Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Rotation capacities of reduced beam section with bolted web (RBS-B) connections
Sang Whan Han a,⁎, Ki-Hoon Moon a, Seong-Hoon Hwang a, Bozidar Stojadinovic b
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, CA, USA

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

Article history: Current seismic design provisions (ANSI/AISC 358-05) permit reduced beam section with bolted web (RBS-B)
Received 5 January 2011 connections for only intermediate moment frames (IMF). The connections in IMF systems should provide at
Accepted 5 September 2011 least 2% radian of total rotation. Prior research, however, has reported that some RBS-B connection specimens
Available online 13 October 2011
failed by connection fracture prior to reaching the 2% radian rotation. To design RBS-B connections with ro-
tation capacities greater than 2% radian, we calibrated the moment strength equation specified in ANSI/AISC
Keywords:
Reduced beam section connection
358-05 to account for the contribution of bolted web connections. To detect and repair RBS-B connections
Moment frames that are unable to provide rotation capacities greater than 2% radian in existing IMF systems, we also devel-
Bolted web oped an empirical equation that estimates the total rotation capacities of such RBS-B connections. Finally, we
Rotation present a procedure to design RBS-B connections without connection fracture for new building systems, and
Fracture to estimate the probability of RBS-B connections to develop rotation capacities larger than 2% radian for exist-
ing IMF systems.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of RBS-B connections, which is not anticipated during the design

Steel moment resisting frames are widely used as seismic load
resisting systems of buildings in high seismic regions. The connections
of moment resisting frames have superior ductility and energy dissipa-
tion capacity due to the inelastic behavior of the beams and panel zone.
Some moment connections have poor seismic performance [1–3].
New moment connections were developed after the 1994 North-
ridge earthquake and 1995 Kobe earthquake, [4,5] Reduced beam sec-
tion with Bolted web (RBS-B) moment connections was one of the
newly developed connections [6,7] after the Northridge earthquake.
RBS-B connections limit the amount of moment demand transferred
to the face of the column, and promote the formation of internal plastic
hinges within the reduced beam section of the beam by trimming the
beam flange width at a specific distance from the column face.
Previous experimental studies have reported that RBS-B connec-
tions provide a total rotation capacity beyond 4% radian. However,
RBS-B connection specimens that have been examined experimental-
ly have often shown a higher incidence of fracture near the beam
flange groove weld than RBS connection specimens with a welded
web [8]. Subsequently, Lee et al. [9] reported that RBS-B connection
specimens may fail prior to reaching a rotation capacity of 4% radian.
For this reason, the ANSI/AISC 358-05 [10] does not allow RBS-B con-
nections to be used for special moment frame (SMF) systems, only for
intermediate moment frame (IMF) systems. Such unexpected failure
stage, may result in the unsatisfactory performance of IMF systems.
The connections used in IMF systems must provide a total rotation
capacity greater than 2% radian [11]. However, RBS-B connection
specimens may fail prior to reaching a rotation of 2% radian due to
connection fracture [12]. Han et al. [13] observed that brittle connec-
tion fractures in RBS-B connections are attributed to the application of
inaccurate equations for computing the connection moment strength
at the column face, as specified by FEMA 350 [14]. An updated equa-
tion for computing the moment strength of RBS-B connections was
produced.
This study has two objectives. First, we aim to prevent connection
fracture by calibrating the equation for computing connection moment
strength provided in ANSI/AISC 358-05 for new building systems with
RBS-B connections. Secondly, we intend to detect and repair RBS-B con-
nections that are unable to provide rotation capacities greater than 2%
radian in existing IMF systems. For the existing IMF systems, we pro-
pose an empirical equation for computing the rotation capacity of
RBS-B connections expected to fracture at the connection (fracture-
prone RBS-B connections). We used this equation to estimate the rota-
tion capacities of RBS-B connections having A992 W-shape beam sec-
tions that are likely to fracture because they do not satisfy the
calibrated connection moment strength equation.
2. Why code-compliant RBS-B connections experience brittle
fractures

⁎ Corresponding author. In order to avoid abrupt fractures at RBS-B connections prior to de-
E-mail address: swhan82@hotmail.com (S.W. Han). veloping a plastic hinge in the RBS, current seismic design provisions

