in Fig. 59.28 or 68.4. The
increase in moment with increasing reverse
rotation occurs in two stages; one as sliding
occurs along the first interface (beam to plate) and
then with a further increase in shear capacity as
the second interface (plate to cap plate) is
activated.
The slotted hole is designed to accommodate a
joint rotation of t 30 mrad (radians x 10
-3
)
multiplied by an over rotation factor of 1.25; if the
inelastic rotation demand exceeds this, the joint
undergoes further inelastic behaviour through
flange plate yielding, in the same manner as for
the FBJ (see DCB Issue No. 58). The first large-
scale SHJ specimen, tested to destruction in test
2, still developed its design moment capacity at
over 120 mrad rotation!
Under the design level ULS earthquake, inelastic
rotation demand is expected to be not greater
than the 37.5 mrad accommodated within the
slotted holes. At this level of rotation demand,
minimum joint degradation will occur and only
minor slab cracking, such that no post-earthquake
repair is required.
Under the maximum considered event (MCE), the
MRSF with SHJs will retain its integrity, to allow
evacuation and post-earthquake assessment, but
will suffer controlled joint damage, which may
necessitate replacement of components.
However, the results from the NITH studies show
that, in most instances, little or no reinstatement
would be needed after most maximum considered
events, especially for buildings not subject to near
fault action.
In terms of the force based seismic design
philosophy of [2, 4], the design procedures
developed for these semi-rigid systems utilise
either the equivalent static or modal response
spectrum methods, in conjunction with NZS 3404
[5] and, where appropriate, HERA Report R4-76
[6]. The preliminary sizing / design method, in
particular, is easy and rapid to use. These
procedures are given in sections 3 and 4 below.
2.2 Design role of joint components
This is described in section 3.3.2 herein.
2.3 Performance characteristics
The MRSFs with SHJs have been developed to
deliver the following performance characteristics
for the three levels of earthquake described in
section 2.1.

(1) For the serviceability limit state
earthquake (ie. as represented by DR
1170.4 [4] Section 2.1.1, involving a return
period of 20 years for normal structures (as
defined by Table 3.1 of AS/NZS 1170.0
[8])):
(i) The joint and system shall remain
effectively rigid, with negligible
inelastic action from any component
(ii) This condition shall apply even when
the system has been subjected to a
prior ultimate limit state design level
event.
(2) For the design level ultimate limit state
earthquake (ie. as represented by [4, 8]
involving a return period of 500 years for
normal structures):
(i) Negligible inelastic demand in the
beams
(ii) Minimal inelastic demand in the
columns at base level (such that
fixed column bases will be readily
repairable) and none at higher levels
(iii) The rotation demand on the joints is
not to cause the bottom flange bolts
to contact the ends of the slotted
holes
(iv) Column panel zone rotation demand
to be 1%
(v) P - effects to be accounted for
either through provision of suitable
frame stiffness (ie. satisfying
Equation 6.1 (1) of [4]) or through
increased strength (ie. satisfying
Clause 6.5.4 of (4)).
(vi) Lateral drift not to exceed 2%
(vii) The positioner bolt may need
replacement
(viii) Minor cracking only to the concrete
floor slab surrounding the frame.
(3) For the maximum considered
earthquake (ie. based on a 2000 year
return period event or higher):
(i) Negligible inelastic demand in the
beams, except in the vicinity of bolts
to the flange and web plates
(ii) Inelastic demand in the columns to
be able to be dependably resisted
(this applies especially at the base,
which is the only location likely to be
subjected to appreciable inelastic
demand)
(iii) In the extreme case, joint rotation
demand may cause the bolts to
impact the ends of the slotted holes,
requiring replacement of the sliding
bolts and possibly bottom flange
plate replacement
(iv) Panel zones may rotate in excess of
1% strain demand
(v) Lateral drift to be within sustainable
limits, including the influence of P -
effects
(vi) The positioner bolt will need
replacement
(vii) Minor cracking only to the concrete
floor slab surrounding the frame.
Application of the design procedures for the force-
based method of design involves:
(a) Analysing the frame for the design level
earthquake using the Equivalent Static
Method or the Modal Response Spectrum
Method from [2,4], and sizing the members
and connection components to meet the
required strength and stiffness criteria for
this event
(b) Following the joint design and detailing
provisions given herein (section 3) such
that the joint can sustain the MCE rotational
demands while delivering the performance
characteristics of (3) above.
2.4 SHJ behaviour from experimental tests
There has been extensive experimental testing
undertaken on the SHJ, involving both small-scale
component and large-scale assemblage tests.
Some details of the large-scale tests are given on
pages 26-30 of DCB No. 59 and a very brief
overview of these large-scale tests is given in
section 3.3 of [7]. Details of the small-scale
component tests are given on pages 28, 29 of
DCB No. 64.
There has also been extensive finite element
analysis (FEA) modelling of the sliding hinge joint
sliding assemblage. This work was undertaken in
two stages; that from 2001 is summarised on
pages 24-33 of DCB No. 64 and presented in full
detail in HERA Report R4-110 [9]. That from
2002 will be summarised in DCB No. 70 and
presented in [1].

Fig. 68.4
Experimental and Simulated Moment-Rotation
Behaviour for Large-Scale Tests
Without Belleville Springs
Fig. 68.4 shows the moment-rotation
characteristics from the large-scale test 3, which
involved the final proposed joint configuration
without Belleville Springs to the bottom flange
bolts. The moment-rotation characteristics of the
SHJ are markedly different to those of any other
semi-rigid joint, because of the two stage sliding
from the sliding components. In order to
accurately represent the joint behaviour in the
NITH analyses, a mathematical model of the
moment-rotation characteristics has had to be
developed and implemented into the computer
program, RUAUMOKO [10] used for the NITH
analyses. This has been done; see details in [11].
The simulated moment from that model generated
by the experimental rotations from test 3 is also
shown in Fig. 68.4.
As the large-scale experimental tests could only
investigate one size and layout of bolt, plate and
cap plate and only at a pseudo-static rate of
loading, a series of small-scale tests on the
bottom flange sliding assemblage were
undertaken during 2000/2001 on representative
connections to determine the influence of the
following parameters.
bolt size range from M24 to M30
bolt layout and orientation
flange plate and cap plate thickness
presence/absence of Belleville Springs
effect of loading rate: seismic-dynamic and
pseudo-static
effect of repeated loading on assemblage,
including after a delay time of 4 weeks
One of the component experimental test results is
shown in Fig. 64.16, DCB No. 64.
On the basis of these component tests, a bolt
design model has been developed to give the bolt
sliding shear capacity. Details of that model are
given on pages 29, 30 of DCB No. 59. The basic
mechanisms assumed for that model were
confirmed by FEA modelling, as described in [9]
and more briefly on pages 24-33 of DCB No. 64.
The completion of the experimental testing
programme, FEA modelling and NITH studies has
allowed the design and detailing provisions for the
SHJ and the MRSF systems incorporating the
SHJ to be finalised. These are given in the next
two sections, starting with the design and detailing
of the joint itself, in section 3.
SHJ Test 3, 04/08/2000, Plastic Rotation vs Moment and Simultest3 from Hysteresis Model
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rotation [mrad]
M
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N
m
]
Test 3 experimental data Simultest3

3. Design and Detailing of the Sliding
Hinge Joint
3.1 General
The SHJ is intended for high ductility demand;
design
= 4 is used. In theory it is possible to use

= 6, the maximum allowed from [2 or 4]. The
joints ductility capacity is more than adequate for
this. However, as noted in section 2.3 (1), one of
the performance criteria set for the joint is to
remain effectively rigid, even after the joint has
been subjected to a design level ultimate state
earthquake.
Such an event is associated with some permanent
softening of the joint, hence the decision to use
design
= 4 as the ULS design ductility.
Designers should be aware of the very great
advantage that the SHJ and the FBJ offer over
conventional rigid-jointed MRSF systems. This
advantage is the ability to de-couple seismic and
gravity requirements in the frame and connection
design. The approach used involves a variation
on the procedure for design of multi-storey wind-
resisting MRSFs in non-seismically active
countries, such that:
(i) The beams are designed to resist the
maximum applied gravity loads (dead, live
loads) in a simply supported condition
(ii) The joint is sized to resist only the moment
generated by the earthquake action, ie.
M
code, design
. This moment is calculated and
applied independently of the beams section
moment capacity.
(iii) The columns are designed to resist the
overstrength action developed by the joint,
not that from the beam.
Thus the beam depth can be chosen for gravity
strength and lateral stiffness control without
impacting on the column design.
Details of the MRSF design are given in section 4.
Coverage of the joint design itself now
commences, first with the all-important detailing
provisions and material selection. These should
be read in conjunction with Fig. 68.1 for general
details and Fig. 68.2 for specific layout and
notation. The notation used herein is consistent
with that of the Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide, HERA Report R4-100 [12].
3.2 Detailing requirements and material
selection
As with all structural components designed to
deliver dependable performance under severe
seismic action, the detailing requirements and
selection of appropriate materials are as important
to the final behaviour as the design itself.
Section 3.2 presents these requirements. It starts
with limitations on the flange and web plate grade
and thickness, followed by the material selection
for the brass shims.
This is followed by edge distances, bolt pitches
and gauges, then by the very important provision
of clearance between the beam face and the
column flange.
The dimensioning of all components is then
covered. This is followed by aspects of bolt
selection and installation and forming of the
slotted holes.
Section 3.2 ends with surface treatment
requirements for the ply contact surfaces.
3.2.1 Material selection for the joint
components
The bolts used, except for the positioner bolt, are
Property Class 8.8 Structural Bolts (HSFG bolts)
to AS/NZS 1252 [13]. For calculation of bolt shear
capacity, threads are assumed to be in the shear
plane. These bolts are to be supplied galvanized
(this is the default surface treatment specified by
[13]).
The positioner bolt is a Property Class 4.6 black
bolt to AS 1111.1 [14]. Only one positioner bolt
per joint is used and it has the same diameter as
the bottom flange bolts. It must be supplied black
finish, to make it visibly different from the HSFG
bolts. Black finish is the default surface treatment
for this property class of bolt.
Grade of steel for the flange, web plates and cap
plates is to be 250, 300 or 350. It is important,
when sizing the plates, that the use of grades 300
or 350 in order to reduce the plate thickness for a
given width is clearly specified in the contract
documents so that the grade used in design is
supplied in practice. Designers can always opt for
use of grade 250 material; this is also consistent
with the approach used in R4-100 [12].
The brass shim material must be specified as
UNS C2600 Hard Temper, eg. to AS 1566
[15]. It is very important that the Hard
Temper is included in the specification, as that
defines the hardness, yield stress and tensile
strength required and on which all the research
has been based.
3.2.2 Limit on flange and web plate
thickness as a function of bolt
diameter
The same relationship as is used for the Flange
Bolted Joints should be used for the bottom flange
plate and web plate. This is given by equation
68.1 and has been determined from the
component testing;

t
i,max
= 0.9d
f
(68.1)
where:
t
i,max
= maximum thickness of bottom flange,
web plate
d
f
= diameter of bolt
This translates to:
16 mm for M20 bolts
20 mm for M24 bolts
25 mm for M30 bolts
32 mm for M36 bolts
For the top flange plate, which is sized on the
basis of the actions generated by the sliding bolts
(bottom flange and web bottom bolts), this limit
can be relaxed slightly in the larger bolt diameters,
up to:
16 mm for M20 bolts
20 mm for M24 bolts
32 mm for M30 bolts
40 mm for M36 bolts
3.2.3 Edge distances required
For the edge distances to all the nominal sized
holes, these are 2d
f
. This applies to the web top
bolts, and the top flange bolts. The relevant
distances are shown in Fig. 68.2, namely:
a
et
= edge distance transverse to the line of
principal applied force
a
ep
= edge distance parallel to the line of
principal applied force
For the slotted holes, the minimum distance from
the end of a slotted hole to an adjacent free edge,
parallel to the line of principal applied force, shall
be d
f
. This dimension is
'
ep
a in Fig. 68.2.
The distance between the centreline of the last
pair of sliding bottom flange bolts and the
centreline of the positioner bolt is given by;
S
p,bfbpb
= Max(2a
ep
; 0.5L
sh
+
'
ep
a + a
ep
)
(68.2)
where:
L
sh
= length of slotted hole; see equation 68.6
in section 3.2.6.
3.2.4 Pitches and gauges
S
pf
= S
gf
= S
gw
= 70 mm for M20 bolts
S
pf
= S
gf
= S
gw
= 90 mm for M24, M30 bolts
S
pf
= S
gw
= 140 mm for M36 bolts
S
gf
= 140 mm (preferred) for M30, M36 bolts
= 90 mm (alternative) for M30, M36 bolts,
where the beam flange width is inadequate
to accommodate the sum of 140 mm plus at
least 4d
f
.
Note that the minimum beam flange
width required from (S
gf
+ 2a
et,f,b
) will
not allow the SHJ to be used for beams
with b
f
< 170 mm.
Table 68.1 gives the relevant values for each
dimension that have been used for th range
of practical bolt diameters for the SHJ, along
with the design sliding shear capacities,
determined in accordance with equations 59.4
to 59.10 of DCB No. 59.
Table 68.1
Bolt Sliding Shear Design Capacities and Detailing Properties
BOLT SLIDING SHEAR DESIGN CAPACITIES AND OTHER PROPERTIES
Bolt Plate
Designation Thickness
mm
M20 12 42 51 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M20 16 38 47 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M20 20 36 44 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M24 12 65 78 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 16 60 73 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 20 56 69 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 25 52 64 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M30 16 104 124 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 20 98 118 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 25 91 111 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 32 83 102 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M36 16 162 190 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 20 153 182 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 25 144 173 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 32 132 162 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
Plate thickness limit,
bottom flange & web
plates
Sgf mm Sp mm d
f
'
mm
aep mm aet mm Sgw mm Vfss kN
Vfss, bs kN
Vfn kN df mm

