Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal
American Institute of Steel Construction
www.aisc.org
ABSTRACT
This paper presents information on the combined contribution of post-tensioning and beam-to-column joint rocking connections in self-
centering steel plate shear walls (SC-SPSWs) with the NewZ-BREAKSS connection (i.e., NZ-SC-SPSW). Detailed free-body diagrams devel-
oped and presented in this paper provide insights on the basic, fundamental kinematic behavior of this lateral force-resisting system. The
fundamental equations presented provide information on the behavior of SC-SPSWs and are suitable to facilitate design. These are needed
for the implementation and understanding of these types of self-centering steel frame systems.
Keywords: rocking connection; self-centering; steel plate shear wall; moment frame; seismic response; resilient structure; seismic
performance.
V BE
Infill Web
Gap Plate (Typ.)
Stiffener Plate HBE
(b) (c)
Fig. 1. NZ-SC-SPSW: (a) rocking joints; (b) rocking joint detail; (c) yield mechanism.
Fig. 2. Idealized hysteretic response of NZ-SC-SPSW: (a) cycle 1; (b) cycle 2.
Wby2
α
Wcy2 Wcx2
Wcy2 H/2
Wcx2 Wbx2
Vi
Ps1 Ps2
Ps1 Wbx1 Ps2
Wcx1
Wcy1 H/2
Wby1 Wcy1
Wcx1
Wby2
1 2 3 4 5
Wbx2
Vi/2 Ps1VBE A B Ps2VBE Vi/2
N.A. y
d
PHBE(VBE) PHBE(VBE)
R Wbx1 Ps2 R
Ps1 R1
R1 = (Wby1 - Wby2)/2 Wby1
R2 = (Wbx1)(d/L) R2
A B
Vi/2 A B
Vi/2
d
Fig. 5. Free-body diagram vertical component. Fig. 6. Partial free-body diagram horizontal component.
Ps1VBE Ps2VBE
A B
y Centerline d
Ps1 Ps2
R3 = (Ps1 - Ps2)(d/2L + y/L) R3
L
Finally, the resulting equations for Ps, for the rightward Substituting Equations 1 and 2, along with the equivalent
drift condition shown in Figure 1c, which includes losses force per unit length quantities for the resultant forces
due to HBE axial shortening, is obtained by substituting defined earlier, into Equation 14, the resulting moment
Equation 9 into Equations 3 and 4, leading to: relationship expressed in terms of the infill web plate yield
forces per unit length along the HBE along zone 1 is:
⎛ k k* ⎞ *
k PT
Ps1 = Po + ⎜ b1 PT* ⎟ Δ drift − * PHBE (VBE )
(12) d d y y d ⎞
⎝ k b1 + k PT ⎠ kb1 + k PT M1 = Ps1(VBE ) ⎛ ⎞ − Ps1 ⎛ x + x ⎞ + Ps 2 ⎛ x + x
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2L L ⎠ ⎝L 2L ⎠
Ps 2 = Po − ⎜
b 2 PT ( )
⎛ k k* + 2 k* 2 ⎞
PT
⎟ Δdrift − k PT
* L
+ ( ω by1 − ω by 2 ) ⎛ x − Rx ⎞
⎝2 ⎠
* PHBE (VBE )
⎜ *
kb 2 + k PT ⎟ kb 2 + k PT
⎝ ⎠ ⎛ dh d 2 dR ⎞
(13) + ( ω cx1 + ω cx 2 ) ⎜ − − ⎟
⎝ 4 4 2 ⎠
where, in Equations 12 and 13, kb1 and kb2 are the HBE axial 2dR d
stiffness along length L1 and L2, respectively. + ω bx1 ⎛ x − dx ⎞ + Vi ⎛ ⎞
⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ 4⎠
(15)
Development of HBE Moments
Similarly, by moment equilibrium at the remaining
The moment distribution to be used in the design of an HBE
sections 2 through 5, the moment distribution along these
incorporating self-centering components can be determined
zones is:
from the free-body diagram of Figure 4. As indicated in that
figure, five locations along the HBE are considered: the two
M2 = Ps1( ⎛ d ⎞ − P ⎛ d x + y x⎞ + P ⎛ y x + d x⎞
segments of HBE where the infill web plate is cut out (thus s VBE )
⎝ 2⎠ s1
⎝ 2L s2
L ⎠ ⎝L 2L ⎠
not connected to the HBE flange), the two segments of the
⎛L x 2 R 2⎞ ⎛dh d 2 dR⎞
HBE between the infill web plate corner cutout and the post- + (ω by1 − ω by 2) ⎜ x − − ⎟ + (ω cx1 + ω cx 2) ⎜ − − ⎟