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.09.001
 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263
[10,14] specify an equation [Eq. (1)] to ensure that the connection mo-
ment strength (Mn) is larger than the probable maximum moment at
the column face (Mf − pr) transferred from the RBS beam when the
RBS reaches its maximum probable moment, Mpr. Fig. 1 shows an
RBS-B connection. The purpose of Eq. (1) is to ensure that a plastic
hinge fully develops at the RBS before the critical section yields. This
will limit the stresses at the critical welds between the beam flanges
and column.
Mf −pr ≤Mn
In Eq. (1), Mf − pr is computed using Eq. (2).
Lb =2 Lb =2
Mf −pr ¼ Mpr ¼ Cpr Ry Fy ZRBS
Lb =2−Lph Lb =2−Lph
where ZRBS is the plastic sectional modulus at the center of the RBS, Lb
is the clear span of the beam, Lph is the distance from the column face
to the plastic hinge (Fig. 1), Cpr is a coefficient designed to account for
connection strength hardening, and Ry is the ratio of the expected
beam yield stress to its specified minimum yield stress (Fy). The
value of Cpr for RBS-B connections is calculated by an alternative
equation specified in ANSI/AISC 358-05 [10]. In FEMA 350 [14], the
connection moment strength Mn is computed using the following
equation:
Mn ¼ Cpr Ry Fy Zb
where Zb is the plastic sectional modulus of the unreduced beam sec-
tion. Unfortunately, some RBS-B connection specimens that satisfy
Eq. (1) through (3) failed due to connection fracture [8,9]. In the
ANSI/AISC 358-05 [10], the moment strength equation in Eq. (3)
was modified as follows:
Mn ¼ ϕd Ry Fy Zb
where ϕd is the resistance factor. The value of ϕd is taken as 1.0 and
0.9 for ductile and non-ductile limit states, respectively. For RBS, ϕd
is taken as 1.0 according to ANSI/AISC 358-05 [10].
To evaluate the accuracy of the moment strength equations [Eqs. (3)
and (4)], we collected the test results of 31 RBS-B connection specimens
and estimated their moment strength using Eqs. (3) and (4). Table 1
summarizes the maximum moment at the face of the column recorded
during the test (Mmax − test) of 12 specimens that experienced fracture
near the beam flange groove welds (the fracture-prone specimens)
and the moment strength of those specimens predicted using Eqs. (3)
and (4). Moment Mmax − test is obtained by Pmax × Lb (Pmax is maximum
actuator load and Lb is the clear beam span length). Table 2 summarizes
the characteristics of 19 RBS-B specimens that failed in ways other than
a b
4c2+b2
Radius=
8c
c Mn
a b
Fig. 1. Reduced beam section (RBS) connections.
257
fracture near the beam flange groove welds (fracture-resistant
specimens).
Fig. 2 shows Mf − pr/Mn for the specimens listed in Tables 1 and 2
with respect to beam depth where Mn is calculated using Eqs. (3)
[FEMA 350] and (4) [AISC 358-05]. When the ratio is larger than 1,
the connection is expected to fracture near the beam flange groove
welds; otherwise the fracture occurs at the reduced beam section.
As shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), Mf − pr/Mn is less than 1, which indicates
that all specimens listed in Tables 1 and 2 should be fracture-resistant
ð1Þ connection specimens. However, 12 specimens in Table 1 experi-
enced fracture near the beam flange groove welds as mentioned ear-
lier. To resolve these problems, ANSI/AISC 358-05 [10] provided
Eq. (4) which gives a smaller connection moment strength than
that calculated using Eq. (3), resulting in less potential of fracture at
the connection. However, as seen in Fig. 2(b), only six specimens
ð2Þ
among 12 fracture-prone specimens have Mf − pr/Mn greater than 1.
Therefore, the equations [Eqs. (1) and (4)] specified in ANSI/AISC
358-05 [10] do not guarantee fracture prevention in RBS-B connec-
tions due to the overestimation of the connection moment strength.
Fig. 3 shows the moment strength ratio (Mmax − test/Mn) plotted
with respect to beam depth for the 12 fracture-prone specimens
[5,7,12,15,16] and 21 fracture-resistant specimens [4,8,7] listed in Ta-
bles 1 and 2, respectively. The ratio Mmax − test/Mn indicates whether
the specimen reached connection moment strength calculated using
Eqs. (3) and (4). If the equation predicts the connection moment
strength perfectly, Mmax − test/Mn for fracture-prone specimens will
be equal to one. When the ratio is less than 1 for fracture-prone spec-
ð3Þ imens, the moment strength equation overestimates the actual con-
nection moment strength (un-conservative prediction), whereas
when the ratio is larger than 1 for fracture-prone specimens, the
equation underestimates the actual connection moment strength
(conservative prediction). Fig. 3(a) shows that Eq. (3) [10] overesti-
mates the connection moment strength of all fracture-prone speci-
mens, and Eq. (4) [10] also overestimates the connection moment
strength of all fracture-prone specimens, except for six [Fig. 3(b)].
ð4Þ Such overestimation may lead to connection fracture because the
beam to column connection does not have a strength capacity greater
than the expected strength Mf − pr. This may lead to premature frac-
ture of the beam flange groove welds and a small rotation capacity.
The overestimation of Mn can be attributed to the bolt slip at the
bolted web-welded flange connections. No consideration is given to
the effect of the bolt slip on the connection moment strength. Bolt
slip at the connection also increases demands at the flange weld
and may cause early weld fracture. In Eqs. (3) and (4), connection
moment strength is calculated based on the unreduced beam section
irrespective of the type of beam web attachment to the column
flange. There is always a loss of beam section at the column face re-
gardless of the type of beam web to column flange connection. Such
a loss is larger in RBS-B than in reduced beam section with welded
web (RBS-W) connections.
L ph a b 2
Plastic Hinge
Mf pr
Mpr
a b
Lb
C
2 L
Mf pr Mn
258 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263

