Sha Back

University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
2001
Behavior of square HSS braces with end connections

under reversed cyclic axial loading
Shaback, J. Brad
Shaback, J. B. (2001). Behavior of square HSS braces with end connections under reversed cyclic
axial loading (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/11257
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/40982
master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Behaviour of Square HSS Braces with End Connections
under Reversed Cyciic Axial Loading
by
J. Brad Sbaback
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CALGARY, ALBERTA
APRIL, 2001
O J. Brad Shaback 2001

B i b l i i u e nationale
1+1 National Library
dcmlada du Canada
*isitions and Acquisitions et
B~MmgraphiiServices services bibrrographiques
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant i la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothrne nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduireypr&ry distciiuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous
paper or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/fdm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these.
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or othenwise de celle-ci ne doivent e e imp~.kes
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
ABSTRACT
The hysteresis behaviour of nine square HSS sections with end connections has
been examined by experimental investigation. Brace slendemess ratio, width-to-thickness
ratio, and end connections were identified as key parameters in the tests. It was shown that
the effective slenderness ratio is the most important parameter governing the hysteresis
behaviour. Out-of-plane deflection of the brace can be accurately predicted using a
simplified geometrical equation or an equation calibrated against the test results. Reduced
compressive capacity, as predicted by the current CSA code, was nonconservative for the
specific loading sequence employed in this series of tests. Quantification of the energy
dissipation proved that the gusset plates account for a small percentage of the total energy
dissipated. The experimental fiacture life of the specimens was most affected by the
width-to-thickness ratio and effective slenderness ratio. An empirical equation was
proposed to determine the theoretical fracture life of an HSS brace.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this project was provided by the following companies: TSE
Steel Ltd., Canam Steel Works, Omega Joists Inc., Triangle Steel, Three Star Steel, Moli
Industries, Atlas Steel, R.I.M.K. Industries, Academy Steel, and Renbec Industries. Canam
Steel Works, TSE Steel Ltd., Infasco, Sureway Metal Systems, Airpac, and Reliable Tube
have provided M e r assistance in the fonn of labour and materials. I f it were not for the
support of the aforementioned companies this work would not have been possible.
Financial support was provided to the author by the Province of Alberta Graduate Student
Scholarship.
The assistance of the technical staff of the M.A. Ward Civil Engineering
Laboratories at the University of Calgary has been greatly appreciated.
A special gratitude of thanks goes to Mr. Sam Yasurnatsu and Mr. John
McCaughey for their tremendous efforts on this project and to Mr. Dave Dechka for his
helphl advice and suggestions. Finally, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Tom Brown.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................................... 1

II
APPROVAL PAGE ......................................................................................................... **.

MI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES., ....................................................................................................... v...u ~

LIST OF F I G U R E S ~ . . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NOTATION ..................................................................................................................... xv
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................. xviii
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General..............,...............................................................................................1
1.2 Concentrically Braced Frame Behaviour ...........................................................2
1.3 Braced Frame Design Philosophy..................................................................... 5
1-4
. .
Objechves and Scope........................................................... .......8
1.5
-
Orgmzahon of Thesis....................................................................................... 9
*
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 16
2.1 Experimental Testing on Braces With and Without End Connections ...........16
2.1 -1 Kahn and Hanson (1 976) ..................................................... 1 6
2.1 -2 Jain, Goel, and Hanson (1 978) ..................................... ..................1 6
2.1 -3 Popov and Black (1980) ................................................................... 18
2.1-4 Astaneh.Asl, Goel. and Hanson (1984) ...........................,
.............I9
2.1.5 El-Tayem and Goel (1986) ..................................................................20
2.1.6 LiuandGoel(1988) ................... . . . ............................................... 20
2.1 -7 Astaneh (1992) .................................................................................... 21
2.1.8 Rabinovitch and Cheng (1993).......................................................... 22
2.1.9 Archambault(I995) ............................................................................. 22
2.1.10 Walpole (1995) .................................,. ...............................................23
2.2 Brace Performance in Past Earthquakes.......................................................... 24
2.2.1 . . . ..................................................................24
AISI (1991) .....................
2.2.2 Tremblay et al.(1995) ......................................................................... 25
2.2.3 Tremblay et al.(1996) ......................................................................... 26
2.3 Theoretical Brace Behaviour Modeling..........................................................-26
2.3.1 Prathuangsit, Goel, and Hanson (1978) ...............................................26
2.3.2 MaisonandPopov(1980)....................................................................27
2.3.3 lkedaandMahin(1986) ..................................................................... -28
2.3.4 Andreus and Gaudenzi ( 1989) .............................................................28
2.3.5 Hassan and Goel (199 1)............................ .......................................29
2.4 Summary.............................................................................................. 29
.
3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME........................................................................31
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Preliminary Considerations ............................................................................ -31
3.3 Specimen Description .............................................................................. 33
3.4 Test Set-up....................................................................................................3 5
3.5 Instrumentation................................................................................................36
3-6 Test Procedure .................................................................................................37
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ............................................................................... .49
4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................49
4.2 Material Testing Programme ...........................................................................49
4.3 Brace Test Results ...........................................................................................51
4.3.1 Specimen 1A ................................................................................. 5 2
Specimen 1B ...................................................................................... -53
Specimen 2A......................................................................................5 5
Specimen 2B .................. . ................................................................56
Specimen 3A....................................................................................5 8
Specimen 3B .................................................................................... 60
Specimen 3C ....................................................................................... 6 1
Specimen 4A ................................................................................. 6 3
Specimen 4B ...................................................................................... 64
5. ANALYSIS OF EXPE-NTAL R E S ~ T S o ~ . . o o o o . . o - o ~ ~ ~ o 101

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5.1 Introduction........................
...... ................................................................ 1 01
5.2 Out-of-Plane Deflection................................................................................ 1 01
5.3 Buckling Capacity.............
.... ..........................................................1 04
5.3.1 Initial Buckling Capacity ..................................................................1 05
5.3.2 Reduction in Compressive Resistance...............................................107
5.4 Hysteresis Behaviour ..................................................................................... 1 12
5.4.1 Normalized Hysteresis Loops.........................................................1 13
5.4.2
. . .
Energy Diss~pabon................................................................... ..........115
5.5 Fracture Life ........................................... .......................................................1 22
5.5.1 Factors Affecting Fracture Life ......................................................1 2 2
5.5.2 Empirical Fracture Life Predictions................................................... 124
5 .5.3 Fracture Life Results.......................................................................... 127
5.6 Connection Behaviour .......................
.... .....................................................1 32
.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 169
6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................169
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research.........................................................173
REFERENCES 175
o ~ a m . o o m m m o ~ . ~ o o ~ . . . . o ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ m o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o o m o o o m o m o o m
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1
. .
Specimen Descnphon....................
......................................................................39
3-2 Specimen Properties ................................................................................................. 40
4.1 Materid Properties ................... . . .................................................................... 67
4.2 Average Material Properties by Specimen ............................................................ 68

4.3 Maximum Compressive and Tensile Loads in Each Cycle .................................... 69
4.4 Maximum Compressive and Tensile Displacements in Each Cycle ........................70
5.1 Comparison of Initial Buckling Loads...............

............................................... 136
5.2 Normalized Axial Force at Unloading Point (PI, mamy).................................... 137
5.3 Total Energy Dissipated by the Specimen per Cycle (Ei) ....................................... 138
5.4 Total Energy Dissipated by the End Connections in each Specimen Per Cycle ....139
5.5 Factors Affecting Fracture Life ........................................................................... 140
5.6 Fracture Life Data ................................................................................................. 1 4 1

5.7 Weld Behaviour Details of Specimens Tested .......................................................142
B.1 Specimen Schedule................................................................................................ -213
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Typical Concentric Brace Connection (Bnmeeau et ai. 1998)................................... 10
1.2 Typical Concentric Braced Frame Configurations (Bruneau et a1. 1998) ................11
1.3 Hysteretic Energy of Structural Steel

(a) Half.Cycle. (b) Full Cycle (Bruneau et al.. 1998)............................................... 12
1-4 Hysteresis Curve for a Half-Scale Concentric Braced Frame Experiment

(Maison and Popov. 1980)........................................................................................ 13
1-5 Idealized Hysteresis Curve (Bruneau et al.. 1998) ................................................. 1 4
1.6 Bauschinger Effects in Structural Steel (Bnmeaau et al.. 1998) ................................15
3.1 Typical Brace Specimen with End Connections

a) Elevation. b) Plan View...................................................................................... 41
3.2 Plan View: Specimen Connection Detail ................................................................. 42

3.3 Plan View: Test Frame Assembly .......................................................................... 43
3.4 Elevation: Test Frame Assembly .............................................................................. 44

3 -5 Test Frame Photograph With Specimen in Place .....................................................45
3.6 Test Frame Photograph: Specimen. End Connection. Distribution Beam.
and Actuators ............................................................................................................ 46
3.7 Typical Test Specimen Instrumentation
a) Elevation, b) Plan View...................
...............................................................47
3.8 Typical Loading Sequence...................................................................................... 4 8
4.1 Photograph of Stub-Column Test Set-up..................................................................71

4.2 Typical Stub-Column Stress-Strain Curve
(stub-column specimen SC.D3. HSS 127x 127~8.0)............................................... 72
4.3 Severe Local Buckle in Midspan Hinge Region. Specimen 1A ...............................73
4.4 Hysteresis C w e : Axial Load versus Axial Displacement, Specimen 1A...............74
4.5 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 1B ...............75
4.6 kvial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 1B .......................................... 76
4.7 Elastic Buckling. Cycle #3 :Specimen I B ................................................................77
4.8 Initiation of Local Buckling at the Specimen Midspan, Cycle #9: Specimen 1B ....77
4.9 Tearing at the Comers of the HSS. Cycle #11: Specimen 1B ..................................78
4.10 Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle #11: Specimen 1B ................................................ 7 9
4.1 1 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement, Specimen 2A ...............80
4.12 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 2A ........................

............80
4.1 3 Tearing at the Comers of the HSS, Specimen 2A ................................................... 81
4.1 4 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 2B ...............82
4.15 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 2B ..........................................82
4.1 6 Overall Buckling, Cycle #5 :Specimen 2B .............................................................. 83
4.1 7 Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle # 10: Specimen 2B ...................................................84
4.18 Specimen 3A Pre-Test ........................................................................................... 85
4.19 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 3A ...............86
4.20 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 3A ..........................................86
4.21 Typical Weld Crack Across Thickness of Gusset Plate .............................

............87
4.22 Initiation of Plastic Hinge in End Connection, Specimen 3A................................ 88
4.23 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 3B ............... 89
4.24 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 3B .....................................,.. 89
4.25 Initiation of Local Buckling, Cycle #1 1: Specimen 3B ............................................ 90
4.26 Tearing at the Comers of the HSS, Cycle # 13: Specimen 3B ..................................91
4.27 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 3C ...............92
4.28 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 3C ..........................................92
4.29 Elastic Buckle End View. Specimen 3C................................................................... 93
4.30 Cross-Sectional Failure. Cycle # 17: Specimen 3C ................................................ 9 4
4.3 1 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement: Specimen 4A ...............95
4.32 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement. Specimen 4A ........................................ 95

4.33 Cross-Sectional Failure. Cycle # 10:Specimen 4A ................... .
...........................96
4.34 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load verms Axial Displacement: Specimen 4B ...............97
4.35 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement. Specimen 4B .......................................... 97
4.36 Locally Buckled Midspan Plastic Hinge Region. Cycle #11:Specimen 4B ............98
....
4.37 Cross-Sectional Failure. Cycle # 1 2: Specimen 4B .................... ......................99
4.38 Test Completed. Specimen 4B ............................................................................... 100
5.1 String Potentiometer Measures Out-of-Plane Deflection at Specimen Midspan ...143
5.2 Out-of-Plane Deflection: Simplified Geometrical Approach ................................. 144

5.3 Out-of-Plane Deflection as a Function of Ductility Ratio ................................... 145
5.4 Normalized Out-of-Plane Deflection as a Function of Ductility Ratio. p .............. 146
5.5 Comparison of Code Buckling Formulas ..............................................................147

5.6 Comparison of Initial Buckling Loads Against CSA and AISC Code Values .......147
5.7 Specimen 1B: Degradation of Compressive Resistance
Experimental versus Theoretical (CSA) .................................................................148
5.8 Comparison of Compressive Resistance in Cycles Following the
Initial Buckling Cycle ............................................................................................. 149
5.9 Comparison of Normalized Compressive Capacity
(a) Specimen 1B. @) Specimen 2A ........................................................................ 150
(c) Specimen 2B. (d) Specimen 3A ....................................................................... 1 51
(e) Specimen 38. (f) Specimen 3C ............................................................... 1 5 2
(g) Specimen 4A. (h) Specimen 4B ........................................................................153
5.10 Normalized Hysteresis Cwes. Specimen 2B vs.Specimen 3B ....................
..., 154
5.1 1 Normalized Hysteresis Curves. Specimen 2A vs. 1B ......................... ..... ..........155

5.1 2 Rigid Plastic Non-Buckling Element @om Zayas et al.. 1980) ............................ 156
5.1 3 Energy Dissipation Efficiencies by Cycle .............................................................. 157
5.14 Cumulative Energy Dissipation Efficiency by Cycle ......................................... 1 5 8
5.1 5 Determining the Energy Dissipation in the Gusset Plate End Connections ........... 159
5.16 Energy Dissipated by End Connections as a Percentage of
Total Energy Dissipation .................................................................................... 1 60
5.17 Cumulative Energy Dissipation by End Connections as Percentage of

Total Energy Dissipation........................................................................................161
5.18 Definition of Al and A2 For Determining the Experimental Fracture Life

(fiom Lee and Goel. .1..987)
............ 1 6 2
5.19 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of W r.................................... . .1 6 3
5.20 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Width-to-Thickness Ratio................163
5.2 1 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of b/d ................................................ 1 6 4
5.22 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Yield Strength...............

.............. 164
5.23 Comparison of Experimental Fracture Life to Archambault's Modified Fracture
Life Equation ........................................................................................................ 165
5.24 Comparison of Experimental Fracture Life to Proposed Modified Fracture

Life Equation .........................................................................................................1 6 6
. .
5.25 Proposed Fracture Cntena ......................................................................................167
5.26 Comparison of Weld Strength to Cdculated Resistance.................................... 168
A .1 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 1B

(a) Strain Gauges I & 2 ........................................ .................................................. 180
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................................................................................... 180
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .......................................................................................... 181
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 .......................................................................................... 181
A.2 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 2A
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ................................... .............................................182
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 ......................................................................................1 82
xii
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .....,.......,............ ,. ....................................................... 183
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 .......,. ..........., . ................................................................183
A.3 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 2B
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ..................................................................................... 184
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................................................................................... 184
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 ....................,.,...............,...................................................1 85
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 ......................................................................................... 1 85

(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ....................................................................................... 1 86
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................... . ........................................................... 186
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 ........................................................................................ 187
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 ....................... . . ............................................................. 187
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ................... . .................................................................... 188
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................................................................................... 188
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .......................................................................................... 189
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 .......................................................................................... I89
A.6 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 3C

(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ..........................................................................................190
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................................................................................... 190
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .........................................................................................191
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 ....................................................................................... 1 9 1
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ......................................................................................1 9 2
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 .......................................................................................1 9 2
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .......................................................................................1 93
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 ..........................
.... ....................................................1 9 3
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2 ....................................................................................... 194
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5 ....................................................................................... 194
(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6 .......................................................................................... 195
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8 ................................................................................... 1 9 5
A.9 Normalized Hysteresis Curves

(a) Specimen 1B. (b) Specimen 2A .......................................................................1 96
(c) Specimen 2B. (d) Specimen 3A .......................................................................1 97
(e) Specimen 3B. ( f ) Specimen 3C .........................................................................
198
(g)Specimen 4A. Q Specimen 4B .........................................................................199
...
Xlll
A .10 End Connection Hysteresis Curve
(a) Specimen 1 B. (b) Specimen 2A ........................................................................200
.........
(c) Specimen 2B, (d) Specimen 3A .................... ..................................201
(e) Specimen 3B, (0Specimen 3C ............................
(g) Specimen 4A, (h) Specimen 4B ................................................................... 203
B.1 Specimen Properties. a) Elevation. b) Plan View ................................................... 214

B.2 HSS to Gusset Plate Connection ......................................................................... 215
B.3 Whitmore Cross-Section......................................................................................... 215
xiv
NOTATION
A, Gross cross-sectional area of HSS

