55 views

Uploaded by Sumanth

- Chapter 5 Restrained Beam Design
- Cruciform Sections + NSCApril06_Tech
- chap9
- CFD-ACI-318-05
- SFD-CSA-S16-01.pdf
- Forming VII
- Assignment
- Shira v and 2016
- CFD-ACI-318-08
- AISC 360-05 Example 002
- CMH-17_Vol6_RevG
- Experimental investigation of aluminum alloy circular hollow section columns.pdf
- Buckling CourseWork
- Structural Bamboo design in EA.pdf
- A.H. Allen (Reinforced Concrete Design to Bs8110)
- design of ridge MOHAMED.doc
- D6641-D6641M-09 Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) Test Fixture.pdf
- Conference Paper-ASFE-Mariyana Aida Ab KAdir
- Lect1-Stractural Behavior and Design
- Design for Shear

You are on page 1of 54

Professor of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego

Professor of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo

Professor of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University

Key words: Seismic Design, Steel Structures, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, AISC Seismic Provisions, R

Factor, Ductility, System Overstrength, Capacity Design, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Moment-Resisting

Frames, Brittle Fracture, Moment Connections, Concentrically Braced Frames, Buckling, Braces,

Eccentrically Braced Frames, Links.

Abstract: Seismic design of steel building structures has undergone significant changes since the Northridge,

California earthquake in 1994. Steel structures, thought to be ductile for earthquake resistance, experienced

brittle fracture in welded moment connections. The latest AISC Seismic Provisions reflect the significant

research findings that resulted from the Northridge earthquake. This chapter first starts with a description of

the seismic design philosophy, the concept of system parameters (R, Cd, and o) and capacity design.

Background information for the seismic requirements in the AISC Seismic Provisions of Moment Frames,

Concentrically Braced Frames, and Eccentrically Braced Frames are then presented. Design examples are

provided for each of the three structural systems.

409

410 Chapter 9

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 411

respond elastically during a major earthquake,

the required elastic base shear ratio, Ceu, would

9.1.1 General be high. For economical reasons, the NEHRP

Recommended Provisions take advantage of the

Steel is one of the most widely used structure's inherent energy dissipation capacity

materials for building construction in North by specifying a design seismic force level, Cs,

America. The inherent strength and toughness which is reduced significantly from Ceu by a

of steel are characteristics that are well suited to response modification factor, R:

a variety of applications, and its high ductility is

ideal for seismic design. To utilize these C eu

Cs = (9-1)

advantages for seismic applications, the design R

engineer has to be familiar with the relevant

steel design provisions and their intent and must The Cs design force level is the first

ensure that the construction is properly significant yield level of the structure, which

executed. This is especially important when corresponds to the force level beyond which the

welding is involved. structural response starts to deviate significantly

The seismic design of building structures from the elastic response. Idealizing the actual

presented in this chapter is based on the response envelope by a linearly elastic-perfectly

NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the plastic response shown in Figure 9-1, it can be

Development of Seismic Regulation for New shown that the R factor is composed of two

Buildings (BSSC 1997). For seismic steel contributing factors (Uang 1991):

design, the NEHRP Recommended Provisions

incorporate by reference the AISC Seismic R = R o (9-2)

Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings

(1997b).

The ductility reduction factor, R, accounts

9.1.2 NEHRP Seismic Design Concept for the reduction of seismic forces from Ceu to

Cy, Such a force reduction is possible because

The NEHRP Recommended Provisions are ductility, which is measured by the ductility

factor (= s/y), is provided by the energy-

based on the R-factor design procedure. In this

procedure, certain structural components are dissipating components in the structural system.

designated as the structural fuses and are The system overstrength factor, o, in Eq.

9-2 accounts for the reserve strength between

specially detailed to respond in the inelastic

range to dissipate energy during a major the force levels Cy and Cs. Several factors

earthquake. Since these components are contribute to this overstrength factor. These

include structural redundancy, story drift limits,

expected to experience significant damage,

their locations are often selected such that the material overstrength, member oversize, non-

damage of these components would not impair seismic load combinations, and so on.

The R-factor design approach greatly

the gravity load-carrying capacity of the

system. Aside from these energy dissipating simplifies the design process because the design

components, all other structural components engineer only has to perform an elastic

structural analysis even though the structure is

including connections are then proportioned

following the capacity design concept to remain expected to deform well into the inelastic range

in the elastic range. during a major earthquake. After the elastic

story drift, e, is computed from a structural

Consider a structural response envelope

shown in Figure 9-1, where the abscissa and analysis, the NEHRP Recommended Provisions

ordinate represent the story drift and base shear then specify a deflection amplification factor,

412 Chapter 9

Cd, to estimate the Design Story Drift, s, in the AISC LRFD Specification (1993), the AISC

Figure 9-1: Seismic Provisions require that the columns be

checked for two additional special load

Cd e combinations using the amplified horizontal

s = (9-3)

I earthquake load effects, oE:

The story drift thus computed cannot exceed the

allowable drift specified in the NEHRP 0.9 D o E (9-5)

Recommended Provisions. Depending on the

Seismic Use Group, the allowable drift for steel The amplified seismic load effects are to be

buildings varies from 1.5% to 2.5% of the story applied without consideration of any concurrent

height. bending moment on the columns. In addition,

Note that the ultimate strength of the the required strengths determined from these

structure (Cy in Figure 9-1) is not known if only two load combinations need not exceed either

an elastic analysis is performed at the Cs design (1) the maximum load transferred to the column

force level. Nevertheless, the ultimate strength considering 1.1Ry times the nominal strengths

of the structure is required in capacity design to of the connecting beam or brace elements of the

estimate, for example, the axial force in the frame, or (2) the limit as determined by the

columns when a yield mechanism forms in the resistance of the foundation to uplift. Refer to

structure. For this purpose, the NEHRP the next section for the factor Ry.

Recommended Provisions specify o values to The R, Cd, and o values specified in the

simplify the design process. Therefore, in NEHRP Recommended Provisions for different

addition to the load combinations prescribed in types of steel framing systems are listed in

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 413

Table 9-1. Steel framing systems and design parameters (NEHRP 1997)

Frame System R o Cd

Bearing Wall Systems

Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBFs) 4 2 3

Building Frame Systems

Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBFs)

Moment connections at columns away from links 8 2 4

Non-moment connections at columns away from links 7 2 4

Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) 6 2 5

Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames(OCBFs) 5 2 4

Moment Resisting Frame Systems

Special Moment Frames (SMFs) 8 3 5

Intermediate Moment Frames (IMFs) 6 3 5

Ordinary Moment Frames (OMFs) 4 3 3

Special Truss Moment Frames (STMFs) 7 3 5

Dual Systems with SMFs Capable of Resisting at Least 25% of Prescribed Seismic

Forces

Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBFs)

Moment connections at columns away from links 8 2 4

Non-moment connections at columns away from links 7 2 4

Special Concentrically Braced frames (SCBFs) 8 2 6

Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBFs) 6 2 5

Table 9-1. Seismic design of three widely used Grade 65 steel for which the only expected

systems (moment-resisting frames, inelastic behavior is yielding at the column

concentrically braced frames, and eccentrically base.

braced frames) that are presented later in this The specified minimum yield strength is

chapter makes use of these parameters. used to design the structural components that

are expected to yield during the design

9.1.3 Structural Steel Materials earthquake. However, to estimate the force

demand these components would impose on

The ductility of steel generally reduces with other structural components (including

an increase of the yield stress. Therefore, the connections) that are expected to remain elastic,

AISC Seismic Provisions permit only the the expected yield strength, Fye, of the energy

following grades of steel for seismic design: dissipating components needs to be used for

ASTM A36, A53, A500 (Grades B and C), capacity design:

A501, A572 (Grades 42 or 50), A588, A913

(Grade 50 or 65), or A992. Further, for those F ye = R y F y (9-6)

structural members that are designed to yield

under load combinations involving o times the For rolled shapes and bars, the AISC Seismic

design seismic forces, the specified minimum Provisions stipulate that Ry shall be taken as 1.5

yield strength, Fy, shall not exceed 50 ksi unless for A36 and 1.3 for A572 Grade 42. For rolled

the suitability of the material is determined by shapes and bars of other grades of steel and for

testing or other rational criteria. This limitation plates, Ry shall be taken as 1.1 (SSPC 1995).

does not apply to columns of A588 or A913

414 Chapter 9

Figure 9-2. (a) Geometry considering finite dimensions of members, (b) Typical moment diagram under lateral loading, and

(c) Corresponding member forces on beams, columns, and panel zones

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 415

9.2 Behavior and Design of connections can be used in such frames. Beam-

Moment-Resisting Frames to-column connections in IMFs are required to

have an inelastic rotation capacity of 0.02

radian. Other requirements are listed in the

9.2.1 Introduction AISC Seismic Provisions (1997b).

Ordinary moment frames (OMFs) are less

Steel moment-resisting frames (SMFs) are ductile than IMFs, and are expected to sustain

rectilinear assemblies of columns and beams only limited inelastic deformations in their

that are typically joined by welding or high- components and connections in the design

strength bolting or both. Resistance to lateral earthquake. Beam-to-column connections in

loads is provided by flexural and shearing OMFs are required to have an inelastic rotation

actions in the beams and the columns. Lateral capacity of 0.01 radian. FR and PR connections

stiffness is provided by the flexural stiffness of can be used in OMFs. Because OMFs are less

the beams and columns; the flexibility of the ductile than IMFs, an OMF must be designed

beam-column connections are often ignored for higher seismic forces than an IMF; an OMF

although such flexibility may substantially is designed for earthquake loads calculated

increase deflections in a moment-resisting using a value of R equal to 4.

frame. Components of an SMF together with The remainder of this section addresses

sample internal actions are shown in Figure. 9- issues associated with the design, detailing, and

2. testing of special moment frames and

The AISC Seismic Provisions define three components. The design philosophy for such

types of seismic steel moment-resisting frames: frames is to dissipate earthquake-induced

Ordinary Moment Frames, Intermediate energy in plastic hinging zones that typically

Moment Frames, and Special Moment Frames. form in the beams and panel zones of the frame.

All three framing systems are designed Columns and beam-to-column connections are

assuming ductile behavior of varying degrees, typically designed to remain elastic using

for earthquake forces that are reduced from the capacity design procedures.

elastic forces by a response modification factor,

R (see Table 9-1 for values of R). 9.2.2 Analysis and Detailing of Special

SMFs are considered to be the most ductile Moment Frames

of the three types of moment frames considered

by AISC. For this reason, and due to their Because the SMF is a flexible framing

architectural versatility, SMFs have been the system, beam and column sizes in SMFs are

most popular seismic framing system in high often selected to satisfy story drift

seismic regions in the United States. SMFs are requirements. As such, the nominal structural

designed for earthquake loads calculated using strength of an SMF can substantially exceed the

a value of R equal to 8. Stringent requirements minimum base shear force required by the

are placed on the design of beams, columns, NEHRP Recommended Provisions. When

beam-to-column connections, and panel zones. analyzing SMFs, all sources of deformation

Beam-to-column connections in SMFs are should be considered in the mathematical

required to have a minimum inelastic rotation model. NEHRP stipulates that panel zone

capacity of 0.03 radian. deformations must be included in the

Intermediate Moment Frames (IMFs) are calculation of story drift.

assumed to be less ductile than SMFs but are The AISC Seismic Provisions prescribe

expected to withstand moderate inelastic general requirements for materials and

deformations in the design earthquake. IMFs connections that are particularly relevant to

are designed using a value of R equal to 6; fully SMF construction:

restrained (FR) or partially restrained (PR)

416 Chapter 9

1. Steel in SMF construction must comply gyration about the weak axis for out-of-plane

with the requirements described in buckling.

Section 9.1.3. In addition, a minimum

Charpy V-notch toughness of 20 ft-lbs at 9.2.4 Beam-to-Column Connections

70F is required for thick materials in

SMFs: ASTM A6 Group 3 shapes with Introduction

flanges 1 inches or thicker, ASTM A6

Groups 4 and 5 shapes, and plates that For discussion purposes, a beam-to-column

are 1 inches or greater in thickness in connection includes the beam-column panel

built-up members. zone and the beam-to-column joints.

Connections in an SMF need to satisfy three

2. Calculation of maximum component

criteria: (1) a sufficient strength to develop the

strengths (e.g., for strong column-weak

full plastic moment of the beam, (2) a sufficient

beam calculations) for capacity design

stiffness to satisfy the assumption of a fully

must be based on the expected yield

rigid (FR) connection, and (3) a large post-yield

strength, Fye (see Eq. 9-6).

deformation capacity without significant loss of

3. To prevent brittle fractures at the welds, strength. Prior to the 1994 Northridge,

AISC prescribes that welded joints be California earthquake, the welded flange-bolted

performed in accordance with an web steel moment connections were assumed

approved Welding Procedure by design professionals to easily satisfy all

Specifications and that all welds used in three criteria. Unfortunately, many moment-

primary members and connections in the resisting connections suffered extensive

seismic force resisting system be made damage during this earthquake. In addition to

with a filler metal that has a minimum brittle fracture in the groove welded

Charpy V-notch toughness of 20 ft-lbs at connections (mostly in the beam bottom

minus 20F. flange), other types of fracture that were seldom

observed in laboratory testing prior to the

9.2.3 Beam Design Northridge earthquake were also reported.

Figure 9-3a shows cracks extending into the

A beam in a steel SMF is assumed to be able column panel zone, and Figure 9-3b presents a

to develop its full plastic moment (Mp) divot pullout from the column flange. The

calculated as causes of failure are discussed in Bruneau et al.

(1997).

M p = Z b Fy (9-7) The poor performance of welded moment-

frame connections in more than 200 multistory

where Z b is the plastic section modulus. In buildings in the Northridge earthquake led to

the development of a national program, funded

order to prevent premature beam flange or web

by the Federal Emergency Management

local buckling, and to maintain this moment for

Agency (FEMA), to investigate the causes of

large plastic deformations, the width-thickness

ratios of the web and flange elements should be failure and to develop alternative connections

for repair, rehabilitation, and new construction.

limited to the values of ps given in Table 9-2.