tension anchor point, and the segment of the HBE between ⎝2 2 2⎠ ⎝4 4 2 ⎠
the post-tension anchor points along the length of the HBE. 2dR d dR d dR d
These locations, for the purpose of presentation, are desig- + ωbx1 ⎛ x − x − ⎞ + ω bx 2 ⎛ x − ⎞ + Vi ⎛ ⎞
⎝ L 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 4⎠
nated as zone 1, zone 2, zone 3, zone 4, and zone 5. The FBD
for zone 1 is shown in Figure 9. (16)
Furthermore, for illustration purposes, in Figure 9 the
horizontal compression reaction at the HBE-to-VBE flange d d y y d ⎞
M3 = Ps1(VBE ) ⎛ ⎞ + Ps1 ⎛ y − x − x ⎞ + Ps 2 ⎛ x + x
rocking point and vertical HBE end reaction (components ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2L L ⎠ ⎝L 2L ⎠
shown in Figure 4) are combined into a single variable C ⎛L x 2 R 2⎞ ⎛dh d 2 dR⎞
and R A, respectively. The determination of the HBE flexural + (ωby1 − ω by 2) ⎜ x − − ⎟ + (ω cx1 + ω cx 2) ⎜ − − ⎟
strength demand then follows by taking moment equilib- ⎝2 2 2⎠ ⎝4 4 2⎠
rium at the HBE section cut 1; the moment relationship in 2dR d dR d dR d
+ω bx1 ⎛ x − x − ⎞ + ω bx 2 ⎛ x − ⎞ + Vi ⎛ ⎞
terms of force resultants is: ⎝ L 2 2 ⎠ ⎝2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 4⎠
(17)
Ps1VBE Ps1VBE
d/2
Ps1 y Ps1 HBE d
1
C d/2
VBE
A
h P1
h-y
M1
V1
RA
Ps1 - Ps1VBE x
Fig. 8. Reduced post-tension force on HBE. Fig. 9. Free-body diagram along zone 1.
3 Rigid
RigidLink
Distance "y" below Element
P.T. Beam
HBE Centerline
Cont. VBE
P.T. Length
Joint Constraints Joint Constraints
Node 1 & 2: Vert. DOF Node 1 & 2 (master): Vert. DOF
Node 3 & 4: Vert. and Rotational DOF
Node 2 & 5: Vert. and Rotational DOF Legend
Legend Fixed Node
Moment Release Frame Element (Truss Element For P.T.)
RigidLink Beam
Fixed Node
SAP2000 OpenSees
Fig. 11. NewZ-BREAKSS connection model.
7'-0"
W8x18 HBE
2'-3" 2'-3"
26 GA
W8x15 HBE
Full Height W6x25 VBE
Infill Web
24 GA Plate Strips (Typ.)
W8x18 HBE
Pinned At
22 GA Base (Typ.)
683"
W6x20 HBE
1'-0"
(a) (b)
R +Δ R1
20 2xTo L= (28)
sin α
15 PT yield Next, the axial tensile deformation of the infill web strip
10 due to gap opening is (using the geometry of triangle 5-6-7):
5
δ = ( Δgap ) cos ( 90 − α ) (29)
(a) 0
30
1xAPT
25 2xAPT
Base Shear (kips)
3xAPT
20 4xAPT
5xAPT Infill Web Plate
15
Corner Radius Cut-Out
10
Gap Formation
5
Infill Web Plate
0 Tension-Field
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(b) Roof Drift (%)
Fig. 15. PT boundary frame: (a) To variable; (b) APT variable. Fig. 16. HBE-to-VBE joint gap formation.
R ΔR1 d d
2 3 γ
δ ip'
R str
90°−α R+ΔR2
ip
ip
7
str
str
ΔR2 α 6 5
1 L Δgap
1 1
x1
ip
3% drift
4% drift beam growth does develop for the NewZ-BREAKSS rock-
15 ing connection, contrary to what was initially assumed
(insignificant compared to connections rocking about their
10
top and bottom HBE flanges but, nonetheless, required to
5 be understood). As a result of this observation, closer scru-
tiny of the kinematics of this connection has lead to a better
(a) 0 understanding of beam growth; equations that could be used
to inform design and optional modifications to the NewZ-
15 BREAKSS detail to completely eliminate beam-growth
TOTAL effects are presented.
Rocking The analytical relationship for unrestrained beam growth
Axial Strain (%)
Gap Opening
Drift D1
h1
θ+Δθ
d VB
E (aft
er r
o tati
h1 on)
θ+Δθ
ΔV
L
ΔH2 ΔH1
dVBE
Parallelogram
θ Reference Lines θ+Δθ (before rotation)
LHBE - ΔH2 h1 + D1
tan ( θ + Δθ ) ≅
h1
[ tan (θ)] (52)
Fig. 21. Frame beam-growth kinematics: free-body diagram 2.
Typ.
