Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Double reduced beam section connection

Mohamad A. Morshedi, Kiarash M. Dolatshahi ⁎, Shervin Maleki
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Ave., Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a novel beam-to-column steel moment connection, named “double reduced beam section (DRBS)”
Received 18 April 2017 is introduced and the seismic performance of the connection is assessed using finite element modeling. The
Received in revised form 10 July 2017 connection is composed of double dog bone sections close to the column face to widen the plastic hinge region;
Accepted 18 July 2017
consequently, reducing the resultant equivalent plastic strain. The region between the two reduced beam sec-
Available online 28 July 2017
tions is laterally connected to the slab to protect the plastic hinge from lateral torsional buckling. A parametric
Keywords:
study was conducted on the influence of cut parameters on the connection's seismic behavior. The results
Steel moment connections showed that, following the limitations and guidelines stated in this research, the DRBS connection exhibits
Reduced beam section outstanding hysteresis behavior. The deformation capacity of the connection was increased up to 40% in the
Seismic DRBS connection, compared to the common reduced beam section (RBS) connection. Plasticization of both
Hysteresis behavior reduced beam sections postponed the failure buckling modes, resulting in 50 to 75% increase in the absorbed
Finite element analysis seismic energy before buckling, compared to the traditional RBS connection. Moreover, adding a second cut to
the ordinary RBS connection distributed the strains over the two reduced sections, leading to 35 to 60% reduction
in the equivalent plastic strain at the reduced sections, at 6% inter-story drift.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Extensive brittle damage at the beam-to-column flange groove
welds in numerous steel moment resisting frames were observed
during the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes [1,2]. Conse-
quently, for improving the seismic performance of the “pre-Northridge”
steel connections, new strategies, such as changing the weld access hole
(WAH) geometry [3,4], strengthening the beam at the column face by
adding a haunch [5], using side plates [6–8], utilizing external T-
stiffeners [9–11], using vertical and inclined rib plates [12,13] and weak-
ening the beam section at a proper distance from the column face were
proposed and evaluated under cyclic loadings. Providing structural
shear [14] and flexural fuses utilizing welded and bolted splice plates
[15,16], trimming the beam flanges [17], reducing the beam web
[18,19] and reducing both the beam flanges and the web simultaneously
[20] are among different techniques used with the objective of weaken-
ing the beam section. Moreover, in a recent study [21], design recom-
mendations for a new energy dissipation system, containing three
different types of flexural fuses is provided. By using flexural fuses
in such frames, the post-earthquake repair is merely limited to the
replacement of the beams with reduced sections.
The concept of reducing the beam flanges was first introduced and
implemented by a trapezoidal cut profile in the beam flanges by Plumier
in 1990 [22]. After that, various configurations for the cut profile have
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dolatshahi@sharif.edu (K.M. Dolatshahi).
been the subject of experimental and theoretical studies [23]. Among
all these suggestions, the radius cut for reducing the beam flanges has
shown a better seismic performance [24,25] and is known as the re-
duced beam section (RBS) connection. Guidelines for the design of
RBS connection are given in FEMA-350 [26] and also AISC-358 [27].
The common failure modes of RBS connection are the web local buck-
ling (WLB), flange local buckling (FLB) and lateral-torsional buckling
(LTB) of the beam. Testing of 55 full-scale specimens showed that the
strength degradation of the RBS connection is dominantly due to the
beam WLB and the slenderness ratio for LTB has a weak influence on
the connection's response parameters [28]. However, an experimental
research by Chi and Uang [29] showed although the beam WLB is still
the dominant failure mode, deep columns in the RBS connection are
prone to LTB because of the concentric forces imposed from the beam
as a result of LTB of the beam. Later experiments in 2005 showed that
controlling the beam LTB reduces both post-earthquake damage and
the tendency for beam flanges to fracture [30].
In this research, a new cut profile consisting of two adjacent radius
cuts in the beam flanges is proposed with the aim of postponing the
WLB, FLB and LTB of the beam, leading to more ductile behavior, higher
energy absorption, and less post-earthquake damage to the connection.
The seismic moment resisting steel connection is named double
reduced beam section or DRBS in short. A comparison between the
traditional RBS and the proposed DRBS connections has been made
using verified nonlinear finite element models. Based on the numerical
study results, the performance of DRBS connection is assessed. Details
of the finite element analyses and a design procedure assuring the
balanced plasticization of both reduced sections are presented.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.013
0143-974X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
284 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

