June 2002

Use of Deep Columns In Special Steel Moment Frames
Jie-Hua Jay Shen, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Associate Professor Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Illinois Institute of Technology Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley David B. McCallen, Ph.D. Director Center for Complex Distributed Systems Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

(A copy of this report can be downloaded free of charge for personal use from www.aisc.org)

Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames
By Jie-Hua Jay Shen, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and David B. McCallen This report discusses some of the issues related to the use of “deep columns” in special moment frames. Since 1994 Northridge earthquake significant amount of research and development projects have been done in U.S., Japan and elsewhere on seismic behavior and design of steel moment frames. In almost all of these research projects, the column used in testing or analyses have been W14 or smaller sections. One of the most important research projects during this period was the SAC Steel joint Venture Project where a large number of moment connections were tested and analyzed and design recommendations were formulated. In this project, almost all specimens had a column with depth of no more than 14-16 inches. However, since in many cases of moment frames, the governing design requirement is the stiffness to control the drift, the use of deep columns with a depth of 24, 27 and even 30 inches, becomes very economical. Unfortunately, there is no extensive and reliable information on actual cyclic behavior and design of moment frames with deep columns. This report discusses: (a) the issues that need to be considered in using deep columns in moment frames, (b) a comparison of seismic behavior of two 10 story moment frames designed using W14 and W27 respectively, (c) the results of a series of realistic non-linear finite element analysis of momentrotation behavior of connections with deep columns and; (d) the conclusions. First Printing, June 2002. __________________________________________________________________________________
Jie-Hua Jay Shen, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3201 South Dearborne Street, Chicago, IL, 60616. Phone: (312) 567-5860, Fax: (312) 567-3579. E-mail: shen@iit.edu. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, 781 Davis Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, Phone: (510) 642-4528, Fax: (925) 946-0903, E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu , Web page: www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh ____________________________________________________________________________________________ David B. McCallen, Ph.D., Director, Center for Complex Distributed Systems, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, MS L-151, Livermore, CA 94550. Phone: (925) 423-1219 E-mail: mccallen2@llnl.gov. ____________________________________________________________________________________________
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 authors 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.

Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames, J. Shen, A. Astaneh-Asl and D. B. McCallen, 2002.


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 comments. Particularly, special thanks are due to Fred Boettler, Jeff Eandi, Lanny Flynn, Pat Hassett, William Honeck, Brett Manning and James Putkey for their valuable and detailed review comments. The authors also appreciate the review comments provided by James Malley of Degenkolb Engineers and Dr. Farzad Naeim of John A. Martin Associates. The opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Illinois Institute of Technology, the University of California Berkeley, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where authors are employed nor the Structural Steel Educational Council or other agencies and individuals whose names appear in this document. A portion of this work was performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under the auspices of DOE Contract W-7405-Eng-48. The analyses and design of the 10-story frames were done using the latest version of the SAP-2000n program. The generous donation of the program by Computers and Structures Inc. of Berkeley (www.csiberkeley.com) is sincerely appreciated. The finite element analyses of connections were conducted using ABAQUAS and NIKE-3D program.

Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames, J. Shen, A. Astaneh-Asl and D. B. McCallen, 2002.


JAY SHEN, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Associate Professor Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology , Chicago

Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

Director Center for Complex Distributed Systems, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore

____________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS

Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames, J. Shen, A. Astaneh-Asl and D. B. McCallen, 2002.


Inch. Torsion constant. Fyw h J in. Astaneh-Asl and D. (AISC. Limiting slenderness parameter for a compact element. ksi. Depth of web. (AISC. Radius of gyration about y-axis.4mm. Limiting slenderness parameter for a non-compact element. Specified minimum yield stress of the web. Plastic modulus about y-axis. Plastic modulus about x-axis. cross section property. Moment of inertia about y-axis. Kilo-pounds per square inches. Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel to be used. Ix Iy ksi rx ry Sx Sy tf tw Zx Zy λ p λ r λ f λ w θc Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. As used in the LRFD Specification. J. 2002. Equals h/tw for web. A. B. (AISC. Modulus of elasticity. 1997). McCallen. 4 .895 kilo-Pascal. Thickness web. 1997). Radius of gyration about x-axis. Section modulus about x-axis. Twisting of column. 1 ksi=6. 1 inch= 25. Moment of inertia about x-axis. whenever possible. Thickness of flange. bf E Fy Width of flange. Equals bf /2tf for flange. the definitions are taken from various references as indicated inside the parentheses whenever applicable._________________________________________________________________________ Notations _________________________________________________________________________ In preparing the following notations. 1997). Section modulus about y-axis. "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). Shen.

It is expected that if properties of a designed connection fall within these ranges. When the studies were completed. One of the important items in the FEMA reports was the introduction of “pre-qualified” moment connections. Shen. Astaneh-Asl and D. 5 . which are based on tested connections. the designed connection will behave in a manner similar to those tested within the SAC Program. a large number of welded steel moment frames developed cracks in their beam-to-column welds at or near joints. a large number of cyclic tests of beam-to-column connections of moment frames were conducted. a comprehensive research and technology development project was undertaken by SAC Steel Joint Venture (FEMA-350. J. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. B. none of the damaged structures developed any partial collapse or even injuries. evaluation and retrofit of the moment frames subjected to seismic effects. inspection.1. McCallen. The aim was to establish the actual behavior of existing as well as the improved beam-to-column moment connections. As part of the SAC Project. Most of these tests were done on specimens where the columns were W14 sections with a maximum depth of column being about 14-16 inches. 2001) primarily funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address this problem.1. the structural engineering and steel construction community undertook an extensive effort to study the phenomenon and mitigate it. Introduction Moment-resisting frames are one of the frequently used lateral load resisting systems in many steel building structures. The main goal of the project. Introduction 1. SAC Project produced a set of reports (FEMA35. 2002. In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and during 1994-2000 periods. sometimes denoted as simply the SAC project. was to develop technologies for design. A. During the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The pre-qualified connections have specific ranges of material properties and geometry. Although. construction. 2001) on various aspects of the problem and its solutions.