Part of the FEMA program involved full-scale

(The p values are for non-seismic design.) In testing of large-size steel beam-column

addition, both flanges of the beam must be connections (SAC 1996). The laboratory testing

laterally braced near potential plastic hinges; of the pre-Northridge prequalified welded

the unbraced length of the beam must not flange-bolted web connection replicated many

exceed 2500 ry /Fy, where ry is the radius of of the failure modes observed in the field after

the earthquake. The mean value of beam plastic

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 417

Description of Width- p ps

Element Thickness

Ratio

Flanges of I-shaped b/t 65 / Fy 52 / Fy

beams and channels

in flexure

Webs of I-shaped h/tw for Pu/bPy 0.125: for Pu/bPy 0.125:

beams in combined

520

flexure and axial 640 2.75Pu

1

(1 1.54Pu

Fy b Py

compression Fy b Py

for Pu/bPy > 0.125:

for Pu/bPy > 0.125:

191 253

191 P

2.33 u

253

(2.33 Pu

Fy b Py Fy

Fy b Py

Fy

Round HHS in axial D/t 2070 1300

compression or Fy Fy

flexure

Rectangular HHS in b/t 190 110

axial compression or Fy Fy

flexure

rotation capacity from all of the tests of the pre- welded connections are considered in this

Northridge connection detail was 0.004 radian section.

(Whittaker et al. 1998), which was significantly These connection details fall in one of the

less than the target value of 0.03 radian. In two categories: weakening the beam cross-

response to these findings, the 1997 AISC section away from the face of the column, or

Seismic Provisions require that (1) the design of reinforcing the beam cross-section at the

beam-to-column joints and connections in column face. Only non-proprietary moment

SMFs must be based on qualifying tests of at connections are discussed.

least two specimens, and (2) each connection

must develop a plastic rotation of 0.03 radian. Reinforced Connections

been developed since the Northridge

Shortly after the 1994 earthquake, the earthquake. Some reinforced connection details

prequalified welded flange-bolted web are shown in Figure. 9-4: cover plates, welded

connection was deleted from most building flange plates, triangular haunches, straight

codes and replaced by general provisions that haunches, and vertical plate ribs. Note that

required the design professional to demonstrate these connection details would not only

the adequacy of the connection by either full- increase the beam plastic hinge rotation demand

scale testing or calculations supported by test but also increase the maximum moment

data. In response to this action, design demand at the face of the column, which could

professionals have proposed new types of require a stronger panel zone or a larger section

moment-resisting connections for steel for the column to maintain the strong column-

buildings. Some of these proposals are weak beam system (SAC 1995). Typical design

discussed below. In all cases, the proposed practice for reinforced connections is to keep

connection details relocate the beam plastic the reinforced component in the elastic range

hinge away from the face of the column. Only for moments associated with substantial strain

418 Chapter 9

hardening in the beam beyond the welded flange-plate connection because the

reinforcement. Although it may be tempting to beam flanges are not welded to the column

assume a linear distribution of bending moment flange. The bottom welded flange plate can be

along the length of the beam to size the shop welded to the column, thereby eliminating

reinforcement, the effects of gravity load on the one field groove weld, and providing an

beam bending moment diagram, if significant, erection seat for the beam.

must be carefully considered. For all of the Welded triangular and straight haunch

connection details described below, notch- reinforced connections (see Figures 9-4c and d)

toughness rated weld filler metal, qualified underwent extensive laboratory testing

welders, and high quality inspection should be following the Northridge earthquake (e.g., SAC

specified. 1996, Gross et al. 1998) because both

Immediately after the Northridge reinforcements could be used for seismic repair

earthquake, cover plates (see Figure 9-4a) have and retrofit. Most of the haunch connection

been one of the more popular strategies for tests conducted to date incorporated a haunch to

reinforcing beam-to-column connections. the bottom flange, although the addition of

Testing has been completed at a number of haunches to both the top and bottom flanges

laboratories and significant data are available was also considered. Of the different types of

(e.g., Engelhardt and Sabol 1996, and SAC haunch details tested to date, the triangular T-

1996). In most cases, the bottom cover plate is shaped haunches appear to be the most effective

rectangular and wider than the beam bottom (Yu et al. 2000). Large plastic rotations were

flange, and the top cover plate is tapered and achieved with this type of connection. Vertical

narrower than the beam top flange. This rib plates (see Figure 9-4e) can also be used to

configuration permits the bottom cover plate to reduce the stress demand in the welded joint

be used as an erection seat, and facilitates (Chi and Uang 2000).

down-hand welding in the field. Welded, not

bolted, web connections are recommended as Reduced Beam Sections

an effective way of reducing the thickness of

the cover plates. Although a significant number An alternative to relocating the plastic hinge

of cover plated connection specimens have away from the face of the column is to reduce

achieved beam plastic rotations exceeding 0.03 the plastic moment of the beam at a short

radian, Hamburger (1996) reported a failure distance from the column face. Beam sections

rate of approximately 20 percent for cover- can be reduced by tapering the flanges, or by

plated connections in laboratory tests. Another radius-cutting the flanges as shown in Figure 9-

concern with the cover-plate connection is that 5. The latter approach appears to be the most

the seam between the flange cover plate and the promising because the re-entrant corners of the

beam flange acts as a notch at the column face tapered flange profile tend to promote pre-

that may lead to cracks propagating into the mature fracture in the beam flanges.

column flange and beyond. Further information Originally proposed and tested by Plumier

is available in SAC (1997). (1990), the use of the reduced beam section

The welded flange-plate connection (see (RBS), also termed the dogbone by many

Figure 9-4b) is closely related to the cover-plate design professionals, has seen broad support

connection, with the major difference being that from engineers, steel producers, and fabricators.

only the flange plates are groove welded to the Both reduced-beam-section profiles have

column (Jokerst and Soyer 1996, Noel and achieved plastic rotations in excess of 0.03

Uang 1996). As such, flange plates of the radian. Additional information is provided in

welded flange-plate connection are thicker than Iwankiw and Carter (1996), Chen et al. (1996),

the comparable cover plates shown in Figure 9- Engelhardt et al. (1996), and Zekioglu et al.

4a. There is no notch effect associated with the (1996).

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 419

(a) Beam bottom flange weld fracture propagating through column flange and web

(b) Beam bottom flange weld fracture causing a column divot fracture

Figure 9-3. Examples of brittle fracture of steel moment frame connections (courtesy of David P. Osullivan, EQE

International, San Francisco)

420 Chapter 9

Figure 9-4. Reinforced moment connections: (a) cover plates, (b) welded flange plates, (c) triangular haunches,

(d) straight haunch, (e) rib plates

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 421

the beam tends to be larger when the RBS is

used. Second, the stress in the column produced

by warping torsion is highly dependent on the

ratio (d c t cf ) / t cf3 . For example, this ratio is

equal to 0.671/in2 for a W14398 section (Ix =

(a) Tapered Flange Profile 6000 in4). If the designer chooses a deep section

W27161 for a comparable moment of inertia

(Ix = 6280 in4) to control drift, the ratio is

drastically increased to 21.04/in2, implying that

this section is susceptible to column twisting.

Lateral bracing near the RBS region then may

be required to minimize the twisting. A

procedure to check if column twisting is a

(b) Circular Flange Profile

concern has been developed (Gilton et al.

2000).

Figure 9-5. Moment connection with reduced beam

section

9.2.5 Beam-to- Column Panel Zones

Reducing the width of the beam flange

Introduction

serves to delay flange local buckling but

increases the likelihood of web local buckling

A beam-to-column panel zone is a flexible

and lateral-torsional buckling because the in-

component of a steel moment-resisting frame

plane stiffness of the flanges is significantly

that is geometrically defined by the flanges of

reduced. The reduced beam section usually

the column and the beam (see Figure 9-6).

experiences web local buckling first, followed

Although seismic building codes require the

by lateral-torsional buckling and flange local

consideration of panel zone deformations in the

buckling.

story drift computations, panel zones are rarely

The stability of RBS beams was studied as

modelled explicitly in mathematical models of

part of the SAC Joint Venture (Uang and Fan

steel moment-resisting frames. Mathematical

2000). It was found from a statistical study that

web local buckling is the governing mode of representations of moment-resisting frames are

generally composed of beams and columns

buckling. While the ps values presented in

Section 9.2.3 for flange local buckling and modelled as line elements spanning between the

lateral-torsional buckling still can be used for beam-column intersection points. Such a

representation will underestimate the elastic

RBS design, the ps value for web local

flexibility of a moment-resisting frame. An

buckling needs to be reduced from 520/ Fy to approximate analysis procedure that includes

418/ Fy (SAC 2000). The study also showed the flexibility of panel zones for drift

computations have been proposed (Tsai and

that additional lateral bracing near the RBS is Popov 1990). This procedure will be

generally unnecessary. demonstrated in an SMF design in Section

Design engineers frequently use deep 9.5.2.

columns in a moment frame to control drift.

Typical internal forces on a panel zone are

When the deep section wide-flange columns are

shown in Figure 9-6a; axial, shearing, and

used, however, an experimental study showed

flexural forces are typically present in a panel

that significant torsion leading to the twisting of

zone. In this figure, continuity plates are shown

the column could result (Gilton et al. 2000).

in the column at the level of the beam flanges

Two factors contribute to the column twisting.

and the moments M 1 and M 2 represent

422 Chapter 9

earthquake actions. Assuming that the flanges restrained joints, such as continuity plates,

resist 100 percent of the moment and that the induces residual stress in steel members. In

distance between the centroids of the flanges is addition to the normal variation of material

95 percent of the beam depth, compression and properties in the column, the process of mill

tension flange forces as shown in Figure 9-6b rotary straightening of the W-shaped member

can replace the beam moments. alters the mechanical properties by cold

working in the k area. (The k area is

defined by AISC as the region extending from

about the midpoint of the radius of the fillet into

the web approximately 1 to 1.5 in. beyond the

point of tangency between the fillet and web.)

As a result, a reduction in ductility and

toughness in the k area may occur. In some

cases, values of Charpy V-notch toughness less

than 5 ft-lb at 70 F have been reported. Since

welding in the k area may increase the

likelihood of fracture, a recent AISC Advisory

(1997a) has suggested that welds for the

continuity plates be stopped short of the k

area. Fillet welds and/or partial joint penetration

welds, proportioned to transfer the calculated

forces, are preferred to complete joint

penetration welds.

6b, and taking a free-body diagram immediately

below the upper continuity plate, the horizontal

shearing force in the panel zone ( V pz ) can be

Figure 9-6. Internal forces acting on a panel zone of a calculated as

moment-resisting frame subjected to lateral loading

M1 M2

V pz = + Vc (9-8)

The continuity plates shown in Figure 9-6 0.95d b1 0.95d b 2

serve to prevent column flange distortion and where all terms are defined above and in the

column web yielding and crippling. If such figure, and Vc is the shearing force in the

plates are not provided in a column with thin

flanges, and the beam flange imposes a tensile column immediately above the panel zone.

force on the column flange, inelastic strains Because Vc reduces the shearing force in the

across the groove weld of the beam flange are panel zone, and its magnitude is substantially

much higher opposite the column web than they smaller than the first two terms on the right

are at the flange tips. Thus, weld cracks and hand side of this equation, Vc can be ignored

fractures may result. Because the design of conservatively in the calculation of the

beam-to-column joints and connections is based maximum shearing force. Therefore, for beams

upon qualifying cyclic tests, AISC (1997) of equal depth,

requires that continuity plates of the size used

in the qualifying tests be provided in the M

V pz (9-9)

connection. However, welding of the highly db

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 423

beam moment. zone frame can be significantly smaller than

Prior to the publication of the 1988 Uniform that computed using a mathematical model

Building Code (ICBO 1988), panel zones were based on centerline dimensions.

designed to remain elastic for M 1 = M 2 = M p , Current AISC provisions (AISC 1997)

require the use of o equal to 3.0 (see Table 9-

where M p is the nominal plastic moment of

1) for beam moments induced by the design

the beam under consideration. The strength of earthquake loads. It also replaces the nominal

the panel zone at first yield was computed as plastic moment by the expected plastic moment

0.55Fyc Awc , where Fyc is the nominal yield and prescribes that the required strength of a

strength of the column and Awc is the area of panel zone need not exceed the shear force

the column web (= d c t cw ). This design determined from 0.8 M *pb , where M *pb is

procedure was intended to produce strong panel the sum of the beam moment(s) at the

zones such that yielding in the moment- intersection of the beam and column

resisting frame was minimized in the panel centrelines. ( M *pb is determined by

zone region. summing the projections of the expected beam

Both the 1988 Uniform Building Code and flexural strength(s) at the plastic hinge

the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions relaxed the location(s) to the column centreline.) That is,

design provisions for panel zone regions and the panel zone shall be designed for the

permitted intermediate strength panel zones and following unbalanced moment:

minimum strength panel zones. Previous studies

by Krawinkler et al. (1975) had shown that

M = o M E 0.8M *pb (9-11)

panel zone yielding could dissipate a large

amount of energy in a stable manner.

Intermediate and minimum strength panel zones Substituting Eq. (9-11) into Eq. (9-9) would

were introduced to encourage panel zone give the required shear strength in the panel

yielding. According to the 1992 AISC Seismic zone.

Provisions, intermediate strength panel zones

were designed for Post-Yield Strength and Detailing

Requirements

M = M p 2M g (9-10)

The 1992 AISC equation for calculating the

design shear strength of a panel zone ( v V n ,

where Mg is the gravity moment for one

where v =0.75) was based on the work of

beam. If the gravity moment is taken to be 20

Krawinkler et al. (1975):

percent of the plastic moment, the above

equation gives M = 0.8M p . Minimum

3bcf tcf2

strength panel zones were allowed for a value vVn = v 0.60 Fyc d c t p 1 + (9-12)

d b d ct p

of M = M E 0 .8 M p , where the

unbalanced beam moment produced by the

prescribed design seismic forces is where d c is the depth of the column, t p is

M E = ( M E1 + M E 2 ) . It has been shown (Tsai the total thickness of the panel zone, including

and Popov 1988) that steel moment frames with doubler plates ( t p = t cw if no doubler plates are

intermediate- or minimum-strength panel zones present), bcf is the width of the column flange,

are likely to have a substantially smaller

overstrength factor, o , than those with strong t cf is the thickness of the column flange, and

panel zones. In addition, the lateral stiffness of d c is the depth of the column. The second term

424 Chapter 9

in the parentheses represents the contribution of calculated using the specified load

column flanges (assumed to be linearly elastic) combinations. In addition, the column axial

to the shear strength of the panel zone. The strength should be sufficient to resist the axial

equation used to calculate Vn assumes a level of forces produced by the special load

shear strain of 4 y in the panel zone, where y combinations of Eqs. 9-4 and 9-5. Additional

is the yield shearing strain. strength is required if either the welds are

A panel zone must also be checked for a partial penetration groove welds or the welds

minimum thickness ( t ) to prevent premature are subjected to net tension forces. Column

local buckling under large inelastic shear splices using fillet welds or partial joint

deformations: penetration groove welds shall not be located

within 4 feet or one-half the column clear

(d z + w z ) height of beam-to-column connections, which

t= (9-13) is less.