Agb Gross cross-sectional area of HSS brace
A, Gross cross-sectional area of gusset plate
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
An Net cross-sectional area
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
b Outside width of specimen
b/t Width-to-thickness ratio of compression element
b/d Breadth-to-depth ratio of HSS
CBF Concentrically braced h e
CISC Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
c r Compressive resistance of an axially loaded member
cr' Reduced compressive resistance of an axially loaded member
cs Experimentally determined fiacture life constant
CSA Canadian Standards Association
D HSS-to-gusset plate fillet weld thickness
DBF Ductile braced lkme
d, Gusset plate depth
E Young's modulus of elasticity
Ed Energy dissipation by gusset plate in cycle i
EH Hysteretic energy dissipated
Ei Energy dissipation by hlI specimen in cycle i
Ei/RPi Energy dissipation efficiency of specimen
Et Tangent modulus of elasticity
F Foundation factor
F" Specified minimum tensile strength
FY Specified yield strength
F* Specified yield strength of HSS brace
FY~ Specified yield strength of gusset plate
HSS Hollow structural steel section
Importance factor for seismic design, Second Moment of Area
Effective length factor
KUr Effective slenderness ratio
L Overall specimen length
L Whitmore cross-section effective gusset width dimension
L, Total length of gusset plate (= L, + L)
Lgfrre Gusset plate fiee length
Lw HSS-to-gusset plate weld length
L/r Slenderness ratio
LRFD AISC Load & Resistance Factor Design
LSC Linear strain converter
n Parameter for compressive resistance
NBCC National Building Code of Canada
NDBF Nominally ductile braced h e
P Axial load
PIA Critical Buckling Stress
PIP, Normalized axial load
Pcomp rnax Maximum compressive axial load in a cycle
Ptcns rnax Minimum tensile axial load in a cycle
PY Axial yield load of a member
R Force modification factor / Strength ratio
Rb Balanced strength ratio
Mi Energy dissipation by a rigid, plastic non-buckling element
S Seismic response factor
SBF Braced frame with no special provision for ductile detailing
SSRC Structural Stability Research Council
t Thickness of an element of a structwal member
*by Actual tensile yield capacity of brace
fg Gusset plate thickness

to Nominal HSS wall thickness
u Level of protection factor in seismic design (U=0.6)
xvi
Minimum lateral seismic force
Elastic base shear
Factored shear resistance
Structural building weight (= dead load of structure + 25% of design snow
load)
Perimeter distance between parallel welds
Lateral displacement of brace midspan
Normalized out-of-plane deflection
Normalized deformation fiom PJ3 to the point of maximum compressive
deformation
Normalized deformation fiom the point at PJ3 to the point of maximum
tensile deformation
Theoretical hcture life prediction
Experimentally determined fracture life of brace
Reduction factor due to effects of shear lag
Axial displacement of brace end
Normalized axial displacement
~ c o m , "Em Maximum compressive axial displacement in a cycle
&ens max Maximum tensile axial displacement in a cycle
s, Axial yield deflection
EY Yield strain
0 Resistance factor (=0.9 for steel)
h Nondimensional slenderness parameter in column formula
P Ductility ratio, or, flexural stif%kess coefficientof connection
v Specified horizontal ground velocity
8 Gusset rotation
kt3 Flexural stiffhess of connection
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TEST DATA ................................................................... 178

.................................................................... 204
APPENDIX B: TEST SPECIMEN DESIGN
xviii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Energy dissipation during the seismic response of steel structures is accomplished
largely through. the non-linear behaviour of structural elements. The concentrically
braced steel frame (CBF)dissipates energy primarily through yielding and buckling of the
braces. The CBF is a commonly used lateral load resisting system and holds many
advantages over other systems. More specifically, the CBF is easy to design, detail, and
construct and energy is dissipated efficiently through axial forces in the braces. The
system is stiff, minimizing drift, in turn minimizing damage to non-structural
components. The three most important parameters affecting the hysteresis behaviour, and
thus the energy dissipation capacity, of the braces are slenderness ratio, end conditions,
and section shape. Previous test programmes have focused on these aspects through
testing of members of very limited sizes. The series of tests described here will increase
the amount of usefbl data necessary for modeling bracing members by testing more
practical member sizes.
Concentrically braced h e s are widely recognized as an efficient means to resist
the application of lateral loads on a steel framed building. The CBF makes use of a
vertical cantilever truss system. Shown in Figure 1.1 (Bruneau et al., f 998), diagonal
braces are connected to the kame via gusset plates welded or bolted to the brace. The
gusset plates are connected to the beam and column connection, the beam, or a base plate
depending on the braced frame configuration. Some common CBF configurations are
2
shown in Figure 1.2 (Bruneau et al., 1998). It should be noted, however, that K-braced
h e s and V-braced frames are not normally used in seismic zones due to the risk of an
overstrength brace overloading a beam or column in turn compromising the gravity load
resisting system. In zones of high seismic risk it is necessary to design and detail the
CBF for the anticipated ductile behaviour. This is due in part to the high costs required to
construct a structure that will remain elastic under the demands of an earthquake. In a
CBF the braces are required to resist the lateral inertia forces resulting fiom earthquake
excitation of the building. The brace then becomes the 'structural fise' for the CBF.
Energy dissipation in the CBF occurs when the brace yields in tension and buckles
inelastically in compression. At the same time, the gusset plate is designed to allow for
stable ductile behaviour when and if the brace buckles. This system is referred to as the
weak brace - strong gusset system and is the only CBF system currently recognized by
CAN/CSA S 16.1-94 - Limit States Design of Steel Structures.
1.2 Concentrically Braced Frame Behaviour
Hysteresis energy is the energy dissipated during the inelastic response of an
element. With a brace member in a CBF, tension yielding and compression buckling of
the brace dissipate this energy. Hysteresis energy is, by definition, unrecoverable and can
be determined by calculating the area within the curve outlined by the load-displacement
relationship of the brace. A simplified equation used for this purpose is as follows:
3
Where,&
, ma, 6,, , , and G,represent the maximum axial displacement in tension, the
maximum axial displacement in compression, and the yield displacement respectively, of
the specimen for a given cycle of loading. The axial yield load is given by P,. The terms
used in Equation 1.1 are illustrated in Figure 1.3 (Bnmeau et al., 1998).
The hysteresis behaviour of a concentrically braced w e is characterized by
pinched hysteresis loops. The lateral load - displacement relationship for a ha-scale
chevron braced h e is displayed in Figure 1.4 (Maison and Popov, 1980 - numbers on
the plot indicate specific points in the prescribed applied loading history). In general, the
hysteresis loops of a CBF are governed by the combination of tension and compression
braces in any one story. The tension brace inelastically lengthens and the compression
brace buckles inelastically. The combination of these two actions gives rise to the
pinched hysteresis loops evident for a CBF subjected to severe reversed cyclic loading.
With knowledge of the behaviour of a brace under these loading conditions, the
behaviour of a CBF can be determined.
The most prevalent brace used in current practice is one of an intermediate length.
Such a brace does not yield or buckle elastically in compression but buckles inelastically
under compressive loads. This complicated axial hysteresis behaviour is best described
by the idealized hysteresis loop for a pin-ended brace shown in Figure 1.5 (Bnmeau et al.,
1998)- The characteristic zones in the cycle are identified and explained as follows.
Zone OA represents the elastic compression loading until the brace buckles at point A at
the critical load, Cr. If the brace is sufficiently slender, the brace will buckle elastically
4
fiom A to B. This zone is characterized by constant axial load as the brace deflects
laterally by an amount A. At point Bythe brace has reached a critical value of lateral
deflection and a plastic hinge fonns at the brace midspan. For a further increase in the
axial shortening of the brace, the applied load, P, will decrease. With sufficient axial
shortening and lateral deflection, the plastic hinge will form a kink. This compression
induced plastic rotation occurs in the newly formed mechanism. At point C the brace is
unloaded to zero load level. Due to the residual lateral displacement, the plastic kink
formed remains evident. Upon reloading of the brace in tension, it can be seen that the
stiflhess has decreased relative to Zone OA due to the residual curvature in the brace. At
point D, the combination of load and residual lateral deflection is sufficient to develop a
plastic hinge once again. Now the hinge region is subject to tension induced plastic
rotation. This rotation reduces the magnitude of the lateral deflection, A. Load continues
to increase until the brace is yielded in tension at point E. Zone EF is characterized by
the brace yielding under uniaxial tensile forces. The load is then reversed at point F. The
brace is udoaded fiom point F to P = 0, and then loaded in compression once again. This
second loading cycle can no longer assume ideal conditions for the brace due to the
residual kink in the plastic hinge region as well as a cumulative strain history uniike that
of a virgin column. Therefore, at point G the brace buckles at a reduced compressive
capacity, C',. This reduction in compressive capacity is evident for each subsequent
cycle. It is believed the reduction is due not only to the residual lateral deflection but also
to Bauschinger effects. The Bauschinger effect relates to a phenomenon observed
whereby the comers of the stress-strain diagram are rounded in a specimen that undergoes
5
cyclic loading. Therefore, upon cyclic loading into the inelastic range, a load reversal
shows a decrease in the tangent modulus of steel at a lesser load than that of the previous
cycle. This decrease in tangent modulus, 6, contributes to a decreased compressive
capacity in load cycles following the initial compressive buckling cycle.
1 3 Braced Frame Design Philosophy
Current code requirements for concentrically braced h e s are continuously
being refined as a resuIt of the latest research. Current codes and standards aim to
provide a rational design procedure for CBF's. In Canada, the CAN/CSA S 16.1-94
"Limit States Design of Steel Structures" (CSA 1994) and The National Building Code of
Canada (NRCC 1995) are linked to provide specific design provisions for steel structures.
The NBCC outlines the method by which to determine the seismic force imposed on a
structure. This method uses a spectral-acceleration based approach to determine the
minimum design force. The minimum lateral seismic force, V, is given by:
Where U is a factor representing the level of protection based on experience (equal to
O.6), R is a force modification factor representing the ability of the structure to dissipate
energy through inelastic behaviour, and V, is the elastic base shear calculated by the
following
6
The elastic base shear represents the equivalent lateral seismic force at the base of
the structure. The factor S represents the seismic response factor, a function of the
fimdamental period of vibration as well as the zonal acceleration and velocity values.
The importance of the structure is accounted for by the factor I. This factor reflects the
level of service required of the structure after the effects of the earthquake have been
realized- F represents the foundation factor. This factor accounts for the type and depth
of the substrate providing the foundation of the structure. The structural weight used to
determine the inertial effects of the building is accounted for by the factor, W. This factor
is the dead load of the structure plus 25% of the design snow load. Finally, the zonal
velocity ratio, v, is the specified horizontal ground velocity expressed as a ratio to ids.
Next, the minimum lateral seismic force, V, is apportioned to the lateral load resisting
elements of the system according to their individual stiflhesses- The eEects of torsion
and non-structural elements should be included when apportioning the shear.
The NBCC cIassifies concentric braced fiames into three categories: ductile
(DBF), nominally ductile (NDBF), and those for which no special provisions are made
(SBF). Each category has a separate force modification factor, R, reflecting the
expectation of the & m e to dissipate energy inelastically.
For the first two of the categories, DBF (R=3.0) and NDBF (R=2.0), C M S A -
S16.1-94provides special requirements for their ductile detailing. These h e s are

expected to behave inelastically with the inelasticity concentrated in the brace members-
Beams may also be capable of some inelastic action while columns are expected to
7
remain elastic under gravity forces aad forces redistributed fkom brace yieiding and
buckling. Braced h e s with no special provisions for ductility (R=1.5) are expected to
respond elastically in an earthquake. However, due to the inherent ductility in structural
steel, such h e s are given a force modification factor, R,of 1.5.
Design procedures for a-CBF dictate aa initial strength design after which a
ductility design is necessary. The strength design is based on traditional strength and
stiflhess requirements of the h e . The ductility design makes use of the provisions of
Clause 27 of CAN/CSA-S16.1-94 to modifL the trial sections determined fkom the
strength design. This clause outlines the specific provisions required to ensure that
ductile behaviour occurs. Brace slenderness and width-to-thickness ratio limits are
imposed to ensure superior energy dissipation characteristics of the h e . The limits set
forth in these clauses are as foliows.
It is recognized that a decrease in compressive capacity occurs in loading cycles
following the initial buckling cycle; therefore, a reduction factor is applied to brace
members in the ductility design process. Redundancy, a concern in CBF1s, is addressed
by the requirement that a minimum of 30% of story shear be carried by the tension brace
and 30% by the compression brace. Dual fi;lming systems are also recognized as a means
8
of providing redundancy as long as the braced £kame is designed as a stand-alone system.
In general, connections are to resist loads corresponding to brace yield loads and are to
have sutficient ductility to allow for rotation upon buckling of the brace.
1.4 Objectives and Scope
The objectives of this research are to provide a database of residual compressive
strengths and hysteresis curves for a greater range of brace dimensions. This will increase
the amount of data available from which to develop and refine phenomenological models
capable of mimicking the behaviour of braces subject to inelastic cyclic loading.
Parameters to be considered include; brace slenderness ratio, brace width-to-thickness
ratio, and connection strength and stifiess. Compressive resistance of the brace, both on
the initial buckling cycle and the reduced compressive capacity thereafter will be
examined, Out-of-plane deflection and energy dissipation by the brace and end
connection will be quantified. And finally, the fracture life of the brace will be examined
with respect to the parameters outlined.
The research includes a thorough literature review of the experimental and
analytical work on the behaviour of braces under cyclic loading. Next, the results fiom
experimental tests on nine square HSS brace specimens with gusset plate end connections
are presented and evaluated. The results of the experimental work will be presented in a
forrn that can be utilized later in analytical studies. Brace specimens tested are full-scale
cold-formed HSS sections. Slenderness ratios range fiom 69.2 to 93.3 and width-to-
thickness ratios range fiom 10.4 to 16.8. Gusset plates welded to a slot in the HSS
9
provide end comections. The end connections have width-to-thickness ratios less than
that of the HSS braces they are welded to, ensuring adequate ductile behaviow once the
braces buckle. Experimental data reported include: axial force -axial displacement
hysteresis curves, axial force - lateral displacement hysteresis curves, brace energy
dissipation, and reduced strain gauge data at hinge locations. Out-of-plane deflection,
compressive capacity, and hcture life of the specimens will also be presented. The
results of this research are examined with respect to the design procedures prescribed by
the NBCC and CAN/CSA-S 16.1-94.
1.5 Organization of Thesis
The thesis is organized into six chapters. The introduction, general details about
braced h e behaviour, brace behaviour and the objectives and scope of the work have
been identified in Chapter 1. A comprehensive literature review of experimental and
theoretical work on the behaviour of braces as well as the past performance of
concentrically braced h m e s in earthquake-affected areas is provided in the second
chapter. The third chapter includes an outline of the experimental programme developed
to test the brace specimens. Testing m e and specimen details are given in this section.
Results of the material tests and the brace specimen tests are reported in Chapter 4. The
results are then discussed in Chapter 5. Finally, a summary of the research and
recommendations for fbther experimental and analytical work are given in Chapter 6.
-
Figwe 1.1 Typical Concentric Brace Connection
(Bruneau et al. 1998)
m
a. Diagonal braced CBF b. Inverted V-braced CBF c. V-braced CBF
d. X-braced CBF e. K-braced CBF
Figure 1.2 - Typical Concentric Braced Frame Configurations

(Bruneau et al. 1998)
Figure 1.3 - Hysteretic Energy of Structural Steel
a) Half-Cycle, b) Full Cycle
(Bruneau et al., 1998)
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (IN.)
Figure 1.4 - Hysteresis C u m for a Half-Scale Concentric Braced

