Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Shear instability of panel zone in beam-to-column connections

Giuseppe Brandonisio ∗ , Antonio De Luca, Elena Mele
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples ‘‘Federico II’’, P.le V. Tecchio 80, 80125 Naples, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: In this paper, the problem of shear buckling in the panel zone of beam-to-column connections is
Received 27 January 2010 examined. In particular, following the application of the shear buckling theory for rectangular plates, both
Accepted 18 November 2010 in the elastic and in the plastic field, and a critical review of American and European provisions for panel
zones, a parametric FEM analysis using ABAQUS Code is carried out on beam-to-column connections.
Keywords: The comparison of the analysed code provisions with the numerical and experimental results shows
Panel zone
a good agreement of the American provisions; on the contrary, some drawbacks are identified in the
Beam to column connection
Shear buckling
application of the European provisions. Thus, in order to exclude any buckling phenomena, some possible
FEM analysis improvements are proposed in terms of panel zone slenderness limit.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction phenomena, it is very important to limit the geometrical slender-

Experimental and numerical studies on the behaviour of the
panel zone (PZ) in beam-to-column connections under seismic-
type loadings have been carried out starting from the early ‘70s,
mainly by Krawinkler et al. [1], Bertero et al. [2] and Popov [3].
Further studies have been carried out during the ’90s, particularly
after the Northridge earthquake [4–6]. All these studies have
shown that the behaviour of the panel zone is highly ductile, and
characterized by significant strength reserves after first yielding,
as well as by stable and wide hysteresis loops. However, several
researchers [7–9] showed that large inelastic shear distortions
could create problems at the connection welds due to local kinking
of the column flanges at the PZ corners.
Therefore the question to allow or not to allow the inelastic
deformations in the PZ is still an object of discussion in the research
community; in the words of El-Tawil [10]: ‘‘The large changes that
have occurred in the approximately 40 year history of panel zone
provisions attest to the fact that the effect of panel zone deformation
on connection response have never really been well understood . . . the
issue is not yet fully resolved, and that additional large-scale testing
is still needed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of inelastic
panel zone deformation’’.
In the opinion of the authors, another point of great relevance
is the definition of an appropriate limitation to the PZ slenderness,
in order to prevent shear buckling, which could undermine the de-
sirable behaviour of the PZ, and reduce ductility and dissipation
capacity. In fact, when the PZ is slender, the cyclic curves show ev-
ident pinching, more clearly as the PZ slenderness increases. In or-
der to avoid buckling occurrence and the consequent detrimental
ness b/t of the PZ, defined as the ratio of PZ width (b) to PZ thick-
ness (t).
In this paper a contribution is presented towards the definition
of a reliable limit value of b/t, beyond which the PZ does not buckle
under shear forces. With this aim, the elastic and inelastic buck-
ling theories for rectangular plates under shear stress are firstly ex-
amined, and the design provisions of both American and European
Codes are critically reviewed and compared. Then a FEM paramet-
ric analysis is carried out on beam-to-column connections char-
acterised by different aspect ratios and increasing PZ slenderness,
in order to define the slenderness limit b/t which should avoid
PZ shear buckling. Finally, the slenderness limitations prescribed
by the examined Codes and by the technical literature, as well as
some experimental data retrieved from the bibliography are com-
pared to the numerical results, design implications are discussed
and some preliminary improvements to the Code provisions are
suggested.
2. Shear buckling of panel zone
2.1. Stability theory of plate under shear stress
The shear buckling of a panel zone can be studied through the
stability theory of a rectangular plate of length a, width b and thick-
ness t, which is subjected to shear stresses. In the above frame-
work, and in the hypothesis of elastic behaviour, the value of the
critical tangential stress is given by the following formula:

π2 · E
 2
∗ Corresponding author. t
τcr = kτ · · (1)
E-mail address: giuseppe.brandonisio@unina.it (G. Brandonisio). 12 · (1 − ν 2 ) b
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.11.019
892 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

where E is the modulus of elasticity, ν is the Poisson’s ratio, and kτ Regarding the shear buckling of the PZ, Eurocode 8 [17]
is the shear buckling coefficient, that, for plates with simply sup- explicitly makes reference to Eurocode 3, which only gives specific
ported edges, is [11]: provisions for the shear stability of beam web panels. In an old
version of Eurocode 3 [18], the buckling resistance was set equal to
kτ = c + d/α 2 (2) the yield shear stress τy , when λ̄w ≤ 0.8. In terms of geometrical
with c and d numerical coefficients depending on the plate aspect slenderness b/t, this condition can be rewritten as:
ratio α = a/b, according to the following indications: 
λw ≤ 0.8 → (b/t ) ≤ 29.92 · ε · kτ (10)
5.34 when α ≥ 1 4.00 when α ≥ 1
 
c= d= (3)
4.00 when α < 1; 5.34 when α < 1. in which the coefficient kτ can be calculated, as previously shown,
using Eqs. (2) and (3).
In order to exclude shear buckling phenomena in the PZ, it is
It can be noticed that, for large values of α , Eq. (10) tends to
necessary to limit the PZ slenderness b/t, or, equivalently, the non-
dimensional (or mechanical) PZ slenderness λw , which is defined the condition b/t = 69 · ε ; in fact, the EC3 [18] specifies that the
as: check of shear stability of the web panel is not necessary when
b/t ≤ 69 · ε .
τy (b/t )

λ̄w = = √ (4) In a more recent version of Eurocode 3 [19], the above limit is
τcr 37.4 · ε · kτ reduced to b/t ≤ 72/η · ε = 60 · ε (with η = 1.2, as recommended
√ in [20]). This limitation, which is also adopted in the new Italian
where τy = fy / 3 is the value of the yield shear stress, and Technical provisions for the Constructions [21,22], leads to the
ε = 235/fy (fy is the yield strength in MPa).

following condition:
When τcr ≥ τy , the PZ will yield before it buckles. This condition
can be written in terms of non dimensional slenderness as λ̄w ≤ 1,

λ̄w ≤ 0.83/η = 0.69 → (b/t ) ≤ 25.81 · ε · kτ . (11)
which gives the following limitation in terms of b/t:
 It is also worth noting that, in the case of retrofitting of steel
λ̄w ≤ 1 → b/t ≤ 37.40 · ε · kτ . (5) structures, Eurocode 8 Part 3 [23] recommends the same limitation
In order to consider the interaction between stability and (7) as the US Codes for preventing premature local buckling of the
plasticity phenomena, Bleich [12] introduced a reduced value of PZ.
the critical buckling stress, τcrrid , through a factor ξ = (Et /E )0.5 , Et
being the instantaneous tangential modulus; assuming Et equal to 2.3. Comparison between the theory of stability and the Code
0.03 · E, then: ξ = 0.17. The condition τcrrid = 0.17τcr ≥ τy can be provisions
re-written, in terms of geometrical slenderness b/t, thus providing
the following limitation:
In order to compare the limitations on the geometrical slender-
ness b/t provided by the examined Codes, it is very effective to