3.2.5 Clearance between beam face and
column flange
This is the dimension f
SHJ
shown in Fig. 68.2.
The dimension is calculated on the basis that,
when the sliding hinge joint is subject to maximum
design negative rotation, thus causing the beam
bottom flange to move its closest in towards
the column flange (see the right hand figure,
Fig. 64.10 of DCB No. 64), there is still a clear
length of flange plate of 2.5t
bfp
available. This
gives the following requirements for f
SHJ
in mm;
f
SHJ
10 + 1.25
p,des
d
b
+ 2.5 t
bfp
(68.3)
where:
10 = gap to clear weld between column and
bottom flange plate (mm)
p,des
= 30 x 10
-3
radians
d
b
= depth of beam (mm)
t
bfp
= thickness of bottom flange plate (mm)
The value from equation 68.3 should be rounded
up to the nearest 5 mm.
As specified in section 3.2.6 of DCB No. 58, the
FBJ has a constant clearance gap, f
FBJ
, of 20 mm.
In contrast, the SHJ has a variable clearance gap
that, in practice, varies from 50 mm to 100 mm or
more.
The 10 mm gap for the weld applies, irrespective
of the type of weld used between the bottom
flange plate and the face of the column.
3.2.6 Dimensions of the bottom flange
plate
This depends on the number of bottom flange
bolts, which are determined from sections 3.6 and
3.7. Once this is determined, the dimensions of
the bottom flange plate are determined as follows:
(1) Width of bottom flange plate:
b
bfp,min
4d
f,bfb
+ S
gf
(68.4.1)
b
bfp,max
1.05b
fc
(68.4.2)
where:
d
f,bfb
= diameter of bottom flange bolts
S
gf
= bolt gauge
(Fig. 68.2 and Table 68.1)
Where possible, use a flat bar to minimise
fabrication cost.
(2) Thickness of bottom flange plate; t
bfp
The initial estimate of thickness is
determined from section 3.5 and confirmed
from section 3.7. The limiting thickness as
a function of bolt size from section 3.2.2
must also be met.
(3) Length of bottom flange plate
See Fig. 68.2 for these terms.
L
bfb
= f
SHJ
+ L
sh
(0.5n
bfb
0.5) + 0.5n
bfp
'
ep
a
+ S
p,bfbpb
+ a
ep
(68.5)
where:
L
sh
= 2.5
p
d
b
+
'
f
d (68.6)
S
p,bfbpb
= as given by equation 68.2
p
= 30 x 10
-3
radians
'
f
d = diameter of nominally sized
bolthole to NZS 3404 Clause
14.3.5.2.1 (mm)
d
b
= depth of beam (mm)
3.2.7 Dimensions of bottom flange plate
brass shims
(1) For both brass shims (upper and lower):
Width = b
bfp
+ 40 mm (68.7)
where:
b
bfp
= width of bottom flange plate
(2) Thickness of both brass shims = 3 mm
(3) Length of upper brass shim
L
ubfbs
= L
bfp
- f
SHJ
(68.8)
(4) Length of lower brass shim
L
lbfbs
= L
bcp
(68.9)
where:
L
bcp
= length of flange cap plate, from
section 3.2.8
3.2.8 Dimensions of bottom flange cap
plate
(1) Width, b
bcp
b
bcp
= b
bfp
(68.10)
(2) Thickness,
t
bcp
= Min (t
bfp
; 20 mm) (68.11)
(3) Length
L
bcp
= 2a
ep
+ 0.5(n
bfp
2) (L
SH
+
'
ep
a )
(68.12)
3.2.9 Dimensions of web plate
(1) Depth
This is the dimension d
wp
in Fig. 68.3. The
web plate should be as deep as is
practicable for the given depth of beam,

leading to the following recommendations
for hot rolled beams.
d
wp, minimum
= d
b
2t
fb
58 (68.12.1)
d
wp, maximum
= d
b
2t
fb
48 (68.12.2)
d
wp, average
= d
b
2t
fb
53 (68.12.3)
where:
d
b
, t
fb
are the beam depth, flange thickness
(mm).
The limits for d
wp
are given in mm.
(2) Thickness
t
wp
= t
bfp
is initially used and is increased
only if required from section 3.9. This has
not been required in any of the designs
undertaken for the NITH studies.
(3) Length
As can be seen from Fig. 68.2, the spacing
of the web top bolts and the web bottom
bolts is controlled by different criteria. The
web top bolts align with the top flange bolts,
while the web bottom bolts align with the
bottom flange bolts.
Thus the length of the web plate is
controlled by:
L
wp
Max [(f
SHJ
+ 2a
ep
+ (n
wtb
1) S
g,w
);
(
'
ep
a + nwbb (Lsh +
'
ep
a )]
(68.13)
where:
n
wtb
= number of web top bolts, from
section 3.8
n
wbb
= number of web bottom bolts, from
section 3.6
3.2.10 Dimensions of web brass shims
(1) Depth of web inner brass shim
As shown in Fig. 68.1 and, to a lesser
extent, in Fig. 68.2, the inner brass shim
extends the full depth of the web plate, with
a return at the top of 15 mm. This return is
to allow the brass shim to hook over the
web plate during erection, thus making it
self-supporting while the beam is being put
into position.
The inner web brass shim is therefore d
wp
clear depth with a 15 mm return to either
the left or right as appropriate.
(2) Depth of web outer brass shim
This is equal to the web cap plate depth.
(3) Thickness of both brass shims
This is 3 mm.
(4) Length of inner web brass shim
L
iwbs
= L
wp
- f
SHJ
(68.14)
(5) Length of outer web brass shim
L
owbs
= L
iwbs
+ 30 mm (68.15)
The additional length of the outer brass
shim is to allow it to be held for positioning
during erection, once the web cap plate is
in place.
3.2.11 Dimensions of web cap plate
(1) Depth
d
wcp
= 2a
et
(68.16)
(2) Thickness
t
wcp
= Min (t
wp
; 20mm) (68.16)
(3) Length
L
wcp
= L
wp
f
SHJ
(68.18)
3.2.12 Dimensions of top flange plate
This depends on the number of top flange bolts,
which are determined from section 3.11. Once
this is determined, the dimensions of the top
flange plate are determined as follows:
(1) Width of top flange plate
b
tfp, min
4d
f,tfb
+ S
gf
(68.19.1)
b
tfp, max
1.05b
bfc
(68.19.2)
where:
d
f,tfb
= diameter of top flange bolts
fabrication cost.
(2) Thickness of top flange plate
This is determined from section 3.11; the
limit of section 3.2.2 as a function of bolt
size must also be met.
(3) Length of top flange plate
L
tfp
= f
SHJ
+ 2a
ep
+ (0.5n
tfb
1) S
pf
(68.20)
where:
n
tfb
= number of top flange bolts, from
section 3.12.

3.2.13 Dimensions of optional decking
support shim
This is shown in Fig. 68.1. Its use facilitates
laying of decking around the connection, reducing
cost and enhancing constructability. It is formed
from 3 mm thick steel plate.
(1) Width
b
dss
Max (b
tfp
; b
bf
) + 100 (68.21)
where:
b
bf
= width of beam flange (mm)
This allows 50 mm overlap each side of the
wider of the beam flange or the top flange
plate.
(2) Thickness = 3 mm
(3) Length
L
dss
= L
tfp
20 mm (68.22)
The outer edge of the decking support shim
and top flange plate coincide; the inner
edge extends past the face of the beam
towards the column face, as shown in Fig.
68.2, with a gap of 20 mm adjacent to the
column.
3.2.14 Preferred bolt sizes and bolt
groupings
For an initial guesstimation of bolt sizes, use M24
for beams up to 600 mm deep and M30 for beams
above 600 mm deep.
The minimum sliding bolt group layout is:
4 bottom flange bolts (2 rows of 2 bolts)
3 web bottom bolts (3 rows)
This is the layout shown in Fig. 68.2.
When increasing the number of sliding bolts to
develop the design moment, do this as follows:
Add one row of bottom flange bolts to give 6
bottom flange bolts (3 rows) and 3 web bottom
bolts (3 rows); then
Add one row to each bolt group (ie. increase
the sliding bolt numbers in groups of 3 at a
time).
This keeps sliding bolt group proportions in line
with those experimentally tested.
Other constraints on bolt sizes and groupings are:

n
wtb
n
wbb

d
f,bfb
= d
f,wbb
= d
f,wtb

d
f,tfb
= d
f,bfb
is preferred

d
f,positioner bolt
= d
f,bfb
3.2.15 Use of Belleville Springs
These are optional for the bottom flange bolts.
They increase the bolt sliding shear capacity, as
described in DCB No. 59 pages 29, 30, through
reducing the loss of installed bolt tension due to
the interaction of moment and axial force in the
bolt shank when the joint is sliding. This benefit is
of principal importance for the bottom flange bolts
and, throughout this project, the research has
concentrated on the following options:
no Belleville Springs
Belleville Springs to the bottom flange bolts
Fig. 68.1 shows the former option, while Fig. 68.2
shows the latter.
If Belleville Springs are to be used, then they must
be of sufficient number and strength to develop
close to the bolt proof load, from NZS 3404 Table
15.2.5.1, when fully compressed.
From the manufacturers load charts [16] for
alloy/carbon steel springs, the following
designation and number of springs are required to
achieve this:
For a M20 bolt, 2 No. 12-EH-168 springs
For a M24 bolt, 3 No. 16-H-168 springs
When Belleville Springs are installed, they are to
be placed under the nut end of the bolt, between
the hardened washer and the face of the cap
plate, as shown in Fig. 68.2.
When determining the nut rotation from the snug-
tight position to apply, for the given bolt length,
from Table 15.2.5.2 of [5], an extra turn must be
added to allow for compression of the Belleville
Springs. This extra turn applies for all bolt
diameters used (M20 to M36). A background to
this will be given in [1].
3.2.16 Allowance for manufacturing
tolerances in the supported beam and
inclusion of a decking support shim
As described on pages 23, 24 of DCB No. 56 and
in section 3.2.7 of DCB No. 58 for the FBJ,
allowance must be made for manufacturing
tolerances in the beams by offsetting the positions
of the top and bottom flange plates.