Frame Experiment (Maison and Popov, 1980)
-
Figure 1.5 Idealized Hysteresis Curve
(Bruneau et al., 199%)
Figure 1.6 - Bauschinger Effects in Structural Steel
(Bruneau et al., 1998)
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Experimental Testing on Braces With and Without End Connections
2.11 Kahn and Hanson (1976)
Kahn and Hanson performed static and quasi-dynamic cyclic load tests on sixteen
hot-rolled rectangular steel bars. Tests were conducted to determine the hysteresis
behaviour of the bars at load levels into the post-buckling range. All bars were
25.3x12.7mrn in cross-section and ranged fiom 610mm to 1500mm in length. An
approximately fixed-end condition was provided by welding the bars to steel end plates.
A variety of loading sequences was employed to explore various aspects of the brace
behaviour under cyclic load. The results from these early experiments indicated that
stockier braces dissipated more energy than did slender braces. Column growth occurred
in the specimen as cycling progressed. As well, the buckling load decreased with an
increasing number of cycles. The results of the static tests were compared to the dynamic
tests proving very little difference between the two.
2.1.2 Jain, Goel and Hanson (1978)
J a k et al. (1978, 1980) performed static and slow dynamic tests on eighteen cold-
rolled tube specimens and eight angle specimens. The tubes were cold-rolled fiom hot-
rolled steel and were subsequently annealed to bring their mechanical properties closer to
that of larger sized tube specimens. Each specimen had a 25.4x25.4mm cross-section
with a 2.7mm wall thickness. The tubes were all welded to gusset plates of varying
17
dimensions. The gussets were designed to have greater axial strength than the tubes.
However, the flexural strengths were varied. The purpose of the tests was to investigate
the eff- of member length and connection flexural strength and stifhess on the
hysteresis behaviour of a brace. Residual elongation and reduction in the maximum
compressive strength with increased number of cycles were also quantified. Results
indicated that the maximum compressive load attained by the brace decreased after the
first cycle. According to the results, slender specimens showed less reduction in
compressive capacity than did the shorter, stockier specimens. A visible kink was
observed in the specimen, and some of the gusset plates, following the first cycle of
loading. This was believed to be the cause of the reduction in compressive load capacity.
Further, the tension unloading curve proved to be non-linear following the initial tension
yielding cycle. At the time, it was recognized that this may have been due to the
Bauschinger effect. It was shown that there is not a significant advantage in increasing
the connection flexural strength greater than that of the member. The mode of buckling
was found to be influenced by the flexural strength of the gusset plate. In specimens with
gusset plates whose flexural strength exceeded that of the tube, biaxial buckling was
prevalent. When the flexural strength of the tube exceeded that of the gusset plate, the
tube experienced uniaxial buckling.
Angle specimens were made from hot-rolled angle sections varying from
2 5 ~ 2 5 ~ 6 nto~4Ox40x3mm.
n These specimens had effective slenderness ratios fkom 85
to 120. Specimens were welded directly to the end plates without the use of gusset plates
18
providing for a fixed connection. Local buckling occurred in the all angle specimens
except the 25x25x6m.m sections.
The research indicated that the effective slenderness ratio is the most significant
parameter in determining the behaviour of cyclically loaded brace members. The shape
of the cross-section was shown to affect the hysteresis behaviour, possibly due to
differences in strain hardening, heat treatment, residual stress, the Bauschinger effect, and
local buckling. Hysteresis energy of a member was shown to decrease as the effective
slenderness ratio increases.
2.13 Popov and Black (1981)
Popov and Black tested 24 struts of various steel shapes under cyclic loading
conditions. Wide flanges, tees, double angles, double channels, and hollow structural
sections were tested. Effective slenderness ratios used were 40, 80, and 120. The end
restraint was also varied to determine its effect. Pinned-fixed and fixed-fixed end
conditions were examined. The results of these tests determined that the elastic effective
slenderness ratio was applicable to the inelastic case. Further, the effective slenderness
ratio was identified as the most important parameter in determining the hysteresis
behaviour of a brace. When comparing the different steel shapes, it was concluded that
the hollow structural sections had the best hysteresis pefiormance. Built-up members
were thought to have inadequate stitching requirements that left them susceptible to
buckling in plastic hinge regions. The reduction in compressive capacity in cycles after
19
the first was identified and reduction factors were developed to account for the
Bauschinger effect as well as residual cwature in the member.
2.1.4 Astaneh-As1 et al. (1984,1985)
Astaneh-As1 et al. performed quasi-static load tests on 17 full-scale double-angle
specimens. Of the 17 specimens, 9 were designed with long legs back to back and as
such were to buckle out-of plane. The remaining 8 had their short legs placed back to
back and therefore were meant to buckle in-plane. All specimens were either bolted or
welded to a gusset plate that was comected to a hinged steel frame at a 45-degree angle.
The load was then applied to the top of the h e in a cyclic manner-
The double-angle specimens designed to buckle in-plane prompted conclusions
fiom the authors that these members, designed according to current code provisions, may
not possess sufficient ductility to withstand severe earthquakes. All but one of these
specimens experienced severe local buckling at the hinge regions. The buckling loads
decreased substantially after the first cycle and showed a smaller rate of decrease
thereafter. The connections did not show signs of premature yielding or buckling.
Specimens designed to buckle out-of-plane showed signs of local buckling in the
outstanding legs. The reduction in buckling capacity in cycles after the first was also
evident in these specimens. Recommendations were made to provide a fkee length in the
gusset equal to twice the gusset thickness to increase the ductility of the gusset by
allowing a plastic hinge region to form.

20
2.1.5 El-Tayem and Goel (1986)
El-Tayem and Goel carried out quasi-static cyclic load tests on five full-scale
single angle and one ill-scale double-angle X-braced specimens. The steel angles,
composed of A36 steel, varied in size from 63.5x63.5x6.4mrn to 10 1 . 6 10

~ 1.6x9.5mm.
End gusset plates were used to connect all angles to the testing fiame with fillet welds
being used at the connections. Small early deformation levels were used to examine the
first buckling load of the specimens. The authors showed that at larger deformation
levels the tension diagonal provided restraint to the -compression diagonal allowing only
one-half of this brace to buckle about its weak axis. This led to the recommendation for
an effective length factor of 0.85 to be used for X-bracing systems with single angle
braces.
2.1.6 Liu and Goel (1988)
Liu and Goel tested nine ill-scale tubular specimens under quasi-static cyclic
loading. Of the nine tubes, six of the specimens were filled with concrete of varying
strengths. All specimens were rectangular in shape having effective slenderness ratios
ranging from 58 to 100 and width-to-thickness (Wt) ratios of 30, with the exception of
two specimens with b/t of 14. Gusset connections were used to transfer the load to the
braces. The tube material was A500 Grade B steel and the gusset material was A36 steel.
Early cracking due to severe local buckling had been previously identified as a problem
with braces of this type. As such, concrete-filled tubes were tested to determine if this
severe local buckling could be delayed or prevented. Therefore, parameters included in

21
this study include; the presence of concrete, the strength of the concrete, the effective
slenderness ratio, and the width-to-thickness ratio of the tubes. Generally, the results
showed an increase in energy dissipation for the concrete filled tubes. However, this
difference was less for the tubes that had smaller width-to-thickness ratios. Buckled
shapes were similar prior to local buckling, whereas after local buckling, the concrete
filled tubes exhibited an outward buckle at the hinge location. Unlike the hollow
specimens that display an inward buckle at the hinge region, the buckling of the
compression flange in the concrete filled tubes was forced out due to the presence of the
concrete. Overall, the results proved that the width-to-thickness ratio remains the major
factor in determining the severity of local buckling and the hcture life in a hollow steel
section.
2.1.7 Astaaeb (1992)
Astaneh examined the behaviour of V-braced steel connections. The purpose of
the experimental study was to identify the energy dissipation capabilities of the gusset
plate in a braced h e connection. Three gusset plate connections were subject to cyclic
Loading into the inelastic range. The location of the brace intersection points was varied
in order to examine the cyclic shear inelasticity of the gusset. Results found the most
undesirable behaviour was exhibited in the typical concentric brace connection. This
connection behaved in a relatively brittle manner when compared to the failure of the two
alternate specimens. Improved performance of the connection resulted fiom an increase
in the eccentricity of the connection. The specimen with the largest eccentricity of
22
connection displayed stable shear yielding of the gusset This was deemed the most
desirable behaviour of the gusset plate. It was the author's opinion that shear yielding of
the gusset plate is a better, more predictable energy dissipating mechanism in a braced
M e .
2.1.8 Rabinoviab and Cheng (1993)
Rabinovitch and Cheng examined the cyclic behaviour of gusset plates. Unlike
past experiments, which looked at the strong gusset - weak brace concept, the
experiments performed here employed the strong brace-weak gusset concept. As such,
gusset plates were designed to dissipate energy whilst the braces were to remain elastic.
Five full-scale gusset plate connections were tested under cyclic loading conditions. All
gussets were composed of 300W steel and had dimensions of 55Ox450mm. Notable
parameters included were plate thickness and the use of stiffeners on the gusset fiee
edges. Results showed a reduction in compressive capacity of the gussets after the tirst
cycle of loading. It was shown that the use of an extra free length for plastic hinge
formation, as suggested by Astaneh-As1 et al. (1985) was not required when the gusset
plate is connected to the main h i n g members along two perpendicular edges such as is
shown in Figure 1.1. Further, it was suggested that the fiee edge of all gusset plates
should be stiffened to provide for better energy dissipation in the post-buckling range.
23
2.1.9 Archambault (1995)
Archambault investigated the performance of rectangular hollow structural steel
sections under the effects of reversed cyclic axial loading. Two different bracing schemes
were tested, X-bracings and single braces. Brace cross-sections and loading histories
were varied. Brace cross-sections used in tests ranged fiom HSS 76x51x4.8mm to HSS
76x 102x6.4mrn. Effective slenderness ratios and width-to-thickness ratios ranged fkom
46.6 to 100.6 and 8.9 to 13.8 respectively. Parameters investigated include maximum
out-of-plane deflection, degradation of the compressive strength under cyclic loading,
energy dissipation capacity, and low-cycle fatigue failure resistance. The researchers
interpreted the results fkom the out-of-plane deflection to be independent of brace
slenderness and varying linearly with the ductility ratio experienced by the brace. The
CSA Standard for determining the reduced compressive resistance of a brace, Cry,was
adequate for symmetrical, gradually increasing loading. However, for unsymmetrical
loading with a large ductility ratio in early cycles the Standard underestimated the
decrease in resistance. Effective slenderness was found to be the most important
parameter in the energy dissipation capacity of a brace. Finally, an equation was
proposed to predict the fiacture life of a brace as the current equations available in
literature were found to be inadequate.
2.1.10 Walpole (1995)
Walpole tested three cold-formed rectangular hollow structural steel sections
under cyclic loading. Each section had cross-sectional dimensions of 152xl00x6mm and
24
a specified yield strength of 350 MPa. Effective slenderness ratios of 33.8,50.7,and 67.6
were used for the three tests. Pinned and fixed end connections were examined.
Specimens were subject to axial deformations well into their inelastic range. Local
buckling occurred in a l l specimens. Growth of the local buckles occurred as the number
of cycles increased. This eventually led to tensile fractures due to the increased level of
strain associated with the sharp curvatures near the local buckle. The more slender
specimens experienced less severe local buckling as well as a lower compressive load
capacity. Due to the low-cycle fatigue failures experienced by the specimens, Walpole
suggested a more stringent requirement for width-to-thickness ratios. It should be noted
that the width-to-thickness ratio of the specimens tested would not have met the AlSC or
CISC requirements for width-to-thickness ratio.
2.2. Brace PerCormance in Past Earthquakes
2.2.1 AISI (1991)
The performances of steel structures are reviewed in 11 major earthquakes dating
back to 1964. The location of the earthquakes varied, as did the characteristics of the
ground motion. The affected structures noted were designed and constructed to standards
comparable to those used in North America. In general, steel-framed structures suffered
acceptable levels of damage in all earthquakes examined. The most prevalent forms of
damage included buckling of bracing members, fixture of bracing members, and failure
of poorly designed connections. Many of the bracing members were rods, angles, or
25
cables (in tension ody systems). The failure of many connections was a common
occurrence in the infrequent failures of braced h e structures. The connection failure
was most often attributed to poor detailing. There were also isolated cases of
overstrength braces developing an overload of columns resulting in failure of the columns
in the braced h e .
2.2.2 Trembtay et al. (1995)
The performance of steel structures and their respective components was
evaluated following the 1994 earthquake at Northridge, California. The most common
fonns of damage to braces and their connections in the Northridge earthquake include
severe inelastic buckling, connection failure, and brace failure. Structural brace members
damaged include double-angles, back-to-back channels, square HSS sections, and wide
flange sections. The double-angle members displayed both good and bad behaviour. In
one case, a double-angle brace experienced severe in and out-of-plane buckling.
However, at another location, a double-angle brace showed no signs of inelastic action.
The brace was stitched at mid-Iength and the inelastic action wt?s limited to the
connecting plates. The result was brace overstrength, moving the failure location to the
connection and in turn causing uplift at the column bases. There were numerous other
instances of brace overstrength causing failure at brace connections or anchor bolt
elongation at column bases. A notable brace failure occurred in an office complex that
utilized Chevron braced frames with square HSS members as the braces. HSS
305x30Sx9.5mm braces experienced low-cycle fatigue fractures in local buckling regions
26
of the brace. This is due the high width-to-thickness ratio of the brace. The extreme out-
of-plane buckling of these braces caused M e r damage to the precast fascia panel on the
exterior of the building. The authors stressed the importance of proper detailing in brace
comections as well as the prevention of local buckling in brace members.
2.23 Tremblay et al. (1996)
The performance of steel structures and their components was examined in the
Kobe area following the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. This earthquake affected
many steel structures. Chevron and X-braced frames were the most common braced
frame configurations found in this area. Braces were generally rods, flat bars, angles,
round tubes, wide flanges, square tubes, and channels. Braces were generally bolted
except for rods and flat bars which were welded to the frame. Typical damage suffered
by braces in compression-tension systems included brace fixture due to low-cycle
fatigue and connection failure. Low-cycle fatigue fiacture occurred due to the high
width-to-thickness ratio of the brace. The connection of the brace to the h e
experienced a number of problems including net area failure across bolt holes, weld
failures, and bolt shearing. Non-structural damage was also noted due to out-of-plane
buckling of braces.
23. Theoretical Brace Behaviour Modeling
23.1 Pratbuangsit, Goel, and Hanson (1978)
Prathuangsit et al. present a physical theory model that utilizes an axially loaded
member with symmetrical end springs. Initial imperfections in the member are
represented by permanent rotations of the two halves of the member. The member and its
connections were assumed to have an elasto-plastic moment-curvature relationship with
the hlly plastic moment modified by the axial force. As well, it was assumed that the
member had an elasto-plastic stress-strain relationship due to axial force. To simplify the
model, local and latend buckling was assumed not to occur. The intent of the model was
to perform an analytical analysis on the behaviour of braces with end restraints. This was
one of the earliest studies on braces and their connections. In this study, connection
strength, connection stif?hess, member slenderness ratio, and member cross-sectional
properties were varied to evaluate their effect on hysteresis behaviour. The results of the
study indicate that the greatest energy dissipation can be realized when the connections
and the brace midspan form plastic hinges simultaneously. Concurrent with maximizing
energy dissipation, the compressive load capacity of the brace increases when the two
locations simultaneously fonn plastic hinges. The results of this theoretical study were
later compared to the results of a companion experimental study (Jain et al. 1978). It was
found that the hysteresis loops provided by the theoretical model agreed well for
members with effective slenderness ratios above 50. However, the theoretical model did
not adequately predict the hysteresis behaviour for stockier members.

28
23.2 Maison and Popov (1980)
Maison and Popov performed cyclic tests on half-scale K-braced fiames as well as
tests on brace members. These tests were to be compared to a finite element model. This
model idealized the brace as a bar element that mimics the experimentally observed
hysteretic behaviour with linear approximations. It should be noted that this model is a
refinement of an earlier model. This model is capable of displaying a reduction in
buckling capacity in cycles after the fust. The model can also exhibit inelastic shortening
of the brace. Results showed good agreement between the experimental and analytical
hysteresis loops for the braces tested.
2 3 3 Ikeda and Mahio (1986)
Ikeda and Mahin present a refined physical theory model for the inelastic response
of braced steel structures. The brace is modeled as a pin-ended member with a plastic
hinge located at its midspan. Empirical behavioural characteristics are included in the
model to represent the actual behaviour of the brace member better. The goal of &is
refined model was to overcome the shortcomings of previous physical theory models.
Previous physical theory models have neglected certain aspects of material behaviour that
result in inaccurate predictions of brace behaviour. The refined model realizes the
variation of tangent modulus as well as the axial force-rotation relationship at the plastic
hinge during cycling.

29
23.4 Andreus and Gaudenzi (1989)
The authors present a phenomenological model that simulates the cyclic
behaviour of steel braces. The model uses nine linear segments to represent brace
behaviour accurately. The slope of each segment, or 'branch', is the governing parameter
in the model. These slopes relate to the e e s s of the brace during different points in
the loading cycle. Further, there are four limiting values of axial force that control the
level of load a brace can sustain. Yield loads as well as Euler's critical loads are
examples of force limits. The authors have also allowed for the deterioration of the
compressive load capacity using a damage law. This law relies on experimentally
determined parameters. Results indicate good agreement between the phenomenological
and experimental (Popov and Black, 1981) hysteresis loops examined. Most important,
the critical features of brace behaviour under cyclic load are represented.
23.5 Hassan and Goel (1991)
Hassan and Goel present a refined phenomenological model for the purpose of
mimicking the experimental hysteresis curves of various brace specimens. Existing
models are reviewed from which the merits along with the models' shortcomings are
identified. The results fiom the proposed model are compared to experimental test results
on steel tubular members with gusset plate connections. The proposed model showed
good results when compared to these test data.