λ̄w ≤ 0.4 → b/t ≤ 14.96 · ε · kτ (6)
specify the conditions (7) and (9)–(11) in the α − (b/t )/ε plane.
which should exclude the shear plastic buckling of the panel zone. In such a way, it is possible to obtain the curves depicted in
Fig. 1, namely:
2.2. Code provisions
• curve (c), that is associated to the limitation (7) of the American
For preventing premature buckling of the joint panel zone Codes UBC 1997 and AISC [14];
under large cyclic shear deformations, both the US Codes UBC • curve (d), associated to the condition (9) of AISC [16];
1997 [13] and the AISC [14] propose the same empirical formula, • curve (e), associated to the recommendation (10) of EC3 [18];
which was published for the first time in the 1988 SEAOC Blue Book
• curve (f), associated to the limitation (11) of EC3 [19].
(see [15]):
In the chart of Fig. 1 curves (a) and (b), respectively associated
a+b
t ≥ (7) to conditions (5) and (6) derived from the theory of plate stability,
90 are also plotted.
which in terms of b/t gives rise to: By observing the diagram of Fig. 1 it is possible to note that
b 90 both curves (c) and (d), derived from the US Codes, give more
≤ . (8) conservative limit values on the b/t ratio than the ones of the
t (1 + α) European Codes. These curves also show a good agreement with
Here t is the thickness of column web or doubler plate, or both Bleich’s limitation (Eq. (6), curve (b)), especially in the most
(thickness of column web plus doubler plate, when connected with common range of the PZ aspect ratio (Fig. 1(b)); in particular,
plug welds). the diagrams plotted in Fig. 1(b) emphasize that the American
Alternatively, Lee et al. [15] suggest to use the following limitations (7) and (9) entail the adoption of a PZ slightly thicker
limitation: than the ones required by Eq. (6), and that in the range α = 0.5–1.5
 the AISC [16] condition (Eq. (9)) is the most conservative.
kv 
(b/t ) ≤ 187 · → (b/t ) ≤ 12.2 · ε · kv (9) Some perplexities arise observing the curves obtained by
fy plotting the conditions (9) and (10), both provided by EC3; as
where the shear buckling coefficient kv is assumed equal to: kv = already underlined, these are derived for beam web panels, that are
5 + 5/α 2 . typically characterized by values of the aspect ratio significantly
This limitation is also recommended by AISC [16] for the different from the ones characterizing PZ in beam-to-column
stiffened web panels of beams subjected to shear stress. In terms connections; furthermore web panels are generally loaded by
of non-dimensional slenderness λ̄w , Eq. (9) is equivalent to the static shear forces, while the panel zone in moment connections,
condition λ̄w ≤ 0.3. which is subjected to large cyclic actions.
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903 893

section is IPE 300 for all the specimens, with the exception of the
models L and H, which have beam section IPE 160 and IPE 200,
respectively. For the column, instead, a different cross section has
been adopted in each model in order to vary the PZ strength, and,
consequently, the PZ-to-beam strength ratio (MPZ,y /Mb,pl ).
The ratio MPZ,y /Mb,pl between the PZ flexural strength (MPZ,y )
and the plastic moment capacity of the beam (Mb,pl ) is usually
evaluated in the seismic design for verifying the strong PZ-weak
beam design condition. In fact, when the PZ-to-beam strength ratio
is greater than 1, inelastic deformations are mainly expected in the
beam.
The PZ flexural strength (moment capacity) MPZ,y can be defined
by means the following formula MPZ,y = VPZ,y · b/(1 − ρ), where
VPZ,y is the column web shear strength; ρ = b/(H − b); b is the
PZ width and H is the column length. In the following, VPZ,y is
evaluated according to Eurocode 3 [19], i.e. VPZ,y = Ac w · τy , where
Ac w is the shear area of the column.
After having analyzed this first set of specimens, the parametric
analysis has been developed by decreasing the column web
thickness (t) for each specimen until the PZ buckling occurs, i.e.
by increasing the PZ geometrical and mechanical slenderness, b/t
and λ̄w . The onset of the PZ buckling has been judged on the basis
of numerical results by monitoring the out-of-plane displacement
of a control joint in the centre of PZ and observing the growth
of such displacement at almost constant load. An example of the
shear force (VPZ ) vs. out of plane displacement (δPZ ) is provided in
Fig. 2 with reference to beam-to-column connections with stocky
(model C) and slender (model C′ ) panel zones.
The main geometrical and mechanical parameters for all the
examined specimens are shown in Table 2. In detail, for the 52 FE
Fig. 1. Comparison among the American and European limit values on PZ
slenderness. models, the following information are provided: PZ length (a); PZ
width (b); PZ thickness (t); PZ aspect ratio (α = a/b); geometrical
Table 1 PZ slenderness ((b/t )/ε); non-dimensional PZ slenderness (λ̄w );
Cross sections of beam and column of models A–L. PZ-to-beam strength ratio (MPZ,y /Mb,pl ) and if the PZ has buckled
Model Beam Column during the FEM analysis (PZ buckling).
A IPE300 HEB100 It can be observed that the geometric characteristics of the
B (BCC5) IPE300 HEB160 analyzed beam-to-column connections have been fixed with the
C (BCC6) IPE300 HEB200 aim of covering the practical range of interest for the PZ. In fact,
W8 × 6.50 × 24
D IPE300
the PZ aspect ratio α goes from 0.29 to 1.29; the geometrical PZ
E IPE300 HD210 × 210 × 87
F (BCC8) IPE300 HEB240 slenderness b/t varies in the range 18–93 · ε and the mechanical
G IPE300 W10 × 10 × 49 PZ slenderness λ̄w varies in the range 0.17–0.55. Finally, the PZ-to-
H IPE200 HEB220 beam strength ratio MPZ,y /Mb,pl goes from 0.15 (weak PZ—strong
I IPE300 W12 × 31 beam) to 1.45 (strong PZ—weak beam).
L IPE160 HEB220