2. Methodology
Nomenclature

The objective of the RBS connection is to concentrate plastic defor-

a Horizontal distance from the column face to start of the
mations at a particular section of the beam at a proper distance from
first reduced beam section
the column face, thereby reducing the strain demands and the sensitiv-
b Length of first reduced beam section cuts
ity of the groove welds connecting the beam flanges to the column. As
B The rate of yield surface size change
stated, WLB, FLB and LTB are the common failure modes that cause
bbf Beam flange width
strength degradation of the RBS connection and a large amount of
bc Box column dimension
post-earthquake damage to the structure. In order to postpone these
C Kinematic hardening modulus
failure modes, in the proposed DRBS connection shown in Fig. 1, an ad-
C1 Depth of the cut at center of the first reduced beam section
ditional reduced section is added to the RBS connection. This additional
C2 Depth of the cut at center of the second reduced beam
reduced section acts as an auxiliary structural fuse through a reciprocal
section
stress redistribution mechanism between the two reduced sections.
Cpr Factor to account for peak strength
After yielding of either of the reduced sections, stress redistribution
d Distance between two flange cut profiles
occurs and the other reduced section absorbs the deformations until
E Modulus of elasticity
this section also reaches a yield state, then the process reverses and
Fy Expected yield stress
the other reduced section becomes the temporary fuse. This process
Hbeam Beam section height
causes both reduced sections to participate in deformation absorption
Hcol Column height
resulting in the formation of a distributed plastic hinge. The cut profiles
Lb Half length of the beam
of the DRBS connection follow the recommendations of AISC-358 [27]
Lh Distance between centers of the first reduced sections at
for the RBS connection. According to AISC-358, the horizontal distance
beam ends
from the column face to the beginning of the radius cut profile (a) and
Mf Maximum moment at the face of column
the amount of reduction in the beam flanges (b) should be proportional
Mpe Plastic moment of the beam based on the expected yield
to the beam flange width (bbf). Moreover, the ratio of the radius cut
stress
length to the beam depth (Hbeam) shall satisfy the AISC proposed limits.
Mpr1 Probable maximum moment at the first reduced beam
These limits are shown in Fig. 1.
section
The value of the beam flange reduction in the second reduced sec-
Mpr2 Probable maximum moment at the second reduced beam
tion (C2) is the key parameter in achieving the best performance of
section
DRBS connection, which is the simultaneous plasticization of both re-
Q Maximum size of the yield surface
duced sections. There are two limit states for the value of C2: very low
Ry Ratio for expected yield stress to the specified minimum
values of this parameter result in the formation of a single plastic
yield stress
hinge in the first reduced section similar to the case of the single RBS.
Sh Distance from column face to the center of the first re-
On the other hand, the second limit state pertains to relatively very
duced section
high values of C2, which leads to the formation of the plastic hinge in
tw Beam web thickness
the second reduced section. The optimum value of C2 stays between
tbf Beam flange thickness
these two limit states resulting in the balanced formation of plastic
VRBS1 The larger shear force at the center of the first reduced
hinges in both reduced sections. This, in turn, reduces the equivalent
beam section
plastic strain, delays buckling modes, increases seismic energy absorp-
VRBS1′ The smaller shear force at the center of the first reduced
tion and causes less post-earthquake damage. The two limit states and
beam section
the optimum state are displayed in Fig. 2. Note that, in this figure, the
Zbeam Plastic section modulus of the beam
deformations are exaggerated to better express the performance mech-
ZRBS1 Plastic section modulus of the first reduced beam section
anism of the DRBS in delaying the strength degradation.
ZRBS2 Plastic section modulus of the second reduced beam sec-
In order to evaluate the efficacy and seismic performance of the
tion
DRBS moment connection under cyclic loading, an extensive finite ele-
φd Resistance factor for ductile limit states
ment modeling of T-subassemblies with three different box columns
γ The rate of change in kinematic hardening modulus (C)
and I-shaped beam sections were carried out. Beam sections were se-
lected from the rolled European sections and box column dimensions

Fig. 1. Cut profile and parameters of the DRBS connection.

 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 285

Fig. 2. DRBS connection failure mechanism.

were set to the values that satisfy the strong column-weak beam limita- for the value of the reduction in beam flanges in the second cut (C2),
tion according to the AISC seismic provisions [31]. The details of which had no upper extreme. The details of the shear plate and WAH
modeled connections are summarized in Table 1. geometry also followed the AISC-358 guidelines for the RBS moment
The beam section in each of the aforementioned subassemblies was connection. According to this code, the WAH geometry shall conform
reduced at two sections with various cut parameters. Both cut profiles to the requirements of both the AISC specification [32] and American
satisfied the AISC-358 [27] limitations for the RBS connection except Welding Society's [33] limitations. Thickness of the continuity plate
was set equal to the beam flange thickness. The details of the connection
of IPE500 beam to BOX330 × 25 (connection C) is shown in Fig. 3 as a
Table 1 sample.
Modeled subassemblies (units in mm). Connections A, B and C of Table 1 with different values of parameters
Connection Column Beam Hbeam bbf tw tf Lb (half C1, b and d were modeled and the optimum value of C2 that guarantees
section section span) the balanced formation of the plastic hinge at both reduced sections of
A BOX 300 × 15 IPE330 330 160 7.5 11.5 2500 the beam was determined through finite element analysis as described
B BOX 330 × 15 IPE400 400 180 8.6 13.5 2500 in the following section. The influence of parameters C1, b and the exis-
C BOX 330 × 25 IPE500 500 200 10.2 16 3600 tence of the auxiliary lateral bracing between the two reduced sections
on the connections having the optimum value of C2 is also evaluated and
reported.

3. Numerical study

Full-scale T-subassemblies of Fig. 3 based on the geometrical details

of Table 1 were modeled in ABAQUS [34], a general-purpose nonlinear
finite-element analysis software. Simple supports were assumed for
both column ends and the displacement-controlled loading was applied

15

10

5
Drift (%)

-5

-10

-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of cycles

Fig. 3. WAH geometry and a sample cut profile of connection C (units in mm). Fig. 4. Loading protocol [26,31].
286 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297
Fig. 5. Typical meshing of assemblies.
at the end of the beam. The loading protocol was according to AISC 341-
16 [31] and SAC joint venture report [26] as shown in Fig. 4.
Four-node shell elements with reduced integration (S4R) were used
for meshing the subassemblies in ABAQUS. This element type has the
capability of modeling large displacements, large strains, material plas-
ticity and the advantage of a lower CPU time and memory required for
analysis compared to solid elements. Shell elements also provide the
possibility of simulating stiffness and strength degradations due to
web and flange local buckling. Mesh size varied from two to 10 cm in
the specimen; a finer mesh was used in the panel zone region and the
reduced sections of the beam to more accurately obtain the local behav-
ior of the DRBS connection. Fig. 5 displays the typical meshing, the
method of applying column end boundary conditions, and loading in
the modeled subassemblies.
Fig. 6. The DC-S specimen tested by Nia et al. [35] (units in mm).
Table 2
Nominal and tensile coupon test results of beam flange steel [35].
σy nominal σy coupon σu nominal σu coupon Elongation (%) E υ
240 MPa 252 MPa 360 MPa 399.6 Mpa 30.8 210 GPa 0.3
Welds were not modeled in the subassemblies, since using one or
two reduced beam sections reduces the strain demands and sensitivity
of the welds, thereby obviating the necessity of a detailed modeling of
welds behavior. A tie constraint was used instead to join the connection
instances in the ABAQUS models.
For modeling the nonlinear behavior of the material, the combined
hardening model was utilized. This hardening model has the capability
of considering both isotropic and kinematic hardening behavior of the
material. The isotropic and kinematic part of material behavior are
defined by two pairs of parameters, (Q, B) and (C, γ), respectively.
Parameter Q defines the maximum size of the yield surface and the
dimensionless parameter B determines the rate at which the size of
the yield surface changes as the plastic strain develops. Parameter C is
the initial kinematic hardening modulus and γ determines the rate
at which the kinematic hardening modulus decreases as the plastic
deformation increases.
3.1. Verification of finite element modeling
In order to verify the discussed FE modeling procedure, two tested
full-scale connections, available in the literature, were modeled in
ABAQUS software: (I)-specimen DC-S, tested by Nia et al. [35], and
(II)-specimen DB700-SW, tested by Lee et al. [30].
3.1.1. Specimen DC-S
The beam and the column of specimen DC-S are built-up I-shaped
and box sections, respectively; connected by a welded unreinforced
flange (WUF) connection. The connection details and dimensions such
as beam and column sections, the shear plate and the WAH geometry
of the modeled assembly are shown in Fig. 6.
The subassembly of Fig. 6 was modeled in Abaqus, following the
discussed modeling procedure. The material used in the finite element
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 287