In the case of the FBJ, the magnitude of the offset
was not important to the operation of the joint,
thus the final recommendations were driven only
by constructability considerations.
However, in the case of the SHJ, it is important to
minimise the offset between the bottom face of
the beam and the bottom flange plate. In the first
large-scale test specimen, this offset was 3 mm,
whereas in the second test specimen, it was only
1 mm. The greater offset from the first test
resulted in an appreciable loss of bolt tension and
hence sliding shear capacity of the joint. However
the effect of the offset in test 1 was exacerbated
by allowing for a minimum gap between the
bottom corner of the beam and the column face of
only 15 mm under maximum negative rotation. In
the second test specimen, this minimum gap was
increased to 40 mm using equation 68.3, thus
reducing the pull-down effect on the bolts by a
factor of 18. While this increase in clearance has
a significant effect, it is also desirable to limit the
maximum net extent of mismatch likely between
the top surface of the bottom flange plate and the
bottom surface of the beam to 2 mm. This results
in the following recommendations for
manufacturing tolerance allowances in the SHJ:
(1) The allowances are provided as an offset of
each flange plate away from the
specified centreline position of the beam
(see Fig. 68.2)
(2) The up offset for the top flange plate is as
follows:
3 mm for beam depths up to 610 mm
4 mm for beam depths above 610 mm
3 mm is added to all the above to
accommodate a decking support shim,
where used.
(3) The down offset for the bottom flange plate
is as follows:
2 mm for all beam depths
3 mm is added to all the above to
accommodate the flange upper brass
shim, which is always required.
In practice, these tolerance allowances will lead to
a gap existing between the beam flange and top
flange plate in most instances; this gap is readily
closed by the bolt tightening, for which the
moment developed is at least an order of
magnitude greater than the weak axis plastic
moment capacity of the plate.
The web plate must also be offset from the
column flange centreline by an amount equal to
half the beam web thickness plus 3.5 mm. 3 mm
of this is to accommodate the web inner brass
shim.
Finally, note mention of the decking support shim
in Fig. 68.1. This is made from 3 mm thick Grade
250 or 300 plate. It extends 50 mm beyond the
top flange plate on whichever side(s) of the beam
support(s) steel decking and provides a support to
the decking during construction. It is also detailed
in item 35 of HERA Report R4-58 [17]; see
especially item 35c therein in this regard. It is an
extra component to consider in fabrication and
erection but one which greatly facilitates placing of
the decking around the connection. Note also the
3 mm thick plate extensions welded onto the
underside of the top tension/compression
stiffeners in Fig. 68.1 and Fig. 68.5 for the same
purpose.
3.2.17 Bolt tightening sequence and method
of tightening
The bolts are to be positioned in the directions
shown in Fig. 68.1 and tightened from the nut end.
This is particularly important to avoid clashes
between the web and flange bolts during
installation.
The positioner bolt is used during erection to
stabilise the bottom of the joint and to prevent
undue rotation.
Once the frame is aligned, the bolts should all be
snug tightened, starting with the bottom flange
bolts and working up.
The tightening pattern should be to NZS 3404
Clause 15.2.4.1. For each group of bolts (eg. the
bottom flange bolts) this means starting with the
bolts closest to the column face and working
along the row away from the column face. For the
flange bolts, this may require two or more rounds
of snug tightening to get all bolts snug tight,
pulling the flange plate in hard against the flange
upper brass shim.
The bolts are then fully tensioned, starting again
with the bottom flange bolts and working up.
Tensioning is to the part turn method of NZS 3404
Clause 15.2.5.2. For bottom flange bolts where
Belleville Springs are installed, tighten by an extra
turn from snug tight over that specified in Table
15.2.5.2 of [5].
3.2.18 Tightening of large diameter HSFG
bolts
The SHJ connections will routinely require the use
of fully tensioned M30 high strength structural
bolts and occasionally the use of M36 bolts. It is
important to ensure that, when this size is
specified, they are fully tensioned.
This task is beyond the scope of a standard
impact wrench. Suitable equipment is readily

available; details are given on page 24 of DCB
issue No. 56.
3.2.19 Forming of the slotted holes
The slotted holes in the bottom flange plate and
web plate (see Figs. 68.1 68.3 for their location)
can be formed by machine flame cutting or water
jet cutting to the required dimensions.
However, they can also be formed by drilling a
nominally sized hole at each end of the slotted
hole, then gas cutting across the top and bottom
of this pair of drilled holes to form the slotted hole.
This gas cut surface need be no smoother than
that from good practice hand gas cutting, provided
that the rounded ends of the slotted hole are of
drilled surface smoothness. If this method is
adopted, then the width of slotted hole, as
measured between the adjacent gas cut surfaces,
must lie between
'
f
d and 2) (d
'
f
+ mm. This has
been the approach used in all the SHJ
experimental tests undertaken.
3.2.20 Surface treatment of the ply contact
surfaces
The sliding surfaces are between steel and brass.
The steel surfaces must be clean and free of any
surface coatings, loose scale, loose rust, visible
grease or oil marks.
The brass surfaces must be clean and free of
surface coatings, visible grease or oil marks.
Because of these restrictions on surface condition
of the sliding surfaces, the SHJ is principally
intended for application in corrosion category C1
to ISO 9223 [18] (very low rate of corrosion,
typically found inside heated or air conditioned
buildings with clean atmospheres).
The contact surfaces for the bottom flange bolts
and web bottom bolts must be as specified above
for SHJs in corrosion categories C2 to C5 of [18].
Non-contact surfaces can be protected with an
appropriate surface treatment; the edges of the
contact surfaces should be sealed against water
ingress. The positioner bolt will need to be
painted in these applications.
3.3 Design concepts for the sliding hinge
joint
3.3.1 Development of moment and shear
capacity
The design moment capacity of the SHJ, M
SHJ,
is
determined as follows:
(1) Calculate the design sliding shear capacity,
V
fss
, of the bottom flange plate bolt group
and the web bottom bolt group.
(2) Take moments of each of the sliding shear
capacities from (1) about the top of steel
beam. The lever arms are shown in Fig.
68.3. The sum of these moments = M
SHJ
.
The design vertical shear (seismic plus gravity) is
carried by the web top bolts; thus the design
shear capacity, V
SHJ
, of the SHJ = the design
shear capacity of the web top bolt group. For
most applications, only one row of web top bolts
will be required to carry the design vertical shear,
however, if this is large, two rows of web top bolts
may be needed.
In all the representative designs undertaken in this
project, only one row has been needed.
The joint is sized to develop the following design
moment and shear capacities:
M
SHJ

*
design
M (68.23)
V
SHJ
V
GQU
+ V
Edesign
(68.24)
V
SHJ
V
GQmax
(68.25)
where:
*
design
M = design moment for the SHJ from
the most critical of earthquake or
wind; see section 3.4.
V
GQU
= design shear force from load
combination G + Q
u
(dead and
live load for use in conjunction
with earthquake).
V
Edesign
= design shear force derived from
out-of-balance design seismic
moments acting on the clear
beam length.
V
GQmax
= design shear force for full factored
loading, eg. 1.2G + 1.6Q from [2].
3.3.2 Design role of joint components
Refer to Fig. 68.1 in conjunction with this section.
The design roles of the SHJ components are as
follows:
The top flange bolts act as the anchor point
for joint rotation, pinning the beam top corner
in place relative to the column
The web top bolts resist the applied vertical
shear force. They are subject to only small
movement in the longitudinal direction due to

their proximity to the pinning action of the top
flange bolts.
The web bottom bolts and bottom flange bolts
develop the sliding shear resistance
The cap plates provide the support to the bolt
end remote from the beam of the sliding bolt
groups
The brass shims facilitate smooth sliding
between the steel surfaces at a near constant
level of shear friction, which is essential to the
maintenance of stable and sufficient bolt
tension when the joint is sliding
The Belleville Springs, which are optional
additions to the bottom flange bolts, assist
these bolts to retain bolt tension under sliding.
This sustains the bolt sliding shear capacity,
V
ss
, at a higher level than is the case without
the springs and retains joint stiffness in the
post-sliding regime of behaviour.
The positioner bolt is a black finish class 4.6
bolt that connects between the beam flange
and bottom flange plate only, through nominal
sized holes in each ply. It has the same
diameter as the rest of the bolts (which are all
galvanised finish property class 8.8 structural
bolts). The positioner bolt has three very
important roles, namely:
(i) It acts as a stability bolt for erection
purposes, making the joint rigid for
erection by developing moment
resistance in conjunction with the top
flange bolts
(ii) It functions as a locater bolt for the
sliding bolts, ensuring that they are
located in the middle of the slotted
holes in the erected joint
(iii) It provides a rapid visual indicator as
to whether the joint has gone into the
sliding mode following a severe
earthquake; if this happens and the
joint inelastic rotation exceeds around
10 mrad, the positioner bolt shears
through and the lower half drops out.
3.3.3 Sequence of design actions
The full SHJ design procedure involves the
following 14 steps:
Step 1 : Determine design moments and shears
Step 2 : Determine sliding bolt group layouts
Step 3 : Determine initial bottom flange plate
width and thickness and initial web plate
thickness
Step 4 : Determine bolt size and numbers for
moment adequacy, then finalise bottom
flange plate width and thickness
Step 5 : Design web top bolts for vertical shear
resistance
Step 6 : Design web plate
Step 7 : Design top flange bolts and plate
Step 8 : Check on reduced tension capacity of
the beam at the bolted connection
Step 9 : Design welds between plates and
column
Step 10 : Dimension flange and web plates
Step 11 : Design, detail positioner bolt and shims
Step 12 : Design tension/compression stiffeners
Step 13 : Calculate joint overstrength capacity
Step 14 : Design joint panel zone
The full SHJ design procedure, starting with
determination of joint design moment and design
shear, is given in sections 3.4 to 3.21.
3.4 Calculation of the design moment and
design shear
3.4.1 Design earthquake moment
As has been mentioned in section 3.1, the joint
itself is sized to resist the code-derived
earthquake moment alone, ignoring joint moments
induced by gravity only, with the beam designed
to resist the full factored gravity load (ie. 1.2G +
1.6Q to NZS 4203 [2]) as a simply supported
beam.
For the SHJ, the design earthquake moment,
*
design E
M

, is determined from [2 or 4, 5 and 6] for
low-rise and medium-rise MRSFs. The joint
design earthquake moment is given in sections
4.2 and 4.3 herein.
3.4.2 Design shear force
This is given by the largest of equations 68.24 and
68.25.
The seismic component of shear,
*
design E
V

, is
given by:
) - (
3

c b
*
design E *
design E
d L
M
V

(68.26)

where:
3 1.4 x 1.1 x 2
1.4 = overstrength factor on joint
1.1 = allowance for M
SHJ
/ M*
2 = moment pattern factor (equal
and opposite end moments)
(L
b
d
c
) = clear length of beam
3.4.3 Design wind moment
The SHJ has been developed as a semi-rigid joint
for seismic-resisting systems. However, it must
also perform satisfactorally under wind loading.
In designs for New Zealand application, in
accordance with NZS 4203 [2] or its proposed
replacement [4, 19], it is possible that ultimate
limit state wind design may govern some joints in
buildings over around 10 storeys high. This will
be especially the case for designs to the draft
Loadings Standards [4] which are located in the
lowest seismic regions.
Also, because the levels of wind loading
associated with the serviceability and ultimate limit
states are closer (see eg. Table 5.4.2 of [2]) than
for earthquake, it is possible that either wind limit
state may govern some SHJs in buildings as low
as 10 storeys high.
For this reason, brief guidance on SHJ design for
each wind limit state is given below.
3.4.3.1 Wind ultimate limit state
The joint design for the wind ultimate limit state
moment,
*
WULS
M , uses the principles and
procedures as given in sections 3.5 to 3.16. In
saying this, it is conservative to apply the relevant
overstrength factors as ductility demand is not
anticipated under
*
WULS
M .
It follows, in checking for the wind ultimate limit
state, that if
*
E
M >
*
WULS
M , then the earthquake
condition governs design for the ultimate limit
state.
3.4.3.2 Wind serviceability limit state
The SHJ must remain rigid at the wind
serviceability limit state. This is easily checked as
follows:
Step 1: Calculate the design wind serviceability
limit state moment,
*
WSLS
M .
Step 2: Determine the moment associated with
rigid action of the joint from equation 68.27.
M
SHJ,WSLS
= 0.75M
SHJ,E
(68.27)
where:
0.75 = (0.7/0.8) x 0.85
0.7 = strength reduction factor for tension
friction action
0.8 = strength reduction factor for bolt sliding
shear capacity determination
0.85 = k
h
for short slotted holes, from NZS 3404
Clause 9.3.3.1.
In practice, the length of slotted hole will typically
be such as to classify it as a long slotted hole.
However the cap plate provides much more
robust confinement than an oversized washer,
thus the value of k
h
for short slotted holes rather
than for long slotted holes is used.
Step 3: Check if equation 68.28 is satisfied
M
SHJ,WSLS

