Steel Tips Committee of California Parte 2

COMNIIl'11E OFCALFORNIA
TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCTSERVICE

SEPTEMBER 1985
FIREPROOFING
OPEN-WEBJOISTS & GIRDERS
Due to the increased usage of open-web joists and
truss girders in the design of larger, taller buildings,
their fireproofing requirement data is increasingly
sought by the architect and engineer. This paper
outlines a few of the major points the designer should
consider when fireproofing of these members is
required.
Use of a fire-rated ceiling will generally give an
economical solution if the requirement is just for a
protective envelope. 1 But since each penetration of
the ceiling must take extra protection, such as fire
dampers, this Iow first-cost is often offset by the
added cost of the dampers.
Occupancy will influence the decision on whether
to use a fire-rated ceiling. For example, offices have
many penetrations for H.V.A.C., whereas residen-
tial has relatively few requirements for ceiling
penetrations.
Spray-on fireproofing of open-web joists and truss
girders is done with the same crews and equipment
employed in fireproofing wide flange structural
shapes. However, some variations in methods and
techniques must be used.
"LH" Series joists and "G" Series girders are
generally made of angles with flat surfaces. The
fireproofing is sprayed on directly in the same man-
ner as with structural steel beams. While it is gener-
ally preferred that the joists or truss girders not be
painted when they are to be fireproofed, this is not
as critical as for wide flange shapes since there are
no large flat areas to create adhesion problems. The
individual members are small, and as applied the
fireproofing actually wraps the member and creates
its own adherence. Generally it is the adherence of
the paint to the steel that governs not the adherence
of the fireproofing to the paint, therefore, do not
specify paint where fireproofing is required.
For the minimum insulating material thickness re-
quirement for a particular fire-resistive period (hour-
rating) contact the fireproofing manufacturer2 or con-
sult the latest issue of the U.L. Fire Resistance
Directory.3 The thickness required for wide flange
structural shapes cannot be used in every case as
a direct comparison to joists and truss girder con-
struction. Consideration must be given as to whether
the member is a primary or secondary structural
member. Requirements for roofs are different than
for floors. 1,4
For members of equal vertical load carrying capac-
ity, an open-web joist or truss girder will generally
be deeper than a wide flange structural shape.
However, since the joist or truss girder has very
little web surface there is a tendency to over-spray.
The total effect is that the cost per square foot of
floor area for spray-on fireproofing of joists and
truss girders will be approximately the same as with
wide flange structural shapes.
Due to the thickness of the fireproofing there is
some reduction in the available open space within
the webs for utility ducts and pipes, and should be
taken into consideration by the design engineer.
Another fireproofing option is intumescent mastic
(swells or expands with heat). Required thick-
nesses range up to 1/2". Generally, the greater cost
of this type fireproofing tends to limit its use.
References:
Uniform Building Code (1982 Edition), Chapter 43, Fire-Resistant
Standards, Table No. 43-C.
2 Most manufacturers have a research report or product evalua-
tion for their fireproofing material on file with a City or the Interna-
tional Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
3 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Rd., Northbrook,
IL 60062
4 Designing Fire Protection for Steel Trusses, Second Edition, 1981,
American Iron & Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCT SERVICE
JANUARY1992'
STEEL DECK CONSTRUCTION
Resum of Frequentl y Asked Questi ons on Formed Steel Fl oor and Roof Decks
c 0 ` 0 ' 4 . o . Io . . <3 , , . , 0 4 ' ."J . , " b o oc> o c o l . , .
o O * ' o . . O , . o 'c ' , o t J '
,. - * i 0 . c ? 1o ,. '
c . ' j
/. I o o o.' ' '
0 '0. '. ' o 'o,
? 0
G E N E R A L
What are typical steel specifications f or steel
decks?
The two most important parts of the steel spectflcatlon
are the stress level and the flmsh of the deck
ASTM A-446 covers zinc coated (galvanized) cold-rolled
steel sheets in slx strength levels which designate mini-
mum yield points Those commonly used for steel deck
are Grade A (33,000 ps0, Grade B (37,000 ps0, Grade
C (40,000 ps0 or Grade E (80,000 psi). The weight of the
galvanized coating is designated by ASTM A-525.
The grades of galvamzed coating generally used for
steel deck are G-01 (wipe coat), G-60 (hght commercial)
or G-90 (commercial) There are alloyed coatings avail-
able if the galvamzed surface is to receive a field coat of
paint
ASTM A-611 covers cold-rolled uncoated structural
steel sheets Wthm ths speclhcaton are five strength
levels which designate minimum yield points Those
commonly used for steel deck are Grade C (33,000psi),
Grade D (40,000 ps0 or Grade E (80,000 ps0 The cold-
rolled steel Is cleaned, washed and given a shop coat of
pnmer paint on both surfaces before fabncahon If,
however, concrete asto be poured over it, as for compos-
ite floor deck, paint is apphedonly to the exposed surface
away from the concrete
What are "gauges"?
Gauge Js a convenient method to Identify a decimal
thickness of steel Roof decks or floor decks range from
22 (light) through 16 (heavy) gauge, with lighter or
heavier gauges rarely being used As an example, the
*This TIPS Issue/s an update of a pubbcat/on Issued n January 1986
"nominal" thickness of 20 gauge is 0359" and 16 gauge
is 0598" Steel deck producers can vary from these
nominal thicknesses when developing their safe load
tables based on the AISI allowable minimum decimal
thickness of 0 95 times the thickness used in the design
of the member
What is the typical design stress for steel decks?
The design stress permitted by budding code junsdlc-
tJons is 0 6 Fy (Fy = minimum yield strength)
How are vertical load section properties of steel
decks determined?
Manufacturers calculate section modulus and moment of
inertia values in accordance with the Spec/f/cat/on for the
Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members pub-
lished by the Amencan Iron & Steel Institute
What depths of steel decks are available?
Decking depths range from 1-1/2" to 7-1/2" However,
economic aspects dictate that 1-1/2" and 3" deep decks
are normally used. The deep decks are only used when
very long spans cannot be avoided Corrugated steel
decks are available m depths of 3/8" to 1-5/16" in 28
gauge through 20 gauge
ROOF DECK
Frami ng
What are considerations for steel deck on warped
surfaces?
Steel deck units readdy accept the small out of plane
Figure I
, I
I I
I I
I [
I I
Metal Cover Plate
Screw Or Tack
Weld To Deck Units
f
I
Square Cut Ends
' T - - - -
I
..J Support Beam
warping required to achieve roof drainage. When highly
differential warped surfaces are required, the lighter
gauge single sheet units are more adaptable than the
double plated sections. The designer should investigate
the alignment of supports to be certain of the deck's
ability to conform to differential elevations for multiple
spans, otherwise the deck should be single span.
What' s the proper way to frame a wedge-shaped
bay?
It is usually desirable to let the deck ribs run as a tangent
of thearc as this entails a minimum of-cutting--and,
consequently, reduces waste and cost. When the
flanges of the radial beams are wide enough to support
the deck panels without bevel cutting, the panels are
installed as a "stair-step" condition. The stair-step gaps
are closed (capped) over with a flat plate on the top of the
decking surface to support insulation. See Fig. 1.
Should decking units be continuous over a ri dge or
valley?
Steel roof deck units have little bending resistance
(dependent upon gauge) normal to the ribs, but great
strength in the direction of the ribs. For changes in pitch
parallel to the ribs, the deck units can be stepped down
to conform to the change in pitch. When the sheets are
required to span over a ridge or valley, the ability of the
unit to conform is dependent upon its moment of inertia.
Gradual changes in pitch can usually be accommo-
dated using a man's weight to step it flat to the support.
For abrupt changes, however, the sheet should be
discontinued at the ridge or valley and a 20 gauge or 18
gauge flat cap sheet bent to the angle of the pitch
fastened to the deck sheets. Its purpose is to provide
2 Steel Tips January 1992
diaphragm continuity and support for insulation and
roofing membranes. The designer should be certain to
provide structural support either at or close to ridge and
valley lines.
Should the structural member' s supporting flange
surface be fl at to the deck surface?
It is not necessary for full surface bearing on the support-
ing flange provided any wedge-shaped gap is small.
Since the majority of steel deck is installed by welding,
a gap less than 1/4" can be filled with weld metal to
provide a satisfactory installation. If there are heavy
applied loads or if the deck units are fastened by screws,
the usual practice is to use a 14 gauge strip bent to an
L-shaped profile and welded to the supporting beam.
The slope of the strip after installation should provide a
bearing surface for the deck unit. The designer is
cautioned that decking support members at a hip or
ridge condition should be reviewed to provide a smooth
transition and continuity at the supporting system for the
adjoining decking sheets.
What kind of closures are available to cl ose gaps
b e t w e e n supports and deck units?
Three types of closures are available: close cell neo-
prene rubber, sheet metal and a combination metal and
neoprene. Neoprene closures are oversize to fit either
rib openings (top side) or void (underside) openings.
Glue or friction fit ensures tight closing of the opening to
stop light, heat and wind penetration. Notched sheet
metal closures are loose fitting and are used to stop
sight view (as behind flashing) and as bird or large insect
F i g u r e 2
.(,
fL_/
1
Continuous Sheet Metal
____ Closure and Fire Stop Support
J
/I III I Closure
PerpendicularoT ] I
Parallel To Deck Condition
stoppers For very large void or nb openings and under
severe pressure condlhons, combination metal/neo-
prene rubber closures are recommended
Should I use closures m steel roof deck construc-
tion?
Use closures whenever an exposed deck overhangs an
exterior wall with no soffit cover on the exterior, when
sound control s necessary for interior partitions reach-
mg the deck units, and over exterior exposed supports
to prevent bird roosting and to present a more finished
appearance
Are there special considerations for cantilevered
roof deck units?
Usual engmeenng calculations are sufficient The de-
signer should be certain to show a heavy gauge angle
or cap channel welded to the outboard end of a cantile-
ver to tie adlacent deck sheets together for unity and
support architectural facsas, dnp flashing, or gutters
Can steel deck panels be used as draft curtains?
Yes, steel deck panels are often used to parhton large
areas for fire safety, building code and insurance rating
reasons They can be installed vertically on the face of
a truss or with a suspended vertical frame An important
detail to incorporate into the design is the flashing at the
top to inexpensively separate and seal off adjacent
areas Corrugated decks 1/2" to 1-5/16' deep are often
used as draft curtains See Fig 2 (bottom of page 2)
Openi ngs
How large a hole may be cut in steel roof deck
wi thout supplementary framing?
Any hole which does not intersect a vertical web of the
deck may be cut. When holes intersect a decking
vertical web, some general rules will assmt the designer
to make a decision, i e
I With 6" or 8" spaced nbs, one web may be cut
2 With 12" or greater spaced ribs, avoid any web
removal
3 The number of holes within any span of the deck
units should be limited to avoid cutting adjacent ribs
within the span
4 Holes In the high moment areas of the deck units
may be more restrictive than those located in the
shear area
What kind of reinforcing is suggested for medium-
sized opening?
It Is preferred to use steel reinforcement angles, tubes,
or plates which are applied from the top side It is
customary to install reinforcement prior to cutting the
hole The reinforcing members should run at right
angles to the direction of the deck and be approximately
three times the width of opening Designers are cau-
honed to place the narrow dimension of the opening
normal to the deck ribs to minimize the structural impact
to the deck. In all cases, the ablhty of the deck units
adjacent to the hole to carry transferred loading should
be evaluated.
When are frames for holes required to be part of the
structural frame system?
If an opening exceeds the width of the deck sheet or over
24 inches (for long span 12" cover width sheets),
supplementary framing should be attached to the struc-
tural framing by struts or beams to create a framed
opening Such openings are usually shown and dimen-
sioned on the structural drawings.
Who pays for openings?
Other than holes shown and dimensioned on the struc-
tural drawings, the trade requinng the penetration is
responsible for approval, reinforcement and cutting If
the steel deck installer is still on the job, he can do the
work on a mutually negohated fee basis
Di aphr agms & Connect i ons
How strong are steel deck diaphragms?
Steel roof decks have a wide range of design values as
diaphragmsto resist honzontal loads Because of Code
approvals, varying profiles, different fastener types and
spacing, individual producers of steel roof decks should
be contacted for recommendations
Do lightweight concrete fills have diaphragm val-
ues?
Yes, the designer may secure the vanous code and
design values for this type of construction by contacting
the steel deck manufacturer or the producers of hght-
weight concrete
When are welding washers used?
For corrugated decks hghter than 22 gauge, 14 gauge
weld washers are used when plug welding deck to the
support
Is it necessary to touch up the wel ds on steel deck
units?
Touch up by the deck erector is limited to top side of the
units only. However, if the deck is covered by concrete
fill, touch up of welds is not necessary as the concrete
offers adequate protection against corrosion Scorch
marks caused by welding attachments on the underside
of supports or deck unts should be touched up and
Steel Tips January 1992 3
painted by the painting subcontractor as part of this
work Assignment of thru work by proper notation tn the
project speclhcatons s important
How are wel ds protected?
The top side of the weld is painted wth a rust inhibitive
paint Weld cleaning and etching Is not required For
galvamzed surfaces, a zmc-rmh paint may be specified.
Flux-type zinc repair compounds cannot be success-
fully apphed to metal decks due to rapid dlsslpahon of
heat required for application
Roof i ng and I nsul at i on
Do steel roof decks always require a built-up roof?
No, and by followmg a few general rules, many deck
profiles may be used exposed (without roofing)
1 Roof slopes at least 1" to 12"
2 Fasten with gasketed screws at supports and shtch
the side joints with screws
3 Overlap end iomts a minimum of 6"
4 Use a full bed of caulking at sde and end joints
5 Install deck units in a posihon to minimize
of side joint, i e, install deck with the side lap on the
top, not on the bottom of the flute
What is the correct thickness of insulation over
steel roof deck?
Aside from thermal requirements, the minimum thick-
ness is based on the width of the nb opening related to
the density of the msulabon and Its shear capacity to
bndge the openmg In general, a rule of thumb is 1" thick
for 0 to 1" openings, 1-1/2" for 2-1/2" openings Because
the quahty of the waterproohng membrane s dependent
upon proper support, roofing product manufacturers
should be consulted for their specffmatlons
Can lightweight concrete insulating fills be used
over steel roof deck?
Yes, but some confusion results from "hghtweght" ter-
minology It Is necessary to differenhate between light-
weight insulating concrete hll which ts approximately 30
pcf density and hghtweight structural grade concrete of
100 pcf or greater density Either type can be used
What are insulation mechanical fasteners?
Rigid insulabon is usually mechanically fastened to
steel deck by insulation chps There are many varieties
and methods of fastening these chps whmh penetrate
the steel deck They are used to wmthstand wind uphft
and Factory Mutual regulations These fasteners are
supphed and installed by the roohng contractor
4 Steel T/ps January 1992
What is the purpose of a vapor barrier?
It prevents the absorption of moisture into insulation
materials When moisture Is absorbed, the thermal U
factor of the msulabon is adversely affected
What are effective vapor barriers?
Steel decks with caulked side seams are somehmes
used as a vapor barrier Other types of vapor barriers
are asphalt impregnated paper or mcombusbble plasbc
films above the deck units Mechamcal msulahon chps,
if specified, should be consistent with the type of vapor
barrier suggested
Where are vapor barriers used most often?
Usually m cold chmates and on those facilities whose
occupancy tends to generate moisture and humidity,
such as swimming pools or laundnes, etc
Drai nage
What is an adequate roof pitch for drainage?
For steel decking roofs, many designers prefer a minm-
mum slope of 1/8" per foot when built up roof mem-
branes are used For exposed steel roofs, 1" per foot is
a usual minimum with 2" per foot preferred
What is an easy way to get roof pitch?
Shortening alternate columns s a good method on large
roofs to create sump areas, which can be connected to
the storm dram system
What are sump pans?
Standard sump pans are 14 gauge steel, approximately
30" square, and of three general types flat, recessed flat
or recessed sloped Sump pans are flat or recessed flat
for Iow pitch roof surfaces and recessed sloped for
steeper pitch roofs Recessed pans prowde larger
drainage basins than do flat pans See Fig. 3 Sump
pans are not used when concrete fill Is placed over the
steel deck m roof construchon
Who supplies the sump pans?
Sump pans are supphed and welded to the deck units by
the roof deck subcontractor The hole for the drain is cut
in the plate by the plumbing contractor who also installs
the roof drain and connechons to the drainage system
What is the proper treatment of parapet conditions?
The designer can show either standard cant strips
(minimum 20 gauge steel) or tapered steel cants which
vary the daagonal dimension to create a swale leading to
a sump area For very wide tapered cant conditions, a
sloping shelf angle is used at the parapet and steel
decking of varying lengths is used to create a swale
Figure 3
F eld Cut
I I
Flat Sump Plate
\ i I I /
Recessed SumpPan-- Flat
----%--- /
Recessed SumpPan-- Ptched
Figure 4 WideTapered Cant
Slolng
Support
Angle
I /
Pos,bo
Low
Posrhon
Tapered Cant
spanning from the shelf angle to the metal decking
already in place It is good pracbce to place scuppers
through the parapet to reheve abnormal water heights
See Fig 4
F L O O R DECK
General
What are the general types of floor deck panels?
Steel floor deck panels fall into two general categones
cellular and non-cellular Cellular panels are produced
by spot welding a nbbed panel to a flat panel to create
a void whtch ns usable as a raceway for in-floor power,
hghtmg, electrJcal and communJcatJon dJstrJbutJon Non-
cellular panels are simply fluted (ribbed) panels
Is concrete always used over floor deck?
Concrete is usually used over steel floor deck In this
capacJty, Jt fumJshes a smooth surface covering the
ribbed deck and the accessones It acts as part or all of
the steel panel hreproohng and can be destgned to work
compositely to increase structural capacity without an
increase tn steel wetght There are structural uses of
floor panels such as servtce catwalks, package convey-
ors, shelving or temporary floormg where concrete nsnot
ordinanly used
Is concrete over the steel deck units required to be
structural grade?
Only tf compostte achon between the deck umts and the
concrete hll is required to provtde the design require-
ments
Some temperature control mesh is required and the
usual value Js 00083 times the area of concrete above
the steel deck.
What causes concrete surface cracking?
Concrete slabs that are poured on imperwous surfaces
such as steel deck or Vtsqueen can cause the top
surface to dry relatively quickly whde the lower portion of
the slab remaJns wet The water bleeds to the top
Steel T/ps January 1992 5
surface and evaporates, causing cracks to open above
the top surface of the rebars or mesh, whmh then
propagate to the surface. Troweling closes the cracks
only at the surface and they tend to reopen m a matter
of days.
How can surface cracking be prevented?
A good way to reduce slab cracking Is to have a light fog
water spray applied to the slab during the finishing
operations. The concrete will have a sheen while it is
wet. When this sheen starts to disappear, the fog spray
should be applied to maintain the sheen Care should be
taken not to get excess water on the slab Venting of the
deck may help to reduce cracking in the concrete.
How should the concrete be cured?
There are several ways of curing the concrete Products
that are sprayed on have ether a wax or a resin base.
Ether one may impair the application of a sealant or
hardener later It is recommended that the surface be
covered with craft paper, Visqueen or polyethylene
Are additives to the concrete fill recommended?
No Corrosive salts should not be allowed as they can
react adversely with the steel deck units, especially with
galvanized decking
Fr ami ng
Is it necessary t o put in additional support at
col umns or other areas of deck interruptions?
Steel deck support angles are used If the nbs of the
deck units are left unsupported at the columns. See
Fig. 5. The project specifications should call for the
support angles to be supplied by the structural steel
suppher. They can be installed by the metal deck
erector. Voads mnthe metal deck units may need to be
closed wth sheet metal or other closures to prevent
concrete leakage.
Are cover plates or spl i ce plates on structural steel
members a problem?
Any projection above the steel support sunace can
impose a hardship on the steel deck erector. If the top
flange of the steel beam supporting the deck is not
level, Jt may be difficult to achieve adequate bearing for
the steel deck units.
Are concrete cl osures necessary?
The designer should show a concrete closure wher-
ever there is a concrete leak possible as at changes of
dlrecbon and ends of decking runs, at columns, duct or
shaft openings, building perimeters, etc The closure
does not have to match the profile of the deck. When
shown on the drawing, a concrete slab edge form is
provided to retain the concrete slab at its approximate
height above the deck. Since concrete edge forms are
not intended to be screeds, they are not adjustable to
Figure 5
Deck {
Direction "A" -
ColuOmmnlt at Exterior -] / ' % - Typ2"Max.
L2'x2`''x3/'6
Note
Omit Angles In
Deck DIr "A" When
M1 6" or in Deck
Dir "S" When M2 6"
- f ' r S e a m ,
Ii I / ; . I
C o l u m n
:- - '--V
- , _! /
I ,. , .,-- Outhne of
--_'"'_. _ ' _ . Deck Cutout
. . . . . . . !_ I I t
I* i t ' 1
I On Top of Metal Deck
Angle t o - J - j I Connect
Two Full Deck --P'-
I
of FluteScutoutEach Side - I
Omt Angles
= When DLmenslon
C3 Between Edge of
Floor Support and
Edge of Column
Q s Less than 6"
elevahon to meet the varying needs of the budding.
The typical concrete edge form s a galvamzed sheet
metal angle, with a thickness to meet required needs
Openi ngs
What is the proper treatment for holes or
ti ons through a steel floor deck?
Large holes (over 24" wide) should be en-
cased by structural frames connected to the
mare framing members Smaller holes are
created by block-outs anthe concrete (such as
styrofoam or wood forms) Either angles or
rebar are used as headers in the slab, with the
area of the reinforcing equal to or greater than
the area of the steel to be cut out. The header
bars should be installed on the dagonal at the
corner of the opening After the concrete has
cured, the block-out can be removed and the
steel deck anthe area of the hole removed with
a cutting torch
Di aphr agms and Connect i ons
penetra-
Figure 6
Are there any precautions advised when using steel
decks in either roof or floor over open web steel
joists?
Yes, at end laps of the deck for roof deck, the lap should
be over one angle See Fig. 6 If the deck is butted on
roof decks, there should be a continuous plate added to
transfer the shear from one angle to the other See Rg
7 For decks wth structural concrete, the plate is not
necessary if the concrete does not have a joint over the
Joist
/- typical support weld
/
/
I Open web steel joist
Suggested Detail at Deck Lap
on Open Web Steel Joist
How effective are steel floor panels as a
horizontal diaphragm?
Combined wath concrete the assemblies offer
great ngidity and strength without greatly add-
ing to the diaphragm wetght. Values are
dependent upon deck profile, weld patterns
and spans In concept, the steel deck can act
as the shear transfer device between the con-
crete fill and the perimeter (shear collector)
framing member Shearconnectorsordowels
can also be used for shear transfer
How are steel floor units attached?
By welding through the deck umts (arc-spot
weld) to the steel supports Side laps are
button punched, welded or screwed to meet either
structural requirements or the specification of Under-
writers Laboratories
How are diaphragm values of steel floor or roof
decks determined?
Values are based on full-scale tests and on formulas
developed in the Se/stoic Design for Buildings (Tn
Service Manual, Army TM 5-809-10) Each quahfied
deck manufacturer has on file with ICBO or vartous
cities an Evaluation Report for approved welding pat-
terns and decking profiles
Figure 7
typical support weld
IAdd mm 1/8' P.con t
Detail at Deck Butt Joint
See Fig. 8 (top of next page), which dlustrates a potential
problem when an open web joist IS poslboned close to
a wall The joist has camber and unlessthe ledger angle
is placed with the same camber, it is difficult to bend the
deck down to the ledger angle The solution is to either
poSlbOn the joist far enough from the wall to allow the
deck to bend, or to camber the ledgerangle the same as
the joist
Electrification
In in-floor wiring systems using cellular panels,
how are the systems carried normal to the deck
run?
Through the use of cross ducts above the top of the
Figure 8
._1
...I
Joist too close to wall to
allow deck to bend
--i'
I
Detail to Avoid
!
..Q
E
O
cellular unats Cross ducts are of two types, header duct
and trench header. See Fig. 9
Figure 9
J;' i :' :'' ',:1' Te'e0hnelPwer F
,,'. . ;'..
Steel Deck
, ,,.
s t
Trench Header
l
-v .. .., ,.,,o. '.,i ......
o , < 3 .
Steel Deck '
)
o
i t m'
Header Duct
potenhal common problem areas are resolved prior to
bid time
Is header duct still used?
Originally the only method to dlstnbute wire, it stdl has
hmated use For example, header duct does not dasturb
either the daphragm action of the assembly or the
vertical load capacity of the composite deck In addition,
it is often used as a jack header to carry dlstnbution to
cells interrupted by columns, openings and changes m
deck layout direction
Composite Construction
What consideration should I give trench headers?
Since trench headers interrupt vertical composite de-
signed loading, the deck unts must carry the total dead
and live loads non-compositely Moment analysas at the
most critical area of the trench dact will determine the
structural requirements of the deck units Trench head-
ers should occur in areas of Iow diaphragm values orthe
deck reinforced to carry the diaphragm without con-
crete It is desirable to locate the trench duct outside of
the effective beam flange area in composite beam
construcbon. If this is not possible, design the beams as
slab one side or non-composately Also rewewthe effect
of the trench headers crossing the girder d that member
is designed on a composite basis, as wide trench
headers can ehmmate both studs and concrete Close
coordinahon is required between the structural designer
and the electrical designer so that rewew and solution of
Can steel deck units be used with composi te beam
construction?
Yes, stud welding is a relahvely simple process which
prowdes high quahty welded connecbons The headed
shear connectors may be apphed to the beam flange
directly through the steel decking sheets Arc spot welds
may be eliminated where they coincide wrth shear stud
placement
Are all steel floor panels composi te construction?
Since the introduction of composite type floor construc-
tion 25 to 30 years ago, nearly all floor assembhes now
take advantage of the economies gamed by reduction of
weight of the steel, be t the frame or the deck panel In
composite construcbon, steel floor panels hrst act to
support wet concrete and temporary construchon loads,
and upon curing of the slab act as the poshve steel
reinforcement of the concrete slab by bonding to the
concrete Embossed ridges (in a variety of patterns
dependent upon the producer) assist the bonding func-
tion Steel studs complete the composite action by
assisting the floor slab and steel beam to act as a single
composite unit
Can I use composite steel floor decks in every
application?
Basically the answer Is yes, but some cautEons are
necessary Since a composite steel floor slab is essen-
tially a one-way reinforced slab, it ts designed for office
building type installations When subjected to moving
loads such as fork lift trucks In Industrial applications or
heavy concentrated loads, special considerations such
as posdve or negative moment reinforcement are often
required. It is recommended that a deck manufacturer
be consulted for special applications
How are section properties of a composite floor
deck developed?
Producers of composite floor decking material publish
data based upon full-scale tests Designers should
review individual manufacturers' building code approv-
als
What are the design specifications f or composite
beam/steel deck construction?
AISC recognizes this form of construction with design
criteria given in the AISC Manual of Steel Construct/on,
9th Edition, using ether ASD or LRFD In addition, the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
issues Evaluahon Reports listing approved use and
design load values for individual stud manufacturers
Is there a maximum thickness of metal decking f or
through-deck stud welding?
The maximum deck thickness is 16 gauge with light
commercial (6 oz) galvamzed coating For double
plated decks, I e, cellular panels, 18/18 is the maxi-
mum
What are the usual size studs permitted for through-
deck welding?
The usual size is either 5/8" diameter or the widely used
3/4" diameter. Studs larger than 3/4" are not presently
approved under AISC specifications Standard stud
sizes are stocked and should be specified whenever
practical. Lead times are excessive for special lengths
and alloys on headed products
Does the design specify extra stud length to ac-
count f or burnoff?
Studs from 1/4" through 1/2" diameter lose 1/8" in length
during the welding process, 5/8" through 7/8" diameters
lose 3/16" However, when welding 3/4" inch shear
connectors through metal deck, 3/8" to 1/2" is burned
off. Most manufacturers offer (stock) studs that accom-
modate commonly specified after-weld lengths
When studs are used in through-deck welding, what
are the requirements for the top flange of the sup-
porting steel beam?
The top flange of the beam should be free of deleterious
matenal which includes paint, rust and debris However,
small amounts of mill scale and rust can be tolerated
provided the metal deck fits tightly to the steel beam
surface. Mimimum flange width of 4-1/2" is suggested
for a single row of studs. For two rows of studs, the
minimum flange width suggested is 5-1/2" Flange thick-
ness should always be at least 1/3 of the stud diameter
to ensure complete development of fastener strength
Who installs shear connectors in through-deck ap-
plications?
The shear connector studs act as a structural weld
between the metal deck and the steel beam and are
installed by the metal deck installer. The shear connec-
tors cannot be placed in the shop because of field safety
regulations.
How is the soundness of arc spot wel ds (puddle
welds) determined?
By assessing the ability of the welder to make an arc-
spot weld as specified in AWS D1 3 Specification for
Welding Sheet Steel /n Structures and by visual inspec-
tion.
How are shear studs inspected in the field?
Inspection, testing and operator qualification are out-
lined in the Structural Welding Code, ANSI/AWS D1 1
and the budding code governing the project.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
General
What agencies approve steel floor deck?
Local, regional and state code authorities issue evalua-
tion reports including seismic shear allowable and ver-
tical load limits for each manufacturer's product. In
addition, national codes and review bodies such as
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) conduct electrical and
fire tested assemblies evaluations
What label service does Underwriters Laboratories
offer?
UL authorizes the use of labels on products for fire
resistance and for use as electrical raceways. They also
maintain a follow-up service
Are steel floor units fire safe?
Yes, steel floor decks are part of fire-resistant assem-
blies Contact the deck manufacturer and review the
Fire ResJstance Directory handbook of Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., for one of many assembhes best
suited to your needs
STEEL COMMI TTEE OF CALIFORNIA
T E C H N I C A LI N F O R M A T I O N & P R O D U C T S E R V I C E
JANUARY 1987
COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGNWITH METAL DECK
INTRODUCTION
The American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) Specification has long recognized the use of
composite construction. In the Third Edition of the
Manual, 1936, steel beams were entirely encased in
concrete for composite development. The 1963
AISC Specification contained provisions for both en-
cased beams and beams with only a concrete slab on
the top flange. The entire horizontal shear between
the slab and steel beam was assumed to be trans-
ferred by shear connectors welded to the top flange
of the beam.
The composite design provisions of the 1969
AISC Specifications contained provisions for
complete and incomplete (or partial) composite
development. The 1978 AISC Specification was
expanded to include design provisions for composite
construction with formed metal deck. Since most
steel framed buildings use metal decking as part of
the floor system, it was only natural that the
specification recognize this type of construction.
This paper will present typical composite design
examples using metal deck. Both partial and
complete development will be considered. It is well-
known that composite design can reduce the size of
the supporting steel beam and/or keep deflections
within acceptable limits. Realistic savings can often
be made with the use of partial composite action.
AISC Specification
Section 1.11.5. Composite Beams or Girders with
Formed Steel Deck
Composite construction of concrete slabs on
formed steel deck connected to steel beams or
girders shall be designed by the applicable portions
of Sects. 1.11.1 through 1.11.4, with the following
modifications.
1.11.5.1 General
.
.
Section 1.11.5 is applicable to decks with
nominal rib height not greater than 3 inches.
The average width of concrete rib or haunch,
wr, shall not be less than 2 inches, but shall
not be taken in calculations as more than the
minimum clearwidth near the top of the steel
deck. See Sect. 1.11.5.3, subparagraphs 2
and 3, for additional provisions.
. The concrete slab shall be connected to the
steel beam or girder with welded stud shear
connectors 3/4-inch or less in diameter
(AWS D1.1-77, Section 4, Part F). Studs
may be welded through the deck or directly
to the steel member.
. Stud shear connectors shall extend not less
than I 1/2 inches above the top of the steel
deck after installation.
Sections 1.11.5 and 1.11.5.1 of the AISC
Specification pertaining to composite design with
metal deck have been included for a quick reference.
The deck ribs can be oriented perpendicular or
parallel to the steel beam or girder. Design rules for
the deck orientation are summarized in Table 1 (see
page 2, top).
,
6.
Total slab thickness, including ribs, shall be
used in determining the effective width of
concrete flange. ,
The slab thickness above the steel deck shall
not be less than 2 inches.
TABLE 1
AISC RULES - FORMED METAL DECK
ITEM RIBS PERPENDICULAR RIBS PARALLEL
1. Concrete Area Below
Top of Deck
2. Stud Reduction Factor
3 Maximum Stud Spacing
4 Deck Welding
5 Minimum Width of Rb
NEGLECT INCLUDE
0 85 Wr Hs Wr
(Nr)l/2 ( - r ) ( - r -1) 06 (-r-r)(rS-1)
32 in NOT SPECIFIED
16 m NOT SPECIFIED
2 m. DEPENDS ON Nr
Typical Design Problems
Example 1. Design a composite interior floor beam
(no cover plate) for an office building See beam A in
Figure 1.
40'
BA I
A
_ 30'
B
Figure 1
Given: Span length, L = 30 ft.
Beam Spacing, s = 10 ft.
Slab thickness, t = 5.5 m.
Concrete: f'c -- 3 0 ksi
Concrete Weight = 145 pcf (n = 9)
Steel: Fy= 50 ksi
3 inch rfietal deck, ribs perpendicular
to beam
No shoring permitted
Loads: Concrete slab including reinforcing
steel and metal deck. . . . . . . . 54 Ibs/ft2
Mechanical ...................... 4 "
Ceiling ....................... 6 "
Partition ........................ 2 0 "
Live ............................... 1 0 0 "
Page 2 Steel Tips January 1987
Solution.
1. Bending Moments:
a
Construction loads:
f
Slab = 054 kEps/ft2
Steelbeam(assumed) = 003 "
Total = 057 "
MD-- 2/w____(.057x10x30) (30x12) =770k]pm
8 8
b Loads applied after concrete has hardened.
wL2 (.13x10x30)(30x12)
ML = 8 - 8 =175Skip-in
(Due to possible actual loading, no reducbon in hve
loads were considered for these beams )
c. Mmax = MD + ML= 770 + 1755 = 2525 kip-in.
2 Maximumshear.
V = 10( 057 + .13) (30/2) = 28 1 kips
3. Effective width of concrete slab (AISC, para. 1 11 1)
b = L/4 = (30 x 12)/4 = 90 inches
b = s = 10 x 12 = 120 inches
b = 16t + bf = (16 x 5 5) + 6 0 in (assumed) = 94 in.
The 90 inch width governs.
4. Required section moduti:
5
For MD + ML, Str= 2525 = 76 5 in 3
33
For MD, Ss - 770 _233m3
33
From the "Composite BeamSelection Table"1
for plain slabs:
Select W18x35, Str = 97 3 m 3 > 76 5 m 3
(required) o k
AWl 6x31 beam satisfies the required section
modulus but does not meet the desired depth
to span ratio of Fy/800. (See Commentary -
Sect 1.13.1)
Sectton properties of W18x35
Ss = 57 6 in 2 A sTM 10 3 n. 2 tf = 425 m.
Is=510m.4 d=177m, tw= 30m.
6. Calculate composite design sechon properties:
a. Moment of InertIa.
Ac= b(tc) = 90 x 2 5 = 225 in 2
A'c = Ac/n = 225/9 = 25 0 m. 2
Ys = d/2 = 17 7/2 = 8 85 n
Yc = d + hr + tc/2 = 17 7 + 3 0 + 2 5/2=21 95 in
b
b .!
F '1
c
Figure 2
Flguro 3
1AISC Manual 8th Edit{on, page 2-109
Section A Y AY
W18x35 10 3 8 85 91.2
Concrete 25 0 21 95 548 8
353 18.13 6400
b
Yb =18.13in,ds=18 13 -8 85 =9 28m
dc=21 95- 18.13 =3 82in.
Io (Fortransformed concrete slab) = bh3/12n
Io = (90) (2 5)3/(12)(9) = 130 m.4
Io [for steel beam) = 510 in '+
Itr = T Ad2 + T. Io
Sectton A
W18x35 10 3
Concrete 25 0
Itr = 1775 m.4
Section Moduh'
1775
Str - 18 13
d Ad2 Io
928 8870 510
3 82 364 8 13
1251.8 + 523 = 17748
- 97 9 In.3
St = 1775 = 350 in.3
(3 82 + 1 25)
7 Checkconcrete stress'
1755 0 557 ksl < 1 35 ksi o k
fc = (350)(9) -
8. Check steel stress:
Total load Str = 97 9 in 3 > 76 5 In.3 o k
Dead Load Ss --576m3>233m.3 ok
28 1 = 5 29 ksz < 20 ks o k
Web shear, fy - (17 7) (0 30)
9. CheckdeflectEons
5wL4 ML2
-- - -
384EI 1920 I
(770) (30)2 = 0 71 m < 1 00 in o k.
AD- (1920)(510)
(1755)(30) 2 = 0 464 in. < 3'0 o.k 2
AL= (1920)(1775)
10. Checkto determine if shores are required:
(AISC 1.11-2)
Str max ( 1.35 + 0.35
1755
= _ 7--/ (57.6) =124 m.3
124 in.3> 979 in.3
No shores are required.
2Long term deflectiondue to creepis not considered
significant.
Steel Tips January 1987 Page 3
11. Calculate the number of shear connectors
required for full composite action.
Assume 3/4-nch diameter by 41/2 inch long studs.
Maximum stud diameter unless located drectly over
the web s 2 5tI = 2.5 x 0 425 =1 06 m > 0 75 m o k
a Total horizontal shear:
Concrete Vh = 0 85f'c = .85 x 3 x - = 287 kips
(AISC 1.11-3)
Steel. =258k, ps
(AISC 1.11-4)
Since the shear due to the steel area is less and
governs, the number of studs will be based on 258 kips.
b. Calculate the stud reduction factor forthe deck nbs
perpend,cularto the beam.
Reduct'on Factor - 0 85 (W-r) r )
(Nr) l/2 -1 _< 1.0
(AISC 1.11-8)
Assume. Nr = 1, Hs = 4.5 in., wr = 4 m.
Given: hr= 3 m.
Reduction Factor = 0 -1) = 0 565
(1) 1/2 k3/k3
q = (11 5) (.565) = 6 5 kips per stud
N1 = Vh/q= 258/6 5 = 39.7
Use 80 - 3/4 in. diameter by 41/2 tach studs (40 on
each side of mid-span).
Example 2. Design a composite intenor grder (no
cover plate) for an office building. See gmrder B in
Figure 1. The 3-inch deck nbs are onented parallel to
the girder. Grder is assumed loaded as shown in
Rgure 4.
[
P P P
4 e 10 = 40'
w,/ft.
/
Ftguro4
Loads: Concrete slab including reinforcing
steel and metal deck . . . . . 54 Ibs/ft2
Mechanical 4 "
Ceiling 6 "
Partition- 2 0 "
IJve-- 100"
t
d
d,
Yb
b/n
I_
--mm
t Y s F'"'
.I
Figure 5 ,
Soluhon:
1. Bending Moments.
a. Construction loads.
Slab = .054 kps/ft 2
Steel beam (assumed) -- 0 0 3 "
Total = . 0 5 7 "
Assume steel girder weighs 100 lbs/ft = .1 kap/ft.
(Approx. 3 Ibs./ft2)
PD = 0.057 kips/ft2 (10) (30) = 17 1 kps
wL2 PL _-1(40)2(12) (17 1)(40)(12)
MD- 8 + 8 + 2
MD = 240 + 4104 = 4344 kip-in.
b. Loads applied afterconstruction:
Reduce live load for large area supported by girder.
Total dead load = 57 + 3 = 60
Given:
Page4
Span length, L = 40 ft.
Beam spacing, s = 30 ft.
Slab thickness, t = 5.5 m.
Concrete: f'c = 3.0 ksi
Concrete weight = 145 pcf (n = 9)
Steel: Fy = 50 ksi
3 inch rfietal deck, ribs are parallel to girder
No shoring permitted
Steel T/ps January 1987
R = 23.1(1 + D/L) = 23 1(1 + 60/130) = 34%
(UBC-1985)
Live load reduction factor = 34%
P = 0.13 x 10 x 30 x 0.66 = 25.7 kips.
ML = PL = 25.7x40x12 =6168kip-in.
2 2
c. Mmax = MD + ML=4344+6168 = 10512 kp-m.
2. Maximum Shear.
V = [(.13 x 66) + (.057 + .003)]30 x 40/2 = 87 5 kips
3. Effecbvewdth of concrete slab' (AISC, para. 1.11.1)
b = L/4 = (40 x 12)/4 = 120 hnches
b = s = 30 x 12 = 360 inches
b = 16t + bf = (16 x 5.5) + 10.0 in. (assumed) = 98 in.
The 98 tach width governs.
4. Requ:red secbon moduli.
FOrMD+ML' Str _ 10,512
33
- 319 m.3
FOrMD, Ss - 4344 =132in.3
33
5. From the "Composite Beam Selectton Table"3 for
plain slabs:
Select W27x94, Str = 342 in.3 > 319 m.3 (Requtred)
Section properties of W27x94'
Ss =243i n3 A=27.71n2 tf =.745m.
Is = 3270 m.4 d = 26.92 m. tw = .490 in.
6 Calculate composate design section properties
a. Moment of Inertia
Ac = Concrete above deck (88x2 5) = 220 m 2
Concrete tn deck area (3x44) = 132 m.2
Concrete over girder (10x5 5) = 55 in,2
Total = 407 m.2
AC' = Ac/n = (98 x 2.5)/9 = 27.2 m.2.
Ys = d/2 = 26 92/2 = 13.46 in.
Yc =d + hr + tc/2 = 26.92 + 3.0 + 2.5/2 =31.17 in.
Section A Y AY
W27x94 27 7 13.46 372 8
Concrete 27 2 31.17 847.8
54.9 22.23 1220.6
3AISC MANUAL, 8th Edbon, page 2-108.
"--" 4 Deflection due to long term creep is not considered
signhcant.
Yb=22 23 m.,ds = 22.23 - 13 46=8 77m
c = 31.1 7 - 22.23 = 8.94 in,
!o (For transformed concrete slab) = bh3/12n
Io = (98)(2.5)3/(12)(9) = 14.2 m.4
Io (For steel beam) = 3270 m.4
Itr = [ Ad2 + T Io
Sechon A d
W27x94 27.7 877
Concrete 27.2 8.94
Itr = 7588 in. 4
Ad2 Io
2130 3270
2174 14
4304 + 3284 = 7588
*NOTE. Only the area above the metal deck has been
used to calculate the transformed section properties
A more refined method of using all of the concrete
area is usually not warranted. Neglecting the concrete
in the nb area is slightly conservabve. For thzs
example, takmg all of the concrete into account
decreased the deflection about 5% and the concrete
stress about 15%
b. Sechon Moduli
7588 - 341m3
Str = 2223
7588
St= (8 94+1.25) = 745m'3
7 Check concrete stress:
fc- 6 1 =092ksl <135ksi ok.
(745)(9)
8. Check steel stress:
Totalload 'Str=341 m.3>319in.3 o k.
Dead load- Ss = 243 m 3> 132 m.3 o.k.
87 5 = 6 63 ksi o.k,
Web shear, fy = (26 92)(0.49)
9 Check deflections.
=
5wL4 19PL3
+
384El 384El
5(.1 )(40)(40)3(12) 3 19(17.1)(480) 3
= 384(29000)(3270) + 384(29000)(3270)
AD = .0607 +.9867=1.047m. o.k.
19PL3 19(25 7)(480)3
384EItr - 384(29000)(7588)
L 4
=0.639 in. < 360
Steel T/ps January 1987 Page 5
10 Check to determine f shores are required.
(ALSO 111-2)
6168 (243) = 449 m.3
Str max = 1.35 + 0 35 4344!
449 m.3 > 341 m.3 No shores are required
11. Calculate the numberof shear connectors
required for full composite action.
Assume 3/4 inch dameter by 41/2 inch long studs
a Total horizontal shear:
,%.
- 407
Concrete. Vh = 0.85f' c -- = .85 x ; x -2- = 519 kps
(AISC 1.11-3)
Steel Vh = As __FY= 27.7 x -- = 693 kips
2
(ALSO 1.11-4)
Since the shear due to the concrete area s less and
governs, the number of studs wdl be based on
519 kips.
b. Calculate the stud reducbon factor forthe deck
nbs oriented parallel to the girder.
Reduction Factor= 0 6 ( r/hrWr' - -1.0) < 1 0
(AISC 1.11-9)
(wr ) 9
(hr) 3
- 3>1.5
Since this rabo s larger than 1.5 no reduction in stud
shearvalue is necessary. (wr was assumed 9 roches,
the actual wdth will probably be closer to the flange
wdth or 10 roches.)
Allowable Icad per stud = 11.5 kips.
NI= 519/11 5 = 45.1 Use 92 studs per girder, 46 on
each sde of mid-span.
c. Due to concentrated loads check stud spacing:
Mrnax = 6168 in.-kips at md- span
Moment at concentrated Icad 10 feet from support:
M = 3PLJ8 = (3 x 25.7 x 40 x 12)/8 = 4626 in. leps
Check for N2 (the number of studs required between
the concentrated Icad and the point of zero moment):
(AISC 1 11-7)
N1 x -1)
N2= 13 - I ; 13=Str/Ss =341/243=1 4
46[(4626 X 1 4/6168) -1] =5 75
N2= I 4- 1
Since 6 studs is less than the number
required for N1, formula 1.11-7 does not apply
of studs
Partial Composite Construction
Example 3 Design beam A, Example 1, using partial
composite action.
Given. Same data as Example 1.
Soluhon: Steps 1 through 6 are the same as Example
1. The maximum calculated shear due to dead and Iwe
Icad is 28.1 kips Ful l composite acbon was based on
the steel area, and therefore the honzontal shear s
258 Ips as determined by AISC formula 1 11-4
In order to dlustrate the reduchon in the number of
shear studs required, partal composite acbon wdl be
considered 75%, 50%, and 25% development f ap-
propnate. It should be noted that 25% s the minimum
level permitted by AISC
a. 75% development
Serf = Ss + [V'h/Vh]l/2 (Str- Ss)
V' hNh = 0 75
Serf = 57.6 + [.7511/2(97.9 - 57.6) = 92 5 m.3
92.5 m. 3 > 76.5 m.3 o.k.
( AISC 1 11-1)
N =V'h/q = (.75 x 258)/6 5 = 29 8
Use 60 - 3/4 inch diameter by 41/2 tach long studs
(30 on each side of md-span).
Check Deflection.
l ef t = !s + [V'h/Vh]l/2(Itr - Is) (AISC 1 11-6)
l ef t = 510 +[.75)1/2(1775-510) = 1606 m.4
'L = (1775/1606)(0 464) = 0 513 m.
0 5131n <L/360= 1 00in. o k.
Page 8 Steel T/ps January 1987
b. 50% development:
V'h/Vh = 0.50
Serf = 57.6 + [.5011/2(97.9-57.6) = 86.1 in.3
86.1 in.3 > 76.5 in.3 o.k.
N = V'h/q = (.50 x 258)/6.5 = 19.8
Use 40 - 3/4 inch diameter by 41/2 inch long studs
(20 on each side of mid-span).
Check Deflection:
l ef t = 510 + [.5011/2(1775-510) = 1404 in.4
AL = (1775/1404)(0.464) = 0.587 in.
0.587 in. < L/360 = 1.00 in, o.k.
c. 25% development
V'h/Vh = 0.25
Ser f = 57.6 + [.2511/2(97,9 -57.6) = 77.7 in.3
77.7 in. 3 76.5 in.3 o.k.
N = V'h/q = (.25 x 258)/6.5 = 9.9
Use 20 - 3/4 inch diameter by 41/2 inch long studs
(10 on each side of mid-span).
Check Deflection:
l ef t = 510 + [.25] 1/2 (1775-510) = 1143 in.4
AL = (1775/1143)(0.464) = 0.721 in.
0.721 in. < L/360 = 1.00 in. o.k.
Example 4. Check girder B to determine if partial
composite action would decrease the numberof
shear studs.
Given: Same data as Example 2.
Solution: From AISC Formula 1.11-1 - (Assume Ser f =
required Sir); rearrange Formula 1.11-1 and solve for
V'h.
Vh (Serf-Ss)2
V'h=
(si r' Ss)2
519(319 -243)2
V 'h = (341 -243)2 = 312 kips
V 'h 312
Vh 519
- .60 or 60% development
N = (312)/(11.5) =' 27,1 or 28'studs on each side of
mid-span
Check Deflection:
lef t = 3270 + [.6011/2(7588 - 3270) = 6615 in.4
'L = .0639(7588/6615) = 0.733 in.
0,733 in < L/360 = 1.33 in. o.k.5
5Deflection due to long term creep is not considered
significant.
T A B L E 2
S U M M A R Y OF STUD REQUIREMENTS
Composite Construction
Beam A
Total Studs
Required
LL Def. in.
Full Vh
100%
80
0.464
Partial Vh
75% 60% 50% 25%
60 48 40 20
0.513 0.553 0.587 0.721
Girder B
Total Studs
Required
LL Def.in.
92
0.639
68 56
0.692 0.733
Will not develop
required shear transfer
SteelTips January 1987 Page 7
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Composite construcbon on medium to long spans can
be used to reduce construction costs Where appro-
pnate the use of parbal composite acbon wdl generate ad-
ditional savings As noted in Table 2, 40 to 60% of the
shear studs mght be ehmmated when only the studs re-
quired for the assumed loading condibons are consid-
ered
Following are some general observations that should
be cons;tiered when using composite construction.
1 In most cases, composite construcbon should be
constdered for spans 25 feet and longer
2 It s more economical to use a rolled beam on shorter
spans than a rolled beam with a cover plate Long span
beams or girders fabricated from three plates may have
the bottom flange smaller than the top flange. Be sure
the top flange is large enough to support all constructzon
loads unbl the concrete has obtained its required
strength
3. The composite design tables in AISC for plato slabs
can be used for preliminary estimates of required trans-
formed sechon modulus when using metal deck.
4 For most condbons in steel framed bufidngs, only
the concrete above the metal deck need be consJdered
when determining the section properbes Ths assump-
hon is slightly conservatwe However concrete below
the top of the metal deck s to be included an calculating
the concrete area for honzontal shear (AISC Formula
I 11-3)
5 References 2 and 3 point out addrt,onal refinements
that can be made to gve a more accurate ndicaton of
the deflections and stress levels
6 Composite beams should be designed as self
supporting for most bufiding construcbon Except for
unusual condJbons shonng should not be required as ft
is too expensive The shonng may cost more than the
sawngs generated by composite construction
On long spans, consideration must be given to the
weight of additonal concrete' due to deflectEon of the
gtrder when no shores are used Girders or beams on
long spans should be cambered to reduce the extra
concrete and dead load due to the members deflection
GENERAL NOMENCLATURE
Ac
Ac'
Actual area of effective concrete flange in
composite design (square inches)
Effecbve area of concrete diwded by modular
rabo (in 2)
As Area of steel beam in composite design On 2)
MD Momentproduced by dead load
ML Moment produced bylve load
Nr Numberof stud shear connectors on a beam En
one nb of metal deck, not to exceed 3 n
calculations
E Modulus of eiasbcity of steel (29,000 kps per
square inch)
Fy Specified minimum yield stress of the type of
steel being used (kips per square inch)
Hs
left
lo
Itr
Length of a stud shear connector after welding
(inches)
Effective moment of inertia of composite secbons
for deflection computations (inches4)
Moment of inertia of steel beam or concretefill for
its effectwe flange width (inches4)
Moment of inertia of transformed composite
section (in.4)
N1
N2
Number of shear connectors required between
point of maximum moment and point of zero
moment
Number of shear connectors required between
concentrated load and point of zero moment
Ser f Effectwe section modulus corresnding to
partial composite action (inches')
Ss
Section modulus of steel beam used in
composite design, referred to the bottom flange
(inches3)
t Sectionmodulus of transformed composrte cross
section, referred to the top of concrete (inches3)
Page 8 Steel Tips January 1987
G E N E R A L N O M E N C L A T U R E (cont/nued)
Str
Vh
V' h
b
bf
SectIon modulus of transformed composite
cross section, referred to the bottom flange;
based upon maximum permitted effecbve width
of concrete flange (inches3)
Total honzontal shear to be resisted by
connectors under full compos;te action (kips)
Total horizontal shear provided by the
connectors mnprowding parhal composIte action
(kips)
Effectwe width of concrete flange
Flange wdth of rolled beam or plate girder
(Inches)
fc Concrete compression working stress (kzps per
square inch)
f'c
Specified compressive strength of concrete
(kps per in. 2)
fv Computed shear stress (kxps per square tach)
hr Nominal nb height for steel deck (roches)
n Modular ratio (BE c)
q Allowable horizontal shear to be resisted by a
shear connector (kps)
tf Flange thtckness (inches)
tw 'V thfckness (inches)
wr Average wdth of nb or haunch of concrete slab on
formed steel deck 0nches)
8 Rabo Str/Ss or Serf/Ss
A Displacement of the neutral axis of a loaded
member from ts posaton when the member s
not loaded (inches)
REFERENCES
1 Manual of Steel Construction, EJghth EdJtlon, AISC,
Chicago, 1980
2 Effectwe Width Criteria for Composite Beams -
Vallemlla and Bjorhovde, AISC Engmeenng
Journal, 4th Quarter, 1985, Vol. 22, No. 4.
3. Concrete Slab Stresses in Partml Composite
Beams and Grders - Lorenz and Stockwell, AISC
Engmeenng Journal, 3rd Quarter, 1984, Vol 21,
No 3.
4 Compomte Beams with Formed Steel Deck - Grant,
Slutter and Fsher, AISC Engineenng Journal, 1st
Quarter, 1977, Vol 14, No. 1.
5 Comparative Tests on Composite Beams wrth
Formed Metal Deck - Allan, Yen, Slutter, and Fisher,
Fntz Engineering Laboratory Report No.
200.76 456.1, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa.,
Dec. 1976.
7 Analyszs of Tests of Composite Steel and
Concrete Beams with Mahon Steel Decking -
Errera, Structural Engineenng Department,
Cornell Umversty, Ithaca, New York, Dec 1967
8 Tests of Laghtweght Concrete Members wth Metal
Decking - Slutter, Fritz Engmeenng Laboratory
Report No 200 68 458 1, LehJgh UnJversty,
Bethlehem, Pa, March 1969
9
10
11
Composite Beam Incorporating Cellular Steel
Decking - Robinson, Journal of the Structural
Dwsson, Amencan Society of Ctvd Engineers, Vol
95, No ST3, March 1969
Flexural Strength of Steel-Concrete Composrte
Beams - Slutter and Dnscoll, Journal of the
Structural Division, American Society of Cwd
Engineers, Vol. 91, No ST2, April 1965.
Design of Composite Beams with Formed Metal
Deck - Fisher, AISC Engineering Journal, American
Insbtute of Steel Construcbon, Vol. 7, No 3, July
1970.
6. Partal-lnteraction Design of Composite Beams -
Johnson and May, The Structural Engineer, Vol.
53, No 8, Aug 1975.
12 Tests of Composite Beams with Cellular Deck -
Robinson, Journal of the Structural Dwsion,
American Society of Clwl Engineers, Vol. 93, No.
ST4, Aug. 1967.
Steel T/ps January 1987 Page 9
MARCH 1991
by Ron Vogel, Computers and Structures, Inc.
March, 1991
LRFD-COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN
WITH METAL DECK
INTRODUCTION
This is the companion paper to the "STEEL TIPS" dated January 1987 entitled "Composite
Beam Design with Metal Deck". The original paper used allowable stress design (ASD). This
"STEEL TIPS" utilizes the same three original examples but designed by the Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Method. The purpose is to show the design procedure, the
advantages of the method, and the ease of using the AISC First Edition (LRFD) for design.
Three main areas have been revised from the ASD Approach:
1. Determination of effective slab width
2. Shored and unshored construction requirements
3. Lower bound moment of inertia may be utilized.
A number of papers have been written about these differences and the economies of the LRFD
method. The reader is referred to the list of references included.
Table 1
S U M M A R Y OF AISC-LRFD SPECIFICATION SECTIONS I3 & I5
SECTION ITEM SUMMARY
I3.1 Effective Width, b = Beam Length/8 (L/8)
on each side of beam = Beam Spacing/2 (s/2)
(lesser of the 3 values) = Distance to Edge of Slab
I3.5a General hr < 3.0 in. (Height of Rib)
Wr > 2. 0 in. (Width of Rib)
ds < 3/4 in. (Welded Stud Diameter)
Hs = hr + 1 1/2 in. (MinimumStud Height)
= hr + 3 in. (Maximum Stud Height value for computations)
tc > 2.0 in. (Minimum concrete above deck)
15.1 Material Hs > 4ds
I5.2 Horizontal = 0.85f'cAc
Shear Force = AsFy
(lesser of the 3 values) -- Qn
I5.3 Strength of Stud Qn = 0.5 Asc (f'c Ec) (but not more than Asc Fu)
= 0.5 Asc (f'c wc)3/4 (using E = wcl'5fxc in above formula)
I5.6 Shear Connector = 6 ds Longitudinal
Placement and Spacing = 4 ds Transverse (See LRFD Manual Fig. C-I5.1, pg. 6-177)
AISC-LRFD
Table 2
RULES - F O R M E D M E T A L DECK
(Sections I3.5b and I3.5c)
ITEM RIBS PERPENDICULAR RIBS PARALLEL
1. Concrete Area Below Top of Deck NEGLECT INCLUDE
06wrl, 1} 1.0 2. Stud Reduction Factor (N0'85 [rrjWrl{SrS- 1}-< 1'0 ' [hrrJ [ h r - -<
3. Maximum Stud Spacing 32 in. NOT SPECIFIED
4. Deck Welding 16 in. NOT SPECIFIED
5. Minimum Width of Rib 2 in. NOT SPECIFIED
Page 2 Steel Tips March 1991
Typical Design Problems
Example 1.
Design a composite interior floor beam (without cover plate) for
an office building. See Beam A in Figure 1.
i1
40'
[
- - I .
30' -'
BAt
^
^
B
Given:
Loads:
Figure 1
Slab thickness, tc = 2.5 in.
Concrete strength, f'c = 3.0 ksi
Concrete weight, wc = 145 pcf (n = 9)
Steel yield stress, Fy = 36 ksi
3 inch metal deck, ribs perpendicular
to beam (hr = 3 in., wr = 6 in.)
No shoring permitted.
Do not reduce live load.
Concrete slab including reinforcing steel
and metal deck 54
Framing 3
Mechanical 4
Ceiling 6
Partition 20
Total D.L. 87 psf
Live Load 100 psf
Construction Loads, D.L. 57 psf (concrete & framing)
L.L. 20 psf (men & equipment)
For simplicity, the entire 57 psf construction load is
considered as live load during concrete placement.
Solution:
1. Design for construction loads:
a. Strength design
wu= s [1.6 (D.L. + L.L.)]
= 10 [1.6 ( 57 + 20 )] / 1000 = 1.23 kip/ft
(Load factor for D.L. assumed same as for L.L. during
placement of concrete.)
Mu - wuL2 - (1'23)(30)2 - 139 kip-ft
8 8
Mu (12)(139) _ 51 in.3 (Minimum)
Zreq- qFy- (0.9)(36)
b. Servicibility design
Limit construction deflection to 1 in.
(without construction L.L.)
5wL4 (5)[(10)(57)](30)4(1728)
Ireq= 384EA- (384)(29,000,000)(1.0)
- 358 in.4 (Minimum)
2. Composite Beam Design:
a. Trial design for required flexural strength
wu = 10 [1.2(87)+1.6(100)]/1000 = 2.64 kip/ft
wuL2 (2.64)(30)2
Mu = T = 8 = 297 kip-ft
For a trial size use formula in LRFD Manual pg. 4-9.
12Mu (3.4)
Beam Weight = {d 2}
+Yc - ) Fy
where q = 0.85 and assume a = 1 in.
d 12Mu(3.4) d a WT Size Z I
+Yc -
Fy
(in.) (in.) (#/ft) (in.3) (in.4)
14 396 12.0 33 W14X34 54.6 340
16 396 13.0 31 W16X31 54.0 375
18 396 14.0 28 W18X35 66.5 510
21 396 15.5 26 W21X44 95.4 843
Select W18X35.
NOTE: The original Steel Tips design, based upon ASD,
used Grade 50 steel.
Steel Tips March 1991 Page 3
' b
I o. o o. %..;;', . . . . . .o o
' v * . ' , ) ? o . : . o n
i i
d/2 /
! i
1
Figure 2
H .,. . . . . . . o ' . . . . .' _ i _ t
Figure 3
tie
Yc
T
Y2
d/2
d/2 + Yc ' a/2
1
Figure 4
b. Verify flexural strength
Effective concrete width (AISC I3.1)
lesser of,
b = (2)(30)(12) _ 90 in. and
8
b = (2)(10)(12) _ 120 in.
2
Use 90 in.
Design for full composite action
Tmax= AsFy= (10.3)(36)= 371 k i p s (Governs)
Cmax = q f'c b tc = (0.85)(3.0)(90)(2.5) = 574 kips
Tmax 371
a - { f'c b (0.85)(3.0)(90) 1.62in.
a/2 = 0.81 in. (larger than 0.5 in. assumed)
a
Y2 = Yc - = 5.5 - 0.81 = 4.69 in.
qMn= qAsFy/d + Y21= (0.85)(371)I1--- +4.693
= 4270 kil2n.
= 356 kip-ft
or from Table on LRFD Manual pg. 4-23
with Y2 = 4.69 in.
PNA = TFL (Top flange location)
Y1 =0in.
= 371 kips (AsFy)
By
14.69 - 4.501
*mn= [".-.-.0-.5-J (364- 351)+ 351
= 356 kip-ft > 297 kip-ft O.K.
kip-ft.
c. Calculate shear studs
For full composite action
Qn = AsFy= 371 kips
Assume 3/4 inch diameter by 5 inch long studs.
Qn = 0.5Asc(f'c wc)3/4= (0.5)(0.442) [(3)(145)]3/4
= 21.1 kips (<AscFu= 0.442(60)= 26.5 kips)
Check flange thickness
tf= 0.425 > ds/2.5 = 0.3 in. O.K.
Stud Reduction Factor (S.R.F.)
0.85 Jwr Hs
/ 2 lJ lTrr - 1} < 1.0
(Nr)
085 6 I5,0_
(mr) 13.0 -
Nr S.R.F. Use
1 1.13 <1.0 1.0
2 0.80 0.80
3 0.65 0.65
Assume 14 stud locations possible per 1/2 beam
14 (21.1) = 295 kips
Remaining stud force = 371 - 295
= 76 kips
Use twice reduction for doubled stud locations
[ (2) (0.8) - 1] 21.1 = 12.7 kips
Total per 1/2 beam = 14 + 76/12.7
= 14+6=20
(distributed as shown in Figure 5)
Total = 40 Studs.
II II II II II I l l I I I I I I I
BM Span
Figure 5
d. Design for deflection
Deflection after initial construction deflection
5wL4- (5)(10) [(87 - 57 + 100) ] (30)4 1728
A=- -
384E Itr - (384)(29,000,000)Itr
817.
-- m.
Itr
See Table 3 for Moment of Inertia, Itr computations.
with Itr for gross area, A = 0.46 in. or L/783
with lower bound Itr, A = 0.56 in. or L/643
A DL = 0.13 in.
ALL = 0.43 in. or L/837 O.K, (with lower bound Itr = Ilb)
The beam may be cambered for the initial
construction deflection
( Ireq /Assumeddefiection.
A= Iprovided
358
A = /5--i-) 1.0 = 0.70 in.
Camber 3/4 in,
e. Check for shear strength
Vu = [1.2(10)(87) + 1.6(10)(100)]15 / 1000
= 39.7 kips
qbVn= 0.6)Fydtw
= (0.90)(0.6)(36)(17.7)(0.3)
= 103 kips
or from Table on page 3-31 of the LRFD Manual
qbVn = 103 kips
> 39.7 kips O.K.
Steel Tips March 1991 Page5
Table 3
Moment of Inertia Calculation
Type n Y in?AY) y Io Ad2 Itt
(in.2) (in.) ( (in.) (in.4) (in.4) (in.4)
1. Gross section 10.3 8.85 91 510 887
25.0 21.95 549 365
35.3 640 18.13 523 1252 1775
2. Neglecting No tensile concrete for this example. Therefore, Itr is same as for gross section.
tensile concrete 1775
3. Reduced concrete area, 10.3 8.85 91 510 473
XJ'On/F,, 10.3 17.7 + 4.69 231 _3_1 473
equal to
20.6 322 15.60 511 946 1457
NOTES:
1. Itr = 1457 in.4 is considered the "Lower Bound"
moment of inertia, Iib and may be found directly from
Table on Page 4-49 of the LRFD Manual.
For Y2 = 4.69 in.
W18x35 and
Y1 =
[4.69-4.501
Itr = 1430 + l' --Y--4-' 'J (1500-1430) = 1457 in.4
Itr = lib
2. Modular ratio, n = 9
3. Effective concrete width, b = 90 in.
4. Slab thickness, tc = 2.5 in.
5. Ac = 90 (2.5) = 225 in.2
6. Transformed concrete area, A'c = Ac/n = 25.0 in.2
_.,Ay
7. y = - -
_.,n
8. d=y-y
9. Itr = _fio + A d 2
L
Figure 6
NOTE: The purpose and advantage of using the lower bound Itr value found in the LRFD Manual tables is to avoid
the above computations. If the deflections using the lower bound Itr are acceptable, the actual deflections
will be conservatively less. Lower bound Itr is based upon the area of the beam and an equivalent concrete
area of and is applicable for full as well as partial composite action.
Example 2.
Design a composite interior girder (without cover plate) for an
office building. See Girder B in Figure 1. The 3-inch deck ribs
are oriented paralled to the girder. Girder is assumed loaded as
shown in Figure 7.
P P P
I I
L 4olo
Figure 7
Given:
Loads:
Slab thickness, tc = 2.5 in.
Concrete Strength, f'c = 3.0 ksi
Concrete weight, wc = 145 pcf (n = 9)
Steel Yield Stress, Fy = 50 ksi
3 inch metal deck, ribs are parallel to girder.
No shoring permitted.
Concrete slab including reinforcing steel
and metal deck 54
Framing 6
Mechanical 4
Ceiling 6
Partition 20
Total D.L. 90 psf
Live 100 psf
Live Load Reduction = 23.1 (1+ D/L)
= 23.1 (1+ 90/100)
= 43.9 %
or = 0.08 (A - 150)
= 0.08 (1200-150)
=84%
or = 40 % maximum
Use 60 psf L.L.
Solution:
1. Design for construction loads:
Assume Framing D.L. = 10 psf
Concrete Weight = 50 psf as L.L.
Construction L.L. = 20 psf
Pu = (10)(30)[1.2(10) + 1.6(50 + 20)] / 1000 = 37.2 kips
PL_ (37.2)(40)_ 744 kip-ft
Mu- 2 2
12Mu_ (12)(744)_ 198 in.3 (Minimum)
Zreq- bFy (0.9)(50)
2. Composite Girder Design
a. Trial design for required flexural strength
Pu = (10)(30)[1.2(90) + 1.6(60)]/1000 = 61.2 kips
Mu- PL2_ (61.2)(40)2 - 1224 kip-ft
For a trial size use formula in LRFD Manual pg. 4-9.
12Mu (3.4)
Beam Weight = {-Yc }
d - 2 qFy
where q)= 0.85 and assume a/2 = 2 in.
d 12Mu(3.4) d WT Size Z I
q-Yc- a
Fy
(in.) (in.) (#fit) (in.3) (in.4)
21 1175 14 84 W21X83 196 1830
24 1175 15.5 76 W24X76 200 2100
27 1175 17.0 69 W27X84 244 2850
Select W24x76.
or enter Table on page 4-33 of the LRFD Manual
with Y2 = 3.5 in. (Yc - a/2)
PNA = TFL (Full Composite Action)
4)Mn = 1230 kip-ft > 1224 kip-ft
I' b/n '--'1
C g , " /. :o=:..; x,.-'Xx,.\.: , ': .. ' , . . . . . .
d/2 d l 2 + Y o - a / 2 I ' - - " - - : I
2.5b 3. Ob 4. Ob
/c = + =
2
Figure 8
4.82" =
I ct w
' k ,"1 ' t , , ' 1
a s s u m e - ! - 6 " _1_ 8" _1_ 8" .!_
Tmax= Cabove + Cbelow
Cabove= (0.85)(3.0)(120)(2.5)= 765 kips
Cbelow = 1120 - 765 = 355 kips
355
depth = [(1/2)(120)] (0.85)(3.0) - 2.32 in.
Centroid from top = a/2
a_ (765)(1.25)+355(2.5+2.32/2)
2 1120
= 2.01 in.
Assumption of a/2 = 2 in. O.K.
Figure 9
b. Verify flexural strength
Effective concrete width
lesser of,
b = (2)(40)(12)/8 = 120 in. and
b= (2)(30)(12)/2-= 360in.
Use 120 in.
Design for full composite action
Tmax = AsFy= (22.4)(50) = 1120kips (Governs)
f' = Cmax = 0.85 cAc (0.85)(3.0)[(4.0)(120)]= 1224kips
For Ac see Figure 8.
a
Y2 = Yc - = 5.5 - 2.01 = 3.49 in.
qbMn= qbAsFyld+ Y2)= (0.85)(1120)I2-+ 3.49/12
= 1225 kip-ft > 1224 kip--ft O.K
or from Table page 4-33 for Y2 = 3.5 and TFL
OMn = 1230 kip-ft
c. Design for deflection
Initial deflection during construction
19PL3 (19)[(10)(30)(54+ 6)](480)3
A=
384Eis (384)(29,000,000)(2100)
= 1.62 in.
Camber 1 1/2 inches.
Composite deflection using LowerBound Itr (Ilb).
From Table on page 4-46 of LRFD Manual,
with Y2 = 3.5 D.L. = 90 psf
PNA = TFL . ConstructionD.L. = 60 psf
Ilb = 4780 in4 L.L. = 60 psf
19PL3 (19)[(10)(30)(90 - 60 + 60)1(480)3
ATL- 384EI- (384)(29,000,000)(4780)
= 1.07 inches or L/450
ALL= (60/90)(1.07)= 0.71 in. or L/673 O.K.
NOTE: The mooment of inertia using the gross area
equals 5510 in.
d. Shear Connectors
= AsFy For full composite action
= 1120 kips
( ' " ' 1 [ ]
Reduction Factor = 0.6 [hr J[ 1 _< 1.0
% /
= 0.6 -1 = 0.8
Use 0.8 for stud reduction factor.
Qn = (0.8)(21.1) = 16.9 kips (See Example 1)
1120
No.- - - - - -- 67 Studs
Qn 16.9
67 Studs are required from Zero to Maximum Moment.
Total = 134 $uds,
Use equal spacing for full length.
e. Check Shear
Vu --- 1.5 (Pu) = 1.5 (61.2) = 92 kips
Vn = (0.6 Fy) d tw = (0.9) (0.6) (50) (23.92) (.44)
= 284 kips > 92 kips Q.K.
NOTE: The original Steel Tips design, based upon ASD,
used a W27X94 with 92 studs.
Partial Composite Action
Example 3
Design Beam in Example 1 for pfial composite action.
SOLUTION:
a. Determine required shear studs
Estimate number of shear studs for partial composite action
using the following approximate equation
Mu- Mp ' ,Qn
No. [Mn - *Mp ) Qn
Where Mu = Moment demand
Mp = Steel Beam Capacity with ) = 0.85
Mn = Full Composite Beam Capacity
Mu = 297 kip-ft
{Mp = Fy Z = (0.85) (36) (66.5)/12 = 170 kip-ft
{Mn = 356 kip-ft
= AsFy = 371 kips
Qn = 21.1 kips
=
[356-170) ,21.1) 0.47 (17.6)= 8.2
Try 9 studs on each 1/2 beam.
Total = 18 studs.
b. Check flexural strength
Qn = (9)(21.1) = 190 kips
From Eq. C-I3-4 in commentary of LRFD Manual
190
a = 0.85f'cb- (.85)(3.0)(90)- 0.83 in.
Y2= Yc-a/2= 5.5-0.41 = 5.09
From Table on page 4-23 of the LRFD Manual
for W18X35
Y2 = 5.0 - 5.09 in.
Qn = 187 - 190 kips ( PNA = BFL approx.)
) Mn = 296 kip-ft (approx. equal 297 kip-ft required) O.K.
Therefore, partial composite action with 18 total studs is
adequate for the required moment.
Steel Tips March1991 Page9
c. Check deflection
For deflectioncomputation use the lowerbound valuegiven
in the Table on page 4-49 of the LRFD Manual.
For W18x35
PNA = BFL +
Y2 = 5.0 +_
4
Ilb = 1170 in.
A TOTAL = (1775/1170) 0.46 = 0.70 in.
ADL= 0.16 in.
ALL = 0.54 in. or L/667 O.K.
Obviously any number of studs from 9 (47%) to that for full
composite action may be used (per 1/2 Beam Span) with the
associated increase in moment capacity and decrease in de-
flection.
Location of
. a/2 . effec'ive concrete
b
Y2{ m. t 1)
. . - ' - ' T I ' - - : t (pt s)
...[.. ( Y1
(varies - Sgure below)
I I
Y1 = Distance from top of steel flange to any of the seven
tabulated PNA locations.
qn (@ point 5) + qn (@ point 7)
qn (@ point 6) =
2
qn (@ point 7) = .25AsFy
Bo$/l{
Top Flange
4equ spaces
I 1 ,,
BFL
PNA Fl ange Locations
Figure 10
DISCUSSION
With the use of the First Edition AISC-LRFD manual,
composite beam design can be simplified, particulary
with partial composite action. As in the past, AISC
has tried to incorporate enough tables and charts to
make repetitive design computations easier. Deter-
mining preliminary beam sizes, number of welded
studs and composite beam deflections is now very
straight forward. With a minimum of assumptions (i.e.
location to the compressive force, Y2) preliminary
comparative designs can be done in minutes with the
use of the tables.
The reader is encouraged to read the LRFD Manual
PART 4 (Composite Design), PART 6 (Specifications
and Commentary), especially Section I on Composite
Members, and the other references listed. The number
of articles dealing with LRFD composite members
design is growing as designers are becoming more
familiar with the method and the AISC-LRFD manual.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac
A'c
As
Asc
BFL
C
D.L.
E
Ec
Fy
Fu
Hs
IIb
Io
Itr
L
L.L.
Mn
Mp
Mu
Nr
P
PNA
Q.
Area of concrete (in.2)
Area of concrete modified by modular ratio (in.2)
Area of steel (in. 2)
Area of welded stud (in.2)
Bottom of flange location
Compressive force (kips)
Dead load (psf)
Modulus of elasticity of steel (29,000,00 psi)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (ksi)
Minimum yield strength of steel (ksi)
Minimum tensile strength of steel (ksi)
Welded stud height (in.)
Lower bound moment of inertia (in.4)
Moment of inertia (in.
Transformed moment of inertia (in.4)
Span length (ft)
Live load (psf)
Nominal flexural strength 0dp-ft)
Plastic bending moment (kip-fO
Factored Moment (Required flexural strength) (kip-ft)
Number of stud connectors in one rib at a beam
intersection
Factored point load (kips)
Plastic neutral axis
Welded stud shear capacity (kips)
S.R.F.
T
TFL
Va
Vu
Y1
Y2
Yc
Z
a
b
d
ds
f'c
hr
n
tc
tf
tw
Wc
Wr
wu
A
Stud reduction factor
Tensile force (kips)
Top of flange location
Shear capacity (kips)
Shear demand (kips)
Distance from top of beam flange (in.)
Distance from top of beam to concrete flange force (in.)
Total thickness of concrete fill and metal deck (in.)
Plastic section modulus (in.3)
Effective concrete flange thickness (in.)
Effective concrete flange width (in.)
Depth of steel beam (in.)
Welded stud diameter (in.)
Concrete compressive strength at 28 days. (ksi)
Nominal rib height of metal deck (in.)
Modular ratio (E/Ec)
Thickness of concrete above metal deck (in.)
Steel beam flange thickness (in.)
Steel beam web thickness (in.)
Unit weight of concrete (lbs./cu. ft)
Average metal deck rib width (in.)
Factored uniform load (kip/fO
Deflection (in.)
Resistance factor
,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
REFERENCES
"Manual of Steel Construction, "First Edition, AISC, Chicago, 1986.
STEEL TIPS, "Composite Beam Design with Metal Deck," Steel Committee of California, January 1987.
STEEL TIPS, "The Economies of LRFD in Composite Floor Beams," Steel Committee of California, May 1989.
Smith, J.C., "Structural Steel Design - LRFD Approach," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1991.
Salmon, C. and Johnson, J., "Steel Structures," Third Edition, Harper & Row, N.Y., 1990.
McCormac, J., "Structural Steel Design - LRFD Method," Harper & Row, N.Y.,1989.
Vinnakota, S., et al., "Design of Partially or Fully Composite Beams, with Ribbed Metal Deck, Using LRFD
Specifications," AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd Quarter, 1988.

Seismic Behavior and Design of Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
2
Seismic Behavior and Design of Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls
By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
This report presents information on cyclic behavior and seismic design of composite shear walls made of
steel plate and reinforced concrete encasement walls connected to each other to act as a composite element.
The cast-in-place composite shear walls have been used in a few structures in the United States and Japan.
A hospital structure, where the composite shear walls are used is discussed and presented. Recently, the
traditional and an innovative version of composite shear wall were studied and tested at the University of
California at Berkeley by the author. The test results are summarized in this report. Using the available
information, design guidelines for seismic design of composite shear walls made of steel plates connected to
reinforced concrete walls were developed and are presented in this report. Finally, two configurations of
composite shear walls that are believed to be efficient, economical and easy to fabricate are suggested at
the end of the report.

First Printing, May 2002
Figures by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl unless otherwise indicated.

COPYRIGHT 2002 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, 781 Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA
94720-1710,
Campus Phone: (510) 642-4528, Home Office Phone and Fax: (925) 946-0903,
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu, Web page: www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh

Disclaimer: The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with
recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be
accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by
a licensed professional engineer, designer or architect. The publication of the material contained
herein is not intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the Structural Steel Educational
Council or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or
particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this
information assumes all liability arising from such use.

Caution must be exercised when relying upon specifications and codes developed by others and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time
subsequent to the printing of this document. The Structural Steel Educational Council or the author
bears no responsibility for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the
time of the initial publication of this document.

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the Structural
Steel Educational Council (SSEC). The authors wish to thank all SSEC members for their
valuable input and support. Particularly, special thanks are due to Brett Manning and James
Putkey for their review comments.

The test summarized in Chapter 3 was part of a research project on Seismic Studies of
Innovative and Traditional Composite Shear Walls funded by the National Science Foundation,
Directorate of Engineering, Civil and Mechanical Systems. The support and input received from
Program Directors Dr. S. C. Liu and Dr. P. Chang at NSF were very valuable and greatly
appreciated. Graduate student Qiuhong Zhao was the lead graduate student in conducting these
tests. The efforts of Judy Liu, formerly graduate student at UC-Berkeley in developing and
designing test set-up were very valuable and are sincerely appreciated. Ricky Hwa, undergraduate
student research assistant participated in preparing specimens, instrumentation and testing and
conducted material tests. His dedicated and valuable work was very helpful to success of the
project. The author would like to thank James Malley of Degenkolb Engineers for providing
information on the San Francisco hospital designed by Degenkolb Engineers with composite shear
walls and for permission to include the design in this report.

The opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the University of California, Berkeley, the
Structural Steel Educational Council or other agencies and individuals whose names appear in this
report.

4
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR AND
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE
STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS

By

Dr. ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley

_____________________________________________

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page 4

NOTATIONS AND GLOSSARY / Page 5

1. INTRODUCTION / Page 7

2. BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE SHEAR WALLS / Page 15

3. RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS / Page 28

4. SEISMIC DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SHEAR WALLS/ Page 33

REFERENCES/ Page 41

APPENDIX - SUGGESTED COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS SYSTEMS / Page 43

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / Page 45

LIST OF PUBLISHED STEEL TIPS REPORTS /Page 46
5

_________________________________________________________________________

Notations and Glossary
_________________________________________________________________________

A. Notations

In preparing the following notations, whenever possible, the definitions are taken with
permission of the AISC, from the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1998).
Such definitions are identified by (AISC, 1998) at the end of the definition.

A
sp
Horizontal area of stiffened steel plate (AISC, 1997).
a Height of story in tension field action equations (AISC, 1999).
b Width of unstiffened element.
C
d
Deflection amplification factor .
C
pr
A factor to account for peak connection strength( FEMA, 2000).
C
s
Seismic coefficient given by IBC-2000.
C
v
Ratio of plate critical stress in shear buckling to shear yield stress( AISC, 1999).
D The effect of dead load( IBC-2000).
E Modulus of elasticity.
E The combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces (IBC-2000).
E
m
The maximum seismic load effect (IBC-2000).
F
y
Specified minimum yield stress of the plate (AISC, 1997).
F
ye
Expected yield Strength of steel to be used,(AISC, 1997).
F
u
Specified minimum tensile strength,(AISC, 1997) .
I
E
The occupancy importance factor given by IBC-2000.
kv
Plate buckling coefficient (AISC, 1999).
Q
E
The effect of horizontal seismic forces (IBC-2000).
R Response modification factor.
R
n
Nominal strength. (AISC, 1997).
R
u
Required strength. (AISC, 1997).
RUS R-factor.
R
y
Ratio of the Expected Yield Strength F
ye
to the minimum specified yield strength F
y
.
(AISC, 1998) .
max
r
Maximum values of
i
max
r .
i
max
r The ratio of the design story shear resisted by the most heavily loaded single element in the
story to the total story shear, for a given direction of loading. For shear walls see Section
1617.2.2 of IBC-2000.
S1
The maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at 1-second
period (IBC-2000).
6
SDS
The design spectral response acceleration at short periods (IBC-2000).
T The fundamental period.
t

Thickness of element.
t
f
Thickness of flange.
V Shear force, also base shear.
V
ns
Nominal shear strength of a member or a plate.
V
nse
Expected shear capacity of a member or a plate.
V
u
Required shear strength on a member or a plate.
V
y
Shear yield capacity.
W Weight of structure, IBC-2000.
y
Yield displacement.
Resistance factor.
Reliability factor based on system redundancy (IBC-2000).
i
Reliability factor for a given story (IBC-2000).
Normal stress.
o
System over-strength factor.

B. Glossary

In preparing the following glossary, whenever possible, the definitions are taken with

Shear Wall. A vertical plates system with boundary columns and horizontal beams at floor levels
that resists lateral forces on the structural system.
Connection. A combination of joints used to transmit forces between two or more members.
Connections are categorized by the type and amount of force transferred (moment, shear,
end reaction).
Design Strength. Resistance (force, moment, stress, as appropriate) provided by element or
connection; the product of the nominal strength and the resistance factor.
Dual System. A Dual System is a structural system with the following features: (1) an essentially
complete space frame that provides support for gravity loads; (2) resistance to lateral load
provided by moment resisting frames (SMF, IMF or OMF) that are capable of resisting at
least 25 percent of the base shear and concrete or steel shear walls or steel braced frames
(EBF, SCBF or OCBF); and, (3) each system designed to resist the total lateral load in
proportion to its relative rigidity.
Expected Yield Strength. The Expected Yield Strength of steel in structural members is related to
the Specified Yield Strength by the multiplier R
y
.
Slip-critical Joint. A bolted joint in which slip resistance on the faying surface(s) of the
connection is required.
Structural System. An assemblage of load-carrying components that are joined together to
provide interaction or interdependence.
7

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

The composite shear walls discussed in this report consist of a steel plate shear wall with
reinforced concrete walls attached to one side or both sides of the steel plate using mechanical
connectors such as shear studs or bolts. In the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) these
systems are denoted as Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls, (C-SPW). In the remainder of this
report, whenever composite shear wall is mentioned, it refers to this system. Examples of the
composite shear wall configurations are shown in Figure 1.1. The composite shear walls have
been used in buildings in recent years although not as frequently as the other lateral load resisting
systems.