200

100

Load (kN)
0

-100
Test
ABAQUS
-200
-8 -4 0 4 8
Drift (%)

(a) hysteresis responses (b) test [35]

(c) PEEQ index at 6% drift (d) beam flange local buckling

Fig. 7. Comparison of the FE model and test results of specimen DC-S tested by Nia et al. [35].

model was ST-37-2 with the nominal and the coupon test results,
shown in Table 2.
Hysteresis responses are compared between the finite element
model and the test results [35] in Fig. 7(a). Fig. 7(b) shows the local
buckling of the beam flanges at 6% inter-story drift in the tested speci-
men. The PEEQ index and the local buckling of the beam flanges of the
modeled specimen at 6% inter-story drift ratio are also shown in
Fig. 7(c) and (d), respectively. As can be seen in these figures, the results
of finite element analysis and the test data are in a very good agreement.
The combined hardening parameters of the materials were deter-
mined based on the coupon test results performed by Lee et al. [30]
on SS400 and SM490 steels as shown in Table 3.
The normalized moment-rotation hysteresis responses of the
modeled connection and the tested specimen are compared in
Fig. 9(a). The moment was calculated at the reduced beam section and
normalized by the plastic moment of the reduced beam based on the

3.1.2. Specimen DB700-SW

In order to assess the capability of the ABAQUS models in predicting
the strength degradation of the RBS connections due to the formation of
the plastic hinge and local buckling of the beam, specimen DB700-SW,
tested by Lee et al. [30] was modeled in the software. Specimen
DB700-SW consists of a H700 × 300 × 13 × 24 beam, connected to a
H428 × 407 × 20 × 35 column with complete joint penetration flange
groove welds and a fillet welded web connection. Dimensions of the
beam and column sections are presented in Table 3. The details and
dimensions of the modeled connection are also shown in Fig. 8.

Table 3
Dimensions and tensile coupon test results of specimen DB700-SW [30].

Member Dimensions (mm) Coupon

Height Width tbf tw Location σy σu

Beam 700 300 24 13 Flange 304 MPa 455 MPa

Web 364 MPa 480 MPa
Column 428 407 35 20 Flange 343 MPa 512 MPa
Web 358 MPa 520 MPa
Fig. 8. Specimen DB700-SW tested by Lee et al. [30] (units in mm).
288 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

M/Mpn
0

-1
Test
ABAQUS
-2
-8 -4 0 4 8
Drift (%)

(a) hysteresis responses (b) test [30]

(c) PEEQ index at 6% drift (d) local buckling of the beam at 6% drift
Fig. 9. Comparison of the FE model and test results of specimen DB700-SW tested by Lee et al. [30].

measured yield strength. The local behavior of the beam in the tested reduction of the beam flanges in the second reduced section was in-
specimen [30] is shown in Fig. 9(b). The equivalent plastic strain creased gradually till the location of plastic hinge shifted from the first
(PEEQ) and the local buckling of the beam web and flanges of the to the second reduced section. Since the moment in the second reduced
modeled assembly are also shown at 6% inter-story drift ratio in section, which is farther from the column face, is less than the first re-
Fig. 9(c) and (d). According to Fig. 9, there is a very good agreement be- duced section, the initial value of parameter C2 was assumed to be
tween the FE analysis results and the test data. The FE model accurately equal to C1. As expected, the results showed that there was an optimum
predicted significant yielding of the beam web, the plastic hinge forma- state behavior, standing between the two limit states of Fig. 2 for the
tion and the strength degradation of the RBS connection due to the DRBS connection. The proper distribution of deformations between
beam FLB. the two reduced sections due to the stress redistribution mechanism
in the optimum state, led to a balanced yielding and plasticization of
4. Parametric study results both reduced sections from the early to the last cycles of loading. The
yielding of the beam initiated from the beam flanges at the center of
In the conducted numerical study, different values were considered both reduced sections and propagated to the beam web at these sec-
for C1 and b for each of the modeled subassemblies of Table 1. The tions and beam flanges near the column face. During the last cycles,
plastic strain increased at the center of both reduced sections, leading
Table 4
to a balanced plasticization of these sections. Further increase of plastic
Optimum range of parameter C2. strains led to the WLB accompanied by FLB at the centerline of both re-
duced sections resulting in the strength degradation of the connection.
Connection C1 b C2
The optimum value of parameter C2 was determined for the connec-
Exact value Optimum range tions A, B and C of Table 1. The considered values for C1, b and a summary
A1 0.2 0.85 0.260 0.255–0.265 of C2 optimum values are shown in Table 4.
A2 0.225 0.65 0.270 0.265–0.275 From here on, the connections are referred to with the designations
A3 0.225 0.85 0.275 0.270–0.280 of Table 4. Note that the values presented for parameters C1, C2 and b are
A4 0.25 0.65 0.285 0.280–0.290
A5 0.25 0.85 0.290 0.285–0.295
dimensionless and are normalized with respect to the beam flange
B1 0.205 0.85 0.270 0.265–0.275 width (bbf) for C1 and C2, and beam section height (Hbeam) for parameter
B2 0.225 0.65 0.275 0.270–0.280 b. The normalization approach of these parameters is similar to that of
B3 0.225 0.85 0.2825 0.2775–0.2875 AISC 358-16 [26], as shown in Fig. 1.
B4 0.25 0.65 0.290 0.285–0.295
Fig. 10 displays the described limit states and the location of the
B5 0.25 0.85 0.290 0.285–0.295
C1 0.197 0.85 0.265 0.260–0.270 plastic hinge in a subassembly of connection A3, B3 and C3 of Table 4
C2 0.225 0.65 0.275 0.270–0.280 as a few samples. From Fig. 10, choosing C2 according to Table 4 led to
C3 0.225 0.85 0.280 0.275–0.285 the optimum behavior of the connection and selecting values less than
C4 0.25 0.65 0.290 0.285–0.295 0.225 and more than 0.35 for parameter C2 resulted in a behavior similar
C5 0.25 0.85 0.290 0.285–0.295
to the limit states 1 and 2, respectively. Note that due to the selection of
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 289