*
WSLS
M (68.28)
If it is, the joint design is satisfactory.
If it isnt, then add an extra set of sliding bolts in
accordance with section 3.2.14 and recheck. This
will affect the overall joint design and overstrength
action and require reconsideration of the joint and
system design for earthquake.
In practice, for designs to either the current
Standard [2] or the new draft [4 and 19], it is likely
that, where wind action governs, it will be the ULS
rather than SLS that is critical. This is because
the ratio of (
*
WSLS
M /
*
WULS
M ) will typically be less
than 0.75.
Having determined the design moment and shear,
the joint design proceeds as follows. For this
procedure, the ULS design moment is designated
*
design
M , which covers the critical ULS moment
being from either earthquake or from wind, as
appropriate.
3.5 Determine bottom flange plate width and
initial thickness
3.5.1 Bottom flange plate width
See section 3.2.6 (1) for the limits. Select a plate
width, b
bfp
, within these limits.
3.5.2 First estimate of bottom flange plate
thickness
The bolt sliding shear capacity is a function of the
plate thickness, hence the joint moment capacity
is also a function of the plate thickness. This
means it is desirable to obtain a rapid estimate of
bottom flange plate thickness as soon as the joint
design moment is known. This is determined from
the following two equations.
b
*
design *
design t,
1.2

d
M
N (68.29)

bfp y,
'
f bfp
*
design t,
bfp
) 2 ( 0.9

f d b
N
t
(68.30)
where:
0.9 = strength reduction factor
d
'
f
= bolt hole diameter for nominal sized
hole, from NZS 3404 Clause 14.3.5.2.1.
f
y,bfp
= bottom flange plate yield stress
3.5.3 Check plate thickness limit in relation
to bolt size
Check that the limit of section 3.2.2 is satisfied; if
it isnt, then a larger bolt diameter is needed for
the given plate thickness.
3.5.4 Apply this estimate of thickness to
the web plate
3.6 Determine sliding bolt size and numbers
for moment adequacy
3.6.1 Start with the following
Bolt size, numbers and layout from section
3.2.14.
3.6.2 Calculate moment capacity of joint
(1) Joints with no Belleville Springs
M
SHJ
= n
bfb
V
fss
d
b
+ n
wbb
V
fss
e
wb
(68.31)
(2) Joints with Belleville Springs in bottom
flange
M
SHJ
= n
bfb
V
fss,bs
d
b
+ n
wbb
V
fss
e
wb
(68.32)
where:
n
bfb
= no. of bottom flange bolts
= 4 for initial trial, from section
3.2.14
n
wbb
= no. of web bottom bolts
= 3 for initial trial, from section
3.2.14
V
fss
= design sliding shear capacity, no
BS
= get from Table 68.1 for bolt size
and plate thickness
Bolt size for initial trial from
section 3.2.14
Plate thickness from section
3.5.2
e
wb
= d
b
t
fb
26.5 a
et
(mm)
(68.33)
V
fss,bs
= design sliding shear capacity,
with BS
= get from Table 68.1 for bolt
size and plate thickness
Fig. 68.3 shows the lever arms for the moment
capacity determination. The value of 26.5 used in
equation 68.33 comes from the average web plate
depth, from equation 68.12.3.
3.6.3 Check moment adequacy
This is given by:
M
SHJ

*
design
M (68.34)
where:
*
design
M is from section 3.4; typically section 3.4.1.
3.6.4 Review bolt numbers and size
If equation 68.34 is easily satisfied, reduce
bolt size to M20 and recalculate; this gives
M
SHJ, minimum
for the given beam size.
If equation 68.34 is not satisfied;
Either increase the bolt numbers in accordance
with section 3.2.14 and recalculate; or
Increase the bolt size and recalculate; or
Increase the bolt numbers and bolt size and
recalculate.
3.7 Design of bottom flange plate
There are four cases to consider, three of which
require calculation and the fourth of which is dealt
with by detailing. These are:
(i) Suppression of net tension yield prior to the
bolts developing their sliding shear
capacity; see section 3.7.1
(ii) Suppression of net tension fracture while
joint is in active sliding mode; see section
3.7.2
(iii) Suppression of compression yielding while
joint is in active sliding mode; see section
3.7.3
(iv) Suppression of premature bolt shear
fracture when end of slotted hole is
reached; this is covered by compliance with
the bottom flange plate thickness to bolt
diameter ratio given by equation 68.1.
3.7.1 Net tension yield

*
bfp ty,
N = 1.15 n
bfb
V
fss,bfp
(68.35)

bfp bfp y,
'
f bfp bfp ty,
) 2 - ( 0.9 t f d b N (68.36)
where:
n
bfp
= no. of bottom flange bolts from
section 3.6.4
1.15 = 0.9 / 0.8 = difference in between bolt
and plate
(b,t,f
y
)
bfp
= from section 3.6
'
f
d = function of d
f,bfb
from NZS 3404 Clause
14.3.5.2.1 (see also Table 68.1)
V
fss,bfp
= V
fss
or V
fss,bs
as appropriate, from
Table 68.1.
N
ty,bfp

*
bfp ty,
N is required (68.37)
3.7.2 Check for net tension failure
This is determined from the design action
developed under the design level of rotation. The
ideal capacity of the plate is used to resist this
action, therefore the ideal capacity factor is
incorporated into the design action determination,
thus:
0.9
sp
bfp fss,
bfb
*
bfp u,
C
V
n N
(68.38)
where:
n
bfb
= no of bottom flange bolts, from section
3.6
C
sp
= 1.45 when no springs are used
= 1.55 when Belleville Springs are used
0.9 = ideal capacity factor
bfp bfp u,
'
f bfp bfp tu,
) 2 - ( 0.77 t f d b N (68.39)
where:
f
u,bfp
= ultimate tensile strength of bottom flange
plate
N
tu,bfp

*
bfp u,
N is required (68.40)
3.7.3 Compression capacity
First the slenderness ratio of the bottom flange
plate must be checked
L
e,bfp
= 0.7 (f
SHJ
+ 1.25
p
d
b
) (68.41)

250

0.29
bfp y,
bfp
bfp e,
bfp n,
1
1
]
1
1
1
]
1

f
t
L
(68.42)
Check if
n,bfp
25. If it is, proceed to the next
equation. If it isnt, then
v
for input into equation
68.43 needs to be re-evaluated from Table 6.3.3
of NZS 3404 [5] for the value of
n,bfp
from
equation 68.42.
bfp y, bfp bfp bfp cu,
0.85 f t b N (68.43)
where:
0.85 = 0.9 x 0.942
0.942 =
v
from Table 6.3.3 of NZS 3404 for
n
= 25 and
b
= 0.5
*
bfp u, bfp cu,
N N is required (68.44)
where:
*
bfp u,
N is given by equation 68.38
Use the resulting t
bfp
for the web plate.
3.8 Design of web top bolts
These are designed to resist the applied vertical
shear, in bearing, with threads included in the
shear plane.
3.8.1 Vertical design shear force
) ; ( Max
*
GQmax
*
GQu
*
design E
*
wv
V V V V +

(68.45)
where:
*
design E
V

= as given by equation 68.26
*
GQmax
*
GQu
V , V = as given by the tributary area
vertical loading for the
appropriate factored maximum
(dead + live) loads
3.8.2 Determine the number of web top
bolts required
wtb fn,
*
wv
wtb

V
V
n
(68.46)
where:
V
fn,wtb
= design capacity, threads included,
same bolt diameter as for web
bottom bolts. (See eg. [20] for this
information).
If n
wtb
< n
wbb
, where n
wbb
has been determined
from section 3.6, then add additional web top bolts
such that n
wtb
= n
wbb
. The additional web top bolts
are then used to resist the forces developed by
the sliding groups of bolts, in conjunction with the
flange top bolts, in section 3.11.
3.9 Design of web plate
The web plate thickness, t
wp
, has been set equal
to be bottom flange plate thickness, from step
3.7.3. The web plates capability to resist the
vertical shear and horizontal tension actions now
needs to be determined.

Vertical shear will be resisted over the full depth of
plate less the width involved in resisting horizontal
actions from the web bottom bolts. Horizontal
tension/compression is developed by the sliding
resistance of the web bottom bolts. This is
resisted by the strip of web plate under the web
cap plate for commencement of yield and by
1.5 x b
wcp
for tension fracture under overstrength
action.
3.9.1 Calculate design vertical shear
capacity of plate
v wp wp y, wcp wp
v wp wp y, wcp wp wp vn,
) - 0.27(
) - 0.83( x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.9

t f d d
t f d d V
(68.47)
where:
82
wp y,
wp
wcp wp
v
250
) - (
if 1.0
f
t
d d
(68.48)
v
= 1.0 otherwise; see Clause 5.11.5.1 of
NZS 3404.
The second 0.6 is to account for moment / shear
interaction.
d
wcp
= as given by section 3.2.11(1)
3.9.2 Check vertical shear adequacy of
plate
*
wv wp vn,
V V (68.49)
where:
*
wv
V = design vertical shear force from equation
68.45.
3.9.3 Check for net tension yield
This is checked under the design sliding shear, for
the width of web plate under the cap plate only.
fss wbb
*
wp ty,
1.15 V n N (68.50)
wp y, wp
'
f wcp wp ty,
) - 0.9( f t d d N (68.51)
*
wp ty, wp ty,
3.9.4 Check for net tension failure
This is checked for the overstrength sliding action
associated with reaching the end of the slotted
hole, with this action being resisted by a depth of
web plate = 1.5 x depth of cap plate.
0.9
sp
wb fss,
wbb
*
wp tu,
C
V
n N
(68.53)
wp u, wp
'
f wcp wp tu,
) - 0.77(1.5 f t d d N (68.54)
*
wp tu, wp tu,
3.9.5 Sizing of web plate
This can now be done; see section 3.2.9.
3.10 Sizing of cap plates and brass shims
3.10.1 Bottom flange cap plate
See section 3.2.8 for determining the width,
thickness and length of bottom flange cap plate,
using the values determined above.
3.10.2 Bottom flange upper and lower brass
shims
See section 3.2.7.
3.10.3 Web cap plate
See section 3.2.11.
3.10.4 Web inner and outer brass shims
See section 3.2.10.
3.11 Design of top flange bolts and plate
The top flange plate anchors the beam laterally
and operates as a hinge about which the beam
can slide. It is designed to resist the combined
shear developed by the web bottom bolts and
bottom flange bolts, using bolts of the same
diameter. The shear from these is the greater of
the overstrength sliding shear or the threads
excluded design shear capacity. The latter will
always govern and is therefore the only check
needed. Because of this it is simply a matter of
matching bolt numbers, incorporating any web top
bolt unused capacity to resist the lateral force.
3.11.1 Number of bolts required
Using the same bolt diameter as for the web
bottom bolts and the bottom flange bolts.
n
ftb
required = ( ) ( )
calc wtb, used , wtb bfb wbb
r
- -
1
n n n n
k
+
(68.56)
where:
k
r
= reduction factor for bolts in a line
from NZS 3404 Table 9.3.2.1.
n
wtb,calc
= no. of web top bolts required from
equation 68.46, section 3.8.2
n
wtb,used
= no. of web top bolts used from
section 3.8.2
If the length of the joint, as measured from the first
to the last bolt, exceeds 15d
f
, then k
r
< 1.0.