From: (AISC, 1997)
Shear Connectors
Steel Plate
Concrete Wall
Reinforceme
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 1.1. Examples of Composite Shear Walls Discussed in This Report
8
This report attempts to provide information on the basic characteristics of composite shear
walls, an example of their past applications, their actual seismic behavior, the current code
provisions and additional recommendations on their design and a few examples of suggested
configurations. The report is intended for the structural engineers, fabricators, architects and
others involved in structural and earthquake engineering and construction of buildings.

1.2. Some Advantages of Composite Shear Walls

1. Compared to a reinforced concrete shear wall, a composite wall with the same shear
capacity, and most likely larger shear stiffness, will have smaller thickness and less
weight. The smaller footprint of the composite shear wall is very advantageous from
architectural point of view providing more useable floor space particularly in tall
buildings. The lesser weight of composite shear wall will result in smaller foundations
as well as smaller seismic forces.

2. A composite shear wall can have cast in place or pre-cast walls. Since steel plate shear
walls can provide stiffness and stability during erection, the construction of reinforced
concrete walls can be taken out of the critical path of field construction and done
independent of fabrication and erection of steel structure. In particular, if pre-cast
concrete walls are used, such walls can be bolted to the steel plate shear walls at any
convenient time during construction.

3. In a steel shear wall, the story shear is carried by tension field action of the steel plate
after buckling of diagonal compression. In a composite shear wall, the concrete wall
restrains the steel plate and prevents its buckling before it yields. As a result, the steel
plate resists the story shear by yielding in shears. The shear yield capacity of steel plate
can be significantly greater than its capacity to resist shear in yielding of diagonal
tension field. In addition, the reinforced concrete wall provides sound and
temperature insulation as well as fire proofing to steel shear walls.

4. In the aftermath of a moderate and more frequent earthquake, steel shear walls
develop buckling and reinforced concrete shear walls develop cracking, both needing
some measure of repair. Such repairs can be costly not only because of the cost of
construction, but also for disruption of functionality and occupancy use of the area to
be repaired. However, as the tests summarized in Chapter 2 indicate, the damage to
composite shear walls, particularly when the innovative system proposed herein is
used, can be limited to shear yielding of steel plates with almost no cracks in the
concrete wall or damage to other elements of the system. Such performance is very
desirable since the building can continue its full functionality after such events.

1.3 Main Components of a Composite Shear Wall

Main components of composite shear walls shown in Figure 1.2 are steel wall, concrete
wall; shear connectors, boundary columns, boundary beams, connection of steel wall to boundary
9
beams and columns, and beam-to-column connections. These components and their role in
overall performance of composite shear walls are discussed in the following sections.

1.3.a. Steel plate shear wall

This element is usually a relatively thin steel plate. Plates thinner than 3/8 inch are not
recommended since such thin plates cannot be easy to handle during fabrication and erection. In
addition, as later will be discussed, such thin plates may require a large number of shear
connectors to postpone plate buckling until yielding of the plate, a desirable mechanism, occurs.
A36 and high strength steel plates can be used although A36 steel plate due to its low yield point
is preferred to encourage yielding of steel plate. The main role of the steel plate in a composite
shear wall is to provide shear strength and stiffness as well as shear ductility. It also participates to
some limited extent to resist overturning moment. Figure 1.3(a) shows forces resisted by steel
plate. In a composite shear wall the steel plate resists story shear by shear yielding, an advantage
over the steel plate shear walls where story shear is resisted through development of diagonal
tension field action (Astaneh-Asl, 2001) as shown in Figure 1.3(b). The reason in composite
shear walls steel plate is able to almost reach its yield point in shear is that the concrete wall
provided bracing to steel plate and prevents its buckling prior to reaching yielding. In other
words, the concrete wall acts as stiffeners and prevents buckling of plate. Of course, concrete wall
itself also carries some of the story shear by developing compression diagonal field.

Concrete Wall
Shear Connectors
Steel Plate Wall
Boundary Column
Connections of Steel Wall
Boundary Beam
Figure 1.2. Main Components of a Typical Composite Shear Wall
10

1.3.b. Reinforced concrete (R/C) shear wall

Reinforced concrete walls can be connected to one side of a steel plate shear wall, Figure
1.1(a) or both sides of a steel plate shear wall, Figure 1.1(b and c) or the R/C wall can be
sandwiched between two steel shear walls, Figure 1.1(d). In all of these cases, the R/C wall
provides shear strength and stiffness, through its compression field as shown in Figure 1.4, and
some ductility depending on the amount of reinforcement in the wall. The R/C wall also
a. Shear Wall Elements Under Pure Shear
b. Shear Wall Elements Under Tension Field Action
Figure 1.3. Shear Resistance by Steel Plate in (a) Composite Shear Wall and (b) Steel Shear Wall

Figure 1.4. Shear Resisted by Diagonal Compression Field of Concrete

11
participates in resisting overturning moment. The R/C wall can be cast-in-place wall or pre-cast.
One of the important roles of the R/C wall is to prevent buckling of steel plate wall. This is done
by connecting the steel plate to the R/C wall using shear connectors.

1.3.c. Shear connectors

Shear connectors are used to connect steel elements of the composite wall to concrete.
For cast-in-place concrete usually welded shear studs are used. Of course other shear connectors
such as channels can also be used although they may not be as economical as welded shear studs.
For pre-cast concrete walls, bolts can be used to connect the R/C walls to steel plate walls. Tests
of composite shear walls (Zhao and Astaneh-Asl, 2002) have shown that in composite shear
walls, in some cases, shear studs not only are subjected to shear but also to a considerable tension
due to local buckling of the steel plate.

1.3.d. Boundary columns

In addition to gravity loads, the columns on the sides of a composite shear wall resist the
bulk of overturning moments. The columns also provide an anchor point for tension field action of
the steel plate and bearing element for compression diagonal element of the concrete wall. In
structures with relatively large columns, the columns can also transfer a considerable amount of
story shear.

1.3.e. Boundary beams

The top and bottom beams in a composite shear wall act as anchor for tension field action
of the steel plate and as compression bearing element for compression diagonal of the concrete
wall. In addition, the beam resists its tributary gravity load from the floor. Due to overturning
moment, the beams are subjected to relatively large shear flow at their ends.

1.3.f. Connections of shear wall to boundary members

The steel shear wall should be connected to boundary columns and beams either by bolts
or welds. The main role of these connections is to transfer shear and tension. The concrete wall
can also be connected to the boundary walls using mechanical connectors. These connections
transfer shear that is resisted by the reinforcement inside the wall.

1.3.g. Beam-to-column connections

These connections play a major role in performance of the walls. In a dual system, where
the steel frame is the back-up system for the composite shear wall, the connections should be
moment connections.

1.4. Structural Systems Using Composite Walls
Figure 1.5 shows a typical steel structural system with composite shear walls. Like
reinforced concrete and steel shear walls, the composite shear walls are used to provide resistance
12
to lateral loads. Figure 1.5(a) shows a composite shear wall used in a steel frame with simple
supports. In this case, the composite wall is designed to carry the entire story shear. The wall
provides the bulk of story shear and ductility through yielding of the steel shear wall and
reinforcements inside the concrete wall as well as compressive crushing of concrete. The wall also
acts as the web of the vertical cantilever beam that resists the overturning moment. The flanges
of this cantilever beam are boundary columns.
The system shown in Figure 1.5(b) is a dual system where the shear wall is either inside
a moment frame or is parallel to it. Although in reality, the shear wall and moment frame provide
lateral load resistance together, in current practice, the shear wall is designed to resist total lateral
load while the moment frame is designed as a back-up system to resist of the lateral load.
More on design and code procedures are given in Chapter 3. The moment frame in this system
does not have to be the Special ductile moment frame as defined by codes and FEMA 350
report. Based on test results, (see Chapter 2) it appears that because of the presence of shear wall
the rotational demand on moment connections in this system is relatively small until the shear wall
is severely damaged. Even after shear wall is heavily damaged, because of the presence of gusset
like corner pieces of the steel plate above and below the moment connections, the connections are
not subjected to large rotations.
The system in Figure 1.2(c) is also a dual system, which has two shear walls with a
relatively short coupling beam between them. By adjusting bending and shear strength of the
coupling beams, the designer can design the system such that the coupling beam acts as a ductile
fuse and participates in not only providing strength and stiffness but also significant ductility and
energy dissipation capability.

(b) Shear Wall Inside or
in Parallel With a
Moment Frame
(Dual System)
(c) Coupled Shear Walls
(a) Shear Wall
Inside Simply-
Supported Frame
Simple
Supports
Moment
Frame
Coupling
Beams
Figure 1.5. Typical Steel Structure with Composite Shear Walls
13
1.5. An Example of Application of Composite Shear Walls

Degenkolb Engineers have used composite shear walls in a hospital in San Francisco
(Dean et al., 1977). A plan view of the structure is shown in Figure 1.6. This structure is a good
example of the early use of composite shear walls in a hospital building in an area of very high
seismicity such as California. A view of the structure and a close up of the shear walls in this
building are shown in Figure 1.7. The steel shear walls in this structure were covered on both
sides with reinforced concrete shear walls making the wall a composite steel concrete shear wall.
For information on steel shear walls the reader is referred to a previous Steel TIPS report:
Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls (Astaneh-Asl, 2001).

Composite
Shear Walls
Plan
240 (73.2 m)
75
(22.9 m)
Figure 1.6. Plan view of 18-story hospital in San Francisco

(Photos: Courtesy of Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco)

Figure 1.7. A view of 18-story hospital and close-up of a shear wall

14
Because of this building being a hospital, the designers Dean et al., (1977) have used site-
specific response spectra and dynamic analysis to establish seismic forces. The resulting seismic
forces were relatively large. In selecting composite shear walls for this building, Dean et al, (1977)
state that:

The combination of force level and allowable stresses would have required
shear wall thicknesses of over 4 feet if walls were of reinforced concrete
only. This would have been unacceptable architecturally and the added
weight would have increased the design forces substantially. It was
therefore, necessary to introduce solid structural steel plate into the
principal walls to resist high shears. The plates are enclosed in concrete to
provide stiffening against plate buckling.

The composite shear walls in this building consist of steel plates with concrete walls on
both sides. Boundary columns are rolled or welded built-up wide flange sections. Floor beams in
the shear wall panels are welded plate girder. The shear connections consist of ties passing
through holes in the steel plate and web of plate girder. Figure 1.8(a) shows typical cross section
of the composite wall from Dean et al. (1977).

Figure 1.8(b) shows diagrammatic elevation of part of the shear wall. There are numerous
openings in the walls and plate girders as shown in Figure 1.8(b). Steel trim plates were used to
reinforce boundaries of the openings. According to Dean et al. (1977) steel plates in the
composite shear wall were designed to resist the entire applied shear and the role of the concrete
was to prevent the steel plates from buckling. Of course, concrete provided stiffness to the
structure as well. A typical reinforcement in the concrete is shown in Figure 1.8(a).
(a) (b)

Figure 1.8. (a) Typical Cross Section of the Composite Walls; and
(b) Partial Elevation of the Wall Prior to Adding Concrete Walls
(Ref.: Dean et al.(1977))
15

2. BEHAVIOR
OF COMPOSITE
SHEAR WALLS

2.1.Seismic Behavior of Composite Shear Walls in Laboratories

During 1998-2001 periods, there were two parallel research projects conducted at the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of California, Berkeley on
shear walls. One was composite shear walls (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 1998-2000) and the other
was on steel plate shear walls (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000-2001). The project on composite
shear wall was funded by the National Science Foundation and the steel shear wall was funded by
the General Services Administration and Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire. More information
on the steel shear wall project can be found in (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2002) and in Steel TIPS
report (Astaneh-Asl, 2001). In the following, the discussion is limited to the composite shear wall
tests at the University of California, Berkeley (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2002).

The main objective of this project was to conduct cyclic testing of a traditional and an
innovative composite shear wall and to develop the design and modeling recommendations. Our
exploratory studies of an innovative version of the traditional composite shear wall systems
showed a significant potential for this innovative system to become a very efficient and high
performance lateral load resisting system. Figure 2.1 shows the basic attributes of traditional and
innovative composite shear walls tested. Both traditional and innovative composite shear walls
studies were dual system with composite shear walls placed within a moment frame, Figure
2.1(a).

The only difference between the traditional system and innovative one proposed and
studied herein is that in the innovative system there is a gap between the concrete wall and the
boundary columns and beams, Figure 2.1(b). In the traditional composite shear wall there is no
gap, and concrete is directly bearing against boundary columns and beams, Figure 2.1(c). As will
be shown later, this seemingly simple difference resulted in significant improvements in the
performance as well as increase in ductility and reduction in damage.

16

The proposed innovative composite shear wall system was developed to exhibit two
phases of behavior:
a. Behavior During More Frequent Low and Medium Size Seismic Events- During
these events, because of the gap between the concrete wall and the boundary columns
and beams, the concrete wall will not be engaged with the frame. As a result, the steel
shear wall is the main element carrying shear and providing the bulk of the shear
stiffness to control story drifts. For such small and moderate seismic events, the strength
and stiffness of the steel plate alone will be more than sufficient to resist shear forces
and limit story drift to acceptable levels. In this case, because of the concrete wall not
being engaged with the boundary elements, it does not participate in carrying shear and
is expected to remain essentially undamaged. During this steel shear wall phase of
behavior of innovative shear wall, the main role of the concrete wall is to provide
bracing for the steel plate and prevent buckling of the plate prior to its yielding.

Figure 2.1. Views of Traditional and "Innovative" Composite Shear Walls

Precast Conc.
Wall
No Gap
( b) Innovative Composite Wall
Precast Conc.
Wall
Bolts
Gap
Note: Steel shear wall is fillet-welded to steel tab plates on all four boundaries. The
tab plates are fillet-welded to the boundary beam and column flanges.
Plate

(a) Composite Shear Wall Studied

(a)
( c) Traditional Composite Wall
Bolts
17
b. Behavior During Relatively Large Earthquakes- During these large, but infrequent
events, when story shear forces and story drifts are expected to be large, the gaps
between the concrete wall and the boundary columns and beams in the innovative
system close and concrete wall also participates in carrying shear force and providing
shear stiffness. The shear strength of the engaged concrete wall is added to shear
strength of the system and the stiffness of the engaged concrete wall adds to inter-story
shear stiffness and helps to reduce inter-story drift.

2.2. Cyclic Tests of Composite Shear Walls
The test program consisted of subjecting two specimens of traditional and innovative
composite shear wall to cyclic story shear. In the following the test program is summarized.

2.2.a. Test Specimens
The test specimens were -scale three stories, one bay structures. Figure 2.2 shows a
typical test specimen. The specimens have identical properties except for a 1.25-inch gap
provided between the concrete wall and the steel columns and beams in Specimen 1 representing
the innovative composite shear wall. Table 2.1 shows the properties of test specimens. The
details of the specimens are shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. More details of specimens and shop
Figure 2.2. A View of Test Specimen 2

18
drawings can be found in Zhao and Astaneh-Asl (2002). The steel plate used in the specimen was
A36. The beams and columns were A572 Grade 50 steel. The concrete wall in the specimens was
a pre-cast concrete wall connected to the steel plate using inch diameter A325 bolts.
The concrete used in the specimens was specified to have fc of 4,000 psi. The steel part
of the specimens were fabricated by Herrick Corporation and delivered to the University of
California Civil Engineering laboratories on Campus where they were tested. The pre-cast
concrete walls were cast in the lab. The beam-to-column connections in the specimens were
moment connections.
Table 1. Properties of Test Specimens
Concrete Wall
Spec.
No.
Columns Beams Steel Plate
Thickness
Type of
Conc.
Wall
Thickness
of Conc.
Wall
Reinf.,
In Each
Direction
Innovative W12x120 W12x26 3/16 inch
(4.8 mm)
Pre-cast 3 inches
(75mm)
0.92%
Traditional W12x120 W12x26 3/16 inches
(4.8mm)
Pre-cast 3 inches
(75 mm)
0.92%

Figure 2.3. View of the Reinforcement in the Specimen
(Ref: A. Astaneh-Asl and Q. Zhao, 2002)

CORRESPONDS
19

Figure 2.4. Details of Reinforcement, Shear Connectors (Bolts) and Connections of Steel Plate
(Ref: A. Astaneh-Asl and Q. Zhao, 2002)
20
2.2.b. Test Set-up
The test set-up used in the project is shown in Figure 2.5. The main components of test
set-up are the 1500 kips (750 tons) actuator, the loading beam at the top and the reaction beam at
the bottom supported on reaction blocks. The beam at mid-height of specimen was braced by two
parallel beams, one on either side. The bracings were added to simulate the bracing effects of
floors in actual buildings.
2.2.c. Instrumentation and Collection of Data
The specimens were instrumented to measure strain at the critical locations as well as the
local and global deformations. The shear force applied to the specimen was measured by the load
cell in the actuator. More than 230 channels in the data acquisition system were recording data
from the instruments. For details of instrumentation and complete set of data, the reader is
referred to the project report by Astaneh-Asl and Zhao (2002.

2.2.d. Test Procedures and Loading Sequence
The specimen to be tested was placed inside the set-up and was tightened to the top and
bottom beams using one-inch diameter bolts. After application of a small cycle of displacement to
check the instrumentation, the main test proceeded. The loading sequence applied to both
specimens was the same and is shown in Figure 2.6. The loading sequence was developed using
Figure 2.5. Test Set-up and a Specimen in It

21
the sequence suggested in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). The loading sequence is
set in terms of the total drift of the specimens calculated by dividing the horizontal displacement
of the top of the specimen, measured by the actuator, by the total height of specimen. The total
height of both specimens was 20ft- 4 inches. The actual inter-story drift was calculated later by
dividing inter-story horizontal displacement by the story height.

2.2.e. Behavior of Specimens
In the following, a brief summary of the behavior of specimens is provided.
Behavior of Specimen One (I nnovative Composite Shear Wall)-
Specimen One, with a gap around the concrete panel, behaved in a very ductile and
desirable manner. The specimen tolerated 33 cycles of which 27 cycles were inelastic cycles. The
maximum overall drift of 4.4% was reached. The specimen was elastic until an overall drift of
0.4% with only very slight yield lines was observed at the base of the specimen. As cyclic loading
continued, at loading cycle corresponding to drift value of 0.6%, the specimen showed yielding of
all three horizontal beams and some yielding at the column base. As predicted by the analyses and
as observations confirmed, the drift value of 0.006 was established as yield point. The shear force
at the yield point was about 300 kips. Figure 2.7 shows Specimen One at various stages of
testing.
Cyclic loading continued and at the drift value of 0.012 the steel plate shear wall
developed some local buckling in the compression diagonal strut and yielding in the tension
diagonal strut, while the concrete panel started to separate from frames and be lifted from the
steel panel underneath. The damage to concrete wall was very minimal and in the form of hair
6y
7y
5y
4y
3y
2y
7.5y (limit of the set-up)
Cycles
Until Failure
Total
Drift
of
Specimen
y
0.04
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
Note: y for both specimens was predicted to be equal to 1.5 inch displacement
corresponding to drift of 0.006. The specimens yielded at drift of 0.006 as predicted.

Figure 2.6. Loading Sequenced Applied to Specimens
22
cracks. During the drift cycle of 0.024, the middle and bottom beams in the steel frame started to
develop flange and web local buckling near the beam-column moment connections. In the
meantime the concrete panel on the second story developed diagonal cracks. During the loading
cycle of 0.03 drifts, the first punching failure of the bolts between the steel wall and the concrete
wall happened, and the steel wall started to develop cracks at the corners. During this cycle, the
specimen reached the peak value of its shear strength of about 625 kips. In the loading cycle of
0.036 drifts, the concrete walls developed major cracks and crushed at the corners. All the beams
had noticeable web and flange local buckling near the moment-connections and the first beam web
fracture occurred at the left end of the middle beam. At this time the columns had developed a
plastic hinge up to halfway through the second story.

In Specimen One, during the loading cycle of 0.042 drifts, about 10% of the total bolts
Concrete Wall at 6y (Drift of 3.6%)

Steel Plate at 5y (Drift of 3.0%)

At 7.3 y (Drift of 4.4%)

Ductile Behavior of Connection
Figure 2.7. Specimen One at Various Stages of Test
(Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2022)

23
connecting the steel plates to the concrete walls had been broken or punched through the steel
wall. The top concrete walls had been lifted about 4 inches around their perimeter and had formed
a dish shape geometry. Fractures developed from the places where beam flange local buckling
had happened. During this cycle, the specimen failed in the form of fracture of steel plate
emanating from the corner areas. As a result of this fracture, the shear load on the specimen
dropped about 20%. Since the capacity of specimen at this time was less than 80% of its
maximum capacity, the specimen was considered failed. However, a few cycles of 0.044 drifts
was also applied.
During these 0.044 cycles there was obvious column flange local buckling and fracture on
all beam webs. There was severe fracture of the steel wall panel near the middle south moment
connection, while large portion of the concrete wall had crushed and spalled. The specimen lost
another 20% of its shear capacity during this cycle.
Behavior of Specimen Two (Traditional Composite Shear Wall)-
Specimen Two did not have gap around the concrete wall. The specimen behaved in a less
ductile manner than Specimen One with the gap. As mentioned earlier, the loading cycles of
Specimens 1 and 2 were identical following the sequence shown in Figure 2.6 except that
Specimen 2 did not have the last loading cycle and the maximum overall drift for this specimen
was 0.042.
Specimen 2 remained elastic until an overall drift of 0.004 with only very slight yielding
lines at the bottom beam web. Then, at loading cycle of 0.006 drifts yielding of steel was observed
on the webs of the bottom and middle beams as well as on the column base plates. This drift value
of 0.006 was established as the yield point of specimen. The pretest analytical pushover studies
also had predicted the yield point to be at 0.006 drifts. The loading at the yield point was about
440 kips, which was more then 40% higher than the first specimen.
As cyclic loading continued, at an overall drift value of 0.012, some corner and perimeter
yielding developed in the steel wall panels, but no buckling could be observed. The concrete wall
started to separate from the frames with a gap of inch and lifted about inch from the steel
panel underneath. Widespread yielding occurred in the beam web and shear tab. In the loading
cycle of 0.018 drifts, concrete panel started to have cracks around the edges and inside. The steel
panel developed obvious buckling shapes as shown in Figure 2.7. Diagonal and vertical yield lines
were observed near the beam-column moment connections. One bolt was broken and sheared off.
In the loading cycle of 0.03 drifts, the first punching failure of bolts connecting the steel plates and
concrete walls occurred. At this point the steel wall started to develop cracks around the corner
locations. The specimen reached the peak value of it shear strength of about 625 kips.
During the loading cycle of 0.036 drifts, the concrete walls in both floors developed major
cracks and crushed at the corners. All three horizontal beams had severe web and flange local
buckling around the moment-connections, and the first beam web fracture occurred at the right
end of the middle horizontal beam. At t his time, columns had developed a plastic hinge up
24

Just After Yield Point
At 4y (Drift of 2.4%)
Steel Wall Buckling Plastic Hinge at the Base of Column
At 5y (Drift of 3%) At the End of the Test at 7.3 y (Drift of 4.4%)

Figure 2.8. Specimen Two at Various Stages of Behavior

25
Lower Story, Innovative Specimen
with Gap Around Concrete Wall
Lower Story, Traditional Specimen with
no Gap Around Concrete Wall
Figure 2.9. Shear Force Drift Behavior of Specimens
to halfway through the second story. In the loading cycle of 0.042drift, more than 20% of the
total bolts between the steel panel and the concrete panel had been broken or punched through the
steel wall. The top concrete panels had been lifted about 4 inches. Fractures developed from the
places where beam flange local buckling had happened. The specimen dropped more than 20% of
its total shear strength and was considered failed. In the loading cycle of 0.044, there was obvious
column flange local buckling and fractures on all beam webs. There was severe fracture of the
steel wall panel near the middle south moment connection. Also the top steel shear wall had been
separated from the right column along the entire length of the right side column. The concrete
walls for both floors had been reduced to rubble as can be seen in Figure 2.8.

2.2.f. Test Results and Comparison of Two Specimens
Extensive data were obtained from these tests and are given in Zhao and Astaneh-Asl
(2002). One of the important results was shear force drift plot for the specimens. These plots,
shown in Figure 2.9, provide valuable information on stiffness, strength, ductility and energy
dissipation capacity of the system, all parameters very important in design and analysis of
structures. Both specimens were able to reach inter-story drifts of more than 4% without
reduction in their strength and both were able to reach inter-story drift of at least 5% when their
strength had dropped to about 80% of maximum strength attained during the tests.

26
The maximum strength of the traditional wall (without any gap around the concrete wall)
was slightly higher than the strength of the specimen with the gap. This is expected since in the
specimen without a gap, the concrete was bearing against the columns and beams from beginning
of the test and was adding to the shear capacity. However, it is interesting to note that the
concrete wall, even when it was participating in carrying shear did not increase the capacity
significantly. The stiffness of specimen without the gap around the concrete was slightly higher
than the stiffness of the specimen with a gap. However, the difference was small and similar to the
case of strength, it appears that the participation of concrete wall did not add to the stiffness of
the system significantly.
In both specimens, the strength dropped when the steel plate walls started fracturing
through their corner where there was a inch by 2-inch gap between the wall and the moment
connection. Learning from these tests, in our design recommendations we have suggested
avoiding such discontinuities. In both specimens, concrete walls were able to brace the steel wall
and prevent their buckling before yielding. During late cycles, steel plates buckled over the free
length between the bolts connecting the steel plates to concrete walls. Continuation of cyclic
loading beyond this point in both specimens caused tension fracture and punching shear failure of
bolts through the steel plate.
The most important difference between the behaviors of these two specimens was the
behavior of the concrete wall. In specimen without the wall, during relatively early cycles, the
entire edge of the wall developed cracks and spalled as seen in Figure 2.10(a). However, the
specimen with a gap around the concrete wall did not show any such damage for the same level of
drift applications, Figure 2.10(b). During later cycles, the damage to the concrete wall of the
traditional composite wall was very extensive with almost all of the concrete turned into rubble
with reinforcement grid entirely being freed. However, in Innovative specimen with gap around
the wall, the damage to concrete wall was relatively limited, Figure 2.10(a).
a. Innovative Composite Shear Wall
b. Traditional Composite Shear Wall
Figure 2.10. Comparison of Damage to Concrete Wall in Innovative and Traditional
System for Same Level of Drift of 7%
27
In summary, the behavior of traditional and innovative composite shear walls that were
tested indicated that both are excellent systems for lateral load resisting capable of exceeding
inter-story drift values of 4% without reduction in their shear strength. In addition, both
specimens were able to reach inter-story drifts of more than 5% and still maintain at least 80% of
their maximum strength reached during the tests. In the innovative composite shear wall, the
concrete wall remained essentially undamaged up to inter-story drift values of about 3% while
bracing the steel plate wall, preventing it from buckling and enabling it to reach yielding and go
beyond.

28

3. RELEVANT CODE
PROVISIONS

3.1. Introduction

The current U.S. code, such as the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) and the
International Building Code (IBC, 2000) have considerable information on seismic design of
composite shear walls. This chapter discusses the code provisions primarily from UBC-97
(ICBO, 1997), IBC-2000 (ICC, 2000), SEAOC Blue Book (SEAOC, 1999) and the AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). The reader is assumed to be familiar with at least one of the
UBC-97, SEAOC-99 or IBC-2000 codes and the AISC-97 Seismic Provisions. The code
provisions quoted here are for discussion only. In actual seismic design, the reader should refer to
the actual code document. The discussion in this chapter applies only to composite shear walls
denoted by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) as Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls (C-
SPW). The C-SPW walls are defined by AISC (1997) as: . structural walls consisting of
steel plate with reinforced concrete encasement on one or both sides of the plate and structural
steel or composite boundary members. Figure 3.1 from the Commentary section of the AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) shows examples of this system.

Figure 3.1. Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall Systems (AISC, 1997)

29
3.2. Establishing Earthquake Loads for Composite Shear Walls Using US Codes

The UBC-97, SEAOC-99 and IBC-2000 have seismic load effects E and E
m
that involve
information related to the structural system. E and E
m
are used in IBC-2000 (as well as in other
US codes) in load combinations that are specific to seismic design. Values of E and E
m
are given
as follows. These are Equations 16-28, 29 and 30 of the IBC-2000.

D S 2 . 0 Q E
DS E
= (3.1)

D S 2 . 0 Q E
DS E m
=

(3.2)

In the above equations, negative sign should be used for the second term whenever the
gravity and seismic effects counteract. For definition of terms in all equations in this report, see
Notations on Page iv. All terms in the above equations, with the exception of , Q
E
and
?
, are
independent of the structural system used. Therefore, only parameters that are specific to
composite shear walls are discussed here. For other parameters the reader is referred to the
codes.

3.2.a. Value of for composite shear walls

The parameter , is a reliability factor based on the system redundancy and is given in
IBC-2000 (as well as in UBC-97) as:

i max
i
A r
20
2
i
= (3.3)

Where,
i
max
r and A
i
for shear walls, composite shear walls being one, are defined by IBC-2000
(and UBC-97). For definition of these and other terms see Notations at the beginning of this
report.

3.2.b. Value of Q
E
(and R-factor) for composite shear walls

The term Q
E
, represents the effects of horizontal seismic forces. In establishing Q
E
, if
Equivalent Lateral Force procedure of the code is used, first the base shear V has to be
established. Most seismic design codes have a procedure to establish V. The IBC-2000 provides
the following equation for V:

W C V
s
= (3.4)

and;

30

=
E
DS
s
I
R
S
C
(3.5)

For definition of terms in all equations in this report, see Notations at the
beginning of the report. All terms in the above equations, with the exception of R, the response
modification factor, are independent of the seismic-force-resisting system. The IBC-2000 (as well
as UBC-97 and SEAOC-99) provides values of R for more than 70 different seismic-force-
resisting systems including the composite shear walls.

Table 4.1 shows values of R,
o
and C
d
for a number of seismic-force-resisting systems
including composite shear walls (last line in the table). The values in the table are those given in a
similar, but more extensive table in the IBC-2000 and by the UBC-97.

Table 4.1. Design Coefficients and Factors for Basic Seismic-force-resisting Systems
(The values in the table are those given by the IBC-2000)
System Limitations and Building
Height Limitations (feet) by Seismic
Design Category as Determined in
Section 1616.3 of IBC-2000

Basic Seismic-force-resisting System
Resp-
onse
Modifi-
cation
Factor,
R
System
Over-
Strength
Factor

o

Deflection
Amplifi-
cation
Factor,

C
d
A or
B
C D E F
Steel eccentrically braced frames,
moment-resisting connections at
columns away from links
8 2 4
NL NL 160 160 100
non-moment-resisting connections
at columns away from links
7 2 4
NL NL 160 160 100
Special steel concentrically braced
frames
6 2 4
NL NL 160 160 100
Ordinary steel concentrically braced
frames
5 2 4
NL NL 160 160 100
Special reinforced concrete shear
walls
6 2 5
NL NL 160 160 100
Composite eccentrically braced
frames
8 2 4
NL NL 160 160 100
Special steel moment frames
8 3 5
NL NL NL NL NL
Special reinforced concrete moment
frames
8 3 5
NL NL NL NL NL
Dual system with special moment
frames and special steel
concentrically braced frames
8 2.5 6

NL NL NL NL NL
Dual system with special moment
frames and composite steel plate
shear walls
8 2.5 6

NL NL NL NL NL
Notes: 1. This table only shows few systems and should not be used in actual design. For design, refer to Table
1617.6 of the IBC-2000.
2. NL=No Limit
3. The values in the last line of the table are proposed by the author.
*
*
31

3.2.c. Value of o, for composite shear walls (C-SPW)

The IBC-2000 (ICC, 2000) provides values of
o
, the over strength factor, for a variety of
seismic-force-resisting systems. The factor is used to amplify the seismic forces in design of
specified structural elements and their connections to adjoining elements (SEAOC, 99). Values of
o ?
for select systems are given in Table 3.1 above. For composite shear wall C-SPW system it is
given as 2.5.

3.2.d. Value of C
d
, for composite shear walls

IBC-2000 gives a value of C
d
, equal to 6.5 for composite shear walls, see Table 3.1
above.

3.3. Seismic Design Provisions for Composite Shear Walls in the Codes

The previous section discussed the issues related to the Demand side of the design
equation: Demand < Capacity and how to establish earthquake loads for composite shear walls.
This section discusses the issues related to Capacity side of the design equation. These issues for
seismic design of steel and composite structures are currently addressed by Seismic Provisions
for Structural Steel Buildings(AISC, 1997), developed and published by the American Institute
of Steel Construction Inc. In the following sections, these provisions are discussed and some
suggestions are provided that, after being subjected to the professional review and refinements,
can be incorporated into the seismic design codes.

The AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) has Expected Yield Strength, F
ye
, defined by
the following equation to be used in design of certain connections or related members. In the next
chapter of this report, when design recommendations for composite shear walls are discussed, in
some cases, instead of specified yield stress, the Expected Yield Strength given by following
equation in the AISC (1997) is used.

F
ye
= R
y
F
y
(3.6)

Where, F
ye is
the specified minimum yield strength and R
y
is a factor ranging from 1.1 to
1.5 depending on the grade of steel and weather the element is a rolled shape or a plate. The
provisions given by the AISC (1997) on Notch-toughness Steel (Section 6.3 of AISC, 97) equally
applies to the steel elements of composite shear walls. The provisions of AISC (1997) on
Connections, Joints and Fasteners (Section 7 of the AISC-97) and on Columns (Section 8 of the
AISC 97) are equally applicable to composite shear walls.

The composite shear wall system discussed here is a dual system where the composite wall
is inside a special moment frame. The moment frames being Special should satisfy the
requirements of Sections 9 of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). The tests summarized
in Chapter 2, demonstrated a very ductile and desirable performance for the dual system. Even
after the composite shear wall had been severely damaged with the concrete wall completely
32
crushed and the steel plate fractured, the moment frame along with remnants of the composite
shear wall was able to behave in a very ductile manner. The moment frame at this stage was able
to carry more than 50% of the maximum shear capacity of the dual system as shown in Figure 2.8.

AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) has provisions on Quality Assurance, which is
equally applicable to composite shear walls.
33

4. SEISMIC DESIGN
OF COMPOSITE
SHEAR WALLS

This chapter discusses seismic design and modeling of composite shear walls and provides
seismic design recommendations.

4.1. Types of Composite Shear Wall Systems

Three types of composite shear walls are discussed in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC,
1997). All three systems have steel framing. Two of the systems have Ordinary or Intermediate
reinforced concrete shear wall and the third has a composite shear wall. The focus of this report
and the following discussion is on the third type, shown earlier in Figure 3.1.

4.2. Design Criteria for Performance Based Design of Composite Shear Walls

When a lateral load resisting system is designed using R,
o
and C
d
values given in the
codes, the design and detailing should be such that the system is sufficiently ductile and has
enough over-strength. In order to achieve such performance with high ductility and over-strength
in design, the following design procedure is developed and proposed. The basis of this procedure
in general is to ensure that the ductile failure modes occur before the brittle failure modes and
inelasticity starts first in non-gravity carrying members of the system and then if necessary spreads
into gravity load carrying elements towards the end of the seismic event and in a controlled
manner such that progressive collapse does not occur.

4.3. Developing Seismic Design Procedures for Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall Systems

The steps taken in developing seismic design procedures for composite steel plate shear
walls are given below. The steps are similar to those taken by the author in developing design
procedures for shear connections (Astaneh-Asl et al, 1989), bolted moment frames (Astaneh-Asl,
1995), column tree moment frames, (Astaneh-Asl, 1997), gusset plates (Astaneh-Asl, 1998) and
steel shear walls (Astaneh-Asl, 2001).

34

Steps in developing proposed design procedures:

1. Literature survey and actual tests (summarized in Chapter 2) were conducted to establish
the actual cyclic behavior of the system

2. Failure modes (limit states) of the system were identified

3. The failure modes are grouped into ductile and brittle. The yield failure modes in
general are considered ductile unless in rare occasions because of constraints on plastic
flow, the yielding is not as ductile as desired. On the other hand the fracture failure modes
are generally considered brittle. Buckling failure mode, depending on whether it is
inelastic or elastic buckling, is considered ductile or brittle respectively. Slippage of bolts
is considered ductile and the most desirable limit state for seismic design.

4. Failure modes are placed in a hierarchical order such that: (a) for members that can
experience inelastic behavior, ductile failure modes should occur prior to brittle failure
modes and; (b) non-gravity carrying elements, such as wall plate, reach their governing
limit state prior to gravity carrying members do.

5. Design equations are developed for all failure modes such that the hierarchical order of the
failure modes is materialized.

In the following the application of above steps to seismic design of steel shear walls is
explained. The resulting proposed design procedures are given at the end of this chapter.

4.3.a. Major failure modes
The failure modes of typical steel plate shear walls are:

Failure modes of composite shear walls
1. Slippage of bolts (ductile).
2. Yielding of the steel plate (ductile).
3. Buckling of the steel plate (ductile).
4. Cracking and spalling of the concrete wall (ductile/brittle)
5. Fracture of the shear connectors (brittle)
6. Fracture of the wall plate (brittle).
7. Fracture of the connections of steel wall to boundary columns and beams (brittle).

Failure modes of top and bottom beams
8. Shear yielding of the top and bottom beams (ductile).
9. Plastic hinge formation in the top and bottom beams (ductile).
10. Local buckling in the top and bottom beam flanges or web (ductile if b/t
p
).
11. Fracture in beam-to-column moment connections (brittle).
35
12. Overall or lateral-torsional buckling of beams (brittle).
13. Fracture of shear connections of beams (brittle).

Failure modes of Boundary Columns
14. Plastic hinge formation at the top and bottom of columns (ductile).
15. Local buckling of boundary columns (ductile if b/t
p
).
16. Overall buckling of boundary columns (ductile if 1.0.)
17. Yielding of base plates of boundary columns in uplift (ductile)
18. Tension fracture of boundary columns or their splices (brittle).
19. Fracture of anchor bolts or base plates at the base of the columns in uplift (brittle)
20. Fracture of the column base plates in bending and/or uplift (brittle)
21. Failure of the foundations of the wall (brittle).

4.3.b. Hierarchical order of Failure modes
To obtain a desirable and ductile performance, the above failure modes can be listed with
respect to their desirability. This hierarchical order of failure modes is shown in Figure 4.1. The
hierarchical order is arranged such that the ductile failure modes of the wall itself, which is usually
a non-gravity carrying element, occurs first followed by ductile failure modes of the top and
bottom beams and finally by ductile failure modes of the boundary columns. The brittle failure
modes are generally arranged to occur after ductile failure modes. Again, among brittle modes
also, it is desired that the brittle failure modes of the wall govern over those for the beams and
columns.

c
=(KL/r)(F
y
/ E)

Brittle Failure Modes
Ductile Failure Modes
Load
Exceeds
Service
Load
Slippage
of Bolts
Shear
Yielding
of Steel
Plate

Fracture
of Wall
Connec-
tions
Yielding
of Beams in
Shear
Yielding
of Beams
in Bending
Local
Buckling of
Beams
Plastic
Hinges In
the Columns
Local
Buckling of
Columns
Fracture
of Beam
Moment
Conns
Fracture
of Beam
Shear
Conns.
Buckling
of Beams
Buckling
of Gravity
Columns
Fracture
of Cols.
In
Tension
Yielding
of Base
Plates
Failure of
Foundations
Fracture
of Anchor
Bolts or Base
Pl.
Failure of
Conc
Wall
Figure 4.1. Major Failure Modes of Typical Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls

36
y sp ns
F A V 6 . 0 =
Slippage of the wall boundary bolts or splices should not be considered a consequential
failure mode. In fact, such slippage provides a mechanism of energy dissipation through friction
and introduces some beneficial semi-rigidity to the structure. Of course the slippage should not
occur under service lateral loads. Buckling of the plate in slender shear walls does not appear to
be detrimental in performance and have no significant effect on the ultimate shear strength and
overall performance of the wall. The fracture in tension or buckling in compression of the
boundary columns should be avoided in design since such failures can have serious stability
consequences as well as very high cost of post earthquake repairs

4.5. Design of Composite Wall Element

The AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997), give the following equation for nominal
shear strength of a composite shear wall:

(4.1)

The above equation can be applied to cases in which the concrete wall provides adequate
stiffening to prevent overall and local buckling of the steel plate prior to its shear yielding. In
order to demonstrate that an adequate stiffening is provided to prevent the overall buckling of a
composite shear wall, the AISC (1997) in its Commentary section recommends that the overall
buckling of the composite panel be checked using elastic buckling theory using a transformed
section stiffness of the wall. One approach to doing this is to transform the concrete wall to
vertical and horizontal stiffeners as shown in Figure 4.2. Then by using elastic buckling theory of
stiffened plates or orthotropic plates, the overall buckling of plate can be checked. For more
information on overall buckling of stiffened plates the reader is referred to textbooks on
mechanics such as Allen and Bulson (1980).

Stiffener with Area Equal to
Transformed Area of Concrete
Area of Concrete Wall to Be
Transformed
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.2. (a) Composite Wall and (b) After Transforming Concrete to Steel
Stiffeners
37
yw v
F E k
t
b
/ 10 . 1
The AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) states that for composite shear walls where concrete
is only on one side of the steel plate, in order to ensure yielding of the steel plate before its local
buckling between the studs, the b/t ratio of compact webs in plate girders, given by the following
equation should be followed.

(4.2)

Where k
v
is given by:

2 v
(a/h)
5
5 k + = (4.3)

For definition of terms see Notations at the beginning of this report.

In addition to above, the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) has following requirements for
composite shear walls:
1. The thickness of concrete should be a minimum of 4 inches if concrete is on
both sides of steel plate and 8 inches if concrete is on one side only.
2. Headed shear studs or other mechanical connectors should be used to prevent
local buckling of the plate.
3. Horizontal and vertical reinforcement should be provided in the concrete wall to
meet the requirements of Section 14.3 of ACI-318 code. The reinforcement
ratio in both directions should not be less than 0.0025.
4. Design of boundary members should satisfy requirements of Part I, Sections 5,6
and 8 of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). These provisions are on
satisfying drift limits in applicable codes, material specifications, and design of
columns used in lateral load resisting systems.
5. When there are openings in the wall, adequate boundary members should be
provided.

In current practice, and as the Equation 4.1 indicates, shear capacity of a composite shear
wall is calculated based on the capacity of the steel plate alone. The shear capacity of the
concrete wall is ignored. This approach is a conservative approach as far as strength is concerned.
However, in calculating stiffness of the composite shear wall to be used in determining the period
of vibration, it is recommended that the stiffness of concrete also be considered.

38
After design of the steel plate, an expected shear capacity of the steel plate, V
nse
, should
be calculated. The expected shear capacity will be used in design of the connections of the steel
plate to the boundary elements. The expected shear strength of a composite wall is greater than its
nominal shear strength given by the above Equation 4.1. The main reason for the greater strength
is strain hardening of the steel after yielding and the fact that today, the actual yield strength of
steel is generally greater than the minimum specified value (i.e. 36 ksi for A36). The expected
shear capacity of the steel plate, V
nse
is given by:

n y pr nse
V R C V = (4.4)

For definition of all terms in this report, please refer to the Notations at the beginning of
the report. C
pr
is a factor, originally introduced by FEMA-350 (FEMA, 2001) for moment
frames and here it is used to increase the shear yield capacity of the steel plate due to strain
hardening. The strain-hardened material is assumed to have a yield point equal to the average of
F
y
and F
u
. Therefore, C
pr
can be written as:

y u y u y pr
/2F F 1 ) )/(2F F F ( C + = + = (4.5)

R
y
is a factor to account for uncertainty in the specified value of F
y
and is given by AISC
(AISC, 1997). According to AISC (1997), R
y
for steel plates can be taken as 1.1.

4.6. Resistance to Overturning Moment

In composite shear walls a considerable percentage of over-turning moment can be
resisted by the wall. In the analysis phase both steel and concrete walls can be modeled as parallel
shell elements and forces acting on each are established as shown in Figure 4.3. To be consistent
with the general philosophy of design of composite shear walls it is suggested that the following
steps are taken:

1. Design steel plate to carry the entire shear applied to steel plate as well as concrete wall

2. Design concrete wall to resist the combination of vertical gravity force and bending
moment.

4.7. Design of Connections of Steel Plate to Boundary Beams and Columns
Two typical details of connections of steel plate to boundary beams and columns using
bolts and welds are shown in Figure 4.3. The welded connections should be designed such that
the connection plates (fin plates) and welds develop the expected shear yield strength of the
wall given in previous section as C
pr
R
y
V
n
. If field-bolted connections are used, the bolts should
be designed as slip critical to carry the calculated seismic load and checked to make sure they can
carry the expected shear yield strength of the steel plate in bearing.

39

4.8. Design of shear connectors
The main role of shear connectors is to restrain the steel plate and prevent its overall
buckling. Shear connectors are suggested to be designed for two conditions:
a. Each shear connector should be able to resist a tension force resulting from inelastic local
buckling of steel plate during late cycles of loading. The tension force in the shear
connector can be established by considering equilibrium of forces shown in Figure 4.4.
b. The shear connectors collectively should be able to transfer shear capacity of steel plate or
reinforced concrete wall, whichever is smaller.

4.9. Design of top and bottom beams and columns
In dual composite shear wall system discussed here, beams and columns are part of the
special moment frames. Therefore, the provisions of special moment frames should apply to the
design of these beams and columns. In addition, the boundary beams and columns of shear walls
should satisfy the following b/t requirements given by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC,
1997):
Erection Bolts
Fillet Welds
Fillet Welds
Slip Critical Bolts
Figure 4.3. Connection of Steel Plate to Boundary Beams and Columns

Mp of Plate
Tension in the Shear
Connector
Figure 4.4. Tension Force in the Shear Connector
40

y f f
F 52/ /2t b (4.6)
The above equation in non-dimensional form can be written as:

y f f
E/F / 31 . 0 /2t b (4.7)
And for the web:

y w c
F 520/ /t h (4.8)

y w c
E/F / 10 . 3 /t h (4.9)

For definition of terms please refer to Notations given at the beginning of this report.
The SAC Joint Venture (SAC, 2000) suggests a limit of
y
F 418/ for welded moment
connections instead of
y
F 520/ given by the AISC (1997). The reason for choosing more
relaxed limit of
y
F 520/ for web buckling of beams and columns in this system is due to the fact
that in the shear wall systems discussed here, webs of columns and beams are part of the shear
wall and it is unlikely that the webs will buckle prior to buckling of the wall. It is recommended
that the web thickness of beams and columns in an un-stiffened steel shear system be at least the
same thickness as the wall plate.

4.10. Modeling Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls in the Analysis
In composite shear the steel plate is expected to yield in shear before buckling. Therefore
in the analysis, the steel plate can be modeled using full shell elements and isotropic material. It
is suggested that the mesh used to divide the steel plate to smaller shells is selected such that the
corner nodes of the shells are on the shear connectors.
The reinforced concrete walls in a composite shear wall are expected to develop diagonal
tension cracks. The cracking of concrete should be considered in the analysis by modeling the
concrete walls using shell elements that can develop cracking. If the analysis software does not
have the capability to consider the cracks in the shells, to simulate the cracking of concrete wall
in its diagonal tension field, the concrete wall can be modeled full shell elements and anisotropic
material. Using anisotropic materials enables the analyst to assign different moduli of elasticity
and shear moduli to three principal directions of the wall such that the tension diagonal will have
very small stiffness and will attract much less shear in proportion to its tension capacity along the
tension diagonal. It is suggested that the concrete wall panel also have the same mesh
configuration as the steel plate with corner nodes of shell elements located at the location of
shear connectors. These common nodes can be located where the shear connectors are and the
two shells (steel and concrete) having the same nodes can be connected at the node locations.
41

________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES
_________________________________________________________________________

AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction- Load and Resistance Factor Design, 2nd Edition. 2
Volumes, American Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chicago

AISC (1999), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification, American Institute of Steel
Construction Inc., Chicago

AISC (1997), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction Inc., Chicago

Allen, H.G. and Bulson, P.S. (1980), Background to Buckling, McGraw Hill Book Company,
U.K.

Astaneh-Asl, A., (1995), Seismic Behavior and Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting
Frames, Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, July.
( A copy of this report can be downloaded free from www.aisc.org)

Astaneh-Asl, A., (1997), Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames,
Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, April.
( A copy of this report can be downloaded free from www.aisc.org)

Astaneh-Asl, A., (1998), Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates, Steel TIPS Report,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, December.
(A copy of this report can be downloaded free from www.aisc.org)

Astaneh-Asl, A., (2001), Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls, Steel TIPS
Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, January.
(A copy of this report can be downloaded free from www.aisc.org)

Astaneh-Asl, A., (1998-2001), "Experimental and Analytical Studies of Composite (Steel-
Concrete) Shear Walls, Research Project, Sponsored by the National Science Foundation,
Department of Civil and Env. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley.

Astaneh-Asl, A. and Zhao Q., (2002) Cyclic Behavior of Traditional and an Innovative
Composite Shear Wall, Report No. UCB-Steel-01/2002, Department of Civil and Env.
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

42
Dean, R.G., Canon, T.J. and Poland, C.D., (1977) , Unusual Structural Aspects of H.C. Moffit
Hospital, Proceedings, 46
th
Annual Convention, SEAOC, Coronado, CA , October.

Driver, R.G., Kulak, G. L., Kennedy, D.J.L. and Elwi, A.E., (1996) Seismic Performance of
Steel Plate shear Walls Based on a Large-Scale Multi-Storey Test, Proceedings on CD-
ROM, 11
th
World Conference on earthquake Engineering, Mexico, Paper No. 1876. 8pp.

Elgaaly, M. and Caccese, V., (1993) Post-buckling Behavior of Steel- Plate Shear Walls under
Cyclic Loads, J. of Str. Engrg. ASCE, 119, n. 2, pp. 588-605.

FEMA-350 (2001), Seismic Design Criteria for Steel Moment-Frame Structures, Report,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, MD.
(This report can be downloaded free from www.fema.gov web site.)

ICBO, (1997), "The Uniform Building Code" Volume 2, The International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA.

ICC, (2000), "The International Building Code, IBC-2000, International Code Council, Falls
Church, VA.

Liu, J. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (2000), Cyclic Tests on Simple Connections Including Slab Effects,
Proceedings, North American Steel Construction Conference, AISC, Las Vegas.

Lubell, A.S., 1997, Performance of Unstiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls under Cyclic Quasi-
Static Loading, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Nakashima, M. et al., (1994), Energy Dissipation Behavior of Shear Panels Made of Low Yield
Steel, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 23, pp. 1299-1313.

Rezai, M., Ventura, C. E. Prion, H.G.L. and Lubbell, A.S., (1998).Unstiffened Steel Plate Shear
Walls: Shake Table Testing, Proceedings, Sixth U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg.,
Settle, May-31-June 4.

Sabouri-Ghomi, S., and Roberts, T.M., (1992) Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Steel Plate Shear
Walls Including Shear and Bending Deformations, Engineering Structures, 14, no.5, pp. 309-
317.

SEAOC, (1999), Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Seventh Ed.,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

Timler, P. A. (1988) Design Procedures Development, Analytical Verification, and Cost
Evaluation of Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures, Technical Report No. 98-01, Earthquake
Engrg. Research, Facility, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada.
43
_______________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX-
SUGGESTED COMPOSITE STEEL
PLATE SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
______________________________________________________________________

Figures A.1 and A.2 show two suggested configurations for composite steel plate shear
walls. Input from structural engineers, fabricators and erectors are used in developing the
suggested systems to try to make the systems perform in a highly ductile and desirable manner as
well as be economical and easy to construct.
In both suggested cases, the concrete wall can be on one side or both sides of the steel
plate and either cast-in-place or pre-cast. The system in Figure A.1, with pre-cast concrete walls
bolted to one side of steel plate, was used in the specimens tested at UC-Berkeley by the authors
and the results summarized in Chapter 2.

Figure A.1. A Suggested Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall System
Beam Section
Column Section
1-2 inch Gap
Fillet Welds
Beam-to-Column Moment Connection
Elevation
Erection
Bolts
44

Column Splice
Special ductile moment
connection for dual systems
Field Bolts or Welds to Connect
Steel Plate to Beam and Columns
Beam Section
Column Section
1-2 inch Gap
Fillet Welds
Boundary Plate
Wall Plate
Bottom Flange Tee
Top Flange Tee
Butt Weld the Gap
See Beam-to-Column
Moment Connection
Detail on this Page
45
Figure A.2. Shop-welded, Field-bolted Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall
MARCH 1989
EXTERIOR WALL CONNECTIONS TO STEEL FRAMING
The connections of various suspended walls
to structural steel framing can be a major
source of problems resulting in extra costs
and delays in construction.
It is important that consideration of these
connections be given early in the design proc-
ess rather than as an afterthought when con-
struction is under way. Substantial impact on
the structure is possible through poor connec-
tion design. The shedding of wall panels dur-
ing earthquakes is a major part of damage and
loss of life.
COMMON WALL TYPES
The most common types of walls or wall-
panels for steel framed buildings are:
1. Pre-cast concrete or Glass Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete (G.F.R.C.) panels.
2. Marble or granite panels.
3. Stucco on steel studs, "Dri-vit" walls, or
veneers.
4. Light weight curtain walls with vertical
mullions.
HEAVIER WALLS
With the heavier walls such as Types #1
and #2, the possibility of torsion on the span-
drels members and/or moment in the perime-
ter columns become major considerations,
along with the additional requirement of
stronger connections and the necessity to
accommodate the difference in tolerances
associated with pre-casting.
REVISED SECTION
It should be noted that Section 2312(g) of the
U.B.C. has been revised for the 1988 edition.
These changes will normally result in increases in
the design forces required.
These panels quite often require block-outs in the
slab to expose the steel supporting beam. Block-
outs require cutting of the steel decking, forming
the block-outs, reforming after the panels are
erected, and pouring the block-outs (see Detail #1
on page 2).
If a proper connection can be utilized that allows
the connection to be made on top of the slab, all of
these problems would probably be eliminated. Of
course, then architectural consideration must be
made in covering these connections as they occur
along the junction of the floor to the wall.
PLAN
Architectural
Cover
OPTIONAL
Blockout
Blockout
Adjustment Bolt
Or Shim
SECTION
PRE-CAST OR G.F.R.C. PANEL
SECTION
LATERAL CONNECTION
DETAIL #1
MORE BUT LIGHTER CONNECTIONS
With Type #3, there are more connections but they
are lighter. Quite often, a continuous slab edge
form of angle or bent plate can be used with the wall
framing welded on directly. Due consideration
must be given to the difference in possible straight-
ness tolerance of the slab edge form and the
exterior wall. Use of a clip connection between the
wall framing and the slab edge form can minimize
this problem (see Detail #2, below, and #3, right).
PLAN
DETAIL #3
SECTION
STUCCO ON STEEL STUDS
OR 'DRI-VIT' WALLS
DETAIL #2
TYPICAL SECTION AT METAL STUD
SUPPORTED WALLS
Space f o r Adj ust ment
BOLTED CONNECTIONS
The connections of Type #4 usually occur at
spacings of 3 to 6 feet and have bolted connec-
tions. Quite often, a simple formed slab edge
form is used, horizontal slotted holes are cut and
a "Unistrut" welded to the back of the form at the
hole. Optionally, it may be necessary to weld
reinforcing steel to the "Unistrut" to increase the
connection capacity (see Detail #4).
Depending on the complexity of the layout,
length of re-bar, etc., it may be practical to do the
cutting of the holes, welding the "Unistrut" and
re-bar in the shop.
This detail allows the bolt head to be inserted in
the slot and adjusted horizontally for vertical
alignment.
Since most wall subcontractors have their par-
ticular preferences and requirements, input
should be obtained from the trade involved.
DETAILS WITH CURTAIN WALLS
DETAIL #4
SECTION
THE STEEL COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA
Ace & Stewart Detailing, Inc.
Allied Steel Co., Inc.
Artimex Iron Co., Inc.
Bannister Steel, Inc.
Baresel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
C. A. Buchen Corporation
Butler Manufacturing Co.
Central Industrial Engineering
Co., Inc.
Northern California
43 Quail Court, #206
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(415)932-0909
Cochran-lzant & Co., Inc.
Dovell Engineering, Inc.
The Herrick Corporation
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg. Inc.
Inland Steel Company
J unior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Martin Iron Works, Inc.
Nelson Stud Welding Co.
Palm Iron & Bridge Works
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
Riverside Steel Construction
H. H. Robertson Co.
Schrader Iron Works, Inc.
Stott Erection, Inc.
Verco Manufacturing, Inc.
Southern California
9420 Telstar Ave.
El Monte, CA 91731
(818) 444-4519
Funding for this publication provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust.
1

January 2001
(First Print)
July 2001

Seismic Behavior and Design
of Steel Shear Walls

By

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor

____________________________________________________________
Copyright by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 2000. All rights reserved.
Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls, Copyright
2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 1

Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls

By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

This report presents information on performance of steel shear walls under
seismic effects and their seismic design. Steel shear walls discussed in this report are
used to provide lateral strength and stiffness to steel building structures. They have
also been used efficiently in seismic retrofit of existing steel or reinforced concrete
buildings. Since 1970s structural engineers have used the steel shear walls as lateral
load resisting system for new high-rises in highly seismic regions such as California
and Japan. This report is prepared to provide the state of the art of the seismic behavior
as well as seismic design of steel shear walls. First, some of the important structures in
which steel shear walls have been used, are introduced. Then, a summary of the
behavior of steel shear walls under cyclic load, in the laboratory as well as during past
earthquakes, is presented. Later in the report, current code provisions relevant to steel
shear walls are presented and new R-Factor and other design parameters are proposed
for steel shear walls. The report also includes a chapter on seismic design of steel shear
walls. The design procedures if applied can result in more ductile, economical and
better seismic performance. Finally, a number of economical and efficient steel shear
wall systems and their details are suggested.
The first edition of this report, which was printed on paper, was released in
February 2001. The differences between this electronic edition for the web and the first
printed edition are: (a) the results of an additional test of steel shear walls conducted at
UC-Berkeley are added to Section 3.5, (b) the equations adapted from the AISC-LRFD
Specification are written in the same format as in the just released 1999 AISC-LRFD
Specification, (c) any typographical error caught after the first printed version have
been corrected in this electronic version and; (d) a page about the author has been
added to the end of the report.

First Printing Released to Public: February 2001
This Electronic Edition Placed on AISC Web Page (www.aisc.org): August 2001.

Photos and Drawings by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl unless otherwise indicated.

COPYRIGHT 2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, All rights reserved.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, 781 Davis Hall, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, Phone: (510) 642-4528, Fax: (510) 643-5258,
Home Office Phone and Fax: (925) 946-0903
e-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu, web page: www.ce.berkeley.edu/ ~astaneh
______________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance
with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is
believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific
application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer or architect. The
publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty
on the part of the Structural Steel Educational Council, or of any other person named
herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from
infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all
liability arising from such use.

Caution must be exercised when relying upon specifications and codes developed by others
and incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended
from time to time subsequent to the printing of this document. The Structural Steel
Educational Council or the author bears no responsibility for such material other than to
refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial printing of this
publication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the
Structural Steel Educational Council (SSEC). The author wants to thank all SSEC
members for their support particularly James Putkey, Pat Hassett, Fred Boettler and
Jamie Winens for their valuable review comments. Ignasius Seilie of Skilling, Ward,
Magnusson, Barkshire (SWMB) provided valuable information on their design and
analysis of steel shear walls. Professor Mamoru Iwata of Kanagawa University in Japan
provided information on the use and study of steel shear walls in Japan. Professor
Masayoshi Nakashima of Kyoto University provided information on low yield steel
shear walls. Professor Carlos Ventura of University of British Columbia in Canada
provided valuable information and publications on their cyclic and shaking table tests
of steel plate shear walls. Peter Timler of Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
provided extensive documents on the code and design activities regarding steel plate
shear walls in Canada as well as his research and design publications on this subject. H.
Herb Kubota provided information on Oiles Viscous Wall Damper system. The support
provided by the University of California, Berkeley, the National Science Foundation,
the General Services Administration, the Structural Steel Educational Council, SWMB
and Herrick Corporation to the author's research on the subject of steel and composite
shear walls is sincerely appreciated.

The author is a professor of structural engineering, with emphasis on steel
structures, at the University of California at Berkeley. He is also a member of the
Structural Steel Educational Council (SSEC), Research Council on Structural
Connections (RCSC), Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC),
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) and the Council on
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH).

The opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of California, Berkeley, the Structural
Steel Educational Council or other agencies and individuals whose names appear in
this report.

This report is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Emeritus Boris
Bresler (1918-2000) of the University of California, Berkeley, who was a leader of
structural engineering for more than half a century with many valuable
contributions to the field of design of steel structures including authoring a classic
textbook on the subject with T.Y. Lin and J. Sclazi.

DESIGN OF STEEL SHEAR WALLS

By Dr. ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, P.E.
Professor

_____________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT / Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page 4

NOTATIONS AND GLOSSARY / Page 5


2. USE OF STEEL SHEAR WALLS AND THEIR SEISMIC BEHAVIOR / Page 13

3. LABORATORY TESTS OF STEEL SHEAR WALLS / Page 25

4. CODE PROVISIONS / Page 38

5. SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL SHEAR WALLS / Page 4

REFERENCES / Page 62

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED STEEL SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS AND DETAILS / Page 68

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / Page 71


_________________________________________________________________________

Notations and Glossary
_________________________________________________________________________

A. Notation

In preparing the following notations, whenever possible, the definitions are
taken from various references as indicated inside the parentheses whenever applicable.

A
Area of cross section.

A
b
Area of one bolt.
A
e
Effective net area.
A
g
Gross area.
A
i
The floor area in square feet of the diaphragm level immediately above story.
A
n
Net area.
A
np
Net area of plate.
A
w
Shear area of wall=dt
w
.
a Height of story in tension field action equations (AISC, 1999).
b Width of unstiffened element.
b
f
Width of flange.
C
d
Deflection amplification factor .
C
pr
A factor to account for peak connection strength( FEMA, 2000).
C
s
Seismic coefficient given by IBC-2000.
C
v
Ratio of plate critical stress in shear buckling to shear yield stress( AISC, 1999).
D The effect of dead load( IBC-2000).
D Diameter of hole.
d Overall width of wall.
d
w
Width of shear wall, back-to-back distance of outside flanges of columns.
E Modulus of elasticity.
E The combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces (IBC-2000).
E
m
The maximum seismic load effect (IBC-2000).
F
y
Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel to be used, ksi. As used in the LRFD
Specification, "yield stress" denotes either the minimum specified yield point (for those
steels that have a yield point) or the specified yield strength (for those steels that do not
have yield point). (AISC, 1997) .
F
ye
Expected yield Strength of steel to be used,(AISC, 1997).
F
yw
Specified yield strength of steel shear wall.
F
u
Specified minimum tensile strength,(AISC, 1997) .
h Clear width of shear wall from column flange to column flange.
h
c
Height of column or panel in stiffened shear wall.
I
E
The occupancy importance factor given by IBC-2000.
K
A factor in earlier seismic codes representing ductility etc.

K
Effective length factor in buckling of a column.
kv
Plate buckling coefficient (AISC, 1999).
Q
E
The effect of horizontal seismic forces (IBC-2000).
R Response modification factor.
RCAN R-factor in Canadian Codes.
R
d
Coefficient representing global ductility (SEAOC, 1999).
R
o
Coefficient representing system over-strength (SEAOC, 1999).
R
n
Nominal strength. (AISC, 1997).
R
u
Required strength. (AISC, 1997).
RUS R-factor in US Codes.
R
y
Ratio of the Expected Yield Strength F
ye
to the minimum specified yield strength F
y
.
(AISC, 1998) .
r Radius of gyration in buckling.
max
r
Maximum values of
i
max
r .
i
max
r The ratio of the design story shear resisted by the most heavily loaded single element in the
story to the total story shear, for a given direction of loading. For shear walls see Section
1617.2.2 of IBC-2000.
S1
The maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at 1-second
period (IBC-2000).
SDS
The design spectral response acceleration at short periods (IBC-2000).
T The fundamental period.
t

Thickness of element.
t
f
Thickness of flange.
t
w
Thickness of shear wall or web.
V Shear force, also base shear.
V
n
Nominal shear strength of a member or a plate.
V
ne
Expected shear capacity of a member or a plate.
V
u
Required shear strength on a member or a plate.
V
y
Shear yield capacity.
W Weight of structure, IBC-2000.
Design story drift. (AISC, 1997).
u
Ultimate displacement.
y
Yield displacement.
Angle of struts replacing a shear wall.
Resistance factor.
v
Resistance factor in shear=0.90. (AISC, 1997) .
c
Resistance factor for compression=0.85, (AISC, 1997).
c
Slenderness parameter for a column, ( ) E / F r / KL
y
= .
e
Limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact shear walls,
yw v
F / E k 53 . 3 = .
p
Limiting slenderness parameter for a compact element. (AISC, 1997).
r
Limiting slenderness parameter for a non-compact element. (AISC, 1997).
tf
Limit of h/t
w
for slender shear walls.
Ductility equal to ultimate displacement / yield displacement.

Reliability factor based on system redundancy (IBC-2000).
i
Reliability factor for a given story (IBC-2000).
Normal stress.
cr
Critical value of normal stress in plate buckling (SSRC, 1998).
Shear stress.
cr
Critical shear stress in plate buckling.
o
System over-strength factor.

B. Glossary

In preparing the following glossary, whenever possible, the definitions are taken with

Shear Wall. A vertical plates system with boundary columns and horizontal beams at floor levels
that resists lateral forces on the structural system.
Connection. A combination of joints used to transmit forces between two or more members.
Connections are categorized by the type and amount of force transferred (moment, shear,
end reaction).
Design Story Drift. The amplified story drift determined as specified in the Applicable Building
Code.
Design Strength. Resistance (force, moment, stress, as appropriate) provided by element or
connection; the product of the nominal strength and the resistance factor.
Dual System. A Dual System is a structural system with the following features: (1) an essentially
complete space frame that provides support for gravity loads; (2) resistance to lateral load
provided by moment resisting frames (SMF, IMF or OMF) that are capable of resisting at
least 25 percent of the base shear and concrete or steel shear walls or steel braced frames
(EBF, SCBF or OCBF); and, (3) each system designed to resist the total lateral load in
proportion to its relative rigidity.
Expected Yield Strength. The Expected Yield Strength of steel in structural members is related to
the Specified Yield Strength by the multiplier R
y
.
Nominal strength. The capacity of a building or component to resist the effects of loads, as
determined by computations using specified material strengths and dimensions and formulas
derived from accepted principles of structural mechanics or by field tests or laboratory tests
of scaled models, allowing for modeling effects, and differences between laboratory and
field conditions.
Required Strength. The load effect (force, moment, stress, or as appropriate) acting on a member
or connection that is determined by structural analysis from the factored loads using the
most appropriate critical load combinations, or as specified in these Provisions.
Slip-critical Joint. A bolted joint in which slip resistance on the faying surface(s) of the conn-
ection is required.
Static Yield Strength. The strength of a structural member or connection that is determined on the
basis of testing that is conducted under slow monotonic loading until failure.
Structural System. An assemblage of load-carrying components that are joined together to
provide interaction or interdependence.


1. INTRODUCTION

The main function of steel plate shear wall is to resist horizontal story shear and
overturning moment due to lateral loads. In general, steel plate shear wall system consists of a
steel plate wall, two boundary columns and horizontal floor beams. Together, the steel plate wall
and two boundary columns act as a vertical plate girder as shown in Figure 1.1. The columns act
as flanges of the vertical plate girder and the steel plate wall acts as its web. The horizontal floor
beams act, more-or-less, as transverse stiffeners in a plate girder.

Figure 1.1. A typical plate girder and a steel shear wall

Some of the advantages of using steel plate shear wall to resist lateral loads are:

1. The system, designed and detailed properly is very ductile and has relatively large
energy dissipation capability. As a result, steel shear walls can be very efficient and
economical lateral load resisting systems.
2. The steel shear wall system has relatively high initial stiffness, thus very effective in
limiting the drift.

Plate Girder Steel Plate Shear Wall


3. Compared to reinforced concrete shear walls, the steel shear wall is much lighter
which can result in less weight to be carried by the columns and foundations as well as
less seismic load due to reduced mass of the structure.
4. By using shop-welded, field-bolted steel shear walls, one can speed-up the erection
process and reduce the cost of construction, field inspection and quality control
resulting in making these systems even more efficient.
5. Due to relatively small thickness of steel plate shear walls compared to reinforced
concrete shear walls, from architectural point of view, steel plate shear walls occupy
much less space than the equivalent reinforced concrete shear walls. In high-rises, if
reinforced concrete shear walls are used, the walls in lower floors become very thick
and occupy large area of the floor plan.
6. Compared to reinforced concrete shear walls, steel plate shear walls can be much
easier and faster to construct when they are used in seismic retrofit of existing
building.
7. Steel plate shear wall systems that can be constructed with shop welded-field bolted
elements can make the steel plate shear walls more efficient than the traditional
systems. These systems can also be very practical and efficient for cold regions where
concrete construction may not be economical under very low temperatures.

Since 1970s, in the United States and Japan, a number of important structures using steel
plate shear walls have been designed and constructed. Two of these structures have been
subjected to relatively large magnitude earthquakes in recent years and have performed very well
with minor or no structural damage. In addition to observing behavior of steel plate shear walls
during actual earthquakes, their behavior under cyclic loading has been studied by a number of
researchers in laboratories in the U.S., Canada and Japan. Although the technology of design and
construction of steel plate shear walls have progressed enough, with the exception of Canadian
Code (CCBFC, 1995), there is very limited seismic code provisions on steel plate shear walls.

The main objectives of this Steel TIPS report are:

1. To provide information on a number of modern structures where steel shear walls have
been used successfully.
2. To summarize the available information on seismic behavior of steel plate shear walls
during major earthquakes.
3. To summarize the published results of laboratory tests and other studies done on steel
shear walls.
4. To discuss code provisions relevant to seismic design of steel shear walls. Since
currently such design code provisions are very limited, a number of design provisions
will be proposed that can be used in seismic design of steel shear walls and perhaps
after review, modification and refinements by code-writing bodies, and consensus of
the profession, some of these provisions can be incorporated into seismic design
codes.
5. To present seismic design procedures for steel shear walls.
6. To provide some suggested detailing for steel shear walls that can result in ductile and
efficient lateral load resisting systems that are economical and easy to design and
construct.

Figure 1.2. Three braced bays (top row) and same bays with steel shear walls

Additional considerations in using steel plate shear walls are:

1. In early applications of steel plate shear walls in the United States, the walls had vertical
and horizontal stiffeners. In Japan, almost all of their steel plate shear walls are stiffened.
Welding such stiffeners to the wall results in increasing the shear yield strength of the wall.
However, in todays steel fabrication shops, welding stiffeners to steel wall can be costly
as well as time-consuming. In recent years, the research and testing of realistic specimens
have indicated that the steel plate alone, without stiffeners, performs in a very ductile,
desirable and efficient manner. As a result, in most applications of steel shear walls in
recent years in the United States and Canada, un-stiffened steel plates have been used
efficiently and economically.
2. Compared to braced bays, where some window or door openings can be accommodated,
in the case of steel shear walls such openings can be accommodated by stiffening the wall
around the openings as shown in Figure 1.2. Notice that for un-stiffened steel plate shear
walls, to maintain continuity of tension field action, the openings can only be around the
X-bracing
V-bracing
Eccentric Bracing
Steel Plate Shear Wall
(Unstiffened)
Stiffened Steel Shear
Wall With Opening
Stiffened Steel Shear
Wall with Opening

mid-height areas of columns and mid-span areas of the beams. Another solution would be
to have two separate shear walls connected to each other by coupling beams as shown in
Figure 1.3. This system of shear wall combined with coupling beam can be very ductile
and can have very desirable performance (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000) as discussed in
Chapter 4.

Figure 1.3. Samples of steel shear walls with opening

Two Unstiffened Steel Shear
Walls with Coupling Beams
Coupling Beams
Rigidly Connected
to Columns
Stiffeners
An Un-stiffened Steel Shear Wall with
Coupling Beams on Both Sides
Stiffened Steel Shear Wall
with Opening

2. USE OF STEEL SHEAR
WALLS AND THEIR
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR

Since 1970s, steel shear walls have been used as the primary lateral load resisting system
in several modern and important structures. Initially, and during 1970s, stiffened steel shear
walls were used in Japan in new construction and in the U.S. for seismic retrofit of the existing
buildings as well as in new buildings. In 1980s and 90s, un-stiffened steel plate shear walls were
used in buildings in the United States and Canada. In some cases, the steel plate shear walls were
covered with concrete forming a somewhat composite shear wall. In the following a brief
summary of the applications of steel plate shear walls, stiffened or un-stiffened is provided. The
discussion of composite shear walls made of steel plates and concrete cover is left for a future
Steel TIPS Issue (Astaneh-Asl, 2001). In the following presentation, if the building with steel
shear wall has been subjected to a significant earthquake, its seismic performance is also
summarized.

2.1. A 20-story office building in Tokyo, Japan

According to Thorburn et al. (1983) it is believed that this building, referred to as Nippon
Steel Building, was the first major building using steel plate shear walls. Located in Tokyo, it was
completed in 1970.

The lateral load resisting system in longitudinal direction was a combination of moment
frame and steel plate shear wall units in an H configuration and in transverse direction consisted of
steel plate shear walls. Figure 2.1 shows a typical plan. The steel plate wall panels consisted of 9
by 12-2 steel plates with horizontal and vertical steel channel stiffeners. Figure 2.2 shows the
details of steel plate shear wall system. The thickness of steel wall plates ranged from 3/16 to
. In design, the gravity load was not given to steel shear walls and the walls were designed to
resist design lateral loads without buckling.

Rendering courtesy of
Skilling, Ward, Magnusson, Barkshire

Figure 2.1. Typical floor plan of Nippon Steel Building

Figure 2.2. Details of steel shear walls used in Nippon Steel Building

2.2. 53-story high-rise in Tokyo

The structure was initially designed using reinforced concrete shear walls. However,
according to Engineering News Record (1978), due to patent problem, the R/C walls were
converted to steel shear walls. Figure 2.3 shows a plan view and elevation of the building.
According to ENR article (ENR, 1978), the contractor rejected a steel braced building core as
too expensive compared to steel shear wall.

The structure consisted of moment perimeter frame and T shaped stiffened steel shear
walls. The wall panels were about 10-ft high and 16.5 feet long and had vertical stiffeners on one
side and horizontal stiffener on the other side. The panels were connected to boundary box and H
steel columns using bolts. The construction contractor in this case has made a comment that The
Steel Plate
Shear Walls
Moment
Frame
Vertical Stiffener

Horiz. Stiffener
Lap-splice Plates

next high-rise building we do wont likely be designed with bolted steel seismic walls (ENR,
1978). According to ENR article, the contractor on another high-rise in Tokyo switched from
bolted steel panels to welded panels after failing to achieve the required precision.

Figure 2.3. Plan, transverse section and a view of the 56-story building in Tokyo

2.3. A 30-story hotel in Dallas, Texas

This structure, described in Reference (Troy and Richard, 1988) is a very good example of
efficient use of steel shear walls in areas with low seismicity but with relatively high wind loads.
The 30-story structure has steel braced frame in longitudinal direction and steel plate shear walls
in the transverse direction. The shear walls in this structure carry about 60% of the tributary
gravity load while the wide flange columns at the boundary of shear walls resist the remaining
40%.

By using steel plate shear walls as gravity load carrying elements, the designers have saved
a significant amount of steel in beams and columns and compared to equivalent steel moment-
resisting frame, the steel shear wall system has used 1/3 less steel (Troy and Richard, 1988).
Located in Dallas, the wind loads were the governing lateral loads. Under the design wind load,
maximum drift was only 0.0025. The relatively low drift is due to relatively high in-plane stiffness
of steel plate shear walls. Figure 2.4 shows a view of the building.

172
(52.4 m)
110 (33.5 m)
693
(211.2 m)
Steel Shear Walls
Perimeter
Moment
Frame

Figure 2.4. A View of 30-story building in Dallas

2.4. A 6-story hospital in Los Angeles, California

This structure shown in Figure 2.5 is a good example of the use of steel shear walls in an
important structure such as a hospital in an area of very high seismicity such as California. The
hospital building is a replacement for the reinforced concrete Olive View Hospital that had
partially collapsed during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and had to be demolished.

Figure 2.5. A view of Sylmar hospital

In the new Sylmar Hospital, shown in Figure 2.5, the gravity load is resisted entirely by a
steel space frame and the lateral load is resisted by the reinforced concrete shear walls in the first
two stories and steel plate shear walls in the upper four stories. The steel shear wall panels in this
building are 25 ft wide and 15.5 feet high with thickness of wall plate being 5/8 and . The
walls have window openings in them and stiffeners as shown in Figure 2.6. The steel plate panels
Photo: from web page of Hyatt Hotels: Hyatt.com

are bolted to the fin plates on the columns. The horizontal beams as well as the stiffeners are
double channels welded to the steel plate to form a box shape as shown in Figure 2.6. According
to the designers, (Youssef, 2000) and (Troy and Richard, 1988) the double channel box sections
were used to form torsionally stiff elements at the boundaries of steel plates and to increase
buckling capacity of the plate panels.

The walls were designed for global buckling capacity of the stiffened walls as well as local
buckling capacity of the panels bounded by the stiffeners. The tension field action capacity was
not used although the designers acknowledge its presence and consider the strength of tension
field action as a second line of defense mechanism in the event of a maximum credible
earthquake.

Figure 2.6. A view of stiffened steel plate shear walls of Sylmar hospital

The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) has instrumented the
Sylmar hospital. Figure 2.7 shows the direction of accelerations measured and Channel Number
for each instrument. The 1987 Whittier and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes shook the structure
and valuable records on response of the structure were obtained. Figure 2.8 shows data recorded
by the CSMIP instruments in this building during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The
accelerations at roof level were more than 2.3g while the ground acceleration were about 0.66g.

The investigation of damage to this building in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge
earthquake by the author indicated that there was severe damage to some non-structural elements
such as suspended ceilings and sprinkler system resulting in breakage of a number of sprinklers
and flooding of some floors. In addition, most TV sets bolted to the wall of the patients rooms
had broken the connections to the wall and were thrown to the floor. The non-structural damage
was clearly an indicator of very high stiffness of this structure, which was also the cause of
relatively large amplification of accelerations from ground level to roof level. More information
on seismic response of this structure can be found in (Celebi, 1997).

Column Section
Beam Section
Stiffeners
Field-bolted splice
Window
opening

Figure 2.7. The instrumented Sylmar hospital, (CSMIP, 1994).

Figure 2.8. Records obtained from instruments in Sylmar hospital, (CSMIP, 1994)

2.5. A 35-story office building in Kobe, Japan

One of the most important buildings with steel plate shear walls in a very highly seismic
area is the 35-story high-rise in Kobe, Japan. The structure was constructed in 1988 and was
subjected to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The structural system in this building consists of a dual
system of steel moment frames and shear walls. The shear walls in the three basement levels are
reinforced concrete and in the first and second floors the walls are composite walls and above the
2
nd
floor the walls are stiffened steel shear walls. Figure 2.9 shows framing plan and typical
frames. The author visited this building about two weeks after the 1995 Kobe earthquake and
found no visible damage.

Figure 2.9. Structure and a view of 35-story Kobe building

Studies of this structure (Fujitani et al., 1996) (AIJ, 1995) have indicated that the damage
was minor and consisted of local buckling of stiffened steel plate shear walls on the 26
th
story and
a permanent roof drift of 225mm in northerly and 35mm in westerly directions. Figure 2.10 also
shows a sketch of damage to the shear wall at 26
th
floor. The results of post-earthquake inelastic
analyses of this structure reported in above references indicate that soft stories may have formed
at floors between 24
th
and 28
th
level of the building. Figure 2.11 shows results of story drifts in
NS and EW direction when an inelastic model of the structure was subjected to two Kobe ground
motions (AIJ, 1995). The maximum inter-story drift is about 1.7% in 29
th
floor of the NS frame.

N-S Frame E-W Frame
424-7
(129.4 m)
134-6 (41 m)
Typical Floor Plan
119-5
(36.4 m)
North

(Photo by M. Kanada, from Kanada and Astaneh-Asl, 1996), (From: Fujitani et al., 1996) and (AIJ, 1995)

Figure 2.10. A view of the 35-story building and damage to 26
th
floor shear walls

Source of damage: Fujitani et al., 1996) and (AIJ, 1995)

(From: Fujitani et al. , 1996)

Figure 2.11. Results of drift values in NS and EW frames of Kobe high-rise),

122 m

2.6. A 52-story residential building in San Francisco, California

Currently, the tallest building with steel plate shear walls in a very highly seismic area of
the United States is a 52-story building in San Francisco. The structure is designed by Skilling,
Ward, Magnusson, Barkshire of Seattle and is currently under construction. The building is a
residential tower and when completed will have 48 stories above ground and four basement
parking levels. A rendering of the building and a typical floor plan are shown in Figure 2.12.

Figure 2.12. A rendering of Century building

The gravity load carrying system in this building consists of four large concrete-filled steel
tubes at the core and sixteen concrete-filled smaller steel tube columns in the perimeter. The
floors outside the core consist of post-tensioned flat slabs and inside the core and lower floors are
typical composite steel deck-concrete slab. The foundation consists of a single reinforced concrete
mat foundation.

The main lateral load resisting system of the structure consists of a core made of four large
concrete field steel tubes, one at each corner of the core, and steel shear walls and coupling
beams. There are built-up H columns between the two corner pipe columns. The steel shear walls
are connected to concrete filled steel tubes by coupling beams. The shear wall units are primarily
shop-welded and bolt spliced at the site at each floor mid-height. The only field welding is the
connection of the girders and steel plate shear wall to the large concrete-filled steel tube columns.

Courtesy of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire

2.7. A 22-story office building in Seattle, Washington

A view of this building is shown in Figure 2.13. At this writing, (summer of 2000) the
structure is being designed by Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire. A typical floor framing
consists of typical steel deck/concrete floors supported on wide flange beams and columns.

(Rendering courtesy of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire)

Figure 2.13. A rendering of Seattle building

The lateral load resisting system consists of a core with four large concrete filled tubes on
its corners and steel plate shear walls and coupling beams connecting the tubes to each other in
one direction and steel braced frame in the other.

Similar to the 52-story structure discussed in previous section, the steel plate shear wall
system in this building also is primarily shop-welded, field bolted with only steel plates and girders
welded to the round columns in the field. Four round concrete-filled tubes carry the bulk of
gravity in the interior of the building. The I-shaped columns within the steel box core do not
participate in carrying gravity and are primarily part of the lateral load resisting system which can
be considered to be a dual system of steel shear wall and special moment-resisting frames.