Connection A3

C2 =0.225 C2 =0.275 C2 =0.35

Connection B3

C2 =0.225 C2 =0.2825 C2 =0.35

Connection C3

C2 =0.225 C2 =0.28 C2 =0.35

(a) Limit State (I) (b) Optimum State (c) Limit State (II)
Fig. 10. Optimum and extreme limit states of connection A3, B3, C3 with C1 = 0.225 at 8% story drift ratio.

C1 as the initial of C2, the limit state (I) did not practically take place and
a localization of deformation in the first reduced section was observed
instead.
4.1. Comparison of DRBS and RBS connections
Fig. 11 compares the hysteresis behavior of RBS and DRBS configura-
tion of connections A1, B1 and C1 of Table 4. Note that the point “A”
marks the cycle of loading at which LWB and LFB took place and the
dashed lines depict the 20% drop in the peak strength. In most of the
cases, using the DRBS connection instead of the traditional RBS connec-
tion postponed the connection's strength deterioration for 2% more of
inter-story drift. The modeled DRBS connections with the optimum
value of C2 exhibited stable hysteresis behavior and did not experience
strength degradation until 7% inter-story drift ratio.
According to Fig. 11, changing the size of the beam had no consider-
able influence on the global and local response of the DRBS connection.
The balanced participation of both reduced sections was guaranteed,
regardless of the beam section size; however, as the beam size increased
in connections A to C, the DRBS connection exhibited an earlier strength
degradation. This can be explained by the fact that the slenderness ratio
of the beam web (Hbeam/tw) is higher for deeper beam sections, resulting
in an earlier buckling of deeper beam sections. Moreover, this trend also
held for single RBS connections for the same reasons and did not pertain
to any particular defect in the DRBS connection.
Comparison between the distribution of plastic strain through the
beam section, the buckling modes and the cycle of buckling incidence
and the energy absorption capacity is also made in the following sections.
4.1.1. PEEQ index
The main advantage of the DRBS over the RBS connection is the re-
duction of the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) due to the balanced dis-
tribution of the deformations between the two reduced sections,
thereby delaying the beam local failure at the reduced sections. Fig. 12
compares the PEEQ index values between connection A1, B1 and C1
with one and two reduced sections at 6% inter-story drift ratio. Using
290 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

200 200 200

A
150 150 150
100 A
100 100
(I) RBS
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
50 50 50
0 0 0
-50 -50 -50
-100 -100 -100
-150 WLB+FLB -150 -150
A WLB+FLB WLB+FLB
-200 -200 -200
-12 -6 0 6 12 -12 -6 0 6 12 -12 -6 0 6 12
Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

200 200 200

150 150 150
100 100 100
(II) DRBS
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
50

Load (kN)
50 50
0 0 0
-50 -50 -50
-100 -100 -100
A
-150 -150 -150
WLB+FLB A WLB+FLB A WLB+FLB
-200 -200 -200
-12 -6 0 6 12 -12 -6 0 6 12 -12 -6 0 6 12
Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

(a) Connection A1 (b) Connection B1 (c) Connection C1

Fig. 11. RBS and DRBS connection hysteresis behavior.

the DRBS connection results in a considerable reduction in the maxi-
mum PEEQ index of the connection, obviously.
Fig. 13 also shows the maximum value of PEEQ index at the end of 1%
to 6% drift ratios in connections A, B and C with one and two reduced
sections. The DRBS connections of this figure have the optimum value
of parameter C2 according to Table 4. The values and the percent of
the reduction in the maximum PEEQ index are summarized in Table 5.
From Fig. 13 and Table 5, the maximum value of the PEEQ index at the
reduced sections is reduced by 35–60% in the DRBS compared to the RBS
connection. The sudden increases in the PEEQ of RBS connections in the

Fig. 12. Equivalent plastic strain of connections A1, B1 and C1 at 6% drift ratio.
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 291

2.5 2.5 2.5

A1-RBS B1-RBS C1-RBS

2 A1-DRBS 2 B1-DRBS 2 C1-DRBS

A3-RBS B3-RBS C3-RBS

PEEQ index
PEEQ index
PEEQ index 1.5 A3-DRBS 1.5 B3-DRBS 1.5 C3-DRBS
A5-RBS B5-RBS C5-RBS
1 A5-DRBS 1 B5-DRBS 1 C5-DRBS

0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

(a) Connection A (b) Connection B (c) Connection C

Fig. 13. Maximum PEEQ index at different inter-story drift ratios.