3.11.2 Determine the top flange plate width
required
See section 3.2.12(1) for the limits on b
tfp
. Select
a plate width within these limits.
3.11.3 Determine required thickness to
suppress tension yielding
This is sized so that the plate can develop the
sliding shear capacity of the bottom flange and
web bottom bolts, without tension yielding.
tfp y,
'
f tfp
fs wbb fs bfb
tension tfp,
) 2 - ( 9 . 0
) ( 1.15

f d b
V n V n
t
+
(68.57)
where:
V
fs
= V
fss
or V
fss,bs
as required
f
y,tfp
= yield stress of top flange plate
'
f
d = diameter of bolt hole to NZS 3404
Clause 14.3.5.2.1
fabrication cost.
3.11.4 Undertake a slenderness ratio check
on the top flange plate, if no concrete
slab is present
If there is a concrete slab in contact with the top
surface of this plate, which will be the typical case,
no slenderness check is needed.
If there isnt a concrete slab, then:
L
e,tfp
= 0.7 (f
SHJ
+ a
ep,tf,b
) (68.58)

250

0.29
bfp y,
tfp
tfp e,
tfp n,
1
1
]
1
1
1
]
1

f
t
L
(68.59)
where:
f
SHJ
is determined from equation 68.3
a
ep
is given in Table 68.1 for the given bolt size.
Check if
n,tfp
25, when no concrete slab is
present. If it isnt and no slab is present, then
v
for input into equation 68.61 needs to be re-
evaluated from Table 6.3.3 of NZS 3404 [5].
3.11.5 Check top flange plate and bolt
adequacy for the ULS condition
Calculate
tfp u, tfp
'
f tfp tfp t,
) 2 - 0.77( f t d b N (68.60)
tfp y, tfp tfp tfp c,
0.85 f t b N (68.61)
Check
tfb fn, tfp tfp c, tfp t,
0.85 and V n N N (68.62)
If equation 68.62 is not satisfied, add an extra pair
of top flange bolts and recheck.
3.12 Check on the reduced tension capacity
of the beam at the bolted connection
region
The purpose of this check is to suppress yielding
of the beam cross-section through the loaded end
of the beam under moment-induced tension
during the sliding phase of the joint. Such yielding
would cause unwanted loss of bolt tension and
hence sliding shear moment capacity.
3.12.1 Calculate the design tension action,
*
tb
N , on the tension half of the beam,
from equation 68.63
t
b sx,
SHJ *
tb

1.15
x 0.5 N
M
M
N
(68.63)
where:
M
SHJ
= the joint design moment capacity from
section 3.6
M
sx,b
= the design section moment capacity for
the beam size chosen; eg. from [20]
N
t
= the nominal section gross yielding
capacity, determined from NZS 3404
Equation 7.2.1
3.12.2 Calculate the design tension capacity
of the beam from the lesser of
ub nb tb
0.39 f A N (68.64.1)
yfb g tb
0.45 f A N (68.64.2)
where:
A
nb
= net area of the beam cross section,
calculated in accordance with Clause
9.1.10 of [5]
f
ub
= tensile strength of the beam
f
yfb
= yield stress of the beam flange
3.12.3 Check that the following is satisfied
*
tb tb
N N > (68.65)
If this equation is not satisfied, use a larger beam
size so that it is satisfied. Do not use beam
reinforcing plates with the SHJ.
In practice, if
,
_
b sx,
SHJ
M
M
0.76, the beam end
capacity is likely to be adequate. For preliminary
design, one can use ) M / M (
b sx,
*
design
0.76/1.15
0.66 as a target value for beam selection.

3.13 Welds required between column flange
and bottom flange plate
The bottom flange plate has been sized to
dependably resist the maximum force expected
under the maximum design rotation, in
accordance with section 3.7.2. This carries the
joint-overstrength factor, which means that the
weld need only be designed to develop the design
tension capacity of the flange plate, not the
overstrength tension capacity.
3.13.1 Design action on bottom flange plate
weld
min
*
bfp tw, *
bfp w,
2

b
N
v (68.66)
where:
N
*
bfp tw,
= N
tu,bfp
from equation 68.39
b
min
= lesser of (b
bfp
; b
fc
)
b
bfp
= width of bottom flange plate
b
fc
= width of column flange
3.13.2 Select fillet weld size such that:
*
bfp w, w
v v (68.67)
where:
v
w
= design capacity of category SP fillet
weld from [5]
Values of v
w
are listed in [20]
This is the fillet weld size required on each side of
the flange plate to column flange.
3.13.3 From consideration of welding
economics and clearance requirements,
determine if the fillet weld size from
3.13.2 will be used or if a complete
penetration butt weld is required.
If t
w
> 12 - 15 mm, use a complete penetration
butt weld (CPBW). For most fabricators engaged
in multi-storey construction, the changeover point
to a CPBW will be t
w
> 15 mm.
and top flange plate
A similar situation applies to that for the bottom
flange plate, namely:
3.14.1 Design action on top flange plate
weld

2

min
*
tfp tw, *
tfp tw,
b
N
v (68.68)
where:

*
tw
v = N
t,tfp
from equation 68.60
b
min
= lesser of (b
tfp
; b
fc
)
b
tfp
= width of top flange plate
3.14.2 Design of welds
Determine fillet weld size required as for the
bottom flange plate, see section 3.13.2. If t
w
> 15
mm use a CPBW.
and web plate
These welds are subject to two very different sets
of conditions. The first is combined moment and
vertical shear generated by the web top bolts and
resisted by the clear depth of web plate for shear
and the full depth for moment. The second is
moment-induced axial tension generated by the
web bottom bolts at the end of their sliding
regime, taken over a thickness of web plate equal
to 1.5 x the thickness of the web cap plate. The
two cases are considered separately and the
design action is the maximum from the two cases,
but not required to be greater than the design
tension capacity of the plate. All this involves:
3.15.1 Calculate actions on weld from
vertical shear

) - ( 2

wcp wp
*
wv *
v wp, wv,
d d
V
v (68.69)

3

2
wp
y
*
wv *
h wp, wv,
d
e V
v (68.70)
( ) ( )
5 . 0
2
*
h wv,
2
*
v wv,
*
wp wv,
,
_
+ v v v (68.71)
where
V
*
wv
= design vertical shear force, from
equation 68.45
d
wp
= average depth of web plate, from
equation 68.12.3
d
wcp
= depth of web cap plate, from section
3.10.3
e
y
= f
SHJ
+ a
ep,wt,b
+ ((n
wtb
1)/2)S
g,wt
(68.72)
3.15.2 Calculate actions on weld from axial
tension generated by web bottom
bolts

3

wcp
wp tu, *
wp wh,
d
N
v

(68.73)
where:
N
tu,wp
= capacity given by equation 68.54

3.15.3 Calculate design actions on weld
between column flange and web plate
( )
10 x 2
9 . 0
; ; Max Min
3
wp y, wp *
wp wh,
*
wp wv,
*
wp w,
1
1
]
1
f t
v v v
(68.74)
3.15.4 Design weld
Select fillet weld size such that
*
wp w, wp w,
v v (68.75)
where:
v
w
= design capacity of a category SP fillet
weld, eg. from [20]
The size is used on each side full length of the
web plate to column flange.
If t
w,required
15 mm use a CPBW.
3.16 Selection and location of the positioner
bolt
The role of the positioner bolt is described in
section 3.3.2; its grade and appearance in section
3.2.1.
This bolt connects between the bottom flange
plate and beam flange only. It is placed as shown
in Fig. 68.2; the distance from the centreline of
this bolt to the centreline of the adjacent row of
bottom flange bolts is given by equation 68.2.
This bolt is intended to be snug tightened only, but
can be fully tensioned to hold the bottom of the
joint in place during erection, if desired.
3.17 Tension/compression stiffener
requirements
These are determined using NZS 3404 Clause
12.9.5.3.1, modified as described below, in
conjunction with section 3.2, page 13, DCB Issue
No. 50.
(1) Provide tension/compression stiffeners
positioned opposite the flange plates, so
that top of steel is the same for each
element.
(2) Use NZS 3404 Equations 12.9.5.3(3) and
12.9.5.3(4) to determine the area of
stiffener required for each design action,
with the following modification:
The tension/compression stiffener
design is based on the bottom flange
plate dimensions for both the top and
the bottom pair of stiffeners. This may
mean that the top pair of stiffeners are
slightly thinner than the top flange plate.
Replace all terms related to the beam
flange with the same term for the bottom
flange plate, ie: A
bfp
replaces A
fb
; f
y,bfp
replaces f
yb
; t
bfp
replaces t
fb
; b
bfp
replaces
b
fb
; t
wf
relates to the weld calculated from
3.13.3 above.
More simply, use equation 50.2 from
section 3.2(2) of DCB Issue No. 50 with
the same substitutions as stated above.
(3) Design and detail the tension/compression
stiffeners to section 3.2 of DCB issue No.
50 (with the above modification to section
3.2(2) of that issue)
3.18 Joint overstrength moment,
o
SHJ
M
This is determined as follows:
,
_

SHJ
oms
o
SHJ

M
M (68.76)
where:
M
SHJ
= joint design moment from section 3.6
= 0.8
oms
= 1.4 for the SHJ with or without Belleville
Springs
This overstrength factor has been derived from
the experimental testing, using the methodology
as will be described in [1].
3.19 Joint panel zone requirements
3.19.1 Design shear force on panel zone
The panel zone design moment for input into NZS
3404 Equation 12.9.5.2(1) is the joint overstrength
moment given by equation 68.76. However,
compared to the layout of a rigid welded joint, the
top and bottom flange plates are more widely
spaced apart (see Fig. 68.2) which reduces the
unbalanced shear force on the connection.
These two aspects are incorporated into equation
68.77, which gives the design shear force on the
panel zone of a SHJ.
( ) ( )
COL
R
bfp b
o
SHJ
L
bfp b
o
SHJ *
SHJ P,
-

V
t d
M
t d
M
V

,
_
+
+
,
_
(68.77)
where:
The subscripts
L
and
R
refer to the left and right
hand beams at the connection.
o
SHJ
M = as given by equation 68.76.
For preliminary design and for most final designs,
V
COL
can be accounted for as described in NZS
3404 Commentary Equation C12.9.5(1).

3.19.2 The design shear capacity of the
panel zone, V
c
, is calculated to NZS
3404 Eq 12.9.5.3.(5).
3.19.3 The panel zone has adequate
capacity when

pz c
V V (68.78)
Doubler plates, if needed, should be designed in
accordance with sections 4 and 6 of DCB Issue
No. 57, pages 23-25 therein, which, although
written for FBJ connections, actually covers both
FBJ and SHJ connections.
With the SHJ, doubler plates are not typically
going to be necessary when only one beam
frames into the column, but will often be required
when two beams frame into the column.
3.20 Connections at column bases
3.20.1 Options available and impact on
building performance
The most commonly used column base
connection type for a MRSF is a fixed base
connection. This has the advantage of reducing
lateral deflection in the superstructure. As
mentioned in section 2.3, with fixed base columns
the inelastic demand on the joints under the
design severe seismic event is within the
performance criteria specified for the columns in
sections (2) and (3) therein. With pinned base
columns, these limits are slightly exceeded in
some types of earthquake record, principally
those exhibiting positive near fault directional
motion.
A third option is a ring-spring type detail at the
column base. This is mentioned in [21], with a
picture of such a joint shown as Fig. 15 of [21].
When subjected to a design level severe seismic
event, it is anticipated that minor damage to the
yielding regions of columns adjacent to the
column bases would occur in columns with fixed
base connections. For columns with pinned base
connections, minor damage would be expected
within the baseplate detail. In each case, minimal
or no repair would be anticipated to be necessary
from this level of event.
The ring-spring base would be dependably
undamaged by this level of event.
Brief guidance on each type of column base
connection is now given.
13.20.2 Fixed bases
The design actions for fixed bases are given in
section 4.2.1, pages 22,23 of DCB Issue No. 50
and are directly applicable to these semi-rigid
systems. The actions are based on
design
= 4.
The effects of the slight foundation flexibility
should be accounted for; in lieu of a more detailed
analysis, use the rotational stiffness given by NZS
3404 Clause 4.8.3.4.1(b).
Design and detailing concepts for moment-
resisting column baseplate connections are given
on pages 11-20 of DCB Issue No. 56.
The advice in both articles is written to utilise, as
much as possible, the standard details and
provisions in HERA Report R4-100 [12].
3.20.3 Pinned bases
Design actions and detailing requirements are
given in section 4.2.2, page 23 of DCB Issue No.
50. The advice therein is also written for use in
conjunction with [12]. Note that, for analysis, a
pinned connection should be assigned a realistic
rotational stiffness. This can be obtained from
Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (a) of [5].
3.20.4 Ring spring bases
Fig. 15 of [21] shows a ring spring test setup
which would also be applicable to a column base
application.
The ring spring joint is well suited to application at
the column base of a MRSF with SHJs or FBJs.
This is because it combines the benefit of the
pinned base, in protecting the column from
inelastic action at its base, with the ability to
generate a rapid increase in moment capacity with
increasing rotation demand. The joint also has
good self-centering capability, which will assist in
returning the building to its pre-earthquake
position at the end of the strong ground motion
shaking.
Design of the ring spring joint for this system is
relatively straightforward. It is referenced from
section 6.2 of [21] and will be described in [1];
further details are not given herein. Contact the
HERA Structural Engineer for more information.
3.21 Guidance on practical aspects of sliding
hinge joint design
The flange plates should be made as wide as
possible, within the limits of sections 3.2.6 (1)
and 3.2.12(1)
The top flange plate will typically be the same
thickness or the next thickness up from the
bottom flange plate and the web plate
The maximum number of bottom flange bolts
should be 8, in order to keep the required
bottom flange plate thickness within the
maximum thickness allowed for the given bolt
diameter. If the design from section 3.6
indicates that n
bfb
= 10 is required, look at