used deeper columns for some steel building projects. 2001). from time to time. Background on This Study After the 1994 Northridge earthquake. 2002. In recent years.03 radian. limited research has been done regarding the behavior and design of a beam-to-column connection with deep columns. Using W14 columns to satisfy drift limitations specified by the codes often results in unnecessarily heavy columns. Shen. extensive studies were conducted to improve the performance of the steel moment-resisting frame when subjected to strong ground motions. 6 . it has been recognized that there is a strong economic incentive for the design engineer to use deep columns to satisfy increasingly more stringent drift limitations. A. The authors have reported twisting of the deep columns. McCallen. Since then.2. 2000) and (Ricles et al. there is a need for information on the performance of beam-to-column moment connections with deep columns. a report by Gilton et al. Astaneh-Asl and D. and have found that the connections with RBS have larger cyclic rotational ductility than the same connections without RBS. the authors have expressed concern about twisting of the deep columns and have formulated and proposed limitations on the geometry of the column cross section to prevent the observed twisting of deep columns.Almost all the pre-qualified connections in SAC reports have a W14 column traditionally used in many structures. 1. A deep column in this context is a column with a depth of greater than 21 inches. B. J. Structural engineers have. Although the twisting of deep column in their tests appears to have been observed during the late stages of loading and after rotations in excess of 0.. 2000) include the results of cyclic testing of a few beam-to-column connection specimens where the column was a deep wide flange section. has become one of the frequently used welded moment connections. The deep columns would be more extensively used for moderate-rise to high-rise buildings if the time consuming and costly physical tests could be avoided. Researchers have studied the behavior of the RBS connections when connected to W14 columns (FEMA-350. (2000) presented the results of cyclic tests of three RBS moment connections where deep columns were used. in today’ s design offices. when they had resources to carry out the physical tests of project-based connections. However. Two reports (Gilton et al. Therefore. where a portion of the beam flange is removed in order to force the plastic hinge in the beam away from the column face. So far. structural engineers in many projects find it more economical to use columns that are deeper than the W14 sections. A review of the report by Gilton et al (2000) indicates that the lateral movement of RBS hinge and the resulting twisting of deep columns in their tests may have been due to Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. the Reduced Beam Section (RBS). This type of beam-to-column connection assembly has been pre-qualified by FEMA-350 for seismic design of moment-resisting frames along with a number of other configurations of welded and bolted connections In 2000.

unrealistic boundary conditions and lack of bracing normally provided to top flange by the floor beams. 27. a group of more realistic beam-to-column sub-assemblages with other deep column configurations were analyzed..3. to conduct simulated cyclic tests of these connections and compare the results of computer analyses to actual test results to ensure that the computer analyses predict the actual test results well (Section 3). 2. To investigate this. Shen. Objectives of this Report The main objectives of this Steel Technical Information and Product Services (Steel TIPS) report are: 1. 30 and 33 inch depths (Section 3). To conduct more analyses of moment connections with different beam and deep columns sections and with floors being present or not (Section 3). In these tests. al. we hope the information can assist future researchers in planning their test set-up to test moment connections with deep columns in a realistic and proper manner. 2000). Astaneh-Asl and D. 5. there was no flange bracing which normally is provided to the top flange of the beam by the floors in actual buildings. 4. Such recommendations can be verified by selective. To conduct pushover and inelastic time history analyses of frames with W14 as well as deep columns and compare their seismic behavior (Section 2). particularly columns with 24. Using realistic models of the connections with deep columns. McCallen. A. and the results were evaluated. The analyses began with building the model of a beam-to-column sub-assemblage that had been physically tested (Gilton et. The deep columns are defined as columns with a depth of 21 inches or greater. After the results of a tested specimen was well simulated by a finite element model. 7 . non-linear cyclic behavior of RBS moment connections with W14 and deep columns were studied and the results are summarized here. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. 1. 6. well-planned and correctly executed testing (Section 4). To formulate tentative recommendations for the use of deep columns in moment frames. B. (2000) tests might have occurred primarily because of the way the specimen was tested. To review the use of frames with deep columns (Section 2). The results confirmed that indeed column twisting in Gilton et al. The authors hope the information presented here can be useful in better understanding the actual behavior of moment connections with deep columns in buildings. 2002. In addition. J. To conduct a critical review of the results of a few cyclic tests available at this time on “deep columns”. 3.

the weight/ft of a W27 section will be less than ½ of the weight/ft of a W14 section with comparable moment of inertia.1. Issues Related to the Use of Deep Columns 2. A. McCallen. 2.2. govern the design. For example. which in turn results in reducing the drift and damage. 2002. bending strength of the columns is one of the important parameters. For example. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. drift limitations.2.2. Stiffness of the Moment Frame Deep columns with W21 to W30 sections provide larger moment of inertia for the same weight compared to traditional W14 column sections. Introduction In most cases of design of moment frames.b. USE AND BEHAVIOR OF FRAMES WITH DEEP COLUMNS 2.a. making it possible to more easily meet the strong column-weak beam design requirements.2. J. and not strength. The following text provides a discussion of the issues related to the use of deep columns. 8 . Relatively large bending stiffness of the deep columns results in increasing the global stiffness of the moment frame. B. one has to check the possibility of lateral torsional buckling of the deep column. Shen. the weight/ft of a W27 section will be less than 70% of the weight of a W14 section having the same plastic moment capacity. Using deeper cross sections than the W14’ s traditionally used in many moment frames will accomplish this. Astaneh-Asl and D. 2. Deep columns provide larger plastic moment capacity than the equivalent W14’ s. especially for tall floors. One of the efficient ways of reducing the drift of a moment frame is to increase the bending and shear stiffness of its columns. In using deep columns with relatively small weak axis moments of inertia. Strength In moment frames subjected to relatively large lateral forces.

Shen.2. Equation 2. 41 and 36 respectively. where the web is relatively slender. 2. Panel Zone Issues Deep column sections have deeper webs than the W14 columns and provide more web area than the W14 for the same weight. If L ≤Lp the beam is compact for lateral-torsional buckling. grade 50 and Grade 65 steel (Fy=36. Grade 50 and Grade 65 steel.3 above for A36. 2001).According to AISC Specification (AISC. the above limit of L/ry is equal to 48. In deep columns. that below this limit lateral-torsional buckling is not expected and need not be checked. lateral-torsional buckling is not expected to occur before the beam reaches its plastic moment capacity. J. 16. The term on the right side of the Equation 2. A. shear buckling of panel zone should be investigated.3) If h/tw of the column web satisfies the above equation.7 E / Fyw (2.45 E / Fyw (AISC-LRFD Manual. B. 16. 2001. P. 2001. 2001). McCallen.1-35) (2. the contribution of panel zone distortions to the story drift can be smaller when deep columns are used.c. where: L p = 1.2. Shear buckling of web can be avoided by limiting the h/tw of the column web to the following value from the AISC Specification (AISC. if un-braced length of compression flange of a beam in bending is less than the Lp given by the following Equation 2.1) By rearranging the above equation we can obtain a limit for L/ry of the column. h / t w ≤2. Astaneh-Asl and D. L / ry ≤1. 2002. P. 59 and 52 Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.2) For A36. This means that shear strength and stiffness of the panel zone in a deep column is greater than the corresponding values in a W14 column with the same weight.1-33) (2. The larger shear strength of the panel zone in deep columns can help reduce the need for doubler plates. 9 . As a result. 50 and 65 ksi) is equal to 69.2. The larger shear stiffness of the panel zone in deep columns can help reduce panel zone distortions.7ry E / Fyw (AISC-LRFD Manual. it is expected that the column web can reach shear yielding before buckling.