Table 1
Moment strength and total rotation angle of fracture-prone RBS-B specimens.

Reference No. Specimen Beam Fy;actual Mn Mf − pr Mmax − test Total rotation

ID section E (kNm) (kNm) angle (radian)
CprRyFyZb (kNm) ϕdRyFyZb (kNm)

Lee [12] 1 DB700-MB H700 × 300 × 13 × 24 1.520 2422 2019 1996 1997 0.0300
2 DB700-SB H700 × 300 × 13 × 24 1.520 2422 2019 1996 1896 0.0150
Chen [5] 3 CHPC1 H600 × 300 × 12 × 20 1.360 1684 1403 1303 1420 0.0553
4 CHPC2 H600 × 300 × 12 × 20 1.360 1684 1403 1200 1420 0.0588
5 CHPC3 H600 × 300 × 12 × 20 1.360 1684 1403 1200 1409 0.0508
6 CHYC1 H600 × 300 × 12 × 20 1.360 1684 1403 1473 1409 0.0404
7 CHYC2 H600 × 300 × 12 × 20 1.360 1684 1403 1422 1409 0.0405
Anderson [15] 8 AD13 w21 × 68 1.638 1171 976 1018 1010 0.0302
Tsai [16] 9 SB1 w21 × 62 1.585 1054 879 974 800 0.0276
10 SB2 w21 × 62 1.585 1054 879 951 800 0.0243
11 SB3 w21 × 62 1.585 1054 879 895 825 0.0276
Iwankiw [7] 12 DBT2B w36 × 150 2.169 4152 3610 3067 3091 0.0331
Mean of the total rotation angle 0.0361
Standard deviation of the total rotation angle 0.0133

Therefore, for new buildings with IMF systems, it is important to de-
sign RBS-B connections that prevent connection fracture by using
Eq. (1) with an accurate estimate of connection moment strength. To
ensure a high likelihood that the predicted connection moment
strength (Mn) is smaller than the actual connection moment strength
(Mmax − test), Eq. (4) is calibrated using ϕd = 0.85. As shown in Fig. 3
(c), moment strength computed using Eq. (4) with ϕd = 0.85 is smaller
than the actual Mn for the selected 12 specimens which were fractured
during tests listed in Table 1, which indicates that Eq. (4) using
ϕd = 0.85 predicts the occurrence of fracture precisely for fracture-
prone specimens. In Fig. 3(d), Mmax − test/Mn of 19 fracture-resistant
specimens listed in Table 2 are plotted. Five out of 19 specimens had
Mmax − test/Mn greater than 0.85, and 14 specimens had Mmax − test/Mn
less than 0.85. The error in prediction of fracture occurrence for frac-
ture-resistant specimens using Eq. (4) with ϕd = 0.85 is 5/19 (5
among 19 specimens) and the error for both fracture-resistant and frac-
ture-prone specimens is 5/31 (5 among 31 specimens). The error may
be attributed to the potential for overestimating Mf − pr in Eq. (2) by
neglecting local buckling at the beam RBS section. Therefore, this
study adopted ϕd = 0.85 for Eq. (4). In other words, connections are
classified as fracture-prone connection when Mf − pr/Mn is greater than
0.85, otherwise they are fracture-resistant.
3. Rotation capacities of fracture-prone RBS-B moment connections
As mentioned earlier, the rotation capacity of RBS-B connections
designed according to ANSI/AISC-358 [10] may not guarantee 2% ra-
dians required for IMF systems. In order to gain insight into the rota-
tion capacity of RBS-B connections that are likely to experience
fracture of the beam-to-column flange groove welds, we collected
the test results of 31 RBS-B connection specimen tests, from which
the rotation capacities are summarized in Table 1 for 12 RBS-B speci-
mens that experienced fracture occurring near the beam flange
groove welds (fracture-prone specimens), and 19 RBS-B specimens
that failed in ways other than fracture near the beam flange groove
welds (fracture-resistant specimens).
As shown in Table 2, all fracture-resistant specimens have a rota-
tion capacities greater than 3% radian (mean of 4.46% radian with a
standard deviation of 1.10% radian), whereas fracture-prone speci-
mens have rotation capacities ranging from 1.5% to 6% radian with a
mean of 3.61% radian and a standard deviation of 1.33% radian.
Among the 12 fracture-prone specimens, the rotation capacity of
one specimen (DB 700-SB) is less than 2% radian, which is the limiting
value for IMF systems. Specimens DB 700-SB and DB 700-MB
(W17 × 271 column section and W27 × 123 beam section) were