90

Special moment frames are designed using

the strong column-weak beam philosophy

In this empirical equation, d z is the depth of

because such an approach improves the energy

the panel zone between the continuity plates,

dissipation capacity of the frame, promotes

and wz is the width of the panel zone between

plastic hinge formation in the beams, increases

the column flanges. If doubler plates are used to

the seismic resistance of the frame, and

satisfy this equation for t , the plates must be

ostensibly prevents the formation of a soft story

plug welded to the column web such that the

mechanism. Seismic regulations seek to achieve

plates do not buckle independently of the web.

a strong column-weak beam system by ensuring

If used, doubler plates must be welded to the

that, at a beam-to-column connection, the sum

column flanges using either a complete joint

of the column plastic moments exceeds the sum

penetration groove weld or a fillet weld that

of the beam plastic moments. With few

develops the design shear strength of the full

exceptions, AISC (1997) requires that:

doubler plate thickness. When such plates are

welded directly to the column web and extend M *pc

beyond the panel zone, minimum weld size can > 1.0 (9-14)

be used to connect the top and bottom edges to M *pb

the column web. However, because of the cold

working due to the rotary straightening practice

where M *pc is the sum of the moment

and the resulting variations of material capacities in the columns above and below the

properties exhibited in the column k areas, joint at the intersection of the beam and column

the AISC Advisory (1997) suggested that, as an centerlines, and M *pb is the sum of the

interim measure, the design engineer increase moment demands in the beams at the

the column size to avoid the use of doubler intersection of the beam and column

plates. centerlines.

The value of M *pc is determined by

9.2.6 Column Design

summing the projections of the nominal

The column of an SMF must be designed flexural strength of the columns above and

per the LRFD Specifications (1997) as a beam- below the connection to the beam centerline,

column to avoid axial yielding, buckling, and with a reduction for the axial force in the

flexural yielding. Columns are routinely spliced column. M *pc can be conservatively

by groove welding. Such connections are approximated as Z c ( Fyc Puc / Ag ) , where

required to have sufficient strength to resist the

Ag is the gross area of the column, Puc is the

imposed axial, shearing, and flexural forces

required column compressive strength, Zc is the

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 425

plastic section modulus of the column, and Fyc elements of the column section shall be limited

is the minimum specified yield strength of to the ps values in Table 9-2 because plastic

column. The value of M *pb is calculated by hinge formation in the column may occur due

to the shift of inflection point during an

summing the projection of the expected beam

earthquake. Otherwise, columns shall comply

flexural strengths at the plastic hinge locations

with the limiting values of p in the same table.

to the column. M *pb can be approximated as

(1.1R y Fy Z + M v ) , where Z is the plastic

9.3 Behavior and Design of

modulus of the beam section at the potential Concentrically Braced

plastic hinge location, and Mv accounts for the

Frames

additional moment due to shear amplification

from the location of the plastic hinge to the

column centerline. As illustrated in Figure 9-7,

for reinforced connections using haunches or 9.3.1 Design Philosophy

vertical ribs, SAC (1996) suggests that plastic

hinges be assumed to be located at a distance sh Concentrically braced frames are frequently

= d/3 from the toe of haunch or ribs. For cover used to provide lateral strength and stiffness to

plated connections, SAC recommends that the low- and mid-rise buildings to resist wind and

plastic hinge be located at a distance sh = d/4 earthquake forces. Although some architects

beyond the end of cover plate. When the ratio favor the less intrusive moment frames, others

in Eq. 9-14 is no greater than 1.25, the width- have found architectural expression in exposing

to-thickness ratios of the flange and web braced frames which the public intuitively

Figure 9-7. Assumed beam plastic hinge locations (Adapted from Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1, SAC 1997)

426 Chapter 9

associates with seismic safety in some connections undamaged, thus allowing the

earthquake-prone regions. However, for those structure to survive strong earthquakes without

frames to provide adequate earthquake losing gravity-load resistance.

resistance, they must be designed for Past earthquakes have demonstrated that this

appropriate strength and ductility. This is idealized behavior may not be realized if the

possible for many of the concentrically braced braced frame and its connections are not

frame (CBF) configurations shown in Figure 9- properly designed. Numerous examples of poor

8, but not all, as described in this section. seismic performance have been reported

In a manner consistent with the earthquake- (Tremblay et al. 1995, 1996; AIJ 1995). As

resistant design philosophy presented elsewhere shown in Figure 9-9, braces with bolted

in this chapter, modern concentrically braced connections have fractured through their net

frames are expected to undergo inelastic section at bolt holes, beams and columns have

response during infrequent, yet large suffered damage, and welded and bolted

earthquakes. Specially designed diagonal braces connections have fractured. Collapses have

in these frames can sustain plastic deformations occurred as a consequence of such uncontrolled

and dissipate hysteretic energy in a stable inelastic behavior.

manner through successive cycles of buckling The design requirements necessary to

in compression and yielding in tension. The achieve adequate strength and ductility in

preferred design strategy is, therefore, to ensure concentrically braced frames are presented in

that plastic deformations only occur in the this section. Two types of systems are permitted

braces, leaving the columns, beams, and by the AISC Seismic Provisions: Special

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 427

Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames plastic moment of the member, reduced by the

(OCBFs). The emphasis herein is on the SCBF, axial load, is reached at mid-span, and a plastic

which is designed for stable inelastic hinge starts to develop there (point B in Figure

performance using a response modification 9-10). The interaction of flexure and axial force

factor, R, of 6. Some of the more stringent on the plastic moment must be taken into

ductile detailing requirements are relaxed for account to determine the actual value of

the OCBFs because it is assumed that these corresponding to point B. Along segment BC,

frames will be subjected to smaller inelastic further increases in result in greater plastic

deformation demands due to the use of a hinge rotations at mid-span (i.e., the member

smaller response modification factor. However, develops a plastic kink) and a corresponding

if an earthquake greater than that considered for drop in axial resistance. The relationship

design occurs, SCBFs are expected to perform between P and is nonlinear, partly as a result

better than OCBFs because of their of the plastic interaction between flexure and

substantially improved deformation capacity. axial force.

Upon unloading (starting at point C in

9.3.2 Hysteretic Energy Dissipation Figure 9-10), the applied compression force is

Capacity of Braces removed in an elastic manner. After unloading,

the member retains a large residual axial

Given that diagonal braces are the structural deformation as well as a large lateral deflection.

members chosen to plastically dissipate seismic When loading the member in tension, behavior

energy, an examination of the physical behavior is first elastic, up to point D. Then, at point D,

of a single brace subjected to axial load reversal the product of the axial force, P, and the mid-

is useful. It is customary to express the inelastic span transverse deformation, , equals the

behavior of axially loaded members in terms of member reduced plastic moment and a plastic

the axial force, P, versus the axial elongation, . hinge forms at mid-span. However, this time,

According to convention, tension forces and along segment DE, plastic hinge rotations act in

elongations are expressed with positive values. the reverse sense to those along segment BC,

A schematic representation of such a hysteretic and the transverse deflection reduces. As a

curve is shown in Figure 9-10. Note that the result, progressively larger axial forces can be

transverse member deflection at mid-span is applied. The bracing member cannot be brought

represented by . back to a perfectly straight position before the

A full cycle of inelastic deformations can be member yields in tension. Consequently, when

described as follows. Starting from an initially unloaded and reloaded in compression, the

unloaded condition (point O in Figure 9-10), brace behaves as a member with an initial

the member is first compressed axially in an deformation and its buckling capacity, Pcr , is

elastic manner. Buckling occurs at point A. typically lower that the corresponding buckling

Slender members will experience elastic capacity upon first loading, Pcr. Upon further

buckling along plateau AB, for which the cycles of loading, the value of Pcr rapidly

applied axial force can be sustained while the stabilizes to a relatively constant value.

member deflects laterally. Up to that point, the Typically, the ratio of Pcr /Pcr depends on the

brace behavior has remained elastic and member slenderness ratio, KL/r, and

unloading would proceed along the line BAO if expressions have been proposed to capture this

the axial compressive was removed. relationship (Bruneau et al. 1997). For

During buckling, flexural moments develop simplicity, a constant value of Pcr = 0.8Pcr is

along the member, equal to the product of the specified in the AISC Seismic Provisions

axial force and lateral deflection, with the (1992) and must be considered whenever it

largest value reached at the point of maximum gives a more critical design condition.

428 Chapter 9

(b) Severe distortion of beam without lateral support at location of chevron braces

429 Chapter 9

430 Chapter 9

Beyond this difference, the hysteretic curve dissipation. The energy absorption capability of

repeats itself in each subsequent cycle of axial a brace in compression depends on its

loading and inelastic deformations, with a shape slenderness ratio (KL/r) and its resistance to

similar to the OABCDEF of Figure 9-10. local buckling during repeated cycles of

inelastic deformation.

9.3.3 Design Requirements

Limits on Effective Slenderness Ratio

Concentrically braced frames exhibit their

best seismic performance when both yielding in As can be deduced from Figure 9-10,

tension and inelastic buckling in compression slenderness has a major impact on the ability of

of their diagonal members contribute a brace to dissipate hysteretic energy. For a

significantly to the total hysteretic energy very slender brace, segment OA is short while

Figure 9-11. Brace Hysteresis loops by experimentation. (Nakashima and Wakabayashi 1992, referring to a figure by

Shibata et al. 1973, with permission from CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida)

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 431

Figure 9-12. Schematic hysteretic behavior of braces of short, long, and intermediate slenderness (Nakashima and

Wakabayashi 1992, with permission from CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida).

segment AB is long, resulting in poor energy further and further to be able to dissipate the

dissipation capacity in compression. For stocky same amount of energy at each cycle, perhaps

braces, the reverse is true, and segment AB leading to collapse due to second-order effects.

(i.e., elastic buckling) may not exist. Seismic detailing provisions typically limit

Slenderness has no impact on the energy brace slenderness to prevent the above problem

dissipation capability of braces in tension. and to ensure good energy dissipation capacity.

Typical hysteretic loops obtained Many seismic codes require:

experimentally for axially loaded members of

intermediate and large slenderness ratios are KL 720

(9-15)

shown in Figure 9-11, where the parameter r Fy

(= Kl /( r) Fy / E ) is a non-dimensional

slenderness ratio (Nakashima and Wakabayashi

1992). Schematic illustrations of simplified where Fy is in ksi. For ASTM A992 or A572

hysteresis loops for short, intermediate and long Grade 50 steel, this corresponds to an effective

braces are shown in Figure 9-12. slenderness ratio of 102. Recently, the AISC

Very slender brace members (such as bars Seismic Provisions (1997) have relaxed this

or plates) can result from a practice called limit to:

tension-only design, often used prior to the

promulgation of modern seismic provisions for KL 1000

(9-16)

steel buildings, and still used in non-seismic r Fy

regions. In that design approach, the tension

brace is sized to resist all the lateral loads, and

for bracing members in SCBFs, but kept the

the contribution of the buckled compression

more stringent limit of Eq. 9-15 for OCBFs.

brace is ignored. While tension-only design

Nevertheless, the authors recommend the use of

may be acceptable for wind resistance, it is not

Eq. 9-15 for both SCBFs and OCBFs.

permissible for earthquake resistance. As

shown in Figure 9-13, braced frames with very

Limits on Width-to-Thickness Ratio

slender members must progressively drift

432 Chapter 9

Figure 9-13. Hysteretic Behavior of Single-Story braced frame having very slender braces

The plastic hinge that forms at mid-span of a suffer low-cycle fatigue and fracture after a few

buckled brace may develop large plastic cycles of severe inelastic deformations

rotations that could lead to local buckling and (especially when braces are cold-formed

rapid loss of compressive capacity and energy rectangular hollow sections). For these reasons,

dissipation during repeated cycles of inelastic braces in SCBFs must satisfy the width-to-

deformations. Past earthquakes and tests have thickness ratio limits for compact sections. For

shown that locally buckled braces can also OCBFs, braces can be compact or non-

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 433

compact, but not slender, i.e., b / t r per Figure 9-14c, the intent does. Codes generally

LRFD Specification. Based on experimental waive this requirement if nearly elastic

evidence, more stringent limits are specified for response is expected during earthquakes,

some types of structural shapes. In particular, something achieved in the AISC Seismic

the width-to-thickness ratio of angles (b/t), the Provisions by the special load conditions

outside diameter to wall thickness ratio of described in Section 9.1. Note that in

unstiffened circular hollow sections (D/t), and calculating the strength of an OCBF, the AISC

the outside width to wall thickness ratio of Seismic Provisions also require that cPcr (=

unstiffened rectangular sections must not 0.9cPcr) be used instead of cPcr, for the

exceed 52/ F y , 1300/Fy, and 110/ F y , reasons described in the previous section. There

is no such requirement for SCBFs, but the

respectively (see Table 9-2). Note that the

authors prefer to observe this requirement for

AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) define b for

both OCBFs and SCBFs, recognizing, however,

rectangular hollow sections as the out-to-out

that the tension brace may have sufficient

width, not the flat-width (= b3t) as defined in

strength to accommodate the strength

the AISC Specifications (AISC 1994).

degradation of the compression brace upon

repeated cycling, and that such a force

Redundancy

redistribution may be considered when

calculating the strength of the braced panel

Energy dissipation by tension yielding of

using cPcr. This approach is not recommended

braces is more reliable than buckling of braces

for V- and inverted-V-types of OCBF.

in compression. To provide structural

redundancy and a good balance of energy

9.3.4 Bracing Connections Design

dissipation between compression and tension

Requirements

members, structural configurations that depend

predominantly on the compression resistance of

When a brace is in tension, net section

braces should be avoided. Examples of poor

fracture and block shear rupture at the end of

braced frames layout are shown in Figure 9-14,

the brace must be avoided. Likewise, the brace

together with recommended alternatives. Four

connections to beams and columns must be

braces in compression and only one brace in

stronger than the braces themselves. Using

tension resist the load applied on the 5-bay

capacity design, calculation of brace strength

braced frame shown in Figure 9-14a. All braces

must recognize that the expected yield strength

in the braced-core of Figure 9-14c are in

of the brace, Fye, will typically exceed its

compression to resist the torsional moment

specified minimum yield strength, Fy (see Eq.

resulting from seismically-induced inertial

9-6). Thus, connections must be designed to

force acting at the center of mass. (For

resist an axial force equal to RyFyAg. However,

simplicity, columns resisting only gravity loads

when plastic analysis is used to demonstrate

are not shown in that figure.) Better designs are

that braces are unlikely to yield, connections

shown in Figures 9-14b and 9-14d for each of

may be designed for the maximum force

these cases, respectively.

obtained from such an analysis.