2002. J. Astaneh-Asl and D. was almost the same as the structure of a 10-story “study” building designed by the SAC Joint Venture (SAC.3.3 above for A36 and grade 50 steels. Of course. B. However. This building structure. Figures 2. 1997). 2. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. 10 . it sheds some light on seismic behavior of similar frames with W14 and W27 columns. 2. deep columns have a disadvantage compared to W14 columns. the frames behaved similarly.1 shows framing plan and elevation of the 10-story study structure. A check on currently available rolled shapes indicate that all rolled wide flange shapes tabulated in the first part of the current AISC-LRFD Manual (AISC. McCallen. the weight of the frame with W27 columns was considerably less. 2001) have h/tw less than 59 therefore satisfy the limit of Equation 2.2.d. with the exception of a few sections. For grade 65 steel. Then. but as an example. 2. almost all rolled shapes have h/tw less than 52 satisfying the limit of Equation 2. SAC designed the study buildings to comply with the UBC-97 (ICBO. However.a. the same building was designed using W27 columns. using W14 columns. one should not generalize the outcome of this one case of comparison.respectively. most deep column sections with grade 50 steel have compact webs and flanges and can be used in high seismic areas. Hayward fault ground motions were the used in the nonlinear time history analyses.3. Local Buckling As far as local buckling is concerned. a typical building was selected and was designed using W14 columns. Building Used in the Comparative Studies The building selected for the comparative study was a 10-story perimeter frame building. b/t ratio of flanges and h/tw of webs of deep columns are larger than the W14’ s with the same weight. Comparison of Behavior of a Frame with W14 and Deep Columns In order to identify benefits and limitations of using deep columns in moment frames. For these studies. In general. a limited comparative study was done. In the study. Both frames had the same girders. In addition. 1996) and provided to researchers in 1996. The results of analyses of these two frames indicated that in all respects. A. the building was assumed located in seismic areas of California within a 10 km distance of a major fault. Shen. it shows the extent of saving in the weight of columns for this building if one uses deep columns.3.

2 shows cross sections of the girders and columns used in both frames. we replaced the W14 columns with W27 columns while keeping the same beams and denoted this frame “W27 Study Frame”. Instead of LRFD methods. 11 . the ASD method provided a better feel about service level (unfactored) stresses and deformations in the frames. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. The tenstory building designed by SAC for a Los Angeles site had W14 columns. usually drift is the governing design parameter. Figure 2. Since in moment frames. the replacement W27 were selected such that the frame had still a drift value less than 2% and both W14 and W27 study frames had comparable stress level in their members. The SAC-designed structure complied with the UBC-97 and its maximum inter-story drift (for 18 feet tall ground floor. see Figure 2. McCallen.1 30 ft 2 3 4 5 6 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft A 30 ft B 30 ft C 8 @ 13 ft 30 ft D 30 ft 18 ft E 30 ft F 12 ft ELEVATION PLAN Figure 2.b. Design of the Building Used in the Comparative Studies As indicated earlier. To the authors. the building used in the study was adapted from one of the study buildings that was developed and used in the SAC Joint Venture program (SAC. Plan and Elevation Views of the 10-Story Structure 2.1.7%. A. This was done to be able to compare the stresses and deformations generated in each frame by the combined design forces at service load level and not at factored-load levels. which is best done using LRFD methods. The use of ASD methods here is not to advocate its use in design. Then. 1996). 2002. J. Shen.3. Astaneh-Asl and D. B. The frame on column line 6 of SAC structure was selected as one of our two study frames and was denoted as “W14 Study Frame”.1) was 1. Figure 2. which is less than the 2% limit given by the UBC-97 for this structure. in the design we used AISC-ASD design option of the SAP2000n software and the nominal loads.3 shows Demand/Capacity ratios for members of study frames.

W14 Study Frame W27 Study Frame Figure 2. Astaneh-Asl and D. which indicates the stress level at code service level forces to be similar in both frames and relatively low as expected in a moment frame. 1997) and occurred at the 18 feet tall ground floor. 2002. Both drift values were less than the limit of 2% as per UBC-97 (IBC.The analysis of the frame with W27 columns showed that the maximum inter-story drift in the frame was 1. and W27 Study Frames Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.2.7%. Figure 2. McCallen.2% and for the frame with W14 columns was 1. Shen. A. B. 12 . Girders and Columns of W14. J.3 shows values from the interaction equation for the two frames.

2002. Astaneh-Asl and D. McCallen.W14 Columns W27 Columns Figure 2. Shen. Values of ASD M-P Interaction Equation for the W14 Study-Frame (upper frame) and the W27 Study Frame (lower frame) Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. J. A. B. 13 .3.

A. pushover analyses of the frames shown in Figure 2.0 3.5 feet before collapse. Pushover Curves for the Frames with W14 and W27 Columns Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. ft. Both frames were able to reach a roof displacement of about 2.2 were conducted. kips. 1000 0 1.Push-over Analyses: In order to compare the performance of two frames. both frames were subjected to ever-increasing first mode pushover displacements. J. Figure 2. Figure 2. Astaneh-Asl and D. McCallen. In the pushover analyses.4. using the SAP 2000n program.0 2. Shen. 3000 W14 W27 2000 Base Shear. The columns in the frame with W27 columns were considerably lighter than the columns in the frame with W14 columns.5 shows the hinges at the time of collapse. 14 . Figure 2. B. The frame with W14 columns showed soft story formation while the frame with W27 columns had more yielding in the columns at the time of collapse.4 shows the push over curves. 2002. Roof Disp.0 Roof Displacement.

The inter-story drift of the frames with W27 and W14 columns were 1% and 1. The inelastic models of the frames shown in Figure 2.2% and 1. The dead and live load as well as the mass applied to both frames were the same as given by SAC (FEMA-350. since the girders in both frames were the same. The drift values calculated using UBC-97 (ICBO. the height of ground floor. However. A.5. McCallen. for Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.Note: Indicates a plastic hinge with partial yielding Indicates a plastic hinge with full yielding of the cross section Figure 2. it was not expected that non-linear behavior of frames would be much different. 15 . 2002.7% for frames with W14 and W27 columns respectively. However. The drift values for the first floor can be obtained by dividing displacements by 18 feet. Plastic hinges formed in both frames at the RBS areas.2% respectively. In previous sections. one with W14 columns and the other with W27 columns. it was shown that the drift values and stresses in two study frames. B. Figure 2. Hinges in the Frames Just Prior to Collapse Inelastic Time History Analyses: In order to compare the dynamic response of two frames.6 shows the time history of displacement of the first floor for the two frames. J. inelastic time history analyses of both frames were conducted. 2001). Shen. were essentially the same. Astaneh-Asl and D. 1997) provisions were 1.2 were subjected to the E-W acceleration component of the Hayward Seismic Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) generated by Bolt and Gregor (1993).