graphs of Fig. 13 are due to the local buckling of the beam that was post- 30–40% in the DRBS connection, compared to RBS connection, according
poned as a result of the second cut in the DRBS connections. to Table 6.
The effect of adding the extra lateral bracing at the conjunction of the
4.1.2. Lateral torsional buckling reduced sections on the hysteresis behavior of connection A1 is present-
According to AISC-358, RBS connections that satisfy the normal lat- ed in Fig. 15 as a sample. As depicted, more stable hysteresis loops and
eral bracing requirements of AISC-341 [31] for beams in special moment delayed strength deterioration were observed in the connection A1
frame systems, can achieve inter-story drift angles of 0.04 rad. However, when the auxiliary lateral brace was provided.
adding a supplemental lateral brace at or just beyond the end of the RBS
that is farther from the column face (beyond the protected zone) 4.1.3. Energy absorption capacity
improves the performance of RBS connection [27]. In the modeled Cumulative energy dissipation before buckling of the beam web was
subassemblies, lateral bracing was provided by restraining the beam also compared between the connections of Table 4, having one and two
flanges against lateral movements at the end of both reduced sections, reduced sections. The cumulative absorbed seismic energy is presented
Such bracing is shown in Fig. 5. in Table 7. Participation of both reduced sections in energy absorption in
A comparison between buckling modes and the story drift at which addition to the delayed buckling modes, increased the dissipated seis-
WLB and FLB occurred has been made for connections A1, B1 and C1 of mic energy of the DRBS connection by 50 to 75% compared to RBS
Table 4 with one and two reduced sections in Fig. 14. In the RBS connec- connection.
tions of Fig. 14(a), the lateral bracing was provided at the end of the Results of Table 7 show that connections with higher and lower
reduced section, while two different states were considered for the values of b and a, respectively, have more energy absorption capacity.
location of the lateral braces in the DRBS connections: the beam flanges Fig. 16 also depicts the cumulative dissipated energy of connections A,
in the DRBS connections of Fig. 14(b) and (c), were laterally braced at B and C having: constant C1 and different values of b (part a) and con-
the end of only the second or both reduced sections, respectively. stant b = 0.85 and different values of C1 (part b). It is worth mentioning
Fig. 14(b) shows that the first considered state for lateral bracing of that since the optimum value of C2 is a function of parameters C1 and b,
the beam in the DRBS connection does not satisfactory control the all connections of Fig. 16 have the optimum value of C2. The objective of
lateral-torsional buckling of the beam. This is due to the large unbraced the figure is to propose the optimum value of C1 and b, in order to have
length of the beam flanges of connections A1, B1 and C1 with two re- the best performance in terms of energy dissipation and displacement
duced sections. Thus, the unbraced length of the flanges was reduced capacity.
in the second considered state by providing an auxiliary set of lateral According to Fig. 16(a), in the subassemblies with higher reduced
braces. According to Fig. 14(c), the failure mode that caused strength section length (b), plasticization of a wider region of the beam web
degradation of the DRBS connections with two sets of lateral braces and flanges, increases the DRBS connection energy dissipation capacity.
was the beam WLB near the center of both reduced sections. In most Thus, it is recommended to set b to the upper limit suggested by AISC-
of the models, this failure mode was accompanied by FLB. The buckling 358 [27], to achieve a higher energy absorption capacity. It is worth
mode was similar in the beams with one or two reduced sections; how- mentioning that, increasing b and the unbraced length of the beam
ever, as summarized in Table 6, due to lower amounts of plastic strain as flanges, as a result, does not negatively affect the performance of the
a result of strain redistribution in the DRBS connection, the beam web DRBS connections, due to the existence of the auxiliary lateral bracing.
buckling occurred at 2% more inter-story drift ratio compared to Fig. 16(b) shows that the DRBS connections, having lower values of
that of the RBS connection. The deformation capacity was increased C1, have higher energy absorption capacity. This can be explained by
comparing the hysteresis loops of connections A, B and C, having the
highest and lowest values of C1, shown in Fig. 17. According to Fig. 17,
Table 5 changing C1 has no considerable influence on the global and local re-
Reduction in the maximum PEEQ index at 6% inter-story drift ratio. sponse of the DRBS connection, except for the peak plastic moment.
Selecting lower values of C1, results in higher maximum plastic
Connection PEEQ index Reduction in the PEEQ index (%)
moments and a higher energy absorption capacity, consequently. More-
DRBS RBS over, lower values of C1 result in the optimum consumption of materials
A1 0.687 1.060 64.81 and less reduction in the stiffness of the connection. Thus, it is recom-
A3 0.762 1.800 42.33 mended to select the values of C1 close to the lower limit suggested by
A5 0.855 1.573 54.35
AISC-358 [27].
B1 0.690 1.571 43.92
B3 0.795 1.763 45.09
B5 0.985 1.889 52.14 5. Design procedure
C1 0.767 1.779 43.11
C3 0.769 2.193 35.07 Based on the results of the numerical study, a two-phase design pro-
C5 1.046 2.487 42.06
cedure is introduced for the design of DRBS connection. In the first and
292 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

(a) RBS
(b) DRBS with one lateral brace
(c) DRBS with two lateral braces

(I) Connection A1 (II) ConnectionB1 (III) Connection C1

Fig. 14. Buckling mode of single and double RBS connection (units in cm).

second phases of the design procedure, the parameters of the first and
second cuts are determined, respectively. The first design phase con-
forms to the AISC-358 design procedure for the RBS connection; however,
based on the parametric study conducted in this research, in order to have
the best performance for the DRBS connection, it is recommended to
choose lower and higher values for parameters C1 and b, respectively.
As discussed, the most important parameter is the value of C2. Low values
of C2 have no considerable influence on the connection's hysteresis be-
havior. On the other hand, high values of C2 weaken the second reduced
beam section and the plastic hinge location moves toward the second
cut; thus, there is an optimum value for C2 to have the most desirable be-
havior. Although the most important parameter is C2, this parameter is a
multi-variable function of other parameters such as C1, b, gravity loads
and span length, rather than being an explicit function of either of these
parameters. Hence, two dimensionless parameters Mf/Mpe and Mpr2/
Mpr1 are introduced to account for all influential parameters, as follows:


Z RBS1 ¼ Z beam −2 C 1 t bf Hbeam −t bf ð1Þ

Table 6
Mpr1 ¼ C pr Ry F y Z RBS1 ð2Þ
Drift ratio at which WLB occurs in the RBS and DRBS connections. 2
wSh
Connection Drift (%) Increased deformation capacity (%)
M f ¼ M pr1 þ V RBS1 Sh þ ð3Þ
2
RBS DRBS

A1 to A5 6 8 33 Mpe ¼ Ry F y Z beam ð4Þ

B1 to B3 6 8 33
B4 to B5 5 7 40 Mf is a function of the first cut location, the reduction in the beam
C1 to C5 5 7 40
flange, span length and the gravity loads and Mpe is the expected plastic
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 293

150 150

75 75

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
0 0

-75 -75

WLB+FLB WLB+FLB
-150 -150
-12 -6 0 6 12 -12 -6 0 6 12
Drift (%) Drift (%)

(a) One lateral brace at the farthest end of the (b) Added auxiliary lateral brace at the conjuction
second RBS of reduced sections

Fig. 15. Effect of adding the auxiliary braces on the hysteresis response of connection A1.