Seismic design codes attempt to prevent the

Connections must also be able to resist the

use of non-redundant structural systems by

forces due to buckling of the brace. If strong

requiring that braces in a given line be deployed

connections permit the development of a plastic

such that at least 30% of the total lateral

hinge at each end of a brace, they should be

horizontal force acting along that line is resisted

designed to resist a moment equal to 1.1RyMp of

by tension braces, and at least 30% by

the brace in the direction of buckling.

compression braces. Although the wording of

Otherwise, the connecting elements will

such clauses does not cover the case shown in

themselves yield in flexure (such as gussets out

434 Chapter 9

Figure 9-14. Brace configurations to ensure structural redundancy and balanced energy dissipation between compression

and tension members: (a and c) poor configurations; (b and d) acceptable configurations

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 435

of their plane); these must then be designed to with the further specification that the maximum

resist the maximum brace compression force in axial tension forces in columns need not be

a stable manner while undergoing the large taken larger than the value corresponding to

plastic rotations that result from brace buckling. foundation uplift. For SCBFs, the Provisions

Astaneh-Asl et al. (1986) suggested providing a also require that columns satisfy the same

clear distance of twice the plate thickness width-to-thickness ratio limits as braces (i.e.,

between the end of the brace and the assumed ps in Table 9-2).

line of restraint for the gusset plate to permit Partial penetration groove welds in column

plastic rotations and to preclude plate buckling splices have been observed to fail in a brittle

(see Figure 9-15). manner (Bruneau and Mahin 1990). When a

welded column splice is expected to be in

tension under the loading combination shown in

Eq. 9-5, the AISC Seismic Provisions mandate

that the partial joint penetration groove welded

joints in SCBFs be designed to resist 200% of

the strength required by elastic analysis using

code-specified forces. Column splices also need

to be designed to develop at least the nominal

shear strength of the smaller connected member

and 50% of the nominal flexural strength of the

smaller connected section.

Requirements

V-type and inverted V-type braced frames (also

Figure 9-15. Brace-to-gusset connection detail to permit known as chevron braced frames). Because

ductile out-of-plane brace buckling (AISC 1997, with braces meet at the mid-span of beams in these

permission from American Institute of Steel Construction,

frames, the vertical force resulting from the

Chicago, Illinois)

unequal compression and tension strengths of

these braces can have a considerable impact on

9.3.5 Columns and Beams

the cyclic behavior of the frame. That vertical

Beams and columns in braced frames must force introduces flexure in the beam, and

be designed to remain elastic when all braces possibly a plastic hinge in the beam, producing

have reached their maximum tension or the plastic collapse mechanism shown in

compression capacity (1.1Ry times the nominal Figure. 9-16. Therefore, it is imperative that

strength) to eliminate inelastic response in all beams in chevron braced frames be continuous

components except for the braces. This between columns. It has also been observed that

requirement could be too severe for columns, once a yielding mechanism develops in a

however, as the braces along the height of a chevron-type brace at a particular story, damage

multistory frame do not necessarily reach their tends to concentrate at that story. A

capacity simultaneously during an earthquake. comprehensive discussion of the seismic

Statistical approaches have been proposed to behavior of chevron braced frames under

evaluate the maximum likely column load seismic loading is beyond the scope of this

(Redwood and Channagiri 1991). The AISC chapter, and is presented elsewhere (Bruneau et

Seismic Provisions address this issue using al. 1997).

special load conditions described in Section 9.1,

436 Chapter 9

unequal buckling and tension-yielding strengths

of the braces would create an unbalanced

horizontal load at the mid-height of the

columns, jeopardizing the ability of the column

to carry gravity loads if a plastic hinge forms at

Figure 9-16. Plastic collapse mechanism of chevron the mid-height of the column.

braced frame having plastic hinge in beam

9.4 Behavior and Design of

Eccentrically Braced Frames

9.4.1 Introduction

steel moment frame can behave in a very

Figure 9-17. Plastic collapse mechanism of K-Braced ductile manner, moment frames are very

frame with plastic hinge in column flexible and their design is usually dictated by

the drift limitations. Concentrically braced

Seismic provisions usually require that frames, on the other hand, have a large lateral

beams in chevron braced frames be capable of stiffness, but their energy dissipation capacity is

resisting their tributary gravity loads neglecting affected by brace buckling. In the early 1970s,

the presence of the braces. The AISC Seismic an innovative steel system called the

Provisions also require that each beam in an Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) that

SCBF be designed to resist a maximum combines the advantages of both the steel

unbalanced vertical load calculated using full moment frame and braced frame was proposed

yield strength for the brace in tension, and 30% in Japan (Fujimoto et al. 1972, Tanabashi et al.

of the brace buckling strength in compression. 1974). The EBF dissipates energy by controlled

In OCBFs, this latter provision need not be yielding of shear or moment links. In the United

considered. However, braces in OCBFs must be Sates, the EBF system was first studied by

designed to have 1.5 times the strength required Roeder and Popov (1978). This attractive

by load combinations that include seismic system rapidly gained acceptance by the design

forces, which is equivalent to designing profession (Teal 1979, Libby 1981, Merovich et

chevron braced frames for a smaller value of R al. 1982), some being constructed well before

to compensate for their smaller ductility. detailed design provisions were developed in

Finally, to prevent instability of a beam the United States. In the 1980s, numerous

bottom flange at the intersection point of the studies on link behavior provided insight into

braces in a chevron braced frame, in a manner the cyclic response of EBFs (Manheim and

similar to that shown in Figure 9-9b, the top Popov 1983, Hjelmnstad and Popov 1983,

and bottom flanges of beams in SCBFs and 1984, Malley and Popov 1984, Kasai and

OCBFs must be designed to resist a lateral Popov 1986a and 1986b, Ricles and Popov

force equal to 2% of the nominal beam flange 1989, Engelhardt and Popov 1989). EBF design

strength (i.e., 0.02AfFy). This requirement is provisions were first promulgated in the 1988

best met by the addition of a beam Uniform Building Code. Experimental

perpendicular to the chevron braced frame. verifications of EBF response at the system

The above concepts also explain why a level were also conducted in the mid- to late-

number of braced frame configurations are 1980s (Yang 1985, Roeder et al. 1987,

undesirable in seismic regions. For example, in Whittaker et al. 1989).

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 437

provisions to remain essentially elastic during

the design earthquake.

Elastic Stiffness

simple EBF with respect to the link length is

Figure 9-18. Typical EBF configurations shown in Figure 9-19 (Hjelmstad and Popov

1984). Note that e/L ratios of 0.0 and 1.0

correspond to a concentrically braced frame and

9.4.2 Basic Concept and EBF Behavior a moment frame, respectively. The figure

clearly shows the advantage of using a short

An eccentrically braced frame is a framing link for drift control.

system in which the axial force induced in the

braces are transferred either to a column or Link Deformation

another brace through shear and bending in a

small segment of the beam. Typical EBF Consider the idealized split V-type EBF in

geometries are shown in Figure 9-18. The Figure 9-18b. Once the links have yielded in

critical beam segment is called a link and is shear, the plastic mechanism shown in Figure

designated by its length, e. Links in EBFs act as 9-20a will form. Applying simple plastic

structural fuses to dissipate the earthquake theory, the kinematics of the plastic mechanism

induced energy in a building in a stable manner. require that:

To serve its intended purpose, a link needs to be

properly detailed to have adequate strength and L

stable energy dissipation. All the other p = p (9-17)

e

structural components (beam segments outside

of the link, braces, columns, and connections)

Figure 9-19. Variations of lateral stiffness with respect to link length (Hjelmstad and Popov 1994)

438 Chapter 9

Figure 9-20. Kinematic mechanism and link plastic angle of a K-type EBF

story drift ratio), and p is the plastic

deformation of the link. Based on Eq. 9-17, the Unless architectural considerations dictate

variation of p with respect to the link length is otherwise, a short link is usually used so that

shown in Figure 9-20b. Because the elastic the link will yield primarily in shear. The lateral

component of the total drift angle is generally strength of such an EBF can then be calculated

small, the plastic story drift angle, p, can be conveniently using simple plastic theory.

conservatively estimated as the total story drift Assuming that the link behaves in an elastic-

divided by the story height, h: perfectly plastic manner, the lateral strength, Pu,

of the simple one-story split V-shaped EBF

s Cd e frame can be computed by equating the external

p = (9-18) work to the internal work:

h h

External work = Pu (hp) (9-19a)

where e is the story drift produced by the

e

prescribed design earthquake force, and Cd (=

4) is the deflection amplification factor. To

Internal work = 0 V p p dx = eV p p (9-19b)

ensure that the deformation capacity of the link where Vp is the shear strength of the link.

is not exceeded, it is obvious from Eq. 9-17 that Substituting Eq. 9-17 into Eq. 9-19b, the

the link length cannot be too short. Note that resulting ultimate strength of the EBF frame is

the kink that forms between the link and the

beam outside the link also implies damage of Vp L

the concrete slab at the ends of the link. Pu = (9-20)

h

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 439

As long as the link yields in shear, the above moment, Mp. A shear hinge is said to form

equation shows that the ultimate strength is when the shear reaches Vp. The plastic moment

independent of the link length. This simple and shear capacities are respectively computed

plastic theory can also be applied to multistory as follows:

frames (Kasai and Popov 1985).

Once the link length exceeds a threshold Mp = Fy Z (9-21a)

value, flexure and shear dominates the link

strength. The ultimate strength of the frame Vp = 0.6 F y (d 2t f )t w (9-21b)

then decreases with an increase in link length.

Figure 9-21 illustrates the strength variations.

This figure also indicates that the ultimate

strength of an EBF with short links is

significantly larger than that of a moment frame

(i.e., e/L = 1.0).

the simultaneous formation of flexural hinges

and a shear hinge. The corresponding link

length is

2M p

e0 = (9-22)

Vp

When e > e0 , a flexural (or moment) hinge

forms at both ends of the link, and the

corresponding shear force is:

2M p

Figure 9-21. Variations of EBF ultimate strength with e/L V= (9-23)

(Kasai and Popov 1985) e

9.4.3 Link Behavior modified slightly to include the effect of

interaction between M and V. Nevertheless,

Critical Length for Shear Link experimental results indicated that the

interaction is weak and that such interaction can

Figure 9-22 shows the free-body diagram of be ignored (Kasai and Popov 196b). Test results

a link. Ignoring the effects of axial force and also showed that a properly stiffened short link

the interaction between moment and shear in can strain harden and develop a shear strength

the link, flexural hinges form at two ends of the equal to 1.5Vp. The end moments of a link that

link when both MA and MB reach the plastic has yielded in shear can continue to increase

440 Chapter 9

due to strain hardening and, therefore, flexural Based on experimental results, the link

hinges can develop. To avoid low-cycle fatigue deformation capacity, a, as given by the AISC

failure of the link flanges due to high strains, Seismic Provisions is shown in Figure 9-24.

these end moments are limited to 1.2Mp, and the The calculated rotation angle, p, cannot exceed

maximum length (e0 in Eq. 9-22) for a shear a.

link was modified as follows (Kasai and Popov

1986b):

2(1.2 M p ) 1.6 M p

e0 = = (9-24)

1.5V p Vp

Longer Links

inelastic deformation capacity of an EBF can be

greatly reduced when long links ( e > e0 ) are

used. Following the above logic, it can be

shown that flexural hinges dominate the link Figure 9-24. Allowable link angles per AISC Seismic

response when e is larger than 2.6 M p / V p . In Provisions (1997)

1.6 M p / V p < e < 2.6 M p / V p , the link undergoes Effect of Axial Force

simultaneous shear and flexural yielding

(Engelhardt and Popov 1989). Figure 9-23 The presence of an axial force in a link

classifies links in EBFs. Note that when longer reduces not only the flexural and shear

links are used in the D-type or V-type EBF (see capacities but also its inelastic deformation

Figure 9-18), the welded connection between capacity (Kasai and Popov 1986b). When the

the link and the column is subjected to high axial force, Pu, exceeds 15% of the yield force,

moments and it could be vulnerable to brittle Py (= Ag Fy ) , the P-M interaction formula for

fracture if detailed similar to the connections plastic design (AISC 1989) can be used to

that failed during the Northridge earthquake compute the reduced plastic moment, Mpa:

(see Section 9.2).

P

M pa = 1.18M p 1 u (9-25)

Py

The reduced shear capacity is (Manheim and

Popov 1983):

V pa = V p 1 ( Pu / Py ) 2 (9-26)

the reduced value of e0 when Aw / Ag 0.3

can be approximated as follows (Kasai and

Popov 1986b):

Figure 9-23. Classification of links

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 441

e0 = 1.15 0.5 w (9-27) approximation of the relationship follows:

Ag V p

where = P / V , and Aw = (d 2t f )t w . The d

a = CB tw (9-28)

correction is unnecessary if Aw / Ag < 0.3 , in 5

which case the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997)

require that the link length shall not exceed that where a = stiffener spacing, d = link depth, tw =

given by Eq. 9-24. link web thickness, and CB = 56, 38, and 29 for

p = 0.03, 0.06, and 0.09 radian, respectively.

Effect of Concrete Slab These CB values are slightly modified and are

adopted in the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997)

Research conducted on composite links as follows:

showed that composite action can significantly (1) When e 1.6M p / V p , intermediate

increase the link shear capacity during the first stiffeners are needed per Eq. 9-28, but the

cycles of large inelastic deformations. coefficient CB is a function of the deformation

However, composite action deteriorates rapidly demand; the relationship between CB

in subsequent cycles due to local concrete floor and p implied by the AISC Seismic Provisions

damage at both ends of the link (Ricles and

is shown in Figure 9-25.