2.8. Use of Low-Yield steel shear walls in Japan

In recent years, low-yield point (LYP) steel plates have been developed in Japan and
used successfully as steel plate shear walls. Low yield steel has a yield point of about half of A36
steel with much greater ductility and ultimate elongation of more than twice that of A36 steel. It
has been demonstrated in Japan that such steel can be very effectively used as energy dissipating
element of the structure. Later in Chapter 3, more information on low-yield steel, its properties
and cyclic behavior is provided. In the following the use of low yield steel plates as steel shear

walls in Japan is discussed. Figure 2.14 shows a building where the low yield point steel is used in
the core elevator / stairwell shaft of the building. The LYP panels are stiffened and have been
shop welded and field bolted.

(photos: Nippon Steel, Japan)

Figure 2.14. A view of building with Low Yield Point (LYP) steel plate shear walls
and a close-up of the walls

Figure 2.15 shows another example of recent application of low-yield point (LYP) steel
plate shear walls in a 31-story building in Japan. According to Yamaguchi et al. (1998), the LYP
steel used in this structure had a 2% offset proof stress (yield point) of 11.6 17.4ksi, a tensile
strength of 29-43.5 ksi and percent of elongation at fracture exceeding 50%.

The walls were approximately inch to one inch thick and about 14-9 by 9-10
stiffened by horizontal and vertical stiffeners. The prefabricated LYP wall units were connected to
the boundary beams and columns using friction bolts. The walls were designed to remain elastic
under wind load but yield under Level 1 earthquake.

The designers report that as a result of using low yield steel the drift values decreased
about 30%. From material given in reference (Yamaguchi et al, 1998) it could be deducted that
apparently the reason for arranging the LYP steel shear walls in an alternate pattern is to reduce
bending effects. It appears that such an alternate pattern can also prevent gravity load from
accumulating in the walls. As a result such walls are primarily subjected to shear and relatively
small bending effects. Moment frames carry the overturning moments due to lateral loads.

Framing Plan
Elevations

( From: Yamaguchi et al, 1998)

Figure 2.15. Framing plan and elevations of 31-story building
in Japan using low-yield steel shear walls

2.9 Use of Viscous Wall Damper steel shear walls in Japan

The Oiles Corporation of Japan has developed a system of steel plate shear wall that
basically acts as a viscous damper. Figure 2.16 shows a sketch of this system as well as the Media
City Shizuoka building, one of the structures where this system is used. Studies by Shimoda et al
(1996) shows potential of this system to improve seismic behavior and reduce seismic effects
considerably.

Figure 2.16. The Oiles Viscous Wall Damper system and one of the
buildings where it was used


3. LABORATORY TESTS
OF STEEL SHEAR WALLS

A number of researchers in United States, Japan, Canada and United Kingdom have studied
behavior of steel shear walls. This chapter provides brief summaries of experimental studies and testing of
shear walls.

3.1. Tests of Steel Plate Shear Walls in Canada

Researchers at the University of Alberta, (Timler and Kulak, 1987), (Kulak, 1991), and
(Driver et al., 1996), have conducted monotonic and cyclic tests of un-stiffened steel plate shear
walls. A summary of these tests is given in the following. Figure 3 shows the specimen and the
load displacement curve for static monotonic test by Timler and Kulak (1983). The load
displacement curve indicates a ductile behavior and significant over-strength. The specimen
exhibited a ductility exceeding 4.0. Earlier, Thorburn et. al. (1983) based on their analytical
research, had proposed an equation for angle of inclination of tension field. The test indicated that
the proposed equation is sufficiently accurate.

Test Specimen Load vs. Displacement

(Note: The curve traced from original plot in Timler and Kulak, 1983)

Figure 3.1. The University of Albertas first test (static load)

12-4
(3.75 m)
3/16 t
(5mm)

W18x9
W12x87
16-5
(5m)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Shear Deflection, mm
7500

Shear
Load,
KN

Shear Yield Point
Maximum Shear
Over-strength

Yield Limit


Figure 3.2 shows the specimen tested by Timler and Kulak (1983) under cyclic loading.
The figure also shows load-displacement cyclic hysteresis response. The test results indicate
over-strength of more than 2.0 and a ductility of more than 3.5.

(Curves from: Timler and Kulak, 1983)

Figure 3.2. The University of Albertas second test (cyclic load)

Driver et al (1996 and 1998) have reported the results of cyclic testing of a four-story
steel shear wall specimen. The specimen, shown in Figure 3.3, was a -scale representation of a
dual system with steel plate shear wall welded to a special moment-resisting frame.

(Curves From: Driver et al, 1996)

Figure 3.3. University of Alberta test set-up and a sample of hysteresis behavior
9-0
(2.75 m)
1/8 t
(3.25mm)

W18x9
7
W12x87
14-5
(4.4m)
Gravity
Loads
10
(3.05m)
W12x40
W12x79
24-7
(7.55m)

Figure 3.3 shows cyclic response of the first floor steel shear wall panel. The failure mode
was fracture of left column at the heat-affected zone of weld connecting the column to the base
plate. The researchers (Driver et al, 1998) related this failure mode to local buckling of column
that had occurred during cycle 20 causing large deformation amplitudes at locally buckled areas of
the column flange. Prior to fracture, the specimen behaved in a very ductile manner.
Unfortunately, failure mode of this specimen was not directly related to shear neither failure of the
wall itself nor the behavior of the system as a whole. The failure at the base of the column where
it was attached to reaction beam was probably due to stress concentration at the base of the
specimen where it was connected to the reaction floor and test set-up. Such stress concentrations
are not expected to occur in a real structure. However, even with premature failure of the base of
column in this specimen, the cyclic behavior indicates over-strength of about 1.3 and a ductility of
more than 6.0.

Recently researchers at the University of British Columbia have completed a series of
cyclic and shaking table tests of steel plate shear walls (Lubell, 1997), Rezai, 1999) and (Rezai et
al.1988 and 2000). In these studies, cyclic shear loads were applied to two single story
specimens. Figure 3.4 shows one of the specimens after the test and hysteresis behavior of the
specimen. The boundary frames in the specimens were moment frames resulting in a "dual"
structural system. The two specimens differed only in the base gusset plate details and the top
beam. For second specimen, stronger base connections and top beam were used. The single story
specimens experienced significant inelastic deformations up to ductility of about six. The over-
strength was about 1.5. The researchers concluded that the two one story specimens
demonstrated that the infill steel plates significantly reduced demand on the moment-resisting
frame by producing redundant diagonal story braces that alleviated the rotation demand on the
beam-to-column connections.

(Photo: Curtsey of C. Ventura)) (Curves from: Lubell, 1997)


Figure 3.4. One of the two Univ. of British Columbia specimens with its hysteresis loops

In the shaking table tests, (Lubell, 1997), a four-story specimen representing 30% scale
model of inner core of a residential building was used. Figure 3.5 shows a view of the specimen
and the test set-up. The dimensions of each story were almost the same as the one-story
specimens. The frame was welded rigid frame making the system a dual system. The members
were S3x5.7 (Canadian S75x8). The roof level beam was an S8x23 (Canadian S200x34). In each
panel of the specimen, a maximum displacement ductility of 1.5 was achieved prior to a global
instability failure propagated by yielding of the columns. The specimen exhibited over-strength of
about 1.20. The specimen proved to be somewhat more flexible than the one-story specimens
were. Figure 3.6 shows force-deformation hysteresis loops for the first floor. For full details of the
cyclic tests, refer to Lubell (1997) and Rezai (1999).

(Curves from: Lubell , 1997)

Specimen on Shaking Table Hysteresis Response

Figure 3.5. The specimen tested at the Univ. British Columbia and its response

3.2. Tests of Steel Plate Shear Walls in Japan

Takanashi et al. (1973) and Mimura and Akiyama (1977) have conducted some of the
earliest tests of steel shear walls. Takanashi et al. conducted cyclic tests of 12 one-story and two
2-story specimens. The 12 one-story specimens had about 6-11 (2.1 m) width and 2-11 (0.9
m) height. They used steel plates with about 3/32, 1/8 and 3/16 (2.3mm, 3.2mm and 4.5mm)
thickness. Compared to typical building dimensions, the specimens could be considered to be 1/4
scale of prototype walls. With the exception of one specimen, all specimens had vertical or
vertical and horizontal stiffeners welded on one or both sides of the steel plate. The boundary
frames were very stiff pin-connected frames. The specimens were loaded along their diagonals to
create almost pure shear in the panels. The behavior of specimens was very ductile and drift
S3x5.7
3
(0.9m)
Shaking
Table
4 @ 3
(12m)
Gravity
Loads

angles in some cases exceeded 0.10 radians. The shear strengths of the specimens were predicted
well by Von Mises yield criterion given for pure shear as Vy= A(Fy/ 3).

The two two-story specimens tested by Takanashi et al (1973) were designed to represent
shear walls being designed for the high-rise building discussed in Section 2.5 of this report. The
specimens were full scale. One specimen represented the walls with the openings and one without.
The specimen with wall opening had a plate thickness of about (6mm) while the specimen
without opening had a wall thickness of about 3/16 (4.5mm). Once again, the shear yield strength
predicted by Von Mises yield criterion was in close agreement with test results. The researchers
concluded that the conventional beam theory could be used to calculate stiffness and strength of
stiffened shear walls.

Yamada (1992) reported the results of cyclic tests of steel and composite shear walls. Two
specimens were un-stiffened steel plate shear walls. The specimens had a width of 3-11 (1.2m)
and a height of about 2 (0.6 m). The thickness of wall was either 3/64 (1.2mm) or 3/32
(2.3mm). The boundary frames were rigid steel frames encased in rectangular reinforced concrete
sections. The specimens were subjected to monotonic load along their diagonal direction. The
failure mode was in the form of fracture of base of boundary rigid frames. The behavior of
specimens was quite ductile and tension field formed along the diagonal.

Sugii and Yamada (1996) have reported the results of cyclic and monotonic tests on 14 steel
plates shear walls. The specimens were 1/10 scale model and two stories in height. The boundary
frame was rigid composite frame with steel I-shapes encased inside rectangular reinforced
concrete sections. Figure 3.6 shows a typical specimen and hysteresis loops. All specimens
showed pinching of hysteresis loops due to buckling of compression field.

Specimen Hysteresis Behavior

Figure 3.6. A typical test specimen and typical hysteresis loops for 1 mm plate
2-2
(64 cm)
1 to 3
(30 cm to 90 cm)
Steel Plate
t=0.4-1.2mm

Composite
Rigid Frame
Q

(Curves from Sugii & Yamada, 1996)

Inter-story Drift

(A572 Gr. 50)
(A36)
Low Yield
Torii et al (1996) have studied the application of low-yield steel walls in high-rises. In
recent years, there have been significant research and development efforts in Japan to use low-
yield steel in shear walls to control seismic response. Such efforts have led to design and
construction of a number of structures using this system (Yamaguchi et al, 1998). From the
published data, it appears that this system is very promising and more research and development
in this field is needed.

Nakashima et al. (1994 and 1995) have tested and reported on the cyclic behavior of steel
shear wall panels made of low yield steel. Figure 3.7 shows stress-strain curves for mild steel
(similar to A36), high strength steel (Similar to A572, Gr. 50) and the low yield steel developed
by Nippon Steel in Japan. In general yield point of current low yield steel is about half of A36
steel and its ultimate strain is more than twice as much as that of A36 steel. These properties
result in relatively early yielding of this type of steel and its sustained and relatively large energy
dissipation capability. Tests of low-yield steel subjected to cyclic loads have indicated very stable
hysteresis loops and relatively large energy dissipation capability. Figure 3.7 shows a sample of
such curves.

Figure 3.7. Stress-strain curves and hysteresis behavior of low- yield steel
(Nippon Steel, 1998)

Figure 3.8 shows typical hysteresis behavior of specimens tested in this program sponsored by
Nippon Steel. The specimens were one-story un-stiffened and stiffened walls bolted at the top
and bottom to the set-up and subjected to cyclic shear forces. The panels were about 3-11 by
3-11 (1.2mx 1.2m). The thickness of all panels was about 15/64 (6mm). Figure 3.8 also shows
a panel during the test.

The results of testing of low yield steel shear walls in Japan are significant development in
better use of steel in resisting dynamic lateral loads. The Japanese designers have started using
the low yield shear panels in buildings (see Section 2.8 of this report).

(Figure from Nippon Steel Publications)

Figure 3.8. Typical specimen, set-up, table of specimens and the hysteresis loops

3.3. Tests of Steel Plate Shear Walls in United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom Sabouri-Ghomi and Roberts (1992) and Roberts (1995) have
reported results of 16 tests of steel shear panels diagonally loaded. The specimens in these tests
consisted of steel plates placed within a 4-hinged frame and connected to it using bolts. Some
panels had perforations, Figure 3.9. The specimens were small-scale with dimensions of steel
panels b and d in Figure 3.9 being either 12x12 or 12x18. The thickness of steel plate was
either 1/32 or 3/64. The cyclic load was applied along the diagonal axis resulting in steel plate
being subjected to pure shear. The tests indicated that all panels possessed adequate ductility and
sustained four large inelastic cycles. Typical hysteresis loops presented in Roberts (1992) shows
specimens reaching a ductility of more than seven without any decrease in strength. One of the
interesting aspects of this test program was to investigate the effects of perforations in the wall on
strength and stiffness. The researchers concluded that the strength and stiffness linearly decreases
with the increase in (1-D/d) as shown in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.9. Specimens tested in U.K. and the effect of perforation on strength and
stiffness of steel plate panels (Roberts, 1992)
Perforation
In some
specimens
Se/Seo
Se/Seo
1.0
(1-D/d)
1.0
1.0
(1-D/d)
1.0
d D
Inter-story Drift, %

3.4. Tests of Steel Plate Shear Walls in the United States

In the United States, Elgaaly and his research associates, (Caccese et al, 1993), (Elgaaly
and Caccese, 1993), conducted a number of studies of steel plate shear walls. The experimental
part of their research included cyclic testing of six, three-story one-bay specimens subjected to
cyclic horizontal load at roof level. The specimens were about 1/4 scale and the steel plate shear
walls did not have stiffeners. Figure 3.10 shows the test set-up and the hysteresis loops for these
six tests. The studies also included valuable analytical research and resulted in development of
analytical models of hysteresis behavior of steel plate shear walls.

(Curves from Elgaaly and Cassese, 1993).

Figure 3.10. Test set-up and hysteresis behavior of specimens

Based on the behavior of these six specimens, Elgaali and Caccese (1993) concluded that
when an un-stiffened thin plate is used as shear wall, inelastic behavior commences by yielding of
the wall and the strength of the system is governed by plastic hinge formation in the columns.
They also concluded that when relatively thick plates are used, the failure mode is governed by
column instability and only negligible increase occurs in the strength of the system due to
increased thickness of the wall. They suggested a building can be designed using a thin steel-
plate shear wall so that it will respond elastically to a minor seismic event or high wind. When
subjected to a severe seismic event, walls with less slender plates tend to become unstable due to
column buckling before the plate can develop its full strength. In general, the researchers
recommended the use of thinner, un-stiffened plates such that the yielding of plate occurs before
column buckling. This rational philosophy is incorporated into proposed design recommendations
presented in Chapter 5.

Moment frame only
With no shear wall
0.03 inch steel wall
& moment connections

& shear connections
0.075 steel wall
& shear connections
3 @ 33
(2.5m)
49
(1.25m)

3.5. Current Tests of Steel and Composite Shear Walls at UC-Berkeley

Currently there are two parallel research projects conducted at the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering of the University of California, Berkeley on shear walls. One is on
composite shear walls (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 1998-2000) and the other is on steel plate shear
walls (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000-2001). The project on composite shear walls is sponsored by
the National Science Foundation. More information on composite shear wall project can be found
in (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2001). The information on the behavior and design of composite shear
wall will appear in a Steel TIPS report (Astaneh-Asl, 2001). In the following, the discussion is
limited to the steel plate shear wall tests at UC-Berkeley (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000).

The test specimens for steel plate shear wall tests were two 1/2-scale, 3-story steel shear
wall frame assembly shown in Figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11. Typical specimen and test set-up
(Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000).

At this writing (July 2001) two specimens have been tested. Specimens One and Two The
first specimen, shown in Figure 3.12, had height-to-width ratio of about 1.5 while the height-to-
width ratio of the wall in Specimen Two was 1.0. The specimens were half-scale realistic
representatives of the steel shear wall-moment frame (dual) system used in high-rise structures.
Figure 3.13 shows this steel shear wall system. A number of structures with this type of steel
shear wall have been designed by Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire and constructed on the
West Coast of the United States. The most important building with this type of wall is a 51-story
high rise currently under construction in San Francisco (see Section 2.7 of this report). In the
following, a brief summary of behavior of the first specimen is provided. Figure 3.13 shows basic
details of the system being tested and studied by Astaneh-Asl and Zhao (2000).
Specimen One behaved in a very ductile and desirable manner. Up to inter-story drifts of
about 0.6%, the specimen was almost elastic. At this drift level some yield lines appeared on the
wall plate as well as WF column (non-gravity column). Up to inter-story drifts of about 2.2%, the
compression diagonal in the wall panels was buckling and the diagonal tension field was yielding.
At this level, the WF column developed local buckling. The specimen could tolerate 79 cycles, out

Test
Specimen
R/C Reaction
Block
750 tons Actuator
6200mm
(20-4)
Photo: R.Jung Jung, (Astaneh-Asl, and Zhao, 2000)

which 39 cycles were inelastic, before reaching an inter-story drift of more than 3.3% and
maximum shear, strength of about 917 kips. At this level of drift, the upper floor-coupling beam
fractured at the face of the column (due to low-cycle fatigue) and the shear strength of the
specimen dropped to about 60% of the maximum capacity of the specimen. Figure 3.13 shows
the specimen at the end of the test (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000).

Figure 3.12. Components of the tested system and bolted splice

Figure 3.13. Specimen UCB-1 at the end of the test

Photo: F. Samad, Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000)

Concrete-Filled
Tube Column
Bolted Splice
Non-Gravity
Members
Steel Plate
Shear wall
(From: Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000)
Photo by Bruce Cook. Loaned from Office of Public Affairs,
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

Similar to Specimen One, Specimen Two also behaved in a ductile and desirable manner.
Up to inter-story drifts of about 0.7%, the specimen was almost elastic. At this drift level some
yield lines appeared on the wall plate and the force-displacement curve started to deviate from the
straight elastic line. During later cycles a distinct X-shaped yield line was clearly visible on the
steel plate shear walls as shown in Figure 3.14. The specimen could tolerate 29 cycles, out of
which 15 cycles were inelastic. The specimen reached an inter-story drift of more than 2.2% and
maximum shear force of 1,225 kips. At this level of drift, the upper floor-coupling beam fractured
at the face of the column (due to low-cycle fatigue) and the shear strength of the specimen
dropped to about 75 % of the maximum shear force reached in previous cycles (1,225 kips). Since
capacity had dropped below 80% of maximum strength, the specimen was considered failed and
the testing stopped. Figure 3.15 shows the hysteresis loops for the walls in first floor and second
floor of this specimen. More information on these tests can be found in Astaneh-Asl and Zhao
(2001).

Figure 3.14. Views of Specimen Two during the test and at the end of the test
(Astaneh-Asl and Zhao , 2001)

End of Test, Fracture
of Coupling Beam
At 2% Drift

Figure 3.15. Shear force-drift Hysteresis loops for two floors of Specimen Two


4. CODE PROVISIONS

Currently, there is considerable information in the literature and in the US codes that can
be used for a rational seismic design of steel shear walls. However, the current seismic codes in
the United States do not provide specific values for a number of seismic design parameters for
steel shear walls. In particular, US codes do not have specific values for seismic design
parameters such as response modification factor R and system over-strength factor
for steel
plate shear wall systems. Also, provisions regarding detailing of steel shear walls are almost non-
existent in US codes. Following sections provide a summary of current seismic design provisions
in the US codes relevant to steel plate shear walls. In addition, whenever US codes do not provide
a key parameter or an important provision, the author has proposed a conservative value of the
parameter.

This chapter discusses code provisions primarily from UBC-97 (ICBO, 1997), IBC-2000
(ICC, 2000), SEAOC Blue Book (SEAOC, 1999) and AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997).
The reader is assumed to be familiar with at least one of the UBC-97, SEAOC-99 or IBC-2000
codes and the AISC-97 Seismic Provisions. The code provisions quoted here are for discussion
only. In actual seismic design, the users should refer to the actual code document. The author
would like to caution the user that the design recommendations proposed in this chapter are for
information only. Anyone using such information takes full responsibility for their use.

4.1. Code Provisions Relevant to Seismic Design of Steel Shear Walls

Currently in highly seismic areas of the US the structural engineers frequently use Uniform
Building Code (ICBO, 1997). A few months ago, the first edition of the International Building
Code, IBC-2000 was released (ICC-2000). Since IBC-2000 is more refined and updated
compared to UBC-97, it was felt that as more and more jurisdictions adopt the IBC-2000, it is
hoped that it would replace UBC-97 in the coming years. Therefore, in the following sections, the
code provisions of the IBC-2000, relevant to steel plate shear walls, are discussed. Whenever
appropriate, information and provisions from other seismic design codes such as the National
Building Code of Canada (CCBFC, 1995), Recommended Lateral Force Requirement


and Commentary (SEAOC-99) and the AISC-Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) are also
discussed.

4.2. Establishing Earthquake Loads for Steel Plate Shear Wall Systems
Using the US Codes

The UBC-97, SEAOC-99 and IBC-2000 have seismic load effects E and E
m
that involve
information related to the structural system. E and E
m
are used in IBC-2000 (as well as in other
US codes) in load combinations that are specific to seismic design. Values of E and E
m
are given
as follows. These are Equations 16-28, 29 and 30 of the IBC-2000.

D S 2 . 0 Q E
DS E
= (4.1)

D S 2 . 0 Q E
DS E m
=

(4.2)

In the above equations, negative sign should be used for the second term whenever the
gravity and seismic effects counteract. For definition of terms in all equations in this report, see
Notations on Page iv. All terms in the above equations, with the exception of , Q
E
and
?
, are
independent of the structural system used. Therefore, for steel plate shear wall system, the
parameters that are independent of the system should be established the same way as for any other
structural system such as braced frame or moment frame systems. The system-dependent
parameters and their values for steel plate shear walls are discussed in the following.

4.2.a. Value of for steel plate shear walls: The parameter , is a reliability factor based on the
system redundancy and is given in IBC-2000 (as well as in UBC-97) as:

i max
i
A r
20
2
i
= (4.3)

Where,
i
max
r and A
i
for steel shear walls are defined by IBC-2000 (and UBC-97). For definition
of these and other terms see Notations in Page iv of this report.

4.2.b. Value of Q
E
(and R-factor) for steel plate shear walls: The term Q
E
, represents the
effects of horizontal seismic forces. In establishing Q
E
, if Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
of the code is used, first base shear V has to be established. Most seismic design codes have a
procedure to establish V. The IBC-2000 provides the following equation for V:

W C V
s
= (4.4)


and;

=
E
DS
s
I
R
S
C
(4.5)

For definition of terms in all equations in this report, see Notations on Page iv. All terms
in the above equations, with the exception of R, the response modification factor, are independent
of the seismic-force-resisting system. Design codes in general provide values of R for most
common structural systems. The IBC-2000 (as well as UBC-97 and SEAOC-99) provides values
of R for more than 70 different seismic-force-resisting systems. However, currently US codes do
not give any value of R for steel shear walls.

Currently. the National Building Code of Canada (CCBFC, 1995), in its non-mandatory
Appendix M, has specific provisions on Design Requirements for unstiffened steel plate shear
walls including R factors. The Canadian code discusses only unstiffened relatively thin steel plate
shear walls welded along their boundaries to beams and columns. The Canadian code (CCBFC,
1995) provides a value of R equal to 4.0 (in Canadian notation) for steel plate shear walls within a
special moment frame. When Canadian R of 4.0 is converted to equivalent value with US code
terminology it becomes approximately 8.0.

The R factors in the codes have evolved over the years from earlier parameter, K. In early
days of seismic design, structural engineers understood correctly that during a major or even a
moderate earthquake, many elements of a structure could yield and deform and dissipate energy
of earthquake. This very important yet relatively complex phenomenon results in reduction of
seismic forces in a structure compared to the case of the structure remaining fully elastic. Since,
even today, most structures are analyzed using elastic analysis methods, such methods result in
seismic forces much greater than actual forces that will be developed in the structure. To estimate
the actual seismic forces, in early days of modern seismic design, the elastic forces were multiplied
by a K factor which was generally a number less than 1.0. The K factors were established for most
common systems intuitively and consensually by the structural and earthquake engineering
community. Later, K factor was replaced with R
w
(for working stress level design) and then with
R factor for factored load design.

Although no specific research has been done on identifying all parameters affecting R, by
studying the data from performance of structures during earthquakes, laboratory test results and
analytical studies, it appears that R factor depends on primarily ductility, over-strength, period of
vibration and redundancy in the system (ATC, 1995). In addition other parameters affecting R
appear to be vulnerability of gravity load carrying system in case of excessive inelasticity,
possibility of progressive collapse in case of local failure, positive or negative contributions of
non-structural elements, fracture behavior of the material of the structure, characteristics of the
ground motion, properties of the supporting soil, dynamic interaction of the ground, interaction of
the foundation system and the structure as well as damping in the system.

Currently, most values of R, given in the codes still have their roots in the K factors of
early days of seismic design. Other R factors added in recent years, for example R factors for
composite systems, were established by code committees using engineering judgment, intuition
and the R factor already established for other structural systems that would have similar seismic
behavior to the new system. This may not seem very scientific but in the opinion of this author,
since it brings in the collective knowledge, experience and wisdom of the structural engineering
community in designing structures and observing their performance during earthquakes and in
laboratories, the approach is rational. It appears that in design it may be better to have a less
accurate method based on reliable and extensive past experience than a very precise method but
using limited data from a few tests or worse from pure analysis. Considering many complex
parameters affecting R, which are not well understood and established in a reliable manner yet, a
purely mathematical approach to establishing R at this time may not be the most reliable
approach.

In recent years, several attempts have been made to develop a rational basis for
establishing R factors instead of relying fully on intuition and engineering judgment. The reader is
referred to Applied Technology Council publication ATC-19, (ATC, 1995) and SEAOC Blue
Book (SEAOC, 1999) for more information on these methods and how one can establish R
factors for new systems such as steel plate shear walls not included in the current codes.

The Seismology Committee of SEAOC has broken R factor into two separate parts
(SEAOC, 1999):

R= R
o
Rd

(4.6)

Where, Ro represents the over-strength portion of R and R
d
represents the reduction in
seismic force due to inelastic actions in the structure. One can establish values of Ro and R
d
by
considering structural system characteristics listed by SEOAC (1999) as:

1. Observed and/or predicted system performance under strong ground motion.
2. Level of inelastic deformation capability.
3. Vulnerability of vertical load carrying system.
4. Degree of redundancy in lateral force carrying system.
5. Multiplicity of lines on resistance, such as back-up frames
(Excerpt from SEOAC Blue Book, 1999, Ref. (SEAOC, 1999)

The ability of steel plate shear walls to meet the above-listed characteristics is briefly
reviewed below.

1. Observed and/or predicted system performance under strong motion:

Chapter 2 of this report provided a summary of the available information on performance
of steel plate shear wall buildings during past earthquakes. Although only two buildings with steel
shear walls were severely shaken by the past earthquakes, these buildings have performed
extremely well. The damage to both buildings was very minor or no damage to the structure and
no damage to gravity load carrying systems.

The laboratory cyclic and shaking table tests, as summarized in Chapter 3, have indicated
very ductile and desirable behavior for the steel plate shear wall systems. The cyclic tests were
primarily conducted by Takanashi, Elgaali, Kulak, Ventura, Astaneh-Asl and their research
associates. The specimens in these tests ranged from one to four-story and were scaled models.
The largest specimens so far have been three-story, -scale (Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000). The
observed behavior and data from these tests, briefly summarized in Chapter 3, clearly indicate that
in all cases the steel shear wall systems demonstrated two main characteristics of a very
desirable system. The two characteristics were: (a) the systems had sufficient stiffness and
strength to resist low and moderate earthquakes as well as wind loads while remaining almost
elastic and; (b) the systems had high degree of redundancy, were very ductile, capable of
dissipating significant amount of energy while undergoing very large number of cyclic inelastic
load reversals beyond what might be expected during a major seismic event.

2. Level of inelastic deformation capability:
The performance of steel plate shear walls during actual earthquakes, discussed in Chapter
2, and the cyclic and shaking table tests of steel shear walls, summarized in Chapter 3, have
indicated that these systems can tolerate relatively large number of inelastic cycles. The ductility
of the tested systems expressed in terms of =
u
/
y
, was relatively high and in the order of 5 to
8. The test results indicate that from ductility point of view the steel plate shear walls posses
larger ductility than all other structural systems that are currently listed in seismic design codes
and have R-factors assigned to them.

3. Vulnerability of vertical load carrying system:
Data on the actual behavior of steel shear walls during earthquakes and their behavior
when subjected to cyclic loading in laboratories, summarized briefly in Chapters 2 and 3, indicate
that in these systems the inelasticity is primarily in the non-gravity carrying element of the system,
which is the steel wall itself. Such yield behavior is very desirable since the gravity load carrying
systems remaining undamaged, can carry gravity load during and after the seismic event and
prevent collapse.

In structures where the boundary columns of the shear wall system are carrying gravity
load, failure of columns during an earthquake can result in unacceptable vulnerability of the
gravity load carrying system. This is a problem for almost all shear wall systems, steel and
concrete, where boundary columns have to resist the axial forces due to seismic overturning
moments in addition to their gravity load. To prevent failure of gravity load carrying boundary
columns, a hierarchical seismic design procedure should be followed. In the hierarchical design
procedure the order of failure modes are such that the failure modes that can harm gravity load

carrying elements do not occur until more desirable failure modes such as yielding of tension field
areas in the wall have occurred. The yielding of non-gravity carrying elements can be designed to
act as a fuse to limit the amount of force that can be transmitted to more critical gravity load
carrying elements such as boundary columns. In Chapter 5, a hierarchical seismic design
procedure for steel plate shear walls is developed and suggested by the author. If the proposed
procedure is used it is expected to result in inelasticity mainly in the form of yielding of steel plate,
taking place in non-gravity carrying elements which act as plastic fuses to protect gravity load
carrying elements such as columns from buckling or tension yielding.

Another approach to ensure that gravity load carrying elements such as boundary columns
are not vulnerable is to design boundary columns of the shear wall very strong with almost no
possibility of inelasticity or avoid gravity load from being transferred to boundary columns
altogether. The SWMB has successfully implemented the concept in developing their steel plate
shear wall system. A. Astaneh-Asl and Zhao (2000) recently tested the system and found it to be
quite ductile. Chapter 4 of this report has a summary of behavior of this system.

4. Degree of redundancy in lateral force carrying system:
Degree of redundancy of a structure can be considered at two levels: (a) at the global
structural level by studying how many lateral force resisting systems there are in the structure and
how well they are distributed in the plan and over the height of the structure and (b) at the local
level of lateral load resisting system itself by studying how much redundancy and force
distribution capability the lateral force resisting system has within a given story and over the
height. The issue of global redundancy currently is handled by codes through introduction of
factor and is not incorporated into R factors directly. The and code provisions to establish it
for a steel plate shear wall system was discussed earlier in this chapter in Section 4.2.a.

The issue of redundancy within the lateral force resisting system is very important and
influences the R factors. Tests of one to four-story steel plate shear wall systems, summarized in
Chapter 3, have indicated that steel shear walls have very high degree of redundancy by the fact
that plates are highly indeterminate systems. When diagonal areas of a steel plate shear wall yields,
during subsequent cycles the yielded area steel resists the force but the extra force is shed to
neighboring areas of the plate and the yielding continues to spread to more areas of the plate.
During the tests conducted by Astaneh-Asl and Zhao (2000) at very late cycles of behavior and
after a few inches of the steel plate on the diagonal tension axis had fractured, the wall was still
carrying the applied load. This was due to the fact that the tensile diagonal force was resisted by
the areas of the plate off the diagonal axis that still were elastic or yielded but not fractured.

5. Multiplicity of lines on resistance, such as back-up frames
When steel plate shear wall is not part of a dual system, the structural engineer generally
models the frames to have pin connections. In reality, the frames have shear connections and
studies of shear connections subjected to seismic effects (Liu and Astaneh-Asl, 2000) clearly have
indicated that these connections act more or less as semi-rigid and posses considerable moment
capacity in the order of 20%-70% of plastic moment capacity of connected beams. Although in

current practice structural engineers do not include such moment capacities in design, in reality
the capacities exist and contribute to lateral load-resisting system. In case of steel plate shear walls
that are part of a frame with simple connections, the simple frames acting as semi-rigid frames
provide a good back up system for the steel shear walls. These back-up systems are not
considered in design but are there as additional, albeit with relatively less capacity, lateral force
resisting systems.

In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, A. Astaneh-Asl (1995) studied the
damaged steel moment frames and concluded for the first time, and to the disbelief of a few
structural engineers that even after all welded moment connections of the study structures were
cracked, still the structures were not in danger of immediate collapse due to aftershocks or other
earthquakes. Other researchers later substantiated these findings as well. The main reason for the
stability of damaged moment frames was attributed by Astaneh-Asl et al. (1998) to contribution of
shear connections acting as semi-rigid connections with the floor slab and producing semi-rigid
frames made of these connections, floor system and gravity columns outside the moment frames.
Such a system acts as a very good backup system for steel plate shear walls as they do for
moment frame systems.

For the case of dual shear wall systems, steel shear walls are combined with moment
frames to resist lateral forces. Obviously, due to high elastic stiffness of the steel shear walls;
during the elastic range of behavior and even when wall has some limited yielding, the wall will
resist the bulk of the lateral force. As yielding spreads more and more into the off diagonal areas
of the wall and the stiffness of the steel wall decreases sufficiently, the stiffness of the moment
frame becomes comparable and steel wall and moment frame share the lateral force in a more
balanced manner. This phenomenon has been clearly observed and recorded during the recent
steel shear wall tests by Astaneh-Asl and Zhao (2000).

It is interesting to note that if the steel plate shear wall is placed inside the moment frame
(instead of being parallel to it and on a different frame line), the presence of the wall plates at the
corners of the moment frame create gusset plate like brackets that can help reduce the rotation
demand on the connections of the moment frame. Also, when shear wall is placed inside the
moment frame, the sharing of lateral force between the wall and moment frame is direct. In this
case, there is no need for stiff and strong floor diaphragm for transfer of load between the shear
wall and the moment frame. Because of these two advantages, in the opinion of the author, dual
systems where steel plate shear walls are placed within the moment frame are preferred and
expected to exhibit good behavior.

Considering above discussion on R factors, using the information on actual behavior of
steel plate shear walls in the laboratory and during earthquakes, in the following, an attempt is
made by the author to develop and propose tentative R factors for steel plate shear walls. Code-
writing bodies for inclusion can consider these tentative R-factors in seismic codes after peer
review and receiving consensual approval of the structural engineering community.


Table 4.1 shows values of R, as well as other design parameters, for selective seismic-
force-resisting systems relevant to shear walls. The values in the table are those given in a similar,
but more extensive table in IBC-2000 (and by UBC-97).

Table 4.1. Design Coefficients and Factors for Basic Seismic-force-resisting Systems
(The values in the table are those given by the IBC-2000)
Height Limitations (feet) by Seismic
Design Category as Determined in
Section 1616.3 of IBC-2000

Resp-
onse
Modifi
-cation
Factor
,
R
System
Over-
Strength
Factor

o

Deflection
Amplifi-
cation
Factor,

C
d
A or
B
C D E F
moment-resisting connections at columns
away from links
8 2 4 NL NL 160 160 100
Steel eccentrically braced frames, non-
moment-resisting connections at columns
away from links
7 2 4 NL NL 160 160 100
Special steel concentrically braced
frames
6 2 4 NL NL 160 160 100
Ordinary steel concentrically braced
frames
5 2 4 NL NL 160 160 100
Special reinforced concrete shear walls 6 2 5 NL NL 160 160 100
Composite eccentrically braced frames 8 2 4 NL NL 160 160 100
Special composite reinforced concrete
shear walls with steel elements
6 2.5 5 NL NL 160 160 100
Special steel moment frames 8 3 5.5 NL NL NL NL NL
Special reinforced concrete moment
frames
8 3 5.5 NL NL NL NL NL
Dual system with special moment frames
and steel eccentrically braced frames,
moment-resisting connections, at
8 2.5 4 NL NL NL NL NL
and steel eccentric braced frames, -
moment-resisting connections, at
8 2.5 4 NL NL NL NL NL
and special steel concentrically braced
frames
8 2.5 6.5 NL NL NL NL NL
and special reinforced concrete shear
walls
and composite steel plate shear walls
Notes: 1. This table only shows few systems and should not be used in actual design. For design refer to Table
1617.6 of IBC-2000.
2. NL=No Limit

Table 2 shows suggested values of R, the response modification factor, for some common
types of steel shear walls. The test data indicate that if dual steel shear wall systems are designed

such that the yielding of steel plate ( in a tension field action) occurs before failure of other
elements of the system, the wall will behave in a very ductile manner and can tolerate very large
number of inelastic cycles without loosing either its seismic-force-resisting strength or gravity
load carrying capacity (see Astaneh-Asl and Zhao, 2000). Therefore, to be consistent with R
factors prescribed by codes for other systems, a value of R equal to 8.0 to 8.5 is proposed for
special dual steel plate shear wall systems, see Table 4.2. The requirements of dual steel plate
shear wall system are given in Table 4.2. However, it can be mentioned that the two requirements
of such systems are: (a) the back-up moment frame should be a special moment frame and (b) the
hierarchy of failure modes should be such that the yield failure modes occur prior to fracture
failure modes in all elements that experience inelastic behavior and; (c) all connections are
stronger than the connected members if members experience inelastic behavior.

Table 4.2. Proposed Design Coefficients and Factors for Steel Shear Wall
Seismic-force-resisting systems
(The author A. Astaneh-Asl tentatively proposed the values in the table)
Height Limitations (feet) by
Seismic Design Category as
Determined in Section 1616.3 of
IBC-2000

Resp-
onse
Modifi-
cation
Factor,

R
System
Over-
Strength
Factor

o

Deflection
Amplifi-
cation
Factor,

C
d

A or
B

C

D

E

F
1. Un-stiffened steel plate shear walls
inside a gravity carrying steel frame with
simple beam to column connections
6.5 2 5 NL NL 160 160 100
2. Stiffened steel plate shear walls inside
a gravity carrying steel frame with
simple beam-to-column connections
7.0

2

5

NL NL 160 160 160
3. Dual system with special steel
moment frames and un-stiffened steel
plate shear walls
8 2.5

4 NL NL NL NL NL
4. Dual system with special steel
moment frames and stiffened steel plate
shear walls
8.5 2.5

4

NL NL NL NL NL
Note: NL=No Limit

For un-stiffened steel plate shear walls that are not part of a dual system but are infill to a
simply supported frame, a value of R factor equal to 6.5 is suggested. There is very limited
number of tests done on steel shear walls inside simply supported frames. Intuitively, it is
expected that the behavior of such system to be equal or better than the behavior of special
concentrically braced frames for which an R-value of 6.5 is given in IBC-2000 (and UBC-97). For
stiffened steel shear walls that are not part of a dual system, an R factor of 7.0 is suggested
provided that b/t of stiffeners as well as plate panels is less than 52/ F
y
, the current limit for
compact sections in seismic design (AISC, 1997).


4.2.c. Value of
, for steel shear walls: The IBC-2000 (ICC, 2000) provides values of
, the
over strength factor, for a variety of seismic-force-resisting systems. The factor is used to amplify
seismic forces in design of specified structural elements and their connections to adjoining
elements (SEAOC, 99). However, currently there are no values of

, for steel shear walls in
US codes. Table 4.1 shows values of
and other design parameters for a number of typical

systems given by IBC-2000 (and by UBC-97). By comparison to other systems and considering
the results of available tests, a value of

equal to 2.5 is proposed for stiffened and un-stiffened
shear walls as part of a dual system or standard system, see Table 4.2.

4.2.d. Value of C
d
, for steel shear walls: Suggested values of C
d
, the deflection amplification
factor, for a number of steel shear wall systems are given in Table 4.2. The selection of these
values was based on being consistent with C
d
values for systems that exhibit similar stiffness,
strength, and post yield behavior and ductility. The C
d
values for these similar systems are given
in Table 4.1.

4.3. Seismic Provisions for Steel Plate Shear Walls

The previous section discussed issues related to the Demand side of the design equation:
Demand < Capacity and how to establish earthquake loads for steel plate shear walls. This
section discusses issues related to Capacity side of the design equation. These issues for seismic
design of steel structures are currently addressed by Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings(AISC, 1997), developed and published by the American Institute of Steel Construction
Inc. Although there are no specific provisions in this document on steel plate shear walls, there
are many provisions for seismic design of other systems that are equally applicable to steel plate
shear walls. In the following sections, these provisions are discussed and some suggestions are
provided that, after being subjected to the professional review and refinements, can be
incorporated into the seismic design codes.

4.4. AISC Seismic Provisions Directly Relevant to Steel Shear Wall Systems

The AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Buildings (AISC, 1997) gives values of
o,

the over-strength factor for moment frames, eccentric braced frames and all other systems as 3,
2.5 and 2 respectively. Suggested values of
o
for steel shear walls are given in Table 4.2.

The AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) has Expected Yield Strength, F
ye
, defined by
the following equation to be used in design of certain connections or related members. In chapter
5, when design recommendations for steel plate shear walls are discussed, in some cases, instead
of specified yield stress, the Expected Yield Strength is used.

F
ye
= R
y
F
y
(4.7)


Where, F
ye is
the specified minimum yield strength and R
y
is a factor ranging from 1.1 to
1.5 depending on the grade of steel and weather the element is a rolled shape or a plate. The
provisions given by AISC (1997) on Notch-toughness Steel (Section 6.3 of AISC, 97) equally
applies to steel plate shear walls.

The provisions of AISC (1997) on Connections, Joints and Fasteners (Section 7 of the
AISC-97) and on Columns (Section 8 of the AISC 97) are equally applicable to steel plate shear
walls.

When a steel shear wall is combined with a moment frame to result in a dual system
defined by the U.S. codes, the moment frames being Special should satisfy the requirements of
Sections 9 of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). Since data on performance of a dual
system where steel shear wall is combined with Ordinary moment frame, Intermediate moment
frame or Special Truss Moment Frame is almost non-existent, at this time and until more data
becomes available such combination is not addressed in this report. This does not necessarily
mean that such combinations could not be viable systems; only the user needs to establish its
actual performance through realistic testing.

AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) has provisions on Quality Assurance, which is
equally applicable to steel plate shear walls. Reviewing the AISC Seismic Provisions, it is clear
that there is an urgent need for a section in the document devoted to Steel Shear Walls similar to
sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which are devoted to seismic design of various types of moment
frames and braced frames.

4.5. Information on Shear Wall Design from Canadian Code

The National Building Code of Canada (CCBFC, 1995) has provisions on modeling and
design of steel plate shear walls. The steel plate shear wall system covered in the Canadian code
consists of relatively thin plate and without horizontal or vertical stiffeners. The story shears are
assumed to be carried only by the tension field action of the thin plate after its buckling. The
relatively small buckling capacity of the compression diagonal in the plate is ignored.

The Canadian Code divides steel plate shear walls into three categories of Ductile,
Nominally Ductile and Ordinary. Table 4.3 provides the main characteristics of these three
systems with associated R-factors. It should be mentioned that the R-factors used in the Canadian
code are about 1/2 of the corresponding value in the U.S. codes. This is due to definition of terms
in two codes and slight difference in values of parameters involved. For this reason, in the
following table, the R-factor in the Canadian and the US codes are denoted as R
CAN
and R
US

respectively.


Table 4.3. Steel Plate Shear Wall Systems in Canadian Code and Their R-Factors
Type of
Steel Plate Shear Wall

Requirement
RCAN
(Canadian)
RUS
(US
Equivalent)
Ductile The frame containing the wall should be ductile moment frame 4.0 8.0
Nominally Ductile The frame containing the wall should be nominally ductile
moment frame (Intermediate in the U.S. definition)..
3.0 6.0
Ordinary No specific requirement for frame. It can be a frame with pin
connections.
2.0 4.0

Appendix M of the National Building Code of Canada (CCBFC, 1995) is devoted to
design requirement for steel plate shear walls. The Appendix states that the behavior of steel plate
shear wall is similar to behavior of steel plate girders. The Appendix has provisions on how to
replace a thin steel plate shear wall with diagonal pin-ended strips and what should be the angle of
inclination of the strips. The Appendix has a provision regarding design of connections. It states
that the connections of steel plate to the surrounding beams and columns should develop the steel
plate.

5. SEISMIC DESIGN
OF STEEL SHEAR
WALLS

This chapter discusses seismic design and modeling of steel shear walls and provides seismic
design recommendations.

5.1. Types of Steel Shear Wall Systems

Two types of steel shear walls are shown in Figure 5.1. These are standard and dual
systems. In a standard steel shear wall system the beam-to-column joints have simple
connections. As a result, the steel shear walls are assumed in design to be the only lateral-force-
resisting element in the system. As mentioned in the previous chapter, it has been established (Liu
and Astaneh-Asl, 2000) that the simple connections in steel structures have considerable moment
capacity and behave in a semi-rigid manner rather than acting as a pin connection as the current
practice assumes. In a dual steel shear wall system there are moment frames parallel to the plane
of steel shear wall or in the plane of the shear wall. In this case, the moment frames act as back
up systems to the primary lateral-force-resisting system which is the steel shear wall.

Figure 5.1 Two types of steel plate shear walls: (a) standard and; (b) dual system

Simply - Supported
Steel Frame

Steel Plate

Shear Wall

Steel
Moment
Frame
Steel Plate
Shear Wall
(a)
(b)

Steel shear walls can be either stiffened or un-stiffened. In early applications of steel plate
shear walls in the U.S., particularly for seismic retrofit, the walls were stiffened. Almost in all
steel plate shear wall applications in Japan, according to existing literature, the steel plates are
also stiffened. However during the last decade, a number of steel plate shear walls have been
designed and constructed in the United States and Canada, using un-stiffened steel plate shear
walls.

In using stiffened plate, the goal is to prevent buckling of the steel plate prior to shear
yielding. In un-stiffened steel plate shear walls buckling of plate is permitted and the goal is to
use diagonal tension field action in the wall to carry story shear. As a result, the stiffened steel
shear walls tend to be thinner compared to un-stiffened steel plate shear walls when both are
designed to carry the same shear.

In choosing stiffened or un-stiffened steel shear wall, the designer needs to consider
seismic performance, architectural requirements, economy, ease of fabrication, transportation and
erection. Seismic performance was discussed in the previous chapters. Both stiffened and un-
stiffened steel plate shear walls, when designed properly, are expected to exhibit very desirable
performance. From economical point of view, the un-stiffened shear walls are expected to be less
costly since welding stiffeners to the steel plate is a labor-intensive activity. Of course, for the
same thickness of steel plate, stiffened shear walls provide higher shear strength than the un-
stiffened shear walls. Also in stiffened shear walls, the over-turning moment is shared by the
boundary columns and the shear wall much like in an I-shape beam where the flange carries the
bulk of bending effects and the web carries some bending moment and the bulk of shear.

In an un-stiffened wall the steel plate, due to initial buckling of compression diagonal,
cannot participate in carrying significant amount of over-turning moment. As a result of additional
compression in the boundary columns due to over-turning moments and the formation of tension
field, the boundary columns in an un-stiffened shear wall may end up being somewhat heavier than
the columns in a similar condition but with stiffened wall. However, the cost of welding stiffeners
in todays fabrication shops, far exceeds the gain in strength of the wall and reduction in the
forces imposed on the columns by stiffening the wall. Therefore, the author does not recommend
common use of stiffened shear walls unless, due to openings being present and a need to stiffen
the boundaries of these openings, the stiffened shear wall may be more economical.

5.2. Behavior of Steel Shear Walls Under Applied Shear

Figure 5.2 shows schematic variation of shear strength of a steel shear wall versus its
slenderness ratio. The plot is actually based on the information established for plate girder
behavior and design in the AISC Specification (AISC, 1999), but it is approximately applicable to
the steel plate shear walls. Depending on slenderness of a shear wall, it can be categorized as
Compact, Non-Compact and Slender as shown in Figure 5.2. Each gategory is discussed further
in the following sections.


1. Category1, where the slenderness of the wall defined by h/t
w
is less than
p
equal to

yw v
F / E k 10 . 1 . For definition of terms see Notations on Page iv of this report. Steel
shear walls in this category are denoted as compact. It is expected that under applied
shear, as shown in Figure 5.3, the steel plate will yield in shear before buckling occurs. It
is not economically feasible, nor necessary, to design un-stiffened steel plate shear walls to
behave in a compact and plastic manner and have an h/t
w
less than
p.
However, stiffened
steel shear walls can be designed to develop this condition. This subject and how to
design steel shear walls to achieve full plastic condition are discussed further later in this
chapter.

2. Category 2, where the slenderness ratio h/t
w
is larger than
p
but smaller than
r
equal
given as
yw v
F / E k 37 . 1 . This category is denoted non-compact. It is expected that
walls that fall in this category are expected to buckle while some shear yielding has already
taken place. In this case, the story shear is resisted by the horizontal components of the
tension and compression diagonal forces as shown in Figure 5.3.

3. Category 3, where the wall is very slender and its h/ t
w
is greater than
r
. Shear walls in
this category can be called Slender and are expected to buckle while almost elastic.

Figure 5.2. Three regions of behavior of steel shear walls

Compact Steel Shear Wall Non-Compact and SlenderSteel Shear Wall

Figure 5.3. Steel shear walls resisting shear in shear yielding and tension field action
h/t
w

1.0
V/Vy
0
1
2
Compact
Non-compact
Slender
3
t
w
h
V
V
y

V
V
cr
cr
yw v
F / E k 10 . 1
yw v
F / E k 37 . 1

5.3. Design Criteria for Performance Based Design of Steel Shear Walls

When steel shear walls are designed using R,
o
and C
d
values given in Chapter 4,
the design criteria should be such that the system is sufficiently ductile and has enough over-
strength. In order to achieve such performance with high ductility and over-strength in design,
the following design procedure is developed and proposed. The basis of this procedure in general
is to ensure that the ductile failure modes occur before brittle failure modes and inelasticity starts
first in non-gravity carrying members of the system and then if necessary spreads into gravity load
carrying elements towards the end of seismic event and in a controlled manner such that
progressive collapse does not occur.

5.4. Developing Seismic Design Procedures for Steel Shear Wall Systems

The steps taken in developing seismic design procedures for steel plate shear walls are
given below. These are the same steps taken by the author in developing design procedures for
shear connections (Astaneh-Asl et al, 1989), bolted moment frames (Astaneh-Asl, 1995), column
tree moment frames, (Astaneh-Asl, 1997) and gusset plates (Astaneh-Asl, 1998).

Steps taken in developing proposed design procedures:

1. An extensive literature survey is conducted to collect the information on the actual
behavior of the system
2. Failure modes ( limit states) of the system are identified
3. Failure modes are grouped into ductile and brittle. The yield failure modes in general
are considered ductile unless in rare occasions because of constraints on plastic flow, the
yielding is not as ductile as desired. On the other hand the fracture failure modes are
generally considered brittle. Buckling failure mode, depending on whether it is inelastic or
elastic buckling, is considered ductile or brittle respectively. Slippage of bolts is
considered ductile and the most desirable limit state for seismic design.
4. Failure modes are placed in a hierarchical order such that: (a) for members that can
experience inelastic behavior, ductile failure modes should occur prior to brittle failure
modes and; (b) non-gravity carrying elements, such as wall plate, reach their governing
limit state prior to gravity carrying members do.
5. Design equations are developed for all failure modes such that the hierarchical order of the
failure modes is materialized.

In the following the application of above steps to seismic design of steel shear walls is
explained. The resulting proposed design procedures are given at the end of this chapter.

5.4.a. Major failure modes
The failure modes of typical steel plate shear walls are:


Failure modes of steel plate wall
1. Slippage of bolts (ductile).
2. Buckling of the steel plate (ductile).
3. Yielding of the steel plate (ductile).
4. Fracture of wall plate (brittle).
5. Fracture of the connections of steel wall to boundary columns and beams (brittle).

Failure modes of top and bottom beams
6. Shear yielding of top and bottom beams (ductile).
7. Plastic hinge formation in top and bottom beams (ductile).
8. Local buckling in the top and bottom beam flanges or web (ductile if b/t
p
).
9. Fracture of moment connections of the beams in dual systems (brittle).
10. Overall or lateral-torsional buckling of beams (brittle).
11. Fracture of shear connections of beams (brittle).

Failure modes of Boundary Columns
12. Plastic hinge formation at the top and bottom of columns (ductile).
13. Local buckling of boundary columns (ductile if b/t
p
).
14. Overall buckling of boundary columns (ductile if 1.0.)
15. Tension fracture of boundary columns or their splices (brittle).
16. Yielding of base plates of boundary columns in uplift (ductile)
17. Fracture of anchor bolts or base plates at the base of columns in uplift (brittle)
18. Fracture of column base plates in bending and/or uplift (brittle)
19. Failure of foundations of the wall (brittle).

5.4.b. Hierarchical order of Failure modes
To obtain a desirable and ductile performance, the above failure modes can be listed with
respect to their desirability. This hierarchical order of failure modes is shown in Figure 5.4. The
hierarchical order is arranged such that the ductile failure modes of the wall itself, which is usually
a non-gravity carrying element, occur first followed by ductile failure modes of the top and
bottom beams and finally by ductile failure modes of the boundary columns. The brittle failure
modes are generally arranged to occur after ductile failure modes. Again, among brittle modes
also, it is desired that the brittle failure modes of the wall govern over those for the beams and
columns.
Slippage of the wall boundary bolts or splices should not be considered a consequential
failure mode. In fact, such slippage provides a mechanism of energy dissipation through friction
and introduces some beneficial semi-rigidity to the structure. Of course the slippage should not
occur under service lateral loads. Buckling of plate in slender shear walls does not appear to be
detrimental in performance and have no significant effect on the ultimate shear strength and
overall performance of the wall. If buckling of the wall, which will result in out-of-plane
deformations, is creating serviceability problems, then stiffened shear walls should be used to
delay buckling of the wall. Of course, as discussed earlier, such stiffened walls are expected to be
c
=(KL/r)(F
y
/ E)


more expensive. The yielding of diagonal tension field is the best mechanism of failure and should
be established as the governing failure mode in seismic design. The fracture in tension or buckling
in compression of boundary columns should be avoided in design since such failures can have
serious stability consequences as well as very high cost of post earthquake repairs.

Figure 5.4. Major failure modes of typical steel plate shear walls
in the order of their desirability from left to right

5.4.c. Design Equations for Failure Modes
As was suggested earlier, to obtain a desirable seismic behavior, steel plate shear walls
should be designed such that ductile failure modes, shown in Figure 5.4 above, are governing. To
achieve this, the capacity calculated for the brittle failure modes is suggested to be greater than
1.20 times the capacity of the ductile failure modes. All failure modes listed in Figure 5.4 are
well-known failure modes and are discussed in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction (AISC,
1994) and equations are provided that can be used to establish capacity of each failure mode.

5.5. Establishing Shear, Bending and Combined Shear-Bending Capacities of
Shear Walls
Using the analogy of shear walls being similar to plate girders, the vast amount of design
and modeling technology developed for plate girders can be adapted and applied to design of
steel shear walls.
The main differences between plate girders and shear walls are:
Load
Exceeds
Service
Load
Slippage
of Bolts
Buckling
of Steel
Wall
Tension
Yielding
of Wall
Comp.
Yielding
of Wall

Fracture
of Wall
Connec-
tions
Yielding
of Beams
in Shear
Yielding
of Beams in
Bending
Local
Buckling of
Beams
Plastic
Hinges
in the
Columns
Local
Buckling of
Columns
Fracture
of Beam
Moment
Conns
Fracture
of Beam
Shear
Conns.
Buckling
of Beams
Buckling
of Gravity
Columns
Fracture
of Cols.
In
Tension
Yielding
of Base
Plates
Failure of
Foundat-
ions
Fracture
of Anchor
Bolts
or Base
Pl.
Ductile Failure Modes
Brittle Failure Modes

1. Plate girders are seldom subjected to axial load. Although shear walls in many occasions are
subjected to axial load due to gravity, such axial loads are usually resisted by the boundary
columns and the steel shear wall itself is subjected to shear and bending only. The P- effects
of axial load in the boundary columns on the overall stability of the shear wall system should
be considered in the analysis.
2. The flanges in a plate girder are usually plates with relatively small bending stiffness in plane
of the shear web. In a shear wall, the boundary columns act as flanges and since these
columns are usually shapes instead of plates, they show larger bending stiffness and strength
in plane of the wall than the flanges of a plate girder. The effect of bending stiffness and
strength of the boundary columns is primarily in establishing the width and angle of
inclination of the tension field.
3. The stiffeners in a plate girder nowadays are plates welded to one side of the web. In shear
walls, the floor beams play the role of stiffeners. Obviously, the floor beams and if floor slab
is attached to it acts as much stiffer and stronger stiffener than the plate stiffeners in the plate
girder. The stiffness and strength of floor beams affects the boundary condition for buckling
of plate. The floor beams in a shear wall system provided almost a fixed boundary for the
steel plate. Also, the stiff and strong floor beams provide better anchor for the tension field
particularly after the steel plate shear wall has yielded in floors above and below.
4. Plate girders are generally studied under monotonic loading or low-amplitude fatigue type
loading while shear walls are expected to see relatively large inelastic cyclic loading. As
discussed in Chapter 3, currently considerable data is available on cyclic behavior of steel
plate shear walls.

Considering the above differences between steel plate girders and steel plate shear walls, it
appears that none of the differences is major and none will result in non-conservative design. If
anything, the plate girder equations might predict the capacity of the shear walls less than their
actual capacity. Such under-estimation of capacity will result in somewhat conservative design.
However, in design of foundations and other components that are designed to develop strength of
the shear wall, one has to establish more realistic capacity for shear wall using more sophisticated
model of behavior of shear walls. Valuable information on this can be found in SSRC Guide
(SSRC, 1998) and papers by Elgaali and his research associates (see References).

5.5.a. Shear Capacity of Steel Shear Walls

Shear capacity of steel shear walls can be established using the following procedures
which is an adaptation of procedures in the AISC Specifications (AISC, 1999) for steel plate
girders. For the background on these equations, the reader is referred to SSRC Guide (SSRC,
1998) edited by Theodore V. Galambos.


yw v
F / E k 10 . 1
yw v
F / E k 10 . 1 >
The shear capacity of steel plate shear walls, in LRFD format,
n v
V , where 90 . 0 =
v
and
n
V is determined as follows:

A. For compact shear walls when h/t
w

(5.1)

B. For non-compact and slender shear walls when h/t
w

(5.2)
Where k
v
is given by:

2
v
(a/h)
5
5 k + = (5.3)
The value of k
v
should be taken as 5.0 if a/h is greater than 3.0 or [260/(h/t
w
)]
2
.
The value of C
v
is given by AISC (1999) as:

(a) For
:
F
E k
37 . 1
t
h
F
E k
1.10
yw
v
w yw
v

w
yw v
v
t / h
F / E k 10 . 1
C = (5.4)

(b) For
:
F
E k
37 . 1
t
h
yw
v
w
>

yw
2
w
v
v
F ) t / h (
E k 51 . 1
C =
(5.5)

A
w
in the above equations is the shear area of the plate equal to (d
w
)(t
w
) and V
n
is the
minimum shear capacity of the wall based on minimum specified yield strength. The above
equations are adapted from plate girder equations given by the AISC Specifications (1999). In
design, the following equation should be satisfied:

2
) / ( 1 15 . 1
1
6 . 0
h a
C
F A V
v
yw w n
+
=
yw w n
F A V 6 . 0 =

n
V V (5.6)
where, V is the applied factor shear established by the analysis.

After design of steel plate, an expected shear capacity, V
ne
, should be calculated using
the actual shear area of the wall and the expected yield strength of steel. In stiffened shear walls,
if vertical stiffeners are substantial and particularly are made of channels, the cross sectional areas
of the vertical stiffeners should also be included in this calculation. The expected shear strength
of the wall is greater than the nominal shear strength given by above equations. The main reason
is strain hardening and the fact that today, actual yield strength of steel is generally greater than
the minimum specified value (i.e. 36 ksi for A36). The expected shear capacity of the wall will be
used in design of other elements of the system such as connections and boundary beams and
columns. V
ne
is given by:

n y pr ye
V R C V = (5.7)

For definition of all terms in this report, please refer to Page iv. C
pr
is a factor, originally
introduced by FEMA-350 (FEMA, 2000) for moment frames and here it is used to increase the
shear yield capacity of the steel plate due to strain hardening. The strain-hardened material is
assumed to have a yield point equal to the average of F
y
and F
u
. Therefore, C
pr
can be written as:

y u y u y pr
/2F F 1 ) )/(2F F F ( C + = + = (5.8)

R
y
is a factor to account for uncertainty in the specified value of F
y
and is given by AISC
(AISC, 1997). According to AISC (1997), R
y
for steel plate shear walls can be taken as 1.1.

5.5.b. Bending Capacity of Shear Wall

When Shear Wall is stiffened to reach shear yielding prior to buckling of plate,
considerable percentage of over-turning moment can be resisted by the stiffened wall plate.
However, in un-stiffened shear walls the bulk of over-turning moment is resisted by boundary
columns.

5.5.c. Combined V-M and V-M-P Capacities of a Steel Shear Wall

For stiffened shear walls and un-stiffened but compact shear walls, since the wall is
expected to participate in carrying shear as well as bending and axial force, an interaction curve
should be used to relate V, M and P acting on the shear wall. Depending on the location of a
panel in a stiffened shear wall, the panel will be subjected to a combination of shear and normal
stresses acting on its edges. Since stiffened shear walls are expected to be quite ductile, significant

redistribution of stress can take place prior to failure of the wall. Therefore, the capacity of the
stiffened wall will be summation of capacities of its individual panels.
The SSRC Guide (SSRC, 1998) has a summary on this issue and provides following
equation for the combined effects of shear and normal stresses acting on the edges of steel plate:

0 . 1
2
=
+
cr cr

(5.9)

For un-stiffened and slender shear walls, since the bulk of axial load and overturning
moment is resisted by columns, and the shear is carried by the tension field action of the wall,
there seems to be no significant interaction of shear and axial force and moment that warrants use
of an interaction equation.

5.6. Design of Connections of Steel Shear Wall Plates to Boundary Beams and
Columns
Two typical details of connections of steel plate shear wall to boundary beams and
columns are shown in Figure 5.5. The welded connections should be designed such that the
connection plates (fin plates) and welds develop the expected shear yield strength of the wall
given in previous section as C
pr
R
y
V
n

If field-bolted connections are used, the bolts should be slip critical and develop the
expected shear strength of the wall. Even if bolts are slip critical, it is expected that during the
cyclic loading of the wall, the bolts slip before the tension field yields. However, such slippage
will occur at a load level considerably above the service load level and not only is not harmful but
can be useful in improving the seismic behavior. Until more test results on bolted shear walls
become available, it is strongly recommended that even if wind loads govern, the slip-critical
bolts be used to connect the walls to boundary members and the bolts be designed not to slip
under a load equal to or greater than 1.2 times the service wind load.

Figure 5.5. Connection of steel plate shear wall to boundary beams and columns
Erection Bolts
Fillet Welds
Fillet Welds
Slip Critical Bolts

5.7. Design of top and bottom beams and columns
For dual shear wall systems when beams and columns are part of the special moment
frames, provisions of special moment frames should apply to design of these beams and columns.
For shear walls that are standard shear wall and not dual, the boundary beams and columns
should be designed such that the governing failure mode is one of their ductile failure mode, as
were listed earlier in this Chapter, and not the brittle failure modes To achieve this, one needs to
check the brittle failure modes and ensure that their capacity is at least 1.2 times the capacity of
ductile failure modes.
In addition, the boundary beams and columns of shear walls should satisfy the following
b/t requirements given by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997):

y f f
F 52/ /2t b
(5.10)


y f f
E/F / 31 . 0 /2t b
(5.10a)

y w c
F 520/ /t h (5.11)


y w c
E/F / 10 . 3 /t h (5.11a)

For definition of terms please refer to Page iv. The SAC Joint Venture (SAC, 2000)
suggests a limit of
y
F 418/ for welded moment connections instead of
y
F 520/ given by the
AISC (1997). The reason for choosing more relaxed limit of
y
F 520/ for web buckling of
beams and columns in this system is due to the fact that in the shear wall systems discussed here,
webs of columns and beams are part of the shear wall and it is unlikely that the webs will buckle
prior to buckling of the wall. It is recommended that the web thickness of beams and columns in
an un-stiffened steel shear system be at least the same thickness as the wall plate.

5.8. Modeling Steel Shear Walls in the Analysis
Depending on the steel plate shear wall being compact, non-compact or slender
and depending on the capabilities of the analysis software to handle plate buckling, shear walls
can be modeled in several ways. In the following a number of modeling techniques for compact
and non-compact/slender shear walls are briefly summarized. The three categories of shear
walls; compact, non-compact and slender can be seen in Figure 5.2.

A. Modeling of Compact Steel Plate Shear Walls:
In compact shear walls, the steel plate is expected to yield in shear before buckling.
Therefore in the analysis, the compact shear walls can be modeled using full shell elements and
isotropic material. It is suggested that the wall panel be modeled using at least 16 shell elements
(4x4 mesh) per panel. The shear force V acting on the cross section of the wall can be
calculated by adding up the shear in the elements. This applied shear force represents the demand
on the wall and should be less than or equal to shear capacity of the wall established later in this
chapter.

B. Modeling of Non-Compact Steel Plate Shear Walls:
The available test results on non-compact steel shear walls are mostly on shear walls with
much higher h/t
w
than
p
yw v
F / E k 10 . 1 =
. Most un-stiffened steel plate shear walls tested under
cyclic loading had h/t
w
greater than
e
yw v
F / k 53 . 3 = . Until more cyclic testing is done on
shear wall specimens with h/t
w
between
p
and
e,
the procedure outlined in this section should
be considered applicable only to un-stiffened shear walls with h/t
w
greater than
e.

In slender shear walls, steel plates are expected to buckle along compressive diagonals
under relatively small shear forces. After buckling, the tension field action of the tension diagonal
becomes the primary mechanism to resist shear force in the wall. This behavior should be
considered in the analysis by modeling shear walls using shell elements that can buckle. If the
analysis software does not have the capability to consider the buckling of shells, to simulate the
buckling of compression diagonal the shear walls can be modeled using full shell elements and
anisotropic material. Using anisotropic materials enables the analyst to assign different moduli of
elasticity and shear moduli to three principal directions of the wall such that the compression
diagonal will have much less stiffness and will attract much less shear in proportion to its
buckling capacity than the tension diagonal. It is suggested that the wall panel be modeled using
at least 16 shell elements (4x4 mesh) per panel. The shear force V acting on the cross section of
the wall can be calculated by adding up the shear in the shell elements. This applied shear force
represents the demand on the wall and should be less than or equal to shear capacity of the wall.
If the analysis software does not have anisotropic or at least orthotropic shell elements,
one can replace the steel plates with a series of truss members (struts) along the tension field.
Researchers in Canada have suggested two models for this purpose shown in Figure 5. 6. The
reader is referred to the corresponding references on the figure for more information on these
models.

Figure 5.8. Two models proposed for replacing shear wall with truss members
Steel Plate Shear Wall Model
(see Rezai, 2000)

= about 45
o
Steel Plate Shear Wall Model
(see Driver et al, 1983)

_______________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX-
SUGGESTED STEEL SHEAR
WALL SYSTEMS AND DETAILS
______________________________________________________________________

Figure A.1. shows typical steel shear wall systems that structural engineers have used in
the past or the author is suggesting to the reader as being economical and efficient systems.
Figures A.2, A.3 and A.4 show three details for steel shear walls. The detail in Figure A.2. was
used by Youssef (2000) and Troy and Richard (1988) in design of the 30-story high rise in Dallas
and the 6-story hospital in Sylmar near Los Angeles. Chapter 2 of this report included a summary
of these two structures. The system shown in Figure A.3 is a typical steel plate shear wall system
with the steel plate either field bolted or field-welded to the columns and girders. The system
shown in Figure A.4 is completely field bolted system where one or two-story assemblies of steel
plate, boundary columns and boundary beams are fabricated in the shop. Then shop-welded pre-
fabricated segments are erected in the field using bolted or welded splices in the columns and steel
walls.

Standard Shear Wall Coupled Shear Walls Out-rigger Shear
Wall

Figure A.1. Typical configurations for steel plate shear wall systems

Figure A.2. A Suggested steel plate shear wall system

Figure A.3. A shop-welded, field-bolted steel plate shear wall system
(Adopted from an application by Troy and Richard, 1988)
Column Section
Beam Section
Field-bolted splice in the plate
Double-channel beams shop-welded to plate
Floor
Field-bolted double angle connections
Beam Section
Special ductile moment connection
for dual systems
Field-bolted or field-welded to
fin plates. See details on the right
Bolts
Column Section
Fillet
Weld

Erection
Bolts
Weld
Fillet Welds
Field Fillet
Welds

Figure A.4. Shop-welded, field-bolted steel plate shear wall
Column Section
Beam Section
Fillet
Weld
Column Splice
Field Fillet
Welds

About the author.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., is professor of structural engineering at the University of
California, Berkeley. Dr. Astaneh-Asl received a master of science in civil engineering from Tehran
Polytechnic ( now Amir Kabir University) in I ran in 1968. He was a structural engineer and
construction manager from 1968 to 1978 in Tehran, designing and constructing more than five million
square feet of high-rise buildings and other structures mostly in steel, including elevated water tanks,
guyed towers, and industrial facilities much of which was designed according to United States
Specifications.

He received a master of science and a doctoral degree, both in structural engineering from the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1979 and 1982 respectively. After graduation, Dr. Astaneh-
Asl joined the faculty of the University of Oklahoma at Norman and conducted his design-oriented
research there for four years and taught courses on design of steel structures.

I n 1986, he joined the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley. Since then he has conducted
a number of projects on seismic behavior and design of steel and composite building and bridge
structures. He has published more than 140 papers and reports on various aspects of design of steel
and composite structures with emphasis on seismic design. Since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
he has conducted several major projects on studying seismic behavior and retrofit of major long span
steel bridges and high-rise steel structures. He has been involved in design of major building and
bridge structures and has been a consultant for major structures in US and overseas.

I n recent years, he has also been studying behavior of steel structures subjected to blasts and has been
involved in development and testing of mechanisms that can be used in new and existing steel-framed
buildings and bridges to prevent progressive collapse of the structures after an explosion attack. He is
the winner of the 1998 AI SC T.R. Higgins Award.

The author can be reached at:
Professor
Department of Civil and Env. Engineering
781 Davis Hall
University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710
Phone: (510) 642-4528, Fax: (510) 643-5258
Home office Phone and Fax: (925) 946-0903
e-mail: Astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu,
web page: www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh


P.O. Box 6190
Moraga, CA 94570
Tel. (925) 631-1313
Fax. (925) 631-1112

Fred Boettler, Administrator

Steel TIPS may be viewed and downloaded at www.aisc.org

S P O N S O R S

Adams & Smith Eandi Metal Works Plas-Tal Manufacturing Co.
Bannister Steel, Inc. Four Star Erectors Reno Iron Works
Baresel Corp The Herrick Corporation SME Industries
Bayle Manufacturing Hoertig Iron Works Schollenbarger-Borello, Inc.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Junior Steel Company Templeton Steel Fabrication
Bickerton Industries, Inc. Martin Iron Works Inc. Trade Arbed
Bostrum Bergen McLean Steel Inc. Verco Manufacturing, Inc
California Erectors Nelson Stud Welding Co. Vulcraft Sales Corp.
Eagle Iron Construction Oregon Steel Mills Western Steel & Metals, Inc.
PDM Strocal, Inc.

The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most
economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated
tonnage to cost comparisons, fabrication details and delivery schedules.