Table 2
Moment strength and total rotation angle of fracture-resistant RBS-B specimens.

Reference No. Specimen ID Beam Mn Mf − pr Mmax − test Total

section (kNm) (kNm) rotation
CprRyFyZb (kNm) ϕdRyFyZb (kNm)
angle
(radian)

Tremblay [4] 1 TRS2A w21 × 62 876 762 588 633 0.0468

2 TRS3 w21 × 62 876 762 588 613 0.0316
3 TRS4 w21 × 62 876 762 588 609 0.0316
4 TRSC1 w21 × 62 876 762 588 651 0.0414
5 TRSC2 w21 × 62 876 762 588 652 0.0316
Engelhardt [8] 6 TAMUDBBWSPZC-N w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 3048 0.0400
7 TAMUDBBWSPZC-S w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 3033 0.0400
8 TAMUDBWSPZ-N w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 2740 0.0300
9 TAMUDBWSPZ-S w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 2730 0.0300
10 UTADBBWC-N w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 3504 0.0700
11 UTADBBW-N w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 2784 0.0500
12 UTADBBW-S w36 × 150 4152 3610 3264 2809 0.0500
13 UTADBBWWPZ-N w36 × 150 4152 3610 3596 2990 0.0550
14 UTADBBWWPZ-S w36 × 150 4152 3610 3596 2589 0.0400
Iwankiw [7] 15 DBT1A w30 × 99 2230 1939 1801 1733 0.0425
16 DBT1B w30 × 99 2230 1939 1801 1575 0.0510
un* 17 WG2 w33 × 201 5524 4804 3768 3444 0.0373
18 WG3 W36 × 302 9147 7954 6460 6284 0.0349
19 WG4 W36 × 302 9147 7954 6460 6822 0.0533
Mean of the total rotation angle 0.0446
Standard deviation of the total rotation angle 0.0110

un⁎: Unpublished report of connection proof tests for a building construction project in southern California; Project title withheld at the request of building owner, January, 1999.
 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263 259

1.2
a No. in table 1 b
1.1 fracture-prone specimens fracture-resistant specimens
Mf-pr/Mn (FEMA350)
1 9
10 6 13,14
0.9 8 1,2
7 15,16
11 6~12
0.8
3 12
No. in table 2
0.7 4,5
18,19
1~5 17
0.6

0.5
1.2
c 9 d
1.1 10 6
8 1,2 13,14
Mf-pr/Mn (AISC358)

1 7
11 15,16
3 6~12
0.9 12

0.8 4,5
1~5 18,19
17
0.7

0.6 fracture-prone specimens fracture-resistant specimens

0.5
400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Beam depth, d (mm) Beam depth, d (mm)

Fig. 2. Mf − pr/Mn for RBS-B specimens: Mn is computed using (a) FEMA 350 for fracture-prone specimens, (b) FEMA 350 for fracture-resistant specimens, (c) AISC 358 for fracture-
prone specimens, and (d) AISC 358 for fracture-resistant specimens.