Add'l PT For
Clamping Force
Semi-Spherical
Bearing Plate
(Circular Bar Cut
Longitudinally)
(a) (b)
ABSTRACT
Compression member strength is controlled by the limit states of flexural buckling, torsional buckling, and flexural-torsional buckling, as
applicable. These compression members may buckle globally or locally, depending on the overall column slenderness and the local plate
element slenderness for the plates that make up the shape. If any of the plate elements will buckle at a stress lower than that which would
cause the column to buckle globally, the local buckling of the plate will control the overall column strength. When this occurs, the column is
said to be composed of slender elements.
This paper will briefly discuss past specification provisions for slender element compression members and introduce the new provisions in the
2016 AISC Specification. It will present a simplification that reduces the number of constants that must be used and will present the specifica-
tion requirements in an alternate format. Because the 2016 requirements result in different strengths than the 2010 requirements, figures are
provided to illustrate the overall impact of these changes on column strength.
Key Words: compression members, plate buckling, slender elements, AISC Specification.
2016 SLENDERNESS PROVISIONS —SIMPLIFIED Substituting Fel from Equation 3 into Equation E7-3 yields
Because these provisions require the use of the tabulated
⎛ Fel ⎞ Fel
limiting slenderness ratio from Table B4.1a and the con- be = b ⎜1 − c1
stants c1 and c2 from Table E7.1 each time a particular type ⎝ Fcr ⎟⎠ Fcr
element is considered, it may be helpful for the user to com- ⎡ ⎛ c c kc E ⎞
2 ⎤ 2
bine them all one time and then use this new equation. To ⎢ ⎥ ⎛ c2 c3 kc E ⎞
⎜ 2 3 Fy ⎟ ⎜ Fy ⎟
accomplish this simplification, the limits from Table B4.1a ⎢
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ Fy ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ Fy
⎢ b t ⎥ b t
kc E ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
are taken as λ r = c3 , so that the resulting equation can ⎢ ⎥
Fy = b ⎢1 − c1
Fcr ⎥ Fcr
be used for all cases covered in that table except for ⎣ ⎦
round HSS. The variable kc is taken as 1.0 for all cases in (4)
Table B4.1a, except Case 2 (flanges of built-up I-shaped sec-
tions and plates or angles projecting from built-up I-shaped which simplifies to
sections), where it can vary from 0.35 to 0.76 (no change
from earlier Specifications). Thus, the limit on application kc E ⎡ c1c2 c3 kc E ⎤
be = c2 c3t ⎢1 − ⎥ (5)
of Equation E7-3 becomes
Fcr ⎣ (b t ) Fcr ⎦
b Fy kc E Fy kc E Combining the constants in Equation 5 yields
= λ > λr = c3 = c3 (2)
t Fcr Fy Fcr Fcr
kc E ⎡ c5 kc E ⎤
be = c4 t ⎢1 − ⎥ (6)
Then determine Fel in terms of c3. Thus, Fcr ⎣ ( b t ) Fcr ⎦
2 2
⎡ ⎛ kc E ⎞ ⎤ ⎛c c k c E ⎞ where c4 = c2 c3 and c5 = c1c2 c3.
⎛ λr ⎞
2
⎢ ⎜ c3 Fy ⎟ ⎥⎥ ⎜ 2 3 Fy ⎟ For all cases in Table B4.1a, except for round HSS for
Fel = ⎜c 2 ⎟ Fy = ⎢c2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ Fy = ⎜ ⎟ Fy
⎝ λ⎠ bt bt which the specification provisions are different and remain
⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
⎣ ⎝ ⎦ essentially unchanged from 2010, the constants are as tabu-
lated in Table 1.
(3)
h E
2 HSS16×4×x 46 = 89 1.40 = 35.2
t Fy
d E
3 WT15×45 50 = 31.5 0.75 = 18.1
tw Fy
d E
4 L5×3×14 36 = 20 0.45 = 12.8
t Fy
br E
= 24 0.56 = 13.5
Built-up I-shape (slender flange) 2t f Fy
5 Flange: 24 in. × ½ in. 50
h E
Web: 24 in. × ¾ in. = 32 1.49 = 35.9
tw Fy
br E
= 24 0.56 = 13.5
Built-up I-shape (slender flange and web) 2t f Fy
6 Flange: 24 in. × ½ in. 50
h E
Web: 24 in. × ½ in. = 48 1.49 = 35.9
tw Fy
Thus, for webs of doubly symmetric rolled I-shaped sec- IMPACT OF 2016 PROVISIONS
tions—Case 5 in Table B4.1a and Case (a) in Table E7.1—
It is the intent of these new 2016 provisions to reduce the
the following constants are determined:
complex nature of the previous slender element provisions
c1 = 0.18
and to present a unified approach for both stiffened and
c2 = 1.31
unstiffened elements. In some instances, the changes imple-
c3 = 1.49
mented for 2016 will have little to no impact on the strength
c4 = 1.95
of slender element compression members, while in other
c5 = 0.351
instances, they may yield a significant increase in predicted
and Equation E7-3 becomes, from Equation 6, strength. Where significant strength increase is seen with
the 2016 provisions, the overly conservative nature of the
E ⎡ 0.351 E ⎤ previous provisions has been reduced.