Popov 1989). For design purposes, it is

(2) When 2.6 M p / V p e 5M p / V p ,

conservative to ignore the contribution of

intermediate stiffeners shall be provided at a

composite action for calculating the link shear

distance 1.5bf from each end of the link to

strength. But the overstrength produced by the

control flange local buckling.

composite slab effect needs to be considered

(3) When 1.6 M p / V p e 2.6M p / V p ,

when estimating the maximum forces that the

intermediate stiffeners satisfying the

shear link imposes to other structural

requirements of both Cases 1 and 2 are needed.

components (Whittaker et al. 1989).

(4) When e > 5M p / V p , intermediate

stiffeners are not required.

Link Detailing

Intermediate link web stiffeners must be full

depth. While two-sided stiffeners are required

Full-depth web stiffeners must be placed

at the end of the link where the diagonal brace

symmetrically on both sides of the link web at

intersects the link, intermediate stiffeners

the diagonal brace ends of the link. These end

placed on one side of the link web are sufficient

stiffeners are required to have a combined

for links less than 25 inches in depth. Fillet

width not less than (bf 2tw) and a thickness not

welds connecting a link stiffener

less than 0.75tw nor 3/8 inch, whichever is

larger.

The link section needs to satisfy the same

compactness requirement as the beam section

for special moment frames. Further, the link

needs to be stiffened in order to delay the onset

of web buckling and to prevent flange local

buckling. The stiffening requirement is

dependent on the length of link (see Figure 9-

23). For a shear link with e 1.6 M p / V p , a

relationship among the link web deformation

angle, the web panel aspect ratio as well as the

beam web slenderness ratio was developed Figure 9-25. Variation of CB

442 Chapter 9

to the link web shall have a design strength to At the connection between the diagonal

resist a force of AstFy, where Ast is the stiffener brace and the beam, the intersection of the

area. The design strength of fillet welds brace and beam centerlines shall be at the end

fastening the stiffener to the flanges shall be of the link or within the length of the link (see

adequate to resist a force of AstFy/4. Figure 9-26a). If the intersection point lies

outside the link length, the eccentricity together

Lateral Bracing of Link

with the brace axial force produces additional

To ensure stable hysteresis, a link must be moments in the beam and brace.

laterally braced at each end to avoid out-of- The diagonal brace-to-beam connection at

plane twisting. Lateral bracing also stabilizes the link end of the brace shall also be designed

the eccentric bracing and the beam segment to develop the expected strength of the brace.

outside the link. The concrete slab alone cannot No part of this connection shall extend over the

be relied upon to provide lateral bracing. link length to reduce the link length, e. If the

Therefore, both top and bottom flanges of the connection is designed as a pin (see Figure. 9-

link beam must be braced. The bracing should 26b), the gusset plate needs to be properly

be designed for 6 percent of the expected link stiffened at the free edge to avoid local

flange strength, RyFybf tf. buckling (Roeder et al. 1989).

Structural Components

fuses and are sized for code-specified design

seismic forces. All other elements (beam

segments outside the link, braces, columns, and

connections) are then designed for the forces

generated by the actual (or expected) capacity

of the links rather than the code-specified

design seismic forces. The capacity design

concept thus requires that the computation of

the link strength not only be based on the

expected yield strength of the steel but also

includes the consideration of strain-hardening

and overstrength due to composite action of the

slab.

Diagonal Brace

the diagonal brace shall be those generated by

the expected shear strength of the link RyVn

increased by 125 percent to account for strain-

hardening. The nominal shear capacity, Vn, is

the lesser of Vp or 2Mp/e. Although braces are

not expected to experience buckling, the AISC

Seismic Provisions take a conservative

approach by requiring that a compact section Figure 9-26. EBF link and connection details (AISC

( < p ) be used for the brace. 1997)

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 443

Link-to-Column Connections percent of the beam flange nominal strength,

Fybf tf, applied in opposite directions on each

Of the common EBF configurations shown flange.

in Figure 9-18, it is highly desirable to use the

split V-braced EBF in order to avoid the Beam Outside of Link

moment connection between the link and

column. Prior to the 1994 Northridge The link end moment is distributed between

earthquake, test results showed that the fully the brace and the beam outside of the link

restrained welded connection between the according to their relative stiffness. In

column and the link (especially longer links) is preliminary design, it is conservative to assume

vulnerable to brittle fracture similar to those that all the link end moment is resisted by the

found in the beam-to-column moment beam. The link end moment shall be calculated

connections after the Northridge earthquake. using 1.1 times the expected nominal shear

Therefore, the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) strength (RyVn) of the link. Because a

require that the deformation capacity of the continuous member is generally used for both

link-to-column connections be verified by the link and the beam outside the link, it is too

qualifying cyclic tests. Test results shall conservative to use the expected yield strength

demonstrate that the link inelastic rotation (RyFy) for estimating the force demand

capacity is at least 20 percent greater than that produced by the link while the beam strength is

calculated by Eq. 9-17. based on the nominal yield strength (Fy).

When reinforcements like cover plates are Therefore, the AISC Seismic Provisions allow

used to reinforce the link-to-column designers to increase the design strength of the

connection, the link over the reinforced length beam by a factor Ry.

may not yield. Under such circumstances, the The horizontal component of the brace

link is defined as the segment between the end produces a significant axial force in the beam,

of the reinforcement and the brace connection. particularly if the angle between the diagonal

Cyclic testing is not needed when (1) the brace and the beam is small. Therefore, the

shortened link length does not exceed eo in Eq. beam outside the link needs to be designed as a

9-24, and (2) the design strength of the beam-column. When lateral bracing is used to

reinforced connection is equal to or greater than increase the capacity of the beam-column, this

the force produced by a shear force of 1.25 RyVn bracing must be designed to resist 2 percent of

in the link. the beam flange nominal strength, Fybf tf.

Tests also demonstrated that the welded

connections of links to the weak-axis of a Column

column were vulnerable to brittle fracture

(Engelhardt and Popov 1989); this type of Using a capacity design approach, columns

connection should be avoided. in braced bays shall have a sufficient strength to

resist the sum of gravity-load actions and the

Beam-to-Column Connection moments and axial forces generated by 1.1

times the expected nominal strength (RyVn) of

For the preferred EBF configuration where the link. This procedure assumes that all links

the link is not adjacent to a column, a simple will yield and reach their maximum strengths

framing connection between the beam and the simultaneously. Nevertheless, available

column is considered adequate if it provides multistory EBF test results showed that this

some restraint against torsion in the beam. The preferred yielding mechanism is difficult to

AISC Seismic Provisions stipulate that the develop. For example, shaking table testing of a

magnitude of this torsion be calculated by 6-story reduced scale EBF model showed that

444 Chapter 9

links in the bottom two stories dissipated most forces need not exceed those computed by the

of the energy (Whittaker et al. 1989). first procedure. Therefore, the first design

Therefore, this design procedure may be procedure will generally produce a more

appropriate for low-rise buildings and the upper conservative design for columns.

stories of medium- and high-rise buildings but

may be too conservative in other instances. 9.5 Design Examples

The alternative design procedure permitted

by the AISC Seismic Provisions is to amplify

9.5.1 General

the design seismic axial forces and moments in

columns by the overstrength factor, o (= 2.0,

A six-story office building having the floor

see Table 9-1). See Eqs. 9-4 and 9-5 for the

plan shown in Figure 9-27 is used to

load combinations. The computed column

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 445

demonstrate the seismic design procedures. The where hn (ft) is the building height, and the

design follows the AISC Seismic Provisions coefficient CT is equal to 0.035, 0.030, and 0.02

(1997) and the Load and Resistance Factor for SMFs, EBFs, and SCBFs, respectively.

Design Specification for Structural Steel Alternatively, the value of T obtained from a

Buildings (1993). Special Moment-Resisting dynamic analysis can be used in design, but the

Frames (SMFs) are used in the E-W direction, period thus obtained cannot be taken larger than

and their design is presented in Section 9.5.2. CuTa for the calculation of required structural

Braced frames provide lateral load-resistance in strengths, where Cu = 1.2

the N-S direction; these are designed as Special

Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) in

Section 9.5.3 and Eccentrically Braced Frames

(EBFs) in Section 9.5.4, respectively.

The design gravity loads are listed in Table

9-3. The NEHRP Recommended Provisions

(1997) are the basis for computing the design

seismic forces. It is assumed that the building is

located in a high seismic region with the

following design parameters:

SS = 1.5 g

Figure 9-28. Elastic design response spectrum

S1 = 0.6 g

Site Class = B

I = 1.0 (Seismic User Group I) for this design example. To establish seismic

Seismic Design Category = D forces for story drift computations, however,

this upper limit is waived by the NEHRP

The design response spectrum is shown in Recommended Provisions. Recognizing that the

Figure 9-28. analytically predicted period of a multistory

The design follows the Equivalent Lateral SMF is generally larger than CuTa, this upper

Force Procedure of the NEHRP Recommended bound value is used to compute the design base

Provisions. The design base shear ratio, Cs, is shear ratio for preliminary design. Based on Eq.

computed as follows: 9-1, the design base shear ratios for the three

types of frames are listed in Table 9-4.

S The following two load combinations are to

S D1

Cs = DS (9-29) be considered:

T (R / I ) (R / I )

1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (9-31)

where S D1 (= 0.4 g) and S DS (= 1.0 g) are the

design spectral response accelerations at a 0.9D 1.0E (9-32)

period of 1.0 second and in the short period

range, respectively. The values of R for the where E = QE + 0.2 SDSD. The Redundancy

three framing systems considered in this Factor, , is

example are listed in Table 9-4. The NEHRP

empirical period formula is used to compute the 20 20

approximate fundamental period, Ta: = 2 = 2 = 1.13 (9-33)

rmax A 0.25 8549

.) Therefore, the above two load combinations

can be expressed as

446 Chapter 9

Load Dead Load (psf) Live Load +(psf)

Roof 70 20

Floor 90* 50

Cladding 20 -

*80 psf for computing reactive weight.

( )

+ Use L = L0 0.25 + 15 / AI for live load reduction (ASCE 1998)

Framing R o Cd Ta Cs VB * k

System (sec) (kip)

SMF 8 3 5 1.07 0.047 111 1.285

SCBF 6 2 5 0.51 0.131 305 1.0

EBF 8 2 4 0.76 0.066 156 1.13

*Values have been increased by 5% to account for accidental eccentricity.

1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0( QE + 0.2D) determined from Eq. 9-30. There exists many

approaches to the preliminary design of SMF.

= 1.4D + 0.5L + QE (9-34) The one followed in this section has been

proposed by Becker (1997). First, the

0.9D 1.0(QE + 0.2D) = 0.7D QE (9-35) fundamental period can be estimated using a

simplified Rayleigh method (Teal 1975):

The design base shear, VB (= CsW, where W

= building reactive weight), for computing the r

T = 0.25 (9-37)

seismic effect (QE) is distributed to each floor C1

level as follows:

where

Wx hxk T = fundamental period,

Fx = VB (9-36)

Wi hik r = lateral deflection at the top of the

building under the lateral load V,

where the values of k listed in Table 9-4 are C1 = V/W,

used to consider the higher-mode effect. Based V = lateral force producing deflection, and

on Eq. 9-36, the design story shears for each W = building reactive weight.

example frame are summarized in Table 9-5. The story drift requirement is:

x = < 0.02 H ,

I

Story Shear Distribution 0.02 HI 0.02 75 12

r < = = 3.27 in

Cd 5 .5

The story shear distribution of the SMF Assuming conservatively that the total

listed in Table 9-5 is for strength computations. deflection is about 60% of the allowable value,

To compute story drift, however, it is r = 0.60(3.27) = 1.96 in

permissible to use the actual fundamental

period, T, of the structure. The actual period of

this 6-story SMF is expected to be larger than

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 447

Floor Wi hi Story Shear* (kips)

(kips) (ft) SMF SCBF EBF

R 322 75 34 84 45

6 387 63 67 168 90

5 387 51 92 236 125

4 387 39 109 288 150

3 387 27 120 324 167

2 392 15 125 345 176

* (= 1.13) is included.

0.4 0.059

C1 = 1.05(C s ) = 1.05(1.13) = Member Proportions

T (R / I ) T

(where 1.05 accounts for torsion) For brevity in this design example, detailed

calculations are presented only for the beams on

the fourth floor and the columns above and

1.96

T = 0.25 = 1.44 T below that floor (see Figure 9-29). The portal

0.059 / T method is used for preliminary design.

Assuming that the point of inflection occurs at

Solving the above equation gives a value of T the mid-length of each member:

equal to 2.0 seconds. For this value, however,

S D1 0.4 2F1 + 3F2 = 0.94(109) = 102.5 kips

Cs = =

T ( R / I ) 2(8 / 1.0) ,

= 0.025 < 0.044 S DS F1 = F2/2, F2 = 25.6 kips

and C s = 0.044 controls. That is, the minimum Consider the interior beam-column assembly

seismic base shear for drift computations is shown in Figure 9-29. Summing the moments

at the point of inflection at point P, the beam

V = 1.05 0.044W = 0.052W shear, F3, is calculated to be:

Since the base shear ratios for strength and drift 12F2 = 25F3, F3 = 12.3 kips

designs are 0.047 and 0.044, respectively, a

scaling factor of 0.94 (= 0.044/0.047) can be The story drift due to column and girder

used to reduce the story shears listed in Table 9- deformations is:

5 for drift computations.

448 Chapter 9

= c + g = + 2 (9-38) strength of both the beams and columns is

12 EI c 12 EI g

worthwhile before the moment connections are

where designed. It is assumed that the column axial

= story drift, stress ( Pu / Ag ) is equal to 0.15Fy. Beams are

c = drift produced by column deformation, designed using the reduced beam section

g = drift produced by beam deformations, strategy in this example. Assuming that (1) the

F2 = column shear, reduced beam plastic sectional modulus (ZRBS)

h = story height, is 70% of the beam plastic sectional modulus

L = beam length between points of inflection, (ZBM), and (2) the moment gradient (Mv) from

Ic = moment of inertia of column, and the plastic hinge location to the column

Ig = moment of inertia of beam. centerline is 15% of the design plastic moment

Eq. 9-38 uses centerline dimensions and at the plastic hinge location:

ignores the shear and axial deformations of the

beams and column. In equating Eq. 9-38 to the M *pc = 2[ Z c ( Fy Pu /Ag )] 2 (0.85 C Fy )

allowable drift, it is assumed that the panel zone

deformation will contribute 15% to the story RBS 0.7 Z BM , M v 0.15(1.1R y Z RBS F y )

drift; the actual contribution of the panel zone

deformation will be verified later.