Table 7 capacity of the beam, added for normalization so that the results can be
Cumulative energy dissipation before beam web buckling. expanded to all beam sections. Table 8 shows the average of the
Connection Dissipated energy (MJ) Variation (%) optimum ranges suggested for C2 in Table 4 and the resultant Mpr2/Mpr1.
RBS DRBS
A plot of Mpr2/Mpr1 versus Mf/Mpe for the connections of Table 8, is
depicted in Fig. 18 and a function with the least square sum has been
A1 219.7 376.1 71
introduced for the relation of the defined dimensionless parameters.
A2 181.2 315.2 74
A3 196.4 336.8 71 This function is stated through Eq. (5) as follows:
A4 179.1 303.8 70
A5 190.3 322.2 69 Mpr2 Mf
¼ −0:4312 þ 1:2949 ð5Þ
B1 272.6 452.6 66 Mpr1 M pe
B2 270.2 414.5 53
B3 268.8 439.3 63
B4 216.5 368.7 70
Eq. (5) is used in the determination of C2 in the second phase of the
B5 259.6 390.0 50 design procedure. The two phases of the design procedure are as follows:
C1 410.1 643.9 57 Phase (I): Determine C1:
C2 360.4 613.1 70
C3 356.4 614.5 72 Step 1: assume a trial value for parameter C1 close to the AISC-358
C4 318.2 556.5 75 lower limit.
C5 354.1 599.0 69

800 1000
b=0.65 C1=0.2
Dissipated energy (MJ)
Dissipated energy(MJ)

b=0.85 800
600 C1=0.225

600 C1=0.25
400
400
200
200

0 0
A2,A3 A4,A5 B2,B3 B4,B5 C2,C3 C4,C5 A1 A3 A5 B1 B3 B5 C1 C3 C5
Connection Connection

(a) Connections A, B and C with C1=0.225,0.25 (b) Connections A, B and C with b=0.85
Fig. 16. Effect of parameters (a) C1 (b) b on the cumulative energy dissipated before buckling.

150 200 200

75 100 100
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

0 0 0

-75 A1 -100 -100

B1 C1
A5 B5 C5
-150 -200 -200
-12 -6 0 6 12 -10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 17. Effect of parameter C1 on DRBS connection hysteretic behavior: (a) connection A - (b) connection B - (c) connection C.
294 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

Table 8
Best cut parameters.

Connection C1 C2 b Mf/Mpe Mpr2/Mpr1

A1 0.2 0.26 0.85 0.987 0.876

A2 0.225 0.27 0.65 0.919 0.902
A3 0.225 0.275 0.85 0.939 0.891
A4 0.25 0.285 0.65 0.871 0.920
A5 0.25 0.29 0.85 0.891 0.908
B1 0.205 0.27 0.85 0.986 0.868
B2 0.225 0.275 0.65 0.921 0.899
B3 0.225 0.2825 0.85 0.943 0.883
B4 0.25 0.29 0.65 0.879 0.921
B5 0.25 0.29 0.85 0.900 0.910
C1 0.197 0.265 0.85 0.994 0.864
C2 0.225 0.275 0.65 0.919 0.897
C3 0.225 0.28 0.85 0.938 0.886
C4 0.25 0.29 0.65 0.873 0.913
C5 0.25 0.29 0.85 0.892 0.912

Step 2: compute the plastic section modulus of the first reduced section
using Eq. (1).
Step 3: calculate the probable maximum plastic moment at the first cut
through Eq. (2).
Step 4: calculate the shear at the first cut using Eq. (6). This equation is Fig. 19. Free body diagram of the beam with two reduced sections.
derived from the free-body diagram of the beam under factored
gravity loads, shown in Fig. 19, while two plastic hinges have
been formed in the first reduced sections of both beam ends. Phase 2: Determine C2:
The second phase is to determine the value of C2 based on the first
cut configuration through a three-step process:
2M pr1 wLh
V RBS1 ¼ þ ð6Þ Step 1: calculate the value of Mpr2 by substituting Mf/Mpe and Mpr1 into
Lh 2
Eq. (5).
Step 2: compute the value of ZRBS2 based on Eq. (8):

Step 5: calculate the resultant moment at the column face due to the
probable maximum plastic moment at the first cut through Mpr2 ¼ C pr Ry F y Z RBS2 ð8Þ
Eq. (3)
Step 6: check the flexural capacity of the non-reduced beam section to
carry the moment at the column face and repeat steps 1 to 6 till
Eq. (7) is satisfied: Step 3: calculate the value of C2 using Eq. (9):

Z beam −Z RBS2
Mf C2 ¼
ð9Þ
≤ φd ð7Þ 2t bf H beam −t bf
M pe

5.1. Verification of the design procedure

Step 7: design the connection details.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed procedure, partic-
ularly the errors of Eq. (5) and Eq. (9), the value of C2 for the three
connections of Table 4 and a new fourth connection is calculated.
0.94 The optimum value of C2 in the DRBS configuration of connections A,
Mpr2/Mpr1= -0.4312(Mf/Mpe)+1.2949 B, and C are calculated from Eq. (9) and reported in the eighth column of
Table 9 with the “predicted” subscript. These values are then compared
0.92
R2=0.9127 to the optimum values obtained from Abaqus models with the “model”
subscript.
Mpr2/Mpr1

0.9 As Table 9 shows, Eq. (5) is quite accurate and the error in predicting
Mpr2/Mpr1 and C2, as a result, is negligible, therefore Eq. (9) used in
0.88 the second phase of the design procedure is reliable in predicting the
optimum values of C2.
FEM best result A new fourth connection, specimen DB600-MW tested by Lee et al.
0.86
Best fit
[30], with different material behavior and column section is also evalu-
ated to double check the accuracy of the developed procedure. The
0.84 beam and column dimensions and the considered cut parameters of
0.86 0.895 0.93 0.965 1 connection DB600-MW are summarized in Table 10. Since the material
Mf/Mpe behavior used for the beam and column is the same as DB700-SW
connection, discussed in the verification section, the same material
Fig. 18. Relation between Mf/Mpe and Mpr2/Mpr1 for connections with optimum value of parameters as of the second verification model are used in modeling
C2. DB600-MW connection.
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297 295

Table 9
Accuracy of the presented function in predicting the value of Mpr2/Mpr1.