be = 1.95t ⎢1 − ⎥ (7)
Fcr ⎢⎣ ( ) cr ⎥⎦
b t F Figures 1 through 6 illustrate the nominal strength for
several slender element compression members, showing the
This effective width equation is very close to Equation E7-17 results of the 2010 provisions and those of the 2016 provi-
from the 2010 Specification, with the constants only slightly sions. As an aid to understanding the overall significance of
different. In addition, Fcr here is the same as ƒ in Equation slender elements on reducing column strength, the nominal
E7-17. The 2016 provisions are rewritten using Equation 6 strength, with the reduction for slender elements ignored, is
and presented in full in this paper’s Appendix. also shown. The shapes used for Figures 1 through 6 and
The same comparison to the 2010 Specification cannot be their element slenderness values are tabulated in Table 2.
made for unstiffened elements because the effective width In each of the cases presented, the rolled shape was
approach in the 2016 Specification is a new approach for selected because it is the one with the most slender element
those elements. for that shape. The built-up shape was selected as an extreme
case to illustrate the significance of the new provisions for
800
2016
600
w/o Slender Elements
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40
Effective Length, Lcr (KL), ft
Fig. 1. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength, W30×90, Fy = 50 ksi.
200
2016
150
w/o Slender Elements
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Effective Length, Lcr (KL), ft
Fig. 2. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength, HSS16×4×x, Fy = 46 ksi.
200
2016
150
w/o Slender Elements
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Effective Length, Lc, (KL)
Fig. 3. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength, WT15×45, Fy = 50 ksi.
40
2016
30
w/o Slender Elements
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective Length, Lc, (KL)
Fig. 4. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength, L5×3×¼, Fy = 36 ksi.
2000
1500
Pn, kips
2010
1000 2016
w/o slender elements
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Effective Length, Lc, (KL)
Fig. 5. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength, 24×24 built-up I-shape, Fy = 50 ksi.
1500
Pn, kips
1000 2010
2016
500 w/o slender elements
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Effective Length, Lc, (KL)
Fig. 6. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 slender element column strength,
24×24 built-up I-shape, slender web and slender flange, Fy = 50 ksi.
E ⎡ 0.246 E ⎤ be = b(A-12)
de = 1.12t ⎢1 − (A-7)
Fcr ⎣ (d t ) Fcr ⎥⎦ b E
(ii) When > 1.40
t Fcr
(d) For single angles, double angles with separators, and
all other unstiffened elements:
E ⎡ 0.330 E ⎤
b E be = 1.83t ⎢1 − b t (A-13)
(i) When ≤ 0.45 Fcr ⎣ ( ) Fcr ⎥⎦
t Fcr
where
b = width of unstiffened compression element, as E ⎡ 0.386 E ⎤
be = 1.93t ⎢1 − (A-15)
defined in Section B4.1, in. (mm)
Fcr ⎣ ( b t ) Fcr ⎥⎦
0.11E D 0.45E
(ii) When < <
Fy t Fy
ABSTRACT
When a plate is subjected to applied loads and significant out-of-plane deformation, the demand on the connection may exceed that derived
from calculations due to the applied loads only. Where inelastic behavior is acceptable, the intent may be to ensure ductile behavior. For plates
with fillet-welded edge connections, this can be accomplished by sizing the fillet welds to develop the strength of the plate.
One specific example of this arises when a brace in a special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) is subject to compression and buckles
out-of-plane. Bending of the gusset plate may demand more of the gusset plate edge connection than the calculated forces that result on
the gusset edge due to the brace force specified in Section F2.6c.2 of AISC 341-16 (AISC, 2016). If not accounted for in the weld size, the
uncalculated weak-axis moment on the welds from out-of-plane bending of the gusset plate might cause rupture of the fillet welds to govern
the behavior of the system.
The method provided in this paper is suitable to determine the minimum size of fillet welds necessary to prevent weld rupture as out-of-plane
deformations occur. It can be used for fillet-welded gusset plate edges in SCBFs to satisfy the exception provided in Section F2.6c.4 of AISC
341-16.
Keywords: gusset plate, fillet welds, special concentrically braced frame, hinge, seismic, connection.