Funding for this publication provided by the California Iron Workers Administrative Trust.
Steel
STRUCTURALSTEELEDUCATIONAL COUNCIL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
JULY 1995
Seismic Design of
Bolted Steel
Moment-Resisting Frames
by
OCopyright Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 1995
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames
by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
This report discusses some issues related to seismic behavior of various types of
steel moment-resisting frames used in building structures. However, the
emphasis of the report is on the seismic behavior and design of steel moment-
resisting frames with bolted beam-to-column connections. A summary of
relevant research and applicable code provisions is provided followed by design
procedures that can be used to design steel moment-resisting frames. The
appendices to the report provide typical details of bolted moment connections, a
numerical example and photographs of structures designed and constructed
recently using bolted steel moment-resisting frames.
First Printing, July 15, 1995
Figures and photos by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl unless otherwise indicated.
COPYRIGHT 1995 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
209 Vernal Drive, Alamo, California 94507
Fax: (510) 935-9930
All Rights Reserved
Neither this document nor any part of it may be reproduced, translated or
transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical or electronic, including
photocopying, scanning, or by any information storage and retrieval system
without written permission of the author and copyright owner: Abolhassan
Astaneh-Asl.
The information presented in this publication is based on recognized
engineering principles and construction practices and is for general information
only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or
!relied upon for any specific application without competent professional
examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a
:licensed professional engineer or architect. The publication of the material
:contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the
Structural Steel Educational Council, or of any other person or agency named
herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of
freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this
information assumes all liability arising from such use.
This work is dedicated to the memory of
Professor Frank Baron (1914-1994) of the
University of California, Berkeley who was
one of the pioneer teachers and researchers
in comparative studies of rivets and high-
strength bolts subjected to
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of
the Structural Steel Educational Council. The author wishes to thank all Council
members, particularly, David Berrens, Patrick Hassett, Rudy Hofer Jr. and James
J. Putkey for their review of the report and constructive comments. The support
provided by a number of agencies to the author's research on the subject of this
report at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the
University of California, Berkeley has been essential in collecting and developing
many technologies presented and used in this report. In particular, the support
of the American Institute of Steel Construction, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the A.C. Martin and Associates is appreciated.
The author, at present, is a member of the Structural Steel Educational
Council of California and the Research Council on Structural Connections. He
has learned many aspects of behavior, design, fabrication and erection of the
bolted steel structures from the members of these councils and their
deliberations. He wishes to thank these and other professional organizations
including the AISC, Caltrans and the AISI for permitting him to participate in
their work and to learn from them. The efforts of Susan Dowty and Roy Fewell
of International Conference of Building Officials in providing information on the
code issues to the author is acknowledged. The contributions and comments by
Dr. Beverly Bolt as senior editorial advisor to the report is sincerely appreciated.
The opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of California, Berkeley
where the author is a professor of civil engineering, the Structural Steel
Educational Council or other agencies and individuals whose names appear in
this report.
111
SEISMICDESIGNOF
BOLTED STEEL
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES
by Dr. ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, P.E.
Professor
CONTENTS
DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/ Page iii
TABLE OFCONTENTS / Page iv
1. INTRODUCTION/ Page1
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL MOMENTCONNECTIONS ! Page 21
3. CODE PROVISIONS ON BOLTEDSTEEL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES/ Page 37
4. SEISMICDESIGN OFBOLTED MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES/ Page43
REFERENCES/Page 69
APPENDIX A- SAMPLES OF BOLTEDMOMENT CONNECTION DETAILS/ Page 73
APPENDIX B- A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE! Page 76
APPENDIX C- RECENTLYDESIGNED BOLTEDMOMENT FRAMES/ Page 81
IV
1, INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
Moment-resisting frames (MRFs) are structures that resist applied forces
primarily by bending of their members and connections. MRFs can provide large
open spaces without the obstruction usually caused by braces or shear walls. In
addition, because of their flexibility and relatively long period of vibration, MRFs
usually attract smaller seismic forces than the comparable braced or shear wall
systems.
Since the early days of riveting, steel MRFs have been very popular in
building construction. Many structures including the monumental high-rises of
the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries have been built using riveted steel
MRFs. On the west coast, many turn-of-the-century tall buildings in San
Francisco have riveted steel MRFs. Since the 1960's, with the advent of high-
strength bolting as well as welding technologies, bolted steel moment-resisting
frames (BMRFs) and welded steel moment-resisting frames (WMRFs) have been
one of the main structural systems used in office and residential buildings.
In recent years because of ease of fabrication and design and for
economical reasons, most of the steel moment-res]sting frames used in seismic
areas such as California have had welded moment connections. However,
welded steel moment-resisting frames are only one of the many possibilities of
steel moment frames.
The main purpose of this report is to present information on the seismic
design of steel rigid moment-resisting frames with bolted or bolted/welded
connections. Today, there is sufficient information and experience that bolted
and bolted/welded steel moment-resisting frames can be designed and
fabricated to provide safe and economical structural systems for seismic regions.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh Asl 1
1.2. Types of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames
Steel moment-resisting frames can be divided into several categories on
the basis of (a) configuration of the moment frame, (b) the type of connectors
used, (c) the ductility of the connection, (d) the relative rotational stiffness of the
connection and the members, and (e) the relative moment capacity of the
connections and the members. The common categories of steel moment frames
are shown in Figure 1.1. The chart in Figure 1.1 can be used to select a desirable
combination of frame attributes. The emphasis of this report is on bolted,
special, rigid frames the design of which is based on the strong-column, weak-
beam concept. The frames are highlighted in Figure 1.1.
i i i
II II
Frame Frame Frame ,Rigid Bays Frame
i i
! +
t . i,
I. ,g,o, I I . , , - , g , d I I ,,o,b,o I
I i I
t ,
I s, , . o, , co, , . , . , , , I I t , . o , . , , . , J
Figure 1.1. Selection Chart for Steel Moment-resisting Frames
1.3. Categories of Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Configuration
Common categories of MRFs are:
Space moment-resisting frame
Full perimeter moment-resisting frame
Planar moment-resisting frame in one direction
Moment-resisting frame in only a few bays
Column-tree moment-resisting frame
Moment-resisting frame with truss girders
Moment-resisting frame with Vierendeel girders
Tube-in-tube moment-resisting frame
Bundled tube moment-resisting frame
Seismic Desfgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 2
The above configurations are discussed in the following sections.
1.3.a. Space, Perimeter and Moment-Resisting Frames in Only a Few Bays
A typical space MRF is shown in Figure 1.2(a) where a three-directional
structural system composed of columns, girders and connections resist the
applied load primarily by the flexural stiffness, strength and ductility of its
members and connections, with or without the aid of the horizontal diaphragms
or floor bracing systems (ICBO, 1994). In today's welded space frames, usually
all girder-to-column connections are designed and fabricated as rigid.
SPACE PERIMETER
e / MOMENT f MOMENT
FRAME RAME
(a) (b)
FRAMESWITH
. f AFEW
IDBAYS
(c)
Figure 1.2. Space Frame, Perimeter Frame and a Structure with Only a Few
Rigid Bays
The cost of fabrication and erection of rigid moment connections,
particularly field-welded connections, is usually higher than the cost of
fabrication of shear connections. As a result, to achieve more economical
designs, there has been a trend in the United States in recent years to use a
SeismicDesignof BoltedSteelMoment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstanehAsl 3
smaller number of moment connections in a given structure. This trend may
have been the reason for the design and construction of many steel structures in
recent years with only a few bays designed as moment-resisting frames.
In a perimeter MRF system, as shown in Figure 1.2(b), only the exterior
frames are moment-resisting frames providing a moment-resisting frame box to
resist the lateral load of the entire building. The interior columns and girders that
are not part of the perimeter moment-resisting frame are all connected by shear
(simple) connections to carry only their tributary gravity loads.
The columns inside a perimeter moment-resisting frame are often called
"leaner" or "gravity" columns. In current design practice, it is often assumed that
gravity columns do not participate in resisting the lateral loads. However, during
an earthquake, the gravity columns, girders and their connections that were
assumed not to participate in lateral-load resisting will, in fact, do so to some
extent. In addition, the floor diaphragms and some non-structural elements also
provide unknown amounts of stiffness, strength and damping. This is due to the
fact that during earthquakes, the entire building is shaken and all members and
connections undergo deformations and rotations. This issue has been recognized
by the codes. For example, the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) requires that
shear connections of leaning columns be designed to accommodate deformations
(rotations) imposed on them by lateral displacement of the moment frames.
By using steel perimeter MRFs instead of space MRFs, the number of
rigid moment connections is reduced, in many cases, to less than one half of the
number of connections in the comparable space frame. As a result, significant
cost saving is achieved. However, in doing so the redundancy of the lateral-load
resisting system is also reduced.
The importance of the redundancy and the secondary load path in
improving seismic performance of structures is intuitively accepted by structural
engineers. However, no systematic study has been published yet to show the
effect redundancy on performance of moment-resisting frames quantitatively.
Until such studies are done, probably the effects of redundancy on seismic
behavior will correctly remain in the domain of the intuitive feeling and
professional judgment of the structural engineer in charge of the seismic design.
According to data collected by Youssef et al, (1995), in the aftermath of the
Northridge earthquake, damage to space MRFs was apparently less than damage
to perimeter MRFs. At this time, however, there is not sufficient data to discard
the less redundant steel perimeter moment-resisting frame system. One of the
advantages of the perimeter moment-resisting frame system is that the girder
spans of the perimeter frames can be made quite small. The close spacing of the
columns in perimeter moment-resisting frames can compensate to some degree
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Ast 4
for the loss of some redundancy as well as enable the perimeter moment-
resisting frame to act as a tube structural system.
Another type of steel MRF system that has been used frequently in recent
years in southern California is frame with only a few moment-resisting bays as
shown m Figure 1.2(c). In this system only a few bays of the entire planar frame
have rigid connections while all other connections are shear connections. The
columns that are not part of the moment-resisting frame, are leaner (gravity)
columns and are not considered in design to participate in resisting lateral load.
Information on the actual behavior and design of frames with only a few
rigid bays was very limited and almost non-existent prior to the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. Egelkirk (1993) provides some information on seismic design of steel
MRFs with a few rigid bays.
A large percentage of the steel structures damaged during the 1994
Northridge earthquake had this structural system. At this time (May 1995), the
exact cause(s) of the damage to welded steel moment-resisting frames during the
Northridge earthquake has not been established. Therefore, it is not clear if the
use of moment-resisting frames with only a few rigid bays was a major
parameter contributing to the damage.
In MRFs with only a few rigid bays to resist lateral forces, the members
and connections of the rigid bays become extraordinarily large. As a result, it is
possible that the large members (jumbo shapes) connected by very large size
welds could not behave in a ductile manner. However, adding to the complexity
of the Northridge damage is the fact that many of the buildings that developed
weld cracks had small and medium-weight sections and not very heavy Jumbo
shapes.
1.3.b. Significance of Gravity Load Acting on Lateral-Load Resisting Frames
One of the important issues in seismic behavior and design of steel MRFs
is how significant are the gravity load effects compared to the seismic effects.
This can be measured by a "mass ratio" parameter, , defined here as:
W
: . , (1.1)
Mg
where W is the weight tributary to the moment-resisting frame, M is the
horizontal mass tributary to the moment frame under consideration and g is the
acceleration of the gravity.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Ressbng Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 5
The "mass ratio" as defined by Equation 1.1 can be a useful tool in
identifying how much of the gravity-load carrying system is also responsible for
carrying seismic loads. In space moment-resisting frames, almost all elements of
the frame are responsible for carrying their own tributary gravity and seismic
load, whereas, in perimeter moment-resisting frames and in moment frames with
a few rigid bays, only a portion of the gravity-load carrying system is involved in
carrying lateral loads.
For space MRFs, the mass ratio, 7, is about 1.0 meaning that members and
connections of space MRFs are responsible for carrying only their own share of
the gravity and seismic forces. In other words, the entire gravity-load carrying
system of the space moment-resisting frame participates in resisting the lateral
loads. For comparison, in the common perimeter moment-resisting frame the
mass ratio is about 1/2 to 1/3. For MRFs with only a few rigid moment-
resisting bays, in some of the existing structures in Los Angeles the mass ratio is
as low as 1/6 meaning that only 1/6 of the gravity load carrying members are
participating in carrying seismic lateral loads.
Since the gravity-load carrying system is needed after an earthquake to
carry the service gravity load and to prevent collapse, by using the above
definition of mass ratio, two interesting questions arise:
. Is it better to use only a portion of the gravity-load carrying system to carry
the seismic load, as in frames with a few rigid bays and perimeter moment-
resisting frames? or is it better to use all members of the structure to carry
the seismic load, as is the case for space moment-resisting frames?
. Considering the fact that in the aftermath of a very strong earthquake, the
lateral-load resisting systems of many structures can be damaged, is it a
sound design philosophy to construct space MRFs and end up with the
entire gravity-load carrying system damaged during the earthquake? Or is it
better to have a few bays as rigid moment-resisting bays to resist the lateral
load? If these few rigid bays are damaged, at least the remaining gravity
load carrying elements are not affected and can carry their gravity load
safely. In addition, such gravity-load carrying columns and girders usually
act as a semi-rigid frame and a secondary load path for lateral-load
resistance.
Without comprehensive technical and cost-efficiency studies, at this time
there are no definite answers to the above questions. In addition, since there is no
solid research data on comparative seismic performance of space MRFs,
perimeter MRFs and frames with a few rigid bays, none of the three systems can
be condemned as not suitable for seismic applications. The decision to use any of
the above systems (or other systems not mentioned above) is left properly by the
SeBsmtc Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Reststmg Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 6
profession to the judgment of the structural engineers. After the decision is made
about what system to use, the system has to be designed to have sufficient
stiffness, strength and ductility to perform safely and according to the governing
performance criteria. In all of the design steps, inevitably, economical
considerations play a major role.
1.3.c. Column-tree Moment Frames
An example of a "column tree" moment-resisting frame system is shown
in Figure 1.3. In a column-tree system short segments of the girders, usually one
to two feet long, are welded to the columns in the shop. Then, after the column-
trees are erected in the field, the middle segment of the girder is usually bolted to
the ends of short girder stubs. Therefore, the system is a shop-welded, field-
bolted steel structure. The shop welding provides for high quality and
economical welding as well as easy inspection. The field bolting results in the
economy and ease of field erection as well as the possibility of year-round
construction almost independent of weather conditions.
FIELDBOLTED 1 x/ COLUMN-TREE
SPL,CES / ? I MOMENT
- FIELDBOLTED
SPLICES BRACED
FRAME
f COLUMN-TREE
_ ' MOMENT
FRAME
(a) (b)
Figure 1.3. Example of the Column-Tree System used in
(a) Perimeter Moment-resisting Frame; and
(b) Planar Moment-resisting Frame
Various configurations of the rigid column-tree system have been used in
the past in the United States. The shop-welded, field-bolted column-tree system
is still popular for construction during cold weather. Also in projects that field
Seasmlc Designof BoltedSteel Moment-Restsbng Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 7
welding and field inspection are too costly or cannot be done easily, the use of
column-tree system can be more economical than the other systems with field
welding. In Japan perhaps because of the high cost of labor, and the fact that
shop welding is mostly automated, column-tree systems are currently very
popular. The performance of structures during the 1995 Great Hanshin
Earthquake indicates that modem steel column tree systems in the affected areas
performed well and much better than field welded MRFs. However, there were
a number of column-tree structures that developed cracks through the weld
connecting beam stubs to steel tube columns (AIJ, 1995b).
In the standard column-tree system the bolted splice connection of the
beam is designed to be stronger than the connected beams. As a result, after
erection, the bolted splice does not play a major role in seismic performance of
the frame. To utilize the bolted splice to control and improve seismic
performance, a semi-rigid version of the column-tree moment resisting flame
system was proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl (1988, 1991). In the proposed semi-rigid
column-tree the bolted connection of the girder, located away from the column,
is made semi-rigid. By using semi-rigid connections, stiffness, strength, ductility
and energy dissipation capacity can be easily manipulated to reduce seismic
forces, displacements and damage and to improve seismic performance.
Recently, a study of standard rigid and the proposed semi-rigid column-
tree systems was conducted at the Department of Civil Engineering of the
University of California, Berkeley (McMuUin et al, 1993). In the study, the semi-
rigid column-tree system was shown to be a potentially reliable and economical
seismic resisting structural system. One of the main advantages of semi-rigid
column-tree system over the standard rigid system is that the bolted semi-rigid
connection, located at the girder splice, acts as a fuse and protects the welded
connections at the face of columns from being subjected to large moments. In
addition, the use of semi-rigid connections can increase damping, elongate
period of vibration, reduce stiffness to a desirable level and can result in
reduction of seismic forces and displacements.
1.3.d. Moment-Resisting Frames with Truss Girders
Moment-resisting frames with truss girders usually consist of rolled wide
flange columns and welded steel truss girders. Figure 1.4 shows examples of
moment frames with truss girders. Currently, information on the seismic
behavior and ductility of moment frames with truss girders is relatively limited.
During the 1985 Mexico earthquake, two 10 and 23-story steel structures
in a complex of high-rise structures collapsed and a third 23-story structure
developed more than 2% permanent roof drift (Astaneh-Asl, 1986a). The
Seismic Demgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Remstmg Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 8
structural systems of these buildings were truss girder moment-resisting frame
and braced frames. Even though the cause of failures was related primarily to
local buckling of the bases of columns, nevertheless, welds m many truss-to-
column connections had cracked.
(a) Truss Girder
. . . . l lll
" ' i ' l l l l l l l i
l l t l l l l l l
/P'c/Pq I ' " v l " , ' i ,
(b) Veirendeel Girder (c) Ductile Truss Girder
(After Basha & Goel, 1994)
Figure 1.4. Examples of Moment Frames with Truss Girders
Another version of the steel MRFs with truss girders is the system where
Vierendeel trusses are used as horizontal members, Figure 1.4(b). Recently, a
seismic study was conducted of an existing 6-story structure, which has
Vierendeel truss girders and is located near the Hayward fault (Tipping, 1995).
The inelastic time history analyses showed very good seismic behavior and well
distributed yielding of the members of the truss girders.
Recent experimental and analytical studies (Basha and Goel, 1994)
provides information on the seismic behavior and design of a special ductile
version of moment-resisting frames with truss girders. In the proposed system,
the diagonal members of a few panels at mid span of the truss girders are
removed. In a way, this system is a good combination of regular truss and
Vierendeel truss systems. Tests and analysis of the resulting system reported in
above references have indicated good seismic behavior and potential for use in
seismic areas.
1.3.e. Tube-in-Tube and Bundled-Tube Moment-Resisting Frames
Two other steel MRFs are the tube-in-tube and the bundled-tube systems.
The tube-in-tube system consists of a perimeter moment-resisting frame inside a
larger perimeter moment-resisting frame. The bundled-tube system is a
collection of perimeter MRFs bundled together to form a single system. The
Sears Tower in Chicago, currently the world's tallest building, has a steel
bundled-tube MRF system. Seismic behavior of these systems is expected to be
somewhere between the behavior of space MRFs and perimeter MRFs.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Restating Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 9
1.4. Categories of Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Type of Connections
Steel MRFs can be categorized on how flanges of a girder are connected to
the columns. The categories are:
Field-Welded
Field-Bolted
Riveted ( used until mid 50's in the field and until 70's in the shop)
In this report the welded moment-resisting frames (WMRFs) are
defined as those that have girder flanges welded to the columns in the field
directly or through connection elements such as plates or angles. The bolted
moment-resisting frames (BMRFs) are defined as frames having only bolting
done in the field with no field welding. These latter frames can have some
welding in which case the welding should be done in the shop. In both welded
and bolted moment frames, the transfer of shear force from the web of the girder
to the column can be by welded or bolted connections.
Examples of field-bolted and field-welded MRF connections are shown in
Figures 1.5 and 1.6, respectively. Figure 1.6 (a) shows the details of the typical
welded connection used almost exclusively in recent years in special moment-
resisting frames in California. A number of these welded connections cracked in
a brittle manner through the welds, columns, girders or panel zones during the
1994 Northridge earthquake. Other possible details of bolted and bolted-welded
MRF connections are provided in Appendix A of this report.
f Full-Penetration
Shop Weld
/ /-- Plate
: : :
TyptcalBo/ted-welded
Shear Plate
Welded-Bolted Plates
(a)
Hot-rolled L or Cut
From W;deFlange
Bolts
...-'-'-'-r I
Typ/cal Bolted-welded
Shear Plate
i - - F,eld Bolt
- oP B o l t S " ' - h ShopWelded Sbffeners
;f Needed
Bol ted Angles
(b)
Figure 1.5. Examples of Field-Bolted Steel Moment Frame Connections
Semmtc Design of Bolted Steel Moment Reststmg Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 10
f
/ Feld Weld
["
/- Typical Bolted-welded.
Shear Plate
t
Welded Flange
(a) (b)
Hot-rolled L or Cut
From Wide Flange
Field Bolt
FieldFtlletWeld
..5
Typical Bolted-welded'
Shear Plate
ShopWelded
Stiffeners
Bolt if Needed
Bolted-Welded Angles
Figure 1.6. Examples of Field-Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections
1.5. Categories of Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Ductility
Steel MRFs are divided into two categories on the basis of:
Special Ductile Moment-Resisting Frames; and
Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames
Figure 1.7 shows the lateral-load lateral-displacement behavior of the
typical ordinary (Line OB) and special ductile moment-resisting frames (Line
OA). Line OE in Figure 1.7 shows the response of a completely elastic system.
It is well known that, depending on the extent of the inelasticity
(damage) in a structure, the magnitude of the seismic forces developed in the
structure will vary. The inelasticity reduces stiffness, causes energy dissipation,
increases damping and elongates the period of vibrations. These changes in most
common structures result in a reduction in the seismic forces developed in the
structure. The current seismic design approach and code procedures are based
on the concept of using inelasticity (permitting some damage) to reduce the
seismic design forces.
Inelasticity in steel structures, in general, can result from yielding,
slippage, buckling and the fracture of the structural members or the connection
elements. Yielding of the steel is the most desirable source of inelasticity and
energy dissipation. This is due to the fact that currently used structural steels
are very flexible and ductile materials. For example, typical A36 steel yields at a
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resmstmg Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 11
tensile strain of about 0.0015 and can deform inelastically up to strains of about
0.18. These strains indicate a ductility of about 120 for material of A36 steel. This
very high ductility has been the main source of excellent performance of well
designed steel structures in the past. In some cases, because of the occurrence of
local or overall buckling, the fracture of net areas of metal or the fracture of
connectors such as the weld fractures during the Northridge earthquake of 1994,
the structure has not been able to utilize the high ductility of the steel.
FORCE o,sp
Elastic
E
Ordinary Moment Frame
B
--A
Special Moment Frame
,
DISPLACEMENT
t I l
I I I
I I I
J J J
I I I
i i i
TForoe
/ I/
i
_ 1
I
- - I
I
I
Force
Fig. 1.7. Behavior of Special and Ordinary Moment-Resisting Steel Frames
A source of inelasticity in steel structures is slippage. If slippage occurs
under service load, it may create problems with serviceability of the structure
and cause cracking of the brittle non-structural elements. However, if slippage
occurs under controlled conditions during earthquakes, in many cases, the
slippage can improve seismic performance. The improvement can occur in three
ways:
. If slippage occurs by overcoming friction forces, such as in bolted
connections, a considerable amount of energy can be dissipated in the
process increasing the damping and energy dissipation capacity of the
structure.
. The slippage acts as a stiffness fuse and releases the stiffness, thus
changing the dynamic character of the structure by changing its stiffness
during the shaking.
. Due to slippage in bolted moment connections, the rotational ductility of
the connection is increased. Currently, one of the major deficiencies of
welded connections is relatively Iow rotational ductility.
Seismic Des,gn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 12
It can be concluded that if friction slip occurs under loads that exceed the
service load by a reasonable margin of safety, and the slip strength can be
maintained under cyclic action, such slippage can be used very efficiently to
control and improve seismic response of steel structures and reduce the damage.
The issue of local and overall buckling of steel components needs special
attention. In many cases, it is not possible to force steel to undergo only yielding.
Because of slenderness of the steel components, during large cyclic deformations,
overall or local buckling can occur. However, minor local buckling that does not
result in cyclic fracture can be useful in improving cyclic behavior of steel
structures during large earthquakes. The locally buckled areas act as fuses and
limit the amount of force that can exist in these locally buckled areas. By limiting
the force to local buckling capacity, other brittle elements of the connection such
as welds can be protected. Current codes indirectly accept minor local buckling
by limiting b/t ratios to about six to eight.
In general, buckling is less desirable than yielding since, because of cyclic
buckling the capacity and stiffness of the steel component deteriorates to some
extent. The deterioration of critical components can result in serious reduction of
strength and stiffness of the system to carry the gravity load after an earthquake.
In addition, the deformed shape of a globally or locally buckled member can be
of concern to the user and in most situations the member will need to be repaired
or replaced. In past earthquakes, buckling of the structural members has
occasionally resulted in costly damage to nonstructural elements, such as
breaking the water pipes and other lifelines causing serious collateral damage to
the building contents. Therefore, it makes sense to check the consequences of
member buckling and deformations.
The most undesirable source of inelasticity in structures is fracture. In the
context of seismic design, fracture in general is non-ductile and unacceptable for
steel, particularly, if there is no other parallel load path for the fractured
member to redistribute its load. Because of fracture, the gravity load-carrying
capacity of the structure can be seriously impaired resulting in partial or full
instability and collapse. Such behavior is non-ductile and unacceptable. Current
design codes discourage such non-ductile behavior by specifying larger design
forces to be used in the design of non-ductile MRFs compared to those for the
design of ductile MRFs. This is done by specifying a reduction factor, Rw, of 12
for Special Ductile Moment-Resisting Frames and 6 for Ordinary and less ductile
frames. However, the decision to use structures with multiple load paths to
facilitate redistribution of the seismic forces is properly left to the judgment,
ingenuity and intuition of the structural engineer.
On the basis of the source of inelasticity and the ability of the inelastic
elements to deform while maintaining their strength, the steel moment frames
Seismic Demgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 13
are divided into two categories of Special and Ordinary MRFs as discussed in the
following. The force-displacement plots of these frames are shown in Figure 1.7.
1.5.a. Special Moment-resisting Frames
The connections and the members of Special Moment-resisting Frames
(SMRFs) are designed such that fracture and premature buckling of the
structural members and the connections are prevented. As a result, the special
MRFs behave in a ductile manner. In special MRFs, the damage should be in the
form of slippage, yielding of steel, delayed and limited local buckling within the
girder connections or plastic hinges. Fracture in any part that can impair the
gravity-load carrying system should be avoided. This type of behavior
categorizes the system as a ductile system.
Currently, there is debate in the profession on how much ductility supply
is necessary for a given steel MRF to be categorized as a Special Ductile
Moment-Resisting Frame? Some researchers (Popov et al, 1994) have suggested
values of 0.015 and 0.02 radian to be the desirable rotation capacity of moment
connections. However, the Northridge damage has cast serious doubt on these
limits. On the basis of studies of rigid and semi-rigid MRFs, Nader and Astaneh
(1992) have suggested a rotational ductility of 0.03 radian. In addition, it is
suggested herein that the cumulative inelastic cyclic rotation capacity of a ductile
moment connection should be at least 0.15 radian.
1.5.b. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames
If a steel moment-resisting frame does not meet the requirements of the
Special moment frame, then the frame is not expected to behave in a ductile
manner and it is categorized in the seismic design codes as an Ordinary MRF.
Ordinary MRFs still need to have sufficient rotational ductility to make them
eligible to be designed using a reduction factor of Rw equal to 6. Again there is
no well-established value of required ductility supply for Ordinary MRF. It is
suggested here that, in the absence of more reliable value, the connections of
Ordinary MRFs should have a rotational ductility of at least 0.02 radian. The
cumulative cychc rotational capacity is suggested to be at least 0.10 radian.
1.6. Categories of Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Stiffness
The following discussion applies to moment-resisting frames with strong
columns and weak beams. In these systems, the behavior of girder and
connection dominates the global behavior.
Sesm[c Design of Bolted Steel Moment Reslst]ng Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 14
The behavior of a steel MRF strongly depends on the rotational behavior
of its connections and the bending stiffness of its beams and columns.
Traditionally, steel MRFs are divided into the three categories of Rigid (Fully
Restrained, FR), Semi-rigid (Partially Restrained, PR) and Flexible (Simple)
(AISC, 1994). Flexible Moment Frames can be found in some existing structures
or are used as a back-up system for braced frame systems. The above division is
primarily based on the bending stiffness and the strength of the beam-to-
column connections.
The parameter that has been frequently used in the past to define the
relative rotational stiffness of a girder and its connections is the stiffness
parameter m defined as:
K
rn = (1.2)
(EI)
L g
where Kcon is the rotational stiffness of the beam-to-column connection, and
(EI/L)g is the bending stiffness of the girder. Depending on the value of m, the
girder span is categorized as:
Rigid span if
Semi-rigid span if
Flexible span if
m>18
18>m>0. 5
m<0.5
and
Figure 1.8 shows the above three regions of the moment-rotation
behavior based on the relative rotational stiffness of the connection and the
girder.
The above categorization is solely based on the elastic rotational stiffness
of the connections and the girders in a single span. Such categorization has been
used in the past in the elastic design of girders under gravity load.
In seismic design, however, the plastic moment capacity of the
connections and the girders should also be considered in categorizing the span.
For example if in a rigid span, i.e. m > 18, the plastic moment capacity of the
connections is less than the plastic moment capacity of the girder, the span will
behave as semi-rigid after the connections reach their plastic moment capacity
and develop plastic hinges. To define the behavior of a span as rigid, semi-rigid
or flexible, in addition to the stiffness parameter m, a strength parameter o is
introduced which is defined as:
Seismic Desagn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 15
(MP)con
Or=
(Mp)g
where, (Mp)con and
girder, respectively.
(Mp)g are plastic moment capacities
0.3)
of connection and
Moment
m=18
Rotabon
,>
Moment
'-Region of
Flexible Behavior
Rotation
Figure 1.8. Regions of Rigid, Semi-rigid and Flexible Behavior of Elastic Beams
Incorporating the effects of inelasticity of the girder and the connections,
the definitions of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spans are enhanced and given as
follows:
For Rigid Spans:
For Semi-rigid Spans:
For Flexible (Simple) Spans:
m_>18.0 and (z > 1.0
either [m >18 and 0.2<0c<1.0]
or [18.0 _> m >0.5 and cz>0.2]
either m < 0.5
or (x < 0.2
(1.4a)
(1.4b)
(1.4c)
The above definitions are shown in Figure 1.8.
Sesmsc Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resfstng Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh Asl 16
In order to categorize a moment-resisting frame as rigtd, semi-rigid or
flexible, the above definitions for girder spans are extended to moment-resisting
frames and the following defimtions are suggested:
1.6.a. Rigid Moment-Resisting Frame
A rigid MRF is a moment frame in which all spans satisfy the condition
that
m>18.0 and cz > 1.0 (1.5a)
Where m and cz are defined as the ratio of the stiffness and strength of the
connections to the stiffness and strength of the girders, respectively, see
Equations 1.2 and 1.3.
In establishing m and cz for moment frames to be used in Equations 1.5,
the average value of m and 0c for the spans of the mid-height story of the
moment frame can be used.
1.6.b. Semi-rigid Moment-Resisting Frame
A semi-rigid moment flame is a moment flame in which at least 80% of
the spans satisfy the condition that
either m >18 and 0.2<cz<1.0 (1.5b)
or 18.0 >_ m >0.5 and cz>0.2
1.6.c. Flexible Moment-Resisting Frame
A flexible moment frame is a moment frame in which at least 80% of the
spans satisfy the condition that
either m < 0.5 (1.5c)
or cz< 0.2
The above equations are shown in Figure 1.9.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 17
Moment
0(=I O J
77=18
sem,.rIgid Frame
_J _J
Flexible Frame
m=(K) con/(EI/L)g
o( =(Mp)con/(Mp)g
Rotati on
Figure 1.9. Definition of Rigid, Semi-rigid and Flexible Moment-Resisting
Frames
1.7. Categories Based on the Moment Capacity of the Connected Members
Depending on relative bending capacities of columns and girders in the
joints of a moment-resisting frame, the frame is categorized as one of the
following:
Strong Column - Weak Beam
Strong Beam- Weak Column
The strong column-weak beam frames are used very frequently and many
structural engineers believe that these systems have superior seismic behavior to
that of the weak column-strong beam frames.
In the strong column-weak beam frame, the moment capacity of the
beams in a joint is less than the moment capacity of the columns. Therefore under
combinations of gravity and lateral loads, plastic hinges are expected to form in
the beams. In the strong beam-weak column design, plastic hinges are expected
to form in the columns.
Sesmtc Design of Bolted Steel Moment Restating Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 18
The design philosophy of the strong column-weak beam has been used
very frequently in seismic design. This is primarily due to the importance of the
columns in carrying the gravity load after an earthquake as well as the P-A effects
on the column buckling and the overall stability of the structure. Most current
codes (ICBO, 1994) also promote the use of the strong column-weak beam
philosophy. Recent studies have shown that the steel MRFs that develop hinges
in the girders (strong column-weak beam design) can be more stable than the
frames that have column hinges (strong beam-weak column).
The philosophy of the strong column and weak beam design is a rational
and well accepted seismic design approach. However, occasionally, especially in
low-rise buildings and long spans, it is difficult and costly to implement this
philosophy. One way to implement the strong column and weak beam design
properly is by use of semi-rigid beam-to-column connections (Nader and
Astaneh-Asl, 1992). In this case, even though the beam can be very strong and
stiff, the moments transferred to the columns will be limited to the moment
capacity of the semi-rigid connections and not the moment capacity of the girder.
The moment capacity of the semi-rigid connections can be selected such that the
plastic hinges are forced to form in the connections and not in the columns
resulting in a new version of the strong column-weak girder system.
In recent years, a new trend in seismic design of steel moment frames has
emerged which is to permit some inelasticity in the panel zone of the columns.
The 1994 Uniform Building Code has provisions to implement this concept by
requiring that the panel zone shear capacity need not exceed the shear required
to develop 0.8 of the moment capacity of the connected beams. It should be
mentioned that the main benefit of permitting limited yielding of the panel zone
is to reduce, and in most cases to eliminate, the need for doubler plates.
However, on account of the fracture of some panel zones and columns adjacent
to panel zones during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, it appears that there is a
need for re-examination of the effects of panel zone yielding on the overall
seismic behavior and stability of steel moment frames. Until such studies are
concluded and also until the cause of fracture of some panel zones during the
1994 Northridge earthquake is established, it is suggested here that widespread
yielding and distortion of the panel zones be avoided in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
It is interesting to note that an economical and reliable way to reduce or
eliminate the need for doubler plates in the panel zones is by the use of semi-
rigid girder-to-column connections. The use of semi-rigid.connections with a pre-
designed moment capacity will result in control and reduction of the moment
transferred to the column panel zones, thus reducing the need for doubler plates.
In addition, the semi-rigid connection can act as a fuse and prevent large
moments from being transferred to the column and the restrained panel zones
(Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992).
Sesmfc Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 19
1.8. Selection of a Suitable Moment-Resisting Structural System
Selection of a suitable structural system for a given building depends on
many parameters such as economy, architectural and mechanical constraints, soil
conditions, geometry, site condition, ease of fabrication, speed of construction
and preference of owner, architect and the structural engineer. Whenever steel
moment-resisting frames are selected as the structural system, there is a variety
of configurations that can be used. Various categories of steel MRFs were
discussed earlier in this chapter. Figure 1.1 shows a flow chart of the possibilities
for steel MRFs.
A number of connections in welded MRFs were damaged during the 1994
Northridge earthquake. As Figure 1.1 indicates, the welded special moment
frame system is only one of the possible types of steel MRF systems. Other
systems, such as bolted steel special moment frame systems, have been used in
the past with great success and currently are being used in a number of
structures as a replacement for the welded special moment frames.
Appendix C of this report shows examples of bolted steel special moment
frames that were designed and constructed after the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. The structures were originally designed as pre-Northridge types of
welded special moment-resisting frames. However, in the aftermath of the 1994
Northridge damage, the connections were redesigned and the frames were
converted to bolted special MRFs. The structures are currently completed and
occupied. According to the structural engineers in charge of these designs,
(Hettum, 1994), design and construction of these bolted moment frames have
been very cost efficient and had very few problems.
During the last ten to twenty years, for a variety of reasons, the fully-
welded rigid steel moment frame had become almost the only steel MRF system
used in California. All of the steel moment frames damaged in Los Angeles
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake have this one system. It is not surprising
that when Northridge caused damage, many modem structures using this
system were affected. It is hoped that information provided in this report will be
useful to structural engineers, code officials, permit agencies and others in
diversifying and utilizing other structural steel systems such as bolted special
rigid moment frames (subject of this report), bolted semi-rigid steel frames
(Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992) and column-tree systems (Astaneh-Asl, 1988;
McMullin et al., 1993).
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR
OFBOLTED STEEL
MOMENT
CONNECTIONS
2.1. Introduction
Actual seismic behavior of structures can be studied by: (a) investigation
of the damage due to earthquakes and (b) by realistic laboratory testing of the
structures and their components. With the exception of the 1994 Northridge and
the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquakes, there are very few reports of consequential
damage to modem steel moment frames. Perhaps the Mexico-City earthquake of
1985 was the first earthquake to cause the collapse of a 23-story high-rise welded
steel structure. The cause of the collapse of that structure was related to low
quality and low strength of the welds as well as to local buckling of the built-up
box columns (Astaneh-Asl, 1986a; Martinez-Romero, 1988).
Seismic performance of bolted steel moment frames during past
earthquakes is briefly summarized in the following Section 2.2. A brief summary
of research projects on laboratory behavior of steel moment frames and their
components is provided later in this Chapter.
2.2. Performance of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames in the Past
There are many exstmg riveted, bolted and welded steel structures that
have been shaken by earthquakes in the past. No report of damage of any
consequence or collapse of major riveted MRFs could be found in the literature.
One of the early tests of seismic performance of riveted steel structures was the
1906 San Francisco earthquake. In the post earthquake reports and photographs
Seismic Destgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh Asl 21
taken in the aftermath of the 1906 quake, it appears that there was no collapse or
structural damage to riveted steel structures in downtown San Francisco. All
tall buildings of the time (all riveted steel structures) appear in photographs and
reports to be undamaged. Alas, the later photographs, taken only few days after
the quake, show a few of the same buildings engulfed by the fire that swept
through most of downtown San Francisco after the quake.
In the photographs taken after the fire in San Francisco, there are several
instances of steel column buckling and structural failures that appear to have
been due to the intense heat of the fire reducing the strength of the members
below their service load level, thus causing partial or total collapse of a number
of steel structures. Today, with higher fire-proofing standards and practices in
steel structures, such fire hazard is reasonably mitigated.
In the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake, the California State Board of
Trade stated in 1906:
".. The earthquake damage was inconsiderable. Every bmldmg on both side of
Market street stood against the earthquake. The modem steel-frame buildings were
unhurt, and that style of structure stands vindicated. The city has to rise from the
ashes of conflagration, and not from the rains of an earthquake. .."
(Saul and Denevi, 1981).
Since the 1906 earthquake, there has been no published report of serious
and consequential damage to bolted steel MRFs during earthquakes. Of course,
the lack of damage reports, can in part be attributed to the fact that prior to 1994
Northridge earthquake, very limited reconnaissance effort was expended on
inspecting the damage to steel structures. However, if there was any damage to
bolted steel structures, it must have been minor and not of consequence.
According to Martinez-Romero (1988) performance of bolted steel
structures during the 1985 Mexico earthquake was outstanding. The type of
connections used in these structures were generally top- and bottom-plate or
flange tee connections.
Studies of performance of steel structures during the 1994 Northridge and
the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake in Japan also indicates very good
performance of bolted steel structures. However, a number of welded
connections of low and mid-rise steel moment frames fractured during both
earthquake (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1994 and 1995).
It should be emphasized that most of the existing riveted and bolted
MRFs were not designed and detailed as Special Ductile MRFs and can be
categorized as Ordinary MRFs. Therefore it is expected that some of them could
experience damage during future major earthquakes. However, because of the
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Reslstmg Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 22
relatively higher quality control for bolted steel structures than for field-welded
structures, more redundancy in bolted connections, and less three-dimensional
stress field than for the welded joints, the likelihood of brittle damage is low.
In addition, because of slippage of the bolts and gap opening and closing
in the connections, bolted steel structures demonstrate a certain amount of semi-
rigidity during earthquakes. The author believes that the main reason for the
very good performance of bolted steel structures during past earthquakes is the
semi-rigidity of bolted connections. In many cases, such semi-rigidity increases
damping, releases and reduces stiffness, dissipates seismic energy, isolates the
mass from the ground motions and elongates the period, all of which cause
reduction in the seismic response of the structure. More information on
performance and seismic design of steel semi-rigid moment frames can be found
in Astaneh-Asl (1994), Nader and Astaneh-Asl (1992) and other publications,
some of which are listed in the References.
2.3. Behavior of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Connections in
Laboratory Tests
The systematic study of the cyclic behavior of steel moment connections
started in the 1950's with the pioneering work of Egor Popov at the University of
California, Berkeley and Ben Kato of the University of Tokyo. Since then a
number of important research projects have been conducted in this field
worldwide. The following sections provide a summary of selected projects that
directly relate to the subject of this report.
2.3.a. Tests by Popov et al.
From the late 1950's through the late 1980's a series of cyclic tests and
studies of the cyclic behavior of steel welded moment connections were
conducted at the University of California at Berkeley (Popov et al., 1957, 1965,
1973, 1988). The majority of connections tested were welded specimens with the
exception of one project where bolted top- and bottom- plate connection
specimens were also tested and studied. A summary of studies of welded
moment connections can be found in Bertero et al., (1994) and only the
performance of bolted specimens (Pinkney and Popov, 1967) is summarized here
The specimens in the above tests consisted of a cantilever beam connected
to a supporting column by top and bottom bolted plate connections. The
specimens were subjected to cyclic moment by applying a cyclic load to the end
of the cantilever beam. The failure modes observed in these specimens were local
buckling of the beam and fracture of the net area of the beam or plate. In these
Seismic Desagn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 23
specimens, in general, the top and bottom plates were stronger than the girder
flange forcing the failure mode to be fracture of the girder flange. As the tests
presented in the next section indicated, by following the current design
procedures in the AISC Manual (AISC, 1994) for top and bottom plate
connections, a more balanced design results. Such a balanced design results in
the strengths of the connection and member being close and the damage being
spread into the connection rather than concentrated along the net section of the
girder.
2.3.b. Tests of Bolted Top-and-Bottom Plate Moment Connections
In 1989, Harriott and Astaneh-Asl (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1991) conducted
experimental and analytical studies of the cyclic behavior of bolted top-and-
bottom plate moment connections. The objective was to investigate the cyclic
behavior of three types of steel bolted beam-to-column connections under severe
seismic loads. By using the information collected during the experiments,
seismic design procedures for these connections were developed and proposed.
A refined version of these procedures is proposed in Chapter 4 of this report.
Sketches of the beam-to-column connections that were tested are shown in
Figure 2.1. Each specimen consisted of a 7-feet long W18x50 beam connected to a
3-feet long column by top and bottom bolted flange plates and a shear
connection. In all specimens the top and bottom plates were the same and were
welded to the column by full penetration welds. The only difference among the
specimens was the mechanism of shear transfer.
qd-- Te
;
' - = - - - - - - - - I
Test A
Web Tee
ShopWeldedto
Columnand Plate
Test B
- - Seat Plate
r- Full Penetration
Weld to Column
T o
q.,"- ShearPlate
', r ConnectionI
',I Weldedto ]
_ _ Column --{--
- - PlateI
X---Full Penetration
Weld to Column
Test C
Shear Plate
Figure 2.1. Test Specimens for Bolted Top- and Bottom- Plate Connections
(Astaneh-Asl et al., 1991)
Seismic Designof BoltedSteel Moment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 24
In Specimen A, the web connection was a structural tee. Specimen B did
not have a web connection. To transfer shear from beam to column, in this
connection, a vertical stiffener was used under the bottom flange. The stiffener
was welded to the column flange as well as to the bottom flange plate of the
girder. Specimen C had a single-plate shear connection. The shear plate was
welded to the column flange and bolted to the beam web by five bolts.
Figure 2.2. Side and Top Views of Specimen with Web Shear Plate at the End of
the Tests (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1991)
Seismic Designof BoltedSteel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 25
2.4. Summary of Behavior of Top-and-Bottom Plate Bolted Moment
Connections
Figure 2.3 shows typical failure modes of welded and bolted rigid
moment connections while Figure 2.4. shows a comparison of the moment-
rotation behavior of a bolted connection (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1991) and a
comparable fully welded connection from the tests conducted by Popov and
Bertero (1973).
, / - Fracture
/ T e n s i o n Necking
; 1 / F r a c t u r e
Figure 2.3. Typical Failure Modes of Welded and Bolted Moment Connections
C
l.,
J
-v"4
.4..a
c
U
"O
0J
ov..
C
C
<
c,j
120
100-
80-
60
4O
20
0
-20
-40
-60
i
-80
-100 t
-120
-5
Force vs. 1 t
?
X
This Stuey
T e l l l l t Conct, to,
1 i ! i i i ! i
-3 -1 3 5
Displacement of the End of Cantilever, inches
Figure 2.4. Comparison of Moment-Rotation Curves for Welded and Bolted
Connections (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1991)
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 26
The following observations are based on the results of the cyclic tests of
bolted and welded connections summarized above.
. The initial elastic stiffnesses of bolted and welded specimens are almost the
same. After several cycles of slippage, the elastic stiffness of the bolted
specimen is slightly less than that of the comparable welded specimen.
(Notice the unloading slopes during late cycles).
. As cyclic loading continued, both the welded and bolted specimens
continued to develop larger moment capacity (notice no deterioration of
strength in Figure 2.4.)
. The slippage behavior of the bolted connections was very stable. The slope of
the slip plateau was considerable indicating gradual slippage At the end of
the slip plateau,, the bolted specimens were able to recover almost all of their
initial elastic stiffness.
. Because of slippage and ductile yielding of the top- and bottom-plates and
the shear connections, rotational ductility of bolted specimens was nearly
twice as much as that of comparable welded specimens.
. In bolted specimens, there was almost no local buckling. Only very minor
buckling was observed after at least ten inelastic cycles. In welded
specimens, severe local buckling has been observed. In many cases, in
welded specimens, the severity of local buckling was such that the locally
buckled girder would need to be replaced after the earthquake in a real
building.
. In bolted specimens when a flange plate is subjected to compression, it yields
in the area between the column weld and the first row of bolts. The same
plate subjected to tension in the bolted connection, yields between the first
and second rows of the bolt under a 45 degree angle as shown in Figure 2.2.
In fully welded connections, both tension and compression yielding occur in
the heat-affected zone of the welded flange adjacent to the weld line
connecting the flange to the column as shown in Figure 2.3.
. The separation of compression and tension yield areas in bolted specimens
and the bracing provided by the plate and the beam flange for each other are
the main reasons for the very ductile behavior of bolted connections. In other
words, because of separation of the compression and tension zones of the
steel in bolted connections, deterioration of stiffness due to the Bauschinger
effect is almost non-existent.
.
The cyclic behavior of the above bolted specimens was very ductile. All
specimens could tolerate more than 15 inelastic cycles being able to reach
cyclic rotations exceeding 0.03 radian.
9. As expected, the rotational stiffness of the connections was less than that
predicted by the theoretical assumption of infinite rigidity. The elastic
stiffness of the specimen with the web shear tab was almost the same as that
of welded specimens tested by Popov and Bertero (1973) while the stiffness
of specimens with web tee connection and seat connection was slightly less
than that for the welded connections. All three bolted specimens could be
categorized as rigid, ductile, moment connections.
10. Slippage in bolted connections was small and about 1/8 inch after ten
inelastic cycles.
11. In bolted connections, bending moment causing slippage could be predicted
well by using a coefficient of friction of 0.33 given in the literature for
unpainted clean mill scale (Class A) surfaces.
Finally, It should be added that the semi-rigidity observed in the bolted
specimens does not necessarily reflect an inferior characteristics for the seismic
behavior of frames using these connection. As shown in the following section,
shaking table tests (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1991) as well as analytical studies
(Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992) have demonstrated that the semi-rigidity of
ductile steel connections can improve and reduce the seismic response of steel
frames.
2.5. Seismic Behavior of Bolted End-Plate Connections
End plate moment connections are more common in Europe than the U.S.
One of the difficulties often mentioned by engineers and fabricators in using end
plate connections is the lack of fabrication tolerances. In addition, until recently,
(Ghobarah et al., 1990 and 1992) there was almost no seismic design procedures
for end plate moment connections.
Early cyclic tests of end plate moment connections were conducted in
Europe by a number of researchers. The results of some of these studies can be
found in Balio et al. (1990). In North America during the 1980's and 1990's a
number of cyclic tests of bolted end plate connections were conducted by
Astaneh-Asl (1986c), Tsai and Popov (1990), and Ghobarah et al (1990 and 1992).
The most extensive work in this field is the extensive studies done by Ghobarah
and his research associates in Canada. The reader is referred to above references
for more information on cyclic behavior and seismic design of moment-resisting
frames with bolted end plate connections. In the following, a summary of the
results of cyclic tests of end plate connections conducted by the author in 1986 is
provided.
2.6. Cyclic Tests of a Typical End Plate and an Innovative Pre-stressed End
Plate Connection (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c)
In 1986, using the test set-up developed by Tsai and Popov (1990) at the
University of California, Berkeley, A. Astaneh-Asl (1986c) conducted two cyclic
tests of extended end plate connections. The test set-up and connections are
shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 respectively. The data from the tests were
processed (Astaneh-Asl and Nisar, 1988) and the results were presented at
professional gatherings including (SAC, 1994). In the following a summary of
the results is presented.
65inches
TEST SET-UP
I
1"dia., --',% I,
A325Bolts
in1-1/8' I +2.
Holes I-I--2"
1.5"1.5"
Figure 2.5. Test Set-up and Connection Detail Used in Cyclic Tests of End Plate
Moment Connections (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c)
Figure 2.6. Standard and Innovative Pre-stressed End Plate Connections
(Astaneh-Asl, 1986)
SeismicDesignofBoltedSteelMoment-ResistingFrames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 29
2.6.a. Cyclic Behavior of Standard End-Plate Connection
The standard end plate connection that was tested (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c) is
shown in Figure 2.6(a). The connection was designed to develop moment
capacity of a W 18x40 A36 beam. The design procedure in the AISC Manual was
followed. It should be mentioned that the procedure in the AISC Manual is not
specifically for seismic design. For that reason, one of the objectives of the test
was to investigate how an end plate designed according to the AISC Manual
procedures will perform under severe inelastic cyclic loading.
As shown in Figure 2.5(a), welds connecting the beam to the end plate
were E70xx fillet welds and not full penetration welds usually thought to be used
for this application. The reason for using fillet welds was to investigate if fillet
welds that are more ductile and less costly can be used in this application. The
tests indicated that in both specimens, the fillet welds performed well and were
able to develop cyclic moment capacity of the beam section.
?
iT
c
v 0
i
k
0
5
4'
2 '
I
0
-2
-3-
-4-
I I [ I I I I I I I I I I
-0.014 -0.0 .-0.00 -0.002 0.00 0.006 0.01 0.014
*
0.0024'

-
0.0018-
r
j 016-
0
O H -
Z 0.0012-
0.001
R
O. OOO8

0.0002.
0
-5
I I I I I I
-3 -I 1 3
Figure 2.7. (a) Moment-Rotation Curves and (b) Bolt Strains in Standard End
Plate Specimen (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c)
Figure 2.7(a) shows moment-rotation behavior of the standard end plate
connection. The connection performed well under cyclic loading and a well-
defined and stable plastic hinge formed outside the connection and in the beam.
Figure 2.7(b) shows the variation of strain in the bolt outside the beam. The bolt
S e m m l c D e s i g n of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By A b o l h a s s a n Astaneh-Asl 30
continued to lose its pretensioning force but retained about 60% of its initial pre-
tensioning force.
The failure mode of this specimen was cyclic local buckling of flanges of
the beam. Local buckling started after seven inelastic cycles when the rotation
reached 0.014 radian. At the time of initiation of local buckling the compressive
strain in the locally buckled area of flange was measured at 0.035. Cyclic
loading stopped at a maximum rotation of about 0.02 without any observed
fracture. Figure 2.8 shows the specimen at the end of the cyclic tests.
Figure 2.8. Standard End Plate Specimen at the End of the Tests
(Astaneh-Asl, 1986c)
2.6.b. Cyclic Behavior of Pre-stressed End Plate Proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl
(1986c)
According to some fabricat,ors, one of the obstacles that prevents
widespread use of end plate connections is the lack of erection tolerances. In
girders with end plates the total back-to-back length of the girder should match
the face-to-face distance of the supporting columns. Quite often, to facilitate
erection the girder with end plates is fabricated slightly shorter and the gap
between the end plate and the column face is filled with shims. The prestressed
end plate connection proposed by the author was one solution to the problem.
In the proposed pre-stressed connection (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c), the girder
with end plates is fabricated 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch shorter and the gap between
the end plate and the column face is filled with a 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch length of
the beam as shown in Figure 2.9.
When the short I shape element (actually cut from the beam) is placed
between the end plate and the column and the bolts are tightened, the I-shape
element develops compression force almost equal to the tension in the bolts.
During cyclic loading, when the flange of girder is in tension, the tension force
causes relief in the compression force in the I-shape element. When the beam
flange is in compression, the compression is added to the I-shape element. As a
result, in this system, the bolts do not feel the full extent of cyclic loading.
I I / / - ' E n dPlate
Jr . . . .
BACKOF
ENDPLATE
High-Strength Bolts
Tightened
Figure 2.9. Prestressed End Plate Connections Proposed by Astaneh-Asl (1986c)
The specimen that was tested is shown in Figure 2.6(b). Figure 2.10(a)
shows moment-rotation curves for this specimen. Figure 2.10(b) shows the strain
in bolts outside the beam.
Several observations on the behavior of this specimen could be made:
a. The connection performed as rigid elastic during initial cycles and was able to
develop plastic moment capacity of the beam.
b. After few cycles of compression, the I-shaped element placed between the end
plate and the column yielded in compression, the compression yielding
caused the loss of pre-tensioning load in the bolts and resulted in the bolts
becoming the active elements.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Remsting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 32
?
17
c
vg
Z0
W
0v
I
C.
5
4 -
3-
2
;
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
From the performance of this one specimen it was concluded that if the I-
shaped element placed between the end plate and the column had remained
elastic, the connection would have performed extremely well and better than
the standard end plate connections. One way of achieving such an elastic
behavior, which is the key to maintaining prestressing forces, is to use higher
strength I-shape elements with larger cross section than the flange of the
beam. Further development of the proposed concept is currently under
consideration by the author.
019
k===========---
I I I ' I I [ I I
O.OO8
0.007 -
0.006-
004.
0.003.
0.002.
01101-
0
I I
0 u o -5 - - 1 3 5
Figure 2.10. (a) Moment-Rotation Curves and (b) Bolt Strains in the prestressed
End Plate Specimen Proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl (1986c)
In general, behavior of the proposed prestressed end plate connection
was ductile. The failure mode was local buckling of the beam flanges. The local
buckling occurred when the rotation reached about 0.01 radian. At this point the
strain in the locally buckled flange was about 0.06. Figure 2.11 shows the
specimen at the end of the tests.
The available data on cyclic behavior of end plate connections indicate
that it is possible to design sufficiently strong yet economical end plate
connections and force the plastic hinges to form in the connected girders. The
plastic hinges in the girders can be made ductile by using girders with relatively
low b/t ratios. However, in developing plastic hinge in the girder, significant
local buckling damage occurs as shown in Figure 2. 8. Such severe local
bucklings will require repairs after a major earthquake. In addition, it is not clear
if a girder with severe local buckling can carry its gravity load after a major
earthquake. If the objective of design is for the structure to survive a major
earthquake and then the locally buckled areas be repaired, then formation of
plastic hinge and severe local buckling in the girder can be justified. However,
such design philosophy can result in closure of the building after a major
earthquake and can result in high repair costs.
The above issue of damageability of a structure is not limited to steel
moment frames. Most other structures including the reinforced concrete
structures will sustain severe damage after a major earthquake and will require
repairs. However, notice that by using the top-and-bottom plate connections,as
discussed earlier,severe local buckling can easily be avoided. Figure 2.2 shows a
typical top-and-bottom plate connection at the end of the test with almost no
visible damage. The only damage to the structure is yielding of connection
elements.
Figure 2.11. Prestressed End Plate Specimen Proposed by A. AstanehoAsl in 1986
at the End of the Tests (Astaneh-Asl, 1986c)
2.7. Shaking Table Tests of Rigid, Semi-rigid and Flexible Frames
In 1988 a series of 51 shaking table tests were conducted to study the
behavior of welded and bolted, rigid, semi-rigid and flexible (simple) steel
frames (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1991). A one-story one-bay steel frame, shown
in Figure 2.12, was constructed such that the beam-to-column connections could
be replaced. Three types of connections, flexible, semi-rigid and rigid, were used
resulting in flexible, semi-rigid and rigid frames, Figure 2.12.
The structure with three types of connections, one type at a time, was
subjected to various levels of ground motions simulating 1940-E1 Centro, 1952-
Taft and 1987-Mexico-City earthquake records. A total of 51 shaking-table tests
was conducted. The results of one series of tests, when rigid, semi-rigid and
flexible structures were subjected to the Taft earthquake with maximum peak
acceleration of 0.35g are summarized and discussed. More information on the
shaking table tests can be found in the report (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1991).
u . . . . . . . .
J
-- J / -
W10X15"One ofthe
Beam Connections
Shown Below
W4X13
Column - -
Fixed ' -
BasePlateNN
6feet g83 cra)
VIEWOFTHESTRUCTURE
FULLPENETRATION I
E70xxWELD c
J '.2'dia.
''s F.m
w,ox, JTi
RIGIDCONNECTION
f 2L'2x2x3/ll ==
SEMI-RIGID CONNECTION
t
FLEXIBLE CONNECTION
Figure 2.12. Shaking Table Test Frame and Three Types of Connections Used
(Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1991)
Figure 2.13 shows the base shear-lateral drift response of three frames. The
frames showed almost an "equal displacement" response. The rigid frame
behaved almost elastically. The semi-rigid frame behaved in very ductile
manner, developed smaller base shear than the rigid frame but had slightly
larger displacement. The behavior of the flexible frame was also stable and
ductile with no traceable P-A effects. Figure 2.14 shows examples of moment-
rotation response of connections in rigid, semi-rigid and flexible moment frames.
Seismic Design of BoltedSteel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 35
%
.0
0
-1.0.
-3
. . . . RiiIO
- i 5EXI-RI$ID .
IEMi-R
dmf
- - Ft.EXII.E ,.
l-"q
m
I I I I
-2 - ] 0 t 2 3
DRIFT. %
Figure 2.13. Base Shear versus Lateral Displacement Response
(Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992)
I
Q.
- -
E
O
200
100
0.0
-100
-200
-0.02
f RIGID 1
I ., I, ,
0.0 0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.0 0.02
Rotati on, rad.
I
0.0 0.02
0.35 Taft
0.5g Taft 0.5g Mexico
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.14. Moment-Rotation Behavior of Connections (AstanehoAsl and Nader, 1991)
(a) Response of Rigid and Semi-rigid Connections to 0.35g Taft Earthquake
(b) Response of Semi-rigid Connections to 0.5g Taft Earthquake
(c) Response of Semi-rigid Connection to 0.5g Mexico-city Earthquake
3, CODE PROVISIONS
ONBOLTEDSTEEL
MOMENT-RESISTING
FRAMES
3.1. Introduction
Seismic design codes have a number of provisions applicable to bolted
moment frames. In this chapter, some of the provisions in the Uniform Building
Code (ICBO, 1994) that directly relate to seismic design of bolted steel moment-
resisting frames are discussed.
3.2. Special and Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames According to
the Uniform Building Code (1994)
The Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) defines special and ordinary moment
frames as follows:
"Special Moment-Resisting Frame is a moment-resisting frame specially detailed to
Iprovide ductile behavior and comply with the requirements given in Chapter 19
[reinforced concrete] or 22 [steel ]
Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame: is a moment-resisting frame not meeting special
detailing requirement of ductile behavior."
(Reproduced from the 1994 Uniform BuiMing Code, copyright 1994 with the permission of the
mblisher, the International Conference of Building Officials.)
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resastmg Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 37
Chapter 22 of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) provides more
information on the design and detailing of the Special Moment-Resisting Frames
in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 and Seismic Zones 1 and 2. Some of the important
requirements affecting the design of connections in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 are
discussed in the following. For a full text of the UBC-94 requirements, the reader
is referred to the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) and its Emergency
Changes implemented after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
3.2. Provisions in UBC on Bolted Special Steel Moment Frames
The Uniform Building Code, UBC-94, has the following provision
regarding strength of girder-to-column connections in special moment-resisting
frames (SMRF), including bolted special moment-resisting frames.
"Sec. 2211.7.1.1 Required strength. The girder-to-column connection shall be
iadequate to develop the lesser of the following:
1. The strength of the girder in flexure.
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as
determined from Formula (11-1).
EXCEPTION: Where a connection is not designed to contribute flexural resistance at the joint, i t
need not develop the required strength if it can be shown to meet the deformation compatibility
requirements of Section 1631.2.4."
(Reproduced from the 1994 Uniform Building Code, copyright 1994 with the permission of the
publisher, the International Conference of Building Officials.)
The Formula (11-1) in Part 2 above is given as the following in UBC-94:
V = 0.55Fyd,t[1- 3bctf
dbdct
(Formula 11-1 of UBC-94) (3.1)
T h e EXCEPTION in the above UBC provision is primarily for shear and
semi-rigid connections that are not considered in design as part of the lateral-
load resisting system. Section 1631.2.4 of the UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) has the
following provisions on the issue:
Sec. 1631.2.4 Deformation compatibility. All framing elements not required by
design to be part of the lateral-force-resisting system shall be investigated and shown to
be adequate for vertical load-carrying capacity when displaced 3(Rm/8) times the
displacement resulting from the required lateral forces. P A effects on such elements
shall be accounted for."
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Aboihassan Astaneh-Asl 38
The first and second printing of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994)
in its Section 2211.7.1.3 has provisions permitting the use of "Alternate"
connections which includes bolted special moment-resisting frame connections.
In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and damage to welded
special moment frame connections, the ICBO Board of Directors on September
14, 1994 approved the following emergency code change. The following text is
from Reference (Building Standards, 1994):
1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODETM, VOLUME 2
Sec. 2211.7.1.2, page 2-361. Delete the entire section.
Also:
Sec. 2211.7.1.3, page 2-361. Renumber and revise the
section as follows:
Sec.2211. 7. 1. 3_2 --e_Connecti onstrength.
Connection configurations utilizing welds or high-strength
bolts not --'----:-- - ' : ^ - ' " ' " ' "7 ' '" . . . . . ' ,..,, . . . . . . . . . . E, with ,.,., 1 ma)' o,. uo,.,
,,,. ,,,. o , , v . , shall demonstrate , by approved cyclic
test results or calculation, the ability to sustain inelastic
rotation and to mcct thc develop the strength criteria in
Section 2211.7.1.1 considering the effects of steel
....v lt&q,..,]L., overstrength and strain hardening. ,n. . . . . . .,, . . . . . . q*p,'UIl1 ' ..1111JLOI,L 1. b .0
o. . . . . . . .j ,...,.,....,,,, ...o pcrccnt of the strcngths of "--
O 1110[ UO.,U.
(Note: The strike-through texts are deleted and the underlined
texts are added, both by the ICBO.)
Procedures for seismic design of the special bolted moment frames are
presented in Chapter 4 of this report. The procedures are based on the results of
cyclic tests of bolted moment frame connections. The test procedures and results
are summarized in Chapter 2 of this report. The test specimens, satisfied the
overstrength and strain hardening of the beam stipulated in the above changes.
The beams for specimens were ordered to be A36. However, the coupon tension
tests of the girder flange indicated a yield stress of 57 ksi. As a result, almost the
entire rotational ductility of the bolted connections that were tested, came from
the connection. The girders because of their high yield point did not yield and
did not contribute to the ductility. Even with girders remaining almost elastic,
the rotational ductility of the bolted moment connections that were tested was in
excess of 0.03 radian.
Seasmic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 39
As indicated above, the provisions regarding design of welded rigid
moment connections in special moment frames have been revised significantly
since the 1994 Northridge earthquake (ICBO, 1994). With the revisions of seismic
design procedures for welded moment frame connections, the cost of fabrication,
erection, field-welding, quality control and inspection of welded special moment
frames has risen significantly. As a result, bolted special moment-resisting
frames, the subject of this report, have become more economical. In particular,
bolted special moment frames show great potential and economy for use in low-
and medium-rise space moment frames and perimeter moment frames.
3.3. Lateral Forces for Seismic Desi gn
The minimum forces and other requirements to be considered in seismic
design of the steel bolted moment frames are those provided by the governing
code for "Special Steel Moment-Resisting Frames". The Uniform Building Code
(ICBO, 94) has provisions for establishing minimum equivalent static and more
realistic dynamic seismic forces. The code also provides guidelines on when the
two, static or dynamic force procedures, can or cannot be used. In general, in
current practice, where the structure is not taller than 240 feet and is not
irregular, the static force method is used to establish equivalent seismic lateral
forces. For taller and irregular structures the UBC requires the use of dynamic
force procedures.
In this section selective parts of the Static Load Procedure of the Uniform
Building Code (ICBO, 1994) relevant to special bolted moment frames are
discussed. The excerpts from the UBC are provided here only for discussion
purposes. The actual seismic design should be done by proper use and
interpretation of the Uniform Building Code itself by a competent professional
engineer.
In UBC, the base shear is established as:
v = zic w (3.2)
Rw
1.25S
C- 2/3 W (3.3)
T
According to UBC-94, the value of C need not exceed 2.75 and may be
used for any structure without regard to soil type or structural period. The
minimum value of C/Rw is limited to 0.075 except for provisions, such as
lateral drift check, where code forces are scaled-up by 3(Rw/8).
The Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) permits calculation of T, the
fundamental period, from one of the following methods A and B:
Method A: For all buildings, the value of T may be approximated from the
following formula:
T = C,(h,) TM (3.4)
where Ct is a constant for steel moment frames given as 0.035 in UBC-94 and hn
is the height of the building in feet.
Method B: In this method, the fundamental period T is calculated using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the structural elements
and using a more precise analysis
The reduction parameter Rw represents the performance and
damageability of the structure. Depending on the seismic performance and
ductility of the common structural systems, appropriate reduction factors have
been established. For steel special moment frames, the Uniform Building Code
specifies an Rw of 12.
Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake and damage to some of the welded
special moment frames, some concern has been expressed whether Rw of 12 is
appropriate for the welded moment frames. In Europe and Japan, smaller
reduction factors are used in seismic design of all structures. At this writing, the
profession is studying the damage to steel welded moment frames and the main
cause of damage in steel moment frames has not been established.
The value of Rw for any structural system is directly related to the amount
of inelasticity (damage) that will occur in the system. A higher value of Rw is an
indicator of a higher amount of inelasticity (yielding damage). The current
philosophy of seismic design codes is based on achieving life safety and
preventing collapse. The current values of Rw have proven to be able to achieve
the life safety criterion in steel buildings since there has been no partial or no full
collapse of special steel moment frames during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
However, since there has not been a very strong earthquake in the United States
to shake the modern steel or reinforced concrete structures, it is not clear
whether all structures designed using an Rw of 12 will survive such a quake
without collapse.
It is the opinion of the author that a systematic study of the Reduction
Factor based design and of values of Rw for all structural systems in steel,
reinforced concrete and composite construction needs to be conducted. The
current Rw values in the codes have evolved primarily from experience of the
Seismic Destgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 41
performance of structures during past earthquakes and the intuition of engineers
involved in developing the code procedures. The recent earthquakes,
particularly the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquakes, have
clearly indicated that there is a need to revisit some of the basic concepts in
seismic design including Rw's.
A limited study of Rw as part of a larger study of the performance of steel
moment frames (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992) indicated that instead of an Rw of
12, a value of Rw of about 9 is more justified for use with currently designed and
constructed special moment frames. It should be noticed that the implication of
using a higher Rw is to have less initial cost of construction but, most likely,
heavy damage and higher cost of repair after a severe earthquake. The impact of
this trade-off needs to be systematically studied and optimum values of Rw need
to be established. However, until the Uniform Building Code changes any values
of Rw, the values given in the code need to be considered as the maximum Rw's
to achieve minimum design loads.
For bolted special steel moment-resisting frames, because of their high
ductility, there is no reason not to use an Rw of 12 provided that the bolted
connections be designed to have the high ductility observed in the test specimens
presented in Chapter 2. The procedures to design the bolted connections of the
bolted special steel moment-resisting frames are presented in Chapter 4.
Therefore, for bolted steel special moment frames:
Rw= (3.5)
After establishing base shear, the procedures given in Section 1628.4 of the
Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) can be used to distribute the base shear
over the height of the building.
4. SEISMIC DESIGNOF
BOLTEDMOMENT
RESISTING FRAMES
4.1. Introduction
Seismic design of bolted MRFs is similar to seismic design of welded
MRFs. First, seismic lateral loads need to be established. This was discussed in
the previous chapter. Second, seismic forces in combination with gravity loads
are applied to a realistic model of the structure and by analyzing the structure
component forces and nodal displacements are calculated. Finally, the
components (members) and connections are designed to ensure that they have
sufficient strength, stiffness and ductility for the applied forces and that the
displacements of the structure do not exceed the permissible limits.
In bolted moment connections, depending on the connection details, slight
slippage and gap-opening can occur. Such minor displacements are not expected
to change the seismic behavior of rigid moment connections in an adverse
manner. In fact, the available data indicates that such minor movements and
release of stiffness in the connection can be beneficial in improving overall
seismic behavior. To satisfy serviceability requirements, it is suggested that
slippage and gap-openings be avoided under the service loads.
4.2. Connection Design Philosophy in Special Moment-Resisting Frames
According to current codes, UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) and AISC Specification
(AISC, 1993), for special moment resisting frames, girder-to-column connections
should be designed to develop at least the bending strength of the connected
members, or to have sufficient ductility if it can be shown by laboratory tests.
However, currently, there is no well established definition of "sufficient
ductility".
Traditionally, ductility of a steel moment connection is measured by cyclic
moment rotation tests. In the past, some researchers had proposed that if a
connection can reach a rotation of 0. 02 radian under cyclic loading, the
connection is sufficiently ductile (Popov et al., 1993). Others, including the
author, have established that for a connection to be considered sufficiently
ductile, it should be able to reach at least 0. 03 radian rotation under cyclic
loading (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992). In addition, based on experimental and
analytical studies, it was suggested that the cumulative inelastic rotation under
cyclic loading should be at least 0.1 radian (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992).
Three recent studies of the behavior of steel rigid moment frames (Englekirk,
1994; D'Amore and Astaneh-Asl, 1995; Astaneh-Asl, et al., 1995) confirm that the
moment connections should have sufficient ductility to tolerate 0.03 radian
rotation without fracture.
To satisfy the general equation of design: Capacity _> Demand, the
rotational ductility of a moment connection should be greater than the rotational
demand. However, establishing a realistic value for cyclic rotational demand
has proven to be a complex matter. This is due to many uncertainties regarding
the future ground motions, complexity of the inelastic seismic behavior of the
structures and a lack of sufficient research data on cyclic behavior of many
connections.
Traditionally, ductility of the moment connections is measured in terms of
rotational ductility. However, it is not clear, at least to the author, if defining
ductility of a moment connection in terms of its rotational capacity is the most
rational way. It appears that a criterion based on the magnitude of local strain in
the welds or steel would be more appropriate. After all, it is the local ductility of
the weld or steel that, if exhausted, will result in the initiation and propagation of
the fracture cracks. To clarify the point consider two moment connections which
have beams with different depths. If both connections are subjected to the same
rotations, the local strain in the welds in the deeper beam will be larger than the
strain in the welds of the smaller beam.
In the absence of a well-defined, reliable and universally accepted
criterion to establish ductility demand, one rational approach is to focus on
increasing the ductility supply of the connection. With the significant
uncertainties that currently exist with regard to the characteristics of future
earthquakes and their effects on the structure, the increased supply of ductility,
above and beyond any specified demand (such as 0.03 radian) can improve the
seismic performance of the structure significantly.
Selsmtc Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 44
To increase supply of ductility, the ductile failure modes, such as limited
friction slip, yielding of steel and minor local buckling, should be made the
governing failure modes. The occurrence of brittle failure modes, such as fracture
of welds and bolts or fracture of the net section of the members should be
delayed and if possible prevented altogether. In the following section, the
seismic design philosophy of avoiding brittle fracture modes and its
implementation in design of bolted steel momnt-resisting frames is discussed in
more detail.
4.4. Proposed Design Criteria for Bolted Connections in Special Steel Moment-
Resisting Frames
In design of connections in seismic areas, three issues need to be
addressed: (a) stiffness, (b) strength and (c) cyclic and cumulative ductility.
4.4.a. Stiffness of Bolted Moment Connections
The initial rotational stiffness of the connection relative to the girder
should be large enough so that the girder span is categorized as rigid. With
reference to Chapter 1, this requirement is satisfied if:
(K)cn > 18
L g
(4.1)
where (K)con and (EI/L)g are rotational stiffnesses of the connection and
girder, respectively.
4.4.b. Strength of a Bolted Moment Connection
Shear Connection of the Web: Currently, shear connections on the girder webs
of the moment connections are designed to resist the gravity load acting in pure
shear. This is in accordance with the traditional division of forces in the
connection that assigns shear to the web and bending moment to the flanges.
Because of the high ductility of steel as a material, and from the application of the
Upper Bound theorem of plasticity, such assignment of forces makes the design
simple and has worked satisfactorily in the past. However, in seismic design,
particularly in seismic Zones 3 and 4, the connections can be pushed to their limit
during major earthquakes and can develop damage. In such situations some
parts of the connection might fail and other parts might then have to bear the
load of the failed part and prevent collapse under the gravity load.
To increase the ductility of connections and the chance of survival and to
avoid catastrophic collapse, the following suggestions are made for seismic
design of shear plate connections in moment-resisting frames:
. Design the shear plate to develop shear yield capacity as well as plastic
moment capacity of the girder web. The suggested criteria can be written
as:
hptp(O.6Fyp ) >_h gwtgw(O.6Fy g ) (4.2)
2
h2tp(Fyr,)_> hgwtgw(Fyg ) (4.3)
The dimensions in the above formulae are shown in Figure 4.1. The yield
stresses to be used in the above balanced-strength equations should be
realistic yield stresses and not the nominal specified. For example for dual-
strength A36 steel girder the higher yield stress should be used.
....... tgw 7
:!hlp i, h
Welded-Bolted Plates
Figure 4.1. A Bolted Moment Connection
. In seismic design ensure that the governing failure mode is yielding of the
shear plate and not shear fracture of the bolts or fracture of the net area of
the shear plate or girder web. The failure modes of shear plate connections
have been studied in recent years (Astaneh-Asl, et al, 1989) and design
procedures have been developed that are currently incorporated into the
Seismic Design ot Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 46
AISC Specifications and the Manual (AISC, 1994). If one follows the
procedures and tables in the AISC Manual (AISC, 1994 and 1992), the shear
plate is expected to behave in a ductile manner and the failure mode is by
design yielding of the steel. Caution should be exercised here since because
of availability of high yield A36 steel, it is possible that in the actual
structure, the desired yield failure mode may not occur. To ensure yielding
of plate, the realistic yield stresses of material should be used in the design.
. It is suggested here that the depth of shear plate be made almost equal to the
clear depth of the web of the girder. In doing so it will be easier to satisfy the
suggested criteria in Item 1 above. In addition, the full depth shear plate can
result in increasing the participation of the girder web in developing its
share of the plastic moment capacity.
. In seismic Zones 3 and 4, it is suggested that the shear capacity of the bolt
group connecting the shear plate and girder web be equal or greater than
1.25 times the shear yield capacity of the shear tab or the girder web,
whichever is smaller.
. During the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a number of shear plates partially
fractured. Even though the fractures did not result in collapse of any span,
it is suggested here that until further research is conducted, fillet welds
should not be used to connect shear plates to the web of the girders. To
increase participation of the girder web, it appears that the use of deeper
shear plates (see Item 3 above) bolted to the girder web is better than fillet
welds.
Design of Flange Connections: According to the AISC Manual (AISC, 1994) in
the design of bolted moment connections, the applied moment is divided by the
depth of the cross section and the connections of girder flanges are designed for
the force M/h. Following this method, in some way flanges are expected to carry
the entire applied moment without any help from the web. Again, as mentioned
earlier, in reality the web and flange elements will share the load based on their
stiffness and strength. This separation of moment and shear- resisting elements
in design has worked well in the past. However, for seismic design a more
rational approach that more closely relates to the actual ultimate behavior is
needed.
In seismic design, and to ensure ductility of the connection, the governing
failure mode of flange connections should be ductile failure modes such as
friction slip, yielding of steel and very minor local buckling. Failure modes such
as fracture of welds or fracture of net areas should be avoided.
To increase the ductility of connections in bending and to avoid costly
damage to connections, the following suggestions are made for seismic design of
flange connections in bolted special moment frames:
.
Design the flange connections to develop axial yield capacity of the girder
flange. Do not use connections that have yield strength significantly greater
than the girder. Doing so can result in flange connections staying elastic
and all the ductility demand expected to be supplied by the girder flange.
The resulting inelasticity can cause severe cyclic local buckling and
premature fracture. The suggestion can be written as:
bptp(Fyp ) ; bft f ( F y g ) (4.4)
.
In seismic design, it must be ensured that the governing failure mode is
yielding of the steel and not fracture of the net area of the flange connection
elements or fracture of the net area of the girder. With tmcertainties
regarding variation of the yield point of the specified steel and what is
actually delivered and used, it is suggested at this time that the capacity of
the net section of the girder flange in tension be 1. 25 times the yield
capacity of the flange calculated using the specified yield point (i.e. 36 ksi or
50 ksi).
. In seismic Zones 3 and 4, it is suggested that the capacity of the bolt group
connecting the flange elements to the column and the girder be equal or
greater than 1.25 times the axial yield capacity of the flange. With the
current uncertainty regarding variation of the yield point for steel, the 1.25
factor is proposed to ensure that even if the girder has a higher yield point
than specified, the bolt fracture will not precede the yielding of the girder.
The current seismic design codes, UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) and AISC
Specifications (AISC, 1994) permit limited yielding of the panel zone in shear by
specifying that the shear strength of the panel zone need not exceed that required
to develop 80% of the moments developed by the girders framing into the
column flanges. In some cases during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, cracks
that apparently initiated in the welds, propagated into the panel zones. At this
time, the cause of cracks in welded connections is not well understood and the
issue of permitting limited yielding in the panel zone of welded moment
connections remains to be re-examined.
In the author's opinion, in bolted moment connections, it is relatively easy
to design the connection to be able to supply all the ductility demand of the joint
by yielding of connection elements outside the column while maintaining an
almost elastic column. Therefore, until more information on the behavior of
Seismic Design oi Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abothassan Astaneh-Asl 48
panel zones during the Northridge earthquake becomes available, it is prudent
to design panel zones to remain elastic and confine almost all the yielding to the
beam-to-column connection area and the girder flange outside the column panel
zone.
4.4.c. Design and Detailing to Achieve Sufficient Ductility
To ensure ductility of a steel connection, all failure modes should be
identified and divided into two categories: ductile and brittle. Then the seismic
design of the connection should be done such that the ductile failure modes
govern the design. A suggestion to achieve this is to design for the capacity of
the brittle failure modes to be 1.25 times the capacity of the ductile failure
modes.
4.5. Ductile and Brittle Limit States (Failure Modes) in Seismic Design of
Connections
In seismic design of steel components, failure modes are divided into
ductile and brittle failure modes as discussed below.
Ductile Failure Modes: When a component of a steel structure reaches a ductile
limit state, the stiffness of the component is reduced significantly, but the
strength of the component continues to be, more or less, maintained. An example
of ductile limit state, or ductile failure mode, is yielding of steel.
In seismic design of steel components the following failure modes are
considered ductile:
Controlled and limited friction slippage
Yielding of steel; and
Minor local buckling
Brittle Failure Modes: When a component of a steel structure reaches a brittle
limit state, both the stiffness and the strength of the component are almost
entirely lost. An example of brittle limit state is fracture of the welds or shear
failure of bolts.
In seismic design of steel components the following failure modes are
considered brittle:
Fracture of weld
Fracture of bolt under shear, tension or combination of shear and tension.
Fracture of steel
Severe local buckling, that deteriorates the material in a locally buckled
area and rapidly leads to premature fracture.
Slippage of the bolted components results in temporary loss of stiffness.
Such temporary loss of stiffness can be used to work as a fuse during
earthquakes. By designing the bolts to slip under a pre-determined level of force,
the bolted connection can act as a fuse and limit the force that is transmitted
through the bolts. In addition, the friction slippage results in significant energy
dissipation and damping. Because of the relatively large number of connections
in bolted moment-resisting frames, such slippage can occur in many locations
dissipating the energy in a distributed and desirable manner without causing a
single energy dissipating device to deteriorate.
For any bolted connection, before the bolts fail in shear, the connection
needs to slip and engage the bolts and connected steel parts. Therefore, slippage
of bolted connections subjected to shear is a natural phenomenon. The
important question seems to be when is the best time to have friction slip. Of
course slippage of bolts under service loads cannot be accepted. If slippage
occurs under a force level close to the shear failure capacity of the bolts, because
of high elastic stiffness up to the slippage, a large amount of strain energy is
already in the structure. When slippage occurs under such large energy, from
the resulting impact and the fact that the slippage force is too close to the fracture
capacity, the bolts can fail in shear. To safeguard against such failures and to
satisfy serviceability, the following criteria for bolt slippage under seismic loads
are suggested:
1.25Fservice _<FSlippage -< O. 80 Fultimate
(4.5)
where:
FService= Applied shear force due to service (unfactored) code specified
load combinations
Fslippage = Force that can cause friction slippage, calculated using AISC
specified bolt pretension and the AISC specified friction
coefficients, see LRFD Specification for Structural Joints
Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts (AISC, 1994)
Fultimate = Specified shear strength of the bolt (AISC, 1994)
The 1.25 and 0.80 factors in the above equation are introduced to provide
a reasonable margin of safety against slippage under the service condition as
well as to guard against slippage occurring too close to the ultimate capacity.
Unfortunately test results on cyclic slippage behavior of steel structures are very
limited. As a result, the reader is cautioned that the above limits of 1.25 and 0.8
are selected primarily based on the basis of engineering judgment and intuition,
and are therefore, subject to the judgment and approval of the structural
engineer in charge of the design. Figure 4.2. shows the slippage behavior of
bolted connections and the suggested criteria.
Moment
Beam Connection
Mpof G i r d e
I Servi ceMoment
Rotation
Figure 4.2 Slippage Behavior of Bolted Moment Connections
Local buckling cab be categorized as ductile or brittle depending on how
rapidly the locally buckled area deteriorates during cyclic loading. Available
cyclic test results indicate that steel members with high b/t ratios, say higher
than ,r given in the AISC Specifications (AISC, 1994), tend to form local
buckling in a very sharp configuration, develop relatively large lateral
displacements and fracture through the sharp tip of the locally buckled areas
after a few inelastic cycles. Cyclic local buckling in this manner should be
considered brittle. The value of ,r suggested for the flanges of the girders in
special moment-resisting frames is 95 / xfFyy. On the other hand, members with a
b/t ratio less than those specified by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1993)
tend to develop local buckling after a relatively large number of inelastic cyclic
deformations (usually more than 10 to 15 cycles of inelastic behavior before local
buckling). The limit for the b/t ratio for the flanges of the girders currently given
in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1993), is 52 / y.
In addition, when the b/t ratio of the flange is less than 5 2 / y , the
locally buckled area does not develop a sharp tip. These members can be
considered sufficiently ductile.
For members with b/t ratios greater than 52/x/-F7 and less than 95/
there is not sufficient data on their low-cycle fatigue behavior to result in a clear
conclusion. In a conservative move and until more test data becomes available,
cyclic local buckling of the members with b/t ratio between 52/xly and
95/x/rFTy can be considered nonductile (brittle) in seismic Zones 3 and 4 and
sufficiently ductile for seismic Zones I and 2.
The following guidelines, which are based on the monotonic and cyclic
local buckling behavior of steel members, are conservatively suggested by the
author to be used to categorize local buckling failure modes as ductile or brittle
in seismic Zones 3 and 4:
If blt < 0.80 , behavior is ductile, otherwise behavior is considered
to be nonductile (brittle)
where ),,p is the limit for the b/t ratio for plastic design of steel structures given
in Table B5.1 of the AISC Specification (AISC, 1994). The table gives value of kp
for flanges of rolled wide flange shape as 65 / y.
In the following section, specific design procedures are proposed to
achieve the above criterion.
4.6. Seismic Design Procedures for Bolted Top- and Bottom-Plate Moment
Connections
Figure 4.3. shows a top- and bottom- plate bolted connection proposed
for use in bolted special moment-resisting frames. The girder flange connection
consists of two plates welded to the column in the shop with a full penetration
weld. The web connection consists of a shear tab fillet welded to the column in
the shop also. After planting the columns in the field, the girders are bolted to the
flange and web plates using slip-critical high-strength A325 or A490 bolts (A325
is preferred in seismic Zones 3 and 4).
Failure modes of this connection have been identified (Harriott and
Astaneh-Asl, 1990; Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992) as given in the following list.
The list is in the order of desirability of the failure mode with most ductile and
desirable failure mode being listed first and the most brittle and undesirable
mode listed last. The list might appear long and give the impression that in
order to design bolted connections many failure modes need to be checked.
Although this might be true in some cases, the following list includes all
Seasmm Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 52
possible failure modes of bolted connections and some of them are included for
completeness.
Std. Holes in Beam
J-Oversized Holes in Plates
I I I l l '
::3
f Slip Critical H.S. Bolts

. , / . / ./-' Flange Plate
i
, With Slots
' ;e/J- Shear Plate Jg]
WF Girder
C
E
0
u_
Stiffener Plate if Req'd
Figure 4.3. A Typical Top- and Bottom-Plate Moment Connection
The possible failure modes of a bolted top and bottom flange plate
moment connection are:
Ductile Failure Modes for Flange Connections:
a. Slippage of the flange bolts
b. Yielding of the gross area of the top and bottom flange plates
c. Bearing yielding of the bolt holes in the girder flanges and the flange plates
d. Yielding of the gross area of the girder flange
Failure Modes with Limited Ductility for Flange Connections:
e. Local buckling of the top and bottom flange plates
f. Local buckling of the girder flanges
g. Shear yielding of the panel zone of the column
Brittle Failure Modes for Flange Connections:
h. Fracture of the edge distance or bolt spacing in the flange plate
i. Block shear failure of the top and bottom flange plates
j. Fracture of the net section of the flange plate
k. Fracture of the edge distance or bolt spacing in the girder flanges
1. Block shear failure of the girder flanges
m. Shear fracture of the flange bolts
n. Fracture of the welds connecting the top and bottom plates to the column
o. Net section fracture of the girder flanges
Ductile Failure Modesfor Web Connections:
p. Various failure modes of the shear connection of the web
In the above list, failure modes (a) through (d) are considered ductile and
desirable. Failure modes (e) and (f) are considered ductile provided that b/t
ratios satisfy the limit given in Section 4.5 above. The panel yielding (g) is
considered ductile if panel zone design satisfies the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC, 1994). Failure modes listed as (h) through (o) are
considered brittle and not acceptable to govern the strength of the bolted special
moment-resisting frames. Figure 4.4 shows the above failure modes and their
desirability as the governing failure mode.
Failure mode (p) in the above list presents failure of the shear connection
which is responsible for carrying the gravity load after the quake. Because of the
importance of shear connections in carrying the gravity load, brittle failure of
the shear connection is considered catastrophic and listed as the most
undesirable (unacceptable) failure mode. The reader is referred to References
(Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989) for information on ductile design of shear connections.
/ _ _ y _ _ I _ _ y _ _ l k y . _ _ J l Y )
Ductile Ductile Ductile/brittle Brittle
Slippage Failure Failure Failure
Mode Modes Modes Modes
Figure 4.4. Failure Modes of Top and Bottom Flange Plate Connections
Also, the reader is reminded that because of the good performance of the shear
plate connections there has been no published report of the collapse of any span
during or after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Even in structures with
extensive cracking of the welds and other areas of the connections, and reports of
some partial cracking of the shear plates or shear failure of some bolts, the shear
plates were able to carry the service gravity load and prevent the collapse of the
spans.
4.6.a. Slippage of Flange Bolts
Comprehensive information on the slip behavior of bolted connections
has been given by Kulak et al. (1987) and in the AISC Manual, Volume II (1994).
The important issue for bolted special moment connections, with regard to
slippage, is should bolted connections in special moment frames be permitted to
slip, and if slippage is permitted at what level of load should slippage be
designed to occur?
From available test results on the cyclic slip behavior of bolts in shear, it is
clear that controlled and limited slippage of high-strength bolts is a desirable
phenomenon during severe earthquakes. As a result of slippage, the stiffness of
the structure decreases, the period elongates and the energy dissipation and
damping increase all of which, in general, result in a reduction of the dynamic
response of the steel structure to ground motions. More important perhaps,
even small slippage of the bolts in moment connections increases the rotational
ductility significantly. This is shown in Figure 2.4, where because of slippage of
the bolted moment connection, its ductility was increased significantly compared
to welded moment connection. In addition, a literature survey of the issue did
not reveal any report on adverse effects on seismic behavior of steel structures
from slippage of bolted connections.
One of the concerns expressed by some structural engineers, regarding
bolt slippage is that if bolted moment connections are permitted to slip, such a
slip will make the structure more flexible and can result in development of larger
drifts than for non-slip connections. Later in this chapter, some suggestions are
made on how to incorporate stiffness of the connection into a computer model of
the frame to calculate more realistic drift values. In general, the slippage of bolts
in standard round holes is not expected to result in changes of any consequence
in drift values.
Therefore, it is recommended that in the design of bolted steel moment
connections, slippage of the bolts be permitted and incorporated into the design
as a useful phenomenon to improve seismic behavior of the structure.
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh~Asl 55
In incorporating slippage into seismic design, the question is when is the
appropriate time for a moment connection to slip? In establishing appropriate
slip moment capacity, Mslip, the following items need to be considered:
.
The bolted connection should not slip under the service loads. To be
conservative, the slip moment greater than 1.25 times the moment in the
connection due to service (not factored) loads is suggested. Therefore:
Mslip > l'25M(service load)
(4.6a)
. The bolted connection should slip during moderate and strong earthquakes to
reduce the stiffness, to increase ductility and to dissipate energy. On the basis
of experience and intuition, it is suggested here that the slip moment be
smaller than 0.8 times the plastic moment capacity of the girder.
Mslip < 0.80Mp(girder) (4.6b)
Without extensive data on this item, the structural engineer, knowing
parameters of the design and the target performance, is the most qualified
person to decide when bolted connections can be permitted to slip.
Combining the above two suggestions, the equation to establish slip moment is:
l'25M(service load) < Mslip < 0'8Mp(girder)
(4.7)
where
M(service load)
Mp(girder)
Mslip
Fv
Ab
N
d
= moment in the connection due to application of service loads
= plastic moment capacity of the girder
= moment that can cause slippage in the connection
= FvAb N d
= nominal slip critical shear resistance (Table J3.6 of the AISC Spec.,
1994)
= area of one bolt
= number of bolts in slip plane
= overall depth of girder
4.6.b. Yielding of Gross Area of Top and Bottom Plates
To increase ductility of the connection, yielding of top and bottom flange
plates should be encouraged as the girder enters strain hardening. To achieve
this, it is suggested that the plastic moment capacity of the connection should be
close to or slightly greater than 1.25 times the plastic moment capacity of the
girder, as expressed in:
Mp(plates) ->l.25Mp(girder)
(4.8)
where
Mp(girder)
Mp(plates)
Fvp
Ap
d
= plastic moment capacity of the girder
= moment causing yielding of the top and bottom plates
= Fy.pApd
= minimum specified yield stress of the plates
= gross area of one flange plate in the area between the first bolt
line and the weld line.
= back-to-back depth of girder
4.6.c. Bearing Yielding of Bolt Holes in Girder Flange and Plates
Bearing yielding of the bolt holes is beneficial in reducing seismic
response during extreme events. It is suggested that in design the moment that
can cause bearing yielding in the connection is equal to or slightly greater than
1.25 times the yield moment of the girder, as expressed in:
Mp(bearing) ->l'25Mp(girder)
(4..9)
where:
Mp(bearing) = moment causing bearing yielding of the bolt holes
Fup
db
N
= 2.4.FupdbNt
=mmtmum specified tensile strength of the plates
= diameter of bolts
= number of bolts
= thickness of the plate or flange, whichever results in a smaller Mb.
4.6.d. Yielding of Gross Area of Girder
This failure mode occurs when a plastic hinge forms in the girder. This
failure mode should be the target failure mode in the design of rigid connections.
As indicated throughout this section, other failure modes are matched against
this desirable failure mode.
The equation to establish plastic moment capacity of the girder is:
Mp(girder) =FyZ
(4ao)
where
Mp(girder) = plastic moment capacity of the girder
Fy = realistic minimum specified yield stress of the girder. For dual yield
point A36, the higher yield value should be used in this context.
Z = plastic section modulus of the girder cross section
4.6.e. Local Buckling of the Top and Bottom Flange Plates
As discussed earlier in this document and by Astaneh-Asl and Harriott
(1990), in bolted moment connections, the flanges of the girder and the plates
brace each other to some extent delaying local buckling of the plate as well as the
girder flange. The portion of the top and bottom flange plates between the first
row of the bolts and the weld line is the most stressed region in compression and
should be checked for buckling. This portion of a plate should be made as short
as is practically possible. Considering clearances and the space needed around
the bolts for tightening, the distance of the first row of bolts from the column face
will be in the order of 4 to 5 inches in most practical situations. Longer spaces are
not desirable since they can facilitate buckling of the plates during compression
cycles and reduce the rotational rigidity of the connection. A shorter length for
this portion can result in concentration of plasticity near or within the heat-
affected zone resulting in premature fracture.
4.6.f. Local Buckling of Girder Flanges
As discussed earlier, if the b/t ratio of the girder flange is less than
local buckling of the girder flange will be sufficiently delayed during a
cyclic event. When the cyclic local buckling occurs it will be relatively smooth
and ductile without significant loss of strength.
4.6.g. Shear Yielding of Panel Zone
The Uniform Building Code permits limited yielding of the panel zones
in special moment frames (UBC, 1994). The provisions of UBC state that the
panel zone shear may be calculated by using 80 percent of moment capacity of
the connected girders. Since some cracks have been observed in the panel zone
in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, it is suggested that until the
causes of these cracks are established the panel zone shear be calculated using
100 percent moment capacity of the connected girders.
Seismic 13esign of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 58
The above suggestion is based on the fact that following these procedures,
the bolted connections are designed to have a strength equal to 125 percent of
the strength of the girder. Following the UBC provisions and designing the
panel zone for a shear strength to develop 80 percent of girder capacity results
in the panel zone having a shear strength of only 80/125= 64 percent of the
connection strength. This will make the panel zone the weakest link in the
system and cause its shear yielding to occur too early and to be too widespread.
Such widespread yielding in the web of the columns cannot be desirable.
To protect the panel zone against extensive yielding, it is suggested that
the panel zone shear capacity be at least equal to the shear that can be delivered
to the panel zone by plastic moments of the girders:
where
g Pgirders
Vn >
ds
Vn = 0.55Fydctp[1 + dbdct p3b*rt 2f ]
Fy = minimum specified yield stress of the plates
dc = depth of the column
db = overall depth of the girder
tp = total thickness of the panel zone
t/cf = width of the column flange
tcf = thickness of the column flange
ds = distance between the horizontal continuity plates (depth of panel
zone).
(4.11)
As discussed in previous chapters, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake a
number of panel zones fractured. These fractures have resulted in questions
raised on the validity of the above equation in representing the actual behavior
and capacity of the panel zones. Until the cause of panel zone fractures is
established and a realistic design equation is developed (or the above equation is
validated), the author suggests the use of equations that are given in the AISC~
LRFD Specification (AISC, 1994). The equations are given for panel zone design
when the effect of panel zone deformation on frame stability is not considered in
the analysis. The equations from AISC~LRFD Specifications (AISC, 1994) are:
For Pu <--0.4 P y
Vn=q) ( 0.60Fydctp)
For Pu > 0.4 P y
Vn= ( 0.60Fydctp)(1.4- P u / P y)
where
= reduction factor= 0.90
P u= axial tension or compression force in the column panel zone
4.6.h. Fracture of Edge Distance or Bolt Spacing in Plate
Fracture of edge distance by itself may not be catastrophic, but during
cyclic loading a crack within the edge distance can jump the bolt hole and
fracture the entire width of the plate. This behavior has been observed in past
cyclic tests of bolted double-angle bracings (Astaneh et al, 1984)
On the basis of the limited information currently available on the cyclic
behavior of bolt edge distances, it is suggested that in special moment frames
bolt edge distances should not be less than 1.5 times the diameter of the bolt and
preferably 2.0 times the diameter. In most bolted top and bottom connections,
there is sufficient width of flange to accommodate easily an edge distance equal
to two bolt diameters.
The bolt spacing, due to automation of drilling or punching is usually
specified as 3 inches. In the absence of any report of failure of bolt spacing
during earthquakes or in laboratory tests, it appears that 3 inch spacing is
satisfactory.
4.6.i. Block Shear Failure of Top and Bottom Plates
Block shear failure is a fracture-yield type of failure where the boundary
of a block of steel yields in some areas and fractures in the remaining areas. To
ensure that this relatively brittle failure mode does not occur before the plates
yield, the following condition is suggested:
OnPn > 1.25 Mp / d (4.12)
where
(n
d
Pn
= resistance reduction factor for fracture = 0.75
= resistance reduction factor for yielding = 0.90
= depth of girder
= nominal resistance of flange plate in block shear failure as given below:
Seismic Demgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 60
(a) When FuAnt > 0.6FuAnv
Pn = 0.6FyAgv + FuAnt
(b) When FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
(4.13)
Pn = 0.6FuAnv + FyAgt (4.14)
Agv = gross area subject to shear
Agt = gross area subject to tension
Anv = net area subject to shear
Ant = net area subject to tension
4.6.j. Fracture of Net Section of Plate
The plates should be designed such that the fracture of plates does not
occur before yielding and strain hardening of the girder. The following criterion
is suggested:
where
nMpn _>1.25Mp
(4.15)
Mpn = plastic moment capacity of the net section of the plates
-- Fy d Anp
)n
Fy
Anp
d
= resistance reduction factor for fracture =0.75
= resistance reduction factor for yielding =0.90
- net area of one plate across the first bolt row
4.6.k. Fracture of Edge Distance or Bolt Spacing in Girder Flanges
Earlier in Section 4.6.h this issue was discussed for plates.
discussion and recommendations apply to the girder flanges.
The same
4.6.1. Block Shear Failure of Girder Flanges
Earlier in Section 4.6.i the issue of block shear failure of flange plates was
discussed. For block shear failure of the flange itself the same discussion and
equations as in Section 4.6.i apply.
4.6.m. Shear Fracture of Flange Bolts
This failure mode can occur when after slippage of the bolts and some
bearing yielding, the applied moment is totally carried by the shear strength of
the bolts. To encourage yielding of steel before bolt shear failure, the following
criterion is suggested:
b b Fb Ab N d > 1.25 Mp (4.16)
where
Cb
Fb
Ab
d
N
= resistance reduction factor for fracture = 0.75
= resistance reduction factor for yielding = 0.90
= shear strength of bolt
= area of one bolt
= number of bolts
4.6.n. Fracture of the Welds Connecting the Top and Bottom Plates to the
Column
The welds connecting the top and bottom plates to the columns should be
full penetration butt welds done in the shop following the provisions of the
AWS-Dl.l-94 Specifications (AWS, 1994) for design, quality control and
inspection. A number of welds cracked during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
The exact cause of the cracks is still not known. However, there is no report of
widespread damage to shop welds designed and fabricated following AWS
requirements. Therefore, the shop welds connecting the flange plates to the
column welds are expected to perform well and as a "matching" weld to develop
the capacity of the plates.
4.6.o. Net Section Fracture of the Girder Flanges
If net sections of the flanges of the girder fracture, it is possible that the
crack will propagate into the girder web. During or after the quake, the cracked
web of the girder may not be able to carry the service gravity load and the crack
could propagate across the entire section and result in the collapse of the span.
Since such a scenario is not acceptable, fracture of the net section of the girder is
considered very undesirable.
Seismic Demgn of Bolted Steel Moment-Remsting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 62
The Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994)
bolted flanges of girders in special moment
requirement if Fu/Fy is less than 1.5.
in Section 2212 specifies that
frames satisfy the following
1.2Fy
Ae > _ (4.17)
Ag Fu
Currently, there is some uncertainty with regard to Fy and Fu for some
A36 steel in the market. Therefore, it is suggested that the above requirement be
applied to all cases regardless of the value of Fu/Fy.
To be consistent in providing an adequate margin of safety between
yielding and fracture for all failure modes discussed here, it is suggested that the
above equation be slightly modified as:
1.25Fy
Ae >
Ag Fu
(4.18)
4.6.p. Failure of Shear Connections
Failure modes of shear connections have been studied in recent years and
reliable design procedures are available (AISC, 1994; Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989).
The philosophy used in developing design procedure for shear plate connections
has been to force yielding of steel to occur before fracture of the net area, bolts or
welds (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989). The concept is shown in Figure 4.5.
k ) t. y I ( j
Ductile Ductile Brittle