3.2. Finite element model

3. FEM analysis
In order to verify that the limitations provided by the examined
Codes actually avoid the occurrence of shear buckling in the panel
zone, a parametric analysis is carried out on welded beam-to-
column connections. The aim of this numerical analysis is to single
out, for several values of the PZ aspect ratio α , the values of
the geometrical slenderness b/t corresponding to the onset of PZ
buckling.
3.1. Parametric analysis
The parametric FEM analysis has been performed on beam-to-
column connections characterized by beam length L, measured
from the column flange to the beam tip, equal to 1000 mm; the
column length H, measured as the distance between the column
supports, is equal to 1800 mm. The geometrical characteristics of
the analyzed beam-to-column connections are derived from the
specimens BCC5-E, BCC6-E and BCC8-MON tested in [24].
A first set of ten connection models, identified by letters A–L,
has been initially defined (Table 1); in these models the beam cross
The nonlinear analyses have been carried out by means of the
computer Code ABAQUS 6.7-1 [25] on FE models representing
welded connections of typical European external joints of moment
frame structures. Four-node shell elements (S4R5 elements) have
been used to model the specimens; reduced integration has been
used for the shell elements, with the number of integration points
through the element thickness equal to five. The portion of the
beam-to-column subassemblage has been densely meshed in the
PZ area, while other portions have been more coarsely meshed in
order to reduce the computational efforts. Grooves of weld and
residual stresses due to HAZ have been neglected in the analyses
(Fig. 3(a)). The nonlinear FE analyses have been performed by using
the modified Riks method.
Special attention has been devoted to the modeling of the
external restraints: in particular, the supports present in the
experimental setup of the specimens tested by Mele et al. [24],
i.e. bolted end plates, 300 mm × 365 mm, thickness 20 mm,
have been explicitly modeled; the plates are connected to fixed
points through elastic springs, which simulate the axial and shear
894 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Fig. 2. Comparison between PZ shear force (VPZ ) vs. PZ displacement (δPZ ) for the FE Models C (BCC6-E) and C′ .

Table 2
Geometrical and mechanical parameters of examined beam-to-column connections.
MPZ,y
Model a (mm) b (mm) t (mm) α = a/b (b/t )/ε λw Mb,pl
PZ buckling

A 80 278.6 6.00 0.29 60.41 0.19 0.23 No

A-1 80 278.6 5.50 0.29 65.90 0.21 0.21 No
A-2 80 278.6 5.00 0.29 72.49 0.23 0.19 No
A-3 80 278.6 4.50 0.29 80.55 0.26 0.17 No
A-4 80 278.6 4.10 0.29 88.40 0.29 0.16 No
A-5 80 278.6 4.00 0.29 90.62 0.29 0.15 No
A′ 80 278.6 3.90 0.29 92.94 0.30 0.15 Yes
B (BCC5) 134 278.6 8.00 0.48 45.31 0.23 0.51 No
B-1 134 278.6 7.00 0.48 51.78 0.27 0.45 No
B-2 134 278.6 6.50 0.48 55.77 0.29 0.41 No
B-3 134 278.6 6.35 0.48 57.08 0.29 0.40 No
B-4 134 278.6 6.30 0.48 57.54 0.30 0.40 No
B′ 134 278.6 6.22 0.48 58.28 0.30 0.40 Yes
C (BCC6) 170 278.6 9.00 0.61 40.57 0.25 0.73 No
C-1 170 278.6 7.00 0.61 52.16 0.33 0.57 No
C-2 170 278.6 6.50 0.61 56.17 0.35 0.53 No
C-3 170 278.6 6.30 0.61 57.96 0.36 0.51 No
C′ 170 278.6 6.00 0.61 60.86 0.38 0.49 Yes
D 181.2 278.6 6.40 0.65 58.70 0.38 0.56 No
D-1 181.2 278.6 6.22 0.65 60.40 0.40 0.54 No
D′ 181.2 278.6 6.10 0.65 61.59 0.40 0.53 Yes
E 181 278.6 13.50 0.65 27.04 0.18 1.18 No
E-1 181 278.6 6.00 0.65 60.84 0.40 0.52 No
E-2 181 278.6 5.80 0.65 62.94 0.41 0.51 No
E′ 181 278.6 5.50 0.65 66.37 0.43 0.48 Yes
F (BCC8) 206 278.6 10.00 0.74 32.67 0.24 0.71 No
F-1 206 278.6 7.60 0.74 42.99 0.31 0.54 No
F-2 206 278.6 6.00 0.74 54.45 0.39 0.43 No
F-3 206 278.6 5.50 0.74 59.40 0.43 0.39 No
F′ 206 278.6 5.30 0.74 61.64 0.44 0.38 Yes
G 225.7 278.6 8.64 0.81 37.60 0.29 0.74 No
G-1 225.7 278.6 6.10 0.81 53.26 0.41 0.52 No
G′ 225.7 278.6 5.90 0.81 55.06 0.42 0.51 Yes
H 170 183 9.00 0.93 23.71 0.20 1.14 No
H-1 170 183 5.00 0.93 42.68 0.36 0.63 No
H-2 170 183 4.80 0.93 44.46 0.37 0.61 No
H-3 170 183 4.60 0.93 46.39 0.39 0.58 No
H-4 170 183 4.40 0.93 48.50 0.41 0.56 No
H-5 170 183 4.20 0.93 50.81 0.43 0.53 No
H-6 170 183 4.00 0.93 53.35 0.45 0.51 No
H-7 170 183 3.90 0.93 54.72 0.46 0.49 No
H′ 170 183 3.80 0.93 56.16 0.47 0.48 Yes
I 283.5 278.6 6.73 1.02 54.25 0.48 0.92 No
I-1 283.5 278.6 6.60 1.02 55.32 0.49 0.90 No
I-2 283.5 278.6 6.00 1.02 60.85 0.54 0.82 No
I′ 283.5 278.6 5.80 1.02 62.95 0.55 0.79 Yes
L 188 145.5 9.50 1.29 17.86 0.17 1.49 No
L-1 188 145.5 4.20 1.29 40.40 0.39 0.66 No
L-2 188 145.5 4.10 1.29 41.38 0.40 0.64 No
L-3 188 145.5 4.00 1.29 42.42 0.41 0.63 No
L-4 188 145.5 3.90 1.29 43.51 0.42 0.61 No
L′ 188 145.5 3.80 1.29 44.65 0.43 0.60 Yes
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903
Fig. 3. Shell finite element mesh of models (a); details of support conditions (b);
and forces applied to beam tip (c).
Fig. 4. Experimental σ –ε relationship (curve (a)) and constitutive true stress–true strain law (curve (b)) for BCC5 column and beam elements.
895
stiffness of the bolts (Fig. 3(b)), which has been evaluated through
a preliminary FE analysis of bolts.
The subassemblages have been loaded with forces applied
through eight nodes at the extreme end of the beam (Fig. 3(c)). The
beam tip has been properly restrained for avoiding out-of-plane
displacements of the beam. A computational strategy based on dis-
placement control has been implemented by applying a monotonic
displacement history to the beam-to-column subassemblage; the
maximum displacement applied to the beam tip is always equal
to 250 mm, which corresponds to an applied interstory drift angle
equal to 25%. Therefore, the FEM analyses have been stopped when
this value of beam tip displacement has been reached.
Material nonlinearity has been accounted for in the monotonic
analyses through a classical isotropic plasticity model, based on
the Von Mises criterion and associated plastic flow. The nominal
stress strain curves, as derived from tension tests performed in [24]
(curves (a) in Fig. 4 for the BCC5 specimen), have been adjusted to
establish true stress vs. true plastic strain curves, such that:
σtrue = σnom · (1 + εnom )
σnom
εpl = ln(1 + εnom ) −
E
where: σtrue and εpl are the true stress and plastic strain;
respectively, σnom and εnom are the nominal stress and strain,
respectively; E is the Young’s modulus, assumed equal to
210 000 MPa. The Poisson’s ratio ν has been assumed equal to 0.3.
In Fig. 4 an example of the true stress–true strain relationships used
in the FEM analysis is shown: in particular the curves (b) for webs
and flanges of column and beam of the model B (BCC5), have been
plotted together with the experimental curves (a).
The influence of initial geometrical imperfections has been
considered by introducing a perturbation of the specimens
geometry. The distribution of the geometric imperfections is given
by a linear combination of two buckling modes obtained from a
preliminary FE analysis carried out on the ‘‘perfect’’ structure.
3.3. Validation of finite element model
The FE models have been validated through the comparison
to the experimental results provided by Mele et al. [24] on the
specimens BCC5-E, BCC6-E and BCC8-MON, characterized by weak,
intermediate and strong PZ, respectively. These subassemblages
have been fabricated using beams with IPE 300 cross section
and columns with different cross sections, i.e.: HE160B for the
specimen BCC5-E; HE200B for the specimen BCC6-E and HE240B
for the specimen BCC8-MON.
The test setup, represented in Fig. 5, mainly consists in a foun-
dation, a supporting girder, a reaction RC wall, a power jackscrew,
896 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Table 3
Average values of actual material properties measured in the specimens of Mele et al. [24].
Variable BCC5 BCC6 BCC8
Beam IPE300 Column HE160B Beam IPE300 Column HE200B Beam IPE300 Column HE240B
Flange Web Flange Web Flange Web Flange Web Flange Web Flange Web