30
2.4 Summary
There has been a great deal of research performed on concentrically braced frames
in the past 25 years. This research has involved experimental testing of braces and their
components and attempts to model the research findings theoretically via physical theory,
finite element, and phenomenological models. Early research produced knowledge on the
qualitative aspects of brace behaviour. From this research, a greater understanding of the
fundamental parameters governing the various complex behaviours of a brace has been
found. This research has included tests on braces of various effective slenderness ratios,
width-to-thickness ratios, brace configurations (simple, X, and Chevron), end conditions,
cross-sectional shapes, loading conditions, and steel types. Unfortunately, most of the
past experiments have been limited to smaller cross-sectional dimensions than used in
this series of tests. Further, parameters such as end conditions have also been neglected
in the determination of brace behaviour in many tests. In turn, a limited amount of
quantitative data for brace assemblies has been collected. These data are necessary for
the purpose of comparing the results fiom models developed to represent brace behaviour
under seismic loading effectively. Moreover, through the post-disaster analysis of the
performance of steel structures, more specifically braced frames, data have been gathered
on the shortcomings still evident in their behaviour. The behaviour of the brace
connection and the early hcture of the brace have been identified as a few of these
inadequacies displayed in past earthquakes.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of the experimental programme was to investigate the behaviour of
I11-scale hollow structural steel braces with typical end connections under reversed
cyclic axial loading until failure. The traditional strong gusset - weak brace concept was
investigated. Tests were designed so that the brace would buckle inelastically and the
gusset plates would exhibit stable plastic behaviour. Varying slenderness ratios and
width-to-thickness ratios were examined.. As wel, the flexural stifiess and strength of
the gusset plate end connections were considered.
3.2 Preliminary Considerations
The experimental programme was designed to mimic, as near as possible, the
actual conditions realized by the brace in a concentrically braced frame. The braces used
represent hollow structural steel sections commonly used in practice. The gusset plates,
used in practice to connect the brace to the beam and column joint, were sized so as to
comply with the requirements of CANICSA-S 16.1-94. The variables for the brace in a
concentrically braced h e include the brace size and length, gusset plate thickness,
width and depth, as well as gusset plate to HSS weld requirements. Based on previous,
similar experimental programmes the most important parameters requiring consideration
include the brace slenderness ratio and width-to-thickness ratio. Further, the end
conditions are identified as being of secondary importance, but nonetheless, some

32
determination of their participation in the energy dissipation is necessary. Of note, the
free length of the gusset plate end connection was to be constant at twice the thickness of
the gusset plate as suggested by Astaneh-As1 et al. (1985). However, due to some
unforeseen modifications to the specimens this value varied and therefore has been
included as a parameter of which comparison can be made.
Constants in the experiments are the loading sequences and the connection
welding details. Loading sequences were essentially constant with respect to the ductility
ratio of the specimens. The weld lengths were calculated on the basis of the experimental
work done by Korol (1996). This, according to the current code, is a rather non-
conservative design. However, through tests on HSS braces with gusset connections,
Korol has shown the weld requirements to be safe. Gusset plate sizes were determined
based on the work of Pratbuangsit et al. (1978).
Prathuangsit et al. (1978) identify the balanced strength gusset as one that
develops a plastic hinge at the same time as the hinge formation in the midspan of the
specimen. Prathuangsit's work was followed as closely as possible; however, to achieve
a balanced connection would prove to be uneconomical, requiring excessively thick
gusset plates. Lateral-torsional buckling was assumed not to occur.
The HSS brace specimens were welded to gusset plates that were then f U y
welded to a 76mm or 89mm thick connection plate. This connection plate provides an
infinitely rigid connection.

33
One drawback to the specimens it is that the gusset plates do not exactly represent
conditions seen in practice. The specimens tested have a single fixed edge whereas in
practice, two edges would be fixed. This condition inevitably simplifies the stress
distribution in the gusset plate. Unfortunately, the geometric considerations are less
desirable in this series of tests due to the restrictions and limitations imposed by the
testing apparatus.
3.3 Specimen Description
Nine specimens fiom various sized square HSS were tested to quantifL their
hysteresis behaviour under reversed cyclic axial loading. Hot-rolled gusset plates of
various dimensions provided end connections. Specimens were fabricated fiom CSA
G40.21 -M350W square HSS and 300W gusset plate structural quality steel. Welding
conforming to the requirements of the CSA Standard W59 Welded Steel Construction
guidelines was used for all specimens. The HSS and gusset plate details are given in
Table 3.1 and the specimen properties are in Table 3.2. The method used to calculate the
effective length factor (K) is shown in Appendix B and was based on the approach of Jain
(Jain et al. 1978). A typical brace specimen with end connections is shown in Figure 3.1.
All specimens were designed so as to conform to the requirements of CANICSA-
S16.1-94 Clause 27.4 for the design of diagonal bracing members and bracing
connections for ductile concentrically braced frames. Specimen slenderness ratios varied
fiom 69 to 93, values less than the maximum allowable slenderness ratio. As well,
width-to-thickness ratios of the HSS specimens fell within code limits. Gusset plates
34
were designed and detailed to avoid brittle failure due to the rotation of the brace when it
buckles. This was accomplished by providing gusset plates with a width-to-thickness
ratio less than that for the HSS specimens. A gusset plate free length ranging fiom 1.25
to 2.0 times the thickness of the gusset plate was used. This free length, suggested by
previous research (Astaneh-As1 et al., 1985) to be twice the thickness of the gusset, is to
allow for the fiee formation of a plastic hinge when the gusset plate is connected to the
W n g members along a single free edge. Finally, the gusset plates were designed so
their axial strength was greater than that of the HSS specimen. A more detailed
description of the specimen design can be found in Appendix B.
The test specimens were fabricated by placing a longitudinal slot in the flanges of
the HSS specimen and welding the gusset plate into this slot. Welds between the gusset
plate and the HSS specimen were not designed according to the requirements of
CAN/CSA-S 16-1-94, Based on the work of Korol (Korol, 1996) it was found that these
requirements did not explicitly cover HSS tension members with welded and slotted
connections. Therefore, HSS members were treated the same as open shaped members
resulting in overly conservative requirements. Using Korol's suggestions, the weld
length requirements were greatly reduced fiom those of CAN/CSA-S 16.1-94. Each
gusset plate was welded to a connection plate using a full penetration weld. The
connection plate, a 76.2mm or 88.9mm thick plate, facilitates the rigid connection of the
specimen to the testing £kame. A detail of the specimen connection can be seen in Figure
3-2.
3.4 Test Set-up
The test frame assembly is shown schematically in Figure 3.3 and 3.4. The test
fnune is designed as a closed system eliminating the need to transfer loads to the loading
floor. Two (2) 1.5MN MTS universal actuators were coupled to provide 3.OMN of
reversible cyclic load. The two actuators apply the axial load through a distribution
beam. This beam is composed of a pair of 800m.mdeep back-to-back channels. Load is
resisted in the fiame by beams at the back end of the actuators and at the opposite end of
the specimen. These beams are also back-to-back channels, 550m.mdeep and 800mrn
deep respectively. Two W 360x179 steel sections link the fiont and back of the test
frame assembly. These wide flange members complete the closed loop system. The
specimen comection assemblies consist of 4 - 36mm DYWIDAG THREADBAR@
reinforcing bars and pairs of 76.2mm or 88.9mrn thick plates welded to the specimen
gusset plates using 1 1 1 penetration welds. Four W 250x33 stubs support the test fiame at
each of its four corners keeping the h e 0.5m from floor height and making visual
observation simple. One-inch diameter A490 high strength bolts were used at all
locations in the fiame except for the actuator connection to the end beam. At this
location one-inch diameter AISI 4340 threaded rod was used. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 are
photographs of the test fiame assembly with a specimen in place.

36
3.5 Instrumentation
Two types of instruments have been utilized to obtain the required data; those
instruments measuring the response of the system and those instruments recording the
information.
The test specimens were gauged as shown in Figure 3.7. Strain gauges were
placed in pairs at strategic locations at the midspan of the HSS and at approximately 7%
of the specimen length on either side of the midspan. Unfortunately no strain gauges
were located on the gusset plates due to geometric restrictions in the test set-up. The
location of the strain gauges was decided based on previous, similar experiments.
Probable plastic hinge regions were gauged to determine the stmin distribution. The
results derived fiom the strain gauge data will also provide strain histories at specific
points, section curvature histories, plastic hinge formation and migration data, and a
determination of overall and local buckling phenomena. The strain gauge locations were
the same for each specimen tested in this series.
Displacement measurements recorded included those of the specimen and those of
the test frame assembly. Specimen displacements measured include the axial
displacement of the specimen and the lateral, or out-of-plane displacement, of the
specimen midspan. String potentiometers were used to perform each of these
measurements. As well, the MTS actuators measured the axial displacement internally.
Comparison between axial displacement values derived fiom the actuator and those fiom
37
the string potentiometer provides a measure of the elongation in the comection and
allows for a correction of the axial displacement data.
The cyciic axial load applied to the specimens was measured using the 1.5MN
load cells attached to the actuators. The loads measured by each actuator were summed
to provide the total axial load on the specimen.
Data from the strain gauges, string potentiometers and load cells were
continuously recorded using Measurements System Datascan hardware. This hardware
interfaces with Labtech Notebook sofhvare to record and provide visual observation of
the progression of the hysteresis curve and various strain readings. Visual observations of
the specimen were recorded at regular intervals during testing. These observations were
facilitated by the application of a whitewash coating to each specimen. This coating
would scale as the specimen underwent yielding.
3.6 Test Procedure
The test specimens were subject to quasi-static cycles of reversing axial
displacement. To maintain some continuity in the results, all tests had an initial
compressive half-cycle followed by the tensile half-cycle. Loading sequences for the test
specimens were input into the digitally controlled MTS Testar system. The actuators
were placed under displacement control for the duration of the testing. Displacement
rates varied for each cycle, however, the average cycle times were nearly equal for each
cycle. There were also periods where testing was paused to allow for observation of the
38
specimen dl-g critical points in the loading history. In general, a cycle was completed
in approximately 10 minutes.
The test specimens were initially subject to three elastic cycles; two at
approximately 25% of the nominal yield load and the third at approximately 75%. The
elastic cycles allowed for an instrumentation calibration check and provided a good
opporhmity to ensure the test frame assembly was operating safely. A typical loading
sequence for each specimen is shown in Figure 3.8. AAer the initial elastic cycles, the
specimens were loaded into their inelastic region to a prescribed level of axial
displacement. The displacement levels were predetermined as a specified level of
ductility ratio. Ductility ratio, p, as defined here, is the maximum applied displacement
divided by the elastic displacement at the initiation of tension yielding of the gross cross-
section of the HSS brace in a given cycle of loading. The displacements were
continuously increased until the specimen failed. This required a decrease in load
carrying capacity under a positive increase in actuator stroke. Othenvise, failure was
determined to have occurred in the specimen if greater than 50% of the cross-section had
hctured.
Gusset Dimeasions
HSS
Specimen Designation I
free length depth thickness

(bxdxt) 111m mm mm
1A 127~127~6.4 50 200 25.4
1B 127x12 7 ~ 8 . 0 51 225 25.4
2A 152x15 2 ~ 8 . 0 45 250 25.4
2B 152x152x925 39 300 25.4
3A 127~127~6.4 53 200 25.4
3B 127x127x8.O 48 225 25.4
3C 127~127~9.5 32 250 25.4
4A 152~152~8.0 47 250 25.4
4B 152~152~9.5 32 300 25.4
-
Table 3.1 Specimen Description
Total
HSS Length, Width-to-thickness ratio,
Specimen K L/r W r
blt*
Specimen Ls Length, L
(J-1 (mm) HSS Gusset
1A 3350 3450 0.74 70.7 52.3 16.8 7.9
1B 3350 3452 0.75 71.9 53.9 12.9 8.9
2A 3950 4040 0.77 69.2 53.3 16.0 9.8
2B 3950 4028 0.75 69.9 52.4 13.0 11.8
3A 4350 4456 0.71 91.3 64.8 16.8 7.9
3B 4350 4446 0.71 92.6 65.8 12.9 8.9
3C 4350 4414 0.66 93.3 61.6 10.4 9.8
4A 4850 4944 0.75 84.7 63.5 16.0 9.8
4B 4850 4914 0.7 85.3 59.7 13.0 11.8 A
* widtll-to-thichess ratio of the HSS is calculated using (b-3t)/r
-
Table 3.2 Specimen Properties
a) Edevation
Full Penetration Weld HSS Test Specimen

/-
b) Plan View
-
Figure 3.1 Typical Brace Specimen with End Connections
a) Elevation, b) Plan View
Full Penetration Weld
Specimen Connection Plate Gusset Plate
HSS Specirnen
---------
--- -------
----------
----------
7
-
4 36 mm DYWIDAG Threadbar
76.2
-
Figure 3.2 Plan View: Specimen Connection Detail
-
Figure 3.5 Test Frame Photograph
With Specimen in Place
-
Figure 3.6 Test Frame Photograph:
Specimen, End Connection, Distribution Beam, and Actuators
Cycle
* actual loading sequencefor Specimen 3B
-
Figure 3.8 Typical Loading Sequence
4. EXPERIMENTAL,RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
Results fiom the material testing programme and the experimental testing
programme are presented in this chapter.
The material testing programme consists of stub-column testing. The results of

the material tests are presented in Section 4.2. The purpose of the material tests is to
ascertain the exact properties of the steel used in the HSS to fabricate the specimens.
Yield strength and modulus of elasticity are the necessary parameters obtained fiom
material testing.
Nine HSS brace specimens with gusset plate end connections were tested in this
experimental programme. Results fiom these tests were primarily aimed at identifying
the hysteresis behaviour of the specimens. Hysteresis curves outline the extent of the
energy dissipation of the brace. Other data including strain gauge data and lateral
displacement of the specimen midspan are included to increase the amount of data
required to define the specimen behaviour.
4.2 Material Testing Programme
It is necessary to be aware of how steel performs under various conditions in
structural applications. The design of a steel structure for strength relies on the parent
steel having a minimum yield strength. Most often however, the actual yield strength of
the steel exceeds the minimum. Because of this overstrength, the seismic ductility design
50
can prove unsafe for structural components surrounding the member@) designed to yield
and dissipate energy. Therefore, knowledge of the material properties of the HSS
specimens is essential not only for the dissemination of the experimental data, but also for
awareness of the possibility of overstrength due to yield strengths significantly above
expected yield strengths. Particularly u s e l l are the axial load and axial deflection at
yield. The use of these values in normalizing the hysteresis curves of the specimens is
essential. Normalized hysteresis curves eliminate the effects of variations in material
properties, cross-sectional area, and specimen length when comparing specimens.
Normalization is accomplished by dividing the axial load and displacement by the yield
load, P,, and yield displacement, 6,

respectively.
Py= F, x A, (4- 11,
8, =gY XL (4.2);
where A, is the cross-sectional area of the HSS specimen and L is the overall specimen
length. The specimens were fabricated using G40.21 350W Class C square HSS
members. Five separate HSS sizes were used in this series of tests. Three stub-column
test sections were removed fiom the same material used to fabricate the test specimens.
The stub-column testing procedure is outlined by the Structural Stability Research
Council (SSRC, 1988). This procedure involves a compression test on the full cross-
section of the HSS. Stub-columns were cold-sawn Erom the parent material giving
lengths according to SSRC requirements. These specimens were then instrumented with
51
a linear strain converter (LSC) at the mid-length of the specimen to measure the
deformation on each of the four faces of the HSS over a specified gauge length.
Specimens were tested in a testing M e with a 9MN loading capacity. Figure 4.1 shows
a stub-coIumn set-up in the testing h e prior to a test.
Each of the five HSS sizes used in the brace specimens had three stub-columns
removed fiom the parent material except for the HSS 127~127~9.5.Only two stub-
columns were tested fkom this HSS due to a limited amount of this material,
A typical stress-strain curve fiom each of the five HSS sizes tested is shbwn in
Figure 4.2. The yield stress and strain for the stub-columns were obtained using the 0.2%
offset method. A summary of the material properties for the stub-column specimens is
presented in Table 4.1 and the average values for each specimen are given in Table 4.2.
These values were used in the normalization of the hysteresis curves.
43 Brace Test Results
Nine HSS brace specimens with end connections were tested under quasi-static
reversed cyclic loading conditions. The maximum tensile and compressive loads
achieved in each cycle for each specimen are given in Table 4.3. Similarly, Table 4.4
provides the maximum tensile and compressive axial displacements achieved in each
cycle. The individual test results are examined in the following sub-sections. Results
will focus on the hysteresis behaviour of the specimens, local and overall buckling,
h c t u r e behaviour, and other observations made during the tests such as buckled
52
configuration. Additional test results, in the form of raw strain gauge data, are provided
in Appendix A,
43.1 Specimen l A
Specimen 1A used an HSS 127x127x6.4mm as the brace. The end connection
consisted of gusset plates with dimensions of 200x25.4mm. The brace was 3350mm long
and the end connections had a measured free length of 50mm each. This gave the
specimen a total length of 3450mm. The effective length factor, K, for this specimen was
calculated to be 0.74. Therefore, the effective slenderness ratio and the width-to-
thickness ratio for Specimen 1A are 52.3 and 16.8 respectively. Specimen 1A had the
largest width-to-thickness ratio and was one of the stockiest of the specimens tested in
this series.
This specimen was subjected to two separate loading sequences. The first
included three cycles and produced an overall buckle in the specimen. Loading was then
stopped when a problem developed in the end connection of the test h e . The end
connection was repaired and loading continued for another five cycles until the problem
re-occurred. This time, ductility ratio levels approached +I- 4.5 and the specimen
developed a severe local buckle at the rnidspan region as can be seen in Figure 4.3.
Stable plastic rotation of the hinge occurred in the gusset plate. The axial load versus
axial displacement response of the specimen is shown in Figure 4.4. This figure
combines the two aforementioned testing periods. The test was halted on Cycle #11
53
when the problem reoccurred in the end connection. The specimen was not tested until
failure.
In general Specimen 1A behaved well but the test was hindered by early problems
with the test set-up. It was therefore determined that the data resulting fiom this test were
not admissible with the exception of the compressive capacity data The end connection
for all remaining specimens was modified as shown in Figure 3.2.
43.2 Specimen l B
Specimen 1B was comprised of an HSS 127~127~8.0