M *pb = 2[1.1R y RBS F y + M v ]

Cd

x =

I

(0.85)0.02h, (

2 1.1R y RBS F y 1.15 )

0.0031h = 0.45 in 2(1.11.1 0.7 1.15Z BM F y )

= 2(0.97)Z BM F y

F2 h 2 h

+ L 0.45 (9-39) To satisfy Eq. 9-14:

12 E Ic I g

M *pc 2(0.85 C )

= 1.0

The above relationship dictates the stiffness M b* 2(0.97 BM )

required for both the beams and columns in

order to meet the story drift requirement. By

setting I = I c = I as a first attempt, Eq. 9-39 C

1.15

gives a required I = 1532 in4. Using A992 steel BM

for both the columns and the beams, it is

possible to select W14 132 columns For the beam and column sizes selected:

( I c = 1530 in4) and W24 62 beams

( I g = 1532 in4). ZC 234

In addition to satisfying the story drift = = 1.53 1.15 (OK)

requirements, the strength of the columns and Z BM 153

beams also need to be checked for the forces

produced by the normal seismic load Both W14132 and W2462 satisfy the ps

combinations (Eqs. 9-34 and 9-35). However, requirements given in Table 9-2. Since the RBS

beam and column sizes of this 6-story SMF are is to be used, additional check of the beam web

generally governed by the story drift and compactness is required:

strong-column weak-girder requirements.

Therefore, the strength evaluations of these h 418

= 50.1 < = 59.1 (OK)

members are not presented here. tw Fy

A formal check of the strong column-weak

beam requirement will be performed later. A

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 449

Figure 9-30. Reduced beam section and the welded beam-column connection details.

Z (L a 0.5b )

Beam-to-Column Connection Design c 1 0.25b f

2t f (d t f ) 1.1L

Reduced beam section details employing where L (= 142.7 in) is the distance from the

radius-cut (Figure 9-30) is the most promising face of the column to the point of inflection in

beam-to-column connection detail. The key the beam, bf, tf and d are flange width, flange

dimensions of the radius cut include the thickness and beam depth, respectively. To

distance from the face of the column determine the maximum cut dimension, c, it is

(dimension a), the length of the cut (dimension assumed that the strain-hardened plastic

b), and the depth of the cut (dimension c). To moment developed at the narrowest beam

minimize the moment gradient between the section is equal to 1.1 times the plastic moment

narrowest section and the face of column, the of the reduced section (ZRBSFye). The factor 1.1

dimensions a and b should be kept small. accounts for strain hardening. The factor

However, making these dimensions too short limits the beam moment ( Mp) developed at

may result in high strains either at the face of the face of column. The maximum value of

column or within the reduced beam sections. It should range between 0.85 and 1.0. Based on an

has been recommended that (Engelhardt et al. equal to 0.90,

1996):

a = 4.0 in = 0.57bf

a (0.5 to 0.75)bf b = 16 in = 0.67d

b (0.65 to 0.85)d

c = 1.375 in 0.20bf

450 Chapter 9

R= = 24 in

8c and the live load axial force, including live load

reduction, is

Following the SAC Interim Guidelines (SAC

1997), other features of the connection include 15

the use of notch-toughness weld metal, the use L= L D 0.25 + = 22.5 psf

4(4)(25 14)

of a welded web connection, and the use of

continuity plates. Lateral supports capable of

PL= 3(2514)(0.0225)+(2514)(0.020.45)

resisting a minimum of 2% of the unreduced

flange force should be provided such that the = 26.8 kips

unbraced length is no larger than the following Therefore, the factored axial load is

(see Figure 9-31):

Pu = 1.4(125)+0.5(26.8) = 188 kips

2500 2500

Lb = ry = (1.38) = 69 in = 5.75 ft The column moment capacity is

Fy 50

because deep section is not used for the column. = 2(234)(50-188/38.8)

= 21132 kip-in

The plastic sectional modulus of the RBS is

Z RBS = Z BM 2ct f (d t f )

= 153 2(1.375)(23.74 0.59) = 115 in 4

reduced beam section is

M pd = 1.1R y Z RBS F y

= 1.1 1.1115 50 = 6958 kip in

1.1R y Z RBS F y

Vpd =

[0.5(25 12) d c 2 a b 2]

= 53 kips

Figure 9-31. Lateral support for the beam

After extrapolating the beam moment at the

Strong Column-Weak Beam Criterion plastic hinge location to the column center-line,

the beam moment demand is

The axial force in interior columns in a

moment frame, produced by seismic loading, M pb = (M pd + M v )

can be ignored generally. The axial force due to = [ M pd + V pd (d c / 2 + a + b / 2)]

dead load on the upper floors, roof, and

cladding is: 14.66

= 2 26958 + 53 + 4 + 8

2

PD = roof + (4 to 6)floors + cladding

= (2514)(0.07)+3(2514)(0.09) = 15965 kip-in

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 451

M pc d z + wz

= 1.32 > 1.0 (OK) t(reqd) = = 0.39 in

90

M pb

Since both the thicknesses of column web and

Therefore, the strong column-weak beam doubler plate are larger than the required

condition is satisfied. thickness, plug welds are not required to

connect the doubler plate to the column web.

Panel Zone Design See Figure 9.30 for the connection details.

The component of story drift produced by

The unbalanced beam moment, M, for the the panel zone deformation is computed as

panel zone design is determined from the follows (Tsai and Popov 1990):

special load combination in Eq. 9-4, where the

beam moment at the column face produced by V

p =

o (Q E ) is dct pG

M1 = M2 = o (F3/0.94)L 419 0.94 / o

=

14.66(0.645 + 0.50)29000 / 2.6

= 3.0(12.3/0.94)142.7 = 5602 kip-in

= 0.00070 rad

M = M 1 + M 2 = 11204 kip-in

where G is the shear modulus. The story drift

But the above moment need not be greater than due to the panel zone deformation, P , is:

0.8 M pb . Extrapolating the beam moment at

the plastic hinge location to the column face, P = 0.00070 12 12 = 0.10 in

M pb is computed as follows: The total story drift produced by the column,

b beam, and panel zone deformations is:

M *pd = M pd + V pd a +

2 F2 h(h d b )

2

c + g + P =

= 6958+ 53(4.0 + 8.0) = 7594 kip in 12 EI c

0.8 M *pb = 0.8(2)(7594) = 12150 kip-in F2 h 2 (L d c )

+ + P

12 EI g

Therefore, the shear in the panel zone is

= 0.10+0.281+0.10 = 0.48 < 0.52 in (OK)

M M

Vu = = 497 78 = 419 kips

0.95d b h Note that the clear lengths are used to compute

the deformations of the beams and column in

The shear capacity of the panel zone is the above equation.

Vn = 0.75(0.6 )(50.0)(14.66)t p

9.5.3 Special Concentrically Braced

3(14.725)(1.03)2 Frames (SCBFs)

1 +

(23.74)(14.66)t p

The six-story inverted-V braced frame

Equating Vu and Vn to solve for the required shown in Figure 9-32 is analyzed for the loads

panel zone thickness gives tp = 1.14 in. Since specified earlier. The service dead load, live

the column web thickness is 0.645 in, use a 1/2 load, and seismic member forces, calculated

in thick doubler plate. (The column size needs taking into account load-paths and live load

to be increased if the designer prefers not to use reduction, and maximum forces resulting from

doubler plates.) Check Eq. 9-13 for local the critical load combination, are presented in

buckling of the doubler plate: Tables 9-6 and 9-7, where the axial forces and

moments are expressed in kips and kip-ft,

452 Chapter 9

respectively. Cladding panels are assumed braces is presented elsewhere (Bruneau et al.

connected at the columns. Note that the load 1997). Note that this frame geometry leads to

combination 1.2D+0.5L+1.0E governs for the substantial foundation uplift forces. Although

design of all members. not done here, increasing the number of braced

In the first phase of design (called strength bays will reduce the uplift forces.

design hereafter), members are sized without In the second phase of design, (hereafter

attention paid to special seismic detailing called ductile design), the seismic

requirements, as normally done in non-seismic requirements are checked, and design is

applications, and results are also presented in modified as necessary. The special ductile

Tables 9-6 and 9-7. Members are selected per a detailing requirements of braces are first

minimum weight criterion, with beams and checked. Here, all braces are found to have a

braces constrained to be wide-flanges sections slenderness ratio in excess of the permissible

of same width, and columns constrained to be limit (Eq. 9-15), and some also violate the

W14 shapes continuous over two stories. specified flange width-to-thickness ratio limit.

ASTM A992 steel is used for all members, and For example, for the fifth story braces

the effective length factors, K, of 1.0 were (W831), the slenderness ratio is:

respectively used in calculating the in-plane and (KL/r)y = (1.0)(19.21)(12)/2.02

out-of-plane buckling strength of braces.

Additional information on the effects of end-

= 114.1 > 720 / 50 = 102 (NG)

fixity on the inelastic non-linear behavior of

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 453

Table 9-6. Strength design results for columns and W-shape braces (axial force in kips)

Story PD PL PLr PQE or TQE Pua Tub Member cPn KL/r bf/2tf h/tw

Columns

6 26.6 - 4.20 0 37 - W1430 190 96.6 8.7 45.4

5 66.7 10.5 4.86 29.8 132 - W1430 190 96.6 8.7 45.4

4 108 18.9 4.86 89 261 25 W1453 439 75.0 6.1 30.8

3 149 26.2 4.86 172 416 90 W1453 439 75.0 6.1 30.8

2 191 33.0 4.86 275 593 177 W1490 1008 38.9 10.2 25.9

1 232 39.6 4.86 388 783 276 W1490 947 48.6 10.2 25.9

Braces

6 5.9 - 1.7 48 62 49.6 W824 73.7 143.2 8.1 25.8

5 7.7 4.2 - 95 120 102 W831 149 114.1 9.2 22.2

4 7.7 4.2 - 133 163 145 W835 170 113.6 8.1 20.4

3 7.7 4.2 - 164 198 180 W848 244 110.8 5.9 15.8

2 7.7 4.2 - 182 218 200 W848 244 110.8 5.9 15.8

1 6.9 3.8 - 218 257 240 W867 292 120.1 4.4 11.1

a

from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.

b

from load combination 0.9D - 1.0E (see Eq. 9-35).

Table 9-7. Strength design results for beams (axial force in kips, moment in kip-in)

Level PD MD PL ML PLr MLr PQbE Pua M ua Section cPn bMn KL/r bf /2tf h/tw

Roof - 11.1 - - - 2.0 37.2 42 16.5 W821 64.4 76.5 142.9 6.6 27.5

6 4.6 14.7 - 5.0 0.8 - 74.2 81 30.3 W824 120 87.0 111.8 8.1 25.8

5 6.0 14.8 2.1 3.3 - - 104 113 30.4 W831 217 114 89.1 9.2 22.2

4 6.0 15.2 1.4 3.1 - - 128 141 31 W831 217 114 89.1 9.2 22.2

3 6.1 14.9 1.2 2.9 - - 142 156 30.6 W831 217 114 89.1 9.2 22.2

2 5.9 15.6 1.2 2.9 - - 154 170 31.7 W831 217 114 89.1 9.2 22.2

a

from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.

b. M = 0.

E

b/t = 10/0.25 = 40 >110/ 46 = 16.22 (NG)

b/t = bf /2tf = 9.2 > 52/ 50 = 7.35 (NG)

Consequently, new brace sections are selected

These braces, therefore, have insufficient to comply with both the width-to-thickness and

capacity to dissipate seismic energy through member slenderness ratio limits. These are

repeated cycles of yielding and inelastic presented in Table 9-9.

buckling. Cold-formed square structural tubes At each story, the reduced compression

with a specified yield strength of 46 ksi under strength 0.8( c Pn ) is then considered. Here, the

ASTM A500 Grade B are first selected to tension brace at each level has sufficient reserve

replace the wide-flange brace sections. As strength to compensate for the loss in

shown in Table 9-8, a strength design using compression resistance upon repeated cyclic

such hollow shapes effectively reduces brace loading, and the chosen braces are thus

slenderness, but does not necessarily satisfy the adequate. For example, for the TS665/8

stringent width-to-thickness ratio limits braces at the third story,

prescribed for seismic design.

For example, for the first story braces Factored design forces: Pu = 198 kips

(TS10101/4), the width-to-thickness ratio is: Tu = 180 kips

454 Chapter 9

Table 9-8. Strength design results for TS-shape braces (axial force in kips)

6 62 49.6 TS663/16 88 97.7 32.0

5 120 102 TS883/16 157 72.5 42.7

4 163 145 TS993/16 178 64.2 48.0

3 198 180 TS881/4 207 73.2 32.0

2 218 200 TS991/4 253 64.8 36.0

1 257 240 TS10101/4 284 64.3 40.0

a

from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.

b

from load combination 0.9D - 1.0E (see Eq. 9-35).

Table 9-9. Ductility design results for TS-shape braces (axial force in kips)

6 62 49.6 TS663/8 157 101 16.0

5 120 102 TS663/8 157 101 16.0

4 163 145 TS661/2 196 104 10.0

3 198 180 TS665/8 224 107 9.6

2 218 200 TS771/2 288 88 14.0

1 257 240 TS881/2 351 84 16.0

a

from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.

b

from load combination 0.9D 1.0E (see Eq. 9-35).

Design strengths:

Design Forces in Connections

c Pn = 224 kips, t Tn = t Ag Fy = 513 kips

Connections are designed to resist their

Reduced compression design strength: expected brace tension yield force of RyAgFy.

For example, for the braces in the first story,

0.8( c Pn ) = 0.8(224) = 179 kips <Pu=198 kips this would correspond to a force of

Therefore, the redistributed force demand in the (1.1)(14.4)(46) = 729 kips. The brace gusset

tension brace is: used with tubular braces usually permits out-of-

plane buckling and needs to be detailed per

Tu = Tu + ( c Pn 0.8 c Pn ) = 180 + (224 179) Figure 9-15 to resist the applied axial force

= 225 kips < c Tn = 513 kips (OK) while undergoing large plastic rotation.