(
ϕrn = 1.392 D 1.0 + 0.5sin1.5 θ ) (11) case—the calculations in this paper are made relative to the
centroids of the effective throats, and the moment arm of
tp + 0.5w is used for consistency.
where This equation is directly useful when checking a design,
⎛ fup + fumx + fumy ⎞ as shown in Examples 1 and 2 at the end of this paper, but
θ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟⎠ (12) requires iteration when designing a connection. Iteration can
⎝ fuv be minimized by assuming a weld size; a reasonable start-
Here, D is the number of sixteenths in the weld size, and the ing assumption is w = tp/ 2, in which case, tp + 0.5w = 1.25tp.
basic weld strength of 1.392D is determined as explained in Alternatively, the weld size can be ignored in design and
Part 8 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2011). the moment arm taken as tp if the resulting penalty is not
Because the quantity in Equation 11 must equal or exceed objectionable.
the quantity in Equation 6, the minimum weld size can be
determined as: COMPARISON TO TEST DATA
fu Table 1 shows the available testing (Johnson, 2005; Roeder,
Dmin = (13)
(
1.392 1.0 + 0.5sin 1.5
θ ) 2015) by which the suitability of the foregoing method can
be judged. Predicted and actual test results are shown as GY
This weld size is sufficient to develop the gusset plate; there- and BR for gusset yielding and brace rupture and WR for
fore, it is unnecessary to also apply the “Richard” 1.25 weld weld rupture. The former is the desired behavior; the latter
ductility factor (AISC, 2011), which is used to address hot is undesirable.
spots in cases where the welds do not develop the gusset Note that weld tearing as testing progresses is not pre-
plate. ventable and should not be confused with weld rupture. The
Equation 10 is based on a moment arm equal to the dis- geometric deformations of the specimens during testing
tance between centroids of the effective throats of the fil- will cause tearing starting at the ends of the welds. As long
let welds taken at 45 degrees in the welds (tp + 0.5w); see as the specimen remains viable and the brace continues to
function through the testing until the brace fractures, it is an
acceptable result. The key concept here is that the weld tear-
ing cannot be unstable and result in complete weld rupture.
Rather, weld tearing must be stable so that gusset yielding
can occur, and ultimately, brace rupture will limit the test.
Tests are available on both sides of the prediction point
of the method, and as can be seen in Table 1, the predic-
tion of the method provided in this paper is correct for all
tests shown. The testing by Roeder (2015) and the two edge
connections in test HSS 01 (Johnson, 2005) are the most rel-
evant because they bound the prediction and all have a weld
size within z in.—the smallest increment of weld size—of
the prediction of the method.
Table 1 also shows a comparison to the use of the
0.6Ry Fytp/αs provision from Section F2.6c.4 of AISC 341-
16, which is easier to use but requires a larger weld size than
the method provided in this paper. Adjusting from weld size
to weld volume to better reflect the impact on the cost of
welding, the difference is from 125% to 300% in the cases
shown in Table 1.
ASD DERIVATION
All of the foregoing information was presented using LRFD
equations. Following are the similar equations for an ASD
Fig. 1. Moment arm for weak-axis bending. solution:
147-158_EJQ316_2015-31.indd 150
General Parameters
L, in. 20 18 17.375 33 29 24 20 24 20 24.5 20.375 24 20
tp, in. 0.5 0.625 0.625 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.375 0.375
w, in. c 4 4 x x 2 2 v v v v c c
Fexx, ksi 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Fy, ksi 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Ry 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Gusset Edge Forces
Pu, kips 84.8 83.6 83.5 64.3 49.1 71.5 54.6 71.5 54.6 71.3 54.5 68.2 52.1
Vu, kips 116 106 92.8 139 124 115 97.7 115 97.7 116 100 109 93.2
Mux, kip-in. 7 59.1 0 6.43 0 7.15 0 7.15 0 10.7 6 6.82 0
Calculated Parameters
P′ 0.171 0.150 0.155 0.0787 0.0684 0.120 0.110 0.120 0.110 0.118 0.108 0.153 0.140
V′ 0.352 0.286 0.259 0.255 0.259 0.290 0.296 0.290 0.296 0.287 0.297 0.367 0.377
6/21/16 2:02 PM
2 4
⎡⎛ M Ω ⎞ 1.7 ⎛ M ay Ω ⎞ 1.7 ⎤
0.59 2 Max
⎛ Pa Ω ⎞ ⎛ Va Ω ⎞ famx = , kips/in. (9a)
⎜⎝ R P ⎟⎠ + ⎜⎝ R V ⎟⎠ + ⎢⎜ ax ⎟ + ⎜ ⎥ ≤1 L2
y y y p ⎢⎣⎝ Ry M px ⎠ ⎝ Ry M py ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
May max
(1a) famy = , kips/in. (10a)
(t p + 0.5w ) L
where
Pa = gusset edge compression force due to brace
rn
Ω
(
= 0.928 D 1.0 + 0.5sin1.5 θ ) (11a)
compression force specified in Section F2.6c.2,
kips
Va = gusset edge shear force due to brace compres- where
sion force specified in Section F2.6c.2, kips ⎛ fap + famx + famy ⎞
θ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟⎠ (12a)
Max = gusset edge strong-axis moment due to brace ⎝ fav
compression force specified in Section F2.6c.2,
kip-in. fa
Dmin = (13a)
May = gusset edge weak-axis moment due to deforma- (
0.928 1.0 + 0.5sin1.5 θ )
tions from brace buckling, kin-in.