increasing the bolt size. With n
bfp
= 8, n
wbb
=
n
wtb
= 4 will result, with n
tfb
= 12, typically.
Refer to Table 68.2, section 4.2, step 7 for
typical values of M
SHJ
/M
sx,b
that have
resulted from the many representative frames
designed as part of this project.
4. Design of Moment-Resisting Steel
Frames Incorporating Sliding Hinge
J oint Connections
4.1 General and scope of guidance given
Section 4 presents guidance on the design of the
MRSF system that incorporates the SHJ. This
guidance is very similar to that for MRSFs with
FBJs and follows the same format as that given in
DCB No. 58 for the FBJ systems.
Section 4.2 covers preliminary design, while
section 4.3 covers final design.
The design procedures presented herein are
based, in format and content (wherever possible),
around the procedures incorporating capacity
design presented in sections 5 and 6 of HERA
Report R4-76 [6] for preliminary and final design,
respectively, of category 1 or 2 MRSFs with rigid
beam to column connections.
For such systems, strength and stiffness cannot
be de-coupled, so the columns must be designed
to resist the beam section overstrength actions (or
the upper limit seismic actions E
max
).
In contrast, for the semi-rigid systems
incorporating SHJs, strength and stiffness are
considered separately and the columns are
designed to develop only the overstrength
moment from the joint. This requires some
modifications to the R4-76 [7] procedures, but is a
considerable simplification from the designers
view point.
Given that this guidance is being written at the
time of transition from NZS 4203:1992 [2] to the
new Loadings Standard [4], wherever practicable
the requirements of both documents are
referenced.
4.2 Procedure for MRSF preliminary design
The preliminary design procedure presented
below is based around that given in R4-76 section
5.2 for preliminary design of category 1 and 2
MRSFs. It is presented in the same step by step
format as section 5.2 of [7] and with the same
headings.
Step 1 Establish preliminary frame layouts
Formulate the preliminary frame layout or layouts
in terms of the beam and column spacings and
the number of bays (more than one scheme may
be required).
The SHJ has been developed for perimeter frame
application and the guidance given in step 2.2 and
step 6 herein for the member sizes to meet frame
stiffness requirements is formulated on that basis.
(Perimeter frames and internal frames are as
defined in NZS 3404[5]).
Step 2 Estimate beam sizes required
This estimate should be made at the first level
above the seismic base level, at the level of
uppermost principal seismic mass level and at
selected intermediate levels.
Guidance on the number of intermediate levels to
consider is given on page 5.3 of [6]. For buildings
up to 4 storeys in height, do the check at every
level. For buildings up to 8 storeys in height,
check levels 1, 3, 5 and 8. For buildings between
8 and 12 storeys in height, check levels 1, 3, 5, 8,
11 and 12. For buildings above 12 storeys in
height, check 1, 3, 6 then every 4
th
level.
However, the SHJ is probably not the most cost-
effective system to use on buildings above this
height, because of the limited ductility demand
required compared with what the SHJ can deliver.
For such high-rise buildings, the FBJ offers a
potentially more cost-effective solution, especially
in low to medium seismic zones.
Step 2.1 To carry gravity loads
Use the approach given in step 2.1, section 5.2 of
[6], except use the denominator value of 8 in
equation 5.1 of [6] instead of 10. This
corresponds to a simply supported condition,
which is required for design in accordance with
section 3.1(i) herein.
Use the lightest category 3 section from
NZS 3404 [6] within a particular designation to
resist the design moment, such that M
*
M
s
. (In
the 1992 edition of NZS 3404, this category was
designated 3A, which is still used in HERA report
R4-76 [6]. This point is picked up in the summary
notes Tips on Seismic Design of Steel Structures
which are included in all post-July 2000 copies of
[6]).
Step 2.2 To provide suitable frame lateral
stiffness
(1) For perimeter frame MRSFs, select beam
depths from the target span to depth ratios
given by equations 68.79.1 to 68.79.3
(1.1) For the lower half of the structure (up to
0.5H)
(L/d*) = (9 or 11)
10
> (11 or 13)
5
(68.79.1)

(1.2) For the three-quarter height (0.75H) of the
structure
(L/d*) = (11)
10
, (13 or 15)
5
(68.79.2)
(1.3) For the uppermost level (1.0H) of the
structure
(L/d*) = (15)
10
, (14 or 15)
5
(68.79.3)
In equations 68.79;
The figures in ( )
10
are the target L/d* ratios for
a 10 storey building; those in ( )
5
are for a 5
storey building. Interpolate for building levels
between these.
Where two figures are given, the first is for a
frame with sufficient stiffness to meet the P -
OK deflection limit of NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1
[2] or of DR 1170.4 Equation 6.5(1). The
second is for a frame that does not meet this
limit and for which the strength is increased to
compensate, in accordance with DR1170.4
Clause 6.5.4.
L = span of beam (centre to centre)
d
*
= target depth of beam
(2) At each level, select the lightest weight
category 3 section, from NZS 3404 [6], for
which d
b
d
*
(d
b
= depth of beam).
Step 2.3 Select the largest beam size from
steps 2.1 and 2.2
Step 3 Calculate the design seismic loads
Use the procedure given in step 3.1, section 5.2 of
HERA Report R4-76 [7], except that the estimate
of fundamental period should be given by :
(i) For a perimeter MRSF in which
d
col
0.8d
beam
0.75
n 1
h 12 0. T (68.80.1)
(ii) For a perimeter MRSF in which
d
col
< 0.8d
beam
0.75
n 1
h 15 0. T (68.80.2)
There are two levels of seismic load to determine,
namely:
(1) That associated with determining the
design joint moment. This is load case E
(see section 3.4.1 herein), determined for
design
= 4.
(2) That associated with determining the upper
limit design seismic actions on the
secondary members. This is load case
E
max
and is determined for
max
= 1.25.
Step 4 Determine the design bending
moments at the joints (ie.

Emax E
M and M ) for load cases E

and
E
max
(1) Use the procedure given in step 3.2,
section 5.2 of [6], except that, instead of
calculating

E
M as given on page 5.7 of [6],
use equation 68.81 below.
( )
i beam, i joint, E
2 / n M M

(68.81)
where:
i joint,
M = sum of the out-of-balance moments
at each joint on level i
i beam,
n = number of beams in the semi-rigid
system on level i
(2) In applying step 3.2, section 5.2 of [6],
assume that the columns above and below
that level are all the same section.
(3) Calculate both

Emax E
M and M .
Step 5 Check magnitude of wind moment
and use if this exceeds the
earthquake moment
Calculate the ULS design wind moment, M
WULS
,
from section 3.4.3.1 and substitute it for M
E
if
required.
Step 6 Reassess the beam size in order that
beam web reinforcing plates are not
required.
This involves checking that
b sx, design
M / M
0.66,
as described in section 3.12.3.
Step 7 Estimate the column sizes required
Step 7.1 For the first seismic storey
Select the lightest designation I-section cross
section that complies with the following:
(1) Flange slenderness complies with NZS
3404 Table 12.5 [5] for a category 2
member
(2) Web slenderness complies with Equation
8.4.3.3(2) of [5] for (
s g
N / N
) 0.3. This
gives
/250
44

t
y 1 storey
w
1
f
d
,
_
(68.82)
where:
d
1,
t
w,
f
y
are as defined in NZS3404

(3) Check the column moment and axial load
capacity at the first level (and then at all
other levels where the beam size is
checked) by using step 2.2, section 5.2 of
[6], in conjunction with the overstrength
moment for the joint from section 3.18. To
do this requires determination of M
SHJ
. For
preliminary design, the following guidance
can be given for expected ratios of M
SHJ
/
M
sx,b
, based on the range of representative
frames designed for this project. Having
determined the beam size and hence
strength from step 2.3, a preliminary
estimate of M
SHJ
can be made from the
following:
Table 68.2
Indicative Values of M
SHJ
/ M
sx,beam
Location in
MRSF
Lowest
seismic zone,
P - OK
Other
0.5 H 0.25 0.45 0.6
0.75 H 0.35 0.45 0.55
1.0 H 0.30 0.40 0.45
Notes to Table 68.2:
(1) H = height of structure
(2) Lowest seismic zone, P - OK means design for Zmin
and for the stiffness limits of NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1
or DR 1170.4 Equation 6.5(1) to be met
(3) Other means design for increased strength to cater for
P - actions in conjunction with meeting the maximum
drift limit for the lowest seismic zone, or any design for
the highest seismic zone.
Step 7.2 For the levels above the first seismic
level
At each level where the beam size has been
determined, choose the column from the lightest
designation of I-section type cross section which
complies with all the following:
(1) The column cross section (flange, web
slenderness) complies with NZS 3404
Table 12.5 and Clause 12.8 for a category
3 member. (Category 3 rather than
category 4 is used, because the joints
develop an appreciably higher overstrength
moment than conventional MRSFs, hence
the columns above the base are marginally
more likely to be subject to slight inelastic
action than those of a conventional MRSF).
For this reason, the cross sections are
made category 3 to give them a small
dependable inelastic rotation capacity
without loss of performance.
(2) Column moment and axial load capacity
complies with step 2.2, section 5.2 of [6], in
conjunction with the estimated overstrength
moment from section 3.18, using M
SHJ
estimated for the given beam size from
Table 68.2.
Step 8 Review member sizes to control
lateral deflection
Use the procedure given in step 4, section 5.2 of
HERA Report R4-76 [6]. When applying
equations 5.14 and 5.15 of [6], there are two
general lateral deflection regimes to aim for.
These are:
(1) Meeting the P - OK drift limit, such that no
increase in strength to account for P -
actions is required
(2) Meeting the maximum drift limit, as given by
Clause 2.5.4.5 of [2] or Clause 8.5.2.1 of
[4], and applying the P - enhancement
given by Clause 6.5.4 of [4] if the P - drift
limit is exceeded.
For buildings in the highest seismic zones, the
preferred option is (1). For buildings in the lowest
seismic zones, the joint strength required in
meeting (1) may be considerably lower than that
required to resist wind loading, thus making (2)
the preferred option. Buildings in intermediate
seismic zones may benefit from having both
options checked.
If the member sizes need increasing, increase the
beam sizes to a greater extent than the column
sizes, as the beam sizes have a greater effect on
the MRSF stiffness.
Step 9 Design the connections
This involves applying the detailed procedure
given in section 3 herein.
4.3 Procedure for MRSF final design
The procedure for final design is based on the
established capacity design procedure from [5,6]
for conventional category 1 and 2 MRSFs. It uses
the detailed procedure given in section 6.2 of [6],
wherever possible. It is presented in step by step
format, using the step numbers and headings
corresponding to those of section 6.2 of [6].
Step 1 Analyse the frame for the required
load cases and load combinations
Follow step 1 in section 6.2 of [6]; load case E
max
is based on = 1.25.
Step 2 Assess P delta effects and check
the seismic lateral deflections
The frame elastic stiffness (ie. with the joints in
their closed condition) should be such as to
comply with the appropriate lateral deflection
regime (see section 4.2 step 8 above).