Connection Mf/Mpe C1 b Mpr2/Mpr1 model* Mpr2/Mpr1 predicted** Error (%) C2 model* C2 predicted** Error (%)

A1 0.987 0.2 0.85 0.876 0.869 0.79 0.260 0.264 1.54

A2 0.919 0.225 0.65 0.902 0.899 0.36 0.270 0.272 0.74
A3 0.939 0.225 0.85 0.891 0.890 0.12 0.275 0.276 0.36
A4 0.871 0.25 0.65 0.920 0.919 0.09 0.285 0.285 0.00
A5 0.891 0.25 0.85 0.908 0.911 −0.31 0.290 0.289 −0.34
B1 0.986 0.205 0.85 0.868 0.870 −0.19 0.270 0.269 −0.37
B2 0.921 0.225 0.65 0.899 0.898 0.15 0.275 0.276 0.36
B3 0.943 0.225 0.85 0.883 0.888 −0.58 0.2825 0.280 −0.88
B4 0.879 0.25 0.65 0.921 0.916 0.60 0.290 0.287 −1.03
B5 0.900 0.25 0.85 0.910 0.907 0.35 0.290 0.291 0.34
C1 0.994 0.197 0.85 0.864 0.866 −0.26 0.265 0.264 −0.38
C2 0.919 0.225 0.65 0.897 0.899 −0.26 0.275 0.274 −0.36
C3 0.938 0.225 0.85 0.886 0.890 −0.47 0.280 0.279 −0.36
C4 0.873 0.25 0.65 0.913 0.919 −0.64 0.290 0.291 0.34
C5 0.892 0.25 0.85 0.912 0.910 0.17 0.290 0.292 0.69

*: from Table 4, **: from Eqs. (5) and (9)

The DRBS configuration for connection DB600-MW is designed
based on the proposed equations of section “Design procedure”. The
optimum value of C2 is set to 0.3025 according to Eq. (9). The geometry
of the optimum DRBS connection is shown in Fig. 20. The cyclic perfor-
mance of specimen DB600-MW (Fig. 20) is assessed in Abaqus, under
loading protocol of Fig. 4. The equivalent plastic strain distribution and
the maximum PEEQ are then compared between DRBS and RBS connec-
tions in Figs. 21 and 22.
According to Fig. 21, setting C2 = 0.3025 in DB600-MW connection
leads to the simultaneous formation of plastic hinges in both reduced
sections. The plastic strains are obviously lower in the same cycles of
loading in the DRBS connection (Fig. 21(II)), compared to the RBS con-
nection (Fig. 21(I)). Thus, the plastic hinge formation is postponed for
1% inter-story drift ratio in the DRBS, compared to the RBS connection.
From Fig. 22, using DRBS instead of RBS connection, results in almost
50% reduction in the PEEQ at different drift ratios. All of the aforemen-
tioned advantages of the DRBS over RBS configuration hold for connec-
tion DB600-MW. Therefore, the proposed design procedure is reliable in
predicting the optimum values of C2 in DRBS connection.
The results indicated that:
• Adding the second cut to the RBS connection diminished the
maximum equivalent plastic strain index at the reduced sections by
35 to 60% at 6% inter-story drift ratio.
• It is necessary to brace both beam flanges at the end of both reduced
sections against lateral movements in the DRBS connection to control
the early lateral torsional buckling of the beam.
• Using the DRBS connection instead of RBS connection postpones the
beam web local buckling that considerably causes strength degrada-
tion of the connection. This, in turn, reduces the post-earthquake
damage and beam the flanges fracture tendency.
• Formation of a distributed plastic zone and participation of a relatively
large portion of the beam web and flanges in the deformations
increased energy absorption (before beam WLB occurs) from 50 to
75% compared to the RBS connection.
• The reduction of the beam flanges in the first cut (C1) is determined by
the first phase of the proposed design procedure, which conforms to
AISC-358 for the RBS connection. The reduction of the beam flanges
in the second cut (C2), assuring the balanced formation of plastic

6. Conclusions

In this research, a new seismic steel moment connection named

DRBS consisting of two adjacent radius cut profiles in beam flanges is in-
troduced. The second reduced section acts as an auxiliary structural fuse
providing the possibility for a mutual stress redistribution between
the two reduced sections resulting in the formation of simultaneous
plastic hinges at both reduced sections. Formation of such a distributed
plastic hinge causes the DRBS connection to have a superior hysteresis
behavior compared to the RBS connection. The optimum values of the
governing parameters were determined through an extensive numeri-
cal study. Based on the results of the parametric study, a design proce-
dure is proposed for the DRBS connection. The design procedure
is then verified by designing the DRBS configuration of a new fourth
connection from the literature.

Table 10
Dimensions and cut parameters of connection DB600-MW [30].

Member Dimensions (mm) Cut parameters (mm)

Height Width tbf tw a b C1

Beam 600 200 17 11 100 390 50

Column 400 400 21 13
Fig. 20. Cut parametrs of connection DB600-MW with optimum behavior (units in mm).
296 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297

(a) Plastic hinge at 5% drift

(b) Plastic hinge at 6%
drift

(I) RBS (II) DRBS

Fig. 21. PEEQ distribution of connection DB600-MW at: (a) 5% and (b) 6% inter-story drift ratios.