fy (MPa) 274.8 305.5 323.1 395.6 278.6 304.9 312.6 401.6 292 300 300 309
fu (MPa) 404.6 412.6 460.2 490.1 398.8 411.4 434.9 489.8 445 450 457 469
YR = fu /fy 1.47 1.35 1.42 1.24 1.43 1.35 1.39 1.22 1.53 1.5 1.52 1.52

Fig. 5. Experimental set-up used in [24].

and a lateral frame. Due to the characteristics of the test setup the
column was the horizontal element while the beam was the verti-
cal one. The power jackscrew (capacity 1000 kN, stroke ±400 mm)
is attached to a specific frame, prestressed against the reaction
wall, and designed to accommodate the screw backward move-
ment. The power jackscrew is connected to the end of the beam
through a pinned connection in order to avoid the introduction
of moments. The specimen is connected to the supporting girder
through two steel elements (A and B). The connections between the
ends of the column and the steel elements (A and B) are a pinned
type. With this type of boundary conditions it is possible to obtain
approximately a null moment at both ends of the column and rep-
resent half of the length of the column in a real steel frame. The sup-
porting girder is fastened to the reaction wall and to the foundation
by means of prestressed bars. The lateral frame was designed to
prevent specimens’ lateral displacement and is located at the end
of the beam.
The steel utilized for all beam and column elements is S235JR.
The average values of yield and ultimate stress have been
computed for both flanges and web of column and beam elements,
and are reported in Table 3, while, for the BCC5 specimen, the
stress–strain response of steel material is shown in Fig. 4—curves
(a).
The results of the FE analyses have been compared to the
experimental results in terms of global response curves and
deformed shapes.
The comparison between the analytical and experimental
results for the BCC5-E, BCC6-E and BCC8-MON subassemblages is
shown in Fig. 6. In particular, from the PZ shear force (V ) vs. PZ
distortion (γ ) relationships plotted in the charts, it is possible to
observe that the FE models BCC5 (Fig. 6(a)) and BCC6 (Fig. 6(b))
accurately reproduce the experimental behavior, especially for PZ
shear deformations γ ≤ 1%. In the case of the BCC8 specimen
(Fig. 6(c)), large scatters between the experimental and numerical
results have been found, especially in the inelastic field. However
the analysis of the experimental results has suggested that the
recorded data were affected by an initial reading mistake. In fact,
by removing the first recorded value, a satisfying correlation can
be found with the FE results (Fig. 6(c)).
In terms of global behavior, from the curves associated to the FE
models it can be noted that the examined subassemblages show
an elastic behavior up to points A in the curves of Fig. 6. Then a
progressive reduction of the stiffness (branches AB in the curves
of Fig. 6), caused by the gradual yielding of PZ, has been observed.
The following branches BC are characterized by a further reduction
of PZ stiffness caused by the development of the local kinks in the
beam flanges, due to the excessive shear deformations of the PZ.
The collapse of the models finally occurs due to local buckling of
the compressed beam flange.
The comparison between the deformed shapes provided by
the experimental and the numerical investigation also shows a
good agreement (Fig. 7). In particular, it can be noted that the
implemented FE models are able to reproduce local buckling of
compressed zones (flange and web), as actually observed in the
experimental tests.
Therefore, the implemented FE models used in this paper for
the parametric analysis seem to be able to well reproduce the
experimental behavior, providing a correct prediction of both
elastic and plastic strength and stiffness.
3.4. Results and comparisons
In Fig. 8 a diagram which shows the results of the numerical
analyses is provided, in the same format as the one of Fig. 1.
In particular, together with curve (b) associated to the buckling
theory in plastic field, and the curves associated to different Code
provisions (UBC 1997-AISC [14] (curve (c)), AISC [16] (curve (d))
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and computed PZ shear force (VPZ ) vs. PZ distortion (γPZ ) for the subassemblages BCC5-E (a), BCC6-E (b) and BCC8-MON (c) tested
by Mele et al. [24].
and EC3 (curves (e) and (f))), the results of the FEM analysis are
reported: in detail, the results associated to FEM models that have
not shown any shear buckling phenomena in the PZ are indicated
with the symbol ‘‘×’’, while with the symbol ‘‘•’’ are indicated the
points A′ –L′ , associated to models A′ –L′ which have experienced PZ
buckling.
As an example, the deformed shapes of the FEM models B and B′
in the post-buckling range are shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b); different
from the model B, in the PZ of the subassemblage B′ the formation
of a diagonal tension field can be noted as consequence of the shear
buckling phenomena.
From Fig. 8 it can be observed that there is a good agreement
between the points A′ –L′ and Bleich’s curve (b). Furthermore,
the results of the parametric FEM analysis underline that the
limitations (7) and (9), provided by the US Codes, ensure a stocky
PZ behaviour. On the contrary, both the EC3 limitations (i.e. λ̄w ≤
0.8 → b/t ≤ 69 ·ε and λ̄w ≤ 0.69 → b/t ≤ 60 ·ε ) do not seem on
the safe side for preventing the shear buckling of the panel zone; in
fact, it can be noted that PZ shear buckling generally occurs when
the non-dimensional slenderness λ̄w is greater than 0.3.
The above observations can be better derived from Fig. 10(a),
where the numerical results are reported only denoting either the
occurrence or the absence of PZ buckling.
897
In very simplified terms, i.e. in terms of geometrical slenderness
b/t, the results of the FEM analyses suggest that for excluding the
PZ shear buckling, the limitation provided by the horizontal line in
Fig. 10(b) should be satisfied, i.e.:
(b/t ) ≤ 50 · ε. (12)
Quite trivially, it can be observed that this limitation is more
restrictive than the one of Eurocode 3 [19,20], i.e. (b/t ) ≤ 60 · ε .
The distributions of inelastic strains in the PZ models are shown
in Fig. 11 through the graphical representation of the PEEQ Index,
which is defined as follows:
2/3 · εij · εij

