You are on page 1of 54

Chapter 9

Seismic Design of Steel Structures

Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D.

Professor of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego

Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.Eng.

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

Andrew S. Whittaker, Ph.D., S.E.

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

Key-Chyuan Tsai, Ph.D., S.E.

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.

410 Chapter 9
9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 411

9.1 Introduction ratio, respectively. If the structure is designed to

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
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

Figure 9-1. General structural response envelope

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:

where I is the Occupancy Importance Factor. 1 .2 D + 0 .5 L + 0 .2 S + o E (9-4)

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
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.
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

Table 9-2. Limiting width-thickness ratios

Description of Width- p ps
Element Thickness
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
flexure and axial 640 2.75Pu
(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

(2.33 Pu

Fy b Py Fy
Fy b Py
Round HHS in axial D/t 2070 1300
compression or Fy Fy
Rectangular HHS in b/t 190 110
axial compression or Fy Fy

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

Beam-to-Column Connection Details A variety of reinforced connections have

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

First, the lateral-torsional buckling amplitude of

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.
Figure 9-5. Moment connection with reduced beam
9.2.5 Beam-to- Column Panel Zones
Reducing the width of the beam flange
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
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.

Required Shear Strength

Using the information presented in Figure 9-

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

where M = ( M 1 + M 2 ) is the unbalanced an intermediate- or minimum-strength panel-

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
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.
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
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

Figure 9-8. Typical brace configuration

9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 427

Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBs) and deflection, , at mid-span. Eventually, the

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

(a) Net section fracture at bolt holes

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

Figure 9-9. Examples of damage to non-ductile braced frames

429 Chapter 9

(c) Fracture of welded connection and web tear-out in brace

(d) Weld fracture

Figure 9-9 Examples of damage to Non-Ductile braced frames (continued)

430 Chapter 9

Figure 9-10. Hysteresis of a brace under cyclic axial loading

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
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
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
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
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.

9.3.6 Special Bracing Configuration


Special requirements apply to the design of

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

a K-type braced frame (see Figure 9-17), the

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

While a properly designed and constructed

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

are proportioned following capacity design

provisions to remain essentially elastic during
the design earthquake.

Elastic Stiffness

The variations of the lateral stiffness of a

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)
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

where p is the plastic drift angle (or plastic Ultimate Strength

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
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)
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).

Figure 9-22. Link deformation and free-body diagram

A balanced yielding condition corresponds to

the simultaneous formation of flexural hinges
and a shear hinge. The corresponding link
length is

2M p
e0 = (9-22)

In a short link ( e e0 ), a shear hinge will form.

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

Based on plastic theory, Eq. 9-22 can be

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

2(1.2 M p ) 1.6 M p
e0 = = (9-24)
1.5V p Vp

Longer Links

Experimental results have shown that the

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)

the transition region where

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

The reduced shear capacity is (Manheim and
Popov 1983):

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

Replacing Mp and Vp in Eq. 9-24 by Mpa and Vpa,

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

A 1.6 M p (Kasai and Popov 1986a). A conservative

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
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).

9.4.4 Capacity Design of Other

Structural Components

Links in an EBF are designated as structural

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

Diagonal Brace

The required axial and flexural strength of

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

considering perpendicular forces equal to 2

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

Figure 9-27. A six-story office building

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

Ta = CT hn3 / 4 (9-30) (See the NEHRP Recommended Provisions on

.) Therefore, the above two load combinations
can be expressed as
446 Chapter 9

Table 9-3. Design gravity loads

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)

Table 9-4. System parameters and design base shears

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.

the approximate period, Ta (= 1.07 seconds),

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:
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:

9.5.2 Special Moment Frames (SMF) Cd

x = < 0.02 H ,
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

Table 9-5. Design story shears

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
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.

Figure 9-29. Typical shear force distributions in beams and columns

448 Chapter 9

F2 h 3 F Lh 2 quick check of this requirement for the flexural

= 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 ]
x =
(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
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,
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

4c 2 + b 2 +(2512)(0.02) = 125 kips

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

Additional bracing near the RBS is unnecessary M pc = Z c ( F yc Puc Ag )

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

The design plastic moment capacity of the

reduced beam section is

M pd = 1.1R y Z RBS F y
= 1.1 1.1115 50 = 6958 kip in

and the corresponding beam shear is

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
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
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 )
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)
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

Figure 9-32. Concentrically braced frame elevation

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
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
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
from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.
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
from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E (see Eq. 9-34), where E = QE.
b. M = 0.

and the width-to-thickness ratio is:

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)

Story Pua Tub Member cPn KL/r b/t

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

Story Pua Tub Member cPn KL/r b/t

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

Story Pua Tub Pnc Tnd Member cPn

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
from load combination 1.2D + 0.5L o QE (see Eq. 9-4), where o =2.0.
from load combination 0.9D oQE (see Eq. 9-5).
1.2D + 0.5L + (1.1RyPn) , where Pn is the brace nominal compressive strength.
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
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
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

Note that there is no axial force acting on the

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)

Link Design t w (d 2t f ) = 3.87 in 2 > 3.70 in 2 (OK)

Shear links with e 1.6 Mp/Vp are used to Mp Zx

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

bf 52 b M p = 243, BF = 5.07, C b 1.67

= 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

Checking the beam web local buckling (see

1.25RyVn (e 2) = 240 kip - ft

1.25R y Vn (e 2)
Table 9-2):
Vb = = 18 kips
191 P 253
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()
= = 16.7 < ps (OK) = 250 kips
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.
b M n = b ( Z x F y ) = 137 kip-ft Link Stiffeners

One-sided intermediate stiffeners are

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

P = 88 / cos() = 132 kips d

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

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
9. Seismic Design of Steel Structures 459

Table 9-12. Summary of member sizes and column axial loads

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

Columns must be designed to satisfy the

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
460 Chapter 9

REFERENCES 9-16 Engelhardt, M.D., Winneburger, T., Zekany, A.J.,

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

Resisting Joints. Struct. Design of Tall Buildings.

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.