Time History of Horizontal Displacement of First Floor to Hayward SEE Earthquake Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.3 lbs/ft2 less than the steel in the same frame but with W14 columns. B.3 lbs/ft2 equals to about 6-8% in total material saving based on 1618 psf of steel for a typical structure of this type. 16 . According to a leading steel fabricator. McCallen. Astaneh-Asl and D. this 10-story building was just an example to demonstrate that using deep columns instead of W14 can result in improvement in lateral load resisting behavior. Shen. Of course as mentioned earlier.this 10-story building with a 150ft by 150ft plan. J. 2002. A. the weight of the steel using W27 deep columns was about 1. W14 Frame W27 Frame Figure 2.6. much better drift and damage control as well as possible savings in the cost of construction of steel frames. the 1.

A. two of the three specimens tested by Gilton et al. 2000).. ABAQUS (ABAQUS. Simulation of Cyclic Behavior of Tested Specimen 3. A compact beam section was used for most of parametric studies. B. 17 . namely the RBS connection. A reduced beam section (RBS) was introduced to make the beam side of the connection pre-qualified by FEMA 350 (FEMA 350. This specimen was Specimen DC-2 (Gilton et. analytically. Detailed nonlinear finite element analyses were conducted to address the issues that influence the cyclic performance and design considerations of one of the most commonly used connections pre-qualified by FEMA-350 (2001). 2001). For comparison. 3.a Computer Model of Test Specimen As indicated in previous chapter. (2000) had web doubler plates added to the column panel zone. the cyclic behavior of beam-to-column connections with deep column sections ranging from W14 to W33.50 steel.1. The third specimen without the doubler plate.2. In the following sections. The details of the RBS. 2002. Shen.3. J. whit the column becoming deeper and deeper. 2001). assumed to more realistically represent the current design practice. both specified as A572 Gr. Introduction This Chapter investigates.2. a summary of the results of these studies is presented. Astaneh-Asl and D. al. was therefore selected to be modeled and analyzed in this study. ANALYSIS OF CYCLIC BEHAVIOR OF DEEP COLUMN CONNECTIONS 3. McCallen. the column Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. since. A nonlinear finite element model of this specimen was constructed with the nonlinear finite element program. The specimen was a standard beam-tocolumn assembly consisting of a W27×194 column and a W36×150 beam. a non-compact section beam was also included. almost all available wide flange sections are compact.

B.1. 2002. McCallen.2. A.1. The test setup of the beam-to-column assembly connection is shown in Figure 3. 18 . Non-Linear Computer Model of the Specimen Figure 3.stiffeners and web shear tab plate are shown in Figure 3. Astaneh-Asl and D.2. (2000) Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. J. Shen. Figure 3. Model of Test Set-up Used by Gilton et al.

(b) the second segment from the yield point to ultimate strength point with stress equal to Fu and strain of 0. Loading History Used in the Test and Analysis Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Figure 3. Table 3. used fully integrated six-node and eight-node three-dimensional solid elements (Element types C3D6 and C3D8 in ABAQUS). Rigid links were used to connect the beam tip to the actual loading point (reference node). At larger inelastic displacements.1). panel zone and shear tab plate areas.3.2).20. Stress-strain curve for the steel was a tri-liner curve with three segments: (a) first segment. B. A. a horizontal line at stress level of Fu.3. Shen.. the cycles were repeated four times. which was also restrained to prevent out-of-plane translation (Figure 3. (2000) Cyclic loading pattern in the test. At small displacements.The computer model. was of a standard small-to-large displacement cycles as shown in Figure 3. yield strength and ultimate strength. were specified from the mill certified coupon test of the Specimen DC-2 (see Table 3. and (c) the last segment. Properties of Specimen DC-2 Tested by Gilton et al. 19 . the cycles were repeated twice. J. McCallen. A finer mesh was used in the RBS area. controlled by the displacement at the tip of the beam. Astaneh-Asl and D. denoted here as ABQ-DEEP. The material properties of the steel.1. 2002. (the elastic segment) from the origin to the yield point.

.6 shows top and end views of the deformed specimen at 5% story drift. Comparison of Analytic and Experimental Results Figure 3. J. 2002.b. The softening in unloading and reloading appear to have been responsible for an accelerated strength reduction from its peak value after each cycle with the same or higher level of displacement. particularly at large inelastic deformation levels. The actual test of specimen DC-2 indicated that strength was reduced considerably when the inelastic cycle was repeated. Though such elastic deformation cycles might be desirable for physical testing. the specimen remained virtually elastic before 1% drift cycles. The deformed shapes of specimen from analysis model at 5% drift level are presented in Figures 3. 20 . Thus.2. 2000). Figure 3. McCallen. al. The deformed shape is similar to the final buckling shape observed in the test (Gilton et.4 shows the load-displacement curves from the test specimen DC-2 tested by Gilton et al. especially large deformations in the RBS area. Astaneh-Asl and D. significantly different from the linear unloading curve conventionally used as analytical models of hysteretic behavior.2. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. The reloading in an opposite direction after a full inelastic unloading made the specimen softer. apparently due to the Bauschinger effect leading to local buckling and low cycle fatigue phenomenon. The unloading curve of the tested specimen was highly nonlinear. a finite element analysis does not record any effects of elastic cyclic loading and unloading on the assembly. Shen. The overall cyclic responses from the analysis and the test match reasonably well.3. and from the analysis discussed here. when some yielding was observed. showing an isometric view of the buckling shape near the beam-to-column joint. in the simulation analysis. B. the cyclic loading history for the analysis started from the cycles immediately before any yielding was observed.3. The number of inelastic cycles appears to have a significant influence on the post-buckling behavior in terms of strength degradation. A. There are some noticeable discrepancies in unloading and reloading regions. Such cycle-related strength reduction became more significant when a larger inelastic cycle was repeated. 3. Simulated Cyclic Behavior of Connection When simulated cyclic loading was applied to the nonlinear model of specimen. (2000).5.

B. Shen. Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen DC-2 and Analytical Results Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.Figure 3. 2002. 21 .4. J. Astaneh-Asl and D. A. McCallen.

22 . A. and vice versa. It has been Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.3. Slower reduction might indicate a more stable connection performance. Parametric Study of Cyclic Behavior of Deep Column Connections Having successfully simulated the cyclic behavior of the tested specimen. B. was used to model the connection assembly with various column sizes. J.Figure 3.6. the ABAQUS model. 2002. Deformed Shape of Web and Flanges at 5% Story Drift 3. there are some concerns related to the connection strength reduction after its peak strength is reached. 2001). Astaneh-Asl and D. Shen. In the seismic design of steel moment-resisting frames based on improved connection details summarized in recent FEMA publications (FEMA-350. McCallen. ABQ-DEEP as the prototype.5 Buckling Shape of the Specimen Model at 5% Story Drift Figure 3.