Finally, the redundancy requirement is Design Forces in Columns

satisfied by checking that members in tension

carry at least 30% but no more than 70% of the When Pu/ c Pn in columns is greater than

story shear. Note that for bays with the same 0.4 (as is the case here), the AISC Seismic

number of compression and tension braces, Provisions require that columns also be

satisfying the above member slenderness limits, designed to resist forces calculated according to

this is usually not a concern. For example, the special load combinations in Eqs. 9-4 and 9-

check the first story brace as follows: 5. However, these forces need not exceed those

Tu / cos 240 / 0.707 calculated considering 1.1Ry Tn and 1.1Ry Pn of

= = 0.56 the braces. Members designed to satisfy this

VB 305

requirement are presented in Table 9-10.

which is between 0.3 and 0.7.

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 455

Table 9-10. Ductility design results for columns (axial force in kips)

6 34 - 34 - W1430 190

5 146 - 225 221 W1430 190

4 314 80 420 465 W1461 591

3 538 211 647 790 W1461 591

2 796 378 886 1150 W14109 1220

1 1078 568 1196 1543 W14109 1147

a

from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L o QE (see Eq. 9-4), where o =2.0.

b

from load combination 0.9D oQE (see Eq. 9-5).

c

1.2D + 0.5L + (1.1RyPn) , where Pn is the brace nominal compressive strength.

d

1.2D + 0.5L + (1.1RyTn) , where Tn is the brace nominal tensile strength.

Cases b and d are used to check column splices and foundation uplift.

Table 9-11. Ductility design results for beamsa (force in kips, moment in kip-in)

Unbalanced Force

Level Tn 0.3cPn Vertical Horizontal Mux Pu Section bMnx cPn Ratio

6 372 47.3 203 1522 127 254 W30148 1789 1172 0.90

5 372 47.3 203 1522 127 254 W30148 1789 1172 0.90

4 479 58.7 263 1973 164 328 W30173 2164 1765 0.96

3 524 63.0 288 2160 180 360 W30191 2398 1956 0.94

2 570 86.4 302 2265 189 378 W30191 2398 1956 0.99

a

Ductility design not required at top story of a chevron braced frame per AISC Seismic provisions.

Note that columns splices would have to be adequacy of these beams is checked using the

designed to resist the significant uplift forces AISC (1993) beam-column interaction

shown in this table, although the AISC Seismic equations.

Provisions indicate that the tension forces For example, for the W30191 beam on the

calculated in Table 9-10 need not exceed the second floor:

value corresponding the uplift resistance of the

Pu M ux 189 2265

foundation. + =

+

2 c Pn b M nx 2 (1956) 2398

Design Forces in Beams = 0.05 + 0.94 = 0.99 < 1.0 (OK)

Incidentally, note that this section is a compact

Finally, beams are checked for compliance section.

with the special requirements presented in

Section 9.3. Here, all beams are continuous 9.5.4 Eccentrically Braced Frames

between columns, and are braced laterally at the (EBFs)

ends and mid-span. W30 shapes were chosen to

limit beam depth. The configuration of the split-V-braced EBF

Beams are, therefore, redesigned to resist is shown in Figure. 9-33, and the design seismic

the unbalanced vertical force induced when the forces are listed in Table 9-5. The geometry is

compression braces are buckled and the tension chosen such that the link length is about 10% of

braces are yielded. In this example, this the bay width, and the inclined angle of the

substantial force governs the design. The braces is between 35 to 60 degrees:

corresponding moments and axial forces acting

e = 0.1L = 3 ft = 36 in

on the beams are shown in Table 9-11, along

with the resulting new beam sizes. Note that the

456 Chapter 9

= tan 1 (15 / 13.5) = 48 (first story) Assuming that the braces are rigidly connected

to the link, that the beam can resist 95% of the

link end moment, and that the beam flexural

= tan 1 (12 / 13.5) = 42 (other stories) capacity is reduced by 30% due to the presence

of an axial force:

In this example, detailed design calculations are

only presented for members at the first story to (0.7) R y ( b M p ) 0.85(1.1) R yVn (e / 2)

illustrate the procedure. Unless indicated

or

otherwise, ASTM A992 steel is used.

1.35Mp/Vn e

For shear links, the above requirement for the

maximum link length is more stringent than

1.6Mp/Vp. The required strengths for the link on

the second floor are

Vu = 1.4 D + 0.5 L + E

= 1.4(1.1) + 0.5(0.4) + 98.0 = 100 kips

M u = 1.4 D + 0.5L + E

= 1.4(8.0) + 0.5(3.0) + 98(3.0 / 2) = 160

kip-ft

shear links (i.e., Pu = 0 kip). Illustrating this

procedure for the shear link on the second floor:

1.35M p / V p 36 in M p / V p 26.7 in

Vu = 100 kips V n = V p

= 0.9(0.6)(50)t w (d 2t f )

t w (d 2t f ) 3.70 in 2

(

Vu = 100 kips Vn = 2 M p / e )

= 2(0.9)(50Z x ) / 36 Z x 40.0 in 3

Based on the above three requirements, select a

W1245 section for the link:

Figure 9-33. Eccentrically braced frame elevation Z x = 64.7 in 3 > 40.0 in 3 (OK)

achieve higher structural stiffness and strength. = = 27.9 in > 26.7 in (OK)

Vp 0.6(d 2t f )tw

The AISC Seismic Provisions stipulate that the

beam outside the link shall be able to resist the

forces generated by at least 1.1 times the

expected nominal shear strength of the link.

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 457

= 7.0 < = 7.4 (OK)

2t f Fy

[ (

b M n = C b b M p BF Lb L p )]

h 520 = 350 b M p

= 29.0 < = 73.5 (OK)

tw Fy Use b M n = 243 kip-ft

Vn = min {V p , 2 M p e}

2 EI x

Pe1 = = 3817 kips

(OK) ( KL x ) 2

= min {116, 180} = 116 kips

Cm = 0.85

Beam Outside of Link Cm 0.85

B1 = = = 0.88 < 1.0

Pu 126

The moment at both ends of the link is: 1 1

Pe1 3817

M u = 1.1( R yVn e / 2)

Use B1 = 1.0

= 1.1(1.1 116 3.0/2) = 211 kip-in

( KL) y = 13.5 ft, c Pn = 337 kips

This moment is resisted by both the rigidly

connected brace and the beam outside the link. Pu 8 B1 M u

Assuming that the beam resists 85% of the link + = 0.34 + 0.63

moment, the beam end moment including the R y ( c Pn ) 9 R y ( b M n )

gravity load effect (MD = 8 kip-ft, ML = 3 kip-ft)

is = 0.97 < 1.0 (OK)

Mu = 0.85(211) + 1.2(8.0)

Diagonal Brace

+ 0.5(3.0) = 190 kip-ft

The axial force ratio in the beam is To compute the beam shear, Vb, assume the

beam moment at the column end is zero.

Pu 126

= = 0.212 > 0.125 1.25 R yVn = 160 kips

b Py 0.9 Ag F y

1.25RyVn (e 2) = 240 kip - ft

1.25R y Vn (e 2)

Table 9-2):

Vb = = 18 kips

191 P 253

Lb

ps = 2.33 u

F y b Py

Fy Therefore, the brace force including the gravity

= 57.2 load effect (VD = 5.7 kips, VL = 2.2 kips) is

Pu = (1.25R yV n + Vb + 1.2V D + 0.5V L ) / sin()

h

= = 16.7 < ps (OK) = 250 kips

tw

The brace length is 20.2 ft. Selecting a square

Checking the strength of the beam segment as a tubular section TS8 8 1/2 (A500 Grade B

beam-column: steel):

[L p ]

= 6.9 ft < [Lb = 13.5 ft ]< [Lr = 20.3 ft ] c Pn = 366 kips > 250 kips (OK)

458 Chapter 9

b/t = 6.5/0.5 = 13 < p = 190 / F y = 28 (OK) The link rotation capacity is 0.08 rad

because the link length (= 36 in) is smaller than

Once the brace size is determined, it is 1.6 Mp/Vp (= 44.6 in). Thus, the link

possible to determine the link end moment deformation capacity is sufficient.

based on the relative stiffness (I/L) of the brace

and the beam segment outside the link. The Lateral Bracing

moment distribution factor is

Full-depth stiffeners of A36 steel are to be

I br /Lbr

(DF )br = = 0.20 used in pairs at each end of the links. The

I br /Lbr + I b /Lb required thickness of these stiffeners is

Therefore, the moment at the end of brace is t = max {0.75tw, 3/8} = 3/8 in

Lateral bracing similar to that shown in Figure

Mu = 240 (DF)br = 48 kip-ft 9-31 is needed for the links, except that the

bracing needs to be designed for 6% of the

The brace capacity is checked as a beam- expected link flange force, RyFybftf.

column:

b M n = b ( Z x F y ) = 137 kip-ft Link Stiffeners

permitted because the link depth is less than 25

Pu 8 Mu

+ = 0.68 + 0.31 inches. The required thickness is

c Pn 9 b M n

t = max {tw , 3/8} = 3/8 in

= 0.99 < 1 (OK)

Link Rotation The required stiffener spacing, a, is based on

Eq. 9-28, where CB is (see Figure 9-25):

The axial force produced by the design

seismic force in the first story is C B = 59.3 367 P = 50.1

a = CBtw = 14.4 in

The axial deformation of the brace is 5

PL 132(20.2 12) Therefore, three intermediate stiffeners are

= = = 0.077 in provided.

EA 29000(14.4)

The weld between the stiffener and the link

The elastic story drift is web should be designed to resist the following

force:

e = = 0.115 in

cos () F = Ast Fy = (3.75)(0.375)(36) = 51 kips

and the design story drift is The required total design force between the

stiffener and the flanges is

s = C d e I = 4.0( 0.115 ) / 1.0 = 0.46 in

F = Ast Fy/4 = 12.8 kips

Therefore, the link rotation is A minimum fillet weld size of in. satisfies the

L 30.0 0.46 above force requirement.

p = s = = 0.026 rad

e h 3.0 15 12

Columns

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 459

Floor Link 1.1RyVn PD PL Column Brace

Level Size (kips) (kips) (kips) Size Size

R W1045

113 30 5 W1240 TS88

6 W1045

226 71 14 W1240 TS88

5 W1045

339 112 22 W1272 TS88

4 W1045

452 153 29 W1272 TS88

3 W1245

592 194 35 W12106 TS88

2 W1245

732 235 42 W12106 TS88

special load combination presented in Eq. 9-4,

where o E is replaced by the seismic force

generated by 1.1 times the expected nominal

strength (RyVn) of the links. The column axial

load produced by both gravity loads and

seismic forces are listed in Table 9-12. The

required axial compressive strength is

Pu = 1.2(235) + 0.5(42) + 732 = 1035 kips

A W12106 column, with a design axial load

capacity of 1040 kips, is chosen for the lowest

two stories. The column splice must be

designed for the tensile force determined from

the load combination in Eq. 8.5:

Pu = 0.9D o Q E = 0.9(235) 732

= 521 kips

As stated in the SCBF design example, using

more than one braced bay in the bottom stories

may reduce the tensile force in the columns and

increase the overturning resistance of the

building.

460 Chapter 9

and Potyraj, T.J., The Dogbone Connection: Part

9-1 AIJ, Performance of Steel Buildings during the 1995 II, Modern Steel Construct., Vol. 36. No. 8, pp. 46-

Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake (in Japanese with 55, AISC, 1996.

English summary), Architectural Inst. of Japan, 9-17 Fujimoto, M., Aoyagi, T., Ukai, K., Wada, A., and K.

Tokyo, Japan, 1995. Saito, "Structural Characteristics of Eccentric K-

9-2 AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Braced Frames," Trans., No. 195, pp. 39-49, AIJ,

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, May 1972.

Chicago, IL, 1993. 9-18 Gilton, C., Chi, B., and Uang, C.-M., "Cyclic

9-3 AISC, Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, Response of RBS Moment Connections: Weak-Axis

AISC, Chicago, IL, 1989. Configuration and Deep Column Effects," Report No.

9-4 AISC, Near the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and SSRP-2000/03, Department of Structural

Interim Recommendations, Advisory Statement on Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La

Mechanical Properties, AISC, Chicago, IL, 1997a. Jolla, CA, 2000.

9-5 AISC, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel 9-19 Gross, J. L., Engelhardt, M. D., Uang, C.-M., Kasai,

Buildings, with Supplement No. 1 (1999), AISC, K., and N. Iwankiw, Modification of Existing Welded

Chicago, IL, 1992 and 1997b. Steel Moment Frame Connections for Seismic

9-6 ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Resistance, Steel Design Guide Series 12, AISC and

Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-98, ASCE, New NIST, 1998.

York, NY, 1998. 9-20 Hamburger, R. More on Welded Connections,

9-7 Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., Hanson, R.D., SEAONC News, Structural Engineers Association of

Earthquake-resistant Design of Double Angle Northern California, San Francisco, CA, April, 1996.

Bracings, Engrg. J., Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 133-147, 9-21 Hjelmstad, K. D. and Popov, E. P., "Characteristics

AISC, 1981. of Eccentrically Braced Frames," J. Struct. Engrg.,

9-8 Becker, R., Seismic Design of Steel Buildings Using Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 340-353, ASCE, 1984.

LRFD, in Steel Design Handbook (editor: A. R. 9-22 Hjelmstad, K. D. and Popov, E. P., "Cyclic Behavior

Tamboli), McGraw-Hill, 1997. and Design of Link Beams," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol.

9-9 Bruneau, M., Mahin, S.A., Ultimate Behavior of 109, No. 10, pp. 2387-2403, ASCE, 1983.

Heavy Steel Section Welded Splices and Design 9-23 ICBO, Uniform Building Code, Int. Conf. of Building

Implications, J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 116, No. 8, pp. Officials, Whittier, CA, 1988.

2214-2235, ASCE, 1990. 9-24 Iwankiw, R.N. and Carter, C.J., The Dogbone: A

9-10 Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M, Whittaker, A., Ductile New Idea to Chew On, Modern Steel Construct.,

Design of Steel Structures, McGraw Hill, New York, Vol. 36. No. 4, pp. 18-23, AISC, Chicago IL, 1996.