PEEQ
PEEQ Index = = (13)
εy εy
where εy is the yield strain, and εij are the plastic strain compo-
nents in directions i and j. This index is an useful tool for measuring
the local demand of plastic deformations and is also used by other
researchers [7–9] for assessing the local strain demand.
In Fig. 11, the values of the PEEQ Index are reported for the dif-
ferent models at the last analysis step, i.e. at a PZ shear deformation
γ = 9% (which corresponds to 30 times the nominal yielding shear
898 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Fig. 9. Deformed shapes of the FEM models B (a) and B′ (b) at the end of the
numerical analyses.

Fig. 7. Comparison between the deformed shapes of the specimens BCC5-E

(a), BCC6-E (b) and BCC8-MON (c) tested by Mele et al. [24] at the end of the
experimentation and FEM analyses.

Fig. 8. Comparison between the curves of Fig. 1 and the results of the parametric
FEM analysis.

deformation γy = τy /G, where G is the shear modulus of the mate-

rial). In particular, the values provided in the charts are measured
in the PZ along the column centerline A–A (Fig. 11(a) and (b)), and
along the beam centerline B–B (Fig. 11(c) and (d)).
It is possible to note that important inelastic deformations in
the PZ are experienced by all examined models, with the only
exception of model E that is characterized by both the stockiest
(λ̄w = 0.14) and strongest (MPZ,y /Mb,pl = 1.18) panel zone. In
particular, in the presence of stocky PZ (models A–L, Fig. 11(a)
and (c)) the maximum values of the PEEQ Index are registered in
Fig. 10. Comparison between the proposed PZ slenderness limitations and results
of the parametric FEM analysis.
the central part of the panel zone. Instead, in the cases of models
A′ –L′ with slender PZ (Fig. 11(b) and (d)), the distribution of the
plastic deformations changes; in fact, due to the shear buckling,
the maximum value does not necessarily verify in the central part
of the PZ, and the PEEQ Index increases up to 45 times with respect
to the values of the models A–L.
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903
Fig. 11. Distribution of PEEQ Index in the PZ of the examined FEM models.
Fig. 12. Max PEEQ Index vs. PZ-beam strength ratio MPZ,y /Mb,pl relationship.
For the original specimens A–L with stocky PZ, and for the
modified specimens A′ –L′ with slender PZ, in Fig. 12 the maximum
values of the PEEQ Index, measured both along the line A–A and
along the line B–B, are plotted versus the PZ-beam strength ratio
MPZ,y /Mb,pl . In particular, according to Roeder’s indications [26],
the chart is divided by the two vertical lines into three zones,
weak PZ (when MPZ,y /Mb,pl < 0.6), intermediate PZ (when
0.6 ≤ MPZ,y /Mb,pl ≤ 1) and strong PZ (when MPZ,y /Mb,pl > 1),
respectively.
Since the FEM models are not able to account for the rupture
phenomena of the steel material, here it is assumed that fracture
occurs when a conventional PEEQ limit is overcome. For the steel
material S235JR used in the analyses, this PEEQ limit value has been
set equal to 100, which corresponds to a maximum plastic strain in
uniaxial stress state equal to 20%. The horizontal line in the chart of
Fig. 12 specifies such a conventional limit value of the PEEQ Index.
It may be observed that the maximum values of the PEEQ Index
are always low (less than 50) in the case of connections with strong
899
Fig. 13. Max PEEQ Index vs. geometrical slenderness (b/t )/ε relationship.
and intermediate PZ. On the contrary, in the models with weak PZ,
values of the PEEQ Index larger than the limit values of 100 have
been measured. In particular, along the column axis (line A–A) of
model A′ , the PEEQ Index assumes a maximum value of 250.
Furthermore, the distribution of the points depicted in the chart
can be interpolated by the function:
10
(PEEQ Index)max = . (14)
(MPZ,y /Mb,pl )2
The curve associated to Eq. (14) is reported in Fig. 12 and shows
that plastic deformations decrease with the increase of the PZ-
beam strength ratio MPZ,y /Mb,pl .
The relationship between the maximum PEEQ Index and the
geometrical PZ slenderness (b/t )/ε is plotted in Fig. 13 for the
specimens A–L and A′ –L′ . It is possible to observe that the
connections which are characterized by b/t ≤ 50 · ε show
acceptable values of the index, always lower than 100. On the
contrary, the maximum PEEQ Indexes of PZ characterized by
900 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Fig. 14. PZ slenderness: comparison between codes limitations and experimental tests data.

slenderness values b/t > 50 · ε are high, even though the

limitations of EC3 [18] (b/t ≤ 69 · ε ) and of EC3 [19] (b/t ≤ 60 · ε )
are satisfied; in fact, the chart of Fig. 13 shows that in the models A,
D, B′ , D′ and F′ the values of (PEEQ Index)max are comprised in the
range 100–170, thus rupture phenomena can occur in the material.
The trend line that better interpolates the points given in Fig. 13
has the following equation:

(PEEQ Index)max = 0.005 · [(b/t )/ε]2.35 (15)

which provides the increasing trend of the PEEQ Index with the PZ
geometrical slenderness.