Ry Py Ry Fy Lt p
= , the expected compression strength of
Ω 1.67 CONCLUSIONS
the gusset plate edge, kips
The method provided in this paper is suitable to determine
Ry V p 0.6 Ry Fy Lt p
= , the expected shear strength of the the minimum size of fillet welds necessary to prevent weld
Ω 1.5 rupture as out-of-plane deformations occur. It can be used
gusset plate edge, kips for fillet-welded gusset plate edges in special concentrically
Ry M px Ry Fy L2 t p braced frames (SCBFs) to satisfy the exception provided in
= , the expected strong-axis flexural Section F2.6c.4 of AISC 341-16.
Ω 4 (1.67 )
strength of the gusset plate edge, kip-in. REFERENCES
Ry M py Ry Fy Ltp2
= , the expected weak-axis flexural AISC (2011), Steel Construction Manual, 14th Ed., Ameri-
Ω 4 (1.67 )
can Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, p. 8-8.
strength of the gusset plate edge, kip-in. AISC (2012), Seismic Design Manual, 2nd Ed., American
Ry Fy Lt 2p ⎡ 0.59
( )
1 − P′ 2 − V ′ 4 − M ′x1.7 ⎤
1.7 Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
M ay max = (2a)
4 (1.67 ) ⎣⎢ ⎥
⎦ AISC (2016), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Build-
ings, ANSI/AISC 341-16, American Institute of Steel
where
Construction, Chicago, IL.
1.67 Pa
P′ = (3a) Dowswell, B. (2015), “Plastic Strength of Connection Ele-
Ry Fy Lt p ments,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 52, No. 1, First
1.5Va Quarter, pp. 47–65, Chicago, IL.
V′ = (4a)
0.6 Ry Fy Lt p Johnson, S.M. (2005), Improved Seismic Performance of
Special Concentrically Braced Frames, Masters Thesis,
4 (1.67 ) Max University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
M ′x = (5a)
Ry Fy L2 t p Muir, L.S. and Thornton, W.A. (2014), Vertical Bracing
Connections—Analysis and Design, AISC Design Guide
fa = (
f av2 + fap + famx + famy )2 (6a) 29, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Roeder, C. (2015), “Three SCBF Test Reports Provided to
where AISC,” University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Va
fav = , kips/in. (7a)
2L
Pa
fap = , kips/in. (8a)
2L
Pu
fup = (8)
2L
193 kips
=
2 ( 25.75 in.)
= 3.75 kips/in.
Muy max
fum y = (10)
(t p + 0.5w ) L
140 kip-in.
=
⎡⎣0.75 in. + 0.5 ( 0.375 in.)⎤⎦ ( 25.75 in.)
= 5.80 kips/in.
fu = (
fuv2 + fup + fumx + fumy )2 (6)
The a-in. fillet welds shown are adequate for the proposed criterion.
Now compare to the fillet weld size that would be required by the 0.6RyFy tp/αs alternative provision given in Section F2.6c.4 of
AISC 341-16:
These 2-in. fillet welds, though easier to determine, would require 78% more weld metal volume.
fu = (
fuv2 + fup + fumx + fumy )2 (6)
= 15.7 kips/in.
The 2-in. fillet welds shown are adequate for the proposed criterion.
Now compare to the fillet weld size that would be required by the 0.6RyFy tp/αs alternative provision given in Section F2.6c.4 of
AISC 341-16:
These w-in. fillet welds, though easier to determine, would require 125% more weld metal volume.
ABSTRACT
A discussion of several approaches to predicting the flexural strength of beams with holes in the tension flanges is presented. Experimental
data pertinent to the discussion is then presented, summarized and analyzed. It is observed that although provisions in the AISC 360-16
specification predict a net section fracture of the tension flanges in a number of the experiments, many of those beams were able to achieve
their full plastic moment prior to failure. Two alternative models are proposed as improvements to the provisions in AISC 360-16; the merits
and limitations of those models are discussed.
Keywords: beam-to-column connection, moment connection, bolted connection, net section fracture, flange plate connection, T-stub
connection, double-tee connection.
Fig. 2. Beam from connection FS-07 Fig. 3. Beam from connection FS-07. White-wash spalling
after disassembling the connection. indicates the formation of a plastic hinge.