NY, 1997. 9-25 Jokerst, M. S. and Soyer, C., "San Francisco Civic

9-11 BSSC, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Center Complex: Performance Based Design with

Development of Seismic Regulations for New Passive Dampers and Welded Steel Frames," Proc.,

Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 65th Annual Convention, pp. 119-134, SEAOC,

Washington, DC, 1997. 1996.

9-12 Chen, S.J., Yeh, C.H. and Chu, J.M., Ductile Steel 9-26 Kasai, K. and Popov, E. P., "On Seismic Design of

Beam-Column Connections for Seismic Resistance, Eccentrically Braced Frames," Proc., 8th World

J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 1292-1299. Conf. Earthquake Engrg., Vol. V, pp. 387-394, IAEE,

ASCE, 1996. San Francisco, 1985.

9-13 Chi, B. and Uang, C.M., Seismic Retrofit Study on 9-27 Kasai, K. and Popov, E. P., "Cyclic Web Buckling

Steel Moment Connections for the Los Angeles Control for Shear Link Beams," J. Struct. Engrg.,

Department of Public Works Headquarters Building, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 505-523, ASCE, 1986a.

Report No. TR-2000/14, Department of Structural 9-28 Kasai, K. and Popov, E. P., "General Behavior of WF

Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Steel Shear Link Beams," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 112,

Jolla, CA, 2000. No. 2, pp. 362-382, ASCE, 1986b.

9-14 Engelhardt, M. D. and Popov, E. P., "On Design of 9-29 Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P.,

Eccentrically Braced Frames," Earthquake Spectra, Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-Column

Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 495-511, EERI, 1989. Subassemblages, Report No. UCB/EERC-71/7,

9-15 Engelhardt, M.D. and Sabol, T., Reinforcing of Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1971.

Steel Moment Connections with Cover Plates: 9-30 Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P.,

Benefits and Limitations, Engrg. J., Vol. 20, Nos. 4- Shear Behavior of Steel Frame Joints, J. Struct.

6, pp. 510-520, 1998. Div., Vol. 101, ST11, pp. 2317-2338. ASCE, 1975.

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 461

9-31 Libby, J. R., "Eccentrically Braced Frame Loading, Proc., 5th World Conf. Earthquake Engrg.,

ConstructionA Case Study," Engrg. J., Vol. 18, No. Vol. 1, pp. 845-848, IAEE, Rome, Italy, 1973.

4, pp. 149-153, AISC, 1981. 9-47 SSPC, Statistical Analysis of Tensile Data for Wide-

9-32 Malley, J. O. and Popov, E. P., "Shear Links in Flange Structural Shapes, Chaparral Steel Co.,

Eccentrically Braced Frames," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. Midlothian, TX, 1994.

110, No. 9, pp. 2275-2295, ASCE, 1984. 9-48 Tanabashi, R., Naneta, K., and Ishida, T., "On the

9-33 Manheim, D. N. and Popov, E. P., "Plastic Shear Rigidity and Ductility of Steel Bracing Assemblage,"

Hinges in Steel Frames," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 109, Proc., 5th World Conf. Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 1,

No. 10, pp. 2404-2419, ASCE, 1983. pp. 834-840, IAEE, Rome, Italy, 1974.

9-34 Merovich, A., Nicoletti, J. P., and Hartle, E., 9-49 Teal, E. J., "Seismic Drift Control Criteria," Engrg.

"Eccentric Bracing in Tall Buildings," J. Struct. Div., J., Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 56-67, AISC, 1975.

Vol. 108, No. ST9, pp. 2066-2080, ASCE, 1982. 9-50 Teal, E., Practical Design of Eccentric Braced

9-35 Nakashima, M. And Wakabayashi, M., Analysis and Frames to Resist Seismic Forces, Struct. Steel Res.

Design of Steel Braces and Braced Frames, in Council, CA, 1979.

Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under 9-51 Tremblay, R., Bruneau, M., Nakashima, M., Prion,

Cyclic Loading, pp. 309-322, CRC Press, 1992. H.G.L., Filiatrault, M., DeVall, R., Seismic Design

9-36 Noel, S. and Uang, C.-M., Cyclic Testing of Steel of Steel Buildings: Lessons from the 1995 Hyogo-

Moment Connections for the San Francisco Civic ken Nanbu Earthquake, Canadian J. Civil Engrg.,

Center Complex, Report No. TR-96/07, Univ. of Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 757-770, 1996.

California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 1996. 9-52 Tremblay, R., Timler, P., Bruneau, M., Filiatrault, A.,

9-37 Plumier, A., New Idea for Safe Structures in Performance of Steel Structures during the January

Seismic Zones, Proc., Symposium of Mixed 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake, Canadian J. Civil

Structures Including New Materials, pp. 431-436, Engrg., Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 338-360, 1995.

IABSE, Brussels, Belgium, 1990. 9-53 Tsai, K.-C., and Popov, E.P., Seismic Panel Zone

9-38 Redwood, R.G., and Channagiri, V.S., Earthquake- Design Effects on Elastic Story Drift of Steel

Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames, J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 116, No. 12, pp.

Frames, Canadian J. Civil Engrg., Vol. 18, No. 5, 3285-3301, ASCE, 1990.

pp. 839-850, 1991. 9-54 Tsai, K.-C., and Popov, E.P., Steel Beam-Column

9-39 Ricles, J. M. and Popov, E. P., "Composite Action in Joints in Seismic Moment-Resisting Frames, Report

Eccentrically Braced Frames," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. No. UCB/EERC-88/19, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley,

115, No. 8, pp. 2046-2065, ASCE, 1989. 1988.

9-40 Roeder, C. W. and Popov, E. P., "Eccentrically 9-55 Yu, Q.S., Uang, C.M., and Gross, J., Seismic

Braced Steel Frames For Earthquakes," J. Struct. Rehabilitation Design of Steel Moment Connection

Div., Vol. 104, No. ST3, pp. 391-411, ASCE, 1978. with Welded Haunch, Journal of Structural

9-41 Roeder, C. W., Foutch, D. A., and Goel, S. C., Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1, pp. 69-78, ASCE,

"Seismic Testing of Full-Scale Steel BuildingPart 2000.

II," J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 113, No. 11, pp. 2130- 9-56 Uang, C.-M. "Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors

2145, ASCE, 1987. for Building Seismic Provisions," J. Struct. Engrg.,

9-42 SAC, Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 19-28, ASCE, 1991.

Modification, and Design of Welded Steel Moment 9-57 Uang, C.-M. and Noel, S., Cyclic Testing of Strong-

Frame Structures, Report FEMA No. 267/SAC-95- and Weak-Axis Steel Moment Connection with

02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, 1995. Reduced Beam Flanges, Report No. TR-96/01, Univ.

9-43 SAC, Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1, of Calif., San Diego, CA, 1996.

Supplement to FEMA 267, Report No. FEMA 9-58 Uang, C.-M and Fan, C.C, Cyclic Stability of

267A/SAC-96-03, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, Moment Connections with Reduced Beam Section,

CA, 1997. Report No. SSRP-99/21, Department of Structural

9-44 SAC, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La

of Beam-Column Subassemblages, Parts 1 and 2, Jolla, CA, 1999.

Report No. SAC-96-01, SAC Joint Venture, 9-59 Whittaker, A. S., Uang, C.-M., and Bertero, V. V.,

Sacramento, CA, 1996. "Seismic Testing of Eccentrically Braced Dual Steel

9-45 SAC, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for Frames," Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 429-

New Moment-Resisting Steel Frame Structures, 449, EERI, 1989.

Report No. FEMA 350, SAC Joint Venture, 9-60 Whittaker, A.S. and Gilani, A., Cyclic Testing of

Sacramento, CA, 2000. Steel Beam-Column Connections, Report No.

9-46 Shibata, M., Nakamura T., Yoshida, N., Morino, S., EERC-STI/96-04, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1996.

Nonaka, T., and Wakabayashi, M., Elastic-Plastic 9-61 Whittaker, A.S., Bertero V.V., and Gilani, A.S.

Behavior of Steel Braces under Repeated Axial Evaluation of Pre-Northridge Steel Moment-

462 Chapter 9

Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 263-283, 1998.

9-62 Yang, M.-S., "Shaking Table Studies of an

Eccentrically Braced Steel Structure," Proc., 8th

World Conf. Earthquake Engrg., Vol. IV, pp. 257-

264, IAEE, San Francisco, CA, 1985.

9-63 Zekioglu, A., Mozaffarian, H., Chang, K.L., Uang,

C.-M., and Noel, S., Designing after Northridge,

Modern Steel Construct., Vol. 37. No. 3, pp. 36-42,

AISC, 1997.

- Chapter 5 Restrained Beam DesignUploaded byaisha nakato
- Cruciform Sections + NSCApril06_TechUploaded byIho1
- chap9Uploaded byaybik
- CFD-ACI-318-05Uploaded byfpalacios_5
- SFD-CSA-S16-01.pdfUploaded byEmily Stafford
- Forming VIIUploaded byfirmanrusydi
- AssignmentUploaded byTom Paquet
- Shira v and 2016Uploaded bypouya agabeygi
- CFD-ACI-318-08Uploaded byGlenn Rey Domingo
- AISC 360-05 Example 002Uploaded byAntonius Ajalah
- CMH-17_Vol6_RevGUploaded byOlli1974
- Experimental investigation of aluminum alloy circular hollow section columns.pdfUploaded bydjordjeue
- Buckling CourseWorkUploaded byGimhan Jayasiri
- Structural Bamboo design in EA.pdfUploaded byMike Eugene Collins
- A.H. Allen (Reinforced Concrete Design to Bs8110)Uploaded byNIranjan Buddika
- design of ridge MOHAMED.docUploaded byDr. MOHAMED ALZAIN
- D6641-D6641M-09 Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) Test Fixture.pdfUploaded byAndre Castelo
- Conference Paper-ASFE-Mariyana Aida Ab KAdirUploaded byM Aida AbKadir
- Lect1-Stractural Behavior and DesignUploaded byChris
- Design for ShearUploaded bystaryklt
- Formulação (GBT) Para Vigas de Seção AbertaUploaded byjvasilva13
- OTC-15179-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- BD544-18Uploaded bygutian259
- FEA Problems 2017 5416Uploaded byliton
- 703_ftpUploaded bysmootherboy
- MCR1135Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Computer Aided Design BeamUploaded byDavidParedes
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs40091-014-0047-4Uploaded byChirag N Patel
- Concrete Under5Uploaded byNurul Ain
- Sample Beam DesignUploaded bymokalngan

- Book PMonteiroUploaded bysantiago
- GIAN 2017 BrochurUploaded bySumanth
- 318-14_CrossReference_2011to2014Uploaded byfoush basha
- Preview of Performance Based Specifications and Control of Concrete Durability State of the Art Report RILEM TC 230 PSCUploaded bySumanth
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-14.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- IStructE Recommendations for the permissible stress design of reinforced concrete building structures.pdfUploaded byRajiv Sawaruth
- CFD-CSA-A23.3-04Uploaded byMbayo David Godfrey
- Behavior of Reinforced CorbelUploaded bySumanth
- Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete - Recent Research.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Properties of Concrete2, 5th EditionUploaded byUsman Ilyas
- Significant Changes From the 2011 to the 2014 Edition of ACI318,SK Ghosh, PCI JournalUploaded byZiyad12
- Canadian Standards Association-Design of Concrete Structures-Canadian Standard Association (2004)Uploaded bySumanth
- 318-14_CrossReference_2011to2014Uploaded bySumanth
- ACI 318 14 Changes PCI JournalUploaded bySumanth
- Corbel Design PaperUploaded bykapola
- Seismic Design of Building Structures - UBCUploaded bySumanth
- Siesmic design of irregular rcc.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Earth Rod ResistanceUploaded bySumanth
- Seismic Design of SMFsUploaded bysbayegan8
- Strong Column - Weak ColumnUploaded bySumanth
- Non Structural Elements in BuildingsUploaded byashuswara
- NEHRP PROVISIONS SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Building (3)Uploaded bypaulkohan
- GIT-SDPUploaded byfiq
- nistgcr10-917-5Uploaded bygustic1
- Geotech - Wedge.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- US Army - Geo Technical Notes.docUploaded bySumanth
- Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design by Krishna RajuUploaded byHari Gopal
- WilsonbookUploaded bychuncho88

- Compiled SyllabusUploaded bySanchit Singhal
- Land Launching (Steel Erection)Uploaded byAlsonChin
- Etabs BS 5950Uploaded byMcr Kumara
- Special Modeling Technique in Safe v12Uploaded bythailecanada
- CNBC 2012 - Part 6 Chap 13Uploaded byboyzes
- 268915792.pdfUploaded byroy jack
- Excel Based Timber Span & Spacing CalculatorUploaded bygugi
- 200 Questions and Answers on Practical Civil Engineering WorksUploaded byVijay
- Design of Brick Fin Walls in Tall Single-storey Buildings 0690Uploaded byMbleek
- TN3B.pdfUploaded byZam Dres
- DocMH.com-Behavior of Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders Involving Thermal Effects and Initial Imperfections During Construction.pdfUploaded bysam
- Baja ExampleUploaded bysandeepkks
- BEAM PLANUploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- Detection of Crack in Structure Using Two Crack Transfer MatrixUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Load LinesUploaded byyertas
- Young Modulus (e)Uploaded byHeru Kisdiyanto
- 4. Moment ConnectionUploaded bypresentasi mankon
- truss design FundamentalsUploaded byAtul Kumar Engineer
- 1-s2.0-S0143974X16301158-mainUploaded byAref Abadel
- Mechanics of Materials - Stress Risers in a Cantilever Flexure TestUploaded byDavid Clark
- Ehsani Yeganeh, AliUploaded bynsm98473
- Biaxial Bending and Torsion of Steel Equal Angle Section BeamsUploaded byp_meulendijks108
- Unit 3 - ShearUploaded bykalpanaadhi
- evaluation of a multi leaf hybrid springs for automotive suspensionsUploaded bymanindarkumar
- ASDIP Steel Users ManualUploaded byedwinvizuete
- 19996889 Chinese Equivalent of International Steel StandardsUploaded bylivnucas1972
- Blast Resistant Control BuildingUploaded byseena107
- STRUCTURAL MECHANICS.pdfUploaded bychandrasekar
- ECA FORMSUploaded by刘会卿
- Burj khalifaUploaded bySyeda Sana Naqi