hinges at both reduced sections, is determined using the derived Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the performance
equation based on the numerical study results. and the optimum values of the parameters of DRBS connections having
• The parametric study showed that setting the reduction of the beam different span lengths and gravity loads and in multistory frames. In
flanges in the first cut (C1) and the length of the reduced sections addition, the proposed connection should be assessed experimentally
(b) to the lower and upper limits of AISC-358, respectively, results prior to application in real structures.
in the most desirable cyclic performance. The location of the start of
the first cut (a) was also set to the lowest limit proposed by AISC-
358, since increasing this parameter increases the moment at the References
column face. Moreover, the distance between the cut profiles (d) [1] D.K. Miller, Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake, Eng. Struct. 20 (4–6)
was set to zero to prevent the formation of the plastic hinge in either (1998) 249–260.
of the reduced sections. [2] M. Nakashima, K. Inoue, M. Tada, Classification of damage to steel buildings
observed in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Eng. Struct. 20 (4–6) (1998)
271–281.
[3] J.M. Ricles, C. Mao, L.W. Lu, J.W. Fisher, Inelastic cyclic testing of welded unrein-
forced moment connections, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4) (2002) 429–440.
[4] C. Mao, J. Ricles, L.W. Lu, J. Fisher, Effect of local details on ductility of welded
moment connections, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (9) (2001) 1036–1044.
2 [5] Q.S.K. Yu, C.M. Uang, J. Gross, Seismic rehabilitation design of steel moment connec-
tion with welded haunch, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (1) (2000) 69–78.
[6] C.C. Chou, K.C. Tsai, Y.Y. Wang, C.K. Jao, Seismic rehabilitation performance of steel
DB600-RBS side plate moment connections, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 39 (1) (2010) 23–44.
1.5 [7] M. Shiravand, A. Deylami, Application of full depth side plate to moment connection
DB600-DRBS
PEEQ index

of I-beam to double-I column, Adv. Struct. Eng. 13 (6) (2010) 1047–1062.

[8] S. Jalali, M. Banazadeh, A. Abolmaali, E. Tafakori, Probabilistic seismic demand
assessment of steel moment frames with side-plate connections, Sci. Iran. 19 (1)
1 (2012) 27–40.
[9] C.H. Kang, K.J. Shin, Y.S. Oh, T.S. Moon, Hysteresis behavior of CFT column to H-beam
connections with external T-stiffeners and penetrated elements, Eng. Struct. 23 (9)
0.5 (2001) 1194–1201.
[10] M. Ghobadi, M. Ghassemieh, A. Mazroi, A. Abolmaali, Seismic performance of ductile
welded connections using T-stiffener, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (4) (2009) 766–775.
[11] C.H. Kang, Y.J. Kim, K.J. Shin, Y.S. Oh, Experimental investigation of composite
0 moment connections with external stiffeners, Adv. Struct. Eng. 16 (10) (2013) 1683.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 [12] C.C. Chen, C.A. Lu, C.C. Lin, Parametric study and design of rib-reinforced steel
moment connections, Eng. Struct. 27 (5) (2005) 699–708.
Drift (%) [13] R. Goswami, C. Murty, Externally reinforced welded I-beam-to-box-column seismic
connection, J. Eng. Mech. 136 (1) (2009) 23–30.
[14] M. Nikoukalam, K.M. Dolatshahi, Development of structural shear fuse in moment
Fig. 22. Maximum PEEQ index at different inter-story drift ratios. resisting frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 114 (2015) 349–361.
 M.A. Morshedi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 138 (2017) 283–297
[15] M. Valente, C.A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, Numerical investigations of repairable
dissipative bolted fuses for earthquake resistant composite steel frames, Eng. Struct.
131 (2017) 275–292.
[16] M. Valente, C.A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, Welded fuses for dissipative beam-to-
column connections of composite steel frames: numerical analyses, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 128 (2017) 498–511.
[17] N.R. Iwankiw, C.J. Carter, The dogbone: a new idea to chew on, Mod. Steel Constr. 36
(4) (1996) 18–23.
[18] S.S. Kumar, D.P. Rao, RHS beam-to-column connection with web opening—
experimental study and finite element modelling, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (8)
(2006) 739–746.
[19] S. Wilkinson, G. Hurdman, A. Crowther, A moment resisting connection for earth-
quake resistant structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (3) (2006) 295–302.
[20] S. Maleki, M. Tabbakhha, Numerical study of slotted-web–reduced-flange moment
connection, J. Constr. Steel Res. 69 (1) (2012) 1–7.
[21] D. Dimakogianni, G. Dougka, I. Vayas, Seismic behavior of frames with innovative
energy dissipation systems (FUSEIS1-2), Eng. Struct. 90 (2015) 83–95.
[22] A. Plumier, New idea for safe structures in seismic zones, IABSE symposium, Mixed
Structures Including New Materials-Brussels 1990, pp. 431–436.
[23] D. Sophianopoulos, A. Deri, Parameters affecting response and design of steel
moment frame reduced beam section connections: an overview, Int. J. Steel Struct.
11 (2) (2011) 133–144.
[24] C.J. Carter, N.R. Iwankiw, Improved ductility in seismic steel moment frames with
dogbone connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 1 (46) (1998) 448.
[25] M.D. Engelhardt, T. Winneberger, A.J. Zekany, T.J. Potyraj, The dogbone connection:
part II, Mod. Steel Constr. 36 (8) (1996) 46–55.
297
[26] FEMA, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for new Steel Moment Frame Buildings,
FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, 2000.
[27] AISC, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames
for Seismic Applications, AISC/ANSI 358-16, American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC), Chicago, IL, 2016.
[28] C.M. Uang, C.C. Fan, Cyclic stability criteria for steel moment connections with
reduced beam section, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (9) (2001) 1021–1027.
[29] B. Chi, C.M. Uang, Cyclic response and design recommendations of reduced beam
section moment connections with deep columns, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4) (2002)
464–473.
[30] C.H. Lee, S.W. Jeon, J.H. Kim, C.M. Uang, Effects of panel zone strength and beam web
connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel moment
connections, J. Struct. Eng. 131 (12) (2005) 1854–1865.
[31] AISC, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC/ANSI 341-16, American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL, 2016.
[32] AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC/ANSI 360-16, American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL, 2016.
[33] AWS, Structural Welding Code-Seismic Supplement, ANSI/AWS D1.8/D1.8M,
American Welding Society, Miami, FL, 2015.
[34] SIMULIA, Abaqus user's Manual, Version 6.13, SIMULIA, The Dassault Systemes,
Realistic Simulation, USA, 2013.
[35] Z.S. Nia, M. Ghassemieh, A. Mazroi, WUF-W connection performance to box column
subjected to uniaxial and biaxial loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 88 (2013) 90–108.