Step 3 Derive the beam bending moments
using moment redistribution
This step is not required as the gravity and
seismic moments are applied as separate cases
for beam design. This is a major simplification
from conventional MRSF design for earthquake
loading.
Step 4 Determine the required beam sizes
(1) The positive moment capacity must be able
to resist the maximum moment from applied
vertical loading (eg. from 1.2G & 1.6Q for
[2]) in a simply supported manner. This is a
more severe requirement than equation 6.2
of [6].
(2) The second criteria on selecting beam size
is to provide adequate frame stiffness. The
preliminary design beam size selection is
likely to dependably cover this requirement.
If the beam size is required to be increased,
the moment input through the joint into the
column does not have to increase
accordingly.
Step 5 Determine the beam overstrength
moment capacities and design shear
forces
The general details of steps 5.1 to 5.4 of section
6.2 of [6] are applicable, except that the
overstrength moment capacity of the beam,
o
beam
M , is replaced by the overstrength moment
capacity of the joint,
o
SHJ
M . This is given by
equation 68.76, section 3.18 herein.
In step 5.2, C
col
= 1.0 is used in all instances.
Step 5.4 from [6] does not need to be applied, due
to the nature of vertical shear force transfer from
the beam to the column via. the joint. This avoids
the concentration of shear force in the beam web
immediately adjacent to the joint that occurs with
rigid jointed MRSFs.
Step 6 Evaluate the overstrength factors at
each beam-column joint
Follow step 6, from [6], for joints in the
superstructure, using the overstrength joint
capacity calculated from step 5 above.
Follow section 3.20 on pages 23 herein for joints
at the column bases.
Step 7 Determine the design actions for the
typical levels and for the base
Follow step 7, from [6], for the superstructure.
Follow section 3.20 on page 23 herein for the
column bases; fixed bases limit frame lateral
movement and inelastic rotation demand in the
SHJs, however at the expense of column base
damage. Pinned bases are very applicable for
SHJ frames.
Step 8 Design the columns
The columns at the lowest level of fixed based
frames are designed as category 2 members in
accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 12.8.3, using
the design actions from step 7. Note especially
the axial load/web slenderness requirements of
Clause 12.8.3.1.
The columns at the higher levels of fixed based
frames are category 3 members.
The columns at all levels of pinned based frames
may be category 3 members, however the pinned
based detail itself must be detailed for a
dependable inelastic rotation of 30 milliradians, in
accordance with section 3.20.3 herein, which on-
references to section 4.2.2, page 23 of DCB Issue
No. 50.
Step 9 Design and detail the connections
This involves applying the detailed procedure
given in section 3 herein.
4.4 Guidance on practical aspects of the
MRSF design
4.4.1 Estimation of fundamental period
The range of representative frame designs
undertaken for the NITH over 2001/2002 have
given an indication of the accuracy of equations
68.80.1 and 68.80.2. These frames have covered
the following:
5 and 10 storey
Auckland (low seismic zone) and Wellington
(high seismic zone)
Intermediate soil conditions, with and without
positive near fault action and soft soil
conditions.
These designs have shown that the equations
slightly over-predict the period determined by
RUAUMOKO [10] for the frames in the most
severe applications and underpredict it to as much
as 15% in the least severe applications. The
extent of overprediction (which is potentially
unconservative) is not more than 5%.
4.4.2 Choice of members to use for the
beams and columns
Follow the guidance given previously herein in
conjunction with that given on pages 21 - 22 of
DCB Issue No. 49.

When using generically one-sided welded beams,
these beams must be double sided welded
through the connection region and for a
reasonable distance beyond the bolt(s) furthest in
along the beam flanges or web from the beam
end adjacent to the column. A distance of 300
mm is recommended.
Because this semi-rigid system decouples
strength and stiffness, the same beam size can be
used over many levels, with the moment capacity
of the joint reduced at successively higher levels
by reducing the number and diameter of the bolts.
This offers considerable scope for matching
moment capacity to moment demand more
closely over each level of the MRSF than is
possible with a rigid framed system, while using
the same beam size.
5. Sliding Hinge J oint Design Example
5.1 Scope and introduction
Section 5 presents a design example for the
SHJ. It relates to a 530UB82 beam connected
to a 610 x 229 x 171W column, as shown in
Fig. 68.5.
The design example is taken from level 1 of a 5
storey MRSF for Auckland, soft soil (soil class D
from [4]). In this case, the P - provisions for
stiffness are not met, so the force multiplier
provisions of Clause 6.5.4 are used. These
increase the design seismic base shear by 1.73 in
this instance.
Design of the joint shown in Fig. 68.5 is covered in
section 5.2.
5.2 Design of the joint
The detailing requirements from section 3.2 are all
met by the SHJ detail shown in Fig. 68.5 and are
not elaborated on further in this example. The
allowances for manufacturing tolerances given in
section 3.2.16 are incorporated into the flange
plate offsets from the beam centreline shown in
Fig. 68.5.
Fig. 68.5
Sliding Hinge Joint Design Example
Notes:
(1) The beam supports a 120 mm slab on trapezoidal steel decking, deck rib height 54 mm, which is not shown.
Concrete strength = 25 MPa.
(2) The design moment and shear is:
) directions (both kNm 377 M M
*
design E E

- wind moment is not considered here

V
Qu G,
= 122.4 kN (due to G & Qu) ; V

GQmax
= 185 kN
(3) The beam span, between column centrelines, is 7 m.

This joint design is not using Belleville Springs
which would be the typical case.
5.2.1 Design moment (section 3.4.1)
kNm 377 M M
*
design E design

5.2.2 Design shear force (section 3.4.2)

kN 177
0.61) - (7.0
377 x 3

) d - (L
3M
V
c b
*
design E
design E

kN 299 177 122 V V V

design E GQu design
+ +

V
GQmax
= 185 kN - not critical

5.2.3 Determine bottom flange plate width
and initial thickness (section 3.5)
(1) Bottom flange plate width
b
bfp,min
(equation 68.4.1)
= 4 x 24 + 90 = 186 mm
b
bfp,max
(equation 68.4.2)
= 1.05 x 229 = 240 mm
from section 3.2.14, M24 bolts are used as
first estimate for the 530UB82 beam size
Try b
bfp
= 240 mm.
(2) First estimate of bottom flange plate
thickness
kN 857
0.528
377 x 1.2
68.29) (equation N
tdesign

mm 20.3
250 x 2x26) 0.9(240
10 x 857
68.30) (equation t
3
tfp
f
y,bfp
= 250 MPa is used
From section 3.2.2, t
bfp,max
= 20 mm for M24 bolts.
5.2.4 Determine sliding bolt size and
numbers for moment adequacy
(section 3.6)
M
SHJ, initial estimate
(equation 68.31)
= (4 x 56 x 528 + 3 x 56 x 438) x 10
-3
= 192 kNm
e
wb
(equation 68.33)
= 528 13.2 26.5 50 = 438 mm
V
fss
for M24 and 20 mm plate,
Table 68.1 = 56 kN
M
SHJ, initial estimate
= 192 < M
design
= 377 NG
As this is considerably below requirements,
increase both the bolt diameter and add one set of
bolts to the bottom flange.
M
SHJ, new
= (6 x 98 x 528 + 3 x 98 x 423) x 10
-3
= 435 kNm
e
wb
= 528 13.2 26.5 65 = 423 mm
V
fss
for M30 and 20 mm plate, = 98 kN
M
SHJ,new
= 435 > M
design
= 377 OK accept
Thus the design solution involves:
M30 bolts; n
bfb
= 6; n
wbb
= 3
5.2.5 Design of bottom flange plate
(section 3.7)
5.2.5.1 Net tension yield
kN 676 98 x 6 x 1.15 68.35) (equation N
bfp ty,

kN 783 68.36) (equation N

bfp ty,

b
bfp
= 240;
'
f
d = 33; f
y,bfp
= 250; t
bfp
= 20
*
bfp ty, bfp
N N > O.K.
5.2.5.2 Net tension failure
kN 959 0.9 x 1.45 x
0.8
98
x 6 68.38) (equation N
bfp u,


bfp tu,

f
u,bfp
= 410 MPa
*
bfp u, bfp tu,
N N O.K.
5.2.5.3 Compression capacity
f
SHJ
(equation 68.3)
10 + 1.25 x 30 x 10
-3
x 528 + 2.5 x 20 = 80 mm
The answer for f
SHJ
is rounded up to the nearest
5mm
L
e,bfp
(equation 68.41)
= 0.7 (80 + 1.25 x 30 x 10
-3
x 528) = 70 mm
n,bfp
(equation 68.42)
= 12.1
250
250

20 x 0.29
70
1
]
1
As
n,bfp
< 25, equation 68.43 does not need
modification
N
cu,bfp
(equation 68.43) = 1020 kN
*
bfp u, bfp cu,
N N O.K.
5.2.6 Design of the web top bolts (section 8)
kN 299 185) (299; Max 68.45) (equation V
*
wv

*
1.6Q 1.2G
V
+
1.85 (see Note (2) in Fig. 68.5)
bolts 2 require 1.40
214
299
n
wtb

As n
wtb,required
= 2 < n
wbb,required
= 3, increase n
wtb
to
3. The additional bolt is used as part of the top
bolt group to anchor the sliding bolts.
5.2.7 Design of web plate (section 3.9)
5.2.7.1 Check for vertical shear adequacy
kN 429 68.47) (equation V
wp vn,

v
(equation 68.48) = 1.0
d
wp
= d
wp
,
average
(equation 68.12.3) = 448 mm
d
wcp
= (equation 68.16) = 2 x 65 = 130 mm
kN 299 V kN 429 V
*
wv wp vn,
> OK
5.2.7.2 Check for net tension yield
kN 338 98 x 3 x 1.15 68.50) (equation N
ty,wp


wp ty,

'
f
d = 33 mm
*
ty,wp ty,wp
N N > O.K.
5.2.7.3 Check for net tension failure
kN 479 0.9 X 1.45 x
0.98
98 x 3
68.53) (equation N
*
tu,wp

N
tu,wp
(equation 68.54) = 1023 kN
*
tu,wp tu,wp
N N > O.K.
5.2.8 Sizing of cap plates and brass shims
(section 3.10)
This is done in accordance with section 3.10. The
resulting sizes are shown in Fig. 68.5.
5.2.9 Design of top flange bolts and plate
(section 3.11)
5.2.9.1 Number of bolts required
( ) ( ) 8 2 - 3 - 6 3
1.0
1
Even 68.56) (equation n
required tfb,

1
]
1
+
k
r
= 1.0 as L
j
= 3 x 90 = 270 mm < 15d
f
= 450 mm
5.2.9.2 Determine top flange plate width
Use b
tfp
= b
bfp
= 240 mm
5.2.9.3 Determine plate thickness to
suppress tension yielding
mm 25.8
250 66) - (240 0.9
882,000 x 1.15
68.57) (equation t
tension tfp,

Select t
tfp
= 25 mm 4% under O.K.
5.2.9.4 Check top flange plate and bolt
adequacy for the ULS condition
N
t,tfp
(equation 68.60) = 1373 kN
N
c,tfp
(equation 68.61) = 1275 kN
0.85 n
tfp
V
fn,tfp
= 0.85 x 8 x 214 = 1455 kN
Max (N
t,
N
c
) 0.85 n
tfp
V
fn,tfp
O.K.
5.2.10 Calculate beam tension adequacy in
the connection region (section 3.12)
kN 1414
0.9
2840
x
558
435
x 1.15 x 0.5 68.63) (equation N
*
tb

M
sx,b
= 558 kNm, from [20]
[20] from ,
0.9
2840
N
t

N
tb,1
(equation 68.64.1) = 0.39 x 8124 x 0.440
= 1395 kN
f
ub
= 440 MPa for the grade 300 beam
A
nb
= A
g
4 x 33 x 13.2 2 x 33 x 9.6
= 8124 mm
2
N
tb,2
(equation 68.64.2) = 0.45 x 10,500 x 0.300
= 1417 kN
Min (N
tb,1
; N
tb,2
) = 1395 kN <
*
tb
N = 1414 kN
Beam is 1% overstressed for this check accept.
5.2.11 Design of welds between column
flange and bottom flange plate
(section 3.13)
run kN/mm 2.39
230 x 2
1098
68.66) (equation v
*
bfp w,

5.2.5.2) (section kN 098 1 N
*
bfp tw,

b
min
= Min (240 ; 230) = 230 mm
b
fc
= 230 mm
v
w
for a 15 mm leg length, category SP, fillet
weld made with E48 weld metal = 2.44 kN/mm
As v
w
>
*
bfp w,
v , use a 15 mm FW both sides.