1.2
a b
1.1
Mmax-test /Mn (FEMA350)

fracture-prone specimens fracture-resistant specimens

No. in table 1
1

0.9 3~7 No. in table 2

8
1 10
0.8 11 2 12 4,5 15 19
6,7
9,10 1 13
0.7 16 11,12
2,3 8,9 18
0.6 17 14

0.5
1.2
c d
1.1
Mmax-test / Mn (AISC358)

8 3~7
1 1
11 10
2
0.9 9,10 12 15 19
4,5 6,7
1 16 13
0.8 11,12 18
2,3
8,9
0.7 17
14
0.6 fracture-prone specimens fracture-resistant specimens
0.5
400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Beam depth, d (mm) Beam depth, d (mm)

Fig. 3. Ratio of actual and predicted moment strength (Mn − test/Mn)(a) FEMA 350 for fracture-prone specimens, (b) FEMA 350 for fracture-resistant specimens, (c) AISC 358 for
fracture-prone specimens, and (d) AISC 358 for fracture-resistant specimens.
260 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263

1.2
a) fracture-resistant specimens b) fracture-prone specimens

Normalized moment (M/Mf-pr)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
θ t (radian) θt (radian)

Fig. 4. Backbone curve of RBS-B connection moment-total rotation response for; (a) fracture-resistant specimens, (b) fracture-prone specimens.

a) fracture-resistantRBS-B (ductile) b) fracture-proneRBS-B (brittle)

M M

Mn
Mf-pr
Mf-pr
Mn
Mf-y buckling Mf-y fracture

yielding
yielding

Fig. 5. Conceptual plot of the moment-total rotation behavior of RBS-B connections.

designed to have a strong and balanced panel zone, respectively [9].
The beam had a radius-cut reduced beam section. Specimen DB
700-SB performed poorly due to brittle fracture across the beam
flange at the weld access hole. This was attributed to web bolt slip-
page resulting in an abrupt increase in higher strain demand near
the beam flange groove welds. Subsequently, the specimen provided
only a small rotation capacity (b2%) due to brittle connection frac-
ture. Specimen DB 700-MB also experienced web bolt slippage during
the test, but the panel zone dissipated energy more significantly. This
resulted in a larger rotation capacity (3%). Bolt slippage was consis-
tently observed during past tests of pre-Northridge (welded flange
and bolted web) connections [17–20]. This bolt slippage was
considered to have contributed to the weld fractures observed in
most specimens with this type of connection. Such unexpected frac-
ture can reduce the rotation capacity of the connection.
It is, therefore, important to propose an empirical equation that
can predict the rotation capacities of fracture-prone RBS-B connec-
tions. This equation can be used to compute the rotation capacity of
the RBS-B connections in existing IMF systems. If the rotation capacity
of such connections is smaller than 2% radian, these connections
should be repaired to increase their rotation capacity.
Uang and Fan [21] conducted a comprehensive investigation of
the relationship between the plastic rotation capacity, θp of RBS mo-
ment connections and the three slenderness parameters: flange

6%
a b c
θ t (radian)

4%

2%

R² = 0.0075 R² = 0.2005 R² = 0.372

0%
50 60 70 80 90 1.2 1.7 2.2 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
d (cm) Fy,actual /E (x103) Mf-pr /Mn

Fig. 6. Total rotation capacities (θt) of fracture-prone RBS-B connections with respect to (a) d, (b) Fy, actual/E, and (c) Mf − pr/Mn.
 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263 261

7% corresponding to the maximum probable moment of the RBS of the

beam (Mf − pr), resulting in ductile behavior (typically θt N3% radian).
6% For such connections, there is significant strength degradation beyond
Mf − pr because of local buckling. For fracture-prone connections [Fig. 5
5% (b)], the moment demand transferred from the beam RBS exceeds the
θt-actual (radian)