To investigate the effects of floor slab and transverse beams in bracing the connection and preventing lateral movement of hinge areas. Table 3. the beam was laterally braced along the beam top flange outside the RBS. Five of them had the columns listed in Table 3. in some analytical cases. Six beam-to-column connection assemblies were studied analytically.2. and Iy.observed that strength reduction after the peak strength is reached heavily depends on the number of inelastic cycles. The five columns were selected to construct the connection assemblies within a practical range. so that the comparison could be made with respect to lateral movement of the hinge areas and twisting of columns with different combinations of Zx. and the W36x150 beam section. and (2) Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Section Properties of the Studied Column Sections In addition. McCallen. Two different boundary condition cases were considered: (1) Unbraced case – where the beam had no lateral restraints similar to specimens tested by Gilton et al (2000). the effect of lateral bracing on the connection assembly performance was also investigated by introducing actual lateral supports from transverse beams and the concrete with metal deck floor that exists in almost all steel framed buildings. Astaneh-Asl and D. Ix. J. The main goals of the parametric studies were: 1. Shen. 2002. The column sections were selected based on their plastic section modulus (Zx) and moments of inertia (Ix and Iy). 23 . 2. A. To study bracing effects of the floor slab. B.2. To investigate whether or not there are any significant characteristics in a connection with deep column sections that are not considered in current design practice.

J. and W201x201. The cyclic analyses applied a maximum displacement of 6% story drift ratio in the same manner as conducting a physical test per FEMA-350 (2001). McCallen. A.Braced case – where the beam was laterally restrained in its panel zone and top flange except in the RBS region. respectively. 3. was also included in this study. the connections did not have any significant strength reduction before the 4% drift ratio. the strength degradation occurred upon the Figure 3. 3. Under the cyclic loading. W30x90. and a W27x194 column. With lateral bracing (the solid-blue lines in the figures). For comparison.9 show the cyclic behavior of the connection assemblies with W30x191. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. 24 .3. Overall Cyclic Behavior of Deep Column Connections Figures 3. Cyclic Behavior of the Connection with W30x191 Column and W36x150 Beam. Astaneh-Asl and D.7.8. Shen. B.1. W33x169. The following sections will present a summary of the analytical results together with discussions of various issues. and 3.7. an additional beam-to-column connection with a non-compact beam section. The cyclic loops of the connections demonstrated that the connections with deeper columns were stable. 2002.

the connections experienced column twisting and beam lateral torsional buckling after 4% drift ratio. Astaneh-Asl and D. Shen. the post-buckling strength degradation was reduced considerably by lateral supports provided by the floor. mainly due to inelastic local web and flange buckling. Cyclic Behavior of the Connection with W33x169 Column and W36x150 Beam Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. the strength degradation would have been more significant.7. 2002. as discussed later. It seems apparent that the lateral supports to the beam flange under compression improved the inelastic behavior of connections with deep columns. 3.7. B.9. The local buckling of the flanges and web was mainly responsible for a slow degradation in strength at a later deformation stage for the braced connections. In particular. and 3.load reversal in both positive and negative deformation regions after the plastic hinge formed in the RBS region at about 3% drift ratio. A. If any non-compact beam section were used.8. as shown in Figures 3. McCallen.8. A larger strength degradation under negative bending moment. W36x150 with Fy=50 ksi. The lateral supports to the beam prevented lateral movement of plastic hinge area and extended the deformation prior to the onset of strength degradation. when the beam top flange was in tension. demonstrating a larger strength reduction than those with lateral bracing. 3. Figure 3.8. and 3. 25 . J. Note that all cases involved a compact beam section. Without lateral bracing (the dashed-red lines in Figures 3.9). in the above figures indicates that extra lateral supports to the bottom flange can help to enhance inelastic cyclic behavior.

The figure shows RBS connections with deep columns where no lateral bracing was provided in order to reveal the effect of the column size on the lateral stability of the connection assembly. Astaneh-Asl and D. the deep column was the only element responsible to resist the torque applied to it by the beam. Cyclic Behavior of the Connection with W33x201 Column and W36x150 Beam.10 are approximate values of column twisting alone in degrees. 3. Shen. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. The larger lateral torsional deformation of the beam was observed when the column was weaker in out-of-plane stiffness. The values of θc given in Figure 3. A. at a relatively large story drift ratio of 6%. B. It seems that in this case.2. J.10(a) for four study cases.10(a) shows the plan views of deformed RBS connections. the deep columns with no floor underwent twisting as shown in Figure 3. Being subjected to such twisting effects. with no floor slab and transverse beams present.Figure 3. For example. The large story drift was selected to show the deformations at very late stages of cyclic behavior and at drift values much beyond what can be expected in major seismic event.9. due to lack of floor slab and transverse beams.3. 26 . McCallen. Effect of Column Size/Depth Figure 3. there was no lateral torsional buckling of the same beam when the column was changed to a W14x426. 2002.

Astaneh-Asl and D. A.10(a) but this time the connections have floor slab attached to the top flange of the beam at shear stud locations and a transverse beam is attached to the panel zone of the column. (a) c ≅ 0. When a beam-column connection specimen is tested with no slab and transverse beam. not attached to the floor. 2002.11. J.≅ 2.10(b) shows the same four connections as in Figure 3. 27 . As can be seen in Table 3.5° c . B.0 c ≅ 0. there is no lateral restraint to prevent lateral movement of the highly yielded and locally buckled RBS hinge as shown in Figure 3. When the hinge area. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. McCallen. the torsional stiffness and weak-axis flexural stiffness of a W14 sections are greater than the corresponding values for deeper columns with comparable strong axis flexural stiffness.5° W27x194 Column W30x191 Column W33x169 Column W33x201 Column Note: (All Beams: W36x150) .5° c ≅ 3. Shen.2.0 c ≅ 0.10.10(a). it can apply large enough moment to “bare” column to twist it as shown in Figure 3.0 c ≅ 0.c ≅ 1. As the figure indicates.0 W27x194 Column Note: All Beams: W36x150) W30x191 Column W33x169 Column W33x201 Column (b) Figure 3. Lateral Deformation of the RBS Area and Column Deformations for: (a) Connections with no Floor Slab and Transverse Beam. moves laterally. the column twisting was negligible. by having the floor slab and transverse beam.0° c ≅ 2. and (b) Connections with Floor Slabs and Transverse Beams Figure 3.