(This is changed to CPBW in section 5.2.12 for
consistency with the top flange plate
requirements).
5.2.12 Design of welds between column
flange and top flange plate
(section 3.14)
kN/mm 2.98
230 x 2
1373
68.68) (equation v
*
tfp w,

5.2.8.4) (section kN 1373 N
*
tw

As v
w
for 15 mm FW <
*
tfp w,
v , use a CPBW to the
top flange plate. Same weld details are then also
used to bottom flange plate for consistency.
5.2.13 Welds between column flange and
web plate (section 3.15)
5.2.13.1 Weld actions from vertical shear
kN/mm 0.47
130) - (448 2
299
68.69) (equation v
*
v wp, wv,

kN/mm 1.05
(448)
235 x 299 x 3
68.70) (equation v
2
*
h wp, wv,

e
y
(equation 68.72) = 80 + 65 +90 = 235 mm
( ) ( ) ( ) kN/mm 1.15 1.05 0.47 v
5 . 0
2 2 *
wp wv,
+
5.2.13.2 Actions on weld from moment-
induced axial tension, web bottom
bolts
kN/mm 2.62
130 x 3
1023
68.73) (equation V
*
wp wh,

5.2.13.3 Final design action
kN/mm 2.25 2.25) ; (2.62 Min 68.74) (equation v
*
wp w,

kN/mm 2.25
10 x 2
f t 0.9
3
wp y, wp
5.2.13.4 Sizing of weld

v
w
for 14 mm leg length category SP FW, E48
weld metal = 2.28 kN/mm >
*
wp w,
v
Use a 14 mm leg length FW each side.
5.2.14 Selection and location of positioner
bolt
See details in Fig. 68.5.
5.2.15 Determine area of
tension/compression stiffeners
required (section 3.17)
This uses the procedure in section 3.2 of DCB No.
50, with modifications as described in section 3.17
herein.
,
_
ys
yp
bfp wc bfp bfp required pair, s,
f
f
) t t - t (b A
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.2)
mm 4490
250
250
20) x 15.5 20 x (240
2

f
ys
= 250 MPa, as grade 250 plate is used.
As starting point, select same thickness as bottom
flange plate, ie. 20 mm.
b
s,min
(0.9 b
fp
t
wc
) / 2
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.1)
= (0.9 x 240 15.5) / 2
= 100 mm
mm 6
250
f
)
C
b
( t
ys
1
s
min s,

,
_
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.3)

where:
C
1
= 15 (based on the incoming beam
category of 3)
Try 110 x 20 FL for stiffeners Grade 250 used
A
s,supplied
= 2 x 110 x 20 = 4400 mm
2
O.K.
A
s,supplied
= 98% of A
s,required
accept
Use 2 110 x 20 plate stiffeners for each pair of
tension / compression stiffeners.
Check 2b
s
+ t
w
= 220 + 15.5
= 235.5 b
fc
= 230 mm O.K.
5.2.16 Welds between stiffeners and column
flange adjacent to incoming beam
s
ys s s *
cf s, w,
2b
t 0.9b
v
f
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.4)
= 2.25 kN/mm
Use 14 mm leg length, category SP welds, E 48
filler metal
v
w
= 2.28 kN/mm >
*
cf s, w,
v O.K.
5.2.17 Welds between stiffeners and column
web
1c 2
ys s s *
cw s, w,
d C
t 0.9b
v
f
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.5)
= 0.43 kN/mm

where:
C
2
= 2.0; 1 beam frames into connection (see
Fig. 68.5)
d
1c
= 573 from [22] for the 610 x 229 x 171 W
column
(Assume no doubler plate required at this stage;
with a SHJ in a perimeter frame, this will always
be the case for 1 beam framing into the column).
Use 5 mm leg length, category SP welds
v
w
= 0.82 kN/mm O.K.
5.2.18 J oint overstrength moment
(section 3.18)
761kNm
0.8
435 x 1.4
68.76) (equation M
o
SHJ

M
SHJ
= 435 kNm (section 5.2.4).
5.2.19 Design shear force on panel zone
(section 3.19)
V
col
= 761 / 3.5 = 217 kN
h
c
= 3.5 m
5.2.20 Design shear capacity of panel zone
V
c
= 0.9 x 0.6 x 275 x 629 x 15.5 x 1.0 x [1.10] x 10
-3
= 1599 kN
t
fc
= 27.9 mm;
t
wc
= 15.5 mm;
d
c
= 629 mm
f
ywc
= 275 MPa
5.2.21 Panel zone adequacy (section 3.19)
V
c
= 1599 kN >
*
SHJ p,
V = 1171 Kn
No web doubler plates are needed.
That ends the design example. See Fig. 68.5
for the joint details.
6. Spreadsheet Programs are Available
Detailed spreadsheets have been developed for
the design of the representative 5 and 10 storey
frames. The design of the frames is to the
seismic provisions of the new draft loadings
standard [4], however the same approach is used
with the current standard [2].
The spreadsheets cover the connection design,
including the procedure given above. There are
worksheets for the joints without Belleville Springs
to the bottom flange plate and for the joints with
Belleville Springs.
The spreadsheets are written for 5 and for 10
storey buildings, however this can be altered.
The spreadsheets do allow rapid joint design to be
made.
They have been produced on Microsoft
Excel for
Office 97 and a copy of each is available free-of-
charge on a use at your own risk basis. They
have been checked against the design example in
section 5 and had quite thorough informal
checking, but have not been through a formal
quality assurance checking programme.
Associated with the spreadsheets is a data set of
section properties that are called up by a macro
routine and used in the frame design.
7. Acknowledgments
The HERA Structural Engineer, principal author of
this article, would like to acknowledge the
contribution of all persons/organisations involved
in this research, with special mention of:
1. The undergraduate students from Germany
who have undertaken and continue to
undertake the setting up of experimental tests,
the processing and presentation of data from
this testing, the development of analytical
modelling data and other essential work.
2. Dr John Butterworth Hank Mooy and Jos
Geurts, University of Auckland, for assistance
with planning and undertaking the extensive
pseudo-static and seismic-dynamic
experimental testing involved in this project.
3. Dr John Butterworth, for his guidance and
input as principal PhD supervisor to Charles
Clifton.
4. The Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology, for providing the principal funding
for this project.
kN 1171 217 -
0.020) (0.528
761
68.77) (equation V
*
SHJ p,

+

Member Compression Capacity
of a Solid Section
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.
Recently a design query has been received
regarding calculating the member compression
capacity of a solid section supported at its ends
and loaded in compression through those ends.
Two questions were raised, namely:
1. What value of form factor is applicable?
2. What value of member section constant is
applicable?
The answers to those are as follows:
Calculation of design member compression
capacity, N
c
, is undertaken to NZS 3404 [5]
Clause 6.3. It is a two stage operation, the first
stage being the calculation of section
compression capacity, N
s
, to Clause 6.2.
When calculating the compression capacity of a
steel member, the issue of buckling under the
compression load is of paramount importance.
This subject is comprehensively dealt with in
Section 6 of the Standard [5]. Put simply:
Local buckling of elements of a cross-section
under compression load is an issue when
determining the section compression capacity
and is addressed in Clause 6.2. This form of
buckling involves one part of a cross section
undergoing buckling relative to another part.
Member buckling involves the member
moving out-of-plane between points of
restraint. In member buckling, the whole
cross section moves from its at-rest position,
with this movement being effectively zero at
the points of restraint and reaching a
maximum within the midspan regions furthest
away from the points of restraint.
With this background and through reference to the
NZS 3404 provisions, the above two questions
can be readily answered.
1. The form factor, k
f
, is associated with the
effectiveness of the cross section against
local buckling. k
f
= 1.0 means that the
cross section will not undergo any local
buckling. A solid cross-section is in this
category, so k
f
= 1.0 is the appropriate value
to use. This applies even for a thin plate
member restrained only at its ends and
loaded through those ends in compression.
Such a member will have low compression
capacity, limited by member buckling between
the points of end restraint. However the cross
section at any point along the member length
will not undergo distortion, it will simply move
as an entity in the manner shown in Fig. 9.4
(a) of the HERA Limit State Design Guides
Volume 1 [23]. However, if the member is
restrained also along its sides, its behaviour
changes markedly, as described in section 9.2
of [23]. With both end and side support, k
f

1.0 in all instances and must be calculated to
Clause 6.2.4.
2. The compression member section constant,
b
, is given in Table 6.3.3 (1) of NZS 3404 [5]
for most types of cross section, but not
for solid cross sections. For such sections,
b
= -0.5 is used.
Another point with regard to solid rectangular
cross sections is that A / I r = 0.29t, where t is
the thickness in the direction of buckling. This
means that rectangular cross sections supported
only at their ends typically have low values of r,
resulting in high slenderness ratios and a member
compression capacity much lower than their
section compression capacity.
References
1. Clifton, GC; Thesis Report on the
Development of New Semi-Rigid Joints for
Moment-Resisting Steel Frames. In
preparation, due for publication first quarter of
2003.
2. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
3. Clifton, GC et. al.; Development of Moment-
Resisting Steel Frames Incorporating Semi-
Rigid Elastic Joints 1995/96 Research Report;
HERA Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-
88.
4. DR 1170.4 PPC 5 DR4/V Draft Joint
Earthquake Loadings Standard, July 2002
Version; Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
5. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:
2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
6. Feeney MJ and Clifton G C; Seismic Design
Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA,
Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76 ; to
be read with Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic
Design of Steel Structures; Notes from
Presentations to Structural Groups mid-2000;
HERA, Manukau City, 2000.

7. Clifton, GC et.al.; Two New Semi-Rigid Joints
for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames; NZSEE
2001 Conference, Wairakei; New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Wellington, 2001.
8. AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural Design
Actions Part 0: General Principles; Standards
New Zealand; Wellington.
9. Mago, N and Clifton, GC; Sliding Hinge Joint
FEA Study; HERA, Manukau City, 2001,
HERA Report R4-110.
10. Carr, AJ; RUAUMOKO the Maori God of
Volcanoes and Earthquakes; University of
Canterbury, Civil Engineering Department,
Christchurch, 1998.
11. Pantke, M; Development of analytical Models
for SHJ and SHJs; Report Produced for
Second Industrial Internship, HERA; Manukau
City, 2001.
12. Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1999, HERA
Report R4-100.
13. AS/NZS 1252:1996, High Strength Bolts With
Associated Nuts and Washers for Structural
Engineering; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
14. AS 1111.1; 2000 ISO Metric Hexagon
Commercial Bolts; Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
15. AS 1566:1997, Copper and Copper Alloys
Rolled Flat Products; Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
16. Belleville Springs (Product Manual): Solon
Manufacturing Company, Chardon, Ohio,
USA.
17. Manual of Standard Connection Details for
Structural Steelwork, Second Edition; HERA,
Manukau City, 1990, HERA Report R4-58.
18. ISO 9223:1992, Corrosion of Metals and
Alloys Corrosively of Atmospheres
Classification; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
19. AS/NZS 1170.2: 2002, Structural Design
Actions Part 2; Wind Actions; Standards New
Zealand, Wellington.
20. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel,
Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
Sydney, Australia, 2000.
21. Clifton, GC et.al.; Moment-Resisting Steel
Framed Seismic-Resisting Systems With
Semi-Rigid Connections; SESOC Journal,
Vol. 11, No. 2, 1998, pp. 21-41 and 43-52.
22. Structural Sections to BS4: Part 1 and BS
4848: Part 4; Corus Sections, Plates and
Commercial Steels, Redcar, Teeside, UK,
1999.
23. Clifton, GC; Steelwork Limit State Design
Guides Volume 1; HERA, Manukau City,
1994, HERA Report R4-80.

DCB 68 Sliding Hinge Joint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCB 68 Sliding Hinge Joint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCB 68 Sliding Hinge Joint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No.

68, June/July 2002

(see section 3.4.1 herein), determined for

- wind moment is not considered here

= 122.4 kN (due to G & Qu) ; V

5.2.2 Design shear force (section 3.4.2)

kN 299 177 122 V V V

= 185 kN - not critical

kN 783 68.36) (equation N

kN 1098 68.39) (equation N

kN 437 68.51) (equation N

5.2.13.4 Sizing of weld

(DCB No. 50, eq 50.3)

You might also like