Slippage Failure Failure
Mode Modes Modes
Figure 4.5. Failure Modes of Shear Plate Connections (Astaneh-Asl, 1989)
4.7. Establishing Stiffness of Top- and Bottom-Plate Bolted Moment
Connections
4.7.a. Introduction
The difference between the rotational stiffnesses of a welded and a similar
bolted connection is in the possibility of bolt slippage in the bolted connection. As
discussed in previous chapters of this report, the slippage of the bolt is beneficial
in providing damping, additional rotational ductility and redistributing the
forces. If the design procedures outlined in previous sections are followed, the
resulting bolted connection is expected to behave as a rigid connection, without
bolt slippage, under the service load. However, during major earthquakes, it is
expected that slippage will occur in bolted connections. The amount of slippage
will be small and is expected to occur in a random manner among various bolted
connections. However, if the structural engineer wishes to include the effects of
bolt slip on the drift, the bolted connections can be modeled as rotational springs
and be incorporated into the analytical model.
The bolted connections are small structures within the larger structure. In
order to establish their stiffness one can model the connection elements, use
powerful analytical methods such as Finite Element Methods and establish
rotational stiffness. Or, in an approximate and more practical approach, the
fundamental principles of mechanics of materials can be used to establish the
rotational stiffness for use in design. If rotational springs are used in an elastic
analysis of the frame, establishing the initial stiffness of the connection will be
sufficient. If non-linear analysis programs are used, a bilinear moment-rotation
curve will be necessary. It is suggested that for design purposes, the initial
stiffness of the bilinear curve be the same as the elastic stiffness of the connection
and the secondary stiffness be equal to 5% of the initial stiffness. The moment
corresponding to yield point on the bilinear moment-rotation curve can be taken
as equal to the Mp of the connection.
In the following a procedure is provided that can be used to establish
initial elastic rotational stiffness of top- and bottom-plate moment connections.
4.7.b. Establishing Elastic Rotational Stiffness of Top- and Bottom-Plate
Connections
Consider the top- and bottom-plate bolted moment connection. The
moment rotation relationship for the connection is:
Mc = kcOc (4.19)
Setsmic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl 64
where Mc and c are the moment applied to the connection and the resulting
rotation respectively, kc is the elastic (initial) rotational stiffness of the
connection.
Equation 4. 19 can be rearranged and written in terms of axial
displacement of the flanges:
kc _ M____z _ Ffh - 2Ffh2 (4.20)
Oc At / (h / 2) Af
In the above equation, the ratio Fl/Al is the axial stiffness, kf, felt by the
girder flanges. The axial stiffness of the flange is provided by the flange plates
and the friction slippage of the girder and plates. Assuming a shear slippage of
about 1/16 inch the value of flange displacement will be:
A/=(F/L___Z_,)+__l(i.ch)
ApE 16
(4. 21)
Using Equations 4.20 and 4.21, the rotational stiffness of the connection
can be established.
In the above equations, Ap is the gross area of one flange plate, and E is
the modulus of elasticity of steel, 29,000 ksi. The length L is the effective
length of the bolted plate that can be considered fully loaded(. It is suggested
that the length be equal to 1/2 of the total length of the flange plate (Nader and
Astaneh-Asl, 1992).
4.8. Seismic Design Procedures for Bolted Top- and Bottom-Angle Moment
Connections
Figure 4.6 shows top and bottom bolted angle connections proposed for
use in bolted special moment-resisting frames. The girder flange connection
consists of two stiffened angles bolted to the column as well as to the girder.
Currently, the largest available rolled angle sizes are 14x14xl.4 inches
rolled in Europe. Angle sizes of 10xl0xl inch and smaller are easier to obtain and
to work with. In any event, if angles of large size are needed, such angles can be
obtained by cutting WF or HP shapes. The web connection consists of a shear
tab fillet welded to the column in the shop and bolted to the girder in the field.
The bottom angles can be bolted to the column in the shop. After erecting the
columns in the field, the girders are bolted to the shear tabs and bottom angles
and then the top angle is bolted to the girder and the column.
Short Slots or
i . irt; edolFleC/ein dTPdrAnug/%Ohon?s
L Cut from Wide Flange or
Hot-rolled Angles
O
f / / - - Vf[ICi:ll orlon blOIS In Angle
/ / Round Holes in Column
/ / /-- Slip Critical H.S. Bolts
Shop Bolt to Column, Field Bolt to Gird.
y Flange Angle
B B B Brl I
B m m m
., f Web Shear Plate
WFGirder
la la B m
- '( S l i pCritical H.S. Bolts
, X to Column, Field Bolt to Girde,
E
(D
1.1_
Dr
.... Stiffener as Req'd
t
Figure 4.6. A Stiffened Bolted Top- and Bottom-Angle Moment Connection
The main failure modes of this connection are listed below. The list is in
the order of desirability of the failure mode with the most ductile and desirable
failure mode being listed first and the most brittle and undesirable mode listed
last.
The main failure modes of a bolted top and bottom stiffened angle
moment connection are:
Ductile Failure Modes for Flange Connections:
b. Yielding of the top and bottom angles
c. Bearing yielding of the bolt holes in the girder flanges and the angles
d. Yielding of the gross area of the girder flange
SemmicDesignof Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 66
Failure Modes with Limited Ductility for Flange Connections:
e. Local buckling of the top and bottom angles
g. Shear yielding of the panel zone of the column
Brittle Failure Modes for Flange Connections:
h. Fracture of the edge distance or bolt spacing in the angles
i. Block shear failure of the top and bottom angles
j. Fracture of the net section of the angles
k. Fracture of the edge distance or bolt spacing in the girder flanges
1. Block shear failure of the girder flanges
m. Shear fracture of the flange bolts
n. Tension fracture of the bolts connecting the angles to the column
o. Net section fracture of the girder flanges
p. Fracture of the welds connecting the angle stiffeners to the angles
Failure Modes for Web Shear Connection:
q. Various failure modes of the shear connection
In the above list, failure modes (a) through (d) are ductile. Failure modes
(e) and (f) are considered ductile provided that b/t ratios satisfy the limit given
in Section 4.5 above. Failure mode (g) is ductile if panel zone design satisfies the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994). Failure modes listed
as (h) through (p) are considered brittle and not acceptable to govern the
strength of the bolted special moment-resisting frames. Failure modes in Item
(q) above are related to shear connections. These connections should be
designed to survive earthquakes without failure since shear connections are
needed to carry the gravity load after the quake.
Most of the above failure modes were discussed in the previous section
and applicable design equations were provided. The same equations can be used
for this connection. The only new failure mode for this connection is tension
fracture of the bolts connecting the angles to columns, indicated as failure mode
n in the above list. This failure mode is a brittle failure mode and needs to
prevented until more ductile failure modes have occurred. To achieve this, as
before, it is suggested that the strength of this brittle failure mode be made 1.25
times the strength of the beam in order to form a plastic hinge. Therefore:
rh,Ft Ab N hb > 1.25 qbMp(girder) (4.22)
where
Ft
Ob
Ab
hb
N
= tensile strength of bolts
= resistance reduction factor of fracture = 0.75
= resistance reduction factor of yielding = 0.90
= area of one bolt
= distance of C.G. of tension bolts from compression flange of the girder.
= number of tension bolts.
If flange angles do not have stiffeners, the second row of bolts from the
flange will not be as effective as the first row. Therefore, in calculating the
number of tension bolts for unstiffened angles, 1/2 of the number of bolts in the
second row should be considered.
4.9. Establishing Rotational Stiffness of Top- and Bottom-Angle Connections
Establishing the stiffness of top- and bottom-angle connections is much
more complex than for top- and bottom-plate connections. The complexity arises
from the two-dimensional plate bending of the vertical leg of the angle.
However, by using stiffeners in the angles, it is expected that the vertical legs are
very stiff and the bulk of connection flexibility is due to bolt slippage. As a rule
of thumb, the angle-leg bending will be very small if the thickness of the angle
leg is equal or greater than the diameter of the bolts. Therefore, for an
approximation, the flexibility of the angle leg is ignored here and only bolt
slippage is considered. As before, the moment-rotation relationship for the
connection is given by Equations 4.19 and 4.20. The bolt slippage in Equation
4.20 is given as:
1
A/ = inch. (4.23)
16
Using Equations 4.20 and 4.23, rotational stiffness of the connection can be
established. If a more precise value of rotational stiffness is desired, three-
dimensional finite-element analyses or, better yet, actual testing of connections
can be done.
4.10. Wind Loads
Throughout this report the emphasis is placed on seismic loading.
However, in many cases, wind loading governs the design. It is suggested that
to obtain a desirable behavior under wind loading, bolted moment connections
be designed such that they do not slip under combination of service wind and
gravity load by using slip-critical bolts to resist service load.
REFERENCES
AIJ, (1995), "Reconnaissance Report on D a m a g e t o Steel Bui l di ng
St ruct ures Observed from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
(Hanshin/Awaji) Earthquake", Report , Architectural Inst i t ut e of
Japan, (i n Japanese), May.
AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction-. Load and Resistance Factor Design,
2nd Edition., 2 Volumes, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago
AISC (1993), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, Load and
Resistance Factor Design, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1986a), "A Report on the Behavior of Steel Structures During
September 19, 1985 Earthquake of Mexico", Proceedings. Annual Technical
Session, Structural Stability research Council, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1986b), "Field Bolted Moment Connection", Proceedings,
National Steel Construction Conference, AISC, Nashville, Tenn., June.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1986c), "Cyclic Tests of a Standard and an Innovative Pre-
stressed End Plate Connections", Experimental Research .Program, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
December.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1987), "Experimental Investigation of Tee- Framing
Connection," Progress Report, submitted to American Institute of Steel
Construction, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1988), "Use of Steel Semi-rigid Connections to Improve Seismic
Response of Precast Concrete Structures", Research Proposal Brief in the
Proceedings of the Precast Seismic Structural Workshol Editor, N. Priestly,
Univ. of California in San Diego, November.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1989a), "Demand and Supply of Ductility in Steel Shear
Connections," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 14, No. 1.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1989b), "New Concepts in Design of Single Plate Sheaf
Connections" proceedings, National Steel Construction Conference, AISC,
Nashville, June.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1993), "The Innovative Concept of Semi-rigid Composite
Beam", Proceedings, Structures Congress, ASCE, Irvine, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1994), "Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Semi-rigid
Structures", Proceedings. First International Workshop and Seminar on Behavior
of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, 26 June-1 July, Romania.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Call, S.M., and McMullin, K.M. (1989), "Design of Single Plate
Shear Connections," Engineering Journal Am. Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
26, No. 1.
Astaneh-Asl, A., McMullin, K.M. and Call, S. M., (1988) "Design of Single Plate
Framing Connections," Report No. UCB/SEMM-88/12, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, July.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Nader, M. N., (1987), "Behavior and Design of Steel Tee
Framing Connections," Report No. UCB/SEMM-88/ll, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, July.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Nader, M. N., (1989),"Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle
Connections," Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 5.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Nader, M. N., (1990),"Experimental Studies and Design of
Steel Tee Shear Connections," Journal of Structural Engineering American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 116, No. 10, October.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Nader M., (1991), "Cyclic Behavior of Frames with Semi-
rigid Connections, in Connections in Steel Structures II, Elsevier Applied Science.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Nader, M. N. and Harriott, J.D., (1991) "Seismic Behavior and
Design Considerations in Semi-Rigid Frames", Proceedings, AISC, 1991 National
Steel Construction Conference, Washington, D.C., June.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Nader, M. N. and Malik, L., (1989),"Cyclic Behavior of Double
Angle Connections," J. of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 5.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Nisar, A., (1988) "Processed Data and Results of Cyclic Tests
of End Plate Moment Connections", Independent Study Report, Department of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of California at Berkeley.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Shen, J.H., D'Amore, E., McMullin, K.M., and Modjtahedi, D.
(1995), Seismic Safety of damaged Welded Steel Moment Frames", Report No.
UCB/CE-Steel-95/01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, October.
Basha, H.S. and Goel, S.C., (1994), Research Report UMCEE 94-29, "Seismic
Resistant Truss Moment Frames with Ductile Vierendeel Segment", Dept. of
Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October.
Balio, G., Calado, L., De Martino, A., Faella, C. and Mazzolani, F., (1990), "Cyclic
behavior of steel beam-to-column joints, experimental research", in Seismic
Design of Steel Structures, Politecnico di Milano, February.
Baron, F and Larson E.W., (1954), "Comparative Behavior of Bolted and Riveted
Joints", Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 80 Separate No. 470, New York.
Bertero, V.V., Anderson, J. C. and Krawinkler, H., (1994) "Performance of Steel
Building Structures During the Northridge Earthquake", Report No.
UCB/EERC-94/8.University of California at Berkeley.
Bickford, J.H., (1990), "An Introduction tO the Design and Behavior of Bolted
Joints", 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Building Standards, (1994), "ICBO Board Approves Emergency Structural Design
Provision", Journal, September- October Issue.
D'Amore, E. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1995) "Seismic Behavior of a Six-Story
Instrumented Building During 1987 Whittier and 1994 Northridge Earthquakes,"
Report No. UCB/CE-Steel 95/03, Department of Civil and Env. Engrg., Univ. of
California, Berkeley, September.
Englekirk, R., (1994), "Steel Structures, Controlling Behavior Through Design",,
John Wiley and Sons Inc..
EQE, (1995), "The January 17, 1995 Kobe Earthquake, An EQE Summary Report",
Report, EQE International.
Ghobarah, A., Osman, A. and Korol, R.M., (1990), "Behavior of Extended End-
Plate Connections under Cyclic Loading," Engineering Structures, Vol. 12, No. 1.
Ghobarah, A., Korol, R.M. and Osman, A., (1992), "Cyclic Behavior of Extended
End-Plate Joints, "J. of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 5.
Guh, T. J., Astaneh, A., Harriott, J. and Youssef, N. (1991) "A Comparative Study
of the Seismic Performance of Steel Structures with Semi-Rigid Joints",
Proceedings, ASCE- Structures Congress, 91, Indianapolis, April 29-May 1, pp.
271-274.
Hettum, M., (1994), "Communication with the Author", Mackenzie Engineering
Incorporated, November.
ICBO, (1994), "The Uniform Building Code", Volume 2, The International
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Kulak, G.L., Fisher, J.W., and Struik, J.H.A., (1987) "Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints", Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Martinez-Romero, E., (1988), "Observations on the Seismic Behavior of Steel
Connections After the Mexico Earthquakes of 1985", in Connections in Steel
Structures, Elsevier Applied Science.
McMullin, K., Astaneh-Asl, A., Fenves, G. and Fukuzawa, E., "Innovative Semi-
Rigid Steel Frames for Control of the Seismic Response of Buildings", Report No.
UCB/CE-Steel-93/02, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley.
Nader, M. N. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1991) "Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semi-
Rigid and Rigid Steel Frames", Proceedings, ASCE- Structures Congress 91,
Indianapolis, April 29-May 1, pp 267-270.
Nader M.N. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1991) "Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semi-
Rigid and Rigid Steel Frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research Vol. 18,
Pp 179-192.
Nader, M.N. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1992) "Seismic Behavior and Design of Semi-
rigid Steel Frames", Report No. EERC/92-06, University of California, Berkeley,
April.
Nader, M. N. and Astaneh-Asl, A. (1992) ,"Seismic Design Concepts for Semi-
rigid Frames" Proceedings., ASCE- Structures Congress, 92, San Antonio, Texas,
April 13-15.
Pinkney, R. B. and Popov, E. P., (1967), "Behavior of Steel Building Connections
Subjected to Repeated Inelastic Strain Reversal- Experimental Data", Report No.,
UCB/SEMM 67-31. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley.
Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V., (1973), "Cyclic Loading of Steel Beams and
Connections," Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. 6.
Popov, E. P., Kasai, K. and Englehardt, M., (1993), "Some Unresolved Issues in
Seismic Codes," Proceedings, Structures Congress, _ASCE. Irvine, April.
Popov, E. P. and Stephen, R. M., (1972)," Cyclic Loading of Full-Size Steel
Connections," Bulletin No. 21, AISI, New York.
Porter K. A. and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1990), "Design of Single Plate Shear
Connections with Snug-tight Bolts in Short Slotted Holes," Report No.
UCB/SEMM-90/23, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, December.
SAC, (1994), "Invitational Workshop on Steel Seismic Issues", Proceedings,
Workshop by SAC Joint Venture held in Los Angeles, September.
Saul E. and Denevi, D., (1981), The Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire,
1906", Celestial Arts, Millbrae, Califomia.
Tipping, S.A. and Associates, (1995), "Non-linear Analysis of an Alternately
Configured Rigid Frame", Internal Report Steve Tipping and Associates,
Berkeley.
Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E.P., (1990), Cyclic Behavior of End-Plate Moment
Connections", J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 11.
Undershute, A.T., and Kulak, G.L., (1994) "Strength and Installation
Characteristics of Tension-Control Bolts", Structural Engineering Report No. 201,
University of Alberta, Canada, August.
Youssef, N.F.G., Bonowitz, D. and Gross John L., "A Survey of Steel Moment-
Resisting Frame Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake", Report
No. NISTIR 5625 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington
D.C., April.
APPENDIX A
TYPICALCONNECTIONDETAILS
A.1. Introduction
In this Appendix a number of details of bolted moment frame connections
are provided. The failure modes and design of these connections are similar to
those discussed in Chapter 4 of the report.
Std. Holes in Beam
i' ' OversizedHolesin Plates
B : : - ' ' : ' :' "" -J
t
(
H.S. Bolts
/ ,,/ ./- Flange Plate
. .
. Shim1/4"Max.
With Slots
/- Shear Plate
] WF Girder
i al aa
, x r,,,
C
E
0
o
J_
TOP & BOTTOM PLATE (BOLTED)
Figure A.1. A Typical Bolted Moment Connection
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 74
Std. Holes in Beam
F Oversized Holes in Plates
.... i ti i : I I ] '
:.:. x.?.:. ?.
t
f d t i c a l H.S. Bolts
Flange Plate
1"__ ; - . Shim 1/4"Max,
WithSlots
,'x IX<
E
0
I.l.
TOP & BOTTOM PLATE (BOLTED & WELDED)
//r Std. Holes in Beam
r/////,/,/,-,,]./ . f "Oversized Holes in Plates
Nomin_ t,, ' -%/ . . . J
. . . . . .
: 'T T 'T T 'T
1" NoWeld Typ.
t
N
V
r
E
: 3
o
L.
- Slip Critical H.S. Bolts
/ / Fl ange Plate
' -= -' '
*3/4" Shim 1/4" Max.
WithSlots
Shear Plate
I WF Girder
- - Standard or
Short Slotted Holes
TOP & BOTTOM PLATE (TO COLUMN WEB)
Figure A.1. (Cont'd) Typical Bolted Moment Connections
Short Slots or
Oversized Holes in Top Angle Only
All otherholesstandard roundholes
f
---L cutfromwide flange or
standardhot-rolled angles
le f / /---- Vl.lLll.;l:ll t,...llUIL 'OlUL III /llJlt;
/ / RoundHoles in Column
j/ / /- Slip Critical H.S. Bolts
Field Bolt to Top
, ,/ "--Flange Angle

[.
i
i/- Web ShearTab
,j WFGirder
": : : : r,- critical H.S. Bolts
ShopBoltto Column
FieldBoltto Girder
C
E
(D
Lt.
.Stiffener
TOP & BOTTOM STIFFENED ANGLES (BOLTED)
Std. Holes in Beam
I==" ' ' : }' ' ''i OversizedHles in T e e s :
: - - ? . :..'.-'r.. ?-:1
E
0
0
It-
" - FlangeTee
J _ ,/ = ,=SlipCritical H.S. Bolts
J - - l P l a t e WFGirder___
TOP & BOTTOM FLANGE TEE (BOLTED)
t
Figure A.1. (Cont'd) Typical Bolted Moment Connections
SeismicDesignof BoltedSteel Moment-Resisting Frames By AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl 76
APPENDIX B
A NUMERICALEXAMPLE
B.1. A Numerical Example
Design a bolted flange-plated Fully Restrained (rigid) moment connection
for a W18x50 beam to W14x99 column-flange connection. For the column
assume Fy=50 ksi and Fu=65 ksi; for the girder and connecting material assume
Fy=36 ksi and Fu=58 ksi. Use 7/ 8 diameter ASTM A325-N bolts and 70 ksi
electrodes. Notice that this example is almost the same as Example 10-1 in
Chapter 10 of the 1994 AISC Manual, Volume II (AISC, 1994). The reason for
choosing a similar example is to demonstrate the differences between the seismic
ductile capacity design (proposed in this report) and the regular design (AISC
Manual). The steel used in the girder is changed from grade 50 to A36 steel to be
compatible with the current practice of strong column-weak beam design.
Given:
Connection factored forces obtained from analysis:
Ru= 45 kips
Mu= 250 fi-kips
Ru= 310 kips (Axial load in the panel zone)
The bending moment acting on the connection due to service loads (unfactored)
obtained from analysis:
gservice= 145 ft-kips (due to governing combination of loads)
The above service moment will be used in the design of flange bolts to
ensure that the connection does not slip under the service loads.
Properties of the girder and the column:
W18x50 (Fy=36, Fu=58 ksi), Span=20 ft.
d= 17.99 in., bf= 7.495 in., Zx= 101 in. 3, tw-- 0.355 in., tf= 0.57 in.
W14x99 (Fy=50, Fu=65 ksi), Interior column.
d= 14.16 in., bf-- 14.564 in., k= 1-7/16 in., tw= 0.485 in., tf= 0.78 in.,
A=29.1 in2
Solution:
1. Establish plastic moment capacity of the girder:
Mp =ZxFy = 101x36= 3,636 k-in.
2. Check net-section fracture of the girder:
Since Fu / Fy for the girder is not less than 1.5, there is no need to satisfy
the UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) requirement: Ae/Ag >I.2Fy/Fu. If the girder material
has actual Fy and Fu values other than 36 and 65 ksi, the Ae/Ag ratio needs to
satisfy above equation.
3. Check local buckling of the girder flanges:
52
b/t= 7.495/(2x0.57)=6.6 < =8.6 O.K.
4. Establish size of the fiange plates:
Mplate >__1.25 Mp
Mplate >--1.25 (3,636), Mplate > 4,545 k-in.
Aate > (Mate)/(d)(Fy), or Aate > (4,545)/(17.99)(36)=7.0 in
Try: 8"xl" A36 flange ptates
5. Check net section failure of the fiange plates
nMpn _>1.25Mp (4.15)
0.75 (8-2)(1)(58)(17.99)>_ 1.25 (0.9)(3,636)
4,695 > 4,090 O.K.
6. Establish number of the fiange bolts:
Check number of bolts to satisfy
%(FbAbN)(d) ___1.25Mp (4.16)
0.75(48)(0.601)(N)(17.99) >_1.25(0.9)(3,636)
N > 10.5; Try: 12 7/8"dia A325N flange bolts
7. Check bearing capacity of the bolts:
Mbearing >- 1.25 Mp
2.4(58ksi)(0.57")(7/8")(12)(17.99) > 1.25 (3,636)
14,980 k-in > 4,545 O.K.
8. Check to ensure t hat the bolts do not slip under the service loads:
The following condition needs to be satisfied:
1.25Mservice _<Mslip _<0.8Mp
1.25 (145x12) _<(12)(10.2 kips/bolt)(17.99) < 0.8(3,636)
2,175 < 2,202 < 2,908 O.K.
It should be added that throughout this report the emphasis was placed
on seismic design. However, the final design of connection will be governed by
load combinations including the wind load. Following the design philosophy
and concepts presented in this report, the designer should ensure that bolted
connections are designed as slip-critical to resist the service loads without slip.
Such approach will ensure that the connections will not slip during the service
wind and small to moderate earthquakes.
9. Check edge distances:
Using a bolt gage of 4.5 inches c/c, provides sufficient edge distance for
plate and girder to satisfy AISC(1994) requirements.
10. Check block shear failure:
Block shear failure does not govern.
11. Check panel zone yielding:
Vn > 1 Mpgirders (4.11)
ds
where
Vn = 0.55Fydctp I1
3bcftf
dbdctp
I 3(14.564)(0.782) ]
Vn =0.55(50)(14.16)(0.485) 1+ = 229kips
17.99(14.16)(0.485)
Vn = 229 kips < 2(3,636)/17.99= 404 kips. Therefore, doubler plates are needed.
tp= 0.485(404/229)-0.485 = 0.37" Use 3/8" doubler plate.
or change column size or column material if it results in more economical
design
If instead of above UBC-94 equation, the equation given in the AISC-
LRFD Specifications are used, the following will result:
Vn = qb0.6Fydctp =0.9(0.6)(50)(14.16)(0.485)=185 kips < 404 kips
Use 5/8" doubler plate
or change column size or column material if it results in more economical
design
12. Establish rotational stiffness of the connection:
kG = M__ = Ffh =
O A r / ( h / 2 ) Af
2(3,636/17.99)(17.992) 130,820
Af Af
where;
FfLp 1" [.(3,636/17.99)(20"/2)
A, = (-pE)+-- = (8"xl"
16 )(29,000)
Therefore;
kc
]+ 0.063 = 0.072in.
130,820
0.072
= 1,817,000 kip-in/rad
The value of m, the relative elastic rotational stiffness of the connection
and the girder can be calculated as:
m=kc/(EI/L)= 1,817,000/(29000x800/240)=18.8 > 18 (m for rigid).
The value of m equal to 18.8 for this connection indicates that it can be
categorized as rigid moment connection.
APPENDIX C
RECENTLYDESIGNED BOLTED
MOMENT-RESISTINGFRAMES
C.1. Introduction
In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a number of design
firms has started replacing the welded moment frame design with bolted
moment frames. Three of the recent buildings that have been converted to
bolted moment frames (Hettum, 1994) are two 3-story and one 5-story building
with approximately 240,000 sq. ft of total area. In this Appendix photographs of
top and bottom plate moment connections of these buildings are shown.
Figure C.1 Views of Bolted Connections in Recently Designed and Constructed
Structures, Courtesy of Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated, (Hettum, 1994)
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(510) 631-9570
Q
SPONSORS
Adams & Smith
Baresel Corp.
C.A. Buchen Corporation
G.M. Iron Works Co.
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Junior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
MidWest Steel Erection
Oregon Steel Mills
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
H.H. Robertson Co.
Southland Iron Works
Stockton Steel
Vulcraft Sales Corp.
economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage
to cost comparisons, fabrication details and delivery schedules.
STRUCTURALSTEELEDUCATIONALCOUNCIL
TECHNICALINFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
APRIL 1997
Seismic Design of
Steel Column-Tree
Moment-Resisting Frames
by
Copyright Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 1997
Seismic Design of Steel Column-tree Moment-Resisting Frames
This report presents information and tips on seismic behavior and design of steel column-
tree moment-resisting frames used in building structures. In column-tree moment-resisting
frames, short stubs of girders are welded to the column in the shop and then the middle
portion of the girder spans are bolted to the column trees in the field. Thus, the system is a
field bolted-shop welded structural system. The emphasis of the report is on the seismic
behavior and design of special ductile steel column-tree moment-resisting frames. A
summary of relevant research and applicable code provisions is provided followed by
design procedures that can be used to design steel column-tree moment-resisting frames.
The appendix to the report provides a numerical example on seismic design of a typical
connection of a steel column-tree moment-resisting frame. The example utilizes the
concepts and recommendations presented in the report.
First Printing, April 15, 1997
Figures by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl unless otherwise indicated.
COPYRIGHT 1997 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
209 Vernal Drive, Alamo, California 94507, Fax and Phone: (510) 946-0903
All Rights Reserved
Neither this document nor any part of it may be reproduced, translated or transmitted in
any form or by any means, mechanical or electronic, including photocopying, scanning, or
by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the author
and copyright owner: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. The Structural Steel Educational Council
is hereby granted the right to print or reproduce this document in any number in its as-is
form prior to January 1, 2003.
The information presented in this publication is for general information only. The
information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and
applicability by a licensed professional engineer or architect. The publication of the material
contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the
Structural Steel Educational Council, or of any other person or agency named herein, that
this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from
infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all
liability arising from such use. The information provided in this report on seismic design of
column-tree systems is based on data available on behavior of components of the system.
At this writing no test data on the behavior of column tree system as a whole system could
be located.
AC OWI EOCME TS
The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the Structural
Steel Educational Council (SSEC). The author wishes to thank all Council members for
their support and comments. Particularly, written comments provided by Council members
David Berrens, Patrick Hasset, Rudy Hofer, James J. Putkey, and Jamie Winans were
very valuable and are sincerely appreciated.
The support provided by a number of agencies to the author's research on the subject of
this report at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of
California, Berkeley has been essential in collecting and developing many technologies
presented and used in this report. In particular, the support of the Kajima Corporation of
Japan and the California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE),
in the form of a CUREE/Kajima Research grant to the author, was essential to initiate the
research on this subject and gather information on it over the last five years.
The author, at present, is a member of the Structural Steel Educational Council of
California, Research Council on Structural Connections, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, American Society of Civil Engineering, Structural Stability Research
Council and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. The opinions expressed in
this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of California, Berkeley where the author is a professor of civil and
environmental engineering, the Structural Steel Educational Council or other agencies and
individuals whose names appear in this report.
SEISMICDESIGNOF
STEELCOLUMN-TREE
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES
Professor
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Pageii
TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page iii
NOTATIONS / Page iv
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL MOMENTCONNECTIONS/ Page 11
3. CODE PROVISIONS ON BOLTEDSTEEL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES/ Page 13
4. SEISMICDESIGN OFBOLTED MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES/ Page 15
REFERENCES/Page 25
APPENDIX/Page 27
111
NOTATIONS
A
Ab
Ag
Agfp
Agt
Agv
Ag,q,
Ant
Anp
Anv
^np
An qo
a
b
bcf
bf
d
db
dc
dh
ds
dl
d2
E
Fb
Fvfp
Fv
Fvp
Fup
Fyg
Fu
Fy
h
= area of cross section
= area of one bolt
= gross area
= gross area of one flange plate
= gross area subject to tension
= gross area subject to shear
= gross area of web plate subjected to shear
= net area subject to tension
= net area of plate
= net area subject to shear
= net area of one flange plate
= net area of web plate
= distance from center of column to center of girder splice
= width ofunstiffened element in calculating b/t ratios
= width of the column flange
= width of flange
= diameter of bolt
= depth of the column
= diameter of bolt hole
= depth of panel zone
= arm for calculatingplastic section modulus
= arm for calculatingplastic section modulus
= modulus of elasticity
= shear strength of bolt
= nominal slip critical shear resistance (Table J3.6 of the AISC Spec., 1994)
= minimum specified yield stress of plate
= minimum specified tensile strength of the plates
= realistic minimum specified yield stress of the material. For dual yield
point A36, the higher yield value should be used in this context.
= minimum specified ultimate strength of the material
= minimum specified yield stress of the material
= length of plate
iv
IX
Ks
Ks2
L
Lp
Lsp
Mbs
Mb
Mng
Mns
Mpb
Mpg
Mps
Ms
= moment of inertia of girder
= initial rotational stiffness of splice
= rotational stiffness of splice including bolt slippage (for drift analysis)
= length of span; center-to-center of columns
= actual length of splice plate
= eft. length of splice plate= Lp/2 for bolted-bolted and Lp/4 for welded-bolted splices
= moment in the splice due to factored load
= moment capacity of bolts
= net section ultimate moment capacity
= plastic moment capacity of the net section of the plates = Fy d Anp
= moment capacity causing bearing yielding = 2.4FupdbNt
= plastic moment capacity of the girder= ZxFy
= plastic moment capacity of the splice plates= Agfp dFy
= factored moment in the girder splice
Mslip = moment that can cause slippage in the connection FvAb N d
M(service, corm) = moment in the connection due to application of service ioads
M(service, splice) = moment in the splice due to application of service loads
Mpp
Mun,p
m
n
N
Pn
Pu
Py
q
t
tcf
tp
tf
tw
V
Vb
Vn
Vpz
Vs
Vuxp
Vw
Vy
Vyx
Zx
fl
asp
= plastic moment capacity of the web plates= Ag,n,d,,, Fy/4
= ultimate moment capacity of the web plates --- Anw d,,, Fu/4
= stiffness ratio =Kc/(EI/L)
= number of bolts
= number of bolts
= nominal resistance of flange plate in block shear failure as given below:
= axial tension or compression force in the column panel zone
= axial tension yield capacity of column
= uniformly distributed gravity load on the girder
= thickness of the plate or flange.
= thickness of the coIumn flange
= total thickness of the panel zone
= thickness of flange
= thickness of web
= shear in the splice due to factored load combinations
= shear acting on the bolts
= nominal shear capacity of panel zone
= shear capacity of panel zone
= factored shear in the girder splice
= ultimate shear capacity of net area of web Plate = 0.6AnwFu
= shear capacity of weld line
= shear yield capacity of web plates
= shear yield capacity of web Plate = 0.6 AgwFy
= plastic section modulus of the girder cross section
= ratio of plastic moment of splice to plastic moment of girder
= elongation of splice plate
b
n
Os
= resistance reduction factor for yielding =0.90

= resistance reduction factor for fracture of bolts = 0.75
= resistance reduction factor for fracture =0.75
= limit ofb/t ratio for elastic local buckling given in the AISC-LRFD Spec., 1994)
= rotation of splice
= stiffness ratio =KsV(EI/L)
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
One of the most common types of steel structural system is the moment resisting framing
system shown in Figure 1.1. Depending on their ductility, steel moment resisting frames
are divided into two categories of "Special" and "Ordinary". Figure 1.2 shows typical
behavior of Special and Ordinary moment-resisting frames under lateral load. Special
moment-resisting frames are designed to have higher ductility and be able to deform
inelasticly during earthquakes. Such inelastic ductile deformations increases damping and
reduces stiffness of the structure resulting in smaller seismic forces generated in the
structure. As a result, current codes allow special moment resisting frames to be designed
for smaller seismic forces than similar but ordinary moment frames.
t / /
/ / I
/ / /
/ I I
/ / /
I I I
FORCE
Elastic
E
Ordina MomentFmn
*A
Special Frame
O I
DISPLACEMENT
Figure 1.1. A Typical Steel
Moment Frame
Figure 1.2. Behavior of Special and
Ordinary Moment-resisting Frames
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprfl 1997 I
Prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, field-welded moment frames were very popular
with structural engineers and steel fabricators in California. This was due to their
economy and relative ease of design. Frequently, in seismic areas, a standard field-welded
moment connection shown in Figure 1.3 was specified and built. However, the 1994
Northridge caused damage to a number of field-welded steel moment frames using the
detail shown in Figure 1.3. Other recent earthquakes such as the 1995 Kobe-Japan and the
1992 Landers-California have also caused similar damage although in only a few
structures. More information on the damage to field-welded steel moment frames can be
found in References, (Youssefet al, 1995), (SAC, 1995) and (AIJ, 1995).
Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a number of studies have been completed or are
underway to understand the causes of the damage, to establish consequences of the
damage (Astaneh-Asl, 1995a), (Astaneh-Asl, 1996) and to develop remedies for the
damaged as well as undamaged field-welded moment frames (SAC, 1995). Many factors
have been identified as possible cause of Northridge damage to steel field welded
connections. The main culprits at this writing appear to be the type of moment frame,
configuration of field-welded connections, stress concentrations due to back-up bars and
access holes, material properties of steel produced in the past two decades, quality control
and inspection of field welds and characteristics of the ground motion.
i
i
i
;
Figure 1.3. The Pre-Northridge Moment Frame Connection
The research efforts undertaken after the 1994 Northridge earthquake so far have not
yielded a single standard and economical detail that eliminates the problem of field-
welded moment connections. In the meantime, design and construction of safe and
economical steel structures in seismic areas had to continue. Some structural engineers
have chosen other material or other structural systems such as braced frames or shear wall
systems. Others have used improved versions of field-welded moment frame connections
that have been developed and tested after the Northridge earthquake (SAC, 1995). Yet a
number of structural engineers have used shop-welded andfield-bolted moment frames
successfully (Astaneh-Asl, 1995b).
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997 2
One of the very efficient shop-welded and field bolted systems is the column-tree system.
In a column-tree system short segments of the girders or a built-up short girder, usually
two to four feet long, are welded to the columns in the shop. Then, after the column-
trees are erected in the field, the middle segment of the girder is bolted to the ends of the
short girder stubs. Figure 1.4 shows examples of special ductile column-tree moment-
resisting frames.
, ELOeOLTEO 1 cotumEE
*,UOEB/ _? I OMENT
- FIELDBOLTED
SPLICES BRACED
FRAME
m COLUMN' TREE
I I . ' - MOMENT
FRAME
Figure 1.4. Typical Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames
(a) Perimeter Frame and; (b) Planar Frame
The column-tree system discussed in this report is a shop-welded, field-bolted steel
structure. The shop welding of the girder stubs to the columns provides for high quality
and economical welding as well as easy inspection. The field bolting of girder splices
results in the economy, ease of field erection, possibility of year-round construction almost
independent of the weather conditions. In addition, quality control and inspection of
shop-welded and field bolted connections are easier than the field-welded connections.
In construction projects where field-welding and field inspection are too costly or cannot
be done easily, the use of column-tree system can be more economical than the other
structural systems that require field-welding. In Japan, perhaps due to the high cost of
labor, and the fact that shop-welding is mostly automated, column-tree frames were
almost the only steel moment-resisting systems until in recent years the detail shown in
Figure 1.3 started appearing in Japan (Takanashi, 1994).
1.2. Types of Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Configuration
Various forms of column tree framing system have been used in the past in the United
States and elsewhere. Column-tree systems can be used in planar frames, perimeter
frames or as a space moment-resisting frame as shown in Figure 1.4.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997 3
1.3. Types of Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Splice Details
The splice connection of the column-trees to girders can be fully bolted, welded and
bolted or fully welded as shown Figure 1.5.
Location of Details
_.TC (Full Penetration ShopWeld)
- - - / " / - Girder Stub
/ / / -H.S. Field Bolts
/ / //-Flange Splice Plate
/ / J op Welds(FilletWelt
Shims ' ii: /-One or Two Web Plates
ii** /,. One or Two Rowsof
ShopWelds J ii /High Strength Bolts
i i : : l : - =
i i
Shim i s Required
. (Jj tOAdiust Elvet'in
SHOP-WELDED AND FIELD-BOLTED
(Full Penetration ShopWeld)
* / F""'raertub
/ / / ' FlangeSplice Plate
/ /
/
I ; :: toAdjust Elevetaion
Shims i ! /- Web Splice Plate .,
: :: ** '- H.S. Bolts
.!!- /
.-, [[
i i m B m z i i m j
: [h
SHOP-WELDED AND FIELD-BOLTED
(Full Penetration Shop Weld)
Short GirderStub
S
j- -;
Erection Clip " i '
: :
.--
, (e .".
SHOP- AND FIELD-WELDED
(Full Penetration ShopWeld)
' / ' : s;;oTG,e,s
/ / ,4/- FieldWelds(Fill;:o:elwd;ds(Fillet Weld)
//! ,w>
' / :: ' - FlangeSplicePlate
:: ; n e orTwoWebSplicePlate(s
Fiadwe,ds -, ::.:
::e
:: /'One orTwoRowsof
. _ HighStrengthBolts
:: I "--Field Welds(FilletWeld)
ShopWelds(Fillet Weld)
: I1
( d )
SHOP- AND FIELD-WELDED
Figure 1.5. Example Connections of Column-Tree Moment Frames
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997 4
1.4. Types of Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Ductility
Similar to any steel moment frame, depending on their ductility the column-tree moment
resisting frames can be divided into two categories of "special" and "ordinary" as
discussed in the following sections.
1.4.a Special Ductile Moment Resisting Frames
The connections and the members of Special Column-tree Moment-resisting Frames are
designed such that premature brittle local buckling and fracture of the structural members
and the connections are prevented. As a result, the special MRFs behave in a ductile
manner. Figure 1.2 shows behavior of special and ordinary moment frame under lateral
load. In general, ordinary moment frames tend to be stiffer and stronger but less ductile
than the special moment-resisting frames for the same application.
In special MRFs, to achieve high ductility, the damage should be in the form of slippage,
yielding of steel, delayed and limited inelastic local buckling within the girder connections
or plastic hinges. Fracture in any part that can impair the gravity-load carrying system
should be avoided. This type of behavior categorizes the system as a ductile system.
Nader and Astaneh-Asl (1992) based on their studies of seismic behavior of steel
structures, recommended that in special moment-resisting frames the connections should
have a rotational ductility of at least 0.03 radian. This limit appears to be accepted by the
profession in the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake (SAC, 1995). In addition, the
author (Astaneh-Asl, 1995) has suggested that the cumulative inelastic cyclic rotation
capacity of a ductile moment connection should be at least 0.15 radian. This latter
criterion is suggested to ensure sufficient low-cycle fatigue life for the connection.
When a framing system can be categorized as special moment-resisting frame, the
reduction factor Rw used in seismic design is given as 12 by the current seismic design
codes (UBC-94).
1.4.b. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames
If a steel moment-resisting frame does not meet the requirements of the special moment
resisting frame (SMRF), then the frame is not expected to behave in a ductile manner and
it is categorized in the seismic design codes as an ordinary moment resisting frame
(OMRF). Ordinary MltYs still need to have sufficient rotational ductility to make them
eligible to be designed using a reduction factor of Rw equal to 6. Again there is no well-
established value of the required ductility supplied for Ordinary MRF's. It is suggested
(Astaneh-Asl, 1995) that, in the absence of more reliable value, the connections of
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apri l 1997 5
Ordinary MRF's should have a rotational ductility of at least 0.02 radian. The cumulative
cyclic rotational capacity is suggested to be at least 0.10 radian.
When a framing system cannot be categorized as special moment-resisting frame and
therefore is categorized as ordinary moment resisting frame, the reduction factor R,, used
in seismic design is given as 6 by the seismic design codes (UBC-94). The reduction
factor for ordinary moment-resisting frames is half of the reduction factor for special
moment-resisting frames. As a result, the design seismic forces for the same building using
ordinary moment frames will be twice the design seismic forces if special moment frames
are used. Therefore, it is economically sensible and safer to use special ductile moment
frames instead of ordinary moment frames.
1.5. Types of Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Stiffness
Based on stiffness, steel MRFs are divided into the three categories of Rigid (Fully
Restrained, FR), Semi-rigid (Partially Restrained, PR) and Flexible (Simple) (AISC,
1994), (Astaneh-Asl, 1995). The parameter frequently used to define the relative
rotational stiffness of a girder and its connections is the stiffness parameter m
defined as:
Kc (1.1)
m=(_)
where Kc is the rotational stiffness of the connection, and (El/L) is bending stiffness of
the girder. L is the span. For column-tree systems where the length of the beam stub
welded to the column is less than 15% of the span length, the flexibility of the rigid splice
does not have significant effects on the overall stiffness of the span. Therefore, during the
design phase, to ensure that the column-tree is a rigid frame, the length of the girder stubs
should be less than 15% of span and the rotational stiffness of the splice satisfies the
following equations for each category of the frames.
Rigid: y z 18 (1.2a)
Semi-rigid: 0.5 > y z 18 (1.2b)
Flexible: 7 < 0.5 (1.2c)
where; 7 represents relative rotational stiffness of the splice and the girder. is given by:
Ks (1.3)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn? 1997 6
Therefore, if length of girder stub is less than 15% of the span, the parameters
above equations are very close and approximately can be assumed
Therefore,
Ks
my= E(_)
In the above equation, Ks is the rotational stiffness of the girder splice.
and m in
to be the same.
(1.4)
Figure 1.6 shows the above three regions of the moment-rotation behavior based on the
relative rotational stiffness of the connection and the girder in the frame. The above
categorization is solely based on the elastic rotational stiffness of the connections and the
girders in a single span. In seismic design, however, the plastic moment capacity of the
connections and the girders should also be considered in categorizing the span. To
categorize a column-tree moment resisting frame as rigid or semi-rigid, one should include
the relative bending strengths of the girders and splices defined by ct:
ct= Mps
Mpg
(1.4)
where, MPs and Mpg are plastic moment capacities of the splice and girder, respectively.
, =Mpc/Mpg
1.o
0.2
Semi-rigid
I t
m=Ks/(EI/L)
Figure 1.6. Regions of Semi-rigid and Flexible Behavior
In traditional moment frame where connection of girder to column is at the face of
column, incorporation the effects of stiffness of the girder and the splice connections, the
definitions of rigid and semi-rigid column-tree frames can be refined to include the effects
of the enhanced and given as follows:
Rigid: m >__ 18 and cz > 1.0 1.5a)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tres Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apt# 1997 7
Semi-rigid: either 0.5 > m > 18 or tx < 1.0 (1.5b)
Flexible: m < 0.5 (1.5c)
The definitions of terms in the above equations are shown in Figure 1.7. Notice that m
and tx are defined for each span. Usually, in moment resisting frames there are various
span lengths, L, and moment capacities Mps and Mpg throughout the frame. It is
suggested that in design, the values of m and cz be the average value of m and tx for the
spans of the mid-height story of the frame.
T Y
Splice .__..I
Moment /
17-
L
Typical Moment Frame
Column-Tree Frame
Figure 1.7. Behavior of Typical Moment Frame and Column-Tree Moment-Resisting
Frame
Traditionally, column-tree systems were rigid frames. In these frames the splice
connection of the girder is designed to be stronger than the connected beams. As a result,
after erection, the splice does not play a major role in seismic performance of the frame.
To utilize the splice to control and improve seismic performance, semi-rigid versions of
the column-tree moment resisting frame system was proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl (1988,
1991). In the proposed semi-rigid column-tree the bolted connection of the girder,
located away from the column, is made semi-rigid. By using semi-rigid connections,
stiffness, strength, ductility and energy dissipation capacity can be easily manipulated and
adjusted to reduce seismic forces, to limit displacements to acceptable levels and to
improve seismic performance.
A recent study of standard rigid and the proposed semi-rigid column-tree systems
(McMullin et al, 1993) has shown that the semi-rigid column-tree system is a potentially
reliable and economical seismic resisting structural system.
One of the main advantages of a semi-rigid column-tree system over the standard rigid
system is that the bolted semi-rigid connection, located at the girder splice, can act as a
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997 8
fuse and protect the welded connections at the face of columns from being subjected to
large moments. In addition, the use of semi-rigid connections can increase damping,
elongate the period of vibration, reduce stiffness to a desirable level and can result in a
reduction of seismic forces and displacements.
1.7. Categories Based on the Moment Capacity of the Connected Members
Depending on the relative bending moment capacities of columns and girders, a moment-
resisting frame is categorized as Strong-Column/WeakBeam or Strong-Beam / Weak
Column.
The strong column-weak beam frames are used very frequently and many structural
engineers believe that these systems have superior seismic behavior to that of the weak
column-strong beam frames. Most current codes (UBC, 1994) also promote the use of the
strong column-weak beam philosophy. Recent studies have shown that the steel MRFs
that develop hinges in the girders (strong column-weak beam design) can be more stable
than the frames that have column hinges (strong beam-weak column).
In the strong column-weak beam frame, the moment capacity of the beams in a joint is less
than the moment capacity of the columns. Therefore under combinations of gravity and
lateral loads, plastic hinges are expected to form in the beams. In the strong beam-weak
column design, plastic hinges are expected to form in the columns.
One of the advantages of the column-tree system is that by selecting an appropriate
moment capacity for the splice of the girder, the splice will act as a moment fuse and
prevent large moments from developing at the face of the colum.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Reeisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 9
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR
OFSTEELCOLUMN-
TREE MOMENT-
RESISTING FRAMES
2.1. Introduction
Seismic behavior of a column-tree special moment-resisting frame is expected to be ductile
and satisfy code expectations of ductility. Unlike pre-Northridge field-welded moment
frames, in column-trees, the designer has a very strong tool to control and reduce seismic
behavior of the frame. This tool is the girder splice. The girder splices can be designed to
be sufficiently ductile and have a prescribed bending moment capacity. In such design,
during the earthquakes, the girder splices will act as ductile "fuses" and limit the
magnitude of forces including bending moment that can be developed in the frame.
Depending on bending strength and rotational stiffness of the girder splice, the column-
tree frame will behave as a rigid or a semi-rigid moment resisting system. In the
following some information on expected seismic behavior of rigid and semi-rigid column-
tree systems is provided.
2.2. Expected Seismic Behavior of RIGID Column-Tree Moment Frames
As discussed in Chapter One, in order for a column-tree moment frame to be categorized
as rigid, the following two conditions should be satisfied:
m>18 and; (2.1)
_ ].o (2.2)
The first condition depends on relative rotational stiffness of the girder and the splice
while the second condition depends on relative bending strength of girder and the splice.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997 l l
If the above conditions are met, then the column-tree splices are stiffer and stronger than
the girders. This means that the resulting column-tree moment resisting system will
behave as a traditional ductile frame. The plastic hinges are expected to form at the face of
columns while girder splices are expected to remain elastic. Therefore, in this case, the
splices do not act as fuses, but, they are merely erection splices enabling the frame to be
fabricated as a shop welded-fieM bolted steel frame.
In bolted splices, it is expected that some small amount of slippage will occur during major
earthquakes. The slippage is beneficial and acts as a friction device and isolator to
dissipate the energy and to reduce seismic forces. Laboratory shaking table tests and
analytical studies (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992, and 1996) have indicated that these
limited connection slippage do not result in noticeable increase in drift during the
earthquakes.
2.3. Expected Seismic Behavior of SEMI-RIGID Column-Tree Moment Frames
If in a column tree either one of Equations 2.1 and 2.2 above is not satisfied, the frame can
be categorized as semi-rigid (partially restrained). Technically, for a column-tree moment
frame to be considered semi-rigid, one of the following conditions need to be met:
m >18 and 0.2<(<1.0 (2. 3)
18 > m >0. 5 and ct >0. 2 (2.4)
Seismic behavior of steel rigid and semi-rigid column-tree moment frames have been
studied in recent years (Astaneh-Asl, 1991), (McMullin et al.), (McMullin and Astaneh-
Asl, 1996). The studies indicate that in general semi-rigid column-tree moment frames
are expected to perform as good or better than rigid frames. To obtain a ductile and
efficient semi-rigid frame that will not be too flexible for non-seismic loads, it is suggested
that the rigidity and strength of semi-rigid frame splice connections be at least 70% of the
corresponding values for a rigid connection. This can be expressed in the form of
satisfying the following criteria:
18> m >(0.7)18 and 0.7<(z<l.0 (2.5)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997 ] 2
3. CODE PROVISIONS
RELEVANTTOSTEEL
COLUMN-TREE
MOMENTFRAMES
3.1. Introduction
Seismic design codes have a number of provisions applicable to moment frames. These
provisions were discussed in a Steel Tip report (Astaneh-Asl, 1995). In this chapter, a
summary of applicable provisions in the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) to design
of special column-tree moment-resisting frames is provided. The information is
applicable to rigid frames.
3.1. Provisions in UBC on Bolted Special Steel Moment Frames
The Uniform Building Code, UBC-94, has the following provision regarding strength of
girder-to-column connections in special moment-resisting frames (SMRF), including
column-tree special moment-resisting frames.
Sec. 2211.7.1.1 Required strength. The girder-to-column connection shall be
adequate to develop the lesser of the following:
1. The strength of the girder in flexure.
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as
determined from Formula (11-1).
EXCEPTION: Where a connection is not designed to contribute flexural resistance at the joint, it
need not develop the required strength if it can be shown to meet the deformation compatibility
requirements of Section 1631.2.4.
(Reproduced from the 1994 Uniform Building Code, copyright1994 with the permission of the
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprf11997 13
The Formula (11-1) in Part 2 above is given as the following in UBC-94:
3bet2_
V--- 0.S5Fydctp [1+ d bdct ]
(Formula 11-1 of UBC-94) (3.1)
The EXCEPTION in the above UBC provision is primarily for shear and semi-rigid
connections that are not considered in design as part of the lateral- load resisting system.
Section 1631.2.4 of the UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) has the following provisions on the issue:
Sec. 1631.2.4 Deformation compatibility. All framing elements not required by design
to be part of the lateral-force-resisting system shall be investigated and shown to be
adequate for vertical load-carrying capacity when displaced 3(Rw/8) times the
displacement resulting from the required lateral forces. P A effects on such elements
shall be accounted for. For design using working stress methods,. ..... "
ublisher, the International Conference of Building Officials.)
The first and second printing of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) in its Section
2211.7.1.3 has provisions permitting the use of "Alternate" connections which includes
bolted special moment-resisting frame connections. In the aftermath of the 1994
Northridge earthquake and damage to welded special moment frame connections, the
ICBO Board of Directors on September 14, 1994 approved the following emergency
code change.
Reference (Building Standards, 1994) made modifications to the 1994 Uniform Building
Code and stated that:" Connection configurations utilizing welds or high-strength bolts
shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or calculation, the ability to sustain
inelastic rotation and develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1 (of UBC-94)
considering the effects of steel overstrength and strain hardening."
Seismic Design o! Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhaesan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 14
4. SEISMIC DESIGNOF
STEELCOLUMN-TREE
MOMENT-RESISTING
FRAMES
4.1. Introduction
Seismic design of rigid column-tree MRFs is similar to seismic design of welded MRFs.
First, seismic lateral loads need to be established following the governing code. Second,
seismic forces in combination with gravity loads are applied to a realistic model of the
structure and by analyzing the structure component forces and nodal displacements are
calculated. Finally, the components (i.e. girders, column, girder-to-column connections
and girder splices) are designed to carry the applied loads. In addition, like any frame the
lateral drifts are calculated and checked to ensure that the drift is less than allowable
values.
4.2. Design Considerations
The first step in design of a column-tree system is to decide the location of girder splices.
The girder splices can be placed at the location of point of inflection of the girder under
gravity load only. This point is at a distance of span/10 to span/8 from the centerline of the
column. In addition, with current transportation limitations, it is suggested that the splices
be placed such that the total width of the column trees does not exceed 8 feet.
To take advantage of column-tree systems, the connection of the girder splice is suggested
to be entirely bolted, Figure 1.5(a), or shop-welded and field-bolted, Figure 1.5(b). There
are many advantages to having bolted splices. Slippage of bolts is a very reliable source of
inelasticity and energy dissipation in steel structures. If slippage occurs under service load,
it may create problems with serviceability of the structure and cause cracking of the brittle
non-structural elements. However, if slippage occurs under controlled conditions during
earthquakes, in many cases, the slippage of bolts can improve seismic performance.
The main components of a column-tree moment flame are: (a) girder splices, (b) girders,
(c) welded connection of girders to columns, (d) columns, (e) panel zones and; (f) base
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 15
plates. In the following issues related to seismic design of these components are
discussed.
4.3. Criteria for Design of Components of Column-tree Frames
The girder splices are suggested to be designed to satisfy the following:
1. The plastic moment capacity of the girder splice does not need to be greater than the
plastic moment capacity of the girder.
. The plastic moment capacity of the splice, Mp, should be equal or greater than the
larger of: (a) the calculated applied moment at the location of the splice or 1-(2a/L)
times the plastic moment capacity of the girder.
3. The girder splices should be designed to have a ductile rotational capacity of 0.03
radians.
. The girder splice should be designed such that the yield capacity of the gross area of
the plates in the splice govern. Other failure modes such as net section failure or bolt
failure should have larger capacity than the yield capacity.
5. The connection of girder stub to column should have the strength equal or greater than
the girder.
6. The panel zone in the column should have a shear strength of 1.2 times the shear due
to Mp of the girders connected to the panel zone.
7. The girders and columns should have b/t ratios satisfying the requirements of the
governing code for special ductile moment-resisting frames.
The fixed base plates should be designed to develop 1.2 Mp of the column. The pinned
base plates should be designed to develop a rotation of at least 0.03 radians.
4.4. Design of Girder Splice
The first step in seismic design of any connection is to identify failure modes (or limit
states). Then, to arrange the failure modes such that ductile and more desirable failure
modes govern.
The possible failure modes of the typical girder splice connections shown in Figure 4.1
arel
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#l 1997 16
L .J
, J - -) I y l ; hr' "
Ductile Ductile Ductile/brittle Brittle
Slippage Failure Failure Failure
Mode Modes Modes Modes
Figure 4.1. Failure Modes of Top and Bottom Flange Plate Connections
Ductile Failure Modes:
b. Yielding of the gross area of the top and bottom flange plates
c. Bearing yielding of the bolt holes in the girder flanges and the flange plates
d. Yielding of the gross area of the girder
Failure Modes with Limited Ductility:
e. Local buckling of the top and bottom flange plates
g. Shear yielding of the column panel zone
Relatively Brittle Failure Modes:
h. Fracture of edge distance or bolt spacing in flange splice plates
i. Block shear failure of flange splice plates
J. Shear fracture of flange bolts
k. Fracture of flange plate welds (in bolted-welded splices)
1. Fracture of net areas of the flange splice plates
m. Block shear failure of girder flanges
n. Fracture of edge distance or bolt spacing in flanges of the girder
o. Yielding of the gross area of the web splice plate due to combined shear and
bending
p. Shear fracture of web bolts
q. Fracture of net area of web splice plate or girder web
r. Fracture of net area of girder.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 ] 7
The failure modes in the above list are given in the order of their desirability. Slippage of
flange bolts followed by yielding of the flange plates are the most desirable failure modes
(first two failure modes in the above list). The fracture of net area of the girder ( the last
item in the above list) is the least desirable failure mode.
4.4.a. Slippage of Flange Bolts
In incorporating slippage into seismic design, the question is when is the appropriate time
for a moment connection to slip? In establishing appropriate slip moment capacity, Mslip,
the following items need to be considered:
. The bolted connection should not slip under the service loads. To be conservative, the
slip moment greater than 1.25 times the moment in the connection due to service (not
factored) loads is suggested.
2. The bolted connection should slip during moderate and strong earthquakes to reduce
the stiffness, to increase ductility and to dissipate energy. On the basis of experience
and intuition, it is suggested here that the slip moment be smaller than 0.8 times the
plastic moment capacity of the splice.
Combining the above two suggestions, the equation to establish slip moment is:
1.2SM(service' splice) -< Mslip < 0. 8 Mps
(4.])
4.4.b. Yielding of Gross Area of Top and Bottom Flange Splice Plates
To increase ductility of the connection, yielding of flange splice plates should be the
governing failure mode. To achieve this, moment capacity of splice can be limited such
that when splice plate moment reaches plastic moment value, the moment in the girder
connection to the column does not exceed plastic moment of the girder. In doing so,
yielding of the splice plates acts as a fuse to protect the welded connection of the girder to
column. Figure 4.2 shows the relationship between the plastic moments of the splice and
the girder.
a
I-
Mpg
Mpg=Mps+Va
V=2Mps/(L-2a) + q(L-2a)/2
Figure 4.2. Free-Body Diagram of Span
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apt# 1997 18
To have desirable behavior of splice acting as a fuse, the following criterion is suggested:
Mps < Mpg-Va (4.2)
Which with reference to Figure 4.2, can be written as:
2a
Mps < (1---) Mpg (4.3)
In addition to above criterion, it is suggested that the moment capacity of splice plates be
greater than 1.25 times the bending moment calculated by the analysis. This means:
Mps > 1.25 Ms (4.4)
4.4.c. Bearing Yielding of Bolt Holes in Girder Flange and Splice Plates
Bearing yielding of the bolt holes is beneficial in reducing seismic response during extreme
events. It is suggested that in seismic design the following criterion be used:
Mpb > 1.25 Mps (4.5)
4.4.d. Yielding of Gross Area of Girder
This failure mode occurs when a plastic hinge forms in the girder. The equation to
establish plastic moment capacity of the girder is:
Mpg =FyZx (4.6)
4.4.e. Local Buckling of the Flange Splice Plates
Buckling of splice plates occurring late during the earthquake can be tolerated. To avoid
early buckling of flange splice plates, it is suggested that the slenderness of the plate, the
KL/r ratio, not exceed 20. This means that the free length of splice plate divided by its
thickness should not exceed 11. The free length of splice plate is the distance between the
first rows of bolt on each side of splice as shown in Figure 4.3.
I
- - Free Length of PI
r ,
' " ' = = = = ;I
,,
o ' , ' , .
,,
,o
[
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 19
Figure 4.3. Free Length of Splice Plate
4.4.f. Local Buckling of the Girder Flanges
Local buckling can be categorized as ductile or brittle depending on how rapidly the
locally buckled area deteriorates during cyclic loading. Available cyclic test results indicate
that steel members wlth high b/t ratios, say higher than 3,r given in the AISC Specifications
(AISC, 1994), tend to form local buckling in a very sharp configuration, develop relatively
large lateral displacements and fracture through the sharp tip of the locally buckled areas
alter a few inelastic cycles. Cyclic local buckling in this manner should be considered
brittle. The value of Xr suggested for the flanges of the girders in special moment-
resisting frames is 95 / On the other hand, members with a b/t ratio less than those
specified by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1993) tend to develop local buckling
ater a relatively large number of inelastic cyclic deformations (usually more than 10 to 15
cycles of inelastic behavior before local buckling). The limit for the b/t ratio for the
flanges of the girders currently given in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1993), is
52 / .
4.4.g. Shear Yielding of the Column Panel Zone
The Uniform Building Code permits limited yielding of the panel zones in special moment
frames (UBC, 1994). The provisions of UBC state that the panel zone shear may be
calculated by using 80 percent of the moment capacity of the connected girders. Since
some cracks have been observed in the panel zone in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, it is suggested that to protect the panel zone against extensive yielding, it is
suggested that the panel zone shear capacity be at least equal to the shear that can be
delivered to the panel zone by plastic moments of the girders:
VPz > (4.7)
d
where d is the depth of girder
The Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1994) provides the following equation for design of
panel zone:
r. = 0.ssJ*y a, t [ 1 + - -
2
3bf t
dbd t
] ( 4 . 8 )
As an alternative, until the cause of panel zone fractures is established and a realistic
design equation is developed (or the above equation is validated), the author suggests the
use of equations that are given in the AISC-LRFD Specification (AISC, 1994). The
equations are given for panel zone design when the effect of panel zone deformation on
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apd11997 20
frame stability is not considered in the analysis. The equations from AISC-LRFD
Specifications (AISC, 1994) are:
For Pu < 0.4 P y ; Vn-(0.60Fydctp) (4.9a)
F o r P u > 0 . 4 P y ; Vn-b (0.60Fydctp)(1.4- P u / P y ) (4.9b)
4.4.h. Fracture of Edge Distance or Bolt Spacing in Flange Splice Plates
Fracture of edge distance by itself may not be catastrophic, but during cyclic loading a
crack within the edge distance can jump the bolt hole and fracture the entire width of the
plate or girder flange. On the basis of the limited information currently available on the
cyclic behavior of bolt edge distances, it is suggested that in special moment frames bolt
edge distances should not be less than 1.5 times the diameter of the bolt and preferably 2.0
times the diameter. In most bolted connections, there is sufficient width of plate or flange
to accommodate easily an edge distance equal to twice the bolt diameter. The bolt
spacing, due to automation of drilling or punching is usually specified as 3 inches. In the
absence of any report of failure of bolt spacing during earthquakes or in laboratory tests,
it appears that 3 inch spacing is satisfactory.
4.4.i. Block Shear Failure of Flange Splice Plates
To ensure that this relatively brittle failure mode does not occur before the plates yield, the
following condition is suggested:
Pn > 1.25 4) Mp (pi ) / d
(4.10)
When FuAnt > 0.6FuAnv; Pn = 0-6FyAgv + FuAnt
(4.11 a)
When FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv; Pn = 0.6FuAnv + FyAgt
(4.1 lb)
4.4.j. Shear Fracture of Flange Bolts
This failure mode can occur when after slippage of the bolts and some beating yielding, the
applied moment is totally carded by the shear strength of the bolts. To encourage yielding
of steel before bolt shear failure, the following criterion is suggested:
*bFbAb N d >-dMps
(4.12)
4.4.k. Fracture of the Welds Connecting the Splice Plates to Girder Flanges
The welds on splice plates are usually fillet welds and should be designed to develop 1.25
times axial yield capacity of the plates.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames O by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 21
4.4.1. Fracture of Net Area of the Flange Splice Plates
The splice plates should be designed such that the fracture of plates does not occur before
yielding of the girder. The following criterion is suggested:
> q>Mps (4.13)
4.4.m. Block Shear Failure of Girder Flanges
Earlier in Section 4.4.i the issue of block shear failure of flange plates was discussed. For
block shear failure of the flange itself the same discussion and equations as in Section 4.4.i
apply.
4.4.n. Fracture of Edge Distance or Bolt Spacing in Flanges of the Girder
Earlier in Section 4.4.h this issue was discussed for plates. The same discussion and
recommendations apply to the girder flanges.
4.4.0. Yielding of Gross Area of Web Splice Plate
Failure modes of shear connections have been studied in recent years and reliable design
procedures are available (AISC, 1994; Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989). The philosophy used in
developing design procedure for shear plate connections has been to force yielding of steel
to occur before fracture of the net area, bolts or welds (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989).
The web plates in the splice of a column-tree are subjected to a combination of shear and
bending. To check this failure mode, the following interaction equation is suggested:
_<1.o
qVywp p
(4.14)
4.4.p. Fracture of Web Bolts
Web bolts are subjected to a combination of shear and bending moment. It is suggested
that for a ductile behavior the strength of the bolts be greater than the strength of the
plates. To achieve this, the bolts should be designed for an eccentric shear as shown in
Figure 4.3. For the design of bolt groups subjected to eccentric shear, the procedures and
tables given in Volume II of the AISC-LRFD Manual (AISC, 1994) can be used.
4.4.q. Fracture of Net Area of Web Plate
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn? 1997 22
This failure mode if occurs can have catastrophic consequences due to the fact that the
span can collapse. To prevent this failure mode from occurring before the yield failure
occurs, the following criterion can be used.
V )2+( Ve )2 < 1.0 (4.15)
(*nVun ' --*nMu% -
4.4.r. Fracture of Net Area of the Girder
This failure mode is not acceptable. It is suggested that the ultimate bending capacity of
the net section of the girder be more than 1.25Mps, where Mps is the plastic moment
capacity of the girder splice plates.
qbnMng > qbMps (4.16)
where Mng, the ultimate moment capacity of the net area of the girder can be
calculated as:
Mng = (Zx-N d htf) Fu (4.17)
4.4.s Check Welds Connecting the Girder to Column:
The full penetration welds connecting the girder flanges to column face should be done
using material and complying with the procedures that result in ductile welds. More
information on this can be found in Reference (SAC, 1995).
The fillet welds connecting the web of the girder to the column flange are suggested to be
designed for a force equal to 1.25 times shear capacity of the web of the girder:
qbnVw> 1.25 qb(0.6Fy)(tw d) (4.18)
4.5. Establishing Stiffness of the Girder splice Connection
To establish rotational behavior of a typical column-tree splice connection, the splice
connection can be modeled as a rotational spring in the elastic analysis of the column-tree
frame. The rotational stiffness of the spring can be established as:
Ks = Ms= Ms = Ms E d (4.19)
0s Aw / (d/2) 2Lsp Fy
The above rotational stiffness represents initial elastic stiffness of the splice and can be
used in elastic analysis of the column-tree frames to obtain design forces. Also, the above
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames O by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprg 1997 23
value of rotational stiffness may be used in establishing m values in categorizing the frame.
However, if more accurate calculation of displacements, particularly drift values under
factored loads, is desired, the flexibility of the connection due to slippage of bolts should
be included. The following equation is suggested for establishing rotational stiffness of
connection including slippage:
Ms Ms Ms (4.20)
Ks2 = Os = (Asp + 1/16")/(d/2) = (Lsp Fy/E + 1/16")/(d/2)
It should be added that throughout this report the emphasis was placed on seismic design.
However, the final design of connection will be governed by load combinations including
the wind load. Following the design philosophy and concepts presented in this report, the
designer should ensure that bolted connections are designed as slip-critical to resist the
service loads without slip. Such approach will ensure that the connections will not slip
during the service wind and small to moderate earthquakes. However, the bolt slip during
the major earthquakes can be ben'eficial in dissipating energy in the form of friction,
elongating the period of the structure as well as isolating the connections and cutting off
the flow of seismic energy into the structure.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apd11997 24
AH, (1995), "Reconnaissance Report on Damage to Steel Building Structures Observed
from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Hanshin/Awaji) Earthquake", Report, Architectural
Institute of Japan, (in Japanese with English summary), May.
AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction- Load and Resistance Factor Design, 2nd
Edition., 2 Volumes, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1989), "Demand and Supply of Ductility in Steel Shear Connections,"
Journal of Constructional Steel Research., Vol. 14, No. 1.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1993), "The Innovative Concept of Semi-rigid Composite Beam",
Proceedings, Structures Congress, ASCE, Irvine, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1994), "Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Semi-rigid Structures",
Proceedings, Fkst Int. Workshop and Seminar on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas, 26 June-1 July, Romania.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1995), "Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames",
Steel Tips Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, July.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Call, S.M., and McMullin, K. M. (1989), "Design of Single Plate Shear
Connections," Engineering Journal Am. Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 26, No. 1.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Nader, M. N., (1990),"Experimental Studies and Design of Steel Tee
Shear Connections," J. of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 10, October.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Nader M., (1991), "Cyclic Behavior of Frames with Semi-rigid
Connections, in Connections in Steel Structures II, Elsevier Applied Science.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Nader, M.N. and Harriott, J. D., (1991) "Seismic Behavior and Design
Considerations in Semi-Rigid Frames", Proceedings, AISC, 1991 National Steel
Construction Conference, Washington, D. C., June.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Nader, M. N. and Malik, L., (1989),"Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle
Connections," J. of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 5.
Becker, R., Naeim, F. and Teal, E., (1993), "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings",
Steel Tips Report, Stmctural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, July.
Building Standards, (1994), "ICBO Board Approves Emergency Structural Design
Provision", Journal, September- October Issue.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tres Moment-Resisting Frames O by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apri l 1997 25
Englekirk, R., (1994), 'Steel Structures, Controlling Behavior Through Design",, John
Wiley and Sons Inc..
Guh, T. J., Astaneh, A., Harriott, J. and Youssef, N. (1991) "A Comparative Study of the
Seismic Performance of Steel Structures with Semi-Rigid Joints", Proceedings, ASCE-
Structures Congress, 91, Indianapolis, April 29-May 1, pp. 271-274.
ICBO, (1994), "The Uniform Building Code", Volume 2, The International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A., (1987) "Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints", Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
McMullin, K., Astaneh-Asl, A., Fenves, G. and Fukuzawa, E., "Innovative Semi-Rigid
Steel Frames for Control of the Seismic Response of Buildings", Report No. UCB/CE-
Steel-93/02., Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Nader M. N. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1991) "Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semi-Rigid and
Rigid Steel Frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research Vol. 18, PP 179-192.
Nader, M. N. and Astaneh-Asl , A., (1996)" Seismic Behavior of Semi-rigid Steel
Frames", J. of Structural Engineering ASCE, No. ST7, July.
Porter K. A. and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1990), "Design of Single Plate Shear Connections with
Snug-tight Bolts in Short Slotted Holes," Report No. UCB/SEMM-90/23, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, December.
SAC Joint Venture, (1995), "Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures", Report FEMA 267, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. August.
Youssef, N. F. G., Bonowitz, D. and Gross John L., " A Survey of Steel Moment-
Resisting Frame Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake", Report No.
NISTIR 5625 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington D.C., April.
Index of Steel Tips Publications
The following is a list of available Steel Tips. Copies will be sent upon request. Some are in
very limited quantity.
Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment Resisting Frames
Structural Details to Increase Ductility of Connections
Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters
Use of Steel in the Seismic Retrofit of Historic Oakland City Hall
Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension
Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams
Value Engineering & Steel Economy
What Design Engineers Can Do to Reduce Fabrication Costs
Charts for Strong Column Weak Girder Design of Steel Frames
Seismic Strengthening with Steel Slotted Bolt Connections
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apri l 1997 26
APPENDIX
A NUMERICALEXAMPLE
A.1. A Numerical Example
Design a rigid moment connection of a column-tree flame. The connection is for two
W24x68 girders connected to the flange side of a W14x132 column. The steel used in
girders and column is A572 Gr. 50. The bolts are 7/8' diameter ASTM A325-N and
welds are E70xx. The connection in this example is assumed to be for the 4th. floor of a 7-
story moment frame that was used by Roy Becker in his Steel Tips issue (Becker et al.,
1993).
Given:
A 7-story steel column-tree frame. Assumed service loads are as follows:
Roof: Dead Load = 67 psf, Live Load =20 psf.
Typical Floor: Dead Load = 85 psf, Live Load =50 psf.
Partition Load: 15 psfon all floors.
OI
-- Q o el:; o - -
c:C rn c: o o
-- =E tn ri: [= --
CI D
Q cie ca c o
-. ?-E- car' __ - __
b
nar
i_ 3@30'-0' i
Figure A. 1. The Structure
Seismic Designof Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#l 1997 27
;' ! / FlangeSplicePlate
, i / / H.S.FieldBolts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . " . . i . . . 11
t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.s. ,o,,
..................... I . . . . . . . . : ': ....................
W24x6 . i W24x6 , W24x6 '!!" W24x6
. . . . . . ._ i! . . . . . . . ,' ; . . . . . . . !i . . . . . . .
i
! y W14x13
i
i
J
a=3'-7" i
i
i
Figure A.2. Column-Tree Joint
M, Moment
-422k-ft / -636k-ff
I ' +2o4k-tt
/
J
J
V, Shear
Figure A.3.
t
Assumed Bending and Shear Diagram for 4th Floor Girders
The factored shear and bending moment in the connection are shown in the above figure.
The lefi side connection of the joint, which has the largest forces, is designed in this
example. The same connection will be used for the right side of the joint.
Maximum factored shear in the connection: Ru= 64 kips
Maximum factored bending moment in the connection: Mu = 636 kips
No significant axial load exists in the girder.
Factored axial load in the column: Nu= 300 kips (needed for panel zone check).
The bending moment acting on the connection due to service loads (un-factored) obtained
from analysis:
M(service ' conn.)= 242 fi-kips (due to combination of gravity and seismic loads)
The bending moments and shear forces acting on the splice, at a distance of 43 inches ("a"
distance in Figure A.2) from the centerline of the column are:
SeismicDesignof Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aptfl 1997 28
Maximum factored shear in the girder splice: Vs= 55.4 kips
Maximum factored bending moment in the girder splice: Ms = 422 ft-kips
No significant axial load exists in the girder splice.
The bending moment acting on the girder splice due to service loads (un-factored)
obtained from analysis:
M(service' splice)= 161.5 f-kips (due to combined service gravity
and service seismic loads)
The above service moment will be used in the design of girder splice bolts to ensure that
the splice does not slip under the service loads.
The properties of the girders and the column in the joint are:
Girder: W24x68, Fy=50, Fu=65 ksi, Span=30 f, d= 23.73 in., A=20.1 in2
tw= 0.415 in. bf = 8.965 in., tf = 0.585 in, Ix-- 1830 in4, Zx = I77 in. 3
Column: W14x132, Fy =50, Fu=65 ksi, Height=l 1'-6", d=14.66 in., A=38.8 in2
tw= 0.645 in., bf = 14.725 in., tf =1.030 in, Ix= 1530 in4, Zx = 234 in. 3
Solution:
1. Establish plastic moment capacity of the girder:
Mp =ZxFy = 177x50= 8,850 k-in.
2. Check local buckling of the girder flanges:
?
b/t= 8.965/(2x0.585)=7.66'__<52=7.35 Say O.K.
qFy
3. Strong column-weak beam concept checked and is satisfied
4. Establish size of the flange plates of the girder splice:
2a
Mps _< (1 - --) Mpg
Mps < (1-2x43"/360)(8,850) = 6,735 in-kips
Mps > 1.25 Ms
Mps > 1.25x 422x12= 6,330
Use A36 steel (with minimum Fy of 36 ksi and design plates for a moment
of 6,330 in-kips. Try 3/4' plate:
Ag = Mps/(Fyd)= 6,330/[36(23.73+0.75)]--7.2 inch
Try: PL 10"x3/4" A36 for flange splices of the girder
5. Check net section failure of the splice plates
qnMns > {Mps
0.75(10-2)(3/4)(58)(23.73)> (0.9)(10x0.75)(36)(23.73+.75)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tres Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprf11997 29
6,194 > 5,949 O.K.
6. Check net-section fracture of the girder:
qbnMng > qbMps
qbn (Z h - N d htf) Fu > qbMps
0.75[177in3-2xlx0.585 (23.73-.585)](65)> (0.9)(10x0.75)(36)(23.73+.75)
7308 > 0.9x6,609 O.K.
7. Establish number of theflange bolts:
qbb(VbAbN)(d) > 1.25qbMp
0.75(48)(0.601)(N)(23.73) > 1.25(5,949)
N > 14.6; Try_: 14
7/8"dia A325N flange bolts
St,ms : : . 7'215 ?/8' a,a A325tBoh -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . [I nc o i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ft : : : : : . , ,
c . . . . . ; i
r
W14x32.
J
i
e=3'- a=3..7,' ,
W24x68
: : : - . _ - _ - : - _ . 1 _ - , ,
. J[_ s' W24x68