3350mm in length. The
gusset plate end connections were 225x25.4mm. The free lengths of the gusset plates
were measured to be 5 lmrn giving an overall specimen length of 3452mm. The resulting
effective length factor was calculated to be 0.75. Effective slenderness ratio and width-
to-thickness ratios were determined to be 53.9 and 12.9 respectively for this specimen.
Initial camber measurements found a 0.04mm camber biased towards the weak-axis of
the specimen assembly.
The axial load versus axial displacement and axial load versus lateral
displacement for Specimen 1B are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 respectively. The
specimen was subjected to three initial cycles of elastic loading in tension. The third
compressive cycle buckled the specimen elastically at a load of 1156kN. The buckled
specimen is shown in Figure 4.7. The fourth compressive cycle resulted in a significant
decrease in the compressive capacity of the specimen. The tension side of the same cycle
54
included the yielding of the HSS specimen at a maximum tensile load of 1647W.
Loading continued similarly with an increase in displacement in each subsequent cycle.
Apparent from the hysteresis curve is the degradation of axial tension stifiess with each
subsequent cycle.
On the 9'hcycle, the specimen buckled locally at the midspan at a value of 35mm
axial displacement. The local buckle appeared almost precisely at the midspan of the
specimen. A photograph of the specimen midspan during this period is shown in Figure
4.8. Observations included significant yield lines in the gussets and the midspan of the
HSS. A noticeable residual lateral deflection remained in the specimen upon reloading in
tension for each cycle. Loading continued through the i lh cycle increasing the local
buckle at the specimen midspan each cycle. On the tension stroke of this cycle the local
buckle would straighten out, however, the HSS began to tear at the comers of the
previously locally buckled region. Axial displacement was increased until the specimen
had hctured across 50% of the cross-section. At this point any increase in tensile
displacement would have hctured the specimen completely. Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show
the progression of the tearing and subsequent fracture of the specimen leading to the
ultimate failed state.
Observations of specimen behaviour during the test included strain gauge
readings, the overall buckled or deflected shape of the specimen, and the behaviour of the
gusset plate end connections. Strain gauge readings were followed while the specimen
remained elastic. Gauge pairs gave nearly identical results during this period. The
55
deflected shape of the specimen could be described as sinusoidal until local buckling
began. After the specimen buckled locally the curvature was concentrated in the end
connections and the central hinge region. Plastic hinge formation began in the end
connections after which the central plastic hinge region formed. This is a h c t i o n of the
flexural strength ratio between the gusset plates and the HSS. Throughout the test, stable
plastic rotation of the gusset plates was evident. Unfortunately due to dimensional
restrictions of the testing frame, the free length in the gusset plate was insufficient to
allow for the placement of strain gauges. Other observations of the specimen end
connections included cracks at the ends of the gusset plate weld to the HSS section. It is
not clear at what level of axial displacement or axial load these cracks formed in this
specimen. In general, however, the welds performed very well. No cracking was evident
at other weld locations.
43.3 Specimen 2A
Specimen 2A used an HSS152x152x8.0mm brace with 250x25.4mm gusset
plates. The total length of the specimen was 4040mm and the gusset plates had a free
length of 45mm each. This is less than the amount suggested by Astaneh-As1 et al. of
twice the gusset thickness. This was due to the aforementioned dimensional requirements
of the testing frame. The resulting effective length factor was found to be 0.77. This
specimen had a width-to-thickness ratio of 16.0 and the slenderness ratio of the specimen
was calculated to be 53.3. Measurements taken to determine the initial weak-axis camber
established a value of 1.45mm.

56
The axial load versus axial displacement response and the load versus lateral
displacement response of Specimen 2A are shown in Figure 4.1 1 and 4.12 respectively.
The specimen was subjected to 4 fidl cycles of loading until the specimen buckled
elastically on the f a compressive cycle at 1507kN of compressive load. The tension
side of the fifth cycle yielded the specimen at a load of 2165kN. Subsequent cycles
caused a significant decrease in the compressive capacity of the brace. On the tension
side, the capacity remained relatively stable. Column growth occurred due to yielding of
the specimen and reached its maximum value of approximately 20mm prior to failure.
Local buckling was evident on Cycle #8 approximately 25mm from the specimen
midspan. Further working of the midspan plastic hinge region initiated the specimen
failure on the 9' cycle of loading. Again, tearing developed in the flanges of the HSS.
Figure 4.13 displays the micro-tearing beginning to propagate. The specimen failed in
tension at approximately 1500kN axial load.
No observable deterioration of the gussets was evident. End connections formed
hinges prior to the plastic hinge formation at midspan and stable plastic rotation of the
gusset plates occurred throughout the testing. As noted with specimen lB, specimen 2A
experienced similar cracks in the weld across the thickness of the gusset plates. No other
cracking was evident in any of the welds for Specimen 2A. Shain gauge readings were
observed and proved satisfactory. Observation of the flaking of the white coating on the
specimens was M e r evidence of significant yielding in the plastic hinge regions at the
midspan and end connections. Generally the specimen behaved well and no problems
were encountered during testing.

57
43.4 Specimen 2B
Specimen 2B used a 152x 152x9.5mm HSS brace with 300x25.4mm gusset plates.
The specimen had a 3950mm long HSS brace and the gusset plates had 39mm fkee
lengths. This gave an overall specimen length of 4028mm. The effeftive length factor
for this specimen was calculated to be 0.75. Initial specimen camber in the weak-axis
direction was measured to be 1.20mm. The effective slenderness ratio and width-to-
thickness ratio of Specimen 2B were calculated to be 52.4 and 13.0 respectively.
Specimen 2B had the largest cross-section of all specimens tested and was the shorter of
the two specimens with this cross-section, Specimen 4B being the other, thus making it
the stockier of the two.
Figure 4.14 displays the axial load - axial displacement relationship for this
specimen and Figure 4.15 gives the load versus lateral displacement relationship. Both
figures show characteristic behaviour of an axially loaded brace specimen.
The initial cycles of loading were elastic. On the sL cycle the specimen buckled
elastically as can be seen in Figure 4.16. This resulted in a lateral displacement in the
order of 15mm.The compressive resistance of the specimen significantly decreased after
the initial elastic buckle. Loading continued and on the 6mtension cycle a crack initiated
at the end of the weld between the HSS and the gusset plate across the thickness of the
gusset plate. No further movement of this crack occurred subsequent to this cycle. On
the compressive cycle the specimen buckled locally at its midspan. Increasing the
axial displacement each cycle in compression brought further working to the plastic hinge
58
region of the specimen. However, the axial displacement in tension remained constant in
cycles following the 8&. The loh and final cycle of loading failed the specimen A
photograph of the failed specimen is shown in Figure 4.17. As with all other specimens,
cracks initiated in the flanges of the HSS in the plastic hinge region where local buckling
has occurred. The tensile axial displacement pulls apart these cracks until approximately
50% of the specimen cross-section has hctured and failure is deemed to have occurred.
The traditional tension failure cup-cone surface is exhibited in the specimens upon the
h c t u r e of the cross-section.
Other significant observations of specimen behaviour during this test include that
of the specimen connections. The specimen end connections exhibited stable plastic
behaviour throughout the test. Plastic hinges formed first in the gusset plates and next at
the midspan location of the specimen. Flaking of the whitewash coating was evident in
both plastic hinge locations. Local buckles disappeared during tension cycles and
reformed under compressive loads and residual lateral deflection was evident once the
load was removed fiom the specimen. Strain readings were in accordance with the load,
stroke, and observed behaviour of the specimen.
4.3.5 Specimen 3A
Specimen 3A used an HSS127x127x6.4mm brace 4350m.m long with
200x25.4mm gusset plates. This specimen is shown in Figure 4.18 loaded in the testing
h e prior to testing. The gusset plates had a free length measured to be 53mm. This
gave an overall specimen length of 4456mm. The effective length factor was calculated
59
to be 0.71 and therefore effective slenderness ratio was found to be 64.8. The width-to-
thickness ratio for Specimen 3A is 16.8. Measurement of the initial weak-axis camber
was 1.60mm.
The axial load versus axial displacement response of Specimen 3A is shown in
Figure 4.19. Figure 4.20 gives the axial load versus Iateral displacement response.
The specimen exhibited classic elastic behaviour up to and including the 4th cycle
when it buckled elastically in compression. The specimen buckled laterally at about
22mm of axial displacement and at an axial load of approximately 864kN. The
compressive resistance of the specimen decreased for each subsequent cycle. On the 6~
cycle of loading the HSS-to-gusset plate welds developed cracks across the thickness of
the gusset plate. This location is shown in Figure 4.21. The cracks showed no signs of
progression in subsequent cycles. On the tension side of the 7' cycle the computer
control of the loading cycles shut down consequently shutting down hydraulic power to
the actuators. Fortunately loading continued fiom a zero load position after the problem
was solved with no adverse effects to the loading sequence of the specimen. Local
buckling occurred shortly thereafter on the 8&compressive cycle. The specimen failed on
the 9&cycle of tension loading at approximately 460kN of load.
Observations of strain gauge readings during the elastic portion of the loading
sequence found the behaviour to be accurate. Gauge pairs gave nearly identical results
during this period. The deflected shape of the specimen was sinusoidal prior to the
commencement of local buckling. After the specimen buckled locally the curvature was
60
concentrated in the end connections and the central hinge region. Figure 4.22 displays
this rotation in the end connection of Specimen 3A during the initiation of plastic hinge
formation. Plastic hinge formation began in the end connections after which the central
plastic hinge region formed. Throughout the test, stable plastic rotation of the gusset
plates was evident
43.6 Specimen 3B
Specimen 3B was composed of a 127x127x8.0mm HSS brace 4350mrn in length.
The gusset plate end connections had dimensions of 225x25.4rnm and had a free length
of 48mm thus giving the specimen an overall length of 4446mm. The effective length
factor, K, was calculated to be 0.71 for this specimen giving an effective slenderness ratio
of 65.8. From cross-sectional dimensions, the width-to-thickness ratio was found to be
12.9. Measured initial weak-axis camber was 0.35mm.
The axial load versus axial displacement response for Specimen 3B is shown in
Figure 4.23 and the axial load versus lateral displacement behaviour for this specimen is
given in Figure 4.24. The specimen was loaded elastically for the first four cycles. On
the s6 cycle the specimen buckled elastically at a load of approximately 952kN. On
subsequent cycles the compressive resistance of the specimen decreased. During the 5"
cycle a crack also developed in the weld across the thickness of the gusset plates at both
ends of the specimen. The specimen reached a maximum tensile load of 1632kN in
Cycle #7. Loading continued until the i lth cycle where local buckling occurred at the
specimen midspan. The specimen is shown in Figure 4.25 at the time in which 1 4
61
buckling was just beginniog. Until this time the specimen performed very well exhibiting
stable plastic behaviour in the gusset plates. Due to the limitations of the actuators the
tensile displacement decreased in cycles after the 1'0 due to increasing column growth in
the specimen. Continued working of the plastic hinge region at the specimen midspan
resulted in the failure of the specimen on the 13' cycle. The failure of this specimen
occurred at an axial load of 369 kN. A photogmph of the initial tearing of the cross-
section leading up to the failure of the specimen is shown in Figure 4.26.
43.7 Specimen 3C
Specimen 3C used an HSS 127x127x9.5mm as the brace. The end connection
consisted of gusset plates with dimensions of 250x25.4mrn. The brace was 4350mm long
and the end connections had a measured fiee length of 32mrn each. This gave the
specimen a total length of 4414mm. The effective length factor for this specimen was
calculated to be 0.66. Therefore, the effective slenderness ratio and the width-to-
thickness ratio for Specimen 3C are 61.6 and 10.4 respectively. The initial weak-axis
camber of this specimen was measured to be 0.20rn.m. Specimen 3C had the smallest
width-to-thickness ratio of all specimens tested in this series. As well, the 32mm fkee
length in the end connections was the smallest at just over 1.25 times the thickness of the
gusset plate. It was expected that this specimen would be able to resist the largest number
of loading cycles.
The first four cycles of loading are within the specimen's elastic limits. Stable
tensile behaviour is evident within this range. A small amount of inelastic behaviour is
62
evident in these first few cycles most likely due to some very minor imperfections in the
specimen. The gusset plates may not be precisely aligned or the specimen may be
reacting to the natural camber. However, when the specimen is subject to significant
tensile loads the specimen tends to straighten out and behaviour is more linear in the
elastic range. In the fourth cycle of compressive loading the specimen experienced
overall buckling. This occurred at an axial load of approximately 997kN. An end view
of the elastically buckled specimen is shown in Figure 4.29. in cycles following the
fourth the compressive capacity of the specimen decreased substantially.
Stable plastic behaviour of the specimen was exhibited at all load levels in
tension. However, small jogs in the axial load axial displacement relationship can be
seen when bolt slip occurs in the test h e . Loading after the fourth cycle included
increasing the axial displacement in compression and tension. On the seventh cycle of
loading in tension, the specimen developed a hairline crack in the weld across the
thickness of the gusset plate. This cracking was noticed at the maximum axial load of
2284k.N and at an axial displacement of approximately 29.7mrn. Tensile axial
displacement of the specimen was limited to 33mm due to an initial displacement bias of
the specimen toward larger compressive displacements. The maximum levels of
compressive axial displacement reached nearly 96mm. The specimen reached the
maximum tensile displacement on the 1lh cycle loading. Maximum compressive axial
displacement levels were reached on the 14& cycle at which time the specimen buckled
locally. From this point the tensile and compressive displacement levels were held
constant for the remaining cycles until tearing of the cross-section at the midspan of the
63
brace occurred. The tearing initiated approximately 25mm from the bottom flange of the
HSS in the web wall. As the tensile loads continued to increase the tear propagated until
approximately 50% of the moss-section had hctured and the test was stopped, Figure
4.30 is a photograph of the failed specimen. Further examination of the gusset plates,
after testing was completed, found vertical &cia1 tearing.
The strain gauge readings and lateral displacement at midspan were also recorded
for this specimen. From these data, the buckled shape of the specimen was noted during
testing. The buckled shape of the specimen from cycles 4 through 14 was essentially
elastic. After the 1 4cycle

~ when local buckling occurred at the midspan of the specimen,
the specimen developed a plastic hinge at this location. From this point, the buckled
shape was that of a mechanism with two equal lengths hinged in the middle and at the
ends. Strain gauge data collected give the strain at various locations at and near the
midspan location.
43.8 Specimen 4A
This specimen was composed of a 4850mm long HSS 152x152x8.0mm section
with 250x25.4mm gusset plate end comections. The free length in the end connections
was measured to be 47mm giving the specimen an overall length of 4944mm. With a
calculated effective length factor of 0.75, the effective slenderness ratio of the specimen
was determined to be 63.5. The width-to-thickness ratio of specimen 4A is 16.0.
Measured camber for this specimen prior to testing was 0.02mm.

64
Figure 4.3 1 and 4 3 2 display the axial load axial displacement and the axial load
lateral displacement behaviour of the specimen respectively. Elastic behaviour is evident
in this specimen until the fifth compressive half-cycle. During this cycle, at a
compressive load of 1386kN, the specimen buckled elastically. The buckling occurred at
an axial displacement of approximately 1Omm. In cycles following the 5', the
compressive capacity of the specimen was severely diminished.
In this same cycle, on the tension half-cycle side, the specimen exhibited cracks in
the welds located across the thickness of the gusset plate end connections. These cracks
were identified at a load of approximately 1949kN.
Axial displacement levels were increased for each subsequent cycle. The
specimen was initially installed in the testing frame to allow for nearly twice as much
compressive axial displacement as was that given for tension. Maximum displacement
levels of 29 rnm in tension and 75 mrn in compression were reached in this test due to
this bias. The specimen reached this maximum tensile displacement on the 9& cycle of
loading and, in the same cycle, the specimen buckled locally at the midspan region.
Loading continued with increasing levels of compressive displacement until in the
following cycle the specimen began to tear near the comers of the flange. As the tensile
loads continued to increase the tear propagated until approximately 50% of the cross-
section had fractured and the test was stopped. Figure 4.33 is a photograph of the failed
specimen.
65
The buckled shape was nearly sinusoidal elastic until approximately the 7* cycle
when the specimen started to form a mechanism. Plastic hinges formed in the gusset
plates prior to hinge formation in the midspan. These hinges facilitated a near pin-ended
condition.
4.3.9 Specimen 4B
Specimen 4B used an HSS 152x152x9.5mm section 4850mm long with
300x25.4mm gusset plates at each end of the specimen for end connections. The
measured fiee length of the gusset plates was found to be 32mm. Therefore, the total
length of the specimen was calculated to be 4914mm. From this information an effective
length factor was calculated to be 0.70. The effective slenderness ratio and width-to-
thickness ratio for specimen 4B is 59.7 and 13.0 respectively. Specimen 4B was the
largest of the specimens tested. This specimen had the largest cross-section and was
nearly the longest.
Figures 4.34 and 4.35 give the axial load versus axial displacement and lateral
load versus lateral displacement behaviour of the specimen respectively. As shown in
this figure the specimen is loaded elastically for the first four cycles. On the 5' cycle the
specimen experienced overall buckling at 1435kN of compressive load and
approximately lOmrn of axial displacement This cycle was followed by continually
increasing levels of axial displacement in compression and tension. Although tensile
loads increased with increasing levels of axial displacement, the compressive loads
showed a marked decrease in capacity in the cycles following the 5.' On the 6'hcycle at
66
an axial load of 2540kN cracks were noticed in the weld across the thickness of the gusset
plate- The maximum tensile load of 2585k.Nwas then reached in the following half cycle
of loading. Stable plastic behaviour of the gusset plates was evident at all times during
the test. On the 9' cycle the midspan of the specimen experienced the effects of local
buckling. Figure 4.36 illustrates the locally buckled midspan region of this specimen on
the 1l h cycle of loading. The continued working of the midspan region resulted in the
tearing of the flanges on the concave side of the locally buckled region on the 12' and
final cycle of loading. Tearing and subsequent propagation of the tear resulted in the
failure of the specimen upon increasing levels of axial displacement Failure of the
specimen occurred at a load of 603kN. A photograph of the fractured specimen is shown
in Figure 4.37. The residual lateral deflection, typical of most specimens after testing, is
shown in Figure 4.38. This figure is a photograph of Specimen 4B removed from the
testing h e after testing.
As with all other specimens, the buckled shape was elastic until the later cycles of
loading. Upon hinge formation in the end connections and the midspan of the HSS the
specimen had what looked to be two straight sections.