4. Comparison with experimental results

In this section the curves of Fig. 1 associated to the PZ

slenderness limitations of the examined Codes are compared to
the experimental results performed on 98 steel moment-resisting
frame connections tested by different researchers in the past
three decades. The aim of the comparison is validating the results
obtained through the parametric FEM analysis shown in the
previous paragraph.
The main information about the configuration of the specimens
and the geometrical properties of the PZ are summarized in Table 4.
It can be noted that the considered specimens cover the practical
range of interest for the design of beam-to-column connections.
In fact, they are characterized by different: (i) configuration of
test setup (L-shaped, T-shaped or cruciform); (ii) type of beam-
to-column connection (welded flange-bolted web connection
(WFBW), full penetration weld between beam and column flange
or free-flange connection); (iii) loading history (monotonic, cyclic
constant amplitude or cyclic stepwise increasing amplitude).
Fig. 15. Comparison among the proposed PZ slenderness limitations, the numerical
Furthermore, in terms of PZ geometrical properties, it possible to results and the experimental tests data.
note that the practical range of interest for the PZ geometry has
been covered, in fact the PZ aspect ratio α = a/b goes from 0.37
to 1.45; the geometrical PZ slenderness b/t varies approximately phenomena of PZ during the experimental tests have been
in the range 16 · ε –300 · ε ; the mechanical PZ slenderness λ̄w goes indicated with the symbol ‘‘∗’’.
from 0.07 (very stocky PZ) to 2.31 (very slender PZ). It can be observed that the shear PZ buckling occurs in 24
The points associated to the specimens of Table 4 have been specimens characterized by a non-dimensional PZ slenderness
plotted in the chart of Fig. 14 together with curves (b)–(d) λ̄w ≥ 0.47. In term of geometrical PZ slenderness, the buckling
associated to the Bleich and American limitations and to curves occurs in panel zones characterized by b/t greater than 55 · ε . In
(e) and (f) corresponding to the EC3 limitations. The points particular, it can be underlined that the specimens F 05-20-1 (λ̄w =
corresponding to specimens that have shown shear buckling 0.80) and B 05-40-1 (λ̄w = 0.68) of the experimental tests carried
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903 901

Table 4
Examined beam-to-column connection tests.
Researcher Specimen Test Type of Type Beam section Column a b t α= (b/t )/ε λw PZ
setup connection of test section (mm) (mm) (mm) a/b buckling
Popov and 2 W18 × 50 276 429 16 0.64 26.16 0.17 No
T-Shaped PW CSI W12 × 106
Bertero [27] 7 W24 × 76 276 572 16 0.48 34.88 0.18 No
A-1 WFBW B10 × 15 W8 × 24 181 240 6 0.75 36.67 0.27 No
A-2 WFBW B10 × 15 W8 × 24 181 240 6 0.75 36.67 0.27 No
Krawinkler B-1 WFBW B14 × 22 W8 × 67 181 333 14 0.54 22.61 0.13 No
Cruciform CSI
et al. [1] (n.c.p.)
B-2 WFBW B14 × 22 W8 × 67 181 333 14 0.54 22.61 0.13 No
(n.c.p.)
B-3 WFBW W12 × 27 W8 × 67 181 286 14 0.63 19.38 0.12 No
(n.c.p.)
B-4 WFBW W10 × 29 W8 × 67 181 235 14 0.77 15.93 0.12 No
(n.c.p.)
Popov et al. [28] 2 Cruciform WFBW CSI W18 × 40 Welded 425 429 10 0.99 54.50 0.47 Yes
section
D1.1 PW 279 279 7 1.00 39.24 0.34 No
D1.2 PW 279 279 7 1.00 39.24 0.34 No
Ballio et al. [29] T-Shaped CSI IPE300 IPE300
D1.3 PW 279 279 7 1.00 39.24 0.34 No
D1.4 PW 279 279 7 1.00 39.24 0.34 No
1 WFBW W24 × 55 283 572 8 0.49 87.21 0.46 No
2 WFBW W24 × 55 283 572 8 0.49 87.21 0.46 No
3 WFBW W24 × 55 283 572 8 0.49 87.21 0.46 No
Engelhardt and 4 WFBW W18 × 60 283 429 8 0.66 65.41 0.43 No
T-Shaped CSI W12 × 136
Husain [30] 5 WFBW W18 × 60 283 429 8 0.66 65.41 0.43 No
6 WFBW W21 × 57 283 502 8 0.56 76.55 0.45 No
7 WFBW W21 × 57 283 502 8 0.56 76.55 0.45 No
8 PW W21 × 57 283 502 8 0.56 76.55 0.45 No
Kakaliagos and V1 PW 352 562 21 0.63 27.05 0.17 No
T-Shaped C IPE600 HEM400
Bouwkamp [31] V2 PW 352 562 21 0.63 27.05 0.17 No
(n.c.p.)
Ballio and E1 T-Shaped PW CSI HEA260 HEB300 262 225 11 1.16 20.45 0.19 No
Youquan [32]
A 10-10-1 182 182 1 1.00 167.39 1.46 Yes
A 10-10-2 182 182 1 1.00 183.72 1.61 Yes
A 07-10-1 188 188 1 1.00 172.35 1.51 Yes
A 05-10-1 188 188 1 1.00 151.83 1.33 Yes
Scheer A 05-10-2 Welded Welded 189 189 2 1.00 127.06 1.11 Yes
L-Shaped PW CSI
et al. [33] A 05-10-3 section section 191 191 1 1.00 175.84 1.54 Yes
A 07-13-1 192 192 1 1.00 193.83 1.70 Yes
A 07-15-1 192 192 1 1.00 193.83 1.70 Yes
B 07-10-1 287 287 1 1.00 290.34 2.54 Yes
B 07-10-2 287 287 1 1.00 290.34 2.54 Yes
AZ 05-10-2 200 200 1 1.00 202.12 1.77 Yes
AZ 10-10-1 200 200 1 1.00 202.12 1.77 Yes
CZ 10-10-H 240 300 1 0.80 303.17 2.31 Yes
CZ 10-10-Q 300 240 1 1.25 242.54 2.31 Yes
DZ 05-10-H 210 300 1 0.70 303.17 2.10 Yes
DZ 05-10-Q 290 200 1 1.45 202.12 2.01 Yes
Welded Welded
Vayas et al. [34] B 03-20-1 L-Shaped PW CSI 301 301 2 1.00 152.09 1.33 Yes
section section
B 03-20-2 301 299 2 1.01 151.08 1.33 Yes
B 03-20-3 301 300 2 1.00 151.59 1.33 Yes
F 05-20-1 150 299 2 0.50 151.08 0.80 Yes
C 03-20-1 240 300 2 0.80 151.59 1.15 Yes
C 05-20-1 240 300 2 0.80 151.59 1.15 Yes
B 05-40-1 300 300 4 1.00 77.74 0.68 Yes
TH2 W14 × 83 320 503 19 0.64 32.07 0.21 No
TH3 W21 × 62 320 505 19 0.63 32.19 0.21 No
TH4 W21 × 62 320 505 19 0.63 32.19 0.21 No
TH5 W21 × 62 320 505 19 0.63 32.19 0.21 No
Tsai et al. [35] TH6 T-Shaped WFBW CSI W21 × 62 W14 × 159 320 505 19 0.63 32.19 0.21 No
TH7 W21 × 50 320 502 19 0.64 32.00 0.21 No
TH8 W21 × 50 320 502 19 0.64 32.00 0.21 No
TH9 W21 × 50 320 502 19 0.64 32.00 0.21 No
TH10 W21 × 50 320 502 19 0.64 32.00 0.21 No