' l : l . s '
. . . . . . .i i ' L . ; . i i . . ,
I5 . ' T ' 6@3---';
1.5"
, _ L I
' ! ! '
i i
14.s'l
Figure A.4. Girder Splice
8. Check bearing capacity of the bolts:
MPb > 1.25 Mps
2.4(58ksi)(0.75")(7/8")(14)(23.73) > 1.25 (6,609)
30,348 k-in > 8,271 O.K.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997 3 0
9 Check buckling offiangeplate:
11.5 < 20 O.K.
10. Check to ensure that the bolts do not slip under the service loads:
1.25M(service ' splice) < Mslip < 0.8Mps
1.25 (161.5x12) < (14 bolts)(10.2 kipsPoolt)(23.73") < 0.8(6,609)
2,423 _<3,388 < 5,287 O.K.
11. Check edge distances:
Using a bolt gage of 4.5 inches c/c on the flanges, Figure A.4, provides 2.75 inches of
edge distance for splice plates and girder, large enough to satisfy AISC(1994)
requirements.
12. Check panel zone yielding:
where
VPz >_ Mpg
d
Vn = 0.55Fydctp[ 1-
dbdctp ]
3x14.725xl.032
Vn = 0.55x50x14.66x0.645[ 14
23.73x14.66x0.645
Vn= 314 kips < 2(8,550)/23.73= 721.
Therefore, doubler plates are needed:
t=__0.645(721/314)-0.645 = 0.88" Use 7/8" doubler plate.
]=314 kips
Or, change the colum size or use stronger colum material if it results in more
economical design.
If instead of above UBC-94 equation, the equation given in the AISC-LRFD
Specifications (AISC, 1994) are used, the following will result:
Pu= column axial = 300 kips
1940
Since Pu <_0.4 P y ; then Vn---( 0.60Fydct ).
Vn = qb p =0.9(0.6)(50)(14.66)(0.645)=255 kips < 721 kips
t_= 0.645(721/255)-0.645 = 1.17" Use 1-1/4" doubler plate.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apr# 1997 31
Or, change the column size or use stronger column material if it
economical design
13. Design web shear connection
results in more
The loads acting on the web plate are shown in the following figure:
J i
IJ
Figure A.5. Loads Acting on the Web Connection
The web plate are subjected to a combination of shear V and bending moment Ve. To
check this failure mode, the following interaction equation is used:
< 1.o
4)Vywp p
V=2Mps/(L-2a)+q(L-2a)/2 (see Figure 4.2)
V=2x6,609/(360-2x43)+ (2.4 k/fiJ12)(360-2x43)/2= 76 kips
Try PL 7"x3/8"xl'-3"
76 . )2 =0.53_< 1.0
]2+[ 76x2
[ 0.9(3/8)(15)(0.6x36) 0.9(3/8)(152)(36)/4
14. Fracture of web bolts
The web splice bolt group is subjected to an eccentric shear. The shear is equal to 76 kips
and eccentricity is 2 inches, see Figure A. 5. To design the bolts, the tables in Volume II of
the AISC-LRFD Manual (AISC, 1994) are used. The results:
Use 5 7/8' dia A325N bolts
15. Fracture of net area of web plate
To check this failure mode the following equation is used:
( V -2- Ve )2
4-, 1 +1' M.., < 1.0
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apf11997 32
V
( (t)(h- Ndh)(O.6F.))2+(ep (O(h2/4-ndh 4 -ndh d2)(Fy))2 < 1.0.
76 2 76x2" 2 0.66
(0.75(3/8)(15 - 5xl")(O.6x58)) +(0.75(3/8)(15/4 - l"x2x3 - 1"x2x6 )(58)) =
< 1.0 O.K.
16. Check welds connecting the girder to column:
The full penetration welds connecting the girder flanges to column face should be done
using material and complying with the procedures that result in ductile welds. More
information on this can be found in Reference (SAC, 1995).
The fillet welds connecting the web of the girder to the column flange are designed
following the criterion. The length of fillet welds is 20 inches.
q)nVw 2 1.25 4) (0.6Fy) tw d
0.75 (0.6x70ksi)(2)(20")(0.707D) _>1.25x 0.9(0.6x50)x 0.415x23.73
D&0.37" Use 3/8' fillet welds E70xx
1 7. Establish rotational stiffness of the connection:
Ms Ms Ms E d
Ks =O s - Asp 7 (d/2) = 2Lsp Fy
KS "-
5948x29,000x23.73
2x20x36
= 2,842,500 kip-inch/radians
m=Ks / (EI/L) = 2,842,500/(29,000X1830/360)=19.2 > 18 O.K.
Therefore, the flame can be categorized as rigid since m is greater than 18.
To calculate rotational stiffness that includes the effects of bolt slippage:
Ks2 = M-' ' -s = Ms = Ms
Os (Asp + 1/16")/(d/2) (Lsp Fy/E + 1/16")/(d/2)
Ks2 =
5,948(23.73/2)
20x36/29,000 + 1/16"
- 808,000 kip-inch/radians
The above value of rotational stiffness can be modeled into computer analysis program as
stiffness of a rotational spring. Such analysis can result in better calculation of drifts.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn11997 33
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(510) 631-9570
Q
SPONSORS
Adams & Smith
Baresel Corp.
G.M. Iron Works Co.
The Corporation
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Junior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Oregon Steel Mills
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
H.H. Robertson Co.
Stockton Steel
Thei local structural steel industry (above spomors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most
~~~~
TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCT SERVICE
DECEMBER 1998
Seismic Behavior and Design
of Gusset Plates
by
Professor
Copyright by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 1998. All rights reserved.
Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates
This report presents information and tips on seismic behavior and design of gusset plates used in steel
concentrically braced frames. Gusset plates are used in steel building structures to connect the bracing
members to the beams or columns. Gusset plates are also used in connections of steel trusses. In this
report, first a summary of behavior of steel gusset plates is presented. This summary is based on the
information obtained from laboratory tests, investigation of performance during actual earthquakes and
analytical studies. After presenting the summary of behavior, a chapter is devoted to discussion of
provisions in the current design codes that are relevant to seismic design of gusset plates. Then, seismic
design of gusset plates is presented.
First Printing, December 1998
Figures and photos by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl unless otherwise indicated.
COPYRIGHT 01998 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 209 Vernal Drive, Alamo, California 94507, Fax and
Phone: (510) 946-0903. All rights reserved.
Neither this document nor any part of it may be reproduced, translated or transmitted in any form or by
any means, mechanical or electronic, including photocopying, scanning, or by any information storage
and retrieval system without written permission of the author and copyright owner: Abolhassan Astaneh-
Asl. The Structural Steel Educational Council is hereby granted the right to print, reproduce and
disseminate this document in any number via mail, fax or electronically in its as-is form prior to
January 1, 2004
Disclaimer: The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with
recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate,
this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent
professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed
professional engineer, designer or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not
intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the Structural Steel Educational Council, or of any
other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom
from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability
arising from such use.
Caution must be exercised when relying upon specifications and codes developed by others and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time
subsequent to the printing of this document. The Structural Steel Educational Council or the author bears
no responsibility for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the
initial publication of this document.
Acknowledgments
The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the Structural Steel
Educational Council (SSEC). The author would like to thank all SSEC members for their support and
comments. Particularly extensive written comments received from Rudy Hofer, James J. Putkey and
Lanny Flynn of the Structural Steel Educational Council and Professor Subhash C. Goel of the University
of Michigan were very valuable and appreciated. Publication of this report was made possible by
financial support of the California Iron Workers Administrative Trust. The support was very valuable and
sincerely appreciated.
The support provided by the American Iron and Steel Institute to the authors research on the
subject, while he was a doctoral student at the University of Michigan (1979-1982) is acknowledged. The
research conducted under Professors Subhash C. Goel and Robert D. Hansons supervision, was essential
in collecting and developing many technologies presented and used in this report. In addition, the later
support of the University of California, Berkeley made it possible to conduct the cyclic tests of gusset
plates in V-braced frames presented in this report. The tests were conducted by Albert Suen, formerly an
undergraduate student at University of California at Berkeley. His efforts are acknowledged and
appreciated. Many thanks are due to Ted Winneberger and other engineers of the W&W Steel Company
of Oklahoma City for their continued support of authors work on the gusset plates since 1983.
The author is a professor of structural engineering, with emphasis on steel structures, at the
University of California at Berkeley. His research and design interests have been on the behavior and
design of steel structures including buildings and bridges under gravity and earthquake effects. He is a
member of the Structural Steel Educational Council (SSEC), Research Council on Structural Connections
(RCSC), Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
Habitat (CTBUH). The author is a registered Professional Engineer in California. He is the recipient of
the 1998 AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award for Seismic Behavior and Design of Bolted Steel
Moment-resisting Frames, published as SSEC Steel Tips, July 1995.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the University of California, Berkeley, the Structural Steel Educational Council or other agencies
and individuals whose names appear in this report.
ii
DESIGN OF GUSSET PLATES
Professor
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page iii
NOTATIONS / Page iv
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF GUSSET PLATE CONNECTIONS / Page 3
3. RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS / Page 19
4. SEISMIC DESIGN OF GUSSET PLATES FOR DUCTILE PERFORMANCE / Page 23
REFERENCES/ Page 33
111
Notations
In preparing the following notations, whenever possible, the definitions are taken with kind
permission of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), from the Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1997). Such definitions are identified by (AISC, 1997) at the end of
the definition.
A
Ag
Agt
Agv
A
gw
An
A
v
A
hw
A
hv
C
D
E
Fcr
Fy
F
ye
Fu
I
K
L
Lfg
M
Mp
N
Ny
Pbs
Pn
Pu
Pcr
PY
R
Area of cross section
Gross area. (AISC, 1997)
Gross area subject to tension (in checking block shear failure)
Gross area subject to shear (in checking block shear failure)
Gross area of gusset plate as per Whitmores 30-degree lines.
Net area. . (AISC, 1997)
Net area of plate
Net area of gusset plate along Whitmores section
Net area subject to shear (in checking block shear failure)
Distance of extreme fiber from neutral axis
Outside diameter of round HSS tubes
Modulus of elasticity.
Critical compressive stress
Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel to be used, ksi. As used in the LRFD
Specification, yield stress denotes either the minimum specified yield point (for those steels that
have a yield point) or the specified yield strength (for those steels that do not have yield point).
(AISC, 1997)
Expected Yield Strength of steel to be used, (AISC, 1997)
Specified minimum tensile strength, (AISC, 1997)
Moment of inertia
Effective length factor for prismatic member. (AISC, 1997)
Unbraced length of compression or bracing member, (AISC, 1997)
Length of free edge of gusset plate
Bending moment
Plastic moment capacity
Axial force
Capacity of cross section in yielding under axial load = A Fy
Capacity based on block shear failure mode
Nominal axial strength of a member
Required axial strength on a member
Critical axial strength on a member in compression
Nominal axial yield strength of a member, which is equal to FyAg, (AISC, 1997)
Seismic force reduction factor used in (ICBO, 1997)
iv
Ry
Ratio of the Expected Yield Strength Fye to the minimum specified yield strength Fy. (AISC,
1997)
TElement Tension yield capacity of one element in built-up braces
V Shear force
VFirst Stitch
Shear force to be transferred by the first stitch in built-up braces
VStitch
Vy
b
1
r
T
Shear force to be transferred by a stitch in built-up braces
Capacity of cross section in shear yielding = A(0.6 Fy)
Width of compression element as defined in LRFD Specification (AISC, 1997)
unbraced length between stitches of built-up bracing members, (AISC, 1997)
Governing radius of gyration, (AISC, 1997)
Radius of gyration of one element
Thickness of plate or member elements
Horizontal seismic overstrength factor, (AISC, 1997)
Slenderness parameter. (AISC, 1997)
Limiting slenderness parameter for compact element. (AISC, 1997)
Limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact element. (AISC, 1997)
Resistance factor for yield failure modes = 0.90
Resistance factor for bending=0.90 (AISC, 1997)
Resistance factor for compression=0.85, (AISC, 1997)
Resistance factor for fracture=0.75, (AISC, 1997)
Normal stress due to bending
Shear stress
1 l INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
Gusset plates have been used in riveted steel trusses of early bridge, buildings and industrial
structures. Today, gusset plates are frequently used in steel braced frames to connect bracing members to
columns and beams as shown in Figure 1.1. In addition, gusset plates are still used in steel trusses to
connect truss members. Since 1960s, bolts and welds have almost totally replaced rivets in these
connections. The focus of this report is on seismic behavior and design of gusset plates in steel braced
frames. Most of the information presented herein, with proper judgment of design engineer, can also be
applied to gusset plates in trusses and other applications. Figure 1.2 shows a number of typical gusset
plate connections in braced frames.
Figure 1.1. Typical Concentrically Braced Frames
The main objectives of this report are:
0 To discuss seismic behavior of common gusset plate connections.
l To present recommendations and tips on seismic design of typical gusset plates.
Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates. Copyright byAbolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, December 1998
1/8 Shim I
I
-1 jy=====j
. ..- .-$p-.- -.. .- .--. - .-.-. -.-.-.-.-._-._. .__ -._,-
Stiffeners
--I
. . .I
./
.!
.-,.
Girder
.\
,
.\.
\
\
/
,
\
\
\
A--.-.-.-.-.-.-. - .-.-.-.-._ -.-.-.-.-.+~: ___.___. -._.- ._._._.___.__.___._ ?-
,/ .l.
./ \
Girder y/
Y\
\.,
, , 1
,
Note: The connection of brace to gusset,
shown as bolted in most of these
details, can also be welded instead
of bolted.
Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates.
Copyright by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, December 1998
2
2 l SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF
GUSSET PLATE
CONNECTIONS
2.1. Performance of Gusset Plates during Past Earthquakes
Gusset plates, in general, have performed satisfactorily during the past earthquakes. However, a
few cases of failure of gusset plates have been reported in the aftermath of the past earthquakes including
in the 1985 Mexico (Astaneh-Asl, 1986), the 1994 Northridge (Astaneh-As1 et al. 1994), and the 1995
Kobe-Japan earthquakes (Kanada and Astaneh-Asl, 1995). The observed failure modes have been in the
form of fracture of welds, buckling of the gusset plates and fracture of net section of gusset plate or the
bracing member, Figure 2.1. Most of these failures, especially brittle fracture of the net area can be
related to non-ductile design and poor detailing of the gusset plate connections.
Figure 2.1. Observed Failures of Gusset Plates in the Past Earthquakes
Since gusset plate connections are one of the most critical elements of the braced frames, failure
of these connections can result in significant loss of strength and stiffness of the lateral load resisting
braced frame. Such losses, in turn, can result in formation of soft stories in the structure. In Chapter 3,
Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates. Copyright by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, December 1998
3
failure modes of gusset plates are discussed. In addition, design and detailing tips are provided that can
result in ductile and desirable behavior of gusset plates and prevent observed brittle failures.
2.2. Seismic Behavior of Gusset Plates in the Laboratories
Actual behavior of gusset plates have been studied in the laboratories by a number of researchers.
In the early tests of gusset plates (Rust, 1938), before the strain gages were used in structural engineering
tests, instead of steel plates, gusset plates made of polished Bakelite were used. In these tests, by
subjecting the Bakelite plate to polarized light, the researchers at the time were able to see and record the
iso-stress lines in the gusset plates. These tests showed that forces applied to a gusset plate, by members
attached to it, are distributed over an effective area of gusset near the connected members. Of course, due
to elastic nature of Bakelite material, the stresses were elastic stresses. Rusts paper (Rust, 1938) not only
had the results of gusset plate tests and perhaps first pictures of actual elastic stress distribution in the
gusset plates, but, the paper also discussed many aspects of design of gusset plates.
The Discussions that were submitted for Rusts paper also had many useful information. For
example, Russell C. Brinker of University of Hawaii, in his discussion referred to a series of presumably
Bakelite gusset plate tests conducted by Theophil Wyss (Wyss, not dated). According to Brinker, Wyss
concludes from his tests that the stress distribution within the gusset plate is along a 30-degree line.
Almost 15 years later as discussed in the following, Whitmore proposed an effective area for gusset plate
based on 30-degree distribution of stress within the gusset plate. The use of 30-degree lines is now known
in design community as the Whitmores method.
In 1952, R. E. Whitmore of University of Tennessee reported results of testing of a gusset plate
connection (Whitmore, 1952). The material of gusset plates in the specimen was high strength aluminum
with yield strength of about 39 ksi and modulus of elasticity of 10 ksi. The test was conducted on a
specimen representing a truss joint with double gusset plates. The specimen was a 1/4-scale representative
of actual connection of a 295 feet span truss. Whitmore produced the iso-stress lines obtained by the
strain gages mounted on the tested gusset plate. The plots clearly confirmed stress trajectories to be along
approximately 30-degree lines with the connected member.
Whitmore (1952) also presented distribution of normal and shear stresses along the critical
sections of the tested gusset plate. His results indicated that the experimental stress diagrams were not
similar to those predicted by the beam formulas, (i.e. CJ= MC/I and r=VQ/It). However, it is interesting to
note that the maximum values of the normal and shear stresses measured in the test and predicted by the
beam formulas were very close. This observation might explain why gusset plates designed using beam
formulas, for almost two centuries, have performed satisfactorily. In other words, almost any test of
gusset plate has indicated that stress distribution in the gusset plates cannot be predicted using beam
formulas. However, the beam formulas have been able to predict the maximum value of the normal and
shear stresses quite reasonably but in wrong location of the gusset plate. Since design of gusset plates,
even today, is based on the maximum stress, the application of beam formulas have resulted in safe gusset
plates.
Whitmores test re-affirmed that in order to obtain rational values for direct stresses in a gusset
plate in the areas at the end of the members, the concept of distribution of force along 30-degree lines
could be used. In this simple concept, an effective area of gusset plate through the last line of connectors
is established by drawing 30-degree lines from the first connector as shown in Figure 2.2. The direct
stress in the gusset plate, in the areas just beyond the diagonal members, is calculated by dividing the
axial force in the member by the area of this effective cross section. In addition to proposing the
distribution of forces within the gusset plate to be under 30-degree angles, Whitmore (1952) endorsed the
use of beam formulas to establish normal and shear stresses in critical sections of gusset plates.
4
Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates. Copyright byAbolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, December 1998
It should be noted that Whitmore tested only one specimen and the specimen was made of high-
strength aluminum. His test was followed by tests of two gusset plate connections by W. G. Irvan Jr.
(1957) and B. O. Hardin (1958) of the University of Kentucky. Like Whitmores test, the two specimens
in these studies were also representative of bridge joints. The high-strength aluminum gusset plates used
in these tests were densely strain gauged to measure state of stress in the gusset plate. The researchers
reached the same conclusion as Whitmore that the beam formulas cannot establish stress distribution in
gusset plates accurately. As Irvan (1958) stated: The assumption that all of the beam formulas apply in
calculating primary stress distribution on any cross section (either vertical or horizontal) is considerably
in error.
CRITICAL
Figure 2.2. 30-degree Line Distribution of Stress Within a Gusset Plate (from Whitmore, 1952)
In 1971, D. D. Vasarhelyi of University of Washington published the results of testing of a steel
gusset plate connection (Vasarhelyi, 1971). This appears to be the first test of an actual steel gusset plate.
In this test, two diagonals were connected to a horizontal bottom chord member by a pair of steel gusset
plates. Again, the specimen represented gusset plate connections of bridge trusses. The gusset plates were
densely strain-gaged. In addition to testing the gusset plate collection specimen, Vasarheyli conducted
analytical studies to establish state of stress in the gusset plates. He used the then emerging computer
based stress analyses and finite element methods. Vasarheyli (1971) concluded, The present elementary
analysis appears to be adequate for most cases. Perhaps the most important finding of this study was that
The maximum stress in the gusset plate found by various simplified methods are only slightly different;
the major deviations are in the location of those maximums
All above tests were done monotonically by pushing or pulling the gusset plates in one direction.
The first cyclic tests of realistic and full-size gusset plates were reported by Astaneh-Asl, Goel and
Hanson of the University of Michigan (Astaneh-As1 et al., 1981-1986). The test program consisted of
subjecting 17 full-scale double angle bracing members with end gusset plates to cyclic loading. A typical
specimen inside the test set-up is shown in Figure 2.3. In the following, a brief summary of the results is
provided.
The research indicated that cyclic behavior of gusset plates in braced frames strongly depends on
the direction of buckling of the bracing member. When the bracing member buckles in-plane of the
braced frame, Figure 2.4(a), three plastic hinges form in the member; one at mid-length and one at each
end of the member just outside the gusset plate. Therefore, gusset plates in this case remain almost
entirely elastic. However, when bracing member buckles out-of-plane of the braced frame, Figure 2.4(b),
5
one of the three plastic hinges still forms at mid-length of the member but two other hinges form inside
the gusset plate. Formation of plastic hinge in the gusset plate means that the gusset plate should be
designed such that it can provide for the relatively large rotation demands of the plastic hinge.
SIDE VIEW
ELEVATION
Figure 2.3. Typical Specimen Inside the Test Set-up (Astaneh-Asl et al., 198 1)
Figure 2.4 (a) In-Plane and (b); Out-of-Plane Buckling of Bracing Members
6
When a bracing member buckles out-of-plane of the braced frame, plastic hinges form within the
gusset plate. These plastic hinges need to be free to rotate; otherwise, the gusset plates can fracture in a
few cycles. To ensure that gusset plate can freely rotate, the end of bracing member should be terminated
a distance of at least 2t away from the re-entrant corner of the gusset plate (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1986).
Figure 2.5 shows a poorly detailed gusset plate where the distance of 2t is not provided and the gusset
plate has fractured in a few cycles. On the other hand, Figure 2.6 shows a properly detailed test specimen
where the distance of 2t is provided. This specimen was able to tolerate more than 30 large inelastic
cycles of axial load without fracture. Notice that the dark areas on the whitewashed specimens are
indicators of yielded areas.
Figure 2.5 Fracture of Poorly Detailed Gusset Plate in Out-of-Plane Buckling
Figure 2.6. Ductile Behavior of Properly Designed Gusset Plate
7
Another finding of this study was to confirm validity of Whitmores 30-degree stress distribution
lines within the gusset plate under cyclic loading, Figure 2.8(a). It should be mentioned that Whitmores
concept of effective area of gusset plate, bound by 30-degree lines, was developed based on riveted
specimens and later was used for bolted gusset connections as well. Astaneh et al. (1982) extended
Whitmores 30-degree stress distribution concept to welded gusset plate connection as shown in Figure
2.8(b).
I
I
i-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
jr
I
I
I
f
I
Stiffener
,.:
.: ,...
-&
,., ,:
:
A. :..
..F
,.:
/ . ..
,: :
,;; . . ...
,.f \
/
/
___.. -.-._.-.-.-.- _.-.-.- ..-.-
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-iz
I
I
I
I
$
I
___. -.-.Y2t.-.- .-..-.-
Figure 2.7. Distance 2t for Gussets in Out-of-Plane Buckling Bracings
(Astaneh-Asl et al., 1982)
Figure 2.8. (a) Whitmores Concept of Stress Distribution Within Gusset Plate; and
(b) Extension of Whitmores Concept to Welded Gusset Plates
(Proposed by Astaneh-Asl et al., 1982)
In 1981, G. De Martino (1981) reported a summary of results of a number of tests of x-bracings
with end gusset plates. The tests actually were done by L. Sanpaolesi of University of Pisa and his
associates. In this program, bolted as well as welded specimens were tested. Based on the test results, De
Martino concluded that: The behavior of bolted joint is controlled by creep (slip) which does not
however appear by chance, and has a positive effect; in fact it contributes considerably to the ductility of
the joint and therefore improves dynamic response of the system. De Martino emphasized the extra
ductility of bolted connections that results from slip and hole ovalization which is not available in welded
connection. It is interesting to note that De Martino attributes many positive aspects to bolted gusset plate
connections including high energy dissipation and desirable dynamic behavior of structural system.
8
However, in his view, the only positive aspect of welded connection is that compared to bolted
connections, the behavior of welded connections is easy to understand, (De Martino, 1981).
During 1980s, more than 190 tests of bracing members and their connections were conducted in
Japan. A summary of these studies is provided in Reference (Kato et al., 1992). Although most of the
tests were focussed on the behavior of bracing itself, the tests provided invaluable data on cyclic behavior
of concentric bracings and their gusset plates. Using the data and statistical methods, empirical rules for
design of gusset plates were proposed. The study emphasized that the strength of gusset connection
should be greater than yield strength of bracing member.
Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti (1984) and Bjorhovde (1988) reported results of monotonic tests of
six steel gusset plates. The gusset plates in this program were representative of diagonal bracing
connections in a braced frame. All specimens had a short bracing member bolted to the gusset. In the
tests, the angle of bracing member with the horizontal beam was 30, 45 or 60. The gusset plates were
either 1/8 or 3/8 inch steel plates. During the tests, the short bracing member was subjected to tension
until gusset plate failed or capacity of the set-up reached. Unfortunately, due to limitations of the jack
capacity, the 3/8 gusset plate specimens could not be loaded to failure. For 1/8 gusset plates, the failure
mode of specimens with 30 and 45 bracing member, was tearing of the gusset plate along the last bolt
hole line. They stated that: This is in agreement with extrapolation of predictions based on Whitmores
criterion. (Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti, 1984). The specimen with 60-degree bracing member failed by
tearing of net area of gusset through the bolt line connecting the gusset plate to the horizontal angles.
In 1985, Hardash and Bjorhovde (1985) reported results of 28 gusset plate tests where bolted
gusset plates were subjected to tension load. In addition to these 28 tests, the researchers had added the
results of another 14 similar tests conducted earlier at the University of Illinois and the University of
Alberta. It appears that the main aim of this work was to study block shear failure mode in bolted gusset
plates. The researchers using the accumulated test data developed and proposed a specific empirical
equation to predict block shear failure capacity of the gusset plates in tension. They stated that the block
shear failure mode in all specimens was due to tension tearing of net section of gusset along the last bolt
lines perpendicular to the bracing member and shear yielding of gusset along the exterior bolt line parallel
to the member.
R.M. Richard (1986) studied behavior of gusset plates- bracing member assemblies using
inelastic finite element analyses. Sixty cases were analyzed. The author stated that to study behavior of
gusset plates more realistically, the gusset plates and connected bracing members; beams and columns
should be included. One of the design-oriented suggestions of this study was that: significant reduction
in gusset plate size may result in not using the working point concept and designing the plate on the basis
of the required gusset-to-brace connection length, even though a moment results from brace eccentricity.
In 1988, Yamamoto et al. (1988) published the results of six monotonic tests of gusset plate
connections. The specimens were double gussets and represented bridge truss joints. Using test results,
the researchers developed and proposed empirical equations to be used in calculating gusset plate
thickness.
Hu and Cheng (1987) reported results of 14 compression tests done on six gusset plate specimens.
In some specimens there was a built-in eccentricity between the applied brace force and the working
point. The failure mode of concentric specimen was buckling of gusset plate while for eccentric
specimens, the failure mode was bending yielding of the splice plates connecting the gusset to the
bracing member. The researchers concluded that: "The effective width concept which is currently used
in designing gusset plates was found to be very unconservative if the primary failure mode is the plate
buckling" (Hu and Cheng, 1987).
9
As indicated earlier in this chapter, the reader should notice that the effective width concept (also
known as Whitmores Method) was mentioned in 1930s in bridge design books. It appears that the
concept was used to predict capacity of gusset plates in tension only. It is not surprising that Hu and
Cheng tests show that the buckling capacity of gusset plates is much less than the tension capacity
predicted by the Whitmores method. The author believes that one should use Whitmores 30 line
effective width concept only to establish the effective width of the gusset plates. Whitmores effective
area can be calculated by multiplying effective width by the thickness of gusset plate. Finally, to obtain
axial load capacity, the effective area of gusset should be multiplied by Fy to obtain tension yield capacity
and by Fcr to obtain compression buckling capacity of gusset plate.
Astaneh-Asl (1989 and 1991) reported results of cyclic load tests of three gusset plate specimens
representing the V-braced connections. Figure 2.9 shows the three specimens. The main parameter of
study was to investigate ductility of the connection which was thought to be influenced by the location of
the point of intersection of the bracing members and the girder. As shown in Figure 2.9(a), in Specimen 1,
the point of intersection of bracing members was 2 inches from the weld line connecting the gusset to the
girder. In Specimen 2, the point of intersection of braces was on the weld line. Specimen 3 was designed
following the current practice where the centerline of bracing members and girder coincide at the work
point. Figure 2.10 shows test set-up used in the program. During the tests, the diagonal bracing
members were subjected to tension and compression resembling the condition that develops in an actual
Chevron and V-braced frame during seismic event. A brief summary of cyclic behavior of each specimen
follows.
(a)
Specimen 1
(b) Specimen 2
(c)
Specimen 3
Figure 2.9 Test Specimens Subjected to Cyclic Loading (Astaneh-Asl, 1991)
10
Figure 2.10. Test Set-up Used in Testing Gusset Plates
Specimen 1 had two inches of eccentricity of brace point relative to weld line, as shown in Figure
2.9(a). The gusset plate in this specimen generally behaved in a very ductile manner. The main
inelasticity in this specimen was yielding of the free area of the gusset plate between the end of braces
and the weld line. In addition, the bolted connection of bracing members to gusset plate were
experiencing cyclic slip under combined effects of axial and bending deformations. Figure 2.11 shows
appearance of Specimen 1 at the end of the test. Figure 2.12 shows shear force-shear displacement
behavior of this specimen. The gusset plate in this specimen did not show any sign of fracture in tension
or buckling in compression and tolerated more than six large inelastic load reversals. The test was stopped
to avoid damage to the equipment when during the last cycle, minor out-of-plane buckling of the gusset
plate was observed.
Figure 2.11. Specimen One at the End of Cyclic Tests
11
80
60
c 40
a
5 20
cc
0
4 -20
5 -40
-60
DISPLACEMENT (in)
Figure 2.12. Shear Force-Shear Displacement Behavior of Specimen One
In Specimen 2, the point of intersection of braces was on the weld line connecting the gusset plate
to the girder, Figure 2.9(b). This specimen behaved in a ductile manner although not as ductile as
Specimen 1. The main inelastic activity in this specimen was shear yielding of the free area of the gusset
plate between the end of the bracing members and the weld line. Cyclic slippage of the bolted connection
of the braces to the gusset plate was also observed. Figure 2.13 shows Specimen Two at the end of the
cyclic tests. Figure 2.14 shows shear force-shear displacement behavior of this specimen. The specimen
tolerated five large inelastic cyclic deformations without showing signs of fracture in tension or buckling
in compression. At this time, in order to observe governing failure mode, the bracing members were
subjected to ever-increasing monotonic force until block shear failure of gusset plate occurred on the
tension zone, Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.13. Specimen Two at the End of Cyclic Tests
12
100
80
60
;;
40
!
Vy=77 kips
I
4 Vy=77 kips
-120 I 1 5 I I I I 1 I I
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
DISPLACEMENT (in)
Figure 2.14. Shear Force-Shear Displacement Behavior of Specimen Two
In Specimen Three the point of intersection of the braces was on the centerline of the girder
making this connection a concentric joint. Currently, almost all gusset plate connections in Chevron or V-
braced frames are designed in this manner where centerline of all members connected by the gusset plate
pass through the work point. This specimen, representing current design practice, behaved in a
relatively brittle and undesirable manner. The main inelastic activity in this specimen was buckling of the
gusset in the areas near the edge of gusset plate as well as buckling of gusset near the end of compression
bracing member. The strain gage measurements indicated that, although this was the largest of three
gusset plates, the forces applied to gusset plate, were distributed in a very small area near the end of
bracing member. Figure 2.15 shows Specimen Three at the end of the cyclic tests. Figure 2.16 shows
shear force-shear displacement behavior of this specimen. Like previous two specimens, the bolts slipped
in this specimen as well. The gusset plate tolerated only two large inelastic cycles, buckled significantly
on compression side and fractured in a block shear failure mode on tension side as shown in Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.15. Specimen Three at the End of Cyclic Tests
13
test 3
100
80
60
2 40
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
DISPLACEMENT (in)
Figure 2.16 Shear Force-Shear Displacement Behavior of Specimen 3.
Based on the test data, the following conclusions were reached:
l Specimen 1, Figure 2.9(a), with largest eccentricity in the gusset plate, showed the best behavior
and highest cyclic ductility. In this specimen, the point of intersection of the bracing members
was 2 inches away from the flange of the beam. Consequently, there was a two inches of free
length of gusset plate that was cyclically yielding in shear. This inelastic area was dissipating
energy and acting as a ductile seismic fuse. The fuse could control the magnitude of force
developed in bracing members and the braced frame. The use of this type of eccentric gusset plate
is strongly recommended. Of course, if eccentric gusset plates are used, one might think that due
to eccentricity in the connection, there would be extra moment in the joint that has to be carried
by the girder. This statement is only true during the elastic phase of the behavior and if the
geometry of the frame does not change noticeably. During inelastic phase of behavior, when the
free area of the eccentric gusset plate yielded in shear, due to yielding, the stiffness of the gusset
was lost and the moment present in the gusset was released to members. In other words, during
inelastic phase of behavior, due to yielding and change of stiffness, the forces in the members and
connections are redistributed while maintaining the static equilibrium under inelastic state of
behavior. In Specimen 3, as the free zone of gusset plate yielded in shear, the bending moment in
this region was released into the connected members. Figure 2.17 shows moment-rotation curves
for all three specimens. The moment is measured on the centerline of the girder. The maximum
moment for Specimen 1 was almost the same as for Specimen 3 which had no eccentricity..
l Specimen 2, where the point of intersection of the braces was on the flange of the girder, had
much more compact gusset plate than the Specimen Three (current practice) and showed much
better behavior and higher ductility than Specimen Three.
l Specimen 3, where the centerline of all members passed through one work-point did not show
ductile and desirable behavior. The gusset plate buckled and the specimen could only tolerate two
cycles of large inelastic deformations. This specimen was designed following the current practice
in design of gusset plates where centerline of all members attached to the gusset plate pass
through one point creating a concentric joint. In order to achieve better seismic behavior, higher
ductility and smaller gusset plates, the use of eccentric gusset connections, shown in Figure
2.9(a) and 2.9(b), is recommended.
14
-0.006 -0.002 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.014 0.016 0.022 0.026
ROTATION, (rad.)
Figure 2.17. Moment-Rotation Curves for Gusset Plates in Three Specimens
As part of above research (Astaneh-Asl, 1991), the edge buckling of gusset plates was also
studied. The problem of edge buckling of gusset plates has been known from the early days of design of
steel bridge trusses. In fact, the bridge design codes such as AASHTO (1997) have had criterion for years
to check this phenomenon and to prevent it. The current AASHTO criterion can be expressed as:
L
fp52.0 J-
t
d
FY
(2.1)
V. L. S. Brown (1988) reported results of compressive gusset plate tests and analyses of edge
buckling. The study recommended a formula to prevent edge buckling prior to gusset yielding. The
formula, written in the above format, can be expressed as:
-10.83 E
Lfg
t
d
5
(2.2)
Based on experience with performance of gusset plates in bridges, the above criterion appears to
be adequate to prevent elastic buckling of free edge of relatively thin gusset plates subjected to monotonic
loads. However, for gusset plates under large cyclic push-pull load, the edge buckling has occurred even
when the above criterion was satisfied. The available test data on edge buckling of gusset plates are very
limited. These test results are plotted in Figure 2.18. As figure indicates, for values of Lfg/t greater than
0.75
IF
E/F, , the critical buckling stress, Fcr/Fmax is reduced significantly. Using these results, the
author proposed the following criterion (Astaneh-Asl, 199 1). The criterion is formulated to prevent cyclic
buckling of the free edge of the gusset plates prior to the gusset plates reaching their maximum
compression capacity.
-50.75 z
Lf,
t
d
FY
(2.3)
15
i
- Gross Tests i 0 * !
i D 0 0 : 0 - Yamatnotos Tests
o-5 : MINOR OR NO
- LOCAL BUCKLING
TOLERABLE LOCAL : SEVERE ELASTIC LOCAL
: BUCKLING OCCURS / BUCKLING MAY OCCUR
; 0.75, (Proposed for Seismic)
20, (AASHTO Limit)
,,,I ,,I ,I,, ISI4 II, 1, 1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
SLENDERNESS, A,=& /W FY/E )
Figure 2.18. Reduction of Capacity Due to Edge Buckling of Gusset Plates
In 1990, J. Gross reported results of three monotonic tests of gusset plate bracing assemblies
(Gross, 1990). The main parameters of study were the gusset geometry, eccentricity of forces in the
connection and orientation of the column. Three nearly full-scale braced frame sub-assemblages were
tested. For Specimens 1 and 2, the failure mode was buckling of gusset plate and for Specimen 3, tearing
of gusset plate in tension. According to the study, Whitmores procedure to calculate yield capacity of
gusset plates predicted the significant yield point for these three specimens well.
LOCAL BUCKLING OF EDGE OF GUSSET PLATES
PROPOSED BY A. ASTANEH-ASL, 2/2/96
4 x
///////&X.~////
Cheng et al. (1994) reported results of eight tests on four gusset plate specimens subjected to
compression. Once again, as in their earlier tests, the researchers compared the buckling strength of gusset
plates to the strength predicted by Whitmores procedure and concluded that the capacities reached during
the tests were less than Whitmores prediction, thus, ...Whitmores predictions produce unconservative
estimates of the strength of the thin gusset plate loaded in compression. (Cheng et al., 1994). As
discussed earlier, this finding is quite expected since Whitmores procedure was developed for gusset
plates in tension where material can reach its yield stress under tension. When gusset plate is in
compression, due to elastic buckling of relatively thin gusset plates, the stress in the gusset plate material
cannot reach yielding.
In 1998, Walbridge et al. (1998) reported results of three monotonically loaded gusset plates
tested by Yam and Cheng (1993) and four cyclically loaded gusset plates tested by Rabinovitch and
Cheng (1993). The hysteresis loops resulting from cyclic tests indicate quite ductile behavior for gusset
plates. The researchers concluded that using finite element methods, cyclic behavior of gusset plates
could be predicted well.
2.3. Summary of Behavior of Gusset Plates
2.3.a. Strength Failure Modes
The following failure modes have been observed in the field after earthquakes or in the
laboratories:
l Fracture of gusset plate along the Whitmores 30-degree effective width area.
l Block shear failure of gusset plate in tension.
16
l Buckling of gusset plate in compression.
l Buckling of free edge of gusset plate.
l Failure of critical section of a gusset plate due to combination of axial load, bending and shear.
l Failure of welds, bolts and angles connecting the gusset plate to the members
2.3.b. Ductility of Gusset Plate Connections
Studies of behavior of gusset plates with regard to their ductility have indicated that:
l Bolted gusset plates, if net section fracture is prevented, are more ductile than the similar welded
gusset plates. This is due to additional ductility resulting from slippage of bolts.
l Ductility of a gusset plate strongly depends on direction of buckling of bracing member attached
to it. If bracing member buckles out-of-plane of gusset plate, the gusset plate needs to be detailed
to accommodate the end rotation demand of the bracing member in a ductile manner. This can be
accomplished by ending the bracing member a distance of 2t from the re-entrant corner of the
gusset (Astaneh-Asl, 1982), (AISC, 1997). However, if bracing member buckles in plane of
gusset plate, the gusset remains almost elastic and there is no need for such ductile detailing.
l Buckling of gusset plate not only results in reduced compressive capacity but if bucking is elastic,
it can lead to brittle and undesirable behavior. Therefore, in cases where buckling capacity of
gusset is less than say 50% of tension capacity, the gusset plate should be stiffened or thickened
to develop larger buckling capacity.
l Edge buckling of gusset plate is not desirable. The criterion proposed by Astaneh-Asl (1991), and
given as Equation 2.3 in previous section may be used to check edge buckling under cyclic
loading. If the above criterion is not satisfied, then it is likely that the edge of gusset plate will
buckle under large cyclic inelastic stress reversals. To prevent edge buckling, the edge of gusset
plate can be stiffened by adding a relatively small angle or plate as commonly done in bridge
gusset plates. Also, one can increase the thickness of gusset or reduce the length of free edge to
satisfy the above criterion.
17
18
3 l RELEVANT CODE
PROVISIONS
3.1. Introduction
In this chapter, code provisions relevant to seismic design of gusset plates for concentrically
braced frames are discussed. Currently, concentrically braced frames are divided into two categories by
seismic codes such as AISC (1997) and UBC (ICBO, 1997). These two categories are Special and
Ordinary. Special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) are designed and detailed to have higher
ductility. The higher ductility enables SCBFs to tolerate relatively large number of inelastic cyclic
deformations during earthquakes without fracture or significant reduction in their strength and stiffness.
In SCBFs, the bulk of inelastic deformations occur in the bracing members or their connections. Such
inelastic ductile deformations increases damping and reduces stiffness of the structure resulting in energy
dissipation as well as smaller seismic forces generated in the structure. The Ordinary Concentrically
Braced Frames (OCBFs) for less seismically active regions do not need to be as ductile as SCBFs.
Current seismic design codes, such as AISC Seismic Specifications (AISC, 1997) and Uniform
Building Code (ICBO, 1997), allow special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) to be designed for
smaller seismic forces than similar but ordinary concentrically braced frames. This is a direct result of
higher ductility of special concentrically braced frames.
One of the most important components of concentrically braced frames, Special or Ordinary, is
the collection of the bracing members to the beams and columns. These connections are typically gusset
plate connections. Seismic design codes have a number of provisions directly related to seismic design of
steel gusset plates. In the following, the provisions of recently released AISC Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1997) are discussed. The provisions discussed in the following are
those deemed directly related to the design of gusset plates. For actual code provisions on seismic design
of gusset plates the reader needs to refer to all applicable provisions of the AISC document (AISC, 1997).
3.2 Relevant Provisions in the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
The AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1997), has a number of
provisions that are applicable to design of gusset plates in concentric braced frames. The provisions can
be discussed in five categories: (a) Material, (b) Bolted Joints, (c) Welded Joints, (d Connections in
Concentrically Braced Frames and; (e) Bracing Members in Concentrically Braced Frames. In the
following, these provisions are summarized for readers information. For actual and proper application of
these and other relevant provisions, the AISC (1997) should be used.
19
3.2.a. Material
According to the AISC seismic provisions (AISC, 1997), When required in these provisions, the
required strength of a connection or related member shall be determined from the Expected Yield
Strength Fye of the connected member, where
Fye = Ry Fy (3.1)
Fy is the specified minimum yield strength of steel and the values of Ry as given by the AISC
(1997) are listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Values of Ry Given by the AISC-97 [a]
Material
ASTM A36 Steel
ASTM A572 Grade 42
For rolled shaped and bars of other grades of steel and for plates
Note:
Ry
1.5
1.3
1.1
[a] Other values of Ry are permitted to be used if the value of Fye is determined by testing that
is conducted in accordance with the requirements for the specified grade of steel.
AISC (1997) has provisions regarding notch-toughness of steel used as members in Seismic
Force Resisting System. According to these provisions, rolled steel shapes with elements thicker than 1.5
inches as well as plates 1.5 inches thick or thicker in built-up cross sections, shall have a minimum
Charpy V-Notch,(CVN) toughness of 20 ft-lbs at 70 degrees F. The AISC (1997) does not explicitly
require gusset plates 1.5 inch thick or thicker to have the above CVN. However, it is suggested herein
that the above CVN requirement is applied in design of thick gusset plates (thicker than 1.5 inches) in
highly seismic areas (i.e. Zones 3 and 4) and particularly to welded gusset plates.
3.2.b. Bolted Joints
The bolts used in the joints of Seismic Force Resisting System are required by AISC (1997) to be
fully tensioned high strength bolts with faying surfaces prepared as required for Class A or better slip
critical joints. However, the bolts to resist shear can be designed based on their bearing strength as long
as the faying surface is prepared to provide coefficient of friction of at least 0.33. The bearing strength of
bolts cannot be taken greater than 2.4dtFu. The bolted joints are not permitted to share the load in
combination with welds on the same faying surface. The bolt holes can be standard or slotted-holes
where the length of slot is perpendicular to the direction of force. Other types of holes are also permitted
if their use is justified as part of a tested assembly.
The AISC(1997) now specifies that: The bolted connections for members that are part of the
Seismic Force Resisting System shall be configured such that a ductile limit-state either in the connection
or in the member controls the design. This is perhaps the most important issue in seismic design and
was first explicitly introduced to steel design and incorporated into the AISC Manual of Steel
Construction while developing the design guidelines for shear tabs (Astaneh-Asl et al., 1988). Later, this
hierarchy of having ductile failure modes such as yielding precede more brittle failures was applied to
seismic design of other connections such as bolted moment frame connections (Astaneh-Asl, 1995) and
column-tree moment frames (Astaneh-Asl, 1997). In Chapter 4 of this report, the procedures suggested
for seismic design of gusset plates, are entirely based on this philosophy of ensuring ductile failure modes
to occur prior to the more brittle failure modes.
20
3.2.c. Welded Joints
The AISC(1997) has specific provisions regarding welding particularly with regard to full-
penetration groove welds. In gusset plate connections seldom full-penetration welds are used. Instead,
fillet welds are used to connect bracing members to the gusset plates and gusset plates to the girders and
columns. Laboratory tests and actual seismic events have indicated that properly designed and executed
fillet welds perform well under cyclic loading and have sufficient ductility. AISC (1997) has a provision
that indicates: For members and connections that are part of the Seismic Force Resisting System,
discontinuities created by errors or by fabrication or erection operations, such as tack welds, erection aids,
air-arc gauging, and flame cutting, shall be repaired as required by the engineer of Record. This
provision is an important one and is fully applicable to design of gusset plates and should be followed,
particularly for cases of relatively large welds used with thick (thicker than 1.5 inches) gusset plates,
member flanges and webs. The issue of welding in seismic applications is still under study and
development. Therefore, the reader is strongly urged to refer to the latest information on this subject.
3.2.d. Connections in Concentrically Braced Frames
The relevant provisions of the AISC (1997) regarding design of gusset plate connections are
summarized in the following Table 3.2 for discussion purposes. In actual design, the designer needs to
use the AISC (1994), AISC (1997) and other applicable codes.
Table 3.2. A Summary of the AISC-97 Seismic Provisions on Connections of
Concentricallv Braced Frames
Item
Required Strength of Bracing
Connections
(gusset plates, and including
beam-to-column connections
if part of the bracing system)
Tensile Strength: Based upon
the limit states of rupture of
effective net section and block
shear rupture
Flexural Strength: In the
direction that analysis
indicates the brace will buckle
Design of gusset plates
Value for Special Concentrically
Braced Frame
Lesser of the following:
l The nominal axial tensile strength of
the bracing member, determined
as RYFY A,
l The maximum force, indicated by
analysis, that can be transferred to
the brace by the system.
Equal to or greater than
the Required Strength as determined
above.
1.1 Ry Mp of the brace about the
critical buckling axis [a]
The design of gusset plates shall
include consideration of buckling
Value for Ordinary Concentrically
Braced Frame
Least of the following:
l The nominal axial tensile strength of
the bracing member, determined
as RY FY Ag
l The force in the brace that results
from load combinations (4-1) and
(4-2) given in AISC (1997)
l The maximum force, indicated by
analysis, that can be transferred to
the Required Strength as determined
above
1.1 Ry Mp of the brace about the
critical buckling axis [b]
The design of gusset plates shall
include consideration of buckling
[a] "Exception: Brace connections that meet the requirements in Section 13.3b (2nd row in the above table)., can accommodate
the inelastic rotations associated with brace post-buckling deformations, and have a design strength that is at least equal to
the nominal compressive strength FcrAg of the brace are permitted. " (AISC, 1997).
[b] Exception: Brace connections that meet the requirements in Section 14.3b (2nd row in the above table)., can accommodate
the inelastic rotations associated with brace post-buckling deformations, and have a design strength that is at least equal to
the nominal compressive strength FcrAg of the brace are permitted. (AISC, 1997).
21
3.2.e. Bracing Members in Concentrically Braced Frames
The AISC (1997) has two sets of provisions for Ordinary and Special concentrically braced
frames. The major provisions are summarized in the following Table 3.2. For complete provisions and
commentary see AISC (1997).
Item
Reduction Factor
Seismic Over-strength Factor
Required compressive strength of
bracing members
I
Value for Special
Concentrically Braced Frames
R= 6.4
[a]
no =2.2 [a]
P s +c PI,
Overall slenderness of bracing members KL/r <lOOO/&
Slenderness of an element between K l/b 2 0.40(KL/r)
PI
stitches
Width-thickness ratios of unstiffened
[cl
elements of braces
bit 5 651 F,
r
Width-thickness ratios of stiffened
elements of braces
b/t 2 253/K
Width-thickness ratio of stems of tees
bit I 65/K
[cl> [dl
Width-thickness ratio of angles
Outside diameter to thickness ratio of
round HSS (unless round HSS wall is
stiffened).
bit 5 52/K
D/t 5 1300iFy
Flat width to wall thickness ratio of
rectangular HSS (unless rectangular
b/t < II0 F,
r
HSS wall is stiffened).
Spacing and number of stitches Uniform spacing and not less
than 2 stitches used.
Bolted stitches Not to be located within the
middle A of the clear brace
length
Design shear strength of stitches
N otes:
VStitch 2 TElement
Table 3.1. A Summary of the AISC-97 Provisions on Concentrically Braced Frames and Their Members
Ro =2.2
P < O.SO$, P,,
[al
KLir 1720/K
-1
b/t 2 (970!&)( l-0.74Pu I$,, P, )
b/t I 127/z
bit 2 52/K
D/t 2 1300/Fy
I
b/t<110 F,
ti
Not less than 2 stitches shall be
equally spaced about the member
VFirst Stitch 5 0.5(TElement)
[a] Values are from Uniform Building Code (1997).
[b] Exception: where it can be shown that the braces will buckle without causing shear in the stitches, the spacing of the stitches
shall be such that the slenderness ratio 1/ri of the individual elements between the stitches does not exceed 0.75(KL/r) of the
built-up member (AISC, 1997).
[c] There is no value of hp for the stem of tees in the AISC-LRFD Specification (AISC, 1994). The value given here is based on
the Authors judgment.
[d] Assumes an inelastic rotation capacity of 3. For structures in zones of high seismicity, a
greater rotation capacity may be
required (AISC, 1994). It is suggested herein that for zones of high seismicity and to achieve larger rotation capacity, the
limit of b/t of 52/K as given in Table I-9-1 of the AISC (1997) be used.
The AISC (1997) has provisions on Special Bracing Configuration Special Requirements that
are applicable to Chevron, V and K braced frames. For these special provisions, the reader is referred to
AISC (1997). In addition, there are provisions in the AISC (1997) that apply to design of columns of
concentrically braced frames. These provisions, not being directly relevant to design of gusset plates, are
not discussed here and again, the reader is referred to AISC (1997).
22
4 l SEISMIC DESIGN OF
GUSSET PLATES FOR
DUCTILE PERFORMANCE
Gusset plate should have sufficient strength to transfer the applied forces. In cases where the
bracing member connected to gusset plate buckles out-of-plane, the gusset plate should have sufficient
ductility to deform and provide the end rotation demand of the member. Fracture of a gusset plate most
likely will result in considerable loss of strength and stiffness of the bracing member and the braced
frame. Such losses can in turn result in undesirable and brittle performance of the braced frame.
Therefore, to avoid such brittle behavior, the governing failure mode of the gusset plate connections in
seismic applications should be a yielding failure mode and not a fracture mode.
The first step in seismic design of any connection, including gusset plates, is to identify failure
modes (or limit states). Then, the failure modes should be arranged in a hierarchical order such that
ductile and more desirable failure modes, such as yielding, occur prior to the brittle and less desirable
failure modes; such as fracture. The concept of hierarchical ordering of failure mode has been suggested
and successfully used by the author in the past in developing design procedures for shear connections
(Astaneh-Asl, 1989), (Astaneh-Asl and Nader, 1989) (Astaneh-Asl, et al., 1989) and bolted moment
frame connections (Astaneh-Asl, 1995).
During the earthquakes, bracing members and sometimes gusset plates, are the most active
elements and experience yielding, buckling and other failure modes. Let us consider a bracing member
with its end gusset plates as shown in Figure 4.1. Four important zones can be identified for this system.
These, shown in Figure 4.1, are:
1. Bracing member,
2. Connection of bracing member to the gusset plate,
3. Gusset plate, and;
4. Connection of gusset plate to supporting beams and columns.
Each of the above four zones has its own failure modes. To have a desirable and ductile seismic
performance, the governing failure mode within each of the above zones should be a ductile failure mode,
such as yielding and not a brittle failure mode such as fracture. Since the above four zones are in series,
like a chain, during an earthquake, the weakest of the four zones is expected to become more active and
yield in tension and buckle in compression. In order to increase global ductility of a braced frame, the
yield strength of the above-mentioned four zones should be in a hierarchical order. The order is shown in
Figure 4.2. In this hierarchical order, the governing failure mode for each of the four zones should be
yielding. Yielding of bracing member results in large axial plastic deformations, which in turn result in
large ductility for the braced frame. Therefore, in the hierarchical order of yielding, shown in Figure 4.2,
23
yielding of member is designed to occur first followed by yieldin, g of connection elements and
components. On the other hand, yielding of relatively short elements of the system, such as welds
connecting the gusset plate to its support cannot provide large global ductility, Therefore, such yielding is
placed near the end of the hierarchical order of yielding shown in Figure 4.2. If a bracing system is
designed following this concept, brittle fracture of elements of the system will be avoided and desirable
and ductile seismic behavior will result.
r
Gusst Connection of
Bracing to Gusset
Connection of
Figure 4.1. Typical X-bracing and Four Zones of Importance
Figure 4.2. Hierarchical Order of Yielding in Elements of a Braced Frame
In the following sections, issues related to seismic design of each of the above-mentioned four
zones are discussed. The emphasis is on the failure modes and seismic design of gusset plate.
4.1. Seismic Design of Bracing Member
The current seismic design codes, such as AISC (1997) and UBC (ICBO, 1997), allow the use of
Ordinary as well as Special concentrically braced frames. Table 3.2 in Chapter 3 of this report,
provides a summary of the AISC seismic provisions (AISC, 1997) relevant to seismic design of bracing
members in Ordinary and Special concentrically braced frames. The main difference between the
bracing members in Ordinary and Special concentrically braced frames, is in more stringent requirements
for special braced frames with regard to b/t and Kl/r of bracing member. This is done to make Special
braced frames more ductile. It is suggested herein that in high seismic zones (Zones 3 and 4) only Special
concentrically braced frames be used. The use of special concentric braced frames not only results in
ductile and desirable performance but in many cases it can be more economical than the ordinary braced
24
frames.
The failure modes of a typical bracing member, in the order of their desirability,
are:
a. Yielding of gross area of member when subjected to tension force,
b. Overall buckling of bracing member when subjected to compression force,
c. Bearing failure of bolt holes in bolted built-up bracing members,
d. Yielding of stitches and batten plates in built-up bracing members,
e. Buckling of individual elements in built-up members,
f. Local buckling of bracing member cross section,
g. Slippage of bolts connecting the elements of member in built-up members,
h. Fracture of bolt edge distance and bolt spacing,
i. Fracture of stitches or batten plates in built-up members,
j.
Fracture of effective net area of member,
k. Block shear failure of member; and;
1. Fracture of bolts or welds in built-up members.
The above failure modes are listed in their hierarchical order of desirability and shown in Figure
4.3. Yielding of the bracing member is the most desirable and fracture of net are of brace is the least
desirable. All of above failure modes are well known and well covered in the literature and design
specifications (AISC, 1994, 1997). Since the emphasis of this report is on gusset plates, for design of
bracing member, the reader is referred to the ASIC Specifications (AISC, 1994 and 1997).
. ,
<v------J
c--------3 c
i
-
Ductile Ductile/brittle Brittle
Failure Failure Failure
Modes Modes
Modes
Figure 4.3. Failure Modes of Typical Bracing Members in a Hierarchical Order of Desirability
One of the important issues in todays seismic design of steel structures is to pay attention to
variability of yield point of steel and how it might adversely affect seismic performance. Ductile
performance of steel structures depends on timely yielding of steel and development of significant
inelastic deformations prior to fracture. If actual yield point of steel is much higher than the specified
value used in design, it is quite possible that during earthquakes, more brittle failure modes precede
yielding resulting in non-ductile behavior of the structure.
25
Current design specifications such as AISC (1997), have provisions to increase specified yield
point of steel to a more realistic level by multiplying it by Ry. Values of Ry as per AISC (1997) are given
in Table 3.1, Chapter 3 of this report.
To obtain a ductile and desirable seismic performance in concentrically braced frames, where
yield failure modes should be designed to occur prior to more brittle fracture modes, the following
procedure for design of bracing members is suggested:
1. Use special braced frames in high seismic areas.
2. Apply load combinations prescribed by the governing code, analyze the structure and
establish maximum axial tension and compression forces in the bracing members.
3. Use LRFD methods of the governing code and design the bracing members to carry axial
tension and compression forces in the member such that yielding of gross area under tension
and overall buckling of the member under compression govern over other failure modes listed
above. For this step, use minimum specified yield stress, Fy of steel. The effective length
factor of compression bracing member, K, can be taken as 1.0 for out of plane buckling and
0.65 for in plane buckling bracing members respectively.
4. Check other failure modes listed above and insure that they will not occur before axial load in
the member reaches yield capacity of gross area in tension and overall buckling capacity of
member in compression. To calculate tension yield and compression buckling capacities of
the member to be used in this step, use expected realistic yield stress of steel equal to RyFy.
5. Design connections of the bracing member as explained in the following sections.
4.2. Seismic Design of Connection of Bracing Member to the Gusset Plate
Bracing members frequently are connected directly to the gusset plates using bolts or welds,
Figure 4.4(a). However, when bracing member is a wide flange shape, often angles and plates are used to
connect the wide flange bracing member to the gusset plate, Figure 4.4(b).
(a)
-
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
jL
I
I
I
I
c
l
-/
Shear Tab
0
--.-.-.---.-.____-.~~~~~-.-.-.-.-
l
0
-
(b)
Figure 4.4. Two Examples of Connections of Bracing Members to Gusset Plates
26
Failure modes of typical connection of a bracing member to the gusset plate, in the order of
desirability, are:
a. Slippage of bolts in bolted connections,
b. Yielding of gross area of angles and plates used in the connections, see Figure 4.4(b),
c. Bearing failure of bolt holes,
d. Local buckling of angles and plates used in the connection,
e. Edge distance fracture and bolt spacing failure in bolted connections,
f. Fracture of effective net area of angles and plates in the connection; and
g. Block shear failure
h. Fracture of bolts and welds.
The above failure modes are shown in Figure 4.5 in their hierarchical order of desirability from
left to right. All failure modes should be checked to ensure that they will not occur before axial load in the
member reaches yield capacity of the member gross area in tension and overall buckling capacity of
member in compression. To calculate tension yield and compression buckling capacities of the member it
is suggested herein to use conservatively expected yield stress of steel equal to 1.1 RyFy.
(4
Loading
a-
Starts
(a
6
Slippage
of Bolts
v d------J-
--V--
Ductile
Ductile Ductile/brittle
Brittle
Slippage
Failure Failure
Failure
Mode
Modes Modes Modes
Figure 4.5. Failure Modes of Connection of Bracing Members to Gusset plates in a
Hierarchical Order of Desirability
It is recommended that in bolted connections, the bolt groups be designed such that the bolt slippage does
not occur until the axial force in the member reaches 0.80 RyFy. This will help to prevent slippage of the
bolted connections under service gravity and earthquake loads. However, it will not prevent the slippage
of bolts under severe. earthquakes. During severe earthquakes, bolt slippage can have many beneficial
effects including increasing damping, decreasing stiffness, increasing ductility and elongating the period
of vibration, all beneficial in improving the seismic behavior.
To avoid pre-mature local buckling of elements during severe seismic events, the b/t of these
elements should not be greater than 52/K, (AISC, 1997).
27
To achieve a ductile behavior, it is suggested herein that the yield and bearing capacities of the
connections of bracing member to gusset plate be greater than the axial yield capacity of member
calculated using expected realistic yield stress of RyFy. To avoid brittle failure of connections, the
capacity of the connection for net section fracture, block shear failure, bolt and weld failure modes should
be at least equal or greater than axial tension yield capacity of the bracing member calculated using
conservative expected realistic yield stress of 1.1RyFy.
4.3. Seismic Design of Gusset Plate
Failure modes of a typical gusset plate, in the order of their desirability, are:
a. Yielding of Whitmores area of gusset plate,
b. Yielding of critical sections of gusset plate under combined stresses,
c. Buckling of gusset plate,
d. Buckling of edges of gusset plate,
e. Block shear failure, and;
f. Fracture of net area of gusset plate.
Figure 4.6 shows failure modes in their hierarchical order of desirability from left to right. In the
following sections, design procedures and equations to address these failure modes are provided.
WA c------y-v
Ductile
Ductile/brittle Brittle
Failure Failure Failure
Modes
Modes Modes
Figure 4.6. Hierarchical Order of Failure Modes of a Gusset Plate
4.3.a. Yielding of Whitmores area of gusset plate
This is the most desirable failure mode of a gusset plate. Yielding of gusset plates can occur due
to direct tension or compression, bending moment, shear and their combinations. Yielding due to direct
tension or compression can occur within the Whitmores effective width area due to direct stresses on
Whitmores area. The following equation can be used to establish yield capacity of a gusset plate due to
direct axial load.
Py=AgwFy (4.1)
For definition of terms in all equations, see Notations at the beginning of this report.
28
4.3.b. Yielding of gusset plate under combined stresses
Critical sections of gusset plates can yield under a combination of axial load, bending and shear.
To establish capacity of gusset plate subjected to combined loads, the following interaction equation is
suggested. Since cross sections of gusset plates are normally rectangular, the curve for interaction of axial
load, N, and bending moment, M, is a parabola. However, the interaction of shear V, and bending
moment, M, is closer to a 4th degree polynomial. Based on these interactions, for interaction of axial
force, N, Bending moment, M, and shear, V, the following equation is suggested:
(N/+NY)~ +MI$Mp+(V/$Vy)4 I 1 .O
(4.2)
Occasionally, gusset plates do not have regular geometry shown in previous sections of this
report. To check the above interaction equation on critical sections of irregular gusset plates, one can
resort to free-body diagrams of various parts of gusset plate and establish N, M, and V on the boundaries
of these free bodies and check the above equation using N, M and V on the critical sections.
4.3.c. Buckling of gusset plate
Due to direct compression, a gusset plate can buckle in the areas just beyond the end of bracing
member as shown in Figure 4.7. To establish buckling capacity of a gusset plate subjected to direct
compression, Whitmores effective width can be used, Figure 4.7.
The following equation can be used to establish buckling capacity of a gusset plate subjected to
direct compression:
Pcr=AgwFcr (4.3)
where, Fcr is the critical stress acting on l-inch wide gusset strips within the Whitmores effective width as
shown in Figure 4.7. These l-inch strips are treated as columns and AISC-LRFD column equations are
used to establish Fcr. The K, effective length factor for gusset plate is suggested to be taken as 1.2
(Brown, 1988). The relatively conservative value of 1.2 for K can be justified based on test results
indicating that there is a possibility of end of bracing member moving out of plane.
W=Whitmores Width
t= Gusset Thickness
L= Length of Gusset Column
Figure 4.7. Buckling of Gusset Plates and Model to Calculate Buckling Capacity
29
4.3.d. Buckling of edges of gusset plate
As discussed in Chapter 2, in gusset plates with free edge, the long free edges can buckle. The
edge buckling is an undesirable failure mode. Particularly under cyclic load reversals, as shown by
Astaneh-Asl (1991), the edge buckling limits the cyclic ductility of the gusset plate. To prevent edge
buckling under severe cyclic loading, the following equation, (given as Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2) is
proposed by Astaneh-Asl (l991):
-50.75 5
Lf,
t
d
FY
4.3.e. Block shear failure
Block shear failure is a relatively brittle failure mode and undesirable. To design a ductile gusset
plate, this failure mode should not govern over yield failure mode. To ensure that capacity of gusset plate
in block shear failure is greater than its capacity in yielding, the following criteria is suggested:
(4.5)
where, Ry is the ratio of expected yield strength to specified yield strength. This factor has been
introduced into steel design in the aftermath of Northridge earthquake, when it was realized that actual
yield point of steel produced today could be higher than the specified value. The AISC Specification
(1997) provides a value of Ry = 1.1 for plates. In the above equation, Py is tension yield capacity of
gusset given by Equation 4.1., and Pbs is the nominal capacity of gusset plate in block shear failure
calculated using the AISC Specification (1994) equations:
Pbs = 0.6RyFyAgv + FuAnt
Pbs = 0.6FuAnv + RyFyAgt
(when FuAnt 2 0.6FuAnv)
(when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv )
The above equations are similar to the equations given by the AISC Specification (1994) for the
block shear failure but with one difference that the specified yield stress Fy is multiplied by material
factor Ry. It should be mentioned that in some cases where gusset plate is relatively narrow and long,
incomplete block shear failure could occur. This has been observed in laboratory tests (Astaneh-Asl,
1991) and shown in Figure 2.13 of this report.
4.3.f. Fracture of net area of gusset plate
Fracture of net area of gusset plate is the least desirable failure mode. To ensure that this
relatively brittle failure mode does not occur prior to yielding of gusset plate, the following criterion is
suggested:
@n Pn 2 Ml.lRyPy> (4.8)
Tests of gusset plates, as summarized in Chapter2, have indicated that the net section fracture in
gusset plates occurs within the Whitmores effective area. Therefore, Pn should be calculated using the
following equation:
30
Pn=A F
nw u
(4.9)
4.4. Seismic Design of Connection of Gusset Plate to Its Supports
The first step in design of these connections is to establish forces applied to these connections.
Currently, a number of simple methods, all satisfying static equilibrium, are used to establish gusset plate
support forces. Figure 4.8 shows four of these methods currently used in design offices. Methods shown
in Figure 4.8(a) and (b) are based on resolving the force of bracing member into two concentric or
parallel resultants. These two methods have been used in design of gusset plates for decades. Method
shown in Figure 4.8(c) was proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl based on his concept of using Truss Analogy
to establish realistic stresses in the gusset plates (Astaneh-Asl, 1989, 1991). The method shown in Figure
4.8(d) was proposed by W. Thornton.(l991).
After establishing the reaction forces following one of the above methods, the connection of gusset
plate to supports can be designed to resist these forces. It should be emphasized that in order to obtain a
ductile connection with desirable seismic behavior, design of these connections should be done such that
yielding failure modes become the governing failure modes over the fracture modes.
./
.
./
iii
./
K
i
E
Q1
CL
, &9(a)
+@I
i (Proposed by A. Astaneh-Asl, 1989)
gwlso.
i (Proposed by W. Thornton, 1991)
(d)
Figure 4.8. Methods Used to Establish Gusset Plate Support Forces
31
REFERENCES
AIJ, (1980), Report on disaster due to the 1978 Miyagi-ken-Oki Earthquake, Report, Architectural
Institute of Japan.
AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction- Load and Resistance Factor Design, 2nd Edition., 2
Volumes, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago
AISC (1997), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago
Aslani, F. and Goel, S. C. (1992). Stitch spacing and end fixity in seismic-resistant boxed angle
braces, J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, v 118 n 10 Oct 1992, p 2872-2889
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1986), A report on the behavior of steel structures during September 19, 1985
earthquake of Mexico, Proceedings, Annual Technical Session, Structural Stability research Council,
Lehigh University, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1989), Demand and supply of ductility in steel shear connections, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 14, No. 1.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1989), Simple methods for design of steel gusset plates., Proceedings. Session
Related to Steel Structures, Structures Congress. Published by ASCE, NewYork, NY, USA. p 345-354.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1995), Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames, Steel Tips Report,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA, July.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Bolt, B., McMullin, K., Donikian, R. R., Modjtahedi, D. and Cho, S.W. (1994).
Seismic performance of steel bridges during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Report No. UCB/CEE-
Steel- 94/01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Bolourchi, S., and Ahmadi, M. (1991). Damage to equipment and non-structural
elements during June 2 1, 1990 Iran Earthquake. Proceedings, ATC Conf., Applied Technology Council.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Call, S. M., and McMullin, K. M. (1989). Design of single plate shear connections.
Engineering Journal, AISC, First Quarter, 21-32.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1981). Behavior of steel diagonal bracing.
Proceedings, ASCE Conference, St Luis, Preprint 81-522.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1982). Cyclic behavior of double angle bracing
members with end gusset plates, Report no. UMEE 82R7, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1983). Cyclic behavior of double angle bracing
32
members with bolted connections. , Engineering Journal, AISC, Chicago.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Goel, S. C. (1984). Cyclic in-plane buckling of double angle bracing. Journal of
Structural Engineering., ASCE, 110(9), 2036-2055.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1985). Cyclic out-of-plane buckling of double angle
bracing. Journal., ASCE, 111(5), 1135-1153.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Ho, I. (1993). Behavior and design of angle connections subjected to cyclic axial
force and shear, Proceedings, ASCE, Structures Congress, Irvine.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Kanada, M. (1995). Performance of steel bridges during the 1995 Hanshin
Earthquake. Proceedings, Struct. Steel Design Seminar-2, University of California, Berkeley.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Nader, M. N. and Malik, L., (1989), Cyclic behavior of double angle connections,
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 5.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Nader, M. N. (1989). Design of tee framing shear connections. Engineering
Journal, AISC, First Quarter, 9-20.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Nader, M. N. (1990). Experimental studies and design of steel tee shear
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering., ASCE, 116(10),Oct., 2882-2902.
Bjorhovde, R., (1988). Limit state design considerations for gusset plates, J. of Constructional Steel
Research. v 9 n 1 1988, p 61-73
Bjorhovde R. and Chakrabarti, S. K., (1985), Tests of full-size gusset plate connections , J. of Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 111, No. ST3, March.
Brown, V.L.S., (1988) Stability of Gusset Connections in Steel Structures, Doctoral Dissertation,
Depart. Of Civil Engrg., Univ. of Delaware.
Cheng, J.J., (1987), Compressive behavior of gusset plate connections, Structural Engineering Report
No. 153. Univ. of Alberta, Dept. of Civ. Eng., July, 148p.
Cheng, J.J., Yam, M. C. H., and Hu, S.Z. (1994). Elastic buckling strength of gusset plate connections.
J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, v 120 n 2 Feb 1994, p 538-559
Girard, C., Picard, A. and Fafard, M. , (1995). Finite element modeling of the shear lag effects in an
HSS welded to a gusset plate. Canadian-Journal-of-Civil-Engineering. v 22 n 4 Aug 1995, p 651-659
Gross, J. L., (1990). Experimental study of gusseted connections, Engineering Journal, Am. Inst. Of
Steel Constr., v 27 n 3 3rd ,Quarter 1990, p 89-97.
Hardash, S.G., and Bjorhovde, R., (1985). New design criteria for gusset plates in tension, Engineering
Journal, Am. Inst. Of Steel Construction, Second Quarter, Chicago.
Irvan, Jr., W. G., (1957), Experimental study of primary stresses in gusset plate of a double plane Pratt
truss, Bulletin No. 46, Engineering Experiment Station , Univ. of Kentucky, December.
Kato, B., Morita, K., Tanuma, T., (1992) Experimental studies on the strength of brace-to-gusset plate
33
connections with high-strength bolts.. Proceedings of the Pacific Structural Steel Conference. Auckland,
NZ, Published by New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Assoc., Manukau City, NZ. v 2, p 23-37.
Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A., (1987) Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted
Joints, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Nader, M. N., and Astaneh, A. (1991). Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid and rigid steel frames.
J. Construct. Steel Research, 18, 179-192.
Porter, K. A. and Astaneh-Asl, A.(1990). Design of single plate shear connections with snug-tight bolts
in short slotted holes. Report No. UCB/SEMM - 90/23, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, April.
Rabinovitch, J.S., and Cheng, J.J.R., (1993), Cyclic behavior of steel gusset plate connections, &.
Engineering Report No. 191, University of Alberta.
Richard, R. M., (1986), Analysis of large bracing connection designs for heavy construction.
Proceedings, Solutions in Steel, The AISC National Engineering Conference. Nashville, TN, USA, Publ
by AISC, Chicago, IL, USA p 31. 1-31.
Thornton, W. (1991), A cost comparison of some methods for design of bracing connections, in
Connections in Steel Structures II, Proceedings, 2nd International Workshop on Connections in Steel
Structures, Pittsburgh, April 10-12.
UBC, (1997), The Uniform Building Code. Volume 2, The International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA.
Walbridge, S.S., Grondin, G.Y. and Cheng J.J.R., (1998), An analysis of the cyclic behavior of steel
gusset plate connections, J. of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, No. 1-3, Paper No. 305.
Whitmore, R. E., (1952) ," Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates", Bulletin No. 16,
Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, May.
Williams, G. C and Richard, R. M. (1996). Analysis and design of large diagonal bracing connections.
Structural-Engineering-Review. v 8 n 1 Feb 1996, p 1-27
Yam, M.C.H., and Cheng J.J.R., (1993) Experimental investigation of the compressive behavior of
gusset plate connections. Str. Engineering Report, No. 194, University of Alberta.
Yamamoto, K. Akiyama, N. and Okumura, T. (1988). Buckling strength of gusseted truss joints, J. of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, . v 114 n 3 Mar 1988, p 575-590.
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(925) 631-9570
+
0
Steel
+
+
Adams & Smith
Baresel Corp.
G.M. Iron Works Co.
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Junior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Midwest Steel Erection