F~ 3 Average Properties
Stub-Column Related Brace E
(0.2% offset) (0.2% offset) E FY 5
Specimen Specimen
(MP~) (MP~) ( ~od)
1 (MP~) (MP~) (XI04)
SC-A 1 2B, 4B 195 445 2300
SC-A2 2B, 4B 195 440 2275 196 442 2292
SC-A3 2B, 4B 198 442 2300
SC-Bl 2A, 4A 190 455 2375
SC-B2 2A, 4A 205 425 1900 202 442 2132
SC-B3 2A, 4A 210 445 2120
SC-C1 3C 209 462 2225
202 461 2289
SCX2 3C 195 460 2350
SC-Dl IB, 3B 185 4 12 2800
SC-D2 lB, 3B 183 412 2250 191 42 1 2417
SC-D3 lB, 3B 198 430 2200
SC-EI 1A, 3A 183 467 2600
SC-E2 IA, 3A 200 455 2275 196 46 1 2367
SC-E3 I A, 3A 205 460 2225
-
Table 4.1 Material Properties
Specimen E F~ EY pu 5,
(0.2% offet) (0.2% offset)
MPa MPa (~10-9 kN mm
1A 196 461 2367 1365 8.2
1B 191 421 2417 1524 8.3
2A 202 442 2132 1958 8.6
2B 196 442 2292 2303 9.2
3A 196 461 2367 1365 10.5
3B 191 42 1 2417 1524 10.7
3C 202 461 2289 1955 10.1
4A 202 442 2132 1958 10.5
4B 196 442 2292 2303 11.3
-
Table 4.2 Average Material Properties by Specimen
Spec. I Axial
Load
Cycle
* - cycle in which local buckling first occurred

-
Table 4.3 Maximum Compressive and Tensile Loads in Each Cycle
Displace-
Cycle
Spec. ment
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
6rnmpmU -1.3 -1.3 -6.8 -17.8 -29.6 -4.0 -5.8 -16.8 -28.2 -36.6 -47.2 - - - - - -
1A
Stensm 1.0 1.0 4.4 14.5 9.2 0.0 5.7 15.7 25.4 32.7 17.5 - - - -
1 1 16 1.6 2.6 4.9 1 1.6 20.5 27.4 28.4 29.4 29.8 29.9 20.7 - - - - -
* - cycle in which local buckling first occurred
-
Table 4.4 Maximum Compressive and Tensile Displacements in Each Cycle
8
-
Figure 3.5 Test Frame Photopph
With Specimen in Place
Average Strain, p
-
Figure 43 Typical Stub-Column Stress-Strain Curve
(stub-column specimen SC-D3, HSS 127~127~8.0)
-
Figure 3.6 Test Frame Photograph:
Specimen, End Co~ection,Distribution Beam, and Actuators
Axial Displacement, mm
-
Figure 4.4 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Axial Displacement
Specimen 1A
2000
1500
1000
500
5
$'
c;l 0
.m
m
d
-500
- 1000
-1500
-2000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-
Specimen 1B
Lateral Deflection, mm
-
Figure 4.6 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement
Specimen 1B
Figure 4.7 - Elastic Buckling, Cycle #3: Specimen 1B
Figure 4.8 - InitiationCycle

of Load Buckling at the Specimen Midspan,
#9: Specimen 1B
Figure 4.9 - Tearing at the Corners of the HSS, Cycle #11
Specimen 1B
Figure 4.10 - Cross-sectionFailure, Cycle #I1
Specimen 1B
-
Specimen 2A
-
Specimen 2A
Figure 4.13 - Tearing at the Corners of the ASS
Specimen 2A
-3000
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
-
Specimen 2B
0 100 200 300 400

Lateral Deflection, m m
-
Specimen 2B
Figure 4.16 - Overall Buckling, Cycle #5
Specimen 2B
Figure 4.17 - Cross-Section Failure, Cycle #10
Specimen 2B
Figure 4.18 - Specirnen 3A Pre-Test
-
Specimen 3A
-
Specimen 3A
Figure 4.21 - Typical Weld Crack Across Thickness of Gusset Plate
Figure 4.22 - Initiationof Plastic Hinge in End Connection
Specimen 3A
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-
Specimen 3B
-
Specimen 3B
Figwe 4.25 - Initiation of Local Buckling, Cycle #ll
Specimen 38
Figure 4.26 - Tearing at the Corners of the HSS, Cycle U13
Specimen 3B
-
Specimen 3C
-
Specimen 3C
Figure 4.29 - Elastic Buckle End View
Specimen 3C
Figure 4.30 - Cross-Sectional
Specimen 3C
Failure, Cycle #17
-
Figure 4.31 Hysteresis Curve: Axial Load versus Asia1 Displacement
Specimen 4A
-1500
-2000
-2500
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
-
Specimen 4A
Figure 4.33 - Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle #I0
Specimen 4A
AxiaI Displacement, rnm
-
Figure 4.34 Hysteresis Curve: Arhl Load versus Axial Displacement
Specimen 4B
3000
2000
5 1000
9
2
I
0
c8
.C1
-1000
-2000
-3000
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Lateral Deflection, rnm
-
Figum 4.35 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement
Specimen 4B
Figure 4.36 - Locally Buckled Midspan Plastic Hinge Region, Cycle tll
Specimen 4B
Figure 4.37 - Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle 112
Specimen 4B
Figure 4.38 - Test Completed, Specimen 4B
5. ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
The results of the tests are discussed in this chapter. The out-of-plane, or lateral,
deflection of the test specimens is addressed in Section 5.2. The measured out-of-plane
deflection is presented and related to the ductility ratio experienced by the brace. The
compressive capacity of each specimen is examined in Section 5.3. The initial buckling
capacity and subsequent reduction in compressive resistance for each cycle is
investigated. The hysteresis curves are studied in Section 5.3. This section deals with the
factors affecting the hysteresis behaviour of the specimens. nK energy dissipation of the
total specimen and the end connections are determined and reported in Section 5.4. In the
next section, Section 5.5, the fhcture life of the test specimens is analyzed. Previous
fiacture life equations are compared to the set of data produced from this series of tests.
A new, modified equation for predicting the fi-acture life of HSS braces is presented.
Finally, the connection behaviour is addressed in terms of the shear lag resistance. This is
detailed in Section 5.6.
5.2 Out-of-Plane Deflection
The results from the measured out-of-plane, or lateral, deflection are presented in
this section. Two approaches are presented which are able to determine the deflection
adequately. First, a general, simplified approach is used that is based on the simple
102
geometry of a buckled brace. Subsequently, the out-of-plane deflection is estimated from
an equation developed h r n , and calibrated against, the data from this series of tests.
The out-of-plane deflection of each specimen was measured during testing. A
500mm string potentiometer was attached to the top web of the HSS via a heavy magnetic
base at the mid-length (U2) of the specimen. The base of the string potentiometer was
fixed to the testing frame and the heavy magnetic base was fixed to the specimen.
Consequently, as the specimen dispIaced axially a small error was introduced into the
measured out-of-plane deflection due to the string potentiometer set-up. This set-up is
shown in Figure 5.1. This error was determined, in the worst case, to be well within
acceptable limits for the context in which it will be applied in the following.
A simple geometrical approach for the determination of the out-of-plane deflection, A, of
a brace can be derived. Figure 5.2 illustrates the appropriate parameters necessary to
define the deflection using the equation:
where 6 and L represent the axial deflection and specimen length respectively. This
approach would be expected if the brace were likened to a mechanism with hinges at the
ends and midspan. However, the specimen remains elastic at lower levels of ductility
ratio and therefore does not exhibit the same deflected shape of the mechanism shown in
Figure 5.2. Therefore, to determine an equation for the out-of-plane deflection of a brace
103
at all displacement levels it is necessary to calibrate the equation with respect to actual
data.
Figure 5.3 presents the results for the maximum out-of-plane deflections
experienced for each specimen as a h c t i o n of the ductility ratio experienced in that
cycle. It can be seen in this figure that the out-of-plane deflection (A) is proportional to
the ductility ratio (p). Ductility ratio is defined as the ratio of the axial displacement to
the yield displacement of the specimen.
To compare specimens, the out-of-plane deflection is normalized by dividing the
- deflection by the overall specimen length. Figure 5.4 graphically displays the relationship
between the normalized out-of-plane deflection and the ductility ratio. As can be seen in
this figure, the normalized outsf-plane deflection is dependant upon ductility ratio and is
not a function of the slenderness ratio. This relationship was also noted by Archambault
(Archambault, 1995). The following equation has been developed from the data
compiled in this series of tests. This equation expresses the normalized out-of-plane
deflection as a hnction of the ductility ratio experienced.
Equation 5.2 was developed by fitting a curve to the out-of-plane deflection data The
resulting normalized out-of-plane deflection curve determined using Equation 5.2 is
included in Figure 5.4 and compared to the results from each test. The curve adequately
displays the average characteristics of the outsf-plane response of the specimens tested.
104
Also shown in Figure 5.4 is the equation derived from the simplified geometrical
approach (Equation 5.1). This equation provides a quick estimate of the out-of-plane
deflection of a brace at all ductility ratios. However, Equation 5.1 overestimates the out-
of-plane deflection at low ductility ratios and underestimates the deflection at higher
ductility ratios. This is to be expected because the specimen behaves more like a
mechanism with plastic hinges in the end connections and at midspan when the specimen
experiences higher ductility ratios.
It is recognized that a large proportion of the damage incurred by structures during
seismic events is related to the damage of non-structural components. This can be due to
such effects as high lateral frame drift, or in the case of a braced M e , to out-of-plane
deflection of the brace. This type of damage was evident in many braced frames in the
1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake (Tremblay et al., 1996) where buckling braces shed
the surrounding wall finish. Knowing the extent to which a brace may deflect in this
manner will give those responsible for architectural detailing a chance to avoid damage to
components adjacent to a buckling brace.
53 Buckling Capacity
The results of the compressive capacity of the specimens tested are presented in
this section. Section 5.3.1 deals with the initial buckling capacity. Experimental values
are compared to compressive resistance values suggested by C N C S A S16.1-94,
referred to as CSA (1997), and to AISC LRFD, referred to as AISC (1998). Reduced
compressive resistances after the initial cycle of buckling are examined in Section 5.3.2.
105
Comparison with suggested reduced values as per CSA (1997) are addressed. Finally, a
modeling equation, developed previously by Lee (1987), is reviewed and compared to the
data fkom this series of tests.
53.1 Initial Buckling Capacity
The initial buckling capacity for each specimen is an important response
parameter. It is therefore usefid to compare the results of the initial buckling loads in this
series of tests with those calculated by current code specified resistances. CAN/CSA
S16.1 - 94 Limit States Design and AISC LRFD (1998) were used as theoretical
standards against which the experimental buckling loads were compared. The applicable
formulas fiom the referenced standards used are as follows. It should be noted that these
formulas provide the nominal resistance of the specimens tested.
CSA:
AISC:
Where;
Equation 5.3 requires input of yield stress, Fy,in MPa and Equation 5.4 requires
input in ksi. Further, the variable n in Equation 5.3 is a compressive resistance parameter
equal to 1.34 for Class C HSS sections. Figure 5.5 displays a comparison of the critical
106
buckling stress, P/A, calculated using the two equations as a function of the effective
slendemess ratio, KUr. It is evident from this figure that the two equations provide
similar results at all slenderness ratios. There is a slight discrepancy in the equations at
effective slenderness ratios between 30 and 70. The specimens tested in this series have
effective slendemess ratios ranging between approximately 50 and 65. It is therefore
expected that this discrepancy will arise in the comparison of the two equations. Table
5.1 provides the initial buckling load values for each specimen as calculated by Equation
5.3 and 5.4. This table also provides the experimentally measured initial buckling loads.
The experimental buckling loads are plotted as ratios to the theoretical load in Figure 5.6.
As expected, the two code specified compressive resistances provide slightly different
compressive capacities for this range of effective slenderness ratios. The AISC values are
in the order of 5 to 10 percent greater than those of the CSA. When comparing both
equations to the experimental results, very good agreement is obtained. CSA code
specified compressive resistances for virgin columns provide very good results with a
mean experimental to theoretical ratio of 1.01 and a coefficient of variation of 0.095. The
AISC code values tend to be less conservative, however, the resuits are still very good.
One exception in the results was that of Specimen 3C. This specimen had an in'ltial
compressive capacity in the order of 82 percent of that which the CSA code suggests.
This may be accounted for in the fabrication of the specimens. Initial buckling capacity
can be affected by camber or deviations fkom straightness in the specimen. Further,
fabrication of the specimen might introduce eccentricity into the brace that may account
for a lower initial buckling load than expected. None of the specimens tested, however,
107
were found to have a straightness variation greater than permitted by the CSA code: (total
length)/SOO. There was, however, a possibility of some eccentricity introduced into the
specimen upon welding of the gusset plates to the thick end connection plates used to fix
the specimen to the testing h e .
53.2 Reduction in Compressive Resistance
The compressive resistance of a brace in cycles following the initial buckling
cycle shows a marked decrease in compressive strength for all specimens. This is a
typical response of braces subject to inelastic cyclic loading. It is useful, however, to
quantify this reduction and relate it to the important parameters that affect this behaviour.
This significant reduction in compressive resistance in cycles following the first
cycle of buckling can be attributed to two effects. First, a residual lateral displacement, or
curvature, may exist from previous compressive load cycles. Therefore, re-application of
compressive loads buckles the braces at lower loads due to the eccentricity in the axial
load. Next, the significant inelastic deformations occurring in a brace subject to inelastic
cyclic loading tends to alter the mechanical properties of the brace. The stress-strain
relationship in the steel is subject to what are known as Bauschinger effects. The result of
this phenomenon is a decrease in the proportional limit and yield strength by reloading a
plastically deformed specimen in the opposite direction, compression after prestretching.
This represents the loading sequence that this series of specimens was subject to, initial
compressive loads followed by tensile loading. It is therefore expected that the return to
compressive loading after a cycle of tension yielding would decrease the modulus of
108
elasticity, and yield strength of the specimen. Because the compressive capacity of a
brace is proportional to the yield strength, the compressive resistance would be expected
to decrease accordingly. The combination of the two effects decreases the compressive
resistance of the brace in cycles following the initial buckling cycle.
The current CSA standard recommends that the degradation in compressive
resistance be accounted for when designing a ductile braced h e . The standard
suggests the following equation for the reduced compressive resistance, Cr':
The initial buckling capacity, Cryis given as:
This suggests that a reduction factor that is inversely proportional to the
slenderness ratio and yield strength of the specimen be used to determine the decteased
resistance value. This equation was compared to the results of the maximum
compressive resistances realized in each cycle for each specimen with the exception of
Specimen 1A. As was stated previously, the results, other than initial buckling loads, for
this specimen were not utilized due to problems that hindered the testing and in turn
affected the late cycle results.