(continued on next page)

out by Vayas et al. [34], even if they have been designed according the PZ, with the development of tension fields and reduction of
to the EC3 [18] and EC3 [19] limitations (Eqs. (10) and (11), dissipation capacity due to the pinching presents in the cyclic
respectively), have shown evident shear buckling phenomena of curves.
902 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903

Table 4 (continued)

Researcher Specimen Test Type of Type Beam section Column a b t α= (b/t )/ε λw PZ
setup connection of test section (mm) (mm) (mm) a/b buckling
PZ1 321 864 15 0.37 66.13 0.27 No
PZ2 321 864 20 0.37 49.59 0.20 No
W14 × 257
El-Tawil PZ3 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
T-Shaped WFBW M W36 × 150 with
et al. [7] PZ3-N 321 864 30 0.37 34.68 0.14 No
different t
PZ4 321 864 41 0.37 24.19 0.10 No
PZ5 321 864 56 0.37 17.71 0.07 No
EERC-PN1 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
EERC-PN2 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
EERC-PN3 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
UCSD-1 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
UCSD-2 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
UCSD-3 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 39.93 0.19 No
EERC-RN1 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 30 0.45 27.32 0.13 No
El-Tawil [36] EERC-RN1A T-Shaped WFBW C W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 30 0.45 27.32 0.13 No
UTA-2 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UCB-PN1 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UCB-PN2 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UCB-PN3 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UTA-2R W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UCB-RN1 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
UCB-RN3 W36 × 150 W14 × 257 321 864 30 0.37 32.88 0.13 No
XS-W1 262 335 11 0.78 30.42 0.23 No
Dubina XS-W2 262 335 11 0.78 30.42 0.23 No
Cruciform PW C IPE360 HEB300
et al. [37] XU-W1 262 335 11 0.78 30.42 0.23 No
XU-W2 262 335 11 0.78 30.42 0.23 No
T1 PW 321 864 37 0.37 28.65 0.12 No
T2 PW 321 864 37 0.37 28.65 0.12 No
Ricles et al. [9] T-Shaped CSI W36 × 150 W14 × 311
T3 WFBW 321 864 37 0.37 28.65 0.12 No
T4 WFBW 321 864 37 0.37 28.65 0.12 No
U. of M. Sp 8.2 W24 × 68 W14 × 120 321 575 14 0.56 38.97 0.23 No
U. of M. Sp 9.1 W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 33.69 0.16 No
Roeder [26] U. of M. Sp 9.2 T-Shaped FFC CSI W30 × 99 W14 × 176 321 718 21 0.45 33.69 0.16 No
U. of M. Sp 10.1 W30 × 124 W14 × 257 321 718 30 0.45 23.05 0.11 No
U. of M. Sp 10.2 W30 × 124 W14 × 257 321 718 30 0.45 23.05 0.11 No
BCC5 HEB160 134 279 8 0.48 34.83 0.18 No
Mele et al. [24] BCC6 T-Shaped PW M/C/CSI IPE300 HEB200 170 279 9 0.61 30.96 0.19 No
BCC8 HEB240 206 279 10 0.74 27.86 0.20 No
C3-V01 262 421 11 0.62 47.81 0.30 No
Castiglioni and C3-V02 262 421 11 0.62 43.94 0.28 No
T-Shaped PW CSI IPE450 HEB300
Tsionis [38] C3-V03 262 421 11 0.62 47.15 0.30 No
C3-V04 262 421 11 0.62 44.78 0.28 No
Ciutina and CP-R-C Cruciform PW CSI IPE360 HEB300 262 335 11 0.78 30.42 0.23 No
Dubina [39] (n.c.p.)
Notes:
1. Type of connection: WFBW = Welded Flange-Bolted Web.
PW = full Penetration Weld between beam and column flange.
FFC = Free-Flange Connection.
n.c.p. = No Continuity Plates.
2. Type of test: M = Monotonic loading history.
C = Cyclic constant amplitude loading history.
CSI = Cyclic Stepwise Increasing amplitude loading history.