connection moment strength at the column face. This is likely to cause

4%
3%
2%
1%
R2=0.703
0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
θt-predict (radian)
Fig. 7. Comparison between the actual and predicted rotation capacities of fracture-
prone RBS connections.
local buckling slenderness, web local buckling slenderness, and later-
al–torsional buckling slenderness. They reported that the connection
rotation capacity was influenced by slenderness parameters, and pro-
posed an empirical equation for estimating the connection rotation
capacity on the basis of specimens with a plastic rotation capacity
greater than 2% radian. Lignos [22] quantified the dependence of plas-
tic rotation (θp) on beam depth (d), the shear span to depth ratio of
the beam (L/d), and the slenderness parameters. He proposed an
equation for predicting θp irrespective of the connection failure
mode. It was observed that θp became smaller as the slenderness pa-
rameters increased.
Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows the moment-total rotation response enve-
lope curves extracted from the hysteretic curves of the 19 fracture-re-
sistant and 12 fracture-prone RBS-B connection specimens,
respectively. As Fig. 4(a) shows, the moment strength of fracture-re-
sistant RBS-B specimens gradually deteriorated because of the local
buckling after specimens attained their peak moment strength. In
contrast, for the fracture-prone RBS-B specimens [Fig. 4(b)], fracture
occurred at the connection prior to gradual moment strength degra-
dation. This indicates that the effect of slenderness parameters on
the rotation capacity of fracture-prone RBS-B connections is not as
significant as it is for fracture-resistant RBS moment connections. In-
stead, the moment strength ratio Mf − pr/Mn is a more important pa-
rameter that affects the connection rotation capacity (θt).
Fig. 5 shows a conceptual moment-total rotation response for frac-
ture-resistant and fracture-prone RBS-B connections. As shown in
Fig. 5(a), the connection does not fail by fracturing the beam flange
groove welds because the beam-to-column connection moment
strength Mn is larger than the moment demand on the column face
connection fracture when the moment demand exceeds the connection
moment strength Mn at the column face before sufficient rotation of the
connection is developed. The rotation capacity of the RBS-B connection
is, therefore, strongly affected by the moment ratio, Mf − pr/Mn.
4. Empirical equations for computing rotation capacities for
fracture-prone RBS-B connections
In order to propose an empirical equation for computing the rota-
7% tion capacities of fracture-prone RBS-B connections, we must consid-
er the variables used in the existing equations for RBS connections. In
FEMA 355-D [23], the empirical equation for computing the plastic
rotation capacity (θp) of RBS connections is provided with respect to
beam depth (d). As mentioned earlier, Uang and Fan [21] proposed
an empirical equation for computing fracture-resistant RBS-B connec-
tions with respect to three different parameters: the flange-width-to-
thickness ratio (bf/2tf), the web depth to thickness ratio (h/tw), and
the yield strength (Fy). Lignos [22] also proposed an equation for
computing θp for RBS connections with respect to bf/2tf, h/tw, and
beam depth (d).
In this study, local stability parameters (bf/2tf, h/tw) are excluded
from the variable list because they do not affect the rotation capacity
of fracture-prone RBS-B connections as shown in Figs. 4(b) and 5(b).
Therefore, the parameters considered are: beam actual yield strength
normalized by the Young modulus (Fy, actual/E), beam depth (d), and
moment strength ratio (Mf − pr/Mn). Note that the connection mo-
ment strength Mn is computed using Eq. (3) with ϕd = 0.85. Fig. 6
shows the total rotation capacity (θt) of the 12 fracture-prone connec-
tion specimens with respect to d, Fy, actual/E and Mf − pr/Mn parameters.
Rotation capacity (θt) becomes smaller with an increase of Fy, actual/E
and Mf − pr/Mn. The effect of beam depth (d) on θt is small [Fig. 6(a)],
compared to Fy, actual/E and Mf − pr/Mn.
Nonlinear regression analysis is performed using Fy, actual/E and
Mf − pr/Mn to propose the following equation for computing the total
rotation (θt) of fracture-prone RBS-B connections:

−1:545

Fy;actual 3 Mf −pr −2:3332
θt ¼ 0:0629 ×10 ð5Þ
E Mn
Total rotation θt computed using Eq. (5) can be treated as mean θt
(μθt). The standard deviation of θt (σθt) was also calculated, which is
0.0075. Fig. 7 shows the accuracy of the proposed empirical equation
for θt. If Fy, actual is not available, RyFy is recommended for use in Eq. (5).

4%
a b c
3%
θ t (radian)

2%

1%
RyFy=379MPa (55ksi) RyFy=417MPa (60.5ksi) RyFy=455MPa (66ksi)
0%
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Mf-pr /Mn Mf-pr /Mn Mf-pr /Mn
Fig. 8. Total rotation capacity θt of RBS-B connection for US A992 W-sections.
262 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263

This study estimated θt using Eq. (5) for RBS-B connections having a 1
Mf − pr/Mn ratio less than 1 (0.85–1.0) that are predicted to experience
0.8
connection fracture. For the A992 sections, Ry is specified as 1.1 [10] and