connection FS-10 was discontinued when the connection at The second and third specimens were designed both with
one end of the column failed. Schrauben reported yielding a shear tab and T-stubs, but the T-stubs were configured
and local buckling in the beam flanges and web along with to provide only a partial-strength beam connection. The
extensive yielding in the T-stubs prior to stopping the test. fourth and fifth specimens, indicated in Table 2 as DT04
In all cases—even FS-03, which was stopped after a and DT05, were designed with both a shear tab and T-stubs,
T-stub failure—the maximum moment developed at the face with the tees in DT-04 proportioned to transmit 100% of the
of the column during the experiment exceeded the expected beam plastic moment to the column and the tees in DT05
plastic moment1 of the beam. The experimental moment at proportioned to transmit approximately 125% of the beam’s
the column was, on average, 13% higher than the expected plastic moment (Barbaran, 1996). Values reported for Fy and
plastic moment of the beam. Alternatively, the experimental Fu in Table 2 were measured during material testing per-
moment at the critical beam section was, on average, 4.2% formed at the University of Texas at Austin as reported in
higher than the expected plastic moment of the beam. Larson (1996) for static loading of flat coupons cut from the
beam flange parallel to the direction of rolling. The critical
University of Texas Tests section noted in the table is the net section in the beam at
the row of bolts farthest from the face of the column, though
A series of five full-scale beam-column subassemblies was
it should be noted that Larson and Barbaran indicated the
tested at the University of Texas at Austin in 1996 (Barba-
presence of vacant holes farther from the column face in the
ran, 1996; Larson, 1996). These assemblies consisted of can-
beams of some specimens. The connections were loaded by
tilever beams connected to pinned-pinned columns using
applying a displacement to the ends of the cantilever beams.
a shear tab to resist shear and, in most cases, fully bolted
Connection DT-04 failed when the bolts connecting the
T-stubs to resist moment. The first specimen was designed
T-stubs to the column flange fractured. After disassem-
with a shear-only connection—with a shear tab but without
bling the connection, small fractures near the bolt holes in
T-stubs—so as to investigate the contribution of the shear
the flange of the beam were noted as is shown in Figure 4.
tab and beam web to the moment strength of the connection.
Testing of connection DT-05 was stopped when a fracture of
the beam flange, shown in Figure 4, was noticed. Compar-
ing the maximum moment observed at the critical section
1 When the yield strength was measured, either through mill certification to the expected plastic moment of the section shows that the
or independent testing, the expected plastic moment is defined as Mpe = beams exceeded the expected plastic moment by margins of
Zx Fy,measured. In other cases, the expected plastic moment is defined as
Mpe = Zx Ry Fy.
3% and 19%.
University of Illinois Tests plate to the column flange. In a second case (BFP-08), the
failure was described as a net-section fracture of the flange
Again, as part of the SAC Steel Project, a series of eight full-
plate connecting the beam flange to the column. In all six
scale beam-column subassemblies was tested at the Univer-
remaining cases, the failure was described as a net-section
sity of Illinois (Schneider and Teeraparbwong, 2002). These
fracture of the beam section. Oversized holes were used in
assemblies, summarized in Table 3, consisted of cantilever
the beam flanges in specimens BFP-01 and BFP-06. In spec-
beams connected to columns using bolted flange-plate con-
imens BFP-05 and BFP-07, “clamp plates” were included in
nections to resist moment and shear tab connections to resist
the grip of the bolts at the critical section in an effort to push
shear. Six of the tests incorporated W24×68 beam sections,
flange local buckling away from the net section of the beam
and two incorporated W30×99 beam sections. Column sec-
and mitigate its effect on the net-section strength. Because
tions were W14×120, W14×145 or W14×211 sections. Val-
these plates were not welded to the beam flange, they were
ues reported for Fy and Fu in Table 3 are those reported on
not treated as flange reinforcement herein.
manufacturer’s mill reports. The critical section noted in
In all eight experiments—even BFP-01, which failed with
the table is the net section in the beam at the row of bolts
a HAZ fracture, and BFP-08, which failed with a flange-
farthest from the face of the column. The connections were
plate fracture—the moment developed at the column face
loaded by applying a displacement to the free ends of the
exceeded the expected plastic moment of the beam. The
cantilever beams.
experimental moment at the column face was, on aver-
In one case (BFP-01), the failure was described as a heat-
age, 23% greater than the expected plastic moment of the
affected-zone fracture of the weld connecting the flange
beam. Alternatively, the experimental moment at the critical
Fig. 4. Beam flange fractures in the University of Texas at Austin tests (Larson, 1996:) specimen DT-04 (left) and specimen DT-05 (right).
BFP-01: Oversize Holes, Slip Critical Design BFP-05: Used Clamp Plates Under Last Two Rows of Bolts
BFP-06: Oversized Holes BFP-07: Used Clamp Plates Under Last Two Rows of Bolts
section of the beam was, on average, 4.8% higher than the tab connections to resist shear. Values reported for Fy and
expected plastic moment of the beam. Fu were determined by coupon testing except for BFP-13,
which are those reported on manufacturer’s mill reports.