28 .3. as is the case in almost all buildings. In practice. B. Figure 3. is equal to 52 ⁄ sections. Shen. λ √(Fy). It is strongly recommended that in future tests of beam-column connections particularly RBS connections with deep columns.14 present the buckling shape of the assembly at 5% story drift level. For definitions of terms. An early local buckling of the flanges.13 and 3. In this study. 3. or at least the restraining effects of floor slab been represented by bracing in the test set-up. λ f /λ p=0.87). McCallen. A. most likely the twisting of columns would have been minor and non-consequential.3.12 shows the cyclic response of the assembly with W30x90 beam and W27x194 column. Effect of Beam Section Compactness It is necessary to use a compact beam section in the earthquake-resistant moment frame to ensure a stable cyclic performance during a strong earthquake. Had the floor slab been present. most wide flange sections are compact p.4. respectively. W30x90 (bf/2tf = 8. W36x150 (λ f = bf/2tf = 6. as well as the lateral torsional buckling might be responsible for such accelerated strength degradation.5.11. J. the column did not develop twisting. λ f /λ p=1. see “Notations” in Page 4. 2002. The limit of bf/2tf ratio for a compact flange. Torque acting on Column due to Lateral Movement of RBS We believe that the lack of floor slab in Gilton et al’ s (2000) tests is the main reason for development of column twisting in their tests. It is apparent that the buckling of the flange is much more extensive with a non-compact flange than the compact one. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.Torque=(Flange Force)x( Eccentricity. The strength reduction rates are 35% and 50% at 4% and 5% story drift levels. was selected to compare the behavior of the deep-column connection assembly with compact and non-compact beam sections. even in the case with a non-compact beam. after considerable local buckling and distortion of the RBS hinge. In this section. a non-compact section. which are twice as much as those observed from previous analyses based on W36x150 beam. the restraining effects of the floor be represented either by having the actual floor cast with the specimen or by attaching to top flange appropriate bracing mechanisms to represent the floors.) Figure 3.16). Figure 3. Astaneh-Asl and D. However. all previous discussions have been based on a compact beam section.

McCallen. 29 . J.Figure 3. B. Shen. 2002. A. Astaneh-Asl and D. Load-displacement curve of the assembly with W30x90 beam and W27x194 column Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.12.

2002. Figure 3. A. B. Cyclic Behavior of Connection with W14x426 Column and W36x150 Beam Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Note: 1 kN= 0. Astaneh-Asl and D. 30 .Figure 3. Shen. McCallen.15. J.14 Buckling shape of the assembly with W30x90 beam and W27x194 column (the top flange view).0394 inch. 1mm=0.225 kips.

Figure 3.16. named as ABQ-Fu. Deformed Shapes of Connections with W14x425 Column and W36x150 Beam: (a) No RBS. Figure 3. there was any torsion or weak-axis flexural deformation visible in the column. B.3. and the flange reduction rate is the ratio of the cut flange area of the smallest RBS to the original flange area.14 shows analytical and experimental responses of the assembly with ABQ-e1 RBS.15. J. The first case.4. and (d) Moderate eccentricity and large flange reduction RBS Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.3. 2002. There was practically no strength reduction visible from the load-displacement curve. (b) Small eccentricity and moderate flange reduction RBS. Astaneh-Asl and D. Four cases were investigated. The eccentricity is measured from the column flange face to the near end of the RBS. 31 . Other three cases involved RBSs with different eccentricities and flange reduction rates. The deformed shapes of the four cases are given in Figure 3. an RBS connection assembly with W14x426 column and W36x150 beam was used. In none of the cases. There is no lateral torsional buckling in all but one case. Shen. (c) Large eccentricity and moderate flange reduction RBS. The case with a large eccentricity RBS suffered lateral torsional buckling primarily due to a distant RBS from the column. Lateral Stability of the Connection with W14 Column For comparison with deep-column connections. A. involved no RBS. McCallen.

The connection was analyzed with and without the bracing provided by floor slab. Based on studies summarized in previous sections. a series of cyclic tests on RBS moment connections with deep columns is in progress at Lehigh University by Professor Ricles and his research team. Currently. the columns were not able to provide the bracing that the floor normally provides.15 shows cyclic moment-rotation behavior of this connection established by non-linear finite element analysis.16. Lu and Fisher (Ricles et al. because of its large stiffness in torsion and lateral bending. Shen. where the boundary conditions in the test set-up were correctly presented. Mau. the results would have been realistic representation of actual condition in the field and most likely the twisting of deep columns would have been negligible and nonconsequential to the behavior and design. As a result. A. a third case was also analyzed where the beam did not have the RBS. Astaneh-Asl and D. presence or absence of floor slab did not make much difference. was able to brace the RBS hinge and prevent its lateral movement. B. 2002. a connection with W14x426 also was analyzed. Figure 3. 2000) done the tests with correct boundary conditions and representative bracings. a W36x150. J. the RBS area of these specimens moved in lateral direction causing twisting of column making these tests somewhat unrealistic and the results questionable. the W14 column alone. expected to be done properly as the earlier tests at Lehigh (Ricles et al. This may be the reason why in more than 100 tests of connections conducted within the SAC Program. will be a valuable addition to the field. McCallen. However. In addition. This was clearly the case with tests done by Ricles. 32 . the column alone provided the bracing. The RBS area of the beam did not move laterally and the column did not show tendency to twist as shown in Figure 3. Simply put. 2000). 2000) and the design recommendations stemming from such results. the SAC tests using W14 columns. very few specimens showed tendency for column twisting. ended up being valid tests even though there was no floor to brace the beam. by default. and almost all were without the slab.In order to compare behavior of connections with W14 and deep columns. Chi and Uang (Gilton et al. The analyses indicated that in this case. it can be concluded that the twisting of the deep columns during the tests conducted by Gilton et al (2000) most likely was the result of the way the tests were done rather than a realistic behavioral phenomenon. The results of such tests. No twisting of deep columns were reported for deep column specimens tested by Ricles et al. in case of connections with deep columns. The beam at this connection was the same as the others. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Had Gilton. It appears that in this case. As a result. The test specimens did not have the lateral bracing provided by the floors that exists in almost all steel structures.