P (θ t ≥2%)
Fy ranges from 345 (50ksi) to 448 MPa (65ksi). In this study, we used
0.6
379, 417, and 455 MPa as representative RyFy values for beam mean
yield strength. 0.4
Fig. 8 shows θt for the tested connections with respect to Mf − pr/Mn RyFy
in which μθt and μθt-σθt are also plotted. As Fig. 8 (a) shows, RBS-B con- 0.2
379MPa (55ksi)
417MPa (60.5ksi)
nections having beam mean yield strength of 379 and 417 MPa provide 455MPa (66ksi)
μθt larger than 0.02 rad regardless of Mf − pr/Mn whereas μθt-σθt is less 0
than 0.02 when Mf − pr/Mn exceeds 0.93 and 0.87, respectively. For 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
RBS-B connections having a beam mean yield strength (RyFy) of Mn/Mf-pr
455 MPa, μθt becomes less than 0.02 when Mf − pr/Mn exceeds 0.94,
and μθt-σθt never exceed 0.02 for the entire range of Mf − pr/Mn. Fig. 9. RBS-B total connection rotation probability P(θt ≥ 2%) with respect to the RBS
beam design factor Mn/Mf − pr.

5. Beam properties in RBS-B connections assuring θt ≥ 2% radian

RyFy = 379 MPa, 417 MPa, and 455 Mpa. As expected, smaller Mf − pr/
The probability that the RBS-B connection total rotation θt ≥2%radian Mn makes the expected connection behavior (brittle connection frac-
can be written as shown in Eq. (8) with an assumption that θt follows the ture) more likely. Fig. 10 shows the ZRBS/Zb and Lph/Lb interaction lines
normal distribution: representing the 50, 84, and 98% assurance levels for θt ≥ 2% radian.
! The region between the origin and the corresponding line represents
2% radian−μ θt the pairs of RBS-B connection design parameters that provide a se-
P ðθt ≥2% radianÞ ¼ 1−Φ ð6Þ
σθt lected probability of achieving a total RBS-B connection rotation ca-
pacity (θt) larger than 2% radian. Given the same beam depth,
where μθt and σθt are the mean and standard deviation of θt, respectively.
Thus, for the x% assurance level [P(θt ≥2%radian)=x%], the mean value of 0.3
θt is derived from the following equations. a
0.25
!
2% radian−μθt
1−Φ ¼ x% ð7Þ 0.2
σθt
Lph /Lb

! 0.15
2% radian−μθt
Φ ¼ 1−x% ð8Þ
σθt 0.1

−1 0.05
μθt ¼ 2% radian−σθt Φ ð1−x%Þ ð9Þ
0
Since the mean value of the total RBS-B connection rotation can be 0.3
computed using Eq. (5), and the standard deviation of the total RBS-B b
connection rotation σθt is 0.0075 rad (Fig. 7), Eq. (9) can be re-written 0.25
as Eqs. (8) and (9).
0.2

−1:600

Ry Fy Mf −pr −2:315
Lph /Lb

3 −1
0:0582 ×10 ¼ 0:02−0:0075Φ ð1−x%Þ 0.15
E Mn
ð10Þ
0.1
By re-arranging Eq. (10), Mf − pr/Mn with x% assurance level
0.05
[(Mf − pr/Mn)x%] can be obtained.

 "

1:600 #ð−2:315

1
Þ
0
Mf −pr 0:02 0:0075 −1 Ry F y 3 0.3
¼ − Φ ð1−x%Þ ×10 c
Mn x% 0:0582 0:0582 E
0.25
ð11Þ
0.2
Using Eqs. (1) and (2), Mf − pr/Mn can be expressed as:
Lph /Lb

Lb =2 0.15
Mf −pr Cpr Ry Fy ZRBS Lb =2−Lph Cpr ZRBS 1
¼ ¼ ð12Þ
Mn Zb Ry Fy Zb 1−2Lph =Lb 0.1

Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (11) and re-arranging for Lph/Lb, 0.05