Oregon Steel Mills
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
H.H. Robertson Co.
SME Industries
Stockton Steel
STRUCTURAL STEELEDUCATIONAL COUNCIL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION&PRODUCTSERVICE
DECEMBER 1994
USEOFSTEELINTHESEISMICRETROFIT
OFHISTORICOAKLANDCITYHALL
William Honeck, Senior Principal
Mason Walters, Senior Associate
Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.
(San Francisco, California)
An Innovative Building-Then and Now
The 19-story Oakland City Hall was a building with-
out precedent when it was completed in 1914. This
landmark structure was the tallest building in the
western United States, and the first of a genre of pub-
lic buildings that attempted to combine the features
of a modern highrise office tower with those of a tra-
ditional grand rotunda building. The resulting "tiered"
structure, which was only possible with the advent of
riveted steel construction, features a broad "podium"
base that houses the ceremonial rotunda, topped by
a slender eleven story office building and a five story
clock tower (See Figure 1). The perimeter framing is
infilled with massive brick, granite, and ornamental
terra cotta.
The multiple setbacks in the width of this building
gave rise to an ungainly transfer of loading from top
to bottom of the 324 feet high building. This difficult
transition clearly posed a daunting challenge to the
original structural engineer - - each successively
narrower portion of the building required massive
transfer trusses and girders to spread the loads to
the broader podium portion below. This challenge
was matched by that posed to the seismic retrofit
engineer, who had to devise a stiff new structural
steel "skeleton" inside the historic building to con-
tinuously transfer lateral loads from the top of the
clock tower down to the new seismic isolators atop
the old concrete mat foundation. Figure 2 shows a
cross section of the retrofitted building.
Seismically retrofitting and repairing the building was
necessary after the building was heavily damaged
during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17,
1989. When the retrofit is complete in early 1995,
the Oakland City Hall will again set a precedent since
it will be the tallest seismically isolated building in
the world.
Retrofit Design Approach and Criteria
Figure 1: Oakland City Hall
Because of the archaic nature of the structure and
materials, and the need to preserve the historic "fab-
ric'' of the building, seismic provisions of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) or other historic building codes
could not be directly applied to this building. There-
fore a "performance" design approach was used
based on the field tested capacities of the infill wall
materials and finite element analysis of the steel
frame/infill masonry wall, using the unreduced seis-
mic response of the base isolated superstructure.
The "performance based" approach was used
throughout the design phase. The governing criteria
was life safety during a strong earthquake.
,l
ote
...!
LLI
I - -
W
T T
f
w u
SEISMIC
GAP
u. .
LI _
Q_
Z,
kl J
o) I
[ .. .
}.,...
i . . . . . . ff-.--
I _1. . . . . . . ..-,ff;-.
I I . - L...... :_,
. . . . . . ,.--
' ;:' i::iii .......!!.'"";;!.' .....i i !!::::i i i i ,-'r ............
I - - T - - - - - ' - - ' - - - - -
:::::::. . . . . . !!iiiiiiii!'ii!ii!il
I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii:iii I
o :::::::::::::::::: - - -P:i::::::::ii }
, I i::!:!:i:i:"' _ _ . . . . . ::::::!:!:!:::::; I
(3 (3
CLOCKTOWER
BRACED FRAME
See FIG. 4
TRANSFER TRUSSES
See FIG. 4
CONCENTRIC STEEL A,
BRACING (TRANSVERS
DIRECTION ONLY)
CONCRETE
SHEAR WALLS
iGER"
TRUSSES
See FIG. 13
BASE ISOLATORS
See FIG. 15
Figure 2: Structural S e c t i o n o f R e t r o f i t t e d Building
2 Steel Tips December 1994
I II
II P:, LIP_, il
I:l !' i, g i I . L . E _
Itl ! ' 1P, i J . . [
ltl !: I e
I l l ! . , , B i
I I I ! J i l l ! ! Ii
.r, j 4 IJ I, ' Ill l
I '1 III I I I III i
? ! '.'_-; i ;i J,
lip ;,
. ,; i l l l l C
I I I I I I 1 1I
FIXED BASE BASE ISOLATED
Figure 3: Building Seismic Response Comparison
TERRACOTTA FACED
MASONRY WALLSAT
CLOCKTOWER
C H A N N E L S
OFFICETOWER
MASONRY WALLS
C L Q C K T O W E R
L
. E A " 8 i
NEW CLOCKTOWER I
BRAC.QSTEEL RI
STEEL
TRUSSES
17 FUXf
- 4*
:z[
1
,WER i .

- , -,0'
I 12h t n . . l t.EVl B.
NEW W12 COLUMN8
TO BASEMENT
(12 TOTAL)
B R A C I N G A N D S U P P O R T T R U S S E S
Figure 4
Steel Tips December 1994 3
I
Site specific response spectra were developed by Dames
and Moore for the Oakland City Hall site. A probalistically
derived "design basis" earthquake (DBE) with a 475 year
return period, and a maximum credible earthquake
(MCE) based on a Richter magnitude 7+ on the Hayward
fault governed the design.
Seismic Structural Retrofit Concepts
After the Loma Prieta earthquake, both conventional fixed
base and seismic isolation concepts were studied. The
fixed base concepts involved adding both strength and
lateral stiffness to the existing structure by adding con-
crete shear walls throughout the height of the building.
This would have had major impact on the historic interior
finishes of the building, and also would have induced
higher seismic forces and corresponding larger displace-
ments into the building structure than could be tolerated
by the relatively brittle infill walls. Seismically isolating
the building, on the other hand, reduced the ultimate
seismic acceleration by a factor of more than 3. This sig-
nificant reduction in lateral forces on the building super-
structure results in reduction of building drift (lateral move-
ment) which translates into a major reduction in future
damage to the brittle archaic infill wall materials. A fur-
ther benefit of base isolation is the reduction in the need
for shear walls, enabling them to be limited to the central
portion of the podium and office tower, thereby preserv-
ing historic interior finishes.
In order to base isolate the building, the superstructure
had to be stiffened sufficiently so that its fundamental
building period was separated from the isolation period
by at least one second, to preclude the chance of dy-
namic resonance of the isolated building. The stiffening
elements added to the building reduced the fundamen-
tal period of vibration from 1.56 seconds to 1.26 sec-
onds, allowing seismic isolation to be feasible. Figure 3
shows the difference in the displaced shape of the struc-
ture comparing "fixed base" to an "isolated" retrofit de-
sign. The isolated building moves more like a rigid body
on the isolators, reducing deformations and seismic
forces on the superstructure.
Retrofit Structural Systems
Structural steel was used extensively in the retrofit de-
sign because of its versatility and strength. Special con-
nection details were developed using slotted bolted erec-
tion connections with field welding to provide tolerance
to accommodate as built dimensions and to aid in field
erection and fit up of steel members.
Clock tower: The tall slender configuration of the clock
tower and the "whipping" action at the top of the building
during an earthquake make the clock tower particularly
vulnerable to earthquake damage. This part of the build-
ing suffered the most damage during the Loma Prieta
earthquake. Figure 4 shows new steel braced frame con-
structed of W12 wide flange sections erected inside the
clock tower. The frame is designed to resist 100% of the
lateral seismic forces in the clock tower and is sufficiently
stiff to limit potential damage to the infill brick/terracotta
walls, with drift limited to .008 times the clock tower height.
The legs of the lower portion of the clock tower steel are
inclined to accommodate the larger floor plan at the base
of the clock tower and to spread out the high overturning
loads. Figure 5 shows the sloped legs and bracing be-
tween the 16th and 17th floors.
Figure 5: Clocktower Bracing at 16th Floor
The existing clock tower walls, which are concave in plan
in the tall story between the 17th and 18th floors, pre-
sented a difficult problem for installation of new bracing
in this confined space (see Figure 6). This was further
complicated by the presence of an historic spiral stair in
the center of the tower that could not be removed. The
problem was solved by designing concentric "X" bracing
on the four faces, with the intersection of each "X" pushed
in to clear the concave walls, meeting at two new steel
box shaped ring beams erected in segments around the
spiral stair. A concrete floor diaphragm was added around
each ring beam to further stiffen the ring beam and brace
the existing tall unreinforced masonry walls.
The base of the new clock tower steel is supported on a
system of six new interconnected one-story deep steel'
trusses constructed of field welded W12 steel sections
spanning 63 feet across the office tower. The top chords
NEWMC;
TENSION URMWALLS
NEWRIN(
NEWW12
EXISTING
COLUMN
NFORCEDCONCRETE
GMSLAB
ANDBELOW
INTERMEDIATE FLOORS BETWEEN17th & 18th FLOORS
Figure 6
pare under the 14th floor and bottom chords under the
13th floor with vertical and diagonal truss web members
penetrating through new openings in the 13th floor (see
Figures 4 and 7). This floor is now a mechanical floor
with new equipment located around the trusses. The
trusses transfer overturning forces from the new clock
tower bracing to eight new steel W12 columns that ex-
tend vertically through the building to new trusses in the
basement. The 13th floor trusses and W12 columns were
designed to limit drift in the clock tower caused by over-
turning, using the trusses to spread out the reactions from
the clock tower.
Figure 7: Clocktower Trusses at 13th Floor
Since the 14th floor and adjacent roof have many open-
ings that are not at the same level, horizontal wide flange
bracing members were added under the 14th floor in the
same plane as the top chords of the trusses. These
braces act as a diaphragm so that lateral seismic forces
from the clock tower are delivered to the exterior exist-
ing office tower walls. See Figure 8 for a plan at the 14th
floor showing the trusses, new W12 columns and hori-
zontal bracing.
Office Tower: Lateral loads in the 10 story office tower
are resisted by the existing steel frame/infill masonry
perimeter walls in the longitudinal direction, and by a com-
bination of the existing steel frame/infill masonry perim-
eter walls, and two lines of new steel concentric braced
frames in the transverse direction. In order to assess the
participation of the existing masonry infill for lateral re-
sistance, in situ testing of the infill was performed in con-
junction with finite element modeling (FEM) and analy-
sis to determine the steel frame/infill masonry strength
and stiffness properties. From the tests and the FEM
analysis, it was determined that a shear strain limit of
0.1% would preclude severe cracking and stiffness deg-
radation of the masonry infill. It was also determined that
100% of the longitudinal (north-south) lateral forces and
75% of the transverse (east-west) lateral forces could
be resisted by the existing steel frame/infill walls. Two
ALL AROUND BELOW
DIAPHRAGM BRACINQ
UNDERFLOOR
14th
lines of concentric braced frames were added in the trans-
verse direction to resist the remaining 25% in that direc-
tion. These braced frames utilize the same eight W12
columns that support the trusses under the clock tower,
thus saving steel. These braced frames extend down to
the 7th floor where they transition to concrete shear walls.
On each braced frame line, the individual braced frames
are coupled together with concentric braces at the 9th
and 13th floors (see Figure 2).
An average of 24 tons or 5.5 pounds per square foot
(PSF) of steel were added to each floor in the office tower
portion of the building, including new steel framing for
new floor openings and new collector beams. Existing
structural steel averaged over 25 PSF.
FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
Figure 8
sufficient steel area to resist the added seismic overturn-
ing forces induced at the ends of the shear walls. The
added plates create "box shaped" columns.
Above the 3rd floor, crescent shaped historic windows
could not be closed in with concrete shear walls because
of the need to light important interior 3rd floor spaces. To
solve this problem, steel shear walls made from plates
up to 2 inches thick were designed with half circle open-
ing to accommodate the windows. These steel shear
walls are set within and connected above and below to
the concrete shear walls using shear studs and welded
rebar dowels.
Podium: The podium portion of the building (1st floor to
3rd floor) contains significant historic spaces, and re-
quired stiffening to seismically protect the historic hollow
clay tile partitions. Asystem of new interior concrete shear
walls, located in the core areas, was designed to extend
down to new trusses in the basement. Existing 12 by 12
inch "H" shaped riveted steel columns are located at the
vertical edges of the new shear walls. Steel plates up to
4 inches thick were welded to these columns to provide
Basement: The podium concrete shear walls terminate
on new 8 foot deep doubled steel transfer trusses in the
basement. These are used to distribute the building over-
turning moment reactions over a broad base footprint.
Trusses straddle the existing steel columns and are con-
nected to them by welds to new jacking corbels. Con-
crete encases these trusses to provide additional stiff-
ness and to tie the double trusses together.
The retrofit design required the attachment of new, heavy
vertical steel plates, or corbels, to the bases of the riv-
eted columns to make it possible to lift the entire dead
load reaction with hydraulic jacks as shown in Figure 9.
Such lifting is required in order to cut out the bottom sec-
ion to install the isolators. of columns
The weldability of each column was demonstrated by
welding a 6 inch long piece of A36 bar to the riveted
angle flange of the column and simply bending it over at
a 90 degree angle. The test bar folded over in a ductile
manner for each column with neither the weld nor the
base metal cracking or failing.
Prior to attaching the corbels, fillet welds were added to
connect the riveted column angles to the plates, using
the FCAW process. This welding revealed an unexpected
setback: the original fabricator had coated the original
faying surfaces of the column components with a tar like
substance prior to riveting them together. The welding
heated the tar and caused it to expand into the new weld
metal, forming unacceptable porosity in the weld. This
problem was resolved by placing a small stringer pass
at the seam using the less heat intensive SMAW pro-
cess, then following through with the FCAW process.
?ii
Formation of lamellar tearing in the old column flanges
was another problem. The propagation of this tearing,
which occurred at two locations, stopped before it
reached the first row of flange rivets. The tearing was
repaired by backgouging and rewelding, and the prob-
lem was eliminated by resequencing the placement of
the welds to minimize shrinkage stresses and by using
stringer passes instead of "weaving."
A horizontal two way grid of paired A572 grade 50 W24
girders was used throughout the basement to tie the re-
inforced column bases together into a new diaphragm
and to serve as jacking beams. The basement plan is
shown in Figure 10. These girders were welded to the
new corbels to provide lifting capacity and to flexurally
stiffen the column bases against seismic rotation. After
the erection of these girders, the columns were jacked
to relieve their load, and their bases were cut and re-
moved to make room for the new isolators. The rectan-
gular bays created by the new girder grid were infilled
with tubular steel diagonal bracing to provide in-plane
EXISTING
COLUMN
ENER
'S
CORBEL
- JACK
- RUBBER
TION
'E
'lNG
MN
PLATE
'lNG
AGE
IS
ISOLATION BEARING ASSEMBLY
Figure 9
I I
, , , o a
:' . ' 8 .
. _ . , , _ _ : : t - t . - - , : : . : ' ; , . ' ; ' ' . ' . ' : : ' r : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : : . : , : > : : : ; : . / : : : : ; .................... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : - ; - ' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ............ :::: ; : : : : ' - . - . , . . . : : : : : . : : . ; .
" / I:1 I i : i r : : , ' .......................:.:,.::::= :.:.:f.:?l:.:.ti!::::J::: sx.,.:?.:.:., .......... :::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... ,... :.,:w ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::., ........................ .:.,:3'::!1 [
, - - '
. _ . . S " . - . ....._..-...-;r''!.::..:......-..?:l:: .........: .........-:-., ............ '.' '.'.'.'.......... ' .......... ; ' " " - - - . . . . . . . . . . :" '""-' ....... /-'"'"-'-':': ! i
. . . . ............ ' ' " : " ;=7.': : : : ;!?:.:.:-::.:.-;:.?; ; ; ; Z: :-.L. ====================== - - . , ,
/ -, .............. :.......... ' , ' . . . . . . . i - i ' " i ::'/iiti'ji " i ijii l I . : : / :i ' '
, ..,_ ............. .:/ . . . . . . . . 2: . z . . . . . . . . I . ............". ,;f;: .>......................... I'..=--:--.-="...-'! .---,.--.. : : ; 1 1
. :::: ::::: ' " ' " ' " ' " ':..-,.:,.-...-...-............,.............: .:.....:.:.::..:i:.:.:.:<.:, :.:.-.,-.:II:--. ':' I ' : ' : ' : ' : ' : ' ' ' ' ' : ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' - - " ' ':':':':':':':':' '"':':' ':':':':':':':':':':':':':':""I;4,'
I r e / , , i , - ' : ' " ' : . ' I i : l : - ' i T ,., iir-.-iii . . l I I ",7. ,4,, t , , & X _ .
' i r:::'=:'-:':''':: .............',":" .' "' :::: :'?':':':': : ' : ........... '"',:( ' .... - . : " - . ':, -'""i,,i;,;,' . . . . . . . :.i.. ; ........... '.l ' ............ .......... i': :;:. '-
I : : . " ' .--.-. . - - . . f !.N ' : : ' : ' : ' ' '--'
t,I::'i ' :. 4 i t i lI ' : i ;' . i:i: i:i i:i:i:}:i i:iS
, 1 , I . . . . . . . . . . ::-. ......
i : i : ! - , = - - - " H l . - ' r - ' - - H I - ' f l i ",;i- - , . J . . - - - i - - - .. : : = !!!!- i
i . . : ' " ' ' ,--,,' ii t .,,r,,' ::i ' ' % i ' ! ' iil..!...i..ii;:
' : : " ' " : : ' t
! .i i, ti t i
; :: : ' : : . . ' - L , " , I ifi'::::::!:::::::::::::::::::::
,.-:;:; I f I - - H - - - - ' l , t , l - - : - - ' l , L ! . . ! . . i l i ; : ' - , '. '"i ' .- ii......
' - ! , t ' ' [ - " . - - " ' - : ' , x ' " : ' . ' [ ' - :, , -, , ! lIi;-'filil'q ' ' i }
' i :' i i !i{ . F ' . -' :.,: ',,,,.,,,.,,,, i i i 4 , : ,.l ..b. _ I i l , , / ' N i i l i ! ? / '
)
" ; "-..:...-"'...' '. ........" "i II1' ' :ii'l.,N,.i ....... [ : " ' " " i i : : - " . . . . . . . . " " - - i .. . . . . . '::: "' ' ;iiil 'i ,'
,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....... , .... ....
, ' '':::i :'--'-,',,,,''':'- i !T ' ' ' ' ---;'-" 1 1 ' l - ? - / . j ' - -',:" -'
. III l'iiPl ' ) 11[ NIiliIM ,'"'/JlItll,
, J Iii :t' .' :;:..-s:-]:::' t:?..=,s:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::t.x::.':'cJ':..-::..-::: ::?, .............. :'"":'-"]:::'::'a.:z:.':'::'-'.i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::'-"' : ' "' "' "' ' ", : II
I ' ? , ' ' ' ' ' l
' I r :
., J... ].L.,. . . . , . . . . . . : : . . . ' . , _ . L . . . - '_ . ,
1
c
C
MAT FOUNDATION
OUTRIGGER TRUSS ELEVATION
Figure
stiffness for the new basement diaphragm. The new dia-
phragm of girders and tubular bracing slopes upward to
the perimeter elements, which were positioned at a higher
elevation to avoid the need for deep perimeter retaining
walls.
Figure 11 shows modifications to the perimeter basement
walls to accommodate a new continuous reinforced con-
tcrete tie beam (not shown) placed just above the perim-
eter isolators. This concrete beam encases the struc-
tural steel corbel attachments on the existing riveted col-
umns. The ends of the outrigger trusses are connected
to the concrete beam to help control uplift. (Refer to the
section on uplift control below).
13
The W24 framing was not sufficient for lifting the bases
of the four largest columns. These 24-inch square riv-
eted box columns each had dead Icad reaction of ap-
proximately 4,000,000 lbs. In order to spread the Icad of
each column over four large isolation bearings, a four
legged "cruciform" welded box beam was fabricated us-
ing A572 grade 50 plates with thicknesses of up to 2.5
inches. The isolators beneath this assembly were sup-
ported by new box "spreader" beams, similar to the cru-
ciform beams, which spread the 4,000,000 lb. reaction
over the existing foundation. Figure 12 shows the jack-
ing arrangement. Special measures were taken by the
fabricator to minimize warpage of the connecting plates
of the box beamelements during welding. Some warpage
of the bearing surfaces was inevitable, and this was re-
solved using epoxy injection techniques to provide for
solid plate-to-plate bearing.
Figure 11: Modifications to Perimeter Walls
Figure 12: Column Jacking for Bearing Installation
The need for two to four isolators at individual columns
required the use of very large baseplates to spread the
Icad to the foundation mat. This caused a concern about
grouting operations and the potential of voids forming
beneath the plate. The contractor took special precau-
tions to effectively place and consolidate the grout to pro-
vide for a solid bearing interfacewith the foundation. Their
efforts were validated using full width lateral cores be-
neath several baseplates to verify that the grout had no
voids.
Solving the Problem of Isolator Uplift with
"Outrigger" Trusses
Even with reduced lateral loading due to seismic isola-
tion, the 324 feet height of the building creates large seis-
mic overturning forces, which cause localized uplift forces
to develop at certain isolators. To control this potential
uplift, a two-way series of 8 foot deep trusses was de-
signed to span the entire basement, acting like outriggers
on select column lines. Figures 13 and 14 show the
trusses, which were constructed using A572 grade 50
plate box and W24 chords, with W12 web elements. They
were erected in 15' to 20' long segments that were field
connected using complete penetration butt joint welds.
The trusses were then encased with reinforced concrete
to increase their stiffness. The trusses will limit the uplift
occurring at the isolators to 0.25 inch during a maximum
credible earthquake. To validate this approach, the pro-
totype isolators were successfully tested in combined
shear and tension with vertical displacement (stretch) of
0.25 inch.
I
the layout of the isolators in the basement. Figure 16 is a
photo of the 4 isolators installed under one of the large
columns mentioned earlier. The isolators range in diam-
eter from 29 inches to 37 inches, and are approximately
19 inches high. The isolators were manufactured by Dy-
namic Isolation Systems Inc. at their plant in Wellington,
NewZealand. The calculated ultimate seismic base shear
for the isolated building is about 13% G, and the first
mode period of the isolated building is 3.2 seconds with
lateral displacement of 13 inches.
Figure 16: Installed Isolators
Figure 14: Trusses
Isolation Bearings
Of the 113 laminated steel and rubber seismic isolators
used in the building, 36 have lead cores. Figure 15 shows
Summary
The versatility and strength of structural steel was used
in a variety of unique ways in the retrofit design. Steel
connections were designed with enough tolerance to ac-
commodate existing field conditions, and welding to the
old original A9 riveted steel was generally not a problem.
When retrofit work is completed in 1995, the Oakland
City Hall will be the tallest seismically isolated building in
the world. Seismic isolation using laminated rubber iso-
lations devices under the building will dramatically re-
duce expected seismic forces in the building. Seismic
isolation proved to be both technically feasible and eco-
nomical. The use of isolation devices required less ret-
rofit work in the building superstructure resulting in sav-
ings in steel bracing and concrete shear walls, with mini-
mum impact on the historic interior of this landmark build-
ing when compared to conventional retrofit design.
i
)
r - - -
__9 o
'
WALL
A B O Y F - -
CONCRETE
L I I , , L ' I ' -- ISOLATOR8
' I; i SPREADER I [1![
! ' ' J 1
r-+-, -+- ,-- . - - - , r---
AREAWAY8
A3'
END
/?i ii
O
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
j
D
2' -2' SEISMIC GAP
ALL AROUND
NEW RETAINING
WALL8
FOUNDATION PLAN & SEISMIC ISOLATOR LAYOUT
Figure 15
Acknowledgments References
Owner: City of Oakland, California
Architect: VBN/Willis/Carey Co. Associated Architects,
Oakland, CA
VBN Architects and Michael Willis Associates, "Evalua-
tion of Earthquake Damage and Repair Required by
Code," Final Report in Volumes for the City of Oakland,
November 1990.
Project Manager: Turner Construction Company, San
Francisco, CA
Contractors:
General Contractor:
Overaa/Miller, Richmond, CA
Steel Subcontractor.'
Bostrom Bergen Metal Products, Oakland, CA
Base Isolator Bearing Installation:
Sheedy Company, San Francisco, CA
Base Isolator Bearing Supplier:
I Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc., Berkeley, CA
Site Specific Hazard Analysis, Oakland City Hall, pre-
pared by Dames and Moore, August 10, 1990.
Design and Implementation of Base Isolation for the Seis-
mi c Repair and Retrofit of Oakland City Hall by W.
Honeck, M. Walters, V. Sattary, P. Rodler in the Fifth U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chi-
cago, IL, Proceedings Vol. I, July 1994. Earthquake Re-
search Institute, Oakland, CA. pp. 633-642.
Photo Credits: Robert Canfield, San Francisco, CA (Fig-
ures 5, 7, 11, 12, and 16)
STRUCTURALSTEELEDUCATIONAL
TECHNICALINFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
NOVEMBER 1995
Seismic Design of Special
Concentrically Braced
Steel Frames
Roy Becker, S.E.
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this booklet is to present in a
clear and simple, but yet precise and detailed manner,
the seismic design required for laterally resisting steel
frames known as "Special Concentrically Braced
Frames" (SCBF). This booklet is a supplement and an
update to the one entitled "Seismic Design Practice
for Steel Buildings, 1988, which illustrated the seis-
mic design of "Special Moment-Resisting Frames"
(SMRF), "Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames"
(OMRF), and "Ordinary Braced Frames" (OBF).
The use of Special Concentrically Braced Frames
(SCBF) is recognized in the 1994 edition of the
"Uniform Building Code," and its detailed require-
ments for design are presented in UBC Section
2211.9. Also, in UBC Chapter 16, Table 16-N, this
lateral force resisting system is defined as having an
Rw=9, a[ld a maximum height limit of 240 feet.
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF) are
distinguished from Ordinary Braced Frames (as
defined in the 1994 UBC Section 2211.8) in that they
possess improved post-buckling capacity of the
frame; this is especially evident when Chevron Brac-
ing is,used. SCBF are so designed that when a brace
in compression buckles during a major earthquake,
the capacity of the fl ame to resist seismic forces is
not seriously impaired. This is achieved through the
many detailed requirements that prevent premature
local buckling connection failures, and member
failures even when there is overall buckling of a
compression brace.
Hence, even when the seismic forces in the SCBF are
perhaps several times larger than those prescribed by
the UBC, the integrity of the frame remains, and the
SCBF continues to successfully resist seismic forces
without loosing substantial capacity.
For the design of connections for the SCBF, the
"Uniform Force Method" is illustrated and then em-
ployed. This method is also presented in the AISC
Manual for "Load & Resistance Factor Design,"
Second Edition, Volume II. Although this method may
initially appear to be complex, it is really an approach
which simplifies design of braced frame connections.
There are several items which should be empha-
sized and carefully considered when designing
braced frames. These significant items are enumer-
ated in Part IV-Design Recommendations.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PART
Section
Section
Section
I m SEISMIC ANALYSIS ......................... PG. 3
A: General Design Information
B: North-South Seismic Forces
C: Bracing Configuration
PART
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
II m CHEVRON BRACING DESIGN ....... PG. 8
D: Analysis of Braced Frame
E: Design of Braces (4th Story)
F: Design of Girder (5th Floor)
G: Design of Column (3rd to 5th Floor)
H: Connection Design of Brace to Girder
I: Connection Design of Brace and Girder to Column
PART III - X BRACING DESIGN ..................... PG. 22
Section J: Design of Braces (4th Story)
Section K: Design of Girder (5th Floor)
Section L: Design of Column (3rd to 5th Floor)
Section M: Connection Design of Brace Intersection
Section N: Connection Design of Brace and Girder to Column
Section O: Alternate Connection at Column
PART IV - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ... PG. 31
ADDENDUM .................................................... PG. 32
PART I SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
This portion of the booklet illustrates the general
requirements for the seismic analysis and design of a
7-story building using the 1994 Uniform Building
Code.
Both the determination of seismic forces and their
distribution over the height and planar extent of the
building are illustrated. In addition, the need for the
braced frames to successfully resist seismic overturn-
lng forces is emphasized to the reader.
All of the seismic analysis is presented for a Regular
Structure using the Static Lateral-Force Procedure of
UBC Section 1628.2. However, since the building is
over five stories in height (see UBC Section 1627.8.2,
Item 3), if it were an Irregular Structure as defined in
UBC Section 1627.8.3, Item 2, a Dynamic Analysis
would be required for seismic forces.
SECTION A. GENERAL DESIGN
INFORMATION
1. Code and Design Criteria:
The building will be designed in accordance with 1994
Edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Seismic
design is based on Chapter 16 of the UBC, which is
essentially the same as the "Recommended Lateral
Force Requirements," 1990, by the Structural Engi-
neers Association of California (SEAOC Code).
Design of steel members and connection is based on
Chapter 22 of the UBC. Most of the provisions of
Chapter 22 of the UBC for Allowable Stress Design
are also contained in the AISC Specifications dated
June 1, 1989, contained in the Ninth Edition of the
AISC Manual.
The structure is an office building, Group B occu-
pancy, per Chapter 3 of UBC, and Type 1 construc-
tion, as per Chapter 6 of UBC. Two-hour fire protec-
tion for floors and roof and three-hour for columns and
girders are required as per UBC Table No. 6-A. This
protection is provided by a spray-on type of fireproof-
ing material.
profile consists of a dense soil where the depth
exceeds 200 feet.
The frame is to be structural steel. As shown in Figure
1, it is braced in the N-S direction on column lines 1
and 5. Special moment frames are provided in the
E-W direction, along column lines A and D. Floors and
roof are 3-in. metal deck with 3 1/4-in. lightweight
(110 pcf) concrete fill. Typical story height is 11 ft.-6 in.,
based on 8 ft.-0 in. clear ceiling height.
Material specifications are:
Steel frame: A36
High-strength bolts: A325-SC
Welding electrodes: E70
2. Loads:
Roof Loading:
Roofing and insulation
Metal deck
Concrete fill
Ceiling and mechanical
Steel framing and fireproofing
Dead Load
7.0 psf
3.0
44.0
5.0
8.0
67.0
Live load (reducible),
UBC Sect. 1605.1
Total Load
20.00
87.0
Floor Loading:
Metal deck
Concrete fill
Partitions, UBC Sect. 1604.4
Steel framing, incl. beams,
girders, columns, and
spray-on fireproofing
Dead Load
3.0 psf
44.0
5.0
20.0
13.0
85.0 psf
UBC Sect. 1604.1
Total Load
50.0
135.0 psf
Curtain Wall:
Average weight including
column and spandrel covers 15.0 psf
The building is located in Seismic Zone No. 4. The
engineering geologist has determined that the soil
3. Framing:
A
EDGE
Of:
FLOOR 1' 3'
SLAB
cc
O
A
J0'
u v - -
NOTE ', 3 INDICATESMOMENT
CONNECT4ONOFGROER TOCOLUMN.
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
i
30' O'
i
: i
-G
iLT,WT. C.CRETE Ru.
I
[ 25'- IT'
TOPOF
P A R A P E __
COLUMN
ROOF
SPLICE '
COLUMN

25'. D" 25'. 0" o
e*3
SPLICE
J
BRACED FRAME ELEVATIONA- A
Figure 1
Plan and Elevation
r
SECTION B. NORTH-SOUTH SEISMIC
FORCES
C = 2.23 < 2.75 O.K.
(The value of C need not exceed 2.75)
1. Seismic Formulas
V = W 1994 UBC Chapter 16 Formula (28-1)
V = (0.044)(C)W=(0.044)(2.23)W = 0.098W
WFL= (122.5X77.5)(.085)+(400xll .5) (.015)=874 kips
WRF= (122.5X77.5)(.067)+(400X8.75)(.015)=687 kips
W = 6(874) + 687 = 5,930 kips (total dead load)
C - 1.25 S UBC (28-2)
T2/3
V=0.098 W=(0.098)(5,930)
Z = 0.40 per UBC Table No. 16-1
I = 1.00 per UBC Table No. 16-K
Rw = 9 per UBC Table No. 16-N
S -- 1.2 per UBCTable No. 16-J
V=580 kips (total lateral force)
This base shear will be used for determining the
strength and stiffness of the members of the braced
frames.
Thus,
C = (1.25)(1.2) = 1.5
T2/3
In general, drift requirements will not govern the size
of members for a steel braced frame, where allowable
drift per Section 1628.8.2 of the 1994 UBC is (for
T<0.7 seconds):
V = (0.40)(1.00) (C)W=(0.044)(C)W
9
Hence, we must now determine the building period by
a conservative approximate method in order to
proceed further.
2. Period per Method A
T = Ct (h) 3/4 UBC (28-3)
A ALLOW= (Story Height)
or (0.005) (Story Height), whichever is smaller
__
Thus, 0.0044 governs for drift
Now distributing this base shear of 580 kips over the
height of the building:
Ct=0.020 (for all buildings)
h =83.0 ft.
T=0.020 (83.0)3/4=(0.020)(27.5)
T=0.55 seconds
Note:
A larger value of T would result in using Method B.
But this method can not be used until frame sizes are
determined. However, the C value determined by
Method B can not be less than 80 percent the value
obtained by using Method A. Thus, the possible
reduction in braced frame size using the period from
Method B would not be large in most cases (unless
drift controlled).
3. Design Base Shear & Distribution
0 = 1 ' 5 = 1.5 _ 1.5
'1TM (0.55)2/3 0.67
The total lateral force is distributed over the height of
the building in accordance with UBC Chapter 16
Formulas (28-6), (28-7) and (28-8). See Figure 2.
R
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
J
,K---
J- Ft
EARTHQUAKE
FORCES Fx AT
EACH LEVEL
V = Ft+ , Fi
I=1
Figure 2
Distribution of Earthquake
Forces over Height of Building.
Since T < 0.70, Ft = 0 Per UBC Section 1628.4.
(V- Fi) wxhx (580)wxhx
Fx= w,h, = , w,h,
i=1 i=1
See Table 1 for distribution of lateral forces over the
height of the building.
Table I
Floor h wx Wxhx(10-2) wxhx F Vx
Level (fi ) (kips) (kips) (kips)
R 83.0 687 570 0.203 118 --
7 71.5 874 625 0.222 129 118
6 60.0 874 524 0.187 108 247
5 48.5 874 424 0.151 87 355
4 37.0 874 324 0.115 67 442
3 25.5 874 222 0.079 46 509
2 14.0 874 122 0.043 25 555
1 . . . . . 580
-- -- 2811 1.000 580 --
a.
Forces and shears to determine sizes and drift of
frames, and overturning at base of building.
(Maximum drift=0.0044.) No increase is required
for design of the chevron bracing as is required for
standard ordinary braced frames per Section
2211.8.
4. Distribution of Seismic Forces:
Although the centers of mass and rigidity coincide,
UBC Section 1628.5 requires designing for a mini-
mum torsional eccentricity, e, equal to 5% of the
building dimension perpendicular to the direction of
force.
e=(0.05)(120)=6.0 ft.
Both the moment frames and the braced frames will
resist this torsion. Due to the braced frames being
much stiffer than moment frames, the relative rigidities
are assumed as follows:
Ra=R=I.00; RI=Rs=4.00
Shear distributions in N-S direction:
V,x: (R,) [V---x + OVxe)(d)l
' ,RN. s - Ryd 2 J =Vs. x
where
d =
RN.s =
R =
Y
V
x
Vy,x --
Distance from frame to center of rigidity
Rigidity of those frames extending in the
north-south direction
Rigidity of a braced or moment frame,
referred to that frame on column line y
Total earthquake shear on building at story x
Earthquake shear on a braced or moment
frame referred to that frame on column line y
at story x
RN. s = 2(4.00) = 8.00
2=
Vl,x =
2(1.00)(37.5)2 + 2(4.00)(60.0)2= 31,600
[ V x 6.00)(60,00) ]
(4.00) x
8.00 31,600
(4.00) [0.125V?0.011Vx]
V, x = 0 . 5 4 5 V =Vs ,
SECTION C. BRACING
CONFIGURATION
Possible bracing systems that might be utilized are
indicated using chevron type bracing (X bracing, V
bracing, etc. can also be used):
/%
1
D' .J
ONE BAYBRACED
/%/%/%
R
!
I o' '1
THREEBAYSBRACED
L
TWOBAYSBRACED
/%
/%
/%
/%/.
J< o. J
COMBINATION OFBAYSBRACED
Figure 3
An important design consideration in selecting bracing
system is over-turning due to earthquake forces.
Overturning moments are as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Earthquake Overturning Moments
Story Moment
Floor V Height Vxhx Mx = Vh x
Level = hx
(kips) (kips-fi.)
7 118 11.5 1360 1360
6 247 11.5 2840 4200
5 355 11.5 4080 8280
4 442 11.5 5080 13,360
3 509 11.5 5850 19,210
2 555 11.5 6380 25,590
1 580 14.0 8120 33,710
- - - - 33,710 33,710
Overturning moment is distributed to the frames in the
same proportion as the shears:
M1,x = Ms,x=0.545Mx
where
Mx = total earthquake moment on building at story x
My, = Earthquake moment on a braced frame,
referred to that frame on column line y at
level x
M, = M5. = (0.545)(33,710) = 18,400 kip-ft
(at base)
The overturning moment must be resisted by the
dead load of the braced portion of the frame. In
accordance with Section 1631.1 of the UBC, only 85
percent of the dead load can be used (to account for
vertical seismic uplift forces acting concurrently with
the lateral seismic forces). Consider the following
cases at the base of the frames shown in Figure 3.
1. One Bay Braced:
M. 1 = M5,1 = 18,400 kip-ft
Dead load of columns on line B and C:
Roof = (407)(0.067)
6 Floors = 6(407)(0.085)
Curtain
Wall = (1800)(0.015)
Footing =
= 27 kips
= 208
: 27
30
WDL: 2(292) = 584 kips
MR = Wo, (D'/2)
where:
D' = Width of a braced frame at base
MR = Dead load resisting moment of a frame
WDL = Dead load of a braced frame
MR = (584)(25/2)(0.85)
= 6,200 < 18,400 kip-ft N.G.
Overturning exceeds resisting moment. This indicates
that the frame is unstable unless the resisting moment
is increased by using caissons, piles, or other means
which will increase the dead load of the braced
portion of the frame.
2. Two Bays Braced:
By comparison with one bay braced, the frame would
be unstable unless caissons, etc., are used.
3. Three Bays Braced:
M1,1: M5,1= 18,400 kip-ft
Dead load of columns on lines A, B, C, and D:
WDL = 2(292) + 2(191) = 966 kips
MR = (966)(75.0/2)(0.85) = 30,800 > 18,400 kip-fi O.K.
This frame is stable without utilizing caissons; how-
ever, to reduce the number of braced frame members
and connections, the "Combination of Bays Braced"
framing system might be used (see Figure 3). This
system will spread the overturning out to the base in
the same way as the "Three Bays Braced" system,
but more efficiently. However, this framing system
would require a Dynamic Analysis in accordance with
UBC Section 1627.8.3, Item 2, due to the vertical
irregularity.
P8 = Pc = 292 kips
PART II --- CHEVRON
BRACING DESIGN
Since V1,x= V5,x = 0.545Vx, the shears at the 3rd and
4th stories are:
V,.4=Vs,,=(0.545) (442)=241 kips
This portion of the booklet illustrates the seismic
design of a Special Concentrically Braced Frame
(SCBF) using Chevron Bracing. Both the design of
members and connections are described.
It is assumed that the "One Bay Braced" system will
extend the full height of the building.
Wide flange members are indicated for the braces,
but in lieu of these wide flange members other mem-
bers such as tubes, pipes or double angles could be
employed. The members of the braced frame are
ASTM A36 material, but other materials such as
ASTM A572 Grade 50 and ASTM A500 could be
utilized in accordance with UBC Section 2211.4.1.
Also, ASTM A490-SC in lieu of ASTM A325-SC bolted
connections may be employed, especially if the loads
are quite large.
SECTION D. ANALYSIS OF BRACED
FRAMES
1. Design of Braced Frame Members Using
Chevron Bracing:
V.3=V5.3= (0.545) (509) =277 kips
Overturing moment at the 4th floor is:
M1.4=M5.4=(0.545)(13,360)=7,280 kip-ft
At Section 1-1:
Taking moments about point f and solving for the axial
force in member ad:
Uf = 0 = 7,280-(25.0)(Pas)
Pad = 7,280/25.0 = 290 kips
Pc, = -290 kips
At Joint e:
[11.5 [11.5
Fy--0 = -1-7--.'.0) (Pae)- ,1-/ (Pc)
p = - P
ae ce
By taking F x = 0, it can be shown that
Design of the frame will be limited to 5th floor girder,
3rd to 5th floor columns (one tier), and 4th story
braces. Thus, the analysis will be limited to these
portions of the braced frame.
. Forces Due to Earthquake Loading (See Figure
4A)
J
4 f
' 3rd. T/12. s b '*
Pde = -- Pef
At Section 2-2:
/12.5 /12.5
Fx= 0 = 277-,17.0/ (Pae) + ,17.0/ (Pce)
5th
4th
d
P
/ hi xTj
12.5 e 1
f
PARTIAL ELEVATION
(A)
Figure 4
PARTIAL ELEVATION
(B)
Since Pae = -Pe
A/12.5\
277 = :" 1--) (Pae)
Pae -- 188 kips
Poe = -188 kips
At Section 3-3:
[12.5 /12.5
x= 0 = 241 - \.-.-.] (Pdh) + , 1--] (Pfh)
Ph = 164 kips
Pfh = --164 kips
At Section 1-1:
SECTION E. DESIGN OF CHEVRON
BRACES (4TH STORY)
PT = RE
where-
PE =
Pv =
PT =
or
+ Pv
Axial force due to earthquake load which does not
need to be increased by a factor of 1.5 for chevron
bracing, based on UBC Section 2211.9.4.1
Axial force due to vertical load
Axial force due to total load
PE = 164 kips
Pv = -21 kips
PT = --164--21 = --1 85 kips
PT -- 164+0
= 164 kips (neglecting vertical load)
F x = 0 = 277 + Pde -- Pef
Since Pde= -Per
Pd = --139 kips
Pef = 139 kips
3, Forces Due to Vertical Loading (See Figure 4B)
P = Floor + Curtain Wall
= (16.25 x 12.5)(0.082 + 0.048) + (11.5 x 12.5)
(0.015) = 28.6 kips
Note: 0.082 is floor dead load and 0.048 is reduced
live load.
At Joint h:
Using theoretical length of brace, rather than the
actual (somewhat smaller)length:
(KI)y = (1.0)(17.0) = 17.0 ft
Taking one-third increase on brace capacity per UBC
Section 1603.5 for seismic forces:
P
equiv
or
P
equlv
= - 185/1.33 = -139 kips (Compression)
= + 164/1.33 = +123 kips (Tension)
For brace size, it can be shown that a W10x39 is
adequate to resist the seismic forces and meet the
compactness criteria, but it is not adequate from the
standpoint of effective net section if holes are located
in the flanges of the brace, per 1994 UBC Chapter 22
Formula (11-6). Thus, a Wl 0x39 does not have
adequate fracture resistance through the net section.
11.5 /11.5
.F= 0 = - 2 8 . 6 - ( 1 - ) ( P dh)- ,1--7---.-.0! (Pfh)
From F x = 0 along Sect. 1-1 and then Joints d and f,
it can be shown that Pdh = Pfh' Thus,
/11.5\
28.6 = -z [,1-.0] (Pdh)
Pa,=-21.1 kips; Pfh = --21.1 kips
At joint d:
/12.5
x = 0 = 1---0) (Pdh) +Pale
/12.5
Pd,= -- ,1---/ (--21.1)=15.5 kips
Therefore, a W10x45 is selected as a possible brace
size. (It will later be shown that the size of the brace
should not be selected too large since it would have a
very adverse effect on the size of the girder utilized
with chevron bracing.)
Try Wl 0x45 and (KI)y -- 17.0 feet
Pc,p=170 kips per AISC Manual, p. 3-30
170> 139 O.K.
KI 1,000
Per UBC Section 2211.9.2.1, -- <v/--
Y
1,000 = 1,000 = 167 Max.
(_) (1.0)f17.0)(12) 102 167 O.K. = = <
Y 2.01
Per UBC Section 2211.9.2.4, width-thickness ratios of
brace must comply with requirements for compact
members as defined by UBC Chapter 22, Division IX,
Table B5.1.
b 65 _ 65 10.8
ALLOWFLG y
) OK
CY-,
(note that b is now defined as one-half the flange
width)
257 fa
(d) < V' -F-' wherev- > 0'16
ALLOWWEB Y Y
257 _ 43
4-
__ o . . .
0.--5/-
AISC Manual, Ninth Edition, Page 1-31 also indicates
that these ratios are met by a W10x45.
Thus, it is compact.
In general, these requirements are easily achieved
except for the requirement (iii). This requirement is
imposed to assure the post-buckl i ng capacity of the
braced frame system. That is, if the compression
brace buckles under very large seismic loads (loads
larger then those specified by the UBC), the girder is
so strong that it can resist the very large bending
moment that is imposed upon it by a chevron brace
acting in tension, with very little load in the other
chevron brace acting in compression. This condition is
specified as follows:
PD+L
/ PST L=25.0ft. 0.3
Figure 5
Reactions on Girder
To simplify calculations, use full dead and live load,
PD+L= 28.6 kips (see SECTION D).
Use W10x45 Brace Both Pst and Psc are defined by UBC Section 2211.4.2.
Note: Since connection to brace is bolted, check
must also be made on the effective net area
when the brace is in tension, as done in Sec-
tion H, "Connection Design of Brace to Girder."
For a W10x45 Brace
Pst = (A)(Fy) = (13.3) (36.0) = 479 kips
Psc = (1.7)(A)(Fa) = (1.7)(170) = 289 kips
0.3 Pc = (0.3)(289) = 87 kips
SECTION F. DESIGN OF GIRDER
(5TH FLOOR)
Per UBC Section 2211.9.4, many requirements are
imposed on the girder when using chevron bracing,
namely:
(i) Girder must be continuous between columns.
(ii) Girder must be capable of supporting gravity
loads presuming bracing deleted.
(iii) Girder must have the strength to support gravity
loads and maximum unbalanced forces in the
bracing.
The following loading results on the girder:
/
. 28.6 k F2 %
5TH Floor
11. 1.5
479 kips 87 kips
Figure 6
Thus, the net downward force is:
Pnet = 28.6 + (479) (11'5 - (87) '11'5 = 294 kips
\1-7--'.0/ 17.0/
(iv) Both girder flanges shall be laterally supported at
thc' nnint nf intc'rc'rfic)n nf thc, rl3c'vrnn hrnc'e
(P,.,) (L) (294)(25.0)
Mv = A - , - 1,840 kips-ft
Neglecting axial load, approximate size of required
girder is to be based on flexural strength capacity.
Ms=(ZREQD)(Fy) = (1,840)(12)
ZRE0 = (1,840)(12) = 613 ins
36
For W36x160, Z = 624 in3> 613 O.K.
But to account for axial load, try W36x182
If braces above 5th Floor remain intact,
F1 - F2 = 479 + 87 = 283 kips (See Fig. 6)
2
Thus, axial force in girder = +-(283) [12.5'
,1--7--.0! = +-208 kips
Using the interaction equation (approximate) for
strength of girder:
P Mv
--Pst + Ms 1.00
P = 208 kips and M = 1,840 kip-ft.
Pso = 1.7 Fa A, and girder is braced at mid-span
(,) y = (1.0)(122.55x 12.5) = 59
Fa = 17.5 ksi, AISC Manual, p. 3-16
Pst = (1.7)(17.5)(53.6) = 1,595 kips
Ms = (Fy)(Z) = (36.0)(718) = 2,154 kip-ft.
12
Thus, 208 + 1,840 = 0.13 + 0.85 = 0.98 O.K.
1, 5952, 154
PEQUlV= -511 = _ 384 kips
1.33
(KI)x = (KI)y = (1.0)(11.5) = 11.5 feet
Try W14x82
()y = (1.0)(11.5)(12) = 56; Thus, Fa = 17.8 ksi
2.48
PEQUtV 384 = 15.9 ksi < 17.8 O.K.
fa- A =24.--1
However, in accordance with UBC Section 2211.5.1,
must check column strength for maximum anticipated
seismic forces, utilizing the member strengths speci-
fied by UBC Section 2211.4,2:
P=I.0PoL+0.7PLL+3 PE
P 221 + 3(9)(290)= 1,200 kips
P = 1.7 FaA= (1.7)(17.8)(24.1) = 730 kips
730 < 1,200 N.G.
Try W14x132
K(..) (1.0)(11.5)(12)
y- 3.76 -37, F =19.42ksi
Psc = 1.7 F A = (1.7)(19.42)(38.8) = 1,280 kips
1,280 > 1,200 O.K.
Use W14x132 Column
Use W36x182 Girder
SECTION G. DESIGN OF COLUMN
(3RD TO 5TH FLOOR)
PT = PE + Pv
Using loads at 3rd Story:
PE = +- 290 kips
Pv = Roof + 4 Floors + Curtain Wall
= (25.0 x 16.25)(0.067 + 0) +
4(25.0 x 16.25)(0.085 + 0.020) + (25.0 x 60.5)(0.015)
Pv = 27 + 171 + 23 = 221 kips (Compression)
PT=-290- 221 =-511 kips
SECTION H. CONNECTION DESIGN
OF BRACE TO GIRDER
(5TH FLOOR)
Per UBC Section 2224.1 design connections using
high-strength slip-critical bolts, since these are re-
quired for joints subject to significant load reversal.
(Per AISC Manual p. 5-270.)
1. Design Criteria
Using the force criteria of UBC Section 2211.9.3.1, the
connections shall have the strength to resist the
lesser of the following:
(i) The strength of the brace in axial tension,
PM = FyA.
R
3 --w bmes the force m the brace due to the
I , /
prescribed seismic forces, in combination with
gravity loads.
(iii) The maximum force that can be transferred to
Use strength criteria for connection capacity per UBC
Section 2211.4.2. Thus, for 1 in. (1) A325-SC in single shear:
FCAP = (1.7)(Allowable)
FCAP = (1.7)(13.4) = 22.8 kips per bolt
(See AISC Manual p. 4-5)
Connection strength required for brace:
(i) P,B = (Fy)(A) = (36.0)(13.3) = 479 kips
(ii) P2B = 3(w) (PE + Pv) = 3(9/8)(185) = 624 kips
(iii) P3B = Unknown at this time
Hence, the smaller force = 479 kips (governs)
2tMiN
t
Must laterally brace Flanges
per UBC Section 2211.9.4.1,
L L., 3'-10
I
V
16 ._.%_
11.5
12.5
Shim Es
As Reqd
2. Bolts to Brace W10x45
For brace connection, number of 1" A325-SC:
479 21.0 bolts,
n = 22.8 =
Use 24 - 1" (I) A325-SC (10 bolts each flange and 4
bolts to web, based approxi-
mately on their areas)
Hence, connection is as shown in Figure 7.
Check effective net area of brace in accordance with
UBC Section 2211.8.3.2, Formula (11-6).
A 1.2(z F* Note: Please refer to adden-
--e
Ag F dum on Pg. 32 for
information regarding
steel yield & tensile
F* . . . . PB 479 36.0 ksi strengths.
A 13.3
a = 1.00 (all load transferred across section)
A > (1.2)(1.0)(36.0) = 0.74
A 58.0
g
Ae > (0.74)(Ag) = (0.74)(13.3) = 9.90 sq. in.
5th Floor
o
I
/'7,
4
W36x182
F
Web Splice E
One Side Only
All Bolts
1" (1)A325SC
Wl 0x45
Flange Plate
(Slot at Gusset)
12.5
11.5
PB
Figure 7
Brace to Girder Detail
P18
Page 12m Steel Tips November 1995
AeACTUAL = Effective Net Area per UBC Section 2251, B3
AeACTUAL = An since both flanges and web connection
transmit load
A = AGROSs-- 4 holes in flanges
(do not need to deduct holes in web since
the force in brace is much reduced at this
location)
An = 13.3 - (4)(0.62)(1.125) = 10.5 sq. in.
A = 10.5 > 9.90 O.K.
e A C T U A L
Use I in. ( Bolts to W10x45 Brace
3. Flange Plates
Design force using 10 bolts to each flange and 4 bolts
to the web (all in single shear).
Try flange plate 10 inches wide by 1/2 in. thick; and
based on strength capacity,
P=1.7F,A (for compression)
r = 0.29 t (based on r = /[/A for plate)
I
r = 3"/(0.29)(0.50) = 21
Fa = 20.5 ksi per AISC Manual, p. 3-16
Pc = (1.7)(20.5)(10.0 x 0.50) = 174 kips < 200 N.G.
Thus, try flange plate 10 in. by 3/4 in.
Pc = 1.7 FaA
r = 0.29 t
I
= 3/(0.29)(0.75) = 14, F= 20.9 ksi
Pc = (1.7)(20.9)(10.0 x 0.75) = 266 kips > 200 O.K.
Also, check tension strength capacity, including
effective net section.
Pt = FyA
Pt (36.0)(10.0 x 0.75) = 270 kips > 200 O.K.
Now check effective net area of plate in accordance
with UBC Section 2211.8.3.2, Formula (11-6)
A 1,2a F*
"--he -'
200 26.7 ksi
F* = 10.0x 0.75 -
( = 1,00 (all 200 kips transferred to plate)
A_ > (1.2)(1.00)(2.7.6) = 0.55
A 58.0
9
Ae > (0.55)(Ag) = (0.55)(10.0 x 0.75) = 4.14 sq. in.
AeACTUAL = Effective Net Area per UBC Section 2251, B3
= 10.0 x 0.75 - (2 x 1.125 x 0.75) = 5.8 sq in.
AM = (0.85)(Ag) = (0.85)(10.0 x 0.75) = 6.4 sq. in.
Thus, 5.8 sq. in. governs for AeACTUAL
5.8 > 4.14 O.K.
Thus, there is no possibility of failure (rupture) through
plate section at holes.
Use Flange Plates 10 x 3/4-in.
For weld on each flange plate, use 1/4-in. fillet welds
to gusset plate (this is minimum weld size for 3/4-in.
plates).
FcAPWELD= (1.7) (Allowable) per UBC Section 2211.4.2.
= (1.7)(4 x 0.928) = 6.3 kips per inch
IWELO = 200/(4)(6.3) = 8.0 in.
\4 welds per plate
But to drag load adequately into gusset plate in order
to reduce localized stresses, including those associ-
ated with tearout,
Use 1/4-in. x 12 in. long welds (4 per plate)
4. Web Plate
Try web plate 7 inches wide by 1/2-in. thick, and
based on strength capacity,
Pc = 1.7 FaA
I 4
= 28, Fa = 20.0 ksi
r - (0.29)(0.50)
Pso = (1.7)(20.0)(7.0 x 0.50) = 119 kips > 80 O.K.
P t = F. A = (36.0)(7 0 x 0 50) = 126 kips > 80 O.K.
s y . ' '
(May wish to check for effective net area also.)
Use Web Plate 7 x 1/2-in.
12
11.5
I
5
16
12.5
J/ Pv
3'-10 W36x182
C
WEB TOE
OF FILLETs,
!
o
4
4, . 6
b
C
Wl 0x45
12.5
11.5
P1B
Figure 8
Analysis of Brace to Girder Gusset Plate
Also, check bearing capacity of bolts on web of
W10 x 45 brace (t = 0.35 in.)
Try 3/4 Plate for Gusset
Since bolt spacing = 3d and edge distance is at least
1-1/2 d, and two or more bolts in line of force:
P1B
= (0.80)(16)/(0.29)(0.75) = 59, Fa = 17.5 ksi
r
P =(1.7)(F )(A)=(1.7)(17.5)(25.3 x 0.75)=558kips > 479 O.K.
Fp = 1.2 Fu per UBC Section 2251, J3.7 3/4-in. Plate O.K.
For strength capacity,
Fpu = (1.7)(1.2Fa) = (1.7)(1.2 x 58.0) = 118 ksi
Pc BEARING= (Fpu)(Ap) = (118)(1.00 x 0.35) = 41.4 kips
41.4 > 22.8 kips shear capacity
Bolt Bearing Capacity O,K.
b. Using Method of Sections along Section B-B, where
the force P1B= Fy A from both braces is assumed to
be acting in the same direction concurrently.
(PIB = 479 kips)
Length of Section B-B = 7'-8" = 92 in.
fv = shear stress along B-B
2 L . 5\2.5
fv - (2 P8) 17.0) _ (2)(479)(0.74) = 10.3 ksi
(0.75 x 92) 69
5. Gusset Plate Fv = 0.55 Fy = 19.8 ksi > 10.3 O.K.
The analysis of the gusset plate to the girder will be
based on Whitmore's Method and the Method of
Sections using beam formulas. Capacities will be
based on strength design capacity. See Fig. 8.
a. Using Whitmore's Method, based on compressive
force along Section A-A (Figure 8).
Effective width = 11.5 + 2 (12 x tan 30) = 25.3 in.
ritinn P - 47a kin
Checking bending and axial stress along B-B
fb= bending stress along B-B (bottom of girder)
11.5 ,,
MB.8= (P,B + PB) ( 1' - ) (20)
= (479 +479) (1-.0)11.5 (20") = 12,960 kip in.
fb = -+ 12,960 = -+8.2 ksi
(0.75) (92.0).2
fa = axial stress along B-B
f _____Pv _ - 28 - - 0. 4 ksi
a ' A (0.75)(92.0)
fa --- fb = - 0 . 4 -- 8.2
= - 8.6 ksi and +7.8 ksi
Allowable stress depends on -J of plate between
lateral supports, where I= 14 in.
(0.80)(14)/(0.29)(0.75) = 51 Fa = 18.3 ksi
r
Pc = (1.7)(F) = (1.7)(18.3) = 31.1 ksi > 8.6 O.K.
3/4-in. Plate O.K.
C. Using Method of Sections along Section B-B,
where the forces in the braces are taken as re-
quired in the criteria for the girder design; i.e.:
PM = 479 kips
0.3 Psc = 87 kips
By inspection the stresses due to these loads are
less than those investigated in Section H.5b, using
P1B = 479 kips.
3/4-in Plate O.K.
e. Check for Rupture (Tearout) per Figure 9
Based on UBC Section 2251, J4, Resistance to
Tearout is as follows:
Fv= 0.30 Fu acting on net shear area
Ft= 0.50 Fu acting on net tension area
Increase by 1.7 for strength capacity
Figure 9
Rupture Surfaces
d. Check for local web buckling along Section C-C
based on UBC Section 2251, K1.3 where for
interior conditions:
R
tw (N+5k)
(0.66 Fy)(1.7)
For condition indicated,
N + 5k = 92+5(2.13) = 103 in.
With bearing distributed over this length and using
the moment and axial load from Section H.5b, at
the toe of the web fillet for the W36 x 182:
MB.B P,,
fb= +
tw (N+5k)2/4 tw (N+5k)
12,960 28
= +
0.725(103)2/4 0.725(103)
= 6.7 + 0.4 = 7.1 ksi
(0.66Fy)(1.7) = 40.8 ksi > 7.1 O.K.
W36 x 182 O.K.
Along 1-1-1-1, as indicated in Figure 9. There are
2 shear areas and 1 tension area
Rio = 1.7 [2x0.75x12.0x0.30x58.0 +1x0.75x11.5x.50x58.0]
Rto= 1.7 [314 +251] = 960 kips > 480 O.K.
Along 1-1-2-2 (cross-hatched) there are 2 shear areas
Rio = 1.7 [2x0.75x12.0x0.30x58.0] = 533 kips > 200 O.K.
3/4-in. Plate O.K.
Weldment of Gusset Plate to Girder (Both sides)
Worst loading condition is where P =F A from both
lB y
braces acting concurrently, as indicated m Section H.5b.
fH =
(12.5
(2PiB) 2(479)(0.74)
2L (2)(92)
fH = 3.9 kips per inch
g.
[ 11.
fv ='" (2P"8) 1--.-'.-/ Pv
(2)(L2)/4 2L
12960 Pv
fy +
(2)(L2)/4 2L
fy = -- 3.1 - 0.2 = 3.3 kips per inch
f = 2 + (3.3)2 = 5.1 kips per inch
5.1
n - = 3.2 sixteenths = 1/4-in. weld
(0.928)(1.7)
But since girder flange is 1 3/16-in. thick, minimum
fillet weld size is 5/16-in.
Use 5/16-in. Fillet Welds (each side)
Based in the shear capacity of the two-sided weld
versus the shear capacity of the plate, using E 70
electrodes and A36 plate, it can be shown (based
on Allowable Stress Design) that:
5.16D
tMjN = - - - , where D = weld size in sixteenths
y
tMu = minimum thickness of plate
tM,, _ (5.16)(3.2)_ 0.46"
36.0
0.75 in. > 0.46 O.K. (3/4-in. gusset plate is adequate)
Setback of Flange Plates
In accordance with UBC Section 2211.9.3.3, where
brace will buckle out-of-plane, stop flange plate at
least 2 times gusset plate thickness from the
bottom flange = 12(see Figure 8).
12= (2)(0.75) = 1 1/2-in.
SECTION I. CONNECTION DESIGN OF
BRACE AND GIRDER TO
COLUMN (4TH FLOOR)
1. Design Criteria
connection shall have the strength to resist the lesser
of the following:
(i) The strength of the brace in axial tension,
Pst = FyA.
3 times the force in the brace due to the
gravity loads.
(iii) The maximum force that can be transferred to
For strength capacity of members and connections,
use the capacities specified in UBC Section 2211.4.2
which states the following:
Flexure ................................. M = ZF
s y
Shear ................................... Vs = 0.55 Fy dt
Axial Compression ............... Ps = 1.7 FaA
Axial Tension ........................ Pst = Fy A
Full Penetration Welds ......... F A
y
Partial Penetration Welds .... 1.7 Allowable
Bolts and Fillet Welds .......... 1.7 Allowable
2. Analysis Method
Utilize the "Uniform Force Method" for the analysis
method in accordance with the recommendations of
the following AISC Manuals:
6. Summary of Design of Brace to Girder Connection
Gusset Plate; (i) 3/4-in. thick x 92 in. long
(ii) 5/16-in. fillet weld to girder
(each side)
Flange Plate: (i) 3/4-in. thick x 10 in. wide
(ii) 10 - 1 in. (I) A325-SC bolts to brace
(iii) 1/4-in. fillet weld x 12 in. long to
gusset plate (4 welds)
Web Plate: (i) 1/2-in. thick x 7 in. wide
r h ,-,4
(i) "Load & Resistance Factor Design," Second
Edition, "Volume II Connections," p. 11-17 thru
11-48 (1994).
(ii) "Volume II Connections," ASD 9th Edition/LRFD
1st Edition, p. 7-105 thru 7-170 (1992).
The two references are similar, except the first refer-
ence is more recent and easier to understand, even
when using Allowable Stress Design.
The "Uniform Force Method" is based on selecting
connection geometry such that moments do not exist
on these connection interfaces:
(i) Gusset Plate to Girder
(ii) Gusset Plate to Column
(iii) Girder to Column
Thus, the bracing connection and free-body diagrams
are as indicated along with the nomenclature in
Figures 10, 11 and 12. Note that the shear plate is
assumed slit horizontally (broken) along the girder
flanges for analysis purposes.
It should be observed that the centroid locations, a
and 6, are located on a common point lying on the
centerline of the braces.
Where:
eb = one-half the depth of the beam, in.
et = one-half the depth of the column, in.
c = distance from face of column to the centroid of
the gusset plate to girder connection, in.
IS = distance from face of girder to the centroid of the
gusset plate to column connection.
For the force distribution shown in the free-body
diagrams to remain free of moments on the connec-
tion interfaces, the following expression must be
satisfied:
a - 13tan e = eb tan 0 - e=
This equation can be derived simply from the defini-
tion of tan e. Since a and [3 are the only variables, the
designer must select values for them for which the
identity is valid. Once (z and 13are determined, then
the axial forces and shears can be determined from
these equations:
13 ec
V c: .- (P) He: -- (P)
a eb
Hb = -- (P) Vb = -7- (P)
r= /(cz + e) 2 + (13 + eh)2
V P
H
<
O
LU
Ab
.11--
16
H+A
SHEAR PLATE
Rb
o. .1
l
Rb-V Figure 10
Diagonal Bracing Connection and External Forces
- I t. 4TH FLOOR
H = Brace horizontal force
V = Brace vertical force
P = Brace axial force
Ab = Girder drag force
(adjacent bay)
H+A = Girder axial force
Rb = Girder shear
Rc = Column axial force
c wh-,,leo--p- -= 17
V
, Note: Direction of P
. Col forcesare reversible + / 4 '
dueto seismicforces. I
) , -
H
/
/
/ . GDR
Figure 11
Gusset Plate Free-Body Diagram
Special Design Note:
For the gusset plate weldments directly to column or
girder, increase weld size by 40 percent to provide
necessary ductility. (See LRFD AISC Manual
"Volume II Connections," p. 11-27).
3. Determining Gusset Plate Dimensions & Forces
See Figure 13
o. = eb tan 0 - ec + 13tan 0
12.5
tan 0 - - -- 1.09
11.5
1
_ Col
>
l
l vb
] Hb
i
i
l!b-
H+A
Figure 12
Girder Free-Body Diagram
eb = 18.2 in.
ec = 7.2 in.
After several trial solutions, set J3= 12.0 in. as shown
in Figure 13.
cz = (18.2)(1.09)- 7.2 + 12(1.09)
(z = 25.7 in.
P
&
J
I /
20.7" I '20.7"
_1
l
Rb
H+&
25.7"
a
5
16
Fioure 13
I 3..
l W36x182
With 20.7 in. of welded connection to the left of
centroid (25.7 - 5.0 = 20.7), extend gusset plate 20.7
in. to the right of centroid. Thus,
a = 25.7 in. = ct
Thus, r : /((z + ec)2 + (iB + eb)2
r = /(25.7 + 7.2)2 + (12.0 + 18.2)2 = V1,994
r = 44.7 in.
Connection strength required for brace:
(i) P,B = FyA = (36.0)(13.3): 479 kips
(ii) P2,: 3 (PE + Pv) = 3 ( 185) : 624 kips
Hence, the smaller force = 479 kips governs (P = 479
kips).
The shears and axial forces are as follows:
V 13 (p) = [12.0 (479) = 129 kips
c = T \4--.'-.7/
ec (
Hc = r (P) = 479) = 77 kips
a [25.7 ' (479) = 275 kips
Hb = -r- (P) = ,44.7 !
eb ( 1 8 . 2 )
Vb = -- (P) = 4--,-i. 7 (479) = 195 kips
Checking values above based on free-body of gusset
plate.
For vertical shear Rb in girder, assume braces below
fourth floor are not adequately supporting girder; thus,
Rb = 28.6/2 = 14 kips
4. Flange Plates, Web Plate and Gusset Plate
For design of flange and web plates, see "Connection
Design of Brace to Girder (5th Floor)", Sections H.2,
H.3 & H.4.
For gusset plate design, use Whitmore's Method
assuming brace load is in compression, P = 479 kips,
acting on Section A-A (Figure 13).
Try 3/4-in. plate thickness.
Effective width along A-A=b
b= 11.5 + 2(12 x tan 30) = 25.3 in.
P_ 479 - 25.2 ksi
fa = , - (0.75 x 25.3)
Base Fa capacity upon length I = 14 in.
kl_ (0.80)(14) 51, Fa 18.3ksi
r (0.29)(0.75)
Psc: (1.7)(Fa) = (1.7)(18.3) = 31.1 ksi > 25.2 O.K.
Use 3/4-in. Gusset Plate
5. Gusset Plate to Girder Connection (Figure 14)
Note: Direction of
forces are reversible
H = Hb + Hc = (P) (1-.O)12'5 = 352 kips
Hb + Hc = 275 +77 = 352 kips O.K.
V=0
[11.5
V = Vb + Vc = (P) ,1--7--! = 324 kips
Vb + V = 1 9 5 + 1 2 9 = 3 2 4 k i p s O.K.
f :
--- 'b /
2.7" . !
w36x 82
20.7"
For drag load Ab in adjacent bay, assume that 50% of
the seismic load applied at the 4th floor is equally
dragged to each adjacent bay. Thus, using the loads
from SECTION D,
A - 277-241 _ 1R I;.-- (dr, ' Ir,-
Figure 14
Partial Elevation of Connection
Hb= 275 kips, Vb = 195 kips (Figure 14) 6. Gusset Plate to Column Connection (Figure 15)
For weld loads,
fH -- Hb _ __275
(2)(41.4) 82.8
- 3.4 kips per in.
fv: Vb _ __195 _ 2.4 kips per in.
(2)(41.4) 82.8
fR = 2 + (2'4)2 = 4.2 kips per in.
Using strength capacity for fillet welds,
n = 4.2 - 2.7, say 3/16-in.
(1.7)(0.928)
But due to ductility requirements stated hereinbefore,
increase weld size by 40%,
nREQ,D = 2.7(1.4) = 3.8, say 4/16 = 1/4-in.
But since girder flange is 1.18 in. thick, minimum size
fillet weld per UBC Section 2251, J2.2b (Table J2.4) is
5/16-in.
Check gusset plate thickness (against weld size
required for strength):
For two sided fillet, using E70 electrodes and A36
steel,
5.16D _ (5.16)(4.0)_ 0.57 in.
tMIN -- F 36.0
Y
0.75 in. > 0.57 O.K.
Check local web yielding of girder per UBC Section
2251, K1.3:
R
tw (N + 2.5k)
< (0.66Fy)(1.7)
R = (Vb)(1.4) = (195)(1.4)= 273 kips (Compression)
(Use 40% increase for load.)
R 273
tw(N + 2.5k) (0.725)(41.4 + (2.5)(2.125))
= 8.0 ksi
(0.66Fy)(1.7) = (0.66 x 36.0)(1.7) = 40.8 ksi > 8.0 O.K.
Weldment Does Not Overstress Gusset or W36
Notes:
1. Direction of forces are reversible.
tlli., ' , / /
Figure 15
Hc = 77 kips Vc = 129 kips
For weld loads to column,
Ho 77
= - - 1.6 kips per in.
f" (2)(24i 48
Vc 12.9
fv- - - - - -- 2.7 kips per in.
(2)(24) 48
fR= V(1.6)2 + (2.7)2 = 3.1 kips per in.
3.1
n - (1.7)(0.928) = 2.0, say 2/16-in.
But since column flange is 1.03 in. thick, minimum
For bolt loads, eccentricity due to vertical component
of loading, M = will be neglected since
shear plate is continuous from girder to gusset, about
58 %-in. long.
Total load in bolts at gusset plate,
R = /Hc2 + Vc2 = 2+ (129)2 = 150 kips
and if 7 bolts used at 3 in. spacing with
1"(I) A325-SC in single shear,
FCAP = (7)(13.4)(1.7) = 159 kips > 150 O.K.
Use 7 - 1" I) A325-SC (spaced 3 in. O.C.)
For shear plate, try 1/2 -in. thick plate (to column
flange).
Forces to be resisted by this 24 in. long upper portion
of the shear plate:
Hc = 77 kips , Vc = 129 kips
Strength of 1/2-in. shear plate per UBC Section
2211.4.2:
Vs = 0.55Fy dt , PM= Fy A
Vs = (0.55)(36.0)(24)(0.50) = 238 kips > 129 O.K.
Pst = (36.0)(24)(0.50) = 432 kips > 77 O.K.
Check net area of plate for tension:
A 1.2 a F*
e _ _
Ag Fa
F* - 77 - 6.4 ksi
24.0 x 0.50
a = 1.00
Ab (1.2)(1.00)(6.4)
- - > =0.13
Ao 58.0
Ae > (0.13)(Ag) = (0.13)(24.0 x 0.50) = 1.6 sq. in.
AeACTUAL = (24.0 x 0.50) - (7 x 1.125 x 0.50)
=8.1sq. in.>l.6 O.K.
Use 1/2-in. Shear Plate (4 1/2-in. wide)
7. Girder to Column Connection (Figure 16)
Notes:
1. Direction of forces are reversible.
2. Centroid of shear plate does not exactly coincide with girder,
b t th t ' e ' t y s g l e c t e d .
Figure 16
36xl 82
Vb ---- 195 kips , Hb = 275 kips
H = 352 kips
Ab = 18 kips , Rb = 14 kips
Vb +__Rb = 195 + 14 = 209 kips
Ab _ (H-Hb) = 18 + (352 - 275) = 95 kips
For weld loads,
fH- Ab + (H-Hb)- 95
(2)(34.75) 69.5
- - - 1.4 kips per in.
fv - vb -+ Rb _ 209 _ 3.0 kips per in.
(2)(34.75) 69.5
fR = /(1.4) 2 + (3.0)2= 3.3 kips per in.
Using the strength capacity for fillet welds,
3.3
n - = 2.2, say 3/16-in.
(1.7)(0.928)
But must use minimum fillet of 5/16-in.
Check shear plate thickness (against weld size
For two sided fillet,
5.16 D (5.16)(2.2)
tMIN= = 36.0 = 0.31"
Assume 1/2-in. plate,
n t ' . , -.,,ql {'"J.K
For bolt loads, neglect eccentricity. Total load on bolts
at girder,
R = 2 + (95)2 = 230 kips
Try 11 - 1 in. A325-SC at 3 in. spacing
FCAP = (11)(13.4)(1.7) = 251 kips > 230 O.K.
Use 11 - 1 in. A325-SC (spaced 3 in, O.C,)
Use 1/2-in. Shear Plate (O.K. by inspection)
8. Summary of Design of Brace and Girder to
Column Connection
Gusset Plate: (i) 3/4-in. thick x 45 1/2-in. long x 24 in.
wide
(41 1/2-in. long each side)
Flange Plate
and Web Plate: See Section H6
Shear Plate: (i) 1/2-in. thick x 58 3/4 in. long x 4 1/2-
in. wide
(ii) 7 - 1 in. (1)A325-SC bolts to gusset
plate
(iii) 11 - 1 in. A325-SC bolts to
girder
(iv) 5/16-in. fillet weld to column
(each side)
Part III X Bracing
Design
This portion of the booklet illustrates the seismic
design of a Special Concentrically Braced Frame
(SCBF) using X or Cross Bracing. See Fig. 17. Both
the design of members and connections are de-
scribed.
Double angles are indicated for the braces, but in lieu
of these angles other members such as tubes, pipes
or wide flange shapes could be employed.
All required field connections are bolted with the use
of A325-SC bolts in slip critical connections. Field
welded connections could also be used.
SECTION J. DESIGN OF BRACE
(4TH STORY)
For general information on seismic forces, see
SECTIONS A through C of this booklet.
Note: PE = brace seismic force
.J 25.0
D J
?
PE = Brace
Seismic Force
Figure 17
Partial Frame Elevation
In compliance with UBC Section 2211.9.2.1 and
2211.9.2.2, members for braces must resist both
tension and compression.
Referring to SECTION D, "Analysis of Braced Frame,"
the seismic shear in fourth story =241 kips
Thus, 2PE (25.0/27.5) = 241 , PE = 133 kips per
brace
133 _ _ 100 kips per brace
PEQUIV- 1.33
Try 2-L.'s 5x5x3/4, with 3/4-in. spacers and gusset
plates at their connection.
Per UBC Section 2211.9.2.4, angles must be compact
and meet the criteria:
52 52
- - = 8 . 7
- 0.75 = 6.6 < 8.7 O.K.
Note: This criteria precludes the use of 6x6x1/2 or
6x6x5/8 angles for these braces.
Per UBC Section 2211.9.2.1,
kl 1,000 1,000
- - = 167 Max
r - - _ - /36
Now considering buckling of 2-L's 5x5x3/4:
Per AISC Manual, p. 3-61 (for 2-L's 3/8 in. back-to-back)
rx = 1.51 in.
ry = 2.28 in.(conservative since angles are 3/4-in.
back-to-back)
Y
t.
X
- !
Y
, L5X5X3/4
3
4-4
Figure 18
Double Angle Brace
The unsupported length for in-plane buckling is
Ix = 27.5/2 = 13.8 ft. since tension brace will stabilize
the compression force.
The unsupported length for out-of-plane buckling is
ly = 27.5 ft. since one pair of brace angles is inter-
rupted at its mid-point intersection; hence, tension
brace may not provide a rigid lateral support for the
compression brace.
Thus,
kTI) (1.0)(13.8 x 12)
x = 1.51 - 110 In-plane buckling
k/) (1.0)(27.5 x 12)
Y= 2.28
- 145 Out-of-plane buckling
(Governs)
1,000
145 < - 167
/Fy
Fa = 7.10 ksi
O.K.
per AISC Manual, p. 3-16
PCAP= (FA)(A) = (7.10)(13.9) = 99 kips
99=100 O.K.
Use 2-L's 5x5x3/4 Brace
Note: Since connection is bolted, check for effective
net area must be made as done in SECTION M.
Since critical buckling mode is about the out-of-plane
or y-y axis, must meet the requirements of UBC
Section 2211.9.2.3 for built-up members. Namely,
provide stitches.
I
(i) ('T)E,eme., 0.4
' Membe,
iii1 Ti't,' m , . , . . r ,'* ' 1 n f , '""' , t - " --tr
(iii) Bolted stitches not permitted in middle one fourth
of the clear brace length.
Thus, E,ement < (0.4) (145) = 58
For L 5x5x3/4, ry = 1.51 in. per AISC Manual, p. 1-47
(1.----) 58, I 88 in. max. of stitches spacing
Element
with total length of brace = (27.5)(12) = 330 in.
330
n = 88 = 4 spaces or 3 stitches minimum for full length
FTRANSFER TOTAL= (Fy)(A) = (36.0)(6.94) = 250 kips (large)
Provide 1 stitch plate each side of brace intersection,
and utilize splice plate at intersection as a stitch plate.
Shear transfer per stitch plate = V
V = 250/3 = 83 kips & using 1 1/8" (J) bolts
n = 83/(1.7)(16.9) = 2.9 bolts per stitch plate
Use Stitch Plate 3/4-in. thick x 6 in. wide with
3 - 11/8" A325-SC bolts (See Figure 20)
SECTION K. DESIGN OF GIRDER
(5TH FLOOR)
For the case of the symmetrical X Bracing system
indicated, there are usually few seismic requirements
imposed upon the girder except to drag seismic forces
from the floor system into the connection at the brace-
girder-column intersection. Basically, it must resist
vertical load and provide adequate strength for the
connection at the brace-girder-column intersection.
Loads imposed on girder,
Brace Force P=28'6K
t..
c3.
<
E
oo tj.. rn
PL
U=--
4
25'-0
Figure 19
Reactions on Girder
P = Vertical load per SECTION D
lO' RIOR n
M (179)(12)
SREQD ---- Fb = 24.0 = 90 in.3
Although a W18X50 would suffice, a W24x103 will be
selected to provide an improved connection for the
braced frame, as shown in SECTION N, especially for
shear rupture.
For W24x103, S = 245in.3 > 90 O.K.
Use W24x103 Girder
SECTION L. DESIGN OF COLUMN
(3RD TO 5TH FLOOR)
Design of column, same as for chevron bracing in
SECTION based upon column strength using a
factored seismic load of 3 (Rwy.
Use W14x132 Column
SECTION M. CONNECTION DESIGN OF
BRACE INTERSECTION
Per UBC Section 2224.1, design connection using
high-strength slip-critical bolts, A325-SC.
1. Design Criteria
Connections shall have the strength to resist the
lesser of the following:
(i) The strength of the brace in axial tension, Pst = FyA..
(ii) 3 (-) times the force in the brace due to the
gravity loads.
(iii) The maximum force that can be transferred to the
brace by the system.
Thus, connection strength required for brace:
(i) Pis = (Fy)(A) = (36.0)(13.9) = 500 kips
At Quarter Points
of Braces ------__
Stitch Plate
6x3/4x11
_
Note: All bolts are I 1/8" O A325-SC. 3 1/2" is
recommended spacing for 1 1/8" ID bolts (3 D)
!
2 5x5x3/4 (TYP)
11.5 [ '
25.0
Figure 20
Brace Intersection Detail
(ii) P28= + Pv)= 3(-) (133+0): 450 kips
(iii) P3B = Unknown at this time
Hence, the smaller force = 450 ki ps (governs)
2. Connection of Brace to Splice Plate
For brace connection, use strength criteria for con-
nection capacity per UBC Section 2211.4.2.
Thus for 1 1/8-in. (I)A325-SC in double shear,
FCAP = (1.7) (Allowable)
FCAP = (1.7)(33.8) = 57.5 kips per bolt
(See AISC Manual p. 4-5)
n = 450/57.5 = 7.8 bolts
Use 8 - 1 1/8" (I) A325-SC (double shear)
b.
Effective width = 2 (24 1/2 x tan 30) = 28.3 in.
Thus, use the maximum plate width provided =
24" resisting P2B: 450 kips.
Base compressive capacity upon length "1" =16 in.
Assume k=0.80 due to partial fixity
kl (0.80)(16)
= 59,
r - (0.29)(0.75)
per AISC Manual, p. 3-16, Fa = 17.5 ksi
Increase by 1.7 for strength capacity
P : 1.7 FaA= (1.7)(17.5)(24.0 x 0.75)
Ps = 536 kips > 450 O.K.
3/4-in. Plate O.K.
Using Method of Sections through net section for
tension force along Section A-A.
Now check effective net area of brace L's 5x5x3/4 in
accordance with UBC Section 2211.8.3.2, Formula
(11-6), deducting for single row of 1 1/8-in. bolt holes
as shown in Figure 20.
A 1.2 (z F*
e:>__
Ag F
F* = P2B _ 450__ - 32.3 ksi
A 13.9
a = 1.00
Ae (1.2)(1.00)(32.3)
- - > = 0.67
Ag 58.0
Ae > (0.67)(13.9) -- 9.3 sq. in.
Note: Please refer to adden-
dum on Pg. 32 for
information regarding
steel yield & tensile
strengths.
AeACTUAL = Effective Net Area per UBC Section 2251, B3.
= U Anet
= (0.85)(13.9 - 2 x 1.25 x 0.75)
AeAcTU,L = 10.2 sq in. > 9.3 O.K.
Use 8 - 1 1/8" ( Bolts to 2-L's 5x5x3/4
3. Splice Plate
The analysis of the splice plate for the braces will be
based upon Whitmore's Method for compression
forces and the Method of Sections for tension forces.
Capacities will be based upon strength design capacity.
Try 3/4-inch thick plate by 24 inches wide.
a. Using Whitmore's Method, based on compressive
force along Section A-A (Figure 20).
Pst= FyA = (36.0)(24.0 x 0.75) = 648 kips > 450 O.K.
C.
Effective net area is O.K. by inspection since there
is only 1 line of bolt holes.
3/4-in. Plate O.K.
Checking Bolt Bearing Stresses
To prevent tearout, splitting and crushing of gusset
plate, check bolt bearing stresses.
In accordance with UBC Section 2251, J3.8,
Formula (J3-5),
2P d
s_. + 2
P = Allowable stress design capacity for
1 1/8"(I)A325-SC in double shear.
d.
P = 33.8 kips
(2)(33.8) 1.125
s + - - = 1.55 + 0.56 = 2.11 in.
(58.0)(0.75) 2
2.11 in. < 3 1/2-in. provided O.K.
3/4-in, Plate O.K,
Setback of Angle Braces at Intersection
brace will buckle out-of-plane, stop angle braces at
least 2 times splice plate thickness from the
through brace = 12(see Figure 20).
12= (2)(0.75) = 1 1/2-in.
Steel TipsNovember 1995 -- Page 25
4. Summary of Design of Brace Intersection
Connection
Splice Plate: 3/4-in. thick x 24 in. wide
Interrupted Angles: 8 - 1 1/8" A325-SC bolts each
end, spaced 3 1/2" centers and
2" edge distance
Through Angles: 5 - 1 1/8" A325-SC bolts
(for lateral support of plate)
SECTION N. CONNECTION DESIGN
OF BRACEAND GIRDER
TO COLUMN (5TH FLOOR)
1. Design Criteria
Use the force and capacity criteria of UBC Sections
2211.9.3.1 and 2211.4.2
See SECTION 1.1 for details.
W14x132
Note: For analysis purposes, the
shear plate is assumed slit
horizontally at the girder flanges
16
2. Anal ysi s Method
Utilize the "Uniform Force Method" for the analysis.
See SECTION 1.2 for details, including free-body
diagrams used such that moments do not exist at
connection interfaces. Also, see Figures 10, 11 and 12
for nomenclature and free-bodies. The shear plate is
assumed slit (broken) along the girder flanges for
analysis purposes.
Note that the centroid location, (z and I, are located
on a common point lying on the centerline of the
braces. See Fig. 21.
3. Determining Gusset Plate Dimensions & Forces
a = ebtan e- e + tan e
25.0
tan ) = - - = 2.174
11.5
eb = 12.3 in., ec = 7.2 in.
After several trial solutions, set =7.0 in.
? ' 1 1 . 5
25.0
5TH FLOOR
Ab
A
/%
/ \
.3"
\
!
?
A 1
2'-1V2
c=35" J
30
2'-11/2
i
r ,
Figure 21
Connection of Brace and Girder to Col umn
Page26 -- Steel Tips November 1995
I > HG
Rb
2L's-5x5x3/4
i
1 1 . 5
25.0
c: (12.3)(2.174)- 7.2 + (7.0)(2.174)
c = 34.8 in. (No eccentricity.)
Set ct = 35.0 in. as indicated (slight eccentricity)
Thus, r = /(a + ec)2 + (+eb) 2
r = /(35.0 + 7.2)2 + (7.0+12.3)2= V,153
r = 46.4 in.
Connection strength required for braces
2-L's 5x5x3/4 at 4th Story:
V:O
V = Vb + Vc = (P4) \2--7-'/ = (450) 2--7--.-.- = 188 kips
V b+V c=119 + 68 =187 kips O.K.
The shears and axial forces acting on the brace
connection in the 5th story can be reduced by the
ratio (355/442) = 0.80, but for simplification make
design same as for brace connections in the 4th
story.
Vertical shear in girder Rb = 14 kips
(i) PB = FyA= (36.0)(13.9) = 500 kips
(ii) P2, = 3 (RE + Pv) = 3(9.8)(133+0) = 450 kips
Hence, the smaller force = 450 kips governs
P4 = 450 kips
Connection strength required for braces 2-L's 5x5x3/4
at 5th Story:
(i) P8 = FyA = (36.0)(13.9) = 500 kips
(ii) P2B = 3 (PE + Pv) = wz/
Note: ratio of story shear at 5th to 4th stories, per
Table 1 is 355/442
Set dimensions of the gusset plate and the portion of
the shear plate extending onto the gusset plate as
shown in Figure 21. Please note the following!
The gusset plate weldment to the girder is cen-
tered about the centroid a, such that there is 25 1/2
inches of weldment on either side of this centroid.
The shear plate weldment to the column which is
beyond the girder is centered about the centroid 13,
such that there is 7 inches of weldment on either
side of this centroid. Also, the bolt group attach-
ment to the gusset plate is also centered about 13.
Hence, by utilization of the "Uniform Force Method,"
moments do not exist at these interfaces:
Hence, the smaller force = 360 kips governs
P5 = 360 kips
The shears and axial forces acting on the connection
are as follows in the 4th Story:
Vc= --r (P4)= (450)= 68 kips
es (7_.24)
Hc = - (P4) = (450) = 70 kips
e t12'3(450) = 119 kips
Vb = - (P4) = \4--6---/
(z [ 35.0 (450) = 339 kips
Hb= r (P4) = \ 46. 4/
Checking values above based on free-body of gusset:
H = 0
H=H b+H c=(P4) 25.0 =(450) 25.0 =409ki ps

(i) Gusset Plate to Girder Weldment
(ii) Gusset Plate to Column, including both weldment
and bolts.
(iii) Girder to Column, including both weldment and
bolts.
Thus, only axial forces and shears exist at these
interfaces of these connections. This keeps the
design simple and direct.
Setback of Angle Braces from Girder:
braces will buckle out-of-plane, stop angle braces at
least 2 times gusset plate thickness from girder = 12
(See Figure 21)
12= (2)(0.75) = 1 1/2-in.
4. Gusset Plate
Based on SECTION M, a 3/4-in. splice plate is re-
Figure 21 using Whitmore's Method and Section A-A,
it is evident by inspection that a 3/4-in. gusset plate is
adequate, providing the web of the girder is in the
range of a 1/2 to 3/4-in. thick element.
Use 3/4-in. Gusset Plate
5. Gusset Plate to Girder Connection (Figure 22)
I
Note: Direction of forces are reversible
.W24x103
r Hb
Vb
16
2'-11/2 2'-11/2
Figure 22
Hb = 339 kips, Vb = 119 kips
For weld loads, using double fillet welds,
Hb 339
fH = (2)(51) = 102
= 3.3 kips per in.
Vb 119
fv = (2)(51) = 102 = 1.1 kips per in.
f , = /(3.3) 2 + (1.1)2 = 3.5 kips per in.
3.5
n = (1.7)(0.928) = 2.2, say 3/16-in.
But due to ductility requirements stated in SECTION 1.2
increase weld size by 40%.
rlREQD = (2.2)(1.4) = 3.1, say 1/4-in.
Since girder flange is 0.98 in. thick, minimum size fillet
weld per UBC Section 2251, J2.2b (Table J2.4)
is s/16-in.
Check gusset plate thickness (against weld size
tm,n = 5.16D = (5.16)(3.1) = 0.45 in.
F 36.0
y
0.75 > 0.45 O.K.
Check local web yi el di ng of girder per UBC Section
2251, K1.3:
R
tw(N + 2.5k) < (0.66Fy)(1.7)
R = (Vb)(1.4) = (119)(1.4)= 167 kips (Compression)
167
= 5.5 ksi
(0.55)(51.0 + (2.5)(1.75))
Fb = (0.66Fy)(1.7) = (0.66 x 36.0)(1.7): 40.8 ksi > 5.5 O.K.
Weldment Does Not Overstress Gusset or W24
6. Gusset Plate to Column Connection
i
i
Vc
i Figure 23
Hc = 70 kips V = 68 kips
For weld loads to column,
H = __70= 2.5 kips per in.
fH- (2)(14) 28
Vc 68
fy - (2)(14)- 28- 2.4 kips per in.
fR = 2 + (2'4)2 = 3.5 kips per in.
i i , .
p . . , , ,._:. o , 1. Tir, N n v m ; - r t3a c,
3.5
n - (1.7)(0.928) = 2.2, say 3/16-in.
But since column flange is 1.03 in. thick, minimum
Note that the axial force in the girder HGis approximately
0, except for some drag forces from the braced bay.
From Figure 24 it can be shown that for equilibrium,
taking H = 0 and V = 0 that:
RH = Hb, - Hb5
Rv = Rb _+ (V, + Vb5)
For bolting shear plate to gusset plate, total load on
bolts = R
R = /Hc2 + Vc2 = 2 + (68)2 = 97 kips
Using 1 1/8-in. (I)A325-SC in single shear, and
strength capacity,
97
n = - 3.4 bolts
(1.7)(16.9)
Thus, 4 - 1 1/8-in. bolts are adequate, but add 2 bolts
in second row to match bolts required at girder to
column connection, as shown in Figure 21.
As described in SECTION N.3,
P, = 450 kips with Hb4 = 339 kips & Vb4 -- 119 kips
P5 = 360 kips, then by direct proportion
= [360
Hb5 \--) (Hb4) = (0.80)(339) = 271 kips
: ( 3 . ( V ) : (0.80)(119): 95 kips
Vb5
Thus, RH = H - Hb5 = 339 - 271 = 68 kips
Rv = Rb + Mb4 + Mbs = 14 + 119 + 95 = 228 kips
Use 6 - 1 1/8-in. ( A325-SC (spaced 3 1/2-in. O.C.)
For shear plate thickness, see next SECTION N.7.
For weld loads,
R. = __68= 1.4 kips per in.
fH = (2)(24.5) 49
7. Girder to Column Connection (Figure 24)
fv = Rv 228
(2)(24.5) = 4--9-= = 4.7 kips per in.
i
,_ GUSSET
A B I WELDMENT
!
,. lVb
AB
5
16
Figure 24
The method of analysis for the "Uniform Force
Method" must be modified to take into account the
brace forces occurring at both the top and bottom of
the girder.
fR = /(1.4) 2 + (4.7)2 = 4.9 kips per in.
4.9
n - = 3.1, say 1/4-in.
(1.7)(0.928)
But must use minimum fillet of 5/16-in. due to column
flange thickness = 1.03 in.
Assuming 1/2-in. shear plate, and checking shear
plate thickness (against weld size required for
strength):
5.16D (5.16)(3.1)
tMIU ---- F - 36.0
Y
0.50 in > 0.45 O.K.
- 0.45"
1/2-in. Shear Plate O.K.
For bolt loads, neglect eccentricity. Total load on bolts
at girder,
R = 2 + (Rv) 2: */(68)2 + (228)2 = 238 kips
Using 1 1/8-in. A325-SC bolts and strength design,
238
n - = 8.3 bolts
(1.7)(116.9)
Use 10- 1 1/8-in. A325-SC (spaced 3 1/2-O.C.)
Checking 1/2-in. shear plate for both shear yielding
and shear rupture along A-A, as based on UBC
Sections 2251, F4 and J4.
VCAPYIELD: (0.55 Fy)(AGRoss)
= (0.55 X 36.0)(24.5 X 0.5)
VCAPYiELD= 242 kips > 228 O.K.
VCAPRUPTURE= (1.7) (0.30 F) (ANET)
= (1.7)(0.30 X 58.0) [(24.5 X 0.5) -- (6 X 1.25 X 0.50)]
VC^PRUPTURE= 251 kips > 228 O.K.
Use 1/2-in. Shear Plate
Checking W24x103 girder for both shear yielding and
shear rupture along B-B:
VCAPYiELD: (0.55Fy)(AGRoSS)
= (0.55 X 36)(21.0 X 0.55)
VCAP1ELD= 229 kips > 228 O.K.
VcA, RUPTURE= (1.7)(0.30 F )(ANET)
= (1.7)(0.30 X 58.0)(21 .0 X 0.55 - 4 X 1.25 X 0.55)
VCAPRUPTURE = 260 kips > 228 O.K.
Use W24x103 Girder (Minimum W24 that can be
used)
8. Summary of Design of Brace and Girder to
Column Connection
Gusset Plates: (i) 3/4-in. thick x 59 1/2-in. long x 17 in.
wide
(51 in. long each side)
Angle Braces to
Gusset Plates: (i) 8 - 1 1/8-in. A325-SC bolts to
each gusset plate
Shear Plate: (i) 1/2-in. thick x 52 1/2-in. long x
8 1/2-in. wide
(ii) 6 - 1 1/8-in. A325-SC bolts to
each gusset plate
(iii) 10- 1 1/8-in. A325-S0 bolts to
girder
(iv) 5/16-in. fillet weld to column
(52 1/2-in. long each side)
SECTION O. ALTERNATIVE CONNECTION
AT COLUMN
In lieu of the shear plate connection at the column,
double angles could be either bolted or welded to the
gusset plates and girder. See Figure 25.
If the drag forces, Ab, to the bracing system are large,
it may be necessary to provide column stiffener plates
or increase the thickness of the column flange.
As shown in Figure 25, the bolts to the gusset plates
and girder are in double shear, while the bolts to the
column flange are in single shear.
Page30 Steel TipsNovember 1995
I I Critical Connections
I
I
Figure 25
Alternative Connection of Brace and Girder to Column
PART IV- DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following seven recommendations are made for
braced frame design. These items require special
attention, and they should be carefully considered.
1. All braced frames should comply with the require-
ments for Special Concentrically Braced Frames
in order to assure improved/adequate post-buck-
ling capacity due to cyclic seismic loads during a
major earthquake.
Some Federal Agencies have adopted this require-
ment, especially since it is not difficult to achieve,
nor is it costly.
2. Connections require very careful design in order to
preclude premature failure. This is most important
at the interface of the steel braced frame to its
.
.
concrete foundation to positively transfer shear and
overturning forces. It often requires special transfer
devices such as shear lugs, weld plate washers,
and uplift anchor bolts.
A reasonable number of braced frames or braced
bays should be provided. Since braced frames are
so efficient, there is a tendency to use very few
braced frames or braced bays for a given structure.
Thus, there tends to be a lack of redundancy, and
the failure of one connection or member of the
frame greatly decreases the entire lateral resis-
tance of the structure to seismic forces. A prudent
design suggests the use of a "reasonable" number
of braced frames or braced bays be employed.
Provide an adequate number of drag elements
across the entire length or width of the structure to
transfer diaphragm floor/roof loads to the braced
frames. These drag elements should be capable of
resisting tension or compression forces, and they
should have adequate connections to their braced
frames.
.
.
Braces connected with bolts may require that the
ends of the braces be reinforced to keep the failure
out of the reduced section created by the bolt holes
(effective net section). This is important since both
current and future structural steels may have yield
point-to-tensile strength ratios which are relatively
high.
Bracing members can be made from a single
shape in lieu of using built-up members, such as
double angles. This will preclude localized buckling
failures from occurring in individual members which
could reduce the overall capacity of the built-up
member.
. For the design of braced frame members and their
connections, it is suggested that the engineer
consider a welded connection. A welded connec-
tion will eliminate problems associated with the
effective area to gross area ratio that must be
considered with bolted connections.
ADDENDUM
Structural Engineers should be aware that recent
studies conducted by AISC & AISI indicate that most
of the current production of A-36 Steel meets the
mechanical property requirements of both A-36 &
A572-50. Also the ratio of yield to tensile strength may
be relatively high. The engineer is referred to SAC
Report 95-02 "Interim Guidelines for Evaluation,
Repair, Modification & Design of Steel Moment