University of California, San Diego Tests The critical section noted in the table is the net section in
the beam at the row of bolts farthest from the face of the col-
A series of three full-scale bolted flange plate connec-
umn. The connections were loaded by applying a displace-
tions were tested at the University of California–San Diego
ment to the free ends of the cantilever beams.
to examine performance in special moment frames (Sato
In BFP-11 and BFP-13, yielding and local buckling of the
et al., 2007).2 These assemblies, summarized in Table 4,
beam flanges and webs were noted prior to a fracture of the
consisted of cantilever beams connected to columns using
beam flange at the critical section. In both cases, some lat-
bolted flange-plate connections to resist moment and shear
eral-torsional buckling of the beam was observed. In BFP-12,
lateral-torsional buckling of the beam led to the discontinu-
2 Experiments BFP-1, BFP-2 and BFP-3, as reported in Sato et al., have ation of the experiment prior to failure of the beam, column
been renumbered herein as BFP-11, BFP-12 and BFP-13, respectively,
for ease of reference and to avoid confusion with the Illinois tests.
or connection. In all three experiments—even BFP-12—the
1.2
1.0
0.8
Mn / Mpe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Afn / Afg
Fig. 5. Solution space for W-shapes with A992 steel for provisions in AISC 360-16.
1.4
1.2
1.0
+ 0.2278
0.8 (Model 1b)
Mn / Mpe
0.6
0.4
+ 0.1289
0.2
(Model 1a)
0.0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Afn / Afg
Fig. 6. Solution space for W-shapes with A992 steel for proposed models 1a and 1b.
When Fu Afn < Y TFy Afg, this strength model, model 1a, ⎛ A fn ⎞
could be presented mathematically as: Mn = 1.139Fy Z x ⎜ + 0.2⎟ ≤ Fy Z x (10)
⎝ A fg ⎠
Fu A fn ⎛Zx ⎞
Mn = S x + Fy S x ⎜ − YT⎟ (8)
A fg ⎝ Sx ⎠ Proposed Model 2
If the discussion is restricted to W-shapes rolled from The provisions in the double-tee chapter of AISC 358-16
A992 steel, where Fu/Fy = 1.300, Y T = 1.0, and it is observed address limits in the net section of the tension flange that
that on average Z x/Sx = 1.147, then when Fu Afn < Y TFy Afg, will ensure that the plastic moment of the beam can be
model 1a could be presented mathematically as: reached prior to a net-section fracture of the tension flange
occurring. As a result, those provisions make no mention
⎛ A fn ⎞ of a reduction in the flexural strength of a beam when the
Mn = 1.139Fy Z x ⎜ + 0.1132⎟ ≤ Fy Z x (9) design check shown as Equation 7 is not satisfied. Still, a
⎝ A fg ⎠ strength reduction can be inferred from Equation 7 if one
One shortcoming of model 1a, presented as Equation 9, is assumes that the flexural strength would be equal to the
that it would still require a strength reduction for many beams lesser of the net-section moment at Fu and the gross-section
that were shown experimentally to reach their expected plas- plastic moment strength represented by the left-hand side
tic moment. Nine of the 18 beams would require a reduction and right-hand side, respectively, of the inequality in Equa-
in strength, wherein only one of those nine failed to achieve tion 7. Doing so, and limiting the discussion to A992 steel,
its expected plastic moment. In a different context, if these one can show that the moment strength when Z x,net/ Z x is less
nine excluded beams were employed in a BFP connection, than 0.7692 can be represented as shown in Equation 11 and
they would either be deemed not conforming to the specifi- as shown in Figure 7 where the independent parameter is
cation or would require a reinforcement of the net section. presented as the ratio of Z x,net to Z x.
To address this issue, the constant in Equation 9 can be
increased to shift the value of Afn/Afg that results in a need M n = Fu Z x ,net = 1.300 Fy Z x ,net (11)
to reduce the moment strength of the beam. Using a con-
If the 18 admissible data points shown in Figures 5 and
stant of 0.2 instead of 0.1132—as is shown in Equation 10
6 are also plotted on this chart, a regression analysis can be
and as shown as the upper black line in Figure 6, hereafter
performed as is represented by Equation 12 and shown in
referred to as proposed model 1b—results in a reduced beam
Figure 7. The R2 value associated with this regression analy-
strength that matches very well with the regression analysis
sis is 0.4219. This relationship can be extrapolated to provide
of the 18 experimental data points. This would correspond
a moment capacity as shown in Figure 7, hereafter referred
to the requirement of a strength reduction for beams with
to as proposed model 2.
Afn/Afg less than 0.6850, which in turn corresponds to being
able to employ the full plastic moment for all but one of the ⎛ Z x ,net ⎞
beams in the 18 data points. M n = 1.895Fy Z x ⎜ − 0.2699⎟ ≤ Fy Z x (12)
⎝ Zx ⎠
1.4
1.2
1.0 (Model 2)
0.8
Mn / Mpe
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Zx,net / Zx
Fig. 7. Solution space for W-shapes with A992 steel for proposed model 2.
1.2
1.0
0.8
Mn / Mpe
0.6
0.4
(Model 3a)
0.2
0.0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Afn / Afg
Fig. 8. Solution space for W-shapes with A992 steel for proposed model 3a.
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
Model 3: Mn / Mpe
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
Experimental: Mn / Mpe