J. McCallen. anyone making use of the information herein assumes all liability arising from such use. As indicated in the “Disclaimer” section. B. The inelastic analyses of connections with deep columns indicated that the study connections should be able to provide the required strength and especially the rotational ductility in excess of those required by FEMA-350 (2001) for pre-qualified connections. there were no considerable reasons found to suggest preventing the use of deep column sections in any moment frame including special moment frames.4. As the figure indicates. 33 .2. 4. Introduction Based on the results of non-linear analyses of steel moment frames with RBS connections and with W14 through W33 columns. CONCLUSIONS 4. Figure 4. 2. the following conclusions were reached. A. The conclusions herein should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy. the connections with deep column clearly satisfy the FEMA requirement. Astaneh-Asl and D.1 shows the FEMA requirement for minimum moment-rotation envelope curve (curve OYF) as well as representative envelop curve for connections with deep column studied herein (curve OYA). designer or architect. Based on the observed performance of the frames with deep columns and the behavior of their connections. Shen. suitability. Conclusions 1. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. and applicability by a licensed professional engineer.1. 2002.

the drift limits can be met with less steel tonnage compared to W14 column sections. In these two tests.1. Page 2-23. which provide significant lateral bracing. this statement is based on the results of only two tests of deep column specimens that were done at the time of development of FEMA reports. 34 . 5. Shen. A.θ Required by FEMA for Special Moment Connections 3. A critical review of the test set-up. states: “The pre-qualified connections should only be used with W12 and W14 column sections”. By using deep columns. as discussed in previous sections. Almost all moment frame steel structures have floors (typically steel deck/concrete slab) and transverse beams. This is due to considerably large moment of inertia of deep sections for the same weight per foot as a comparable W14 column. McCallen. The cyclic behavior of RBS connections with deep columns was found to be similar to the behavior of the same connection with W14 columns. This investigation indicated that presence of the floor was enough to provide necessary bracing and to eliminate or to reduce the column twisting to insignificant and non-consequential levels. Astaneh-Asl and D. The specimens had no transverse beams connected to the panel zone of the columns and had no floor slabs. FEMA-350 (2001). J. 4.θ Curve of Connections with Deep Columns to the M. 2002. Comparison of the M. According to FEMA-350. B. Our studies indicated that there is no difference in bracing requirement for RBS connections with W14 and deep columns of up to W33 when there is a floor slab at least on one side of the beam. revealed that most likely such column twisting would not have occurred had the test set-up and the specimens been realistic representative of actual buildings. the deep columns showed a tendency to twist. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. in a moment frame. In reference to deep columns.Figure 4.

According to a leading steel fabricator. A. An example is shown in Figure 4.2(a). Design procedures and recommendations based on such test results cannot be justified. In other cases. and reducing the cost. .2. J. Shen. the 1.3 lbs/ft2 equals to about 6-8% in total material saving based on 16-18 psf of steel for a typical structure of this type. In the 10-story study frames. tested by Gilton.3 lbs/ft2 less than the steel in the same frame but with W14 columns. Of course as mentioned earlier. Chi. cannot be considered representative of the actual structures. this 10-story building was just an example to demonstrate that using deep columns instead of W14 not only can result in increasing lateral load resisting strength. decreasing drift. Chi and Uang (2000). Astaneh-Asl and D. B. the weight of the steel using W27 deep columns was about 1. 7. the amount of saving may vary but most likely still there will be some economic gain in using deep columns. The specimens without floor bracings. Figure 4.6. (a) Unrealistic Test Set-up used by Gilton. Uang (2000) and (b) Realistic Set-up Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames.2(b). Future testing of the connections with deep columns need to be done such that the bracing effects provided by the floors and transverse beam(s) are represented. (a) (b) Figure 4. McCallen. 35 . An added advantage of using deep column is a potential for saving in the cost of material and construction. 2002.

gov web site.” Modern Steel Construction. Report No. N. Chicago. (1995). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Structural Steel Educational Council. International Conference of Building Officials.aisc. University of California. UCB/EERC-93/12.2. American Institute of Steel Construction.. Department of Structural Engineering. M. 36 . Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.. Steel TIPS. “Synthesized Strong Ground Motion for the Seismic Condition Assessment of the Eastern Portion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge”. Berkeley. “Seismic Design Criteria for Steel Moment-Frame Structures”. Version 6. Report. Providence. J. II and III. Astaneh-Asl. Uniform Building Code.) Bolt. November. A. and Uang.org web site. ICBO (1997). IL. Structural Systems Research Project. User Manual I. FEMA-350 (2001). La Jolla. McCallen. San Diego. (in review at this writing). C. IL. Report No. Inc. Chicago. CA.) Flynn. B. Hibbitt. CA. (2000).________________________________________________________________________ References ________________________________________________________________________ ABAQUS (2001). IL. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. RI. American Institute of Steel Construction. Shen. B. AISC (2002). (2000). 2002.fema. Cyclic Response of RBS Moment Connections: Weak-Axis Configuration and Deep Column Effects.. (This report can be downloaded free from www. MD. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. Karlsson & Sorensen. “Seismic Behavior and Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames”. Chicago. A. Chi. SSRP-2000/03. Astaneh-Asl and D. (This report can be downloaded free from www.. and Gregor.. CA. (1993). Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Letter to the Editor. CA. C. Whittier. University of California. B. L. AISC (1998). Gilton. Moraga.

Structural Steel Educational Council. CA. “Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software”. L-W and Fisher. SCI. Ph. Berkeley. ATLSS Report No... “Northridge Model Buildings”. Lu. Moraga. B. J. McCallen.W. SAC. Moore. (2000). Seismic performances of Reduced Beam Section Frames. CA..Kitjasateanphun T. (2001). (1996)..O. J. ATLSS Engineering Research Center .. Chicago. “Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS) Moment Frame Connections”. Sacramento. Mao. 37 . SAC Joint Venture. Bethlehem. (1999). Sacramento. (1999). Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Lehigh University. SAP-2000 Software. PA. J. Internal Report for SAC Researchers.S. C. A.aisc. The Steel Deck Institute. 00-04..D. Seventh Ed. Thesis.) Ricles. (This report can be downloaded free from www. 2002. LRFD Design manual for Composite Beams and Girders with Steel Deck. (2000) “Development and Evaluation of Improved Details for Ductile Welded Unreinforced Flange Connections”. Structural Engineers Association of California. Computers and Structures. and Engelhardt. SEAOC. K.. Shen. M.D.M. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering. SDI (1989). Illinois Institute of Technology.org web site. No. IL. J. “Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary”. Steel TIPS. Malley. LRFD1. Astaneh-Asl and D.