Frames," for additional information.
The primary reason for the increased yield and tensile
properties of A-36 is due to modern steel producing
methods used by most steel mills. Specifically, most
steel produced today (1995) is produced in electric
furnaces as opposed to open-hearth or basic oxygen
furnaces.
The main charge in an electric furnace is scrap steel
(old car bodies, washers, etc.) as opposed to iron ore
used in open-hearth furnaces. Thus the chemistry of
the electric furnaces steel results in higher mechani-
cai properties than those required as minimum for A-
36 Steel.
ASTM and the Structural Steel Shapes Producers
Council recognize this and they are in the process of
writing a proposed "Standard Specification for Steel
for Structural Shapes Used in Building Framing." The
proposed specification calls for an enhanced chemis-
try requirement, an increased minimum yield and
tensile strength and a maximum yield/tensile ratio.
Page32 Steel TipsNovember 1995
About the Author:
Roy Becker is a California registered structural
engineer who has been actively engaged in the
design of a large number of diversified structures
since graduating from the University of Southern
California in 1959.
These structures have varied from high-rise office
buildings almost 700 feet in height, to 300 foot clear
span convention centers and aircraft hangars, to Titan
missile launching facilities. While most of these
structures are located in California, a significant
number are located in such distant locations as Saudi
Arabia and Diego Garcia where unique construction
requirements were necessary.
At the present time, Mr. Becker is a principal of the
firm Becker and Pritchett Structural Engineers, Inc.
which is located at Lake Forest, California. Before
establishing his own firm, he was Chief Structural
Engineer for VTN Consolidated Inc. He also served
as Regional Engineer in Los Angeles for the American
Institute of Construction, Inc. Prior to this he was
engaged as a structural engineer with the Los Ange-
les engineering firm of Brandow & Johnston Associ-
ates.
He has authored the following seismic design publica-
tions for steel construction:
"Practical Steel Design for Building 2-20 Stories,"
1976.
"Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings,"
1988.
Mr. Becker continues to present seminars and
courses related to both structural steel and seismic
design, including a structural license review course, in
association with California State University, Long
Beach.
The information presented in this publication has
been prepared in accordance with recognized
engineering principles and is for general informa-
tion only. While it is believed to be accurate, this
information should not be used or relied upon for
any specific application without competent profes-
sional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability, and applicability by a licensed profes-
sional engineer, designer, or architect. The publi-
cation of the material contained herein is not
intended as a representation or warranty on the
part of the Structural Steel Education,al Council
or any other person named herein, that this
information is suitable for any general or
particular use or of freedom from infringement
of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of
this information assumes all liability arising from
such use.
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(510) 631-9570
SPONSORS
Adams & Smith
-Bannister Steel, Inc.
Baresel Corp.
G.M. Iron Works Co.
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Junior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Oregon Steel Mills
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
H.H. Robertson Co.
Stockton Steel
economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range frombudgetpricesand estimated tonnage
to cost comparisons, fabrication details and del/very schedules.
Funding for this publication provided by the California Iron Workers Adminis1rative Trust.
=,"TRI-*$r'TURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL
TECHNICAL iNFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
DECEMBER 1996
Seismic Design Practice For
Eccentrically Braced Frames
Based On The 1994 UBC
By
Roy Becker
&
Michael Ishler
Contributors
Mr. Michael Ishler, S.E. formed Ishler Design & Engineering Associates, Santa Monica, CA in 1993 to
promote the application of the art and science of structural engineering. He has worked on the design
and construction of cable and membrane structures in North America, Europe and Asia.
His work currently spans a wide range of structural design projects including eccentrically braced framed
buildings. Prior to establishing his own firm, he was an Associate with Ove Arup & Partners in London
and Los Angeles where the original work for this guide was written.
Mr. Roy Becker, S.E. is a California registered structural engineer who has been actively engaged in
the design of a large number of diversified structures since graduating from the University of Southern
California in 1959.
These structures have varied from high-rise office building almost 700 feet in height, to 300 foot clear
span convention centers and aircraft hangars, to Titan missile launching facilities. While most of these
structures are located in California, a significant number are located in such distant locations as Saudi
Arabia and Diego Garcia where unique construction requirements were necessary.
At the present time, Mr. Becker is a principal of the firm Becker and Pritchett Structural Engineers, Inc.
which is located at Lake Forest, California. Before establishing his own firm, he was Chief Structural
Engineer for VTN Consolidated Inc. He also served as Regional Engineer in Los Angeles for the Ameri-
can Institute of Construction, Inc. Prior to this, he was engaged with the Los Angeles engineering firm of
Brandow & Johnston Associates.
He has authored the following seismic design publications for steel construction:
"Practical Steel Design for Building 2-20 Stories,"
1976.
"Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings,"
1988.
"Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames,"
1995.
PREFACE
This booklet is an update and revision of the Steel Tips publication on eccentrically braced frames dated
May 1993 (ref. 16).
The significant revisions to the May 1993 booklet are as follows:
Design criteria is based on the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
The steel for the link beam element has a yield strength of 50 ksi. Based on current mill practices,
this yield strength should be utilized for the capacity of the link beam for A36, A572 grade 50 and
Dual Grade Steels.
The use of a link adjacent to a column is not "encouraged." This is due to the moment connection
required at the beam to column intersection and the possible difficulty in achieving a moment
connection which can accommodate large rotations of the link subject to high shear and moment
without significant loss of capacity. See Ref. 11 p. 333 for additional information.
The beam outside the link has a strength at least 1.5 times the force corresponding to the link
beam strength.
It should be noted that ASTM and the Structural Steel Shapes Producers Council are in the process of
writing a proposed "Standard Specification for Steel for Structural Shapes used in Building Framing." At
the present time, this single standard would require that the following be met: yield strength = 50 ksi MIN;
tensile strength = 65 ksi MIN; yield to tensile ratio = 0.85 MAX. However, these requirements are still
under discussion and negotiation, but hopefully this single standard will be published by ASTM in the
next year or two.
C O N T E N T S
Symbols and Notations .................................................................................................................. 1
Section 1. Introduction to Eccentric Braced Frames ................................................................. 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Bracing Configuration .............................................................................................................................. 3
Frame Proportions .................................................................................................................................. 3
Link Length .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Link Beam Selection ............................................................................................................................... 5
Link Beam Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 5
Section 2. Design Criteria for a 7-Story Office Building ............................................................ 6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Loads ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Base Shear Coefficient ........................................................................................................................... 6
Building Period and Coefficient C ............................................................................................................ 8
Design Base Shear and Vertical Distribution ........................................................................................... 8
Horizontal Distribution of Seismic Forces ................................................................................................ 9
Section 3. Chevron Configuration / Beam Shear Link
East-West Frame ....................................................................................................... 10
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Beam Gravity Loads .............................................................................................................................. 10
Column Gravity Loads ........................................................................................................................... 11
Elastic Analysis of Frame ...................................................................................................................... 11
Deflection Check of Frame .................................................................................................................... 13
Link Size ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Link Shear Strength and Link Strength Factor ...................................................................................... 14
Beam Compact Flange ......................................................................................................................... 14
Link Length ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Beam and Link Axial Loads ................................................................................................................... 14
Beam Compact Web ............................................................................................................................. 15
Combined Link Loads ........................................................................................................................... 15
Verification of Link Shear Strength and Strength Factor ....................................................................... 15
Beam Brace Spacing ............................................................................................................................ 16
Beam Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Link Rotation ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Brace Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Column Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 19
Foundation Design ................................................................................................................................ 21
Beam Stiffeners ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Beam Lateral Bracing ............................................................................................................................ 22
Brace To Beam Connection ................................................................................................................... 23
Brace to Column and Beam Connection ............................................................................................... 24
Summary of Link and EBF Design ........................................................................................................ 24
References ................................................................................................................................... 27
SYMBOLSAND NOTATIONS
mf
Aw
a
a
a'
b
bt
C
C
C
m
q
d
0
e
e I
F
a
F'
e
F
t
F
f
a
f.
I
g
h
h
h
c
h.
I
h
n
I
I
x
k
klf
ksi
L
L
c
LF
I
M
ce
M
cu
M
m
Area of a flange A f - bf tt, in. 2
Cross sectional area of column or beam web Aw - twd, in. 2
Beam length between a column and a link, in.
Weld size, in.
Maximum allowable unbraced length for the flanges of a link, in.
Stiffener plate width, in.
Flange width, in.
Code lateral force coefficient, used with other factors in base shear formula
Lateral force coefficient equal to V/W
Bending interaction coefficient
Period mode shape constant
Beam depth, in.
Eccentricity between the center of mass and the center of rigidity, feet
Link length, in.
Recommended length for shear links, e = 1.3 Ms/ Vs in.
Allowable compressive stress, ksi
Euler stress for a prismatic member divided by a factor of safety, ksi
Code lateral force at level i, kips
Code lateral force at top of structure, kips
Code lateral force at level x, kips
Specified minimum yield stress of steel, ksi
Allowable shear stress in a weld, ksi
Actual compressive stress, ksi
Applied lateral force at i, kips
Acceleration of gravity, 386 in./sec.2
Building height above rigid base
Frame height (c-c beams)
Clear height of column
Building height to level i
Building height to level n
Importance factor related to occupancy used in lateral force formula
Strong axis moment of inertia of a steel section, in.4
Kip (1000 lbs. force)
Kips per linear foot
Kips per square inch
Beam length (c-c columns), in.
Beam clear length between columns
Plastic design load factor
Weld length, in.
Moment in a beam from an elastic analysis, in. kips
Factored design moment in the beam outside the link, in. kips
Moment in a column from an elastic analysis, in. kips
Factored design moment in the column, in. kips
Factored design moment in the link, in. kips
Maximum moment that can be resisted in the absence of axial load, in. kips
Plastic moment, in. kips
M
MVERT
n
P
P
Po,
P
e
P,
P,u
Rw
r
Sx
T
t
t,
t
W
V
V
v,
V
rs
V
S
VVERT
V
x
W
W.
I
Z
z,
Z
x
A
r5
L
o
Link flexural capacity reduced for axial forces IV!,= Z(F- f ) or It4- Zf(F- f). in. kips
Member flexural strength M -- ZF,, in. kips
Moment in a link from gravity load, in. kips
The uppermost level in the main portion of the structure
Vertical load on column, kips
Factored design compression in the brace, kips
Factored design compression outside the link, kips
Strength of an axially loaded compression member, kips
Factored design compression in the column, kips
Axial column load due to seismic overturning, kips
Axial load on a member due to earthquake
Euler buckling load, kips
Unfactored link axial load, kips
Factored link axial load, kips
Axial compression strength of a member Pc = 1.7FA, kips
Plastic axial load P -- F/A, kips
Numerical coefficient based on structural lateral load-resisting system
Radius of gyration with respect to the x-x axis, in.
Radius of gyration with respect to the y-y axis, in.
Site structure coefficient
Strong axis section modulus, in.3
Period of vibration for single degree of freedom systems. Fundamental (first mode)
period for multiple degree of freedom systems, seconds
Stiffener plate thickness, in.
Flange thickness, in.
Web thickness, in.
Lateral force or shear at the base of structure, kips
Beam shear reaction corresponding to V, kips
Shear to be resisted by the brace, kips
Shear from gravity loading, kips
Untactored design shear force in the link, kips
Shear capacity required to accommodate M , kips
Link shear strength V -- 0.55Fydt, kips
Shear force in a link from gravity load, kips
Lateral force at level x, kips
The total seismic dead load defined by Code, kips, or uniform total load applied to a beam
That portion of W which is assigned to level i, kips
Uniform dead load applied to a beam, klf
Uniform live load applied to a beam, klf
Seismic zone factor used in the lateral force formula
Plastic modulus of the flanges Zf -- (d-tf)btf, in.3
Strong axis plastic modulus, in.3
Lateral displacement (at top of structure unless noted otherwise), in.
Horizontal displacement at level i relative to the base due to applied lateral forces, in.
Horizontal displacement at level x relative to the level below due to applied lateral forces,
(story drift), in.
Link capacity excess factor
Rotation of the link relative to the brace, radians.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO
ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (EBFs)
1.1 Introduction
braces and columns can easily follow. Once preliminary
configurations and sizes are identified, it is anticipated
that the designer will have access to an elastic analysis
computer program to use in refining the analysis of the
building period, the base shear, the shear distribution
within the building, the elastic deflection of the structure
and the distribution of forces to the frame members.
EBFs address the desire for a laterally stiff framing system
with significant energy dissipation capability to accommo-
date large seismic forces (ref. 7). A typical EBF consists of
a beam, one or two braces, and columns. Its configuration
is similar to traditional braced frames with the exception
that at least one end of each brace must be eccentrically
connected to the frame. The eccentric connection intro-
duces bending and shear forces in the beam adjacent to
the brace. The short segment of the frame where these
forces are concentrated is the link.
EBF lateral stiffness is primarily a function of the ratio of
the link length to the beam length (ref. 8, p. 44). As the link
becomes shorter, the frame becomes stiffer, approaching
the stiffness of a concentric braced frame. As the link
becomes longer, the frame becomes more flexible ap-
proaching the stiffness of a moment frame.
The design of an EBF is based on creating a frame which
will remain essentially elastic outside a well defined link.
During extreme loading it is anticipated that the link will
deform inelastically with significant ductility and energy
dissipation. The code provisions are intended to ensure
that beams, braces, columns and their connections remain
elastic and that links remain stable. In a major earthquake,
permanent deformation and structural damage to the link
should be expected.
There are three major variables in the design of an EBF:
the bracing configuration, the link length, and the link
section properties. Once these have been selected and
validated the remaining aspects of the frame design can
follow with minimal impact on the configuration, link length
or link size.
1.2 Bracing Configuration
The selection of a bracing configuration is dependent
on many factors. These include the height to width
proportions of the bay and the size and location of
required open areas in the framing elevation. These
constraints may supersede structural optimization as
design criteria.
UBC 2211.10.2 requires at least one end of every brace
to frame into a link. There are many frame configura-
tions which meet this criterion.
1.3 Frame Proportions
In EBF design, the frame proportions are typically
chosen to promote the introduction of large shear
forces in the link. Shear yielding is extremely ductile
with a very high inelastic capacity. This, combined with
the benefits of stiff frames, make short lengths gener-
ally desirable.
P
L
INDICATES DRAG CONNECTION
Identifying a systematic procedure to evaluate the impact
of the major variables is essential to EBF design. It care is
not taken to understand their impact, the designer may
iterate through a myriad of possible combinations. The
strategy proposed in this guide is to:
1) Establish the design criteria.
2) Identify a bracing configuration.
3) Select a link length.
4) Choose an appropriate link section.
5) Design braces, columns and other
components of the frame.
EBF design, like most design problems, is an iterative
process. Most designers will make a preliminary configura-
tion, link length and link size selection based on approxi-
mations of the design shears. Reasonable estimates for
Figure 1.
Frame Proportions
Keeping the angle of the brace between 35 and 60, as
shown in Figure 1, is generally desirable. Angles
outside this range lead to awkward details at the brace-
to-beam and brace-to-column connections. In addition
to peculiar gusset plate configurations, it is difficult to
align actual members with their analytic work points.
Small angles can also result in an undesirably large
axial force component in the link beams (ref 9, p. 504)
For some frames, the connection of the brace at the
opposite end from the link is easier if a small eccentric-
ity is introduced. This eccentricity is acceptable if the
connection is designed to remain elastic at the factored
brace load.
i
3
Optimizing link design requires some flexibility in
selecting the link length and configuration. Accommo-
dating architectural features is generally easier in an
EBF than in a concentrically braced frame. Close
coordination between the architect and engineer is
necessary to optimize the structural performance with
the architectural requirements.
1.4 Link Length
The inelastic behavior of a link is significantly influenced
by its length. The shorter the link length, the greater the
influence of shear forces on the inelastic performance.
Shear yielding tends to happen uniformly along the link.
Shear yielding is very ductile with an inelastic capacity
considerably in excess of that predicted by the web
shear area, provided the web is adequately braced
against buckling (ref. 9, p. 499; ref. 10, p. 73).
Links usually behave as short beams subjected to
equal shear loads applied in opposite directions at the
link ends. With this type of loading, the momentat each
end is equal and in the same direction. The deformation
of the link is an S shape with a point of counterflexure
at midspan. The moment is equal to 1/2 the shear times
the length of the link.
e
v i I ! l ! l l j l l l l l l l l l ! l l l ! I l l l l l l J l v
SHEAR DIAGRAM
M O M E N T DIAGRAM
Figure 2.
Typical Link Loading
Link lengths generally behave as follows:
Ms
e < 1.3 assures shear behavior, recommended
upper limit for shear links (ref. 8, p. 46)
e < 1 . 6
e =2.0
link post - elastic deformation is
controlled by shear yielding.
UBC2211.10.4 rotation transition.
(ref. 11, p. 331, C709.4)
link behavior is theoretically balanced
between shear and flexural yielding
M
e < 2 . 0
$
M
S
e>3.0-
S
link behavior considered to be controlled
by shear for UBC 2211.10.3
(ref 11, p. 330, C709.3)
link post - elastic deformation is
controlled by flexural yielding.
UBC2211.10.4 rotation transition.
(ref. 11, p. 331, C709.4)
Note: Most of the research to date has been on link
lengths less than 1.6 MJV$. These links generally
behave well, exhibiting high ductility with good stability
in the hysteretic response.
The shorter a link length is, the greater the rotation of
the link will be. UBC 2211.10.4 sets limits on these
rotations. When these limits are exceeded, the lateral
deflection must be reduced or the link length increased.
For most designs, link lengths of approximately 1.3
M$/V$ work well (ref. 8, p. 46). This allows the designer
some flexibility to change member sizes and link
lengths during the design process and still remain
below the 1.6 MA/$ code cutoff for shear links. Keeping
link lengths near the upper limit of shear governed
behavior generally results in acceptable link rotation.
Selection of link length is often restricted by architec-
tural or other configuration restraints. In the absence of
restraints, preliminary link length estimates of 0.15L for
chevron configurations are reasonable.
The excellent ductility of shear yielding prompts most
designers to use shear links. When the minimum link
length is restricted, cover plates may be added to the
flanges to increase the flexural capacity and transform a
moment link into a shear link, or the link beam can be
fabricated as a built up section from plates. Plastic
deformation of the link will cause a discontinuity in the
deflection curvature of the beam. This is likely to
concentrate structural and non-structural damage
around the link.
4
1.5 Link Beam Selection
Link beams are typically selected to satisfy the mini-
mum web area required to resist the shear from an
eccentric brace. It is generally desirable to optimize the
link selected to meet but not exceed the required dtw.
Excess web area in the link will require oversizing other
components of the frame, as they are designed to
exceed the strength of the link.
Shear deformation in the link usually makes a modest
contribution to the elastic deformation of a frame.
Elastic deflection is dominated by the bending of the
beams and columns and by axial deformation of the
columns and braces. Inelastic deformation of the frame
is dominated by rotation of the link caused by its shear
deformation. Consequently, the link beams which
appear the stiffest in an elastic analysis do not neces-
sarily have the greatest ultimate shear capacity. The
elastic contribution of shear to lateral deflection is
tabulated for an example frame in Section 3.4, "Elastic
Analysis".
Generally the design of a link beam is optimized by
selecting a section with the minimum required shear
capacity and the maximum available bending capacity.
The most efficient link sections are usually the deepest
sections with the minimum required shear area which
comply with the compact web requirements of UBC
Chapter 22, Division IX, Table B5.1, and meet the
flange width-thickness ratio, b/2t, not exceeding 52//.
When the depth or flange size is restricted, the designer
may wish to select a section which complies with the
shear requirements and add cover plates to increase
the flexural capacity. Cover plates may also be used to
increase the flexural capacity and transform a bending
link into a shear link when non structural restrictions
prevent reducing the link length. The designer may
customize the section properties by selecting both the
web and flange sizes and detailing the link as a built up
section.
Thus, it is now recommended that the capacity of
the link beam should be based on a yield strength
of 50 ksi for A36. A572 Grade 50 and Dual Grade
Steels. Although the actual yield point may some-
what exceed 50 ksi, this has been accounted for in
the over-strength factors of 1.25 and 1.50 required
for the columns and braces, respectively, of the
EBF frame.
1.6 Link Beam Capacity
Since the link portion of the beam element is the "fuse"
that determines the strength of other elements, such as
the braces and columns, its capacity should be conser-
vatively determined based on the actual yield strength
of the material.
Based on current mill practices, the yield strength of
A36 material is approaching 50 ksi, and it will exceed
50 ksi if it is produced as a Dual Grade Steel meeting
both A36 and A572 Grade 50 requirements.
SECTION 2 2.1 Loads
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR A
7-STORY OFFICE BUILDING
The example building has been selected to resemble
the example previously used in "Seismic Design Prac-
tice for Steel Buildings" (ref. 5). The interior bay spacing
has been modified to provide height to span proportions
better suited for EBFs. All other design parameters have
been retained.
The building will be designed in accordance with the
1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code (ref. 2).
Seismic design is based on Chapter 16, Division III
essentially the same as the 1996 "Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements," of the Structural Engi-
neers Association of California (ref. 11 Chapter 1).
Design of steel members and connections is based on
Section 2211 & Chapter 22 of the 1994 UBC (ref. 2) &
Ref. 11.
The building is located in Seismic Zone No. 4. The
geotechnical engineer has determined that the soil
profile consists of a dense soil where the depth ex-
ceeds 200 feet.
The frame is to be structural steel. As shown in Figure 3,
it has Chevron eccentric braced frames in the N-S
direction on column lines 1 and 6. Chevron EBFs are
provided in the E-W direction, along column lines A and
D. Floors and roof are 3" metal deck with 3-1/4" light-
weight (110 pcf) concrete fill. Typical story height is 11'-6",
based on 8'-0" clear ceiling height.
In this example the EBFs are only one bay wide. This
concentrates the overturning moment in adjacent
columns resulting in extreme axial compression and
tension for the column and foundation design. While this
is convenient to illustrate the impact of shear link
capacity on the column design, it may not provide the
best building solution. Often overall economy is
achieved by spreading the overturning to the outside
columns. This reduces the overturning axial compres-
sion and tension in the columns. Unless there is a
basement or other significant load distribution mecha-
nism below grade, the foundations can get very large to
support a narrow frame with its correspondingly high
soil reactions.
Material specifications are:
Steel beams: ASTM A572 Grade 50, F = 50 ksi
Steel braces: ASTM A500 Grade B, F y= 46 ksi
Steel columns: ASTM A572 Grade 50, Fy = 50 ksi
High-strength bolts: ASTM A325
Welding electrodes: AWS E70XX
Roof Loading:
Roofing and insulation
Metal deck
Concrete fill
Steel framing and fireproofing
7.0 psf
3.0
44.0
5.0
8.0
Dead Load 67.0 psf
UBC 1605.1 20.0
Total Load 87.0 psf
Floor Loading:
Metal deck
Concrete fill
Partitions, UBC 1604.4
Note: The partition load could be
reduced to 10 psf for lateral
analysis, UBC 1628.1
Steel framing, incl. beams,
girders, columns, and
spray-on fireproofing
3.0 psf
44.0
5.0
20.0
13.0
Dead Load 85.0 psf
Live load (reducible)
UBC 1604.1 50.0
Total Load 135.0
Curtain wall:
Average weight 15.0 psf
2.2 Base Shear Coefficient
v=
W
C= 1.25S
T2/3
UBC (28-1)
UBC (28-2)
Z = 0.4 UBC Table 16-1
] = 1.0 UBC Table 16-K
Rw= 10.0 UBC Table 16-N
S = 1.2 UBC Table 16-J
V = 0 . 4 (1.0)C W=0.040CW
10
C, and therefore V, is a function of T, the fundamental
period of vibration. The building period must be esti-
mated before Vcan be calculated.
122' - 6
- 120' - 0
?
30 0 20 0 20'0 20' 0. 30' -0 N
EDGE OF
FLOOR SLAB
:;: : :
Cxl
.rBEAM
B R A C E S I / %11, , 1
CENTER OF
MASS &. IGIDITY I r
JL
.BRACES r Ir
: : I,I : : . . . . . . . : : I I r
Q-
1' -3"
c) 6 6
INDICATES E.B.F.
-- INDICATES METAL DECK SPAN
( )
Note:
For elevation of bracing,
see Figure 4.
F i g u r e 3.
F r a m i n g Plan
The UBC recognizes two methods for determining T.
Method A is based on the building height and the type
of lateral system. Method B requires an estimate of the
lateral load distribution and the corresponding deflec-
tions. Method B provides greater insight into the
behavior of the building and should be used at some
point during the design process. UBC 1628.2.2 limits
the fundamental period to 130% of that obtained from
Method A. With this limitation, the base shear lower
limit would be 84% of that obtained from Method A.
For most frames, the building period calculated by
Method B is significantly longer than from Method A.
Consequently, the 84% of the Method A base shear
lower limit often governs the strength design of frame
structures. This lower limit does not apply to deflection
governed structures per UBC 1628.8.3. Most Iow and
medium height buildings with shear link EBFs are
governed by strength. For tall structures, or EBFs with
moment links, drift control typically governs the design.
Both strength and deflection criteria must be
checked in all designs.
In this seven story shear link frame, strength will
probably govern the design. The base shear calculated
by Method B will probably be less than 84% of the base
shear calculated by Method A. Consequently, 84% of
the Method A base shear will be distributed in each
direction. Members will be sized for this shear. These
members will be used in an elastic computer analysis to
determine: the deflection of the frames, the relative
rigidity of the E-W frames, and the building period. This
information can then be used to refine the design shear
and corresponding frame sections if necessary.
2.3 Building Period and Coefficient C
Using Method A,
T = Ct (hn)
Ct = 0.030 for EBFs
h,= 83.0
T= 0.030(83.0) 4 = 0.825 seconds
Note: T > 0. 7, Ft , 0
C= 1.25(1.2) =1.71
(0.825)
Note: C < 2.75 .-. o.k.
C = 1.71 _ 0.171
Rw 10
C
Note: -=> 0.075 o.k.
Rw
Using Method B,
TMETHODe = 1.3 TMETHOOA
1.25 S
CMETHO06= (1.3T) 2/3
UBC (28-3)
UBC 1628.2.2
UBC 1628.4
UBC 1628.2.1
UBC 1628.2.1
(Maximum for Stress) per
UBC 1628.2.2
1.25 S
= 0 . 8 4 -
T2j3
= 0.84CMETHODA
Therefore the minimum base shear obtained by Method B
is 84% the base shear calculated by Method A.
For frame stress analysis use:
Value of C determined from Tof Method B
T= 1.3 x 0.825 = 1.073 seconds
CMET,OD6=(1.25) (1.2) = 1.43
(1.073) =3
Note: When the sizes of the braced frame members
have been determined, the period should be found
using Method B, UBC (28-5). For the assumed
strength criteria to be valid (CMETHOO8= 1.43):
TMethode Z 1.073 seconds assures that the design
base shear for stress will be governed by using
84% of the base shear resulting from calculating
the building period using Method A.
2.4 Design Base Shear and Vertical Distribution
(per Section 2.2)
(per Section 2.3)
V = 0.04CW
CMETHODB-- 1 .43 for stress calculations
V$RESS = 0.040 (1.43) W = 0.0572W
w. = (122.5x77.5)(.085)+ (400xl 1.5) (.015)
= 807+69 = 876 kips
= (122.5x77.5)(.067)+(400x(11 5/2+3.0))(.015)
= 636+52 = 688 kips
W = 6(876)+688 = 5,940 kips (total dead load)
VSTRESS = 0.0572W = 340 kips
The total lateral force is distributed over the height of the
building in accordance with UBC Formulas (28-6),(28-7)
and (28-8).
V= Ft + Fi UBC (28-6)
/=-1
t = = 2.6 kips UBC (28-7)
Ft) Wx hx
n
Zwi hi
/=-1
UBC (28-8)
The distribution of lateral forces over the height of the
building is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Distribution of Lateral Forces
STRESS
hx Wx Wxhx wxhx Fx (1) Vx(1)
Level ft. kips xl0-2 Zwi hi kips kips
R 83.0 688 571 0.203 64+26(2) m
=90
71.5 876 626 0.222 70 90
60.0 876 526 0.187 59 160
5 48.5 876 425 0.151 47 219
4 37.0 876 324 0.115 36 266
3 25.5 876 223 0.079 25 302
2 14.0 876 123 0.043 13 327
I . . . . . 340
Z m 2,818 1.000 340
(1) Forces or shears for use in stress calculations
(min V= 84% from Method A).
(2) At roof, Fx = (Ft + F )
It is assumed that wind loading is not critical for lateral
forces in this design example. If wind did control the
design of the frame, it would be necessary to recalcu-
late both the period and the earthquake forces based
on the stiffness requirements of the frame to resist
wind. Allowable wind drift is usually taken = 0.0025
times the story height.
2.5 Horizontal Distribution of Seismic Forces
Although the centers of mass and rigidity coincide, UBC
1628.5 requires designing for a minimum torsional eccen-
tricity, e, equal to 5% of the building dimension perpendicu-
lar to the direction of force regardless of the relative location
of the centers of mass and rigidity. To account for this
eccentricity, many designers add 5 to 10% to the design
shear in each frame and proceed with the analysis. For this
example, numerical application of the code provisions will
be followed.
eew = (0.05)(75) = 3.75 ff.
ens = (0.05)(120) = 6.00 ft.
Shear distributions in the E-W direction:
All four EBFs will resist this torsion.
Assume that all the frames have the same rigidity since all
are EBFs. This assumption can be refined in a subsequent
analysis, after members have been sized and an elastic
deflection analysis has been completed.
R , = R 6 = R A = R o = I . 0
1
VA'x=V'x=RA [ X R,.w+- Z Ry(d)2.1
where
e = Torsional eccentricity
Vx= V6x=R [ V (Vxe)(d) ]
Vox
' ' Z Z R(d) 2
Z R,,_s = 2(1.00) = 2.0
Z Ryd2 = 2(1.00) (37.5)2+2(1.00) (60.00)2= 10,012
[ 5 jv x6 oo)( o o)1
V,., =1.00 L2.00- : 1 0 , J= ' 036Vx
= 0.536 x
TABLE 2
Frame Forces
East - West North-South
EBF A & D (0.514 Fx) EBF 1 & 6 (0.536 Fx)
STRESS STRESS
F, I/, F, V,
LEVEL kips kips kips kips
R 46 -- 48
7 36 46 38 41
6 30 82 32 86
5 24 112 25 118
4 19 136 19 143
3 13 155 13 162
2 7 168 7 175
I -- 175 -- 182
; 175 -- 182
UBC 1631.2.9 specifies the diaphragm design loads.
These are shown in Table 3.
d
=
R _-
Y
v=
x =
ZRe.w
Distance from frame to center of rigidity
Rigidity of those frames extending
in the east west direction
Rigidity of a frame, referenced to column
line y which is a perpendicular distance
d from the center of rigidity
Total earthquake shear on building at
story x
Earthquake shear on an EBF referenced
to that frame on column line y at story x
= 2(1.00)= 2 0
TABLE 3
Diaphragm Design Loads
, 0.3523' 0.75ZI
wi Zwi I fi zfi Wpx(1)J I/x(2) Fpx(3) Wpx(4)
Lvl kips ki ps Iki ps ki ps kips kips kips kips
R 688 688 90 90 688 96 90.0 206
7 876 17564 70 160 876 123 89.6 263
6 876 2.440 59 219 876 123 78.6 263
5 876 3.316 47 266 876 123 70.3 263
4 876 4.192 36 302 876 123 63.1 263
3 876 5.068 25 327 876 123 56.5 263
2 876 5.944 13 340 876 123 50.1 263
T. 5,944 340
(1) Wp, the weight of the diaphragm and tributary
elements, is taken as the roof or floor weight, w,.
ZR d2
Y
vA, x
= 2 + 2(1.00)(60.00) 2 : 1 0,01 2
:1.00 [2 Vx (Vx x 3'75) 1
.00-' 10-2 J = '14Vx
= 0.514v x
Shear distribution for north-south direction:
(2) Minimum allowed diaphragm design load.
UBC 1631.2.9
(3) Diaphragm design load.
/ F= w UBC 1631.2.9 (31-1)
(4) Maximum required diaphragm design load.
UBC 1631.2.9
SECTION 3
CHEVRON CONFIGURATION / BEAM
SHEAR LINK, EAST-WEST FRAME
3.1 Introduction
As indicated in Figure 4, the frame geometry and the
lateral loads from Table 2 are sufficient to begin sizing the
EBF members. It is not necessary to include the effect of
gravity loads on beams and columns or to perform an
elastic analysis before a reasonable estimate of the
member sizes can be made. The designer may proceed
directly to Section 3.6, "Link Size", and begin by sizing the
top link in the frame and proceed down to the foundation.
To illustrate a design procedure which accounts for the
influence of gravity load on the lateral system, the ex-
ample will proceed by analyzing the suitability of these
members at the first story, including second floor link
beam, as indicated in Figure 4.
The frame member sizes shown in Figure 4 are the result
of several design iterations using computer analysis.
3.2 Beam Gravity Loads
The beam does not need to be designed to support
gravity loads presuming that the bracing does not exist, as
required for chevron bracing in a concentric braced frame.
In EBFs which do not have transverse purlins framing into
the beams, the influence of gravity load on the beam
selection is usually not significant. Occasionally, the
designer may wish to combine stress from these loads
with the shear and bending stress resulting from the
application of lateral load to the frame.
In Figure 5 the second level floor beam between grids 3
and 4 on grid line A or D is modeled. The section proper-
ties and link length shown in Figure 4 are used. To
simplify the analysis the beam is assumed to have pinned
ends.
For the second floor beam:
Wd = (2-+1.25) (0.085) (1)
+ ( 11' 5; 14' 0) ( 0. 015)
W=
= 0.425 tributary floor
= 0.192 tributary cladding
0.616 klf
= 0.250
0.866 klf (total load)
(1) 0.085 psf includes the estimated weight of girders and
columns and is slightly conservative.
w f
=., 20"0 ,,
23.0k, ,. W12 X 50 .. R 23.0,
18.0k, 7 18.
co
15.0k, L W12 6 15.0,
CD
X
12.0k- _/ W14 !5 12'0,k o,
'" - +/ x 6 8 o " - (o
9.5k , W14 4 9.5,, ? _
6.5k /_ W14 3 6.5k, ry'--
co
3-5k ,..- /- W14 x 68 - 2
e=36" T Y P o
I I
INDICATES DRAG CONNECTION
Figure 4
EBF Elevation and Lateral Loads
lO
( w=0.866 klf (
L [ l l L L L L L L L L i L l l L L l i i l L l l l l l i l l [ l l l l l l l l L
A A
l-' 'qs'- I.
o/ o/
/
slllh
4.31 kips
SHEAR DIAGRAM
64.6 inchkips
W
64.1 inch kips
MOMENT DIAGRAM
W14 x 68
e = 36 inches
A = 20.0 in.2
] = 723.0in. 4
Figure 5
Beam Gravity Loads
11
3.3 Column Gravity Loads
Frame columns must be designed to support the critical
combination of dead, live, wind and seismic forces. The
gravity load tributary to each column can be tabulated for
use in the column design. However the column forces due
to seismic loads will depend on the strength of the EBF
link and cannot be identified until a specific link length and
section are chosen.
Table 4 summarizes the gravity loads associated with the
vertical frame members for EBFs on grids A & D as shown
on Figure 4.
For gravity loading, assume cladding is vertically sup-
ported at each level.
TABLE4
Gravity Column Loads for EBFs on A and D
Ftoo? Clad
Trib. Trib. d i n g (8)
Area Area (1) DL DL LL ED EL E(D+L'
Level sq. ft. sq. ft. %R kips kips kips kips kips kips
(3) 67 (4) 20
psf psf
R 250 16.8 2.6 5.0
85 (5) 5o (6)
psf psf
7 250 250 0.92 21.2 3.5 t 2. 5 19.4 0.0 19.4
6 250 500 0.92 21.2 3.5 12.5 44.1 12.5 55.6
5 250 750 0.72 21.2 3.5 12.5 68,8 25.0 86.8
4 250 1,000 0.52, 21.2 3.5 12.5 93.5 37.5 113.0
3 250 1,250 0.401 21.2 3.5 12.5' 118.2 50.0 138.2
(7)
2 250 1,500 0.40 21.2 3.8 12.5 142.9 62.5 167.9
1 1,750 0.40 167.9 75.0 197.9
(1) Reduction factor equal to 1.0 minus (R/100) where
R is defined by UBC 1606
(2) Live load reduced by %R
(3) 20 ( +1.25)
(4) 15 psf x 20 (3 + 11.5/2)
(5) 15 psf x 20 (11.5)
(6) Roof live load does not need to be combined with
seismic load, UBC 1631.1
(7) 15 psf x 20(11.5 + 14.0)/2
(8) Floor live load not reduced
3.4 Elastic Analysis of Frame
An elastic analysis of the EBFs' lateral deflection is
necessary to check for conformance with drift limits,
link beam rotation limits and to estimate the building
period by Method B. The analysis must account for
deflection caused by fiexural rotation of the frame and
by axial deformation of the columns and braces. Elastic
shear deformation of the beams and links should also
be included. Most designers use a 2-D elastic plane
frame computer analysis. The effect of shear deforma-
tion on the frame displacement depends on the size
and the length of beams and links. See Table 4A for
effect of shear deformation in this example which has
member sizes as shown in Figure 4.
With Shear Deformation WithoutShear Deformation:
Total Story Total Story Ratio
Level 8i 6x .8x' 6x' of
in. in. m. in. 6x' to 8x
R 1.978 0.254 1.713 0.238 0.94
7 1.724 0.309 1 . 4 7 6 0.281 0.91
6 1.415 0.337 1 . 1 9 5 0. 301 0.89
5 1.078 0.293 0.894 0.259 0.88
4 0.785 0.276 0.636 0.237 0.86
3 0.509 0.238 0.399 0.196 0.82
2 0.271 0. 271 0.203 0.203 0.75
TABLE 4A
Ef f ect of Shear Deformation On
F r a m e Displacement
TABLE 5
El ast i c A n a l y s i s S u m m a r y
Vx Total Story (1) (2). IL3)K IIJ:L3)K J'U4)K IIJL4)K S I Z E & e
Level kips 5/ 5x PI.INK PeEA,,
i n. i n. kips kips kips i n. k i p s kips m. kil3s lb./ft. & inches
T
R 46 1.978 0.254 0 24. 6 28 496 0. 8 41 12 x 50
e=36
7 82 1.724 0.309 0 42. 3 47 846 1.3 64 12 x 50
e= 36
6 112 1.415 0.337 0 55. 9 62 1,122 1.3 64 12 x 50
e= 36
5 136 1.078 0.293 0 69. 9 79 1,426 1.3 64 14 x 68
, e = 36
14 x68
4 155 0. 785 0. 276 0 78. 3 88 1,586 1.3 64 e = 36
i . i
14 x68
3 168 0. 509 0. 238 0 87. 7 98 1,768 1.3 64 e = 36
14 x68
2 175 0.271 0.271 0 90.1 122 2, 196 1.3 64 e = 36
, , , , ,
(1) PUNK= 0 when equal lateral loads are applied
on both sides of the frame.
(2) Axial load due to applied lateral load.
(3) Li nk reactions due to applied lateral load.
(4) Li nk reactions due to applied vertical load.
TABLE 6
Values Used To Determi ne The Bui l di ng P e r i o d
i i i
I
Level kips kips ' , h/
R 68 7 90 1.978 2r688 178.0
7 874 70 1 . 7 2 4 2r598 120.7
6 874 59 1 . 4 1 5 lr750 83.5
5 874 47 1 . 0 7 8 1,016 50.7
4 874 36 0.785 539 28.3
3 874 25 0.509 226 12.7
2 874 13 0.271 64 3.5
5,931 340 8,881 477.4
Table 5 summarizes the results of a 2-D elastic plane
frame from computer analysis for the configuration
shown in Figure 4. For this example, the lateral load
shown in Figure 4 was equally applied to both sides of
the frame. The tabulated axial load in the link, Pu~Kand
the tabulated axial load in the beam, PsM. reflect this
distribution. The beam gravity shear, VvERTand bending
moment, MvEmr are included in the table although they
were not included in the deflection analysis.
The results of the elastic analysis can be used to
estimate the building period using Method B. See Table
6.
T : 2 /42 UBC(28-5)
T=2/8,881/(386. * 477.4) = 1.38 seconds
Note T> 1.073 seconds which confirm the assumption
that TMETHODe = 1.3 TMETHODA was valid for the stress
design of this frame. If deflection (drift) governs the
design, UBC 1628.8.3 allows the base shear to be
reduced by using the building period determined above
where T = 1.38 seconds.
12
3.5 Defl ecti on Check of Frame
UBC 1628.8.2 limits the elastic story drift under design
lateral loads. For buildings having a period over 0.7 seconds:
5 < 0.03h = 0.003h<0.004h UBC 1628.8.2
x Rw
Checking the deflection for the second floor relative to
the first floor:
< O.03h =0 03 (14)(12) = 0.504 in. > 0.271 in.
Rw ' 10
Checking the deflection for the upper stories:
x < 0.03 h = 0.03 (11.5)(12) = 0.414 in. > 0.337 in.
Rw 10
Thus, per Table 5 all floors are o.k.
3.6 Link Size
As shown in Figure 6, the link design shear from lateral
load can be determined independently of the link
length, bracing configuration, section properties or the
elastic analysis shown in Table 5.
P--Fx(h/ l . ) I P=-Fx(h/ l . )
'"'PCohJmn Above ! :!:Pc41umn *lxwe
. I ,
r L
Figure 6.
Link Shear From Lateral Load
The unfactored seismic design loads for the EBF on
Grid A at the 2nd level are shown in Figure 7.
? ,.0ki
LEVEL 2 d
[
1
Figure 7.
Unfactored Seismic Design Loads
The link design shear from gravity load is usually not
significant. The gravity shear is shown in Figure 5
and is included in this example. Taking moments about
Point A of Figure 7, it can be shows that:
14
Vi: Fx <---1 +VvER-r= (7 +84+84)[01+ 1.3
= 123.8 kips
This corresponds very closely to the elastic analysis per
Table 5.
UBC 2211.10.5 limits the web shear to 0.8 s
The requirement that the link beam web shear not exceed
.80 of the shear strength is a conversion to an allowable
stress approach for the design of link (ref. 11, p. 332 C709.5).
V < 0.80Vs = 0.80(0.55)Fdt
Fy = 50 ksi
123.8
dtwm" = 0.80(0.55)(50)
= 5.63 in?
The most efficient link section usually:
UBC 2211.10.5
UBC 2211.4.2
1) Optimizes the required shear area
(min dtw);
2) Is the deepest possible while complying
with the compact web criteria (max _d)
t
3) Has compact flanges with sufficient
bending capacity to ensure shear failure
of the section under ultimate load
(recommended e max = 1.3 Ms)
v
TryW 14x68
r = 6.01 in. d t = 5.83 in.2
r = 2.46 in. bf = 10.035in.
= 20.0 in.2 Af = 7.23 in.2
Sx = 103.0 in.3
Zx= 115.0in.3 Zf = 96.3in2
Notes:
1) The provided dtw is only 5% greater than the mini-
mum required in this example. Thus, it is a very
efficient design. The section was chosen in order
that the axial and flexural requirements discussed in
Sections 3.12, "Combined Link Loads" and 3.15,
"Beam Analysis," are also satisfied, as well as the
requirements for compact web and flanges.
2) The adverse consequences of any excess shear
capacity are shown in Sections 3.12, "Combined
Link Loads"; 3.15, "Beam Analysis"; 3.17, "Brace
Analysis"; 3.18, "Column Analysis"; 3.19, "Founda-
tion Design"; 3.21, "Beam Lateral Buckling"; 3.22,
"Brace to Beam Connection"; and 3.23, "Brace to
Column and Beam Connection".
13
The web compactness criterion is dependent on the
axial stress in the section which is unknown until a trial
selection is made. Built-up sections can be fabricated to
optimize the link beam section properties. Excess
caoacitv in the link can be c0stlv as other elements
of the frame are sized to ensure that the link is the
weakest Dorti0n of the frame.
3.7 Li nk Shear Strength and Link Strength Factor
In order to assure that the link is the only inelastic
mechanism in an EBF, all components outside the link
are designed to have a strength greater than the link. If
excess link capacity is provided, the strength of all other
parts of the EBF must also be increased.
Vs = 0.55Fydtw = 0.55(50)(5.83) = 160.3 kips.
For strength checks all prescribed code loads will be
increased by , the link strength factor. This design load
shall be used for determining strength requirements for
other elements of the EBF
V 160.3
) = _ _
123.8
=1.29
From UBC 2211.10.5, u/~ = 1/0.80 = 1.25. Thus, the
selection of the W14x68 is a very efficient design.
The UBC does not require drag struts, diaphragms or
other lateral components beyond the EBF to be de-
signed for loads in excess of those attributed to these
components in the lateral analysis. SEAOC recom-
mends that collectors directly connecting to the EBF be
designed to provide sufficient strength to deliver the
forces corresponding to link beam yield (ref .11, p. 335
C709.17 & C709.19.
Recognizing that the lateral system has been selected
and analyzed on the presumption that yielding of the
link will be the method of energy dissipation, the author
recommends that the strength capacity of drag struts,
diaphragms and other lateral components exceed the
yield strength of the link.
3.8 Beam Compact Flange
Check compact flange criterion:
- 10.035 52
6.97 <Fv--.. = 7.36 UBC 2211.10.2
--2 -
Y
To meet this requirement, it sometimes may be prudent
to use a section built up from plate elements in order to
prevent local buckling.
3.9 Link Length
V = 0.55Fydt w = 0.55(50)(5.83) UBC 2211.4.2
= 160.3 kips
Ms = Z F= 115 (50) = 5,750 in. kips
Ms ('5750
e = 1.3 - = 1.3 ,16--6! = 46.6 in.
AWl4 X 68 with e = 0.15L-- 0.15 (20x 12) = 36" per
Section 1.4 will be a shear link unless the axial force in
the link is very large.
3.10 Beam and Link Axial Loads
In an EBF link, the axial force may reduce the flexural
link capacity. The link should be checked for the effect of
axial forces combined with bending forces. This combi-
nation could produce flange yielding before web shear
yielding.
To account for axial load in a link beam requires an
understanding of how the lateral forces travel through
the diaphragm, into the beam and into the braces. The
arrangement of braces and the direction from which
lateral loads are applied can modify the axial force
distribution in the link beams. Caution should be used
when taking these forces from a computer model. Most
computer programs which use rigid diaphragm assump-
tions do not model the axial force distribution in the
beams.
In a symmetrical chevron configuration EBF centered on
the building grid, symmetric drag struts would typically
collect the lateral loads as shown in Figure 8. In Figure
8, F is the sum of the lateral forces above the frame
being considered. Fx is the lateral force from the story
being considered.
T3rF;/2 [Fi/2
T /
Fx/ 2 _ V Fx/2 :
[ Fi / 2 + Fx/2
I I I I l l l l l l l } l l i i l l
T_,F/ =fi+
i=r+l JIG/2 + Fx/2
The influence of link length on the behavior of EBFs is
discussed in the introduction, Section 1.4. To assure
shear ductility, the link length will be limited to 1.3M
F i g u r e 8
Beam Axial Loads
14
The EBFs on grids A and D are located in the center of
the building. This example will assume that the drag
struts occur on both sides of the frame and that the
lateral force is applied to both sides of a symmetrically
braced frame as shown in Figure 8. For the 2nd floor
beam, TF=168 kips and Fx = 7 kips per the lateral load
distribution shown in Table 2. Fx/2 represents the
minimum diaphragm drag force. In this case the dia-
phragm design forces shown in Table 3 are greater than
the distributed lateral forces. Fx will be governed by the
minimum allowable diaphragm design load per Table 3.
Fx = 123/2 = 61.5 kips 2 EBFs per story
Fx/2 = 30.8 kips > 3.5 kips Use 30.8 kips
load. Axial force in a link reduces the moment capacity of
the section. Consequently, the link needs to be checked
for the possibility of the axial force reducing the moment
capacity and shifting the first yield from shear to flexure.
UBC 2211.1 0.3 requires that "where link beam
strength is governed by shear, the flexural and axial
capacities within the link shall be calculated using the
beam flanges only." The SEAOC commentary (ref. 11,
M
p. 330 C709.3) identities links with e < 2.0 Vs as being
s
governed by shear and subject to this requirement.
The second level link section will be checked using this
criteria.
As shown in Figure 8B, the axial load in the link=0.
3.11 Beam Compact Web
The maximum d ratio permitted for compact beam
-w
sections is dependent on the axial load in the beam.
Sections noted F '" in the AISC manual (ref.12) have
Y
compact webs for all combinations of axial stress when
the yield strength is less than the tabulated values.
If a beam section is chosen that does not have a compact
web for all axial loads, the section should be checked using
allowable stress design UBC Chapter 22, Division ]Z,
Table B5.1. The web should be compact along the full
length of the beam.
For the second level W14 x 68:
d 14.04= 33.8
tw 0.415
A = 20.0 in 2
f _ F,./2 + Fx/2 = 84.0 + 30.8
A 20.0
- 5.74 ksi
fa 5.74
F 5O.0
Y
- - - 0 . 1 1 <0.16
P = Pi, = ) Fl= 1.29(0) = 0 kips
M =Mtu=V/e _ 1.29(123.8)36 _ 2,875 in. kips
2 2
W14 x 68 Fy = 50.0 ksi
Al= b/f
= (10.035)(0.72)
= 7.23 in?
Zf= (d- tf)bft,
= (14.04-0.72)(10.035)(0.72)
= 96.3 in?
P M 0 2875
2A + Z-f = 2(7.23 + 96--.3 = 29.9 ksi < o. k.
This provision of the UBC dedicates the web to shear
loads and the flanges to axial and flexural loads. This
simplifies the analysis of the link. The intent of this
provision is to ensure adequate flexural strength at full
shear yielding of the link.
Failure to meet this criteria would indicate that flexural
yielding could occur before shear yielding and that an
alternate section with greater flexural capacity should
be selected to provide a shear link.
3.13 Verification of Link Shear Strength and
Strength Factor
640 [1-3.74 (0.11)] = 53.3 > 33.8 o.k.
UBC 2211.10.5 does not allow doubler plates to reduce d
w
requirements for a link beam.
3.12 Combined Link Loads
The design of a shear link is based on having sufficient
flexural strength to ensure shear failure under ultimate
Returning to the UBC, the strength of the link is used to
establish the minimum strength required of elements
outside the link. The link shear strength, Vs, was deter-
mined in Section 3.7, "Link Shear Strength and Link
Strength Factor." The shear in the link when the section
has reached flexural capacity may be less then the
shear strength of the section. If this is true, the flexure
capacity of the section will limit the shear capacity of
the link. UBC 2211.1 0.3 requires that the flexural
capacity of the section reduced for axial stress be
considered as a possible upper limit of the link capacity
when the link beam strength is governed by shear.
15
Vs = 0.55Fydtw = 160.3 kips
Zx(F,- f) = z F, (s nce =o)
UBC 2211.4.2
= 115(50) = 5,750 in. kips UBC 2211.10.3
M, may limit the shear capacity of the link.
Vs= 2M,e = 2(. 365.750/. = 319.4 kips
VCONTROLLINGCAPACITY= min (Vs, V)
= min (160.3, 319.4) = 160.3 kips
Link strength factor = Vs _ 160.3
V/ 123.8
- - - 1.29
The shear capacity of this section is governed by the
shear strength of the web. It is not governed by the shear
which can be developed by the section reduced for the
axial load in the link acting in flexure over the length of the
link. Thus the link strength factor ) has been verified to be
= 1.29 per Section 3.7.
3.14 Beam Brace Spacing
UBC 2211.10.18 requires braces to top and bottom
flanges at the ends of the link beams. Braces may be
required beyond the link. If additional bracing is required, it
should be located to optimize the reduction in axial
buckling length of the beam. Check to see if braces are
required outside the link.
UNBRACEDMAX: 76b--L - 108 in. UBC 2211.10.18
The length of the beam outside the link is 102 inches. No
additional bracing is required. (Additional bracing is
required for W12 x 50 beams at the 6th, 7th and roof
levels.)
3.15 Beam Analysis
Beyond the link, the beam must have sufficient capacity to
resist 1.5 times the combined axial and flexural loads
corresponding to the link beam strength per UBC 2211.10.13.
For axial load is the beam for code seismic loads, see
Section 3.10.
Pbu: 1.5 ) (ZFJ2 + Fx/2) = 1.5(1.29)(84.0+30.8) = 222 kips
M - 1.5 fi)V/e_1.5Vse 1.5(160.3)(36) = 4,328 in. kips
2 2 2
The beam design moment beyond the link may be deter-
mined from an elastic analysis of the frame. If this is done:
Mbu= 1.5Mbe where Mbe is from an elastic analysis.
Although not significant in this example, the beam
gravity moment, as shown in Figure 5, may be
included in Mm.
Check the 102 inch unbraced beam segment outside of
the link using the plastic design criteria (UBC Chapter
22, Division IX, Chapter N, ref. 2).
For W14 x 68:
kl _ 102 _
- 2.46- 41.5
Fay= 25.55 ksi
Fe'v= 84.65 ksi
102 = 17
rx 6.01
Fax= 28.61 ksi
Fe'x = 517 ksi
Pr = 1.7FA = 1.7(25.55)(20.0)= 868.7 kips
P = 1 F A :1 (84.65)(20.0)= 3,245 kips
Py = FyA = 50 (20)= 1,000 kips
M = Mp= F Z = (50)(115)= 5,750 in. kips
c : 0.85
P + C,,M _ 22__2 0.85(4,328)
- - 5,750
= 0.94 < 1.0 .'. o. k. UBC (N4-2)
P + M 222 4,328
Py 1. 18 - 1,00 + 1.18(5,750) - 0.22 +0.64
= 0.86 < 1.0 .'. o.k. UBC (N4-3)
W14x68 o.k.
The beam typically carries large axial load. This tends
to buckle the beam in a non-ductile manner. The
presence of a concrete slab provides a significant
stabilizing contribution to the beam. Conservative
design of the beam, particularly in elevator cores or
other locations where a slab or other bracing is re-
stricted, is advised.
3.16 Link Rotation
Ductile behavior of an EBF requires inelastic deforma-
tion of the link. This deformation causes the link to
rotate. UBC 2211.10.4 imposes upper bounds on the
link rotation to limit the ductility demand on the frame.
To estimate the EBFs' deformation during a major
seismic event, the elastic deflections resulting from the
applied code lateral loads are factored up by ,m__.
I:J
16
Under this extreme load, plastic hinges are assumed to
have formed in the link. Consequently, the EBF may be
modeled as a rigid body with pivot points at the link and
an imposed deformation. The link rotation can be
determined from the lateral deflection and the frame
geometry.
Consider the general chevron configuration EBF shown
in Figure 9A, where e = rotation of the link realtive to
the rest of the beam.
e, e2-(5
(5, = e,a1 (52= 82a2
8 & + (5a + (5a2
=' - h2e
For the symmetric chevron configuration shown in
Figure 9B:
a1 = a2 h = h2
/ I , I I \ ' , ;
,[ c !
A
$ , Plastic hinges
/ / 1 1 X, I: 1 \
!
B
Figure 9
Link Rotation
For the second level frame:
(5= design drift for the EBF.
3Rw -
(5= '--x
(sx= elastic deformation due to
the seismic design load.
(5x= 0.271 from the elastic analysis of
this frame (Table 5).
(5= 3(101
(8)' (0,271) = 1.016 in.
e = + , l = 1.016 I1 s
14(12) + 36 J
e = 0.0403 < 84x = 0.060 radians ... o.k. UBC 2211.10.4.1
The maximum allowable link rotation can also be used
to determine the minimum allowable link length.
(5 2a
+
(5 L Rw , l rL / 3(10)(0.271) (20) =24.2i n.
eM/~=h- L - - h Jl,et,x ) = (8) (14) (0.060)
As noted in the introduction, longer links will reduce
damage to the floor structure. However, longer links will
result in increased drift under lateral load.
3.17 Brace Analysis
To ensure that the strength of the brace exceeds the link
strength, UBC 2211.10.13 requires "each brace to have a
compressive strength of at least 1.5 times the axial force
corresponding to the controlling link beam strength." The
link beam strength is determined from V, or Vs. In this
frame V, is smaller and governs the brace design as
shown in Section 3.13.
The brace design force can be determined knowing V
and the frame geometry as shown in Figure 10:
Vb,, the beam shear force to be resisted by the brace,
includes a component from both the link and from the
beam outside the link as shown in Figure 11.
1.5(v + Vs)
V = 160.3 kips
Vse 160.3(36)
M- 2 - 2
-
= 2,885 in. kips
Ms = 2,885 - 28.3 kips
(L - e)/2 (240- 36)/2
1.5(28.3+ 160.3) = 283 kips
17
Vbr I vbr
F i g u r e 10
Brace Shear Force
The braces support part of the beam gravity load.
Although the gravity load is a small portion of the brace
design load, it is included in this example.
Vg = shear from beam gravity loading (see Figure 5).
LF= 1.3 = plastic design load factor
Lbr
UBC Chapter 22,
Division Section N1
= 't' h2 = 8.52 -I- 142 = 16.38 feet
= Vbrl---'-l-{- V g [ - r l L m
= 283 L 1- J 5.61 L J1.3
= 331.1 + 8. 5 = 339.6 kips
The UBC does not require a moment connection
between the brace and the beam. If an analysis of the
frame is done assuming that this is a pinned connection
which includes gravity loads, the most critical bending
moment to unbraced length combination may occur
outside the link. This could be contrary to the design
strategy of concentrating the critical stresses in the link.
In practice, the connection between the brace and the
link is typically capable of transferring moment from the
beam to the brace (ref. 9, p. 500). This capacity is
advantageous in keeping the critical stress location
within the link.
If a computer analysis is used to model the frame, this
connection should be assumed fixed. For preliminary
sizing it is reasonable to assume that the brace is
pinned and increase the design axial load 15-20% to
account for the bending effects.
b ! l l i l i l ] ! i l l l ! l l l l
L ( L - e ) / 2 ] ,
1 '
i i i i i i i i i I i I i i i i i i V b
et. "L ( t . - e ) / 2 !
BEAM SHEAR DIAGRAM
BEAM BENDI NG DIAGRAM
( L - e ) / 2 ,
f r
(L-e)/ 2
VD
V == Ma
b (L_e)/2
BRACE VERTI CAL COMPONENTS
BEAM
BENDING
DIAGRAM
F i g u r e 11
Brace Vertical Force Components
18
The moment distribution resulting from an elastic
computer analysis of the frame in this example is
shown in Figure 12.
Brace
in. kips
256 in. kips
1751 in. kips'
2196 in. kips
w 14 x68
,O
m Figure 12.
Moment Distribution Between the Beam and Brace
For this example the elastic computer analysis com-
pression and moment on the brace will be used and
scaled by q), the link strength factor, to keep the brace
design consistent with capacity sizing.
The elastic computer analysis includes the effect of
fixity between the beam and the column. It also ac-
counts for the fixity between the beam and the brace.
The elastic computer analysis did not include the gravity
loading. The factored compression in the brace, due to
lateral load, by the hand analysis is 331 kips. This
compares very well with the factored compression
brace load of 326 kips from the computer analysis.
P= 1.5)PELAST/C = 1.5(1.29)(168.4) = 326 kips
M=1.54)MELaSTtC= 1.5(1.29)(445) = 861 in. kips
Check the TSlOxlOxl/2 F = 46 ksi
Y
(Use plastic design A = 18.4 in?
criteria) Z= 64.6 in.3
r = 3.84 in.
kl = 16.38(12) = 51
r 3.84
F = 22.6 ksi
F; = 57.9 ksi
P = 1.7FA = 1.7(22.6)(18.4)= 707 kips
= 2,042 kips
P = FyA = 46(18.4)= 846 kips
= Mp= FvZ= 46(64.6)= 2,972 in. kips
cm=0.85
P CmM 326 0.85(861)
2,042) . . . .
= 0.75 < 1.0 ... o.k. UBC (N4-2)
P M 326 861
- - -[- _ - -
Py 1.18Mp 846 + 1.18(2,972)
=0.63<1.0 ... o.k. UBC (N4-3)
TS 10x10xl/2 o.k. (Could be reduced)
3.18 Column Analysis
UBC 2211.10.14 requires columns to remain elastic
with all of the EBF links in a bay at 1.25 times their
strength. Each link beam strength, should be deter-
mined from Vsor V as appropriate. In this example,
Vs governs as shown in Section 3.13.
R VR = 0.55Fydtw
v.
7 V7 = 0.55Fydt
2
5
4
I / v, xl
Vs = 0.55Fydt
V5 = 0.55Fydt
V4 = 0.55Fydt,,
V3 = 0.55Fydtw
V2 = 0.55Fydtw
Figure 13
Shear Capacity of the Links
19
The controlling link strengths for the column design are
shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7
Controlling Link Strengths
Check the Wl 4xl 59
Use plastic design criteria per UBC Chapter 22, Divi-
sion Chapter N.
Fy = 50 ksi
dtw Vs(1) ZVs
Level Link Size= in.2 kids kids
R W12x50 4.51 124 124
7 Wl 2x50 4.51 124 248
6 W12x50 4.51 124 372
5 Wl 4x68 5.83 160 532
4 W14x68 5.83 160 692
3 W14x68 5.83 160 852
2 W14x68 5.83 160 1 012
(') vs = 0.55 Fydtw
Pcu = 1.25 [iZ=nxmin (Vt, V)] + 1.3(Pu/+P,)
For the first level column:
R
Zmin (Vt, Vrs) = 1,012
i =2
Z D = 168 kips
Z (D+L) = 198 kips
Table 7
Table 4
Table 4
Pcu= 1.25(1,012) + 1.3(198) = 1,522 kips
In this frame the beam to column and brace to column
connections could be designed as pins per UBC
2211.10.19. If they are designed as fixed, the elastic
column moments should be scaled up and included in the
column design. As shown in Figure 12, they were modeled
as fixed. The moment in the column will be included in this
example.
Mcu= 1.25 Me
Mc, = ultimate design moment in the column
q) = l i nk strength factor
M = moment in the column from an elastic
analysis of the design seismic forces
Mcu= 1.25 (1.29 x 256) = 413 in. kips
The column is oriented for strong axis bending of the EBF.
If the column is subjected to minor axis bending, from
girders or other asymmetric loads, the minor axis bending
must be included in the combined compression and
bending interaction checks. Minor axis bending has been
omitted in this example.
A = 46.7 in. 2
Zy = 287 in.3
ry = 4.00 in.
kl = 1.0(14)(12) =42
ry 4.00
Note: k = 1.0 is conservative for columns braced
against translation with some degree of rotational
restraint provided by the foundation anchorage and the
second floor beams. Although the stiffness of a shear
link EBF is slightly less than a CBF, k= 1.0 is a reason-
able assumption for most EBF frames.
F = 25.55 ksi
F = 84.65 ksi
Pc,: 1.7FAA: 1.7(25.55)(46.7) = 2,028 kips
= 7,577 kips
Py= Fy,a,= 50(46.7)= 2,335 kips
Mm= Mp= FyZ= 50(287) = 14,350 in. kips
Cm=0.85
P Cr,M 1 , 5 2 2 0.85(413)
+ +
1 P 2,028 1.522
= 0.78 < 1.0 .'. o.k. UBC (N4-2)
P M 1,522 413
+ _ _ - +
P 1.18% 2,335 1.18(14,350)
= 0.68 < 1.0 ... o.k. UBC (N4-2)
W14x159 o.k. (Could be reduced)
The intention of UBC 2211.1 0.14 is to ensure that the
columns do not fail prior to the full utilization of the
energy dissipation capacity of the link. Consequently, it
a link is designed with more capacity than required, all
of the columns below the link will need to have a
corresponding excess capacity. UBC 2211.5.1 provides
an upper limit to the column strength requirement.
Columns may be designed for a maximum compression
or the lesser of:
20
PMAX= I .25 mi n(V,, V + 1.3 (Pdt+ P//)
or
PMAX=I-.-wlPE + I .OPd, + 0.7P,
and for a maximum uplift of the lesser of:
PM~ = t. 25 min(Vs, Vr - 0.85Pd
or
=rORwlP - o.85 ,
L8J
3.19 Foundation Design
The design of the foundation requires a review of the
structural objective of the foundation. Designers should
consider the ductility of the foundation in relation to the
ductility of the superstructure. Brittle foundation systems
should be designed to higher loads than ductile or flexible
foundations. The foundation design forces should consider
the capacity of the superstructure to transmit force. Two
approaches to the foundation design will be presented
The first and most prevalent approach is to design the
foundations for the code required dead load, live load,
seismic overturning and seismic sliding forces. When this
approach is followed, it is probable that the reactions from
the columns into the foundation will be significantly less
than the column capacities. UBC 1809.3 requires the
connection of the superstructure elements to the founda-
tion be capable of transmitting the forces for which the
elements were designed. If the foundation design is based
on less force than the column design, the capacity of the
connection between the column and the foundation should
exceed the actual foundation capacity. This will ensure that
a frame overload would occur in the soil structure interface
and not within the confines of the structure. If this ap-
proach is followed, the designer must realize that the links
may not yield prior to the foundation reaching its design
strength. If the links do not yield, the frame will behave like
a concentrically braced frame. This behavior is inconsis-
tent with the assumed Rw.
The second approach (although not required by the UBC)
is to design the foundation to exceed the capacity of the
superstructure. In this approach the design objective is to
ensure that any failure of structural components occurs in
the ductile frame. The foundations must be capable of
transmitting the factored column capacity design loads to
the soil. in this approach the foundation must be designed
for a maximum compression of the lesser of:
PMAX= 1.25 min(Vs, Vt, + 1.3 (Pdt+ Ptt)
or
and for a maximum uplift of the lesser of:
PMt~= 1.25 rain(V,, - 0.85Pdt
or
=I_3RwlPE- o.85 ,,
I,- j
If this approach is used, base plates and anchor bolts
should be sized such that their strength as defined by
UBC 2211.4.2 and 1925.2, respectively, exceeds the
maximum combined axial and shear loads. Anchor bolts
should be embedded sufficiently to develop their
combined shear and tensile strength. Embedding the
column in the foundation may be the most practical way
to do this for large loads. Concrete elements of the
foundation may be designed using the above as ulti-
mate loads with no additional load factors.
A qualified geotechnical engineer should be encour-
aged to provide ultimate soil capacity design values for
use with the above. The allowable soil capacities with a
one-third increase should also be checked against the
code applied lateral forces per UBC 1809.2.
3.20 Beam Stiffeners
Beam stiffeners are used to prevent buckling of the web
and ensure a ductile shear yielding of the web. Stiffen-
ers are required at each end of the link and at regular
intervals within the link.
(- of Symmetry
e (Unk.lLengt, INTERMEDIATESTIFFENERS
/
/
i x , r
/ Fi gure 14. .,%."
/ Link St i f f eners '
UBC 2211.10.7 requires full depth web stiffeners on both
sides of the beam web at the brace end of the link beam.
For the W14 x 68:
Min. combined width > bf - 2tw UBC 2211.10.7
2b > 10.035 - 2(0.415) -- 9.2 in.
Min. thickness 0.75tw or 3/8 in. UBC 2211.10.7
t > 0.75(0.415) = 0.31 in.
Use 43/4'' x 3/8" stiffeners each side.
UBC 2211.10.8 requires intermediate full depth web
stiffeners when the beam strength is controlled by V or
when the shear from M, exceeds 0.45Fydtw. Therefore,
intermediate stiffeners are required for this link. UBC
2211.10.9 identifies the spacing limits as a function of
the link rotation. For rotations of less than 0.03 radians,
the maximum spacing is 56tw- d. For link beams with
21
rotation angle of 0.06 radians, the spacing shall not
exceed 38 tw - d/5. Interpolation may be used for
rotation angles between 0.03 and 0.06 radians.
56tw - d
56 x (0.415) 14.04
5
20.4"
e < 0.03 radians
Maximum Spacing =
=
=
e = 0.06 radians
d
Maximum Spacing = 38tw-
= 38 x (0.415) 14.04
5
=13"
e = 0.0403 radians (See Section 3.16)
Maximum Spacing = 13 + 20. 4- 13 (0.0103)
0.03
= 15.5"
For a 36" link, two intermediate stiffeners are required
UBC 2211.10.10 notes that for beams less than 24
inches in depth, intermediate stiffeners are required on
only one side of the web.
Min. width > (b/2) - tw UBC 2211.10.10
b > 10.035/2 - 0.415 = 4.6 in.
Min. thickness = 3/8 in. UBC 2211.10.10
Use 43/4'' X 3/8"stiffener on one side.
The link end and intermediate stiffeners are the same size
in this example.
UBC 2211.10.11 requires welds connecting the stiffener to
the web to develop AsrFy, and welds connecting the
stiffener to the flanges to develop AstFy/4.
At= 4.75(0.375) = 1.78 in.2
AstFy = 1.78(50) = 8.9 kips
Weld capacity = 1.7 Allowable UBC 2211.4.2
Use E70 electrodes, SMA fillet welds, Grade 50 base
metal.
Fw = 1.7(0.30)(70)(0.707) = 25.2 ksi
't,t, kl
, wol
A
A.F,
4
UBC Chapter 22,
Division TableJ2.5
Figure 15
Stiffener Weld Forces
Weld to Web:
Find the minimum weld size, "a," if the full available
length of the web is used.
AtFy in.
aWEB,MiN
w
1.78(50)
25.2(14.04 - 2(1.5))
= 0.32 in.
Check the minimum weld size for the base metal
thickness.
tw =0.415 in., aM/N=3/16 in. UBC Table J2.4
Use 3/8" full height fillet weld to beam web.
Weld to Flanges:
_ AstFy/4
aFLA~E, MI~ F ( b - k)
1.78(50)/4
=
25.2(4.75 - 15/16)
= 0.23 in.
Check, the minimum weld for the base metal thickness.
tt= 0.72 i n., a/~ = 1/4 in. UBC Table J2.4
Use 1/4" fillet weld to beam flange.
3.21 Beam Lateral Bracing
UBC 2211.10.18 requires the top and bottom flanges to
be braced at the ends of link beams and at specific
intervals. This requirement is independent of the EBF
configuration.
The UBC requires the bracing to resist 6.0% of the
beam flange strength at the ends of link beam. Thus, for
a W14x68 beam:
PBRACE = 0.060 Fy b, tf = 0.060(50) (10.035) (0.72)
= 21.7 kips
22
LI NKB
3
I i J/
LI dK
-' zq AT r E: ND
B
Figure 16.
Flange Bracing Options
, l
The top flange is continuously braced by the metal
deck. Figure 16 illustrates several options for bracing
the lower flange. Similar details are typically used to
brace the bottom flange of SMRFs per UBC 2211.7.8.
In Figure 16A the web stiffener is used to brace the
lower flange. The stiffener transfers the brace load to
the transverse purlin. The connection of the purlin to the
web stiffener must be designed to transmit the horizon-
tal shear of the brace load, the eccentric moment of the
brace load between the lower beam flange and the
purlin bolt group and the vertical shear from the gravity
load on the purlin. UBC 1603.5 allows a one-third
increase in the connection design capacity for the
seismically induced brace load.
In Figure 16B a pair of angles are used to transfer the
bracing load directly to the top flange of an adjacent
parallel beam.
Beam bracing is required to prevent the length of
76bf
unbraced portions of an EBF beam from exceeding .
A check for this condition was made, prior to the Vt-y
investigation of the influence of axial forces on the beam,
to identify the weak axis unbraced length of the beam. In
this example, beam bracing was not required outside the
link for the W14 x 68 beams. However, beam bracing is
required for the W12 x 50 beams. Their design is the
same as for the link end bracing except that the bracing
design force may be reduced. UBC 2211.10.18 requires
lateral bracing resist 1.0% of the beam flange force at
the brace point corresponding to 1.5 times the link
beam strength. Conservative design of braces is
recommended.
3.22 Brace to Beam Connection
UBC 2211.10.6 requires the connection to develop the
compressive strength of the brace and transmit this
force into the beam web. Extending the gusset plate or
other connection components into the link could signifi-
cantly alter the carefully selected section properties of
the link. Therefore, no part of the connection is permit-
ted to extend into the link length.
In this example, tube sections were used for the com-
pression struts. Figure 17A illustrates a common link to
brace detail. Tests have shown that this detail is suscep-
tible to failure by severe buckling of the gusset plate (ref.
9, p. 508). Connection 17B is modified to minimize the
distance from the end of the brace to the bottom of the
beam. Some designers prefer to continue the gusset
stiffener at the edge of the link along the diagonal edge
of the gusset plate parallel to the brace. The gusset
plate and the beam to gusset weld should be checked
for stress increases when the axis of the brace force
and the centroid of the weld do not coincide. The stress
at the fillet of the beam web should be checked to see if
a stiffener is required on the beam side of the brace to
beam connection.
The center line axes of the brace and the beam typically
intersect at the end of the link. This is not strictly
necessary and may be difficult to achieve for various
member size and intersection angle combinations.
Moving this work point inside the link, as shown in
Figure 17C, is acceptable (ref. 11, p. 332 C709.6).
Locating the work point outside the link as shown in
Figure 17D tends to increase the bending in the link
and may shift the location of the maximum combined
bending and shear stress outside the link. However, the
gusset of the beam to brace connection significantly
increases the shear and bending capacity of the beam
immediately adjacent to the link. Therefore, small
movement of the work point outside the link may be
acceptable; however, particular care should be used if
this is done.
Any movement of the work point from the edge of the
shear link should be accounted for in the analysis of
the frame. An analytic model of the frame should be
consistent with the work points. The link should be
designed for the forces occurring within the relevant
length of the analytic model.
23
The designer must take care to ensure that the location
of maximum stress is inside the link and that the
appropriate combinations of axial, flexural and shear
stress are considered.
3.23 Brace to Column and Beam Connection
To remain consistent in the design, the connection of
the brace to the column should develop the compres-
sive strength of the brace. The detailing considerations
for this connection are essentially the same as for a
concentric brace. "Seismic Design Practice for Steel
Buildings," (ref. 5, pp. 25, 26) illustrates some of the
options available. A typical detail is shown in Figure
18A. The use of a large gusset plate welded in line with
the beam and column webs will make this a moment
connection. This type of beam to column connection
should be analyzed with moment capacity. Stiffener
plates have been used at the beam flange to column
connection.
Figure 18B illustrates a bolted option for the brace to
column connection. Horizontal stiffeners are used at the
top, middle and bottom of the shear tab to prevent out-
of plane twisting of the shear tab (ref. 8, p. 52). If the
brace to beam connection work point shifts from the
column centerline, as indicated, the moment produced
by this offset must be included in the column design.
The beam to column connections shown in Figure 18
provide significant torsional restraint for the beam. UBC
2211.10.19 specifies the minimal torsional capacity for
this connection.
3.24 Summary of Link and EBF Design
The design of the link portion of the beam is the most
critical element of an EBF As illustrated in the previous
example, a link must provide for the following:
Compact flanges and web
Adequate shear capacity
Adequate flexural and axial load capacity
Limited rotation relative to the rest of the beam
Limit drift of the EBF.
The design of an EBF is usually based on both stress
and drift control including rotation angle. Both are
equally significant. This is unlike the design of a mo-
ment frame where usually drift controls the design, or a
concentrically braced frame where stress controls the
design.
An EBF generally possesses excellent ductility, and it
efficiently limits building drift. It may be a very cost
effective bracing system.
24
A
F'FTNE:RS AS
R'E.D FOR
C:E; TO OF-add
IdN[CTIC
DOd X TO BE: i.[SS TI,g
2 1 GUSSIL"T PL&T[ Tt.nCXNSS
B
' t W.P.//.
d f ' '
O
Figure 17
Brace to Beam Connection
25
' K' OF
PLATE 'T'=BEAM WEB
THICKNESS + 1/4'
TS
MAKE DIM'S x AND Y
TO MINIMIZE GUSSET
A
F.P.
F.P.
F.P.
' K' OF GIRl)El
PLATE '1"=8
THICKNESS -f-
F.P.
MAKE: DIM'S x
TO MINIMIZE (
B
Figure 18
Brace to Column and Beam Connections
26
REFERENCES
1) "Design of Eccentric Braced Frames," Edward J. Teal, Steel Committee of California, 1987.
2) 1994 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, 1994.
3) "Seismic Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames, New Code Provision," Mark Saunders, California, AISC
National Engineering Conference Proceedings, April 29,1987.
4) "Improved Earthquake Performance" Modern Steel Construction, July-August 1990.
5) "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings," Roy Becker, Farzad Naeim and Edward Teal, Steel Committee of
California, 1988.
6) "Practical Steel Design for Buildings, Seismic Design," Roy Becker, American Institute of Steel Con-struction,
1976.
7) "Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames for Earthquakes," Charles W. Roeder and Egor R Popov, Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 104, Number 3, March 1978.
8) "Advances in Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames," Egor R Popov, Kazuhiko Kasai, and Michael D.
Engelhardt, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 3, Number 1, February 1987.
9) "On Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames," Michael D. Engelhardt, and Egor R Popov, Earthquake Spectra,
Volume 5, Number 3, August 1989.
10) "Eccentrically Braced Frames: U.S. Practice," Egor P. Popov, Michael D. Engelhardt and James M. Ricles,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, 2nd Quarter, 1989.
11) "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary," Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers
Association of California, 1996.
12) Manual of Steel Construction. Allowable Stress Design, 9th edition, American Institute of Steel Construction,
1989.
13) "Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings - Load and Resistance Factor Design," American Institute of
Steel Construction, 1992.
14) "General Behavior of WF Steel Shear Link Beams," Kazuhiko Kasai, and Egor P. Popov, Journal of Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 112, Number r 2, February 1986.
15) "EBFs with PR Flexible Link-Column Connection," Kazuhiko Kasai and Egor R Popov, ASCE Structural
Congress 1991.
16) "Seismic Design Practice for Eccentrically Braced Frames," Michael Ishler, Steel Tips, May 1993.
Index of Steel Tips Publications
The following is a list of available Steel Tips. Copies will be sent upon request. Some are in very limited quantity.
Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment Resisting Frames
Structural details to Increase Ductility of Connections
Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters
Use of Steel in the Seismic Retrofit of Historic Oakland City Hall
Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension
Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams
Value Engineering & Steel Economy
What Design Engineers Can Do to Reduce Fabrication Costs
Charts for Strong Column Weak Girder Design of Steel Frames
Seismic Strengthening with Steel Slotted Bolt Connections
27
STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONALCOUNCIL
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(510) 631-9570
Q
SPONSORS
Adams & Smith
Baresel Corp.
G.M. Iron Works Co.
Hoertig Iron Works
Hogan Mfg., Inc.
Junior Steel Co.
Lee & Daniel
McLean Steel, Inc.
Oregon Steel Mills
PDM Strocal, Inc.
Reno Iron Works
H.H. Robertson Co.
Stockton Steel

Steel Tips Committee of California Parte 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Steel Tips Committee of California Parte 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMNIIl'11E OFCALFORNIA

TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCTSERVICE

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 1

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 2

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 3

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 4

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 5

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 6

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 7

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 8

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 9

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 10

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 11

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 12

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 13

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 14

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 15

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 16

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 17

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 18

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 19

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 20

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 21

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 22

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 23

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 24

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 25

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 26

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 27

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 28

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 29

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 30

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 31

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 32

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 33

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 34

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 35

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 36

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 37

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 38

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 39

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 40

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 41

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 42

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 43

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 44

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 45

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 46

and other design parameters for a number of typical

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 47

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 48

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 49

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 50

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 51

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 52

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 53

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 54

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 55

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 56

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 57

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 58

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 59

2000-2001 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel TIPS, 60