On the contrary, by excluding the specimens tested by
Engelhardt and Husain [30] characterized by λ̄w = 0.43–0.46 and
b/t = 66 · ε –87 · ε , no buckling phenomena have been observed in
the experimental tests performed on subassemblages with panel
zones characterized by mechanical slenderness λ̄w ≤ 0.34 and
geometrical slenderness b/t ≤ 66 · ε .
On the basis of the experimental evidence, the limitations on
PZ slenderness provided in terms of λ̄w and b/t by means of the
conditions λ̄w ≤ 0.3 and b/t ≤ 50 · ε , respectively, are strongly
confirmed; for the sake of clarity, Fig. 15(a) and (b) propose the
same data of Fig. 14 in a more simplified way, i.e. only denoting
the specimens which buckled or not during the tests or in the
numerical analyses. The curve representing the condition λ̄w =
0.3 in Fig. 15(a) and the line b/t = 50 · ε in Fig. 15(b) clearly
identify the boundary between the buckling and the no-buckling
zones in the α − (b/t )/ε plane, particularly for the typical range of
PZ geometry occurring in beam-to-column connections.
5. Conclusions
The comparison among the stability theory of the plates
subjected to shear forces, the provisions of American and European
Codes on the PZ slenderness and the results of a parametric FEM
analysis, underlines that the US Codes give limitations to the PZ
slenderness able to avoid the occurrence of PZ shear buckling. On
the contrary, the limitations of the Eurocode 3 do not seem on the
safe side.
With this regard, the results of the parametric FEM analysis and
of experimental test results published in the technical literature
show that the non-dimensional PZ slenderness λ̄w should be lower
than 0.3 for avoiding the shear buckling of the panel zone.
 G. Brandonisio et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 891–903
Considering the PZ aspect ratios α = a/b commonly adopted
in the current design practice of beam-to-column connections
(α = 0.5–1), the limit value of PZ slenderness b/t = 50ε can be
proposed in a very simplified way for excluding the PZ buckling.
Furthermore, when this condition is respected, the analysis of the
PEEQ Index has shown that the plastic deformation demand is
compatible with the mechanical properties of the material, while
for slender PZ (b/t > 50 · ε ), extremely large inelastic demands
occur, thus suggesting high potentials for material fracture.
While further studies, both numerical and experimental, are
still necessary for confirming the results obtained in this paper,
enlarging the investigated field and accounting for the effects
of the column axial force and of the cyclic actions, the above
proposal for the PZ slenderness limitation appears reasonable
and strengthened by the substantial agreement with the US Code
provisions; therefore, in the opinion of the authors, it could be
already considered for a preliminary improvement of the European
provisions.
References
[1] Krawinkler H, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Inelastic behaviour of steel beam-
to-column subassemblages. Report no. EERC-71/7. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California. October 1971.
[2] Bertero VV, Krawinkler H, Popov EP. Further studies on seismic behavior of
steel beam–column subassemblages. Report no. EERC-73/27. Berkeley (CA):
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1973.
[3] Popov EP. Panel zone flexibility in seismic moment joints. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1987;8.
[4] Mahin SA, Hamburger RO, Malley JO. An integrated program to improve the
performance of welded steel frame buildings. In: Proc. of 11th WCEE, World
Conf. Earthquake Engineering. Acapulco (Mexico): Elsevier Science Ltd.; 1996.
Paper no. 1114.
[5] Malley JO. SAC steel project: summary of phase-1 testing investigation results.
Engineering Structural 1998;20(4):300–9.
[6] Kunnath SK, Malley JO. Advances in seismic design and evaluation of steel
moment frames: recent findings from FEMA/SAC phase II project. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2002;128(4):415–9.
[7] El-Tawil S, Mikesell T, Vidarsoon E, Kunnath SK. Strength and ductility of
FR welded–bolted connections. Report no. SAC/BD/-98/01. SAC Joint Venture.
1998. p. 1–129.
[8] El-Tawil S, Kunnath SK. Inelastic behaviour and design of steel PZs. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(2):183–93.
[9] Ricles JM, Fisher JW, Le-Wu Lu, Kaufmann EJ. Development of improved
welded moment connections for earthquake-resistant design. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2002;58:565–604.
[10] El-Tawil S. Evaluation of FEMA-350 seismic provisions for steel PZs. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(2):250–8.
[11] Timoshenko S. Einige Stabilitatspobleme der Elastizitatstheorie. Zeitschrift für
Angewandte Mathematik und Physik 1910;58:337.
[12] Bleich F. Buckling strength of metal structures. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.
[13] ICBO 1997. International building code. UBC 1997. Uniform building code. In:
Int. conf. of building official. 75th ed. 1997.
[14] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL); 2005.
903
[15] Lee D, Cotton SC, Dexter RJ, Hajjar JF, Ye Y, Ojard SD. Column stiffener detailing
and panel zone behavior of steel moment frame connections. Structural
engineering report no. ST-01-3.2. Department of Civil Engineering Institute of
Technology University of Minnesota. 2002.
[16] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel
buildings. third ed. Chicago (IL): AISC; 1999.
[17] Eurocode 8 (EC8 2005). Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. UNI ENV 1998-1. March
2005.
[18] Eurocode 3 (EC3 1994). Parte 1.1: regole generali e regole per gli edificeedifici.
CEN/TC250. June 1994.
[19] Eurocode 3 (EC3 2005). Design of steel structures, part. 1.1: general rules and
rules for buildings. UNI ENV 1993-1-1. August 2005.
[20] Eurocode 3 (EC3 2007). Design of steel structures, part. 1.5: plated structural
elements. UNI ENV 1993-1-5. January 2007.
[21] Decreto Ministeriale (NTC 2008). Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. January
2008.
[22] NTC’08. Italian technical code for the constructions (Norme Tecniche per le
costruzioni). D.M. 14 January 2008—S.O. no. 30, G.U. no. 29 del 4 Febbraio 2008.
[23] Eurocode 8 part 3 (EC8 2005 part 3). Design of structures for earthquake
resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. UNI ENV 1998-3.
August 2005.
[24] Mele E, Calado L, De Luca A. Experimental investigation on European
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(11):1301–11.
[25] Simulia 2007. ABAQUS theory manual. USA.
[26] Roeder CW. General issue influencing connection performance. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2002;128(4):402–28.
[27] Popov EP, Bertero VV. Cyclic loading of steel beams and connections. Journal
of Structural Division 1973;99(ST6):1189–204.
[28] Popov EP, Amin NR, Louie JJC, Stephen RM. Cyclic behavior of large
beam–column assemblies. Engineering Journal 1986;(first quarter):9–23.
[29] Ballio G, Calado L, De Martino A, Faella C, Mazzolani FM. Cyclic behaviour of
steel beam-to-column joints experimental research. Costruzioni Metalliche
1987;2:3–24.
[30] Engelhardt MD, Husain AS. Cyclic-loading performance of welded flange-
bolted web connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;
119(12):3537–50.
[31] Kakaliagos AK, Bouwkamp JG. Tests on steel and composite beam-to-column
connections strength and stiffness aspects. Earthquake Spectra 1993;9(4):
755–80.
[32] Ballio G, Youquan C. The assessment of the resistance of shear panel in beam
to column connections. In: Proc. of CTA. 1993. p. 133–43.
[33] Scheer J, Pasternak H, Schween T. Structural behaviour of stiffened knee joints
with thin webs. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1991;117(9):2600–19.
[34] Vayas I, Pasternak H, Schween T. Cyclic behavior of beam-to-column steel
joints whit slender web panel. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1995;
121(2):240–8.
[35] Tsai KC, Wu S, Popov EP. Experimental performance of seismic steel
beam–column moment joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1995;
121(6):925–31.
[36] El-Tawil S. Panel zone yielding in steel moment connections. Engineering
Journal 2000;(third quarter):120–31.
[37] Dubina D, Ciutina A, Stratan A. Cyclic tests of double-sided beam-to-column
joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(2):129–36.
[38] Castiglioni CA, Tsionis G. Energy dissipation of welded beam-to-column joints:
experimental and theoretical results. In: Proc. of CTA. 2003. p. 169–78.
[39] Ciutina AL, Dubina D. Influence of column web stiffening on the seismic
behaviour of beam-to-column joints. In: Proc. of Stessa 2003. Mazzolani Ed.
2003. p. 269–75.