Cpr ZRBS 1 0
Lph =Lb ¼ 0:5−   ð13Þ 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
2Zb M f −pr =Mn
x% ZRBS/Zb
Fig. 9 shows the assurance level for RBS-B connection θt ≥ 2% Fig. 10. Beam parameters ZRBS/Zb and Lph/Lb for 50, 84, and 98% assurance levels of RBS-
radian with respect to Mf − pr/Mn (assume Cpr = 1.15) for B connection providing θt ≥ 2% radian.
 S.W. Han et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 70 (2012) 256–263
longer beams with larger section reductions are more likely to pro-
vide the expected connection rotation capacity.
6. Conclusions
We observed that RBS-B connections designed in compliance with
the current seismic design provisions may experience connection frac-
ture prior to reaching the total rotation capacities assumed by the de-
sign codes. Some RBS-B connections have total rotation capacities less
than 2% radian, the capacity required for connections in IMF systems
by ANSI/AISC-358. To assess the total rotation capacities of RBS-B con-
nections, we proposed an empirical equation for computing the total ro-
tation capacities of fracture-prone RBS-B connections derived from test
data using nonlinear regression analysis. We examined the RBS-B con-
nections for typical US A992 W-shape beam sections, and estimated
the total rotation capacities of RBS-B connections for these beams. Our
findings indicate that some RBS-B connections designed using the cur-
rent design practice may have total rotation capacities smaller than 2%
radian. We also proposed equations of Mf − pr/Mn for a given assurance
level for θt ≥ 2% radian (Mf − pr/Mn)x% and Lph/Lb with (Mf − pr/Mn)x%.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was sponsored by the Korean Re-
search Foundation (2009–0086384) and SRC/ERC (R11-2005-0049733).
The valuable comments offered by two anonymous reviewers are greatly
appreciated.
References
[1] Malley J. SAC steel project: summary of phase 1 testing investigation results. Eng
Struct 1998;20(4–6):300–9.
[2] Stojadinovic B, Goel SC, Lee KH. Parametric test on unreinforced steel moment
connections. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2000;126(1) [40_9].
[3] Sotirov P, Rangelov N, Ganchev O, Georgiev T, Milev J, Petkov Z. Influence of
haunching. Moment resisting connections of steel frames in seismic area, design
and reliability. E& FN SPON; 2000. [Chapter 3.3].
[4] Tremblay R, Tchebotarev N, Filiatrault A. Seismic performance of RBS connection
for steel moment resisting frames: influence of loading rate and floor slab.
Proceeding, Stessa 1997, August 4–7, Kyoto, Japan; August 4–7 1997.
263
[5] Chen SJ, Yeh CH, Chu JM. Ductile steel beam-to-column connections for seismic
resistance. J Struct Eng 1996;122(11):1292–9.
[6] Plumier A. The dogbone: back to the future. Eng J 1997;34(2) [61_7].
[7] Iwankiw NR, Carter C. The dogbone: a new idea to chew on. Mod Steel Constr
1996;36(4):18–23.
[8] Engelhardt MD, Fry GT, Jones SL, Venti MJ, Holliday SD. Behavior and design of
radius-cut, reduced beam section connections. SAC/BD-00/17. Sacramento, Calif:
SAC Joint Venture; 2000.
[9] Lee CH, Kim JH, Jeon SW, Kim JH. Influence of panel zone strength and beam web
connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel mo-
ment connections. Proceedings of the CTBUH 2004 Seoul Conference — Tall Build-
ings for Historical Cities, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Bethlehem,
PA; 2004.
[10] AISC. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames
for seismic applications. ANSI/AISC 358–05. Chicago, Ill: American Institute of
Steel Construction; 2005.
[11] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 341–05. Chicago,
Ill: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.
[12] Lee CH, Jeon SW, Kim JH, Uang CM. Effects of panel zone strength and beam web
connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel mo-
ment connections. J Struct Eng 2005;131(12):1854–65.
[13] Han SW, Moon KH, Stojadinovic B. Design equations for moment strength of RBS-
B connections. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(5):1087–95.
[14] SAC Joint Venture. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-
frame buildings. FEMA-350. Calif: Richmond; 2000.
[15] Anderson J, Duan X. Repair/upgrade procedures for welded beam to column con-
nections. (PEER 98/03). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; May
1998.
[16] Tsai KC, Chen CY. Performance of ductile steel beam-column moment connec-
tions. Paper No. 405 in Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco; June 1996.
[17] Krawinkler H, Popov EP. Seismic behavior of moment connections and joints. J
Struct Div ASCE 1982;1082:373–91.
[18] Tsai KC, Popov EP. Steel beam-column joints in seismic moment resisting frames.
EERC Rep. No. UCB/EERC-88/19. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California; 1988.
[19] Ricles JM, Mao C, Lu LW, Fisher JW. Inelastic cyclic testing of welded unreinforced
moment connections. J Struct Eng 2002;128(4):429–40.
[20] Han SW, Kwon GU, Moon KH. Cyclic behaviour of post-Northridge WUF-B con-
nections. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:365–74.
[21] Uang CM, Fan CC. Cyclic stability criteria for steel moment connections with re-
duced beam section. J Struct Eng 2001;127(9):1021–7.
[22] Lignos D. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic ex-
citations. PhD thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif.; 2008.
[23] Roeder CW. State of the art report on connection performance. SAC Rep. No.
FEMA-355D. Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.