109
Figure 5.7 graphically presents this comparison for Specimen 1B. This result is
typical for all specimens where the correlation between the nominal code specified
resistance is similar for the first and second buckling cycles but is poor for each
subsequent cycle. The maximum compressive axial load for a cycle ,

P
( mm) has been
normalized with respect to the initial compressive resistance, C , for this figure. Figure
5.8 provides a graphical comparison between the reduced buckling capacity (C,') and the
experimentally determined buckling load ,

P
( ma) for each specimen in every cycle. It
is evident from these figures that the current formula for the degradation in compressive
resistance of a brace does not adequately represent the overall behaviour of the specimens
tested in this series. For the fust cycle after the initial buckling load, the compressive
resistance of the specimen compares well with the suggested reduced resistance.
However, in cycles after this the specimens continue to show a significant decrease in
compressive capacity. In previous tests, however, the majority of the brace capacity
degradation occurs after the first buckling cycle and thereafter remains nearly constant
(Kahn and Hanson, 1976, Jain et al, 1978). It is believed that the discrepancy exists due
to the particular loading sequence employed. The current sequence resulted from the
limited tensile stroke of the actuators due to a bias in the stroke allotted for compressive
displacement. Due to column growth, or residual axial elongation, the stroke contributing
to the application of tensile loads decreased with each cycle. Therefore, the specimen
experienced progressively decreasing maximum tensile loads for cycles in the later stages
of loading. This resulted in a decrease in the reduction of the residual lateral
displacement for a tension cycle and an increase in the initial lateral displacement, or
110
eccentricity, for the next compressive cycle. In tum, the maximum compressive loads are
reduced for these cycles. It is unclear to what extent the residual lateral displacement
would be reduced, if the specimen were to be subjected to tensile yield load values in
each cycle. Further, the contribution of Bauschinger effects to the decrease in
compressive capacity is not certain. Unfortunately, due to the specific loading sequence
employed and the fact that all specimens were subject to very similar loading sequences,
does not permit comparison between loading sequences within this data set. Further,
quantification of the relative contribution of the two effects, Bauschinger and residual
lateral displacement, is made difficult.
Therefore, based on the results from this series of tests, it would appear that
Equation 5.6 provides a non-conservative estimate to the lower bound compressive
capacity due to the degradation of resistance fiom cyclic loading.
For the purposes of modeling the brace behaviour, it is usettl to determine the
relationship between the maximum tensile load reached in the previous cycle and the
reduced compressive capacity. Hassan and Goel (Hassan and Goel, 1991) provided an
expression for the reduced compressive capacity as a b c t i o n of the maximum tensile
load achieved before unloading and the fm buckling load. This expression was modified
from the original developed by Lee (1987) derived fiom results of tests on steel tubes
subject to cyclic inelastic loading. Hassan and Goel modified Lee's expression slightly,
however, it was found that Lee's original expression provided the best representation of
the behaviour of the specimens tested in this series. The equation is as follows.
Table 5.2 provides the maximum tensile load level reached prior to the beginning
of each compressive half-cycle where buckling occurs. Normalizing the previous tensile
load achieved with respect to the brace yield load and using this to compare to the actual
behaviour of the specimens provides a look at how the compressive capacity is affected.
Figure 5.9 a) through h) compares the results fiom Equation 5.8 with the results
fiom the experimental compressive capacity of each specimen for each cycle of loading.
These figures show a mediocre correlation between the experimentally determined
compressive capacity and that determined by Equation 5.8. Better results are shown in
later cycles when the effect of a severely diminished unloading tension force is evident.
Unfortunately, the error between Equation 5.8 and the experimental results ranges
between approximately nil and 23%, averaging about 11%. Further, the results appear to
be more erratic over the first few buckling cycles. During this period it is possible that
the compressive capacity is influenced more by Bauschinger effects than by the tension
unloading force. Attempts were made to relate the reduced compressive capacity to other
factors. However, the correlation between reduced compressive capacity and the tension
unloading force as suggested by Equation 5.8 was found to be the best representation of
this phenomena
These results suggest that one should be cautious in assuming a lower bound for
the compressive resistance of a buckled brace. Effects such as a residual lateral

112
displacement can severely affect this assumed capacity. Archambault (1995) reached a
similar conclusion after examining two different loading sequences applied to similar
specimens. That is, Equation 5.6 was unable to predict the reduced capacity of a brace
for the particular loading sequence used with reasonable accuracy. It is suggested that the
quantification of the reduction in compressive capacity be approached by examining
brace behaviour through variation in loading sequences employed.
5.4 Hysteresis Behaviour
The hysteresis c w e represents the energy dissipation of a brace in a braced
frame. It is an important response parameter for braces subject to cyclic loading into their
inelastic regions. It is the cumulative effect of the energy dissipation that helps steel
structures survive the effects of seismic or blast loading events. Such events place large
inelastic demands on a structure.
In this section the hysteresis behaviour is presented for the specimens tested in
this series- The most important parameters affecting the hysteresis behaviour are
identified and examined. The qualitative behaviour represented by the hysteresis cwves
is first examined. This is done by comparing normalized hysteresis curves with varying
parameters. Next, the energy dissipation is quantified. The energy dissipated by the
specimen and the end connections is determined and reported.
The general shape of the hysteresis loops displayed by each specimen is typical of
an intermediate length brace member subject to inelastic cyclic loading. Braces tested in
113
this series fell on the low side of the intemnediate range. Therefore, very little elastic
buckling of the brace was evident in the first buckling cycle. The degradation in
compressive capacity after the initial buckling cycle was also evident in the hysteresis
behaviour of all specimens. This effect, as discussed previously, was a result of both
Bauschinger effects and a sub-yield tensile force at the unloading point. Other important
phenomena characteristic of intermediate length braces observed fiom the hysteresis
loops incIude a loss of axial compression stiffiess, residual axial displacement, and a loss
of tangent stifhess at zero applied load.
5.4.1 Normalized Hysteresis Loops
The normalization of a hysteresis loop is usefitl for comparing the hysteresis
behaviour of specimens. Normalizing eliminates the effects of member shape, material
properties, cross-sectional area, and length. Equations 4.1 and 4.2 are used to calculate
the axial yield Ioad and yield displacement of the specimens. These quantities are used to
normalize the experimental load and displacement values. The normalized hysteresis
loops for each specimen are given in Appendix A. The scale is equal for each figure to
permit comparison.
It is also advantageous to superimpose the normalized hysteresis loops of different
specimens for direct comparison. Figure 5.10 compares the normalized hysteresis loops
of Specimens 2B and 3B. The specimens have nearly the same width-to-thickness ratio
but different effective slenderness ratios. As can be seen in this figure Specimen 2B
( U J ~ 5 2 . 4 ) ~stockier than Specimen 3B ( K U ~ 6 5 . 8 ) , exhibits superior hysteresis

114
behaviour in compression. This improved hysteresis behaviour is in the form of a fuller
loop on the compression side. The specimens have nearly identical behaviour in tension
with the exception of the small difference in loop area upon reloading of the specimen in
tension. The specimen with a smaller effective slendemess ratio is shown to have a
slightly greater stiffness in this region and therefore is capable of dissipating more energy.
The width-to-thickness ratio, b/t, has a minor influence on the hysteresis loops of
the specimens. As b/t decreases the specimen is capable of sustaining more loading
cycles and therefore achieves greater maximum displacement in tension and compression.
This is also a h c t i o n of the loading history. In this series of tests all specimens were
subject to very similar loading histories.
Figure 5.1 1 compares the hysteresis loops of Specimen 2A (KL/r=53.3) and
Specimen 1B (KL/r=53.9). This figure compares two specimens with nearly identical
effective slenderness ratios but different width-to-thickness ratios. It is evident fiom this
figure that the behaviour of the two specimens is very similar with the exception of the
displacement maxima The difference in the width-to-thickness ratio of the specimen is
responsible for the only noticeable differences between the two loops.
From observation of the normalized hysteresis loops it is apparent that the most
influential parameter on the hysteresis behaviour is the effective slenderness ratio. It was
also shown that the loops were biased to the tension side as the effective slendemess ratio
increased. This is obvious in the increase in the ratio of tension to compressive capacity
as the effective slendemess ratio increased. The width-to-thickness ratio is a major factor
115
governing the fracture life of the specimen and therefore affects the maximum
displacement levels reached in tension and compression. However, the width-to-
thickness ratio is not a major determining parameter in the shape of the hysteresis loop.
Other general phenomena evident in these figures, and those in Appendix A are the
stable tensile behaviour and the significant degradation of compressive resistance for each
specimen. The effects of end connections are included in the effective slenderness ratio
of the specimens and therefore have no effect other than modifying the effective length
factor, K. Therefore, end connection participation has not been specifically addressed.
5.4.2 Energy Dissipation
Energy dissipation by a brace is a key response parameter. The quantity of energy
dissipated by the test specimens was determined fiom the hysteresis loops as presented in
Chapter 4. The area enclosed by the axial load - axial displacement curves represents the
hysteresis energy dissipated by the test specimens. In the specimens tested in this series,
the measured energy dissipated derives fiom three sources. First and foremost, the
majority of the dissipated energy is a result of the tension yielding and inelastic buckling
of the HSS. Second, a lesser part of the total energy dissipated is a result of the stable
plastic rotation of the end connections when the HSS buckles. Finally, a very minute
amount of energy has been determined to dissipate through friction in the testing h e .
The latter amount has been measured and determined to be a maximum of 0.75% of the
total energy dissipated by the system in any single cycle and therefore will be neglected in
the presentation of results. Measurement of the friction was completed prior to testing.
116
The actuators were cycled through their hll displacement and the axial load was
measured giving an axial load - axial displacement relationship representative of the
fiction in the system.
The total energy dissipated by the system, both end connections and the HSS, is
presented in Table 5.3. This table lists the energy dissipated by each specimen during
each cycle of loading. The values presented in this table have been calculated fiom the
specimen hysteresis curves presented in Chapter 4. To compare the energy dissipation of
each specimen the calculated energy dissipated in a cycle (Ei) was normalized against the
energy dissipation of a rigid-perfectly plastic, non-buckling element with the same yield
load as the specimen that it is compared to. The energy dissipated by the rigid plastic
element (RPi) represents the hypothetical maximum value of energy dissipation for the
test specimen subject to the same axial displacements. Dividing Ei by RPi normalizes the
energy dissipation, de-emphasizing the effect of varying yield loads and displacements.
In return, the comparison of specimens with various loading histories and yield loads is
facilitated. Figure 5.12 graphically displays how RPi is established. The value given by
Ei/RPi represents the energy dissipation efficiency of the test specimen. The energy
dissipated by the rigid plastic element varies from cycle to cycle depending only upon the
maximum compressive and tensile displacements achieved as well as the yield load of the
specimen.
Figure 5.1 3 graphically compares the energy dissipation efficiency of each
specimen for each cycle of loading. The specimens tested had a relatively narrow range
117
of effective slenderness ratios, this is evident in the small scatter in the data. However, a
general trend can be identified in this figure. Specimens with smaller effeftive
slenderness ratios show greater energy dissipation efficiency than do those with slightly
larger W r . This trend is, on average, representative in all specimens except Specimen
2B. This specimen displayed more elastic behaviour prior to buckling and therefore
dissipated less energy in the early cycles of testing. Another general trend evident from
this figure is the degradation of energy dissipation after the maximum compressive load
has been achieved and the specimen buckles. This is expected as a result of the decreased
compressive capacity in cycles following the initial buckling cycle. The effect of a
decreased compressive capacity is a smaller hysteresis loop area on the compressive half-
cycle and in turn, a decreased energy dissipation efficiency. The reverse is true for cycles
leading up to the initial buckling load. The loading sequences were very similar for all
specimens tested in this series resulting in overall specimen buckling on or around the 5"
cycle of loading. For the loading cycles previous to this cycle, there was a consistent
increase in energy dissipation efficiency. Perhaps a more useful look at the same data is
shown in Figure 5.14. This figure plots the cumulative energy dissipation efficiency of
each specimen for each cycle of loading. Again, the variation in the data is small but the
general result shows that the stockier specimens dissipate more energy. Cumulative
energy efficiency results fiom a sample of brace tests performed on round hollow
specimens by Zayas (Zayas et al., 1980) have been included in these results for
comparison over a wider range of effective slenderness ratios. Specimens 5 and 6 h m
this series of tests were included; both have effective slenderness ratios of 25. Loading
118
sequences employed in Zayas' series of tests subject the braces to yield displacements on
the first cycle of loading thus forcing inelastic behaviour in the specimens very early in
the test. This comparison provides additional evidence supporting the fact that stockier
specimens are more efficient at dissipating energy. Other parameters such as width-to-
thickness ratio were found to be less influential on the energy dissipation efficiency. Jain
(Jain et al-, 1978) showed an increase in the energy dissipation of braces with smaller
width-to-thickness ratios. This, however, was not as clearly revealed in this series of
tests.
The second source of energy dissipation in the specimens is the end connections.
The energy dissipated by the end connections derives fiom the stable plastic rotation of
the gusset plates when the brace buckles. Knowledge of the experimental moment-
rotation relationship provides the energy dissipation of these elements. Archambault
(1 995) previously performed the same analysis, however, that series of tests measured the
deflection of the end connection directly. The absence of these experimental
measurements in this series of tests necessitates the use of reasonable assumptions to
determine the energy dissipation of the end connections. Therefore, by no means are the
following results exact, however, they are a reasonable approximation of the energy
dissipation provided by the end connections. An elastic-plastic moment-rotation
relationship was assumed for the gusset plates with the following equation being used to
calculate the rotational stiaess of the gusset plates. This simplified relationship was
suggested by El Tayem and Goel (1986).

where Lgis the total length of the gusset plate, equivalent to the sum of the h e length
and the length of HSS-to-gusset plate weld. The rotation of the end comections was
assumed fkom the experhentally measured lateral displacement. The rotation was
calculated using the following equation, developed from the simplified geometry of a
buckled brace.
The rotation of the end connection is represented by 0, A is the measured lateral
displacement, and L is the length of the HSS brace. It is recognized that this equation is
an oversimplification of the actual rotation, however, it is believed that the results derived
from the equation are conservative. That is, the energy dissipation of the end connections
will be underestimated. The greatest energy dissipation occurs when the specimen has
the largest lateral displacement. With large lateral displacement the specimen also
realizes the greatest physical definition in the plastic hinge regions, that is, the specimen
is most like a mechanism when the lateral displacement is greatest. Therefore, this
assumption is logical and does provide reasonable results.
The moment-rotation relationships of the end connections for each specimen are
given in Figure A.10 a) through f) in Appendix A. These figures provide the full test
hysteresis curves in the gussets for each specimen. A s with the specimen hysteresis
120
curves, the energy dissipation of the gusset plates can be determined by calculating the
area enclosed by the gusset moment-rotation hysteresis curve. Figure 5.15 outlines how
this is accomplished.
The energy dissipated by the end connections, for each specimen, calculated by
the above method is listed in Table 5.4. The energy values reported are for each gusset
plate in a single specimen, therefore 2Ed provides the energy dissipated by the end
connections for a specimen. Figure 5.16 displays the energy dissipated by the gussets as a
percentage of the energy dissipated by the specimen as a whole for each cycle of loading.
This figure displays the data presented in Table 5.4. A general pattern emerges from the
figure whereby the specimens with a greater strength ratio (R) show a slight increase in
energy dissipation with respect to the total specimen for a given loading cycle. The
strength ratio is defined as the ratio of the plastic moment of the gusset plate to that of the
HSS section. A better representation of the contribution of the end connections to the
energy dissipation can be seen in Figure 5.17. This figure Looks at the cumulative gusset
energy dissipation contribution for each cycle. The figure clearly identifies the
relationship between the gusset contributions in response to a change in the strength ratio.
Evident in the figure is an increase in gusset contribution with an increase in strength
ratio. Although the connections do not dissipate a significant amount of energy when
compared to that of the HSS, it is userl to quantify this relationship to assist in
developing end connections capable of dissipating greater amounts of energy while
maintaining stable behaviour under large rotations due to brace buckling. As was seen in
Figure 5.17, increasing the connection flexural strength relative to that of the brace
121
increases the energy dissipated by the connection. However, according to Prathuaagsit
(Prathuangsit et al, 1978) there appears to be a limit to the strength ratio, R, where an
increase in R over and above a specified maximum results in negligible effects on the
energy dissipation of the specimen. The specified limit has been defined as the balanced
strength ratio (&),a theoretical strength ratio whereby the HSS and end connections form
plastic hinges simultaneously therefore dissipating the most energy possible.
Unforhmately, providing such gussets would prove extremely costly if used on a large
scale due to the fact that providing a balanced strength gusset plate requires extremely
thick gussets. Therefore, it is worthwhile to identify an end connection where the
balanced strength condition can be achieved and the energy dissipation can be
maximized. A connection capable of dissipating up to one-half of the energy while
maintaining stable plastic behaviour in rotation is ideal. Such a connection should not
only be economical but should also maintain the simplicity of the braced b e in design,
detail and construction. The result would be a sort of strong brace - strong gusset system.
It should also be noted that the behaviour of the gusset plates during testing was
fine. The free length of the gusset plate affects the stiflkess of the connection thereby
affecting the effective length factor, K. The result is realized in the effective slenderness
ratio which is the most important factor affecting the behaviour of the specimens. The
suggested fiee length factor of twice the thickness of the gusset plate (Astaneh-As1 et al.,
1985) was applied as an upper bound to the specimens tested in this series. The
consequence of having a free length smaller than this suggestion became more evident as
the fiee length approached the 1.25 times the gusset thickness, most significantly in
122
Specimen 3C. This specimen experienced the initiation of small vertical tearing on the
outer edges of the gusset plates in the late cycles of loading. The specimen had the
Longest hcture life and therefore was subject to the largest number of loading reversals.
No other specimens exhibited any similar effects in the gusset plates. All specimen end
connections behaved very well; stable plastic behaviour was evident under the large
lateral displacements experienced.
5.5 Fracture Life
The early fiacture of HSS braces is identified as one of the more disadvantageous
consequences of their use in braced h e structures. The fracture of HSS braces due to
low-cycle fatigue failure significantly affects the lateral stiffness and the energy
dissipation capacity of the braced h e . The result is increased lateral drift and
additional damage to non-structural components. Further the redundancy of the frame is
compromised upon the fracture of a brace. In this section the factors affecting the
fiacture life of a brace are identified, From this, current empirical equations used to
determine the fracture life of a brace are identified and compared with the test results in
this series of tests to determine if the current equations adequately predict the fracture
life. Finally, refinements and modifications to these criteria are proposed to improve the
prediction of the fracture life of HSS braces subject to reversed cyclic axial loading where
severe local buckling occurs.