is a professor of structural engineering at the University of California. Astaneh-Asl and D. Berkeley. He is a registered Professional Engineer and Structural Engineer.E.E. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. Ph.D. He can be reached at: Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. The original concept of the system was suggested by Dr. Berkeley. He has collaborated at the University of California (UC).. Phone: (925) 423-1219 E-mail: mccallen2@llnl. Since September 11. 60616. B. Since1995. Ph. he has conducted considerable research on inelastic behavior of moment connections. Department of Civil and Arch. Illinois Institute of Technology. MS L-151. He has also been involved in providing consulting and advice to the industry on behavior and design of steel structures. Berkeley as a Visiting Research Engineer and has performed recent work in earthquake simulations with a multidisciplinary team of earth scientists and engineers from the UC Berkeley and LLNL. A. P. funded by the National Science Foundation. Fax: (312) 567-3579. Center for Complex Distributed Systems.. research and design of steel structures.edu. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..gov. he has conducted several major projects on seismic design and retrofit of steel long span bridges and tall buildings. Shen's expertise and research interests are in the areas of inelastic behavior of steel structures and earthquake engineering. E-mail: shen@iit. and computer-integrated analysis and design of steel structures. Dr. Since 1982. David McCallen. 2001. he has been involved in teaching. CA 94550. His current research includes nonlinear finite element analysis of steel bridges subject to strong ground motions.. in Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics from the University of California at Davis.. particularly pre-Northridge welded and the post-Northridge RBS steel moment connections. 3201 South Dearborne Street.E.D. S.D.D. Since 1994 Northridge California earthquake.. Topics of research interests include: cyclic behavior and design of earthquake-resistant steel structures. 38 . S. and seismic study of special moment frames and semi-rigid steel frames. Jay Shen. Chicago.R. McCallen. seismic retrofit of bridges. is the Director of the Engineering Technology Center for Complex Distributed Systems at LLNL. J. Shen. Higgins Award.E. McCallen has a Ph.D. is an associate professor of structural engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Ph. IL. P..About the authors… . Ph. dynamic analysis. P.based mechanism to prevent progressive collapse of steel structures. Jie-Hua Jay Shen. He has also led LLNL projects for the California Department of Transportation that studied the seismic response of key California transportation structures. 781 Davis Hall. In recent years. The Center is responsible for developing Engineering's capabilities in agile distributed sensor networks for data gathering and advanced techniques for combining simulation and sensing for enhanced characterization of complex systems. Phone: (312) 567-5860. T. Fax: (510) 643 5258 Home office Phone and Fax: (925) 946-0903 Cell Phone for Urgent Calls: (925) 699-3902 E-mail: Astaneh@ce.D. McCallen.E. Engineering. 2002.. CA 94720-1710 Phone: (510) 642 4528. Chicago. 7000 East Avenue. he has been heavily involved in conducting research. he has also been studying behavior of steel structures subjected to blast loads and has been involved in testing and further development of a cable. Joseph Penzien in 1996 and in the aftermath of terrorist attack on Murrah building in Oklahoma City.E.D..berkeley. Ph. He is the winner of the 1998 AISC. He can be reached at: He can be reached at: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. His expertise is in the area of structural dynamics and the response of structures to extreme events.edu David B. Ph. on the collapse of the World Trade Center due to terrorist attack. Livermore. P. University of California.

May '89: The Economies of LRFD in Composite Floor Beams. Mar. by Omer W. Jun. '99: Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS) Moment Frame Connections. by Alvaro L. '97: Dynamic Tension Tests of Simulated Moment Resisting Frame Weld Joints. Aug. Zahn. Shen. Malley and Michael D. by David T. and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. McMullin. Jan. Feb. Dec '93: Common Steel Erection Problems and Suggested Solutions. Grigorian. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. '90: Design of Small Base Plates for Wide Flange Columns. by Alvaro L. by John L. 2002. by William C. Dec. Blodgett. Tzong-Shuoh Yang & Egor P. Kaufmann. Jul. Apr. Sep.org and can be downloaded free for personal use courtesy of the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust and the AISC. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. A. ’ 01: Notes on Design of Steel Parking Structures Including Seismic Effects. Thornton. Mar. Collin & James J. '99: Practical Design and Detailing of Steel Column Base Plates. Apr. Jul. 38 . by Mark C. Mar. Ricker. Dec. '91: LRFD-Composite Beam Design with Metal Deck. Jul. Robert Preece & Alvaro L. Oct. James O. Aug. Dec. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.aisc. Honeck & Derek Westphal. Jan ’ 01: Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls. '93: Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension Applications. '92: Designing for Cost Efficient Fabrication. Astaneh-Asl and D. '94: Use of Steel in the Seismic Retrofit of Historic Oakland City Hall. '95: Structural Details to Increase Ductility of Connections. '92: Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters. Nov. J. Moore. '85: Fireproofing Open-Web Joists & Girders. Aug. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and David McCallen.Takhirov. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. by Bill Dyker & John D. '95: Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames. by Lanny J. by Egor P. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. Smith. by William Honeck & Mason Walters. Popov. Collin and James J.A. '98: Compatibility of Mixed Weld Metal. Mar. '92: Value Engineering and Steel Economy. by Eric J. Sept. '01: Large Seismic Steel Beam-to-Column Connections.List of Published Steel TIPS Reports* -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------June 02: Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. McCallen. by F. Mayo. B. Popov and Shakhzod M. Nov. Collin. Oct. '86: UN Fire Protected Exposed Steel Parking Structures. Engelhardt. '96: Seismic Design Practice for Eccentrically Braced Frames (Based on the 1994 UBC). Apr. by James J. by Roy Becker. Sep. Steven M. Dec. Oct. by W. Nov. Jan. by Kevin S. May ’ 02: Seismic Behavior and Design of Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls. '97: Reference Guide for Structural Steel Welding Practices. Call and Kurt M. Thornton. '99: Welded Moment Frame Connections with Minimal Residual Stress. '97: Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames. Putkey. by Ron Vogel. '90: Design of Single Plate Shear Connections. '87: Composite Beam Design with Metal Deck. Putkey.A. '95: Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. Flynn. '98: Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates. The Steel TIPS are available at AISC website: www. by Roy Becker & Michael Ishler. by Farzad Naeim. '92: Steel Deck Construction. '92: What Design Engineers Can Do to Reduce Fabrication Costs. Putkey. '76: Steel High-Rise Building Fire. '93: Structural Steel Construction in the '90s. by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. '91: Design Practice to Prevent Floor Vibrations. Jun '01: Metal Roof Construction on Large Warehouses or Distribution Centers. by Jay Shen. by Carl E. '92: Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams. by W. Jan.

The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most economical solution for your products. Nelson Stud Welding Co. 2002. (925) 631-1313 Fax. Oregon Steel Mills Plas-Tal Manufacturing Co. Inc Bostrum Bergen. 38 . Western Steel & Metals. Strocal Inc. Inc. Box 6190 Moraga. Inc. Baresel Corp Bethlehem Steel Corporation Bickerton Industries. Templeton Steel Fabrication Trade Arbed Verco Manufacturing.aisc. J. Shen.O. Inc. McCallen. A. Use of Deep Columns in Special Steel Moment Frames. fabrication details and delivery schedules. Reno Iron Works SME Industries Schollenbarger-Borello.org Steel S P O N S O R S Adams & Smith Bannister Steel. B. Funding for this publication was provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust. (925) 631-1112 Fred Boettler. California Erectors Eagle Iron Construction Eandi Metal Works Four Star Erectors Gayle Manufacturing The Herrick Corporation Hoertig Iron Works Junior Steel Company Martin Iron Works Inc. Administrator Steel TIPS may be viewed and downloaded at www. Astaneh-Asl and D. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage to cost comparisons. Inc Vulcraft Sales Corp. McLean Steel Inc. CA 94570 Tel.STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL P.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful