Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

A moment resisting connection for earthquake resistant structures

Sean Wilkinsona,∗, Gordon Hurdmanb, Adrian Crowtherb
a School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
b Arup (Newcastle Office) Central Square, Forth Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 3PL, UK

Received 24 January 2004; accepted 28 July 2005

Abstract

This paper proposes a new moment resisting detail for use in earthquake resistant structures. The wedge detail tested in this project is
a new design that builds upon the idea of inducing a plastic hinge away from the column face to dissipate the energy that would otherwise
yield the connection. The plastic capacity of the beam is locally reduced by decreasing the depth of the web and reforming the flange to the
new beam profile. This makes the section more plastic, so reducing the buckling problem suffered by other reduced section joints.
Laboratory testing shows that the joint is capable of plastic rotations greater than 0.05 rad without any significant loss of energy dissipation
capability, which is far in excess of the requirements for a joint given by the latest standards based on post-Northridge data.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earthquake resistant; Moment resisting; Connection; Seismic detail; Experimental; Cyclic loading

1. Introduction occurred, the damage to the welded SMRF buildings was

Earthquakes produce some of the most violent loading
situations that a structure can be subjected to and if a
structure fails under these loads then inevitably human life
is put at risk. One of the most common methods by which
a structure fails under seismic loading is at the connection
between beam and column. This type of failure can result in
a loss of structural integrity and the collapse of floors, if not
whole buildings.
Before the Northridge earthquake on the 17th of January
1994, welded steel moment resisting frames (SMRF’s) were
commonplace in areas of seismic activity in the US. The
fully welded beam to column connection was used in
seismic areas not only because of its economic and versatile
nature but because it was assumed that the connection
would possess a high plastic deformation capacity. In
the Northridge earthquake this assumption was proved
wrong when brittle cracking of the welded beam–column
connections was widely observed. Although no casualties
were sustained and no complete collapses of buildings
so severe in some cases that all of the moment resisting
connections at one or more floors failed. Over 150 steel
buildings have been identified as being damaged from the
earthquake, most of which were built in accordance with the
code and standards of practice at the time [1].
Post-Northridge, there was a significant loss of confi-
dence in the way in which steel moment resisting framed
buildings were designed and several alternatives to welded
connections for steel frames have been proposed. A welded
connection alone is no longer considered safe by most build-
ing codes; instead there is a requirement for the designer to
demonstrate the adequacy of the connection detail by either
full scale testing or calculations based on test data. This pa-
per discusses some of the joint detail alternatives in use and
under consideration, highlighting their strengths and weak-
nesses. It then proposes and tests the seismic performance of
a new connection detail for steel moment resisting frames.
2. Standard connections
2.1. Welded connection

∗ Corresponding author. A typical pre-Northridge welded connection detail can

E-mail address: s.m.wilkinson@ncl.ac.uk (S. Wilkinson). be seen in Fig. 1. A hole in the beam web around each

0143-974X/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.07.011
296 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302
Fig. 1. Pre-Northridge welded connection detail (after Roeder and Foutch
[5]).
flange allows access for welding equipment so that a full
penetration weld between the beam flange and column
flange can be provided. A shear tab is commonly used to
connect the beam web to the column and is usually bolted to
the beam web on site. This type of connection is simple to
fabricate and economical, and subsequently has been widely
used in America since the 1970’s.
Numerous failure modes were exhibited by the welded
connections in the Northridge Earthquake. The most
common mode of failure was brittle fracture initiated within
the connection, usually in the full penetration weld between
the bottom flange of the beam and the column flange. To
the surprise of the engineers some of these fractures actually
initiated whilst the structure remained in its elastic range [2].
It is estimated that the buildings may have been designed
to be 4–8 times the required strength in order to satisfy
stringent storey drift ratios and, as such, plastic hinges could
not form in the beams under the loading scenario applied [1].
Each of the failure modes identified has been recreated
under laboratory testing and the majority have been shown to
be very brittle, with failure occurring before any significant
yielding of the connection [3]. This shocked designers,
who had assumed that the welded connection possessed
a high plastic deformation capacity. However, a statistical
analysis of all cyclic test data from 1970 to 1993 on welded
beam–column connections showed that they possessed an
average of 0.009 rad of plastic rotation capacity before
brittle fracture [3]. In the 1970’s this type of connection was
tested several times in the laboratory [4] with the conclusion
generally being that this connection showed good ductility
under cyclic loading. Later tests however, such as those
carried out by [5], have shown the connection to have poor
hysteretic behaviour [2].
Reasons for the poor performance of these welded
connections are cited as:
• Poor workmanship (weld defects).
• Poor detailing (producing stress concentrations at the root
or toe of the weld).
• Substandard materials (low toughness weld material).
• Unusually high seismic input (high strain rates) [6].
Since the Northridge earthquake, the assumption that
a welded connection possesses the required deformation
capacity has been proven to be inaccurate and welded
connections alone are now no longer considered safe in areas
prone to seismic activity.
2.2. Bolted end plate connections
To test their compatibility for use in structures likely to
experience seismic events, the reliability and performance
of bolted end plate connections under cyclic loading have
also been examined. The bolted end plate connection allows
rapid construction on site, is cheap and is convenient.
[7] have carried out testing on end plate connections, the
experimental procedure for which has formed the basis of
the laboratory tests used in this project and is described in
detail later.
Three failure mechanisms for end plate connections are
outlined in [8].
These failure mechanisms are defined as follows:
• Mode 1: plastic hinges form at the bolt line and the beam
web.
• Mode 2: plastic hinges form at the beam web followed by
yielding of the bolts.
• Mode 3: yielding of the bolts whilst the end plate remains
elastic.
Mode 1 joints are expected to possess the highest ductility
but the lowest stiffness and moment capacity. Mode 3 joints
are expected to have the highest stiffness and moment
capacity but are subject to sudden brittle fracture without
warning. Mode 2 joints have an intermediate moment
capacity, stiffness and ductility.
During the testing all three modes of failure were
observed depending on the thickness of the end plate and
the bolt grade and size used in each case.
The study concluded that the end plate connection is
suitable for use in areas of low to medium seismicity as
it possesses a stable cyclic response, but only has limited
moment capacity. The major failure mode in end plate
connections tested was slipping of the bolt threads.
2.3. Reinforced connections
Reinforcing the connection to prevent the brittle fractures
found in welded connections is a method commonly used to
combat the problem. The strengthened section of the beam
forces the plastic hinge to form in the beam away from the
column face and dissipate the energy from the earthquake
away from the vital beam–column connection. Several types
of reinforcement detail have been proposed, both for use in
upgrading existing welded connections and for use in new
buildings.
2.3.1. The haunch
Perhaps the most common method of increasing stiffness
at joints, the haunch has become standard in steel frames to
increase depth at beam to column connections.
 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302
Fig. 2. Triangular haunch detail (after Naeim [9]).
Fig. 3. Rib plates (after Naeim [9]).
Various types of haunch have been suggested and tested
under laboratory conditions, the most promising of which
is the inverted T-section haunch. Rib plates have also
been used as a method for reducing stress on the welded
beam–column connection. These details are shown in Figs. 2
and 3 respectively.
2.3.2. The “column–tree” connection
The reinforced column–tree connection has reinforced
beam stubs attached to the column in the workshop and the
central section of the beam is added on site by welding or
bolting. The stub is reinforced by the addition of side and
cover plates as shown in Fig. 4.
2.3.3. Cover plates and flange plates
Cover plates (as shown in Fig. 5) have become one of the
most common alternatives since the Northridge earthquake.
The bottom flange of the beam is reinforced using a
rectangular cover plate wider than the beam flange and the
top flange is reinforced using a tapered cover plate thinner
than the beam flange. This enables down hand welding
(welding from above) to be carried out, in both cases leading
to a stronger weld, and if the bottom plate is welded to the
column before the beam is offered up to the column then it
can act as a construction seat speeding the erection process.
297
Fig. 4. Column tree connection.
Fig. 5. The cover plate method of strengthening beam to column connection.
A welded beam to column connection is still preferred to a
bolted one as this reduces the required thickness of the cover
plates [9]. Although laboratory tests have been carried out on
connections using cover plates, and plastic rotations greater
than 0.03 rad have been obtained, about 20% of samples
failed to reach this target before brittle fracture around the
welds [9].
The flange plate connection is much the same as the
cover plate connection with the exception being that only
the flange plate is welded to the column face, not the beam.
In this respect the flange plates are much thicker than the
cover plates but the bottom flange can be shop welded to the
column. This removes the need for one of the on site welds,
which are linked to producing a notch effect connected with
brittle fractures such as those found at Northridge.
298 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302
Fig. 6. Post-tensioned connection with angles designed to be replaced after
yielding under seismic load (after Ricles et al. [2]).
The problem with haunches and cover plates is that while
they increase the stiffness of the beam–column connection,
forcing a plastic hinge to form away from the column face,
this increase in stiffness also attracts increased moment
to the column and connection, which in turn need to be
increased in size accordingly.
2.4. The post-tensioned connection
A more theoretical than practical design, the post-
tensioned method (shown in Fig. 6) utilises the tensile and
rotational capacity of steel cables to provide a “safety net”
for the beam once a lightweight angle connection to the
column fails under earthquake loading. This lightweight
angle can then be replaced and the building repaired quickly
and easily.
Advantages of the PT steel connection are cited as:
1. Field welding is not required.
2. The connection is made with conventional materials and
skills.
3. The connection has initial stiffness similar to that of a
typical welded connection.
4. The connection is self-centring without residual deforma-
tion, so the SMRF will not have residual drift after an
earthquake if significant residual deformation does not
occur at the base of the columns.
5. The beams and columns remain essentially elastic while
inelastic deformation (and damage) of the connection
provides energy dissipation.
6. Significant damage to the SMRF is contained to the
angles of the connection.
7. These angles can be easily replaced [2].
However, there are many disadvantages of this type of
system, such as:
Fig. 7. Tapered and circular (“dogbone”) flange profiles for reducing the
plastic moment capacity of the beam (after Naeim [9]).
1. Overall construction time will be significantly increased
because of the complexity of the system (the time
required to fit and tension the cables) which will offset
any savings in terms of materials.
2. Tensioning of cables is dangerous and requires specialist
contractors.
3. If every angle at every connection in the structure fails
then the structure essentially becomes a mechanism.
4. The cables will need to be serviced and re-tensioned
regularly in order to retain the required tensile force (lost
in creep).
5. The holes drilled in the column to accommodate the steel
fibres weaken the column about the floor level where
the column experiences its greatest values of bending
moment. This increases the probability of failure in the
column, which is potentially more dangerous than a
failure of beam or connection.
2.5. Reduced section beams (RBS)
The main problem with the stiffening of the joint is that
stiffness attracts moment and increasing the moment at the
column could induce failure in the column (especially in the
case of a retrofit). Column failure is potentially more serious
than the failure of the unimproved connection because it is
more likely to lead to a collapse mechanism.
One of the provisions of a connection in a SMRF is that it
must possess sufficient strength to induce the plastic hinge in
the beam before it fails. Rather than stiffening the connection
between the column and beam this can be achieved by
reducing the plastic capacity of the beam section away from
the column face to induce the plastic hinge at a point chosen
by the designer rather than forcing it away using stiffeners.
This will have the advantage of requiring less construction
time on site and using less material to produce a neater and
smaller connection. Two methods of reducing the plastic
moment of the beam have been suggested previously: cutting
of the flanges as shown in Fig. 7 and drilling of the flanges.
 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302 299

Drilling of the flanges involves, as its name implies,

simply drilling material out of the flange around where the
hinge is to be induced to give an overall section with the
same dimensions as previously but with less cross sectional
area.
Both of the above methods reduce the plastic capacity
of the beam section through a reduction in the areas of
the flange. This has the desired effect of inducing a plastic
hinge away from the column face and thus preventing
a failure at the connection. However, in addition to the
reduction in plastic capacity there is also a reduction in
the in-plane stiffness of the beam, decreasing the lateral
torsional stability of the section about that point and hence
buckling may become a significant problem. This has been
proven to be the case and “the reduced beam section usually
experiences web local buckling first, followed by lateral
torsional buckling and finally flange local buckling” [9].
Although this may seem to prove that lateral torsional Fig. 8. Geometry of the wedge detail.
stiffness is not the major contributor to buckling for
reduced section beams (RBS), the problem of lateral where σ y is the yield stress of the material. So if the section
stability becomes much more apparent in the jumbo sections depth is reduced to induce the plastic hinge, this has the
employed to limit storey drift in tall buildings in seismic advantage of reducing the plastic moment capacity of the
regions. The amplitude of the lateral torsional buckling tends section much faster than when tapering the flanges and with
to be larger when the RBS is used, giving rise to twisting in less change in the overall properties of the beam under
the columns, which when jumbo sized can be more prone normal loading situations. The beam is also made more
to twisting than smaller, compact ones. Ref. [9] suggests compact and thus less likely to undergo lateral torsional
that in these cases lateral bracing around the RBS should buckling, one of the problems associated with the “dogbone”
be provided. connection detail.
Hence the proposed joint detail will take the form of a
beam with a wedge removed from the web and the flange
3. A proposal for a new connection detail—the wedge reattached to produce a profile such as that shown in Fig. 8.
design The geometry of the beam was chosen such that the hinge
point would be located at a distance equal to the beam
From the previous discussion it can be seen that the depth away from the column face. The depth of the section
most common way of providing resistance to seismic load was therefore designed for the moment at this location. By
is increasing the stiffness of the beam–column connection, equating the moment at the desired hinge point with the
such as by the addition of a haunch or plates. This type equation for plastic moment capacity of the section, the
of detail is recommended in Eurocode 8 [8] on design for reduced depth can be calculated. Since the beam stub tested
seismic activity. The proposed connection method, like the for this paper was a 254 × 102 × 22 UB and was tested in the
“dogbone” style of connection, uses a reduced beam section configuration of a cantilever of 1.5 m length, the appropriate
to induce a plastic hinge away from the column face before depth of the section at a distance equal to 254 mm away from
the connection reaches its ultimate moment. This has the the column face is 200 mm.
advantage of reducing the complexity of the connection, The actual geometry of the wedge detail used in the
hence reducing construction time and potentially cost. experiment is shown in Fig. 8.
Unlike the “dogbone” connection, which reduces the
flange width to reduce the plastic moment capacity of the
4. Experimentation
beam section, the proposed design will reduce the depth
of the web at the point where the plastic hinge will be
The wedge beams were constructed using the following
induced. The plastic modulus of a universal beam section is
procedure.
proportional to the square of the depth of the section but only
As the removed flange section was being shaped to fit
linearly proportional to the width of the flange. Therefore,
the web of the wedged beam, a provision for the shortening
reducing the depth of the section has a greater effect on the
of the flange was provided (i.e. the wedge was cut 20 mm
plastic modulus than reducing the width of the section.
further into the beam web than was required). Thus the beam
The plastic moment capacity of the section is given in
could be cut at the end of the wedge and the end plate fitted
Eq. (1):
flush with the end of the beam with the full beam depth at
M p = Z p σy (1) the bottom flange.
300 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302
Fig. 9. Basic experimental set-up (jack shown in both positions). Numbers
represent the approximate positions of the LVDT’s used.
The experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 9 and
includes a reaction frame, two single-acting hydraulic
jacks, a load cell, linearly variable differential transform-
ers (LVDT’s, displacement gauges) and a data logging com-
puter. LVDT’s measured displacements at four locations.
Two LVDT’s were used in unison to measure tip displace-
ments (1 and 3) because the range of displacement at the
tip was in excess of the range of measurement of a single
LVDT. One LVDT measured displacement at the mid-span
of the beam past the hinge point (2) and one measured dis-
placement above the position of the plastic hinge (4).
After the Northridge earthquake the AISC Seismic
Provisions were changed to require that [9]:
1. The design of beam–column joints and connections in
SMFs must be based on qualifying tests of at least two
specimens.
2. Each connection must develop a plastic rotation of 0.03
rad.
Thus the experimental program tested two identical
samples of universal beam sections with the wedge
removed. Each sample was cyclically tested to values of tip
displacement that are estimated to produce plastic rotation
with an increasing increment of 0.01 rad. The results
were collected using a data logging device that recorded
each LDVT and the load cell at 2 s intervals. Load and
displacement data were recorded for the duration of the test.
4.1. Testing of the connection
Once the instrumentation was in place and had been
calibrated, the first specimen was tested. The elastic capacity
of the beam around the hinge location was calculated and
the beam stub was subjected to this load in a trial test run.
From the data obtained in this test, the tip deflection after
which the beam became plastic could be estimated. This
subsequently allowed the tip deflections necessary for each
increment of plastic rotation to be obtained. The beam stub
was then subjected to cyclic loading that produced each of
these deflections for two cycles for each value of plastic
rotation required. Plastic rotation was measured using the
same method as in [7], i.e. the assumption was made that
after the formation of the plastic hinge the predominant
form of displacement would be in rotation about a plastic
hinge at the reduced section and that bending of the beam
would be negligible. Thus tip deflection could be used as an
appropriate form of measurement for rotation.
Loading proceeded with two cycles being performed for
each specified rotation until local buckling at the hinge point
became extremely severe, after which the beam was loaded
upward to ultimate failure and testing ceased. Testing of the
beam is shown in Fig. 10.
5. Results
The full hysteretic response curve for specimen 2 can be
seen in Fig. 11. The points labelled on this graph are referred
to in the following text using terms in square brackets,
e.g. [H].
With the beam stabilised from lateral failure modes the
performance of the stub with respect to local yielding could
be observed. At the minimum required plastic rotation for
acceptability as a connection for use in seismic areas (of
0.03 rad) there was little local deformation of the beam.
[A] The beam web showed signs of slight straining with the
beginnings of web buckling, but of minimal magnitude.
In the first cycle of rotation to 0.04 rad [B], local buckling
of the beam web was observed as shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
This is thought to be the result of additional compressive
force applied to the beam web as the wedge form undergoes
“pinching” at the peak of the removed section.
When the loading case was reversed and the beam was
pushed upward to a rotation of 0.04 rad this buckling was
corrected as the wedge detail was stretched out [C].
In the second cycle of plastic rotation at 0.04 rad the
buckling was much more severe. Local buckling of the
bottom flange of the beam at the peak of the wedge detail
(“pinching”) occurred, increasing the web buckling [D].
Buckling of the top flange of the beam began in the final
loading scenario of the second 0.04 plastic rotation cycle as
shown in Fig. 14 and point [F] on Fig. 11. In the first and
only cycle of plastic rotation past 0.04 rad, the buckling of
top and bottom flanges and of the web became much more
prominent, to the extent that a full plastic region had formed
and further testing would have been without gain as the
beam began to behave in a manner that would be unrealistic
in a building. The rotation of the beam was of such great
magnitude that to approach anywhere near that degree of
rotation in a real structure the columns would have had to
undergo plastic deformation.
6. Conclusions
The three criteria for a connection in an SMRF in a
seismic area are:
 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302 301

Fig. 10. Loading of the beam from above.

Fig. 11. Hysteretic response curve for specimen 2. Rotation based on corrected tip displacement.

1. The connection must possess sufficient strength to
develop the full plastic moment of the beam.
2. The connection must possess sufficient stiffness to satisfy
the assumption that it is a fully rigid connection.
3. The connection must have a large post-yield deformation
capacity without significant loss of strength.
In reducing the plastic modulus of the beam near the
beam–column connection, these criteria are effectively met
by transferring the plastic hinge from the connection to the
beam. The wedge detail induces a plastic hinge away from
the column face, thus satisfying the first criterion. The end
plate connection is already assumed to be semi-rigid and
has been used for many years in moment resisting frames.
Alternatively, a welded connection could be used in place
of the end plate to provide a fully rigid connection (the
end plate was used in this test as a convenient method of
switching between beam specimens on the same column).
Finally, the hysteretic response curves for the specimens
show that the post-yield deformation capacity of the joint
is very large, with plastic rotations up to 0.05 rad being
observed without any loss of energy dissipation capacity.
Furthermore, following the AISC guidelines for a joint
to be considered safe for use in a seismic area, at least two
samples of the joint have been tested, with both samples
easily surpassing the minimum requirements of plastic
rotations of 0.03 rad.
The connection is simple to construct and has excellent
seismic resistance properties. Furthermore it is particularly
useful for retrofitting of buildings as it does not increase
302 S. Wilkinson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 295–302
Fig. 12. Pinching of the wedge as seen in the second plastic rotation of 0.04
rad.
Fig. 13. Web buckling above the wedge peak.
the moment in the connected column (as with reinforced
connections) and only requires access to the bottom flange
of the beam. Finally the wedge detail will be superior to
a dogbone section with the same plastic moment capacity
Fig. 14. Buckled top flange under >0.05 rad plastic rotation upwards. [F].
in resisting lateral torsional buckling, as it has superior
torsional rigidity.
References
[1] Mahin SA. Lessons from damage to steel buildings during the
Northridge earthquake. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4–6):261–70.
[2] Ricles JM, Sause R, Garlock MM, Zhao C. Post-tensioned
seismic-resistant connections for steel frames. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(2):120.
[3] Stojadinovic B, Goel SC, Lee K-Y. Welded steel moment connections –
old and new. In: Avent RR, Alawady M, editors. Structural engineering
in the 21st century [Proceedings of the 1999 structures congress].
Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE; 1999.
[4] Popov EP, Stephen RM. Cyclic loading of full size steel connections.
Bulletin No. 21. Washington, (DC): American Iron and Steel Institute;
1972.
[5] Roeder CW, Foutch DA. Experimental results for seismic resistant steel
moment frame connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 1996;
122(6):581–8.
[6] Dubina D, Ciutina A, Stratan A. Cyclic tests of double-sided beam-to-
column joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(2):
129.
[7] Broderick BM, Thomson AW. The response of flush end-plate joints
under earthquake loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2001.
[8] European committee for standardisation. Eurocode 3: Part 1.1 Revised
Annex J: Joints in building frames, ENV 1993-1-1: 1992/A2: 1998.
[9] Naeim F. The seismic design handbook. 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2001. p. 418.