123
5.5.1 Factors Aftkcting Brace Fracture Life
A brace's resistance to early fracture can be attributed to many factors. The most
important of the factors affecting brace fracture life are the width-to-thickness ratio of the
brace, the effective slenderness ratio, the width-to-depth ratio, and the mechanical
properties of the member.
The width-to-thickness ratio of the member is especially influential on the fiacture
life. As witnessed in this series of tests, the hcture of the brace followed closely after
the local buckling of the compression flange in the plastic hinge region. The subsequent
working of this hinge region resulted in the failure of the cross-section. According to
elasticity theories, resistance to local buckling increases as the width-to-thickness ratio of
a compression member decreases. More specifically, the local buckling strength of a
plate is inversely proportional to the square of the width-to-thickness ratio.
Local buckling is also influenced by the boundary conditions of the compression
flange of the HSS. The relative dimensions.of the web plates adjacent to the compression
flange dictate the influence on local buckling. The relationship between local buckling,
and in turn the h c t u r e life, and the width-to-depth ratio, bid, of the HSS has been shown
to be linear (Tang and Goel, 1987). Therefore, as b/d increases, so does the hcture life.
Tang and Goel also suggest that the effective slenderness ratio has an effect on the
hcture life of a brace. Their research found that braces with larger effective slenderness
ratios result in less severe local buckling. As well, the fiacture life of braces with small
KVr (less than 60) were found to be less dependent on effective slenderness ratio.
124
The mechanical properties of the brace are also influential on the fiacture life of
the specimens. The current belief is that braces that incorporate a more ductile material
tend to have a longer hcture life.
5.5.2 Empirical Fracture Lire Predictions
There currently exist empirical equations to predict the fracture life of bracing
members. Tang and Goel (Tang and Goel, 1987), Hassan and Goel (Hassan and Goel,
1991), and Archambault (Archambault, 1995) have provided such equations.
Early equations by Tang and Goel involved determining the fracture life based on
normalized cycles of loading. The normalized cycles were based on a standard loading
cycle whereby small deformation cycles were ignored and large tension deformation was
very important. This method was limited and therefore will not be discussed further.
Tang and Goel's fiacture criterion was soon replaced by an equation developed by Lee
and GoeI (Lee and Goel, 1987).
Lee and Goel's empirical fracture life prediction was based on the cumulative
deformation experienced by a hollow (tubular) specimen. The experimental fi-acture life
of a tubular bracing member, Af,, is determined fiom test results by first converting the
hysteresis curve to a normalized hysteresis curve. Figure 5.18 displays a typical
normalized hysteresis curve and outlines the parameters necessary for determining Arw
The deformation amplitude is divided into two parts, A* and A*, by the point at P43. A, is
identified as the normalized deformation fiom Py/3 to the point of maximum compressive
125
deformation and A2 is the deformation from the point at PJ3 to the point of maximum
tensile deformation. The experimental fracture life is next obtained by summing A2 and
10% of A, for each cycle of loading until the fracture of the specimen. The following
equation, developed by Lee and Goel (1 987) represents this:
*feq = (0. 1 ~+,A,)
Fracture life is based on a normalized hysteresis curve and therefore the units for this
measure are nondimensional.
It is evident in Equation 5.1 1 that the compressive deformation excursion is
heavily discounted and the tensile deformation excursion is regarded as being the most
important component of the deformation in terms of affecting the fracture life of a brace.
Lee and Goel (1987) believed that the tension forces applied to a straightened brace have
significantly more effect on the fracture life than do tension forces applied while
straightening the brace. This is reflected in the 90 percent reduction of A, towards the
experimentally determined fiacture life of the specimen.
With knowledge of the factors affecting the fracture life of a hollow brace, Lee
and Goel (1987) developed the following equation to predict the fracture life
theoretically.
A, = C ,
[(b- 2)/ t ]
126
Where C, is an experimentally determined constant equal to 1335 and F, is the yield
stress expressed in MPa Hassan and Goel (1991) later modified the constant, C,, for use
in the DRAIN-2DM program, which can be used for the inelastic static and dynamic
structural analysis of braced frames.
As can be seen in Equation 5.12, all factors thought to affect the hcture life of a
brace are present with the exception of the effective slenderness ratio. Unfortunately,
Equation 5.12 was developed using test results with very limited KUr ratios. Therefore,
it was determined that the effective slenderness ratio had no effect on the hcture life of
the specimens resulting in Equation 5.12. Archambault (1995) re-visited this equation
and compared it to the results of extensive test data of rectangular HSS brace specimen
tests. Archambault noted that Equation 5.12 did not adequately predict the experimental
fracture life (Af-1 of the braces tested in that series of tests. Two reasons were cited for
the discrepancy. First, the effective slenderness ratio was found to be an influential
parameter that Hassan and Goel discounted due to limited test data. As well, the test data
Lee and Goel used to develop Equation 5.12 had loading sequences strongly biased in
compression. In turn, this was believed to bias the results because the tension loads
reached were very limited. Therefore, Archambault introduced the following modified
equations to predict the Eracture life of bracing members.
(
A f * = C s ( 3 1 7 1 ~ ~ ) 4(bId)+l
[(b- 2t) / t ] O5
'~
T(7Oy, firKLlr<70
Where C , is an experimentally determined constant equal to 0.0257. This constant, as
reported by Archambault is 0.0257. However, better correlation to that test data occurs
with a constant equal to 0.0184. This is also the value that appears to have been used in
generating figures used by Archambault. Using a C, of 0.0 184, Equation 5.13 has proven
successful in reasonable predictions of the fkacture life of tubular bracing members.
5-53 Fracture Life Results
The results, as they relate to the hcture life of the specimens, are presented in
this section.
Table 5.5 provides the pertinent factors required to calculate the fracture life of
the specimens tested in this series as well as those tested by Archambault. The addition
of Archambault's results offers a greater range of effective slenderness ratios to the data
set. The experimentally determined fiacture life of the specimens tested in this series are
compared to the factors affecting this fiacture life, those being the effective slenderness
ratio, the width-to-thickness ratio, the breadth-to-depth ratio (b/d), and the yield strength.
These comparisons are shown in Figures 5.19 through 5.22. Data included in the figures
are the results fiom tests conducted by Archambault as well as the results fiom this series
of experiments. Figure 5.1 9 displays the relationship between fracture life and effective
slenderness ratio. This figure displays a slight correlation at slenderness ratios in excess
128
of 70, as Archambault had found. For KUr less than 70, the fiacture life appears to be
independent of effective slenderness ratio and perhaps more dependent upon other
factors. Figure 5.20 demonstrates the fracture life to be, in general, inversely proportional
to the width-to-thickness ratio. However, the scatter in the data is still too severe to
determine, with any certainty, a relationship between hcture life (Af exp) and width-to-
thickness ratio. Still, the width-to-thickness ratio appears to have the greatest effect on
the fracture life of the specimens relative to the rest of the depending factors for the
specimens tested in this series. Figures 5.21 and 5.22 display the relationship between the
fracture life and the breadth-to-depth ratio of the HSS and the yield strength respectively.
The relationship between fracture life and the parameters shown in these figures is not
apparent, and the results appear to be complicated due to other, more influential factors
affecting the hcture life.
Next the results fiom this series of experiments were compared to the theoretical
fracture life predicted by Archambault's equation, Equation 5.1 3&b. Table 5.6 provides
the results of the theoretical fracture life prediction calculated using this equation as well
as a subsequent equation yet to be introduced. Equation 5.13 has been found to predict
the fhcture life of brace specimens fiom previous tests adequately. Figure 5.23 displays
the results fiom this comparison. As can be seen in this figure, Archambault's hcture
life equation (Eqn. 5.13a&b) provides a satisfactory prediction of the fracture life of the
braces tested in this series. The effective slenderness ratios and loading sequences vary
significantly fiom those of the tests performed by Archambault and therefore a wide
129
range of data is encompassed in this figure. Although Equation 5.13 provides a
reasonable prediction of the hcture life of a brace subject to local buckling, the error is
still significant and reliability of the equation is uncertain at best. It is worthwhile to
approach the equation statistically. With the addition of more data, the refinement of this
equation is made possible.
Refinements or modifications to Equation 5.13 are considered here. Minor
adjustments to this equation are made in order to increase the accuracy of that equation.
In this new equation the relationships to the governing factors, W r and (b-2t)/t are
modified only slightly whereas the modifications for the effects of yield strength and
aspect ratio (b/d) are more significant. The following equation, developed with the
addition of this series of test results, is the result of modifications to Equation 5.13.
A/ 6 s -o 2t)
=cS[(b ~ ~/ )t ]- 3 1 ( 4 ( b ~ ~ 0 - 5 ) 0 5 s ( 7 0 )/ ~o ,, . ~ ~ , ~ < 7 0
A/ = C,
[(b- 2 f ) / r ] l2
C, is an experimentally determined constant equal to 0.065. Figure 5.24 displays the
results of Equation 5.14 compared to the data provided by this series of experiments as
well as from those of Archambault. Evident in this equation is the improved correlation
of the theoretical h c t u r e life prediction with respect to the experimentally determined
fracture life. The result is a more statistically reliable equation used to predict the
130
theoretical hcture life of a brace. It is expected that with the addition of more data the
equation will be fbrther refined to provide an even more reliable equation.
Unfortunately, the improvement of Equation 5.13, resulting in Equation 5.14, is
small. Equation 5.14 is far fiom exact and can result in an error in hcture life prediction
in excess of 30%. Further, this equation assumes that the brace will buckle locally prior
to hcture, limiting its usefbhess.
It is the opinion of this author, although unsubstantiated, that the experimental
bcture life calculation, as represented in Equation 5.1 1, discounts the effect of the
compressive displacement too severely. The argument being that local buckling of the
brace is a major factor affecting the fiacture life. Once the brace buckles locally, the
localized deformations, or damage, of the plastic hinge region is crucial to the fracture
life of the brace. It is possible that tearing initiates on the inner wall of the HSS on the
concave side of the local buckle during a large axial compressive displacement cycle.
Upon load reversal, tensile displacement further damages the buckled region and tearing
occurs on the outside face of the HSS wall. The question must be posed that if the tensile
displacement applied to a straightened brace were the dominant deformation as it relates
to hcture life, then why does the tearing of the brace not initiate on the convex side of
the HSS at the locally buckled region where maximum tensile strains are always present?
This is however, only a theory applied to a small amount of experimental data
with similar loading sequences. More effort should be devoted to substantiating this
theory. The result would be a simpler method of calculating the experimental fracture life
131
of a brace and possibly a more reliable theoretical fkacture life prediction of HSS braces
subject to cycles in which local buckling occurs.
To test this theory, a fracture equation of the same form as Equations 5.13 and
5.14 was developed to predict the fracture life in terms of the total cumulative
deformation. The equation produced is very similar to Equation 5.14.
A/ = C , ( 3 5 0 / ~ , ) ' - ~( '4 ( b / - 0.5)OSs (70)~, forKL/r<70

[(b- 2)/ t ] 2-5
A, =c,Osol )lo' (4(b:1 - 0-5)0'~(u

lor KL 70
[(b- 2 )l t ] 25
Again, C, is an experimentally determined constant equal to 29.5. This theoretical
fixture life was then compared to the total cumulative deformation, until fkacture,
experienced by each of the specimens tested in this series. This value can be expressed as
follows, making reference to Figure 5.18 for an explanation of A, and A2.
Equation 5.16 is of the same form as Equation 5.1 1 but does not discount the effect that
the large compressive defomation has on the experimentally determined hcture life of
the specimen. As can be seen in Figure 5.25 the correlation between the prediction and
the experimental data represents an improvement over the previous equations.

132
It is suggested that perhaps a new method should be taken to address the h c t u r e
life of a brace. The current approach, as represented by Equations 5.1 1 through 5.16, is
not reliable. For a simple brace, relating out-of-plane defection to midspan curvature,
and in turn relating the curvature to a plastic strain, could provide a relatively simple
model for fracture life prediction employing a strain-based approach to fatigue.
Regardless, it is evident that the current methods are fhught with error and a fresh
approach may be necessary for predicting the fiactme life of a brace.
5.6 Connection Behaviour
The behaviour of the connections has been identified in terms of the behaviour of
the HSS-to-gusset plate weld. According to experimental research performed by Korol
(Korol, 1996), the shear lag factors prescribed by Clause 12.3.3.3 in the CSA Standard
appear to be overly conservative for slotted gusset plate connections to square and
rectangular HSS sections. It was for this reason that the specimens in this series of tests
were designed so as to have a shear lag resistance less than that specified by the current
CSA Standard. Nthough the specimens tested in this series have not used weld lengths
a s short as was possible, as suggested by Korol, the welds do not provide sufficient
resistance as calculated by the current Standard.
The specimen connections were, as mentioned in Chapter 3, a typical gusset plate
comection. The HSS was slotted and the gusset plate inserted into this slot. Four
longitudinal fillet welds completed the connection. As well, a weld was placed across the
thickness of the gusset plate at the tube-gusset interface at the end of the slot. This,
133
according to Cheng (Cheng et al., 1998) allows for the full cross-section to carry load.
Observations of the connection during the tests found that small, hairline cracks formed
in the specimen at the edge of the welds across the gusset thickness. This was noticed
during cycles that achieved tensile loads in excess of the nominal yield load of the
specimen with the exception of Specimen 3B. In this specimen, cracks were first noticed
at approximately 96% of nominal yield load. As loading continued, the cracks would
close during a compression half-cycle and again re-appear during the subsequent tension
half-cycles- However, the cracks did not grow or propagate even upon increases in
maximum tensile loads achieved. Ultimately the specimens failed in tension due to
hcture at the plastic hinge location at the specimen midspan. This failure is typical of a
brace subject to cycles where local buckling occurs. No necking was observed at this
location and therefore, the failure of these specimens could not be classified as the classic
tension failure exhibited by tension specimens. It is useful, however, to compare the
resistance of the connections used by the specimens tested in this series to that suggested
by Clause 12.3.3.3 in the current code.
Appendix B details the specimen design and the equations suggested by Korol to
determine the shear lag resistance of this type of connection. The following equation is
used.
where @isa resistance factor equal to 0.9, Fu is the specified minimum tensile strength, w
is the perimeter distance between parallel welds, t, is the nominal wall thickness of the
134
HSS, and a is a reduction factor based on the ratio of weld length &) to perimeter
distance between welds (w). For all specimens tested in this series, the ratio, LJw is
greater than 1.2 therefore a reduction factor of ~ 1 . is0 suggested. Similarly, Equation
5-18 provides the necessary equation for calculating the shear lag resistance of this type of
connection according to Clause 12.3.3.3 of the current CSA Standard.
Because there is a weld across the thickness of the gusset plate, the net area for shear lag
resistance, A, is equivalent to the gross cross-sectional area, A , used for calculating the
effective net area, A ', . However, because the weld length is greater than w and less than
~ all specimens, only 75% of A, is permitted for use in the resistance. Table 5.7
1 . 5 for
provides the calculated resistance based on both methods presented in Equations 5.17 and
5.18. The experimentally determined resistance represents the maximum tensile load
attained during the test. The calculated resistance relates to the fracture of a tension
member, whereas, it is compared to the fiacture of a brace, both of which have different
failure mechanisms. It would be expected that the maximum load achieved by a tension
member of the same dimensions and connection details would be greater than that of a
brace under load reversals due to the different mechanisms associated with their failure.
Therefore, the comparison between the two is simply to display the capacity of such a
connection in a brace configuration.

135
Figure 5.26 graphically compares the values found in Table 5.7. The comparison
was made between the maximum loads achieved in tension by each specimen to the
factored weld resistance based on that suggested by Korol and the current code
requirement. This comparison was also made to the maximum load achieved, not to the
ultimate load of a classic tensile failure, thus making it more conservative. The
maximum load achieved isyon average, 90% greater than the weld resistance calculated
according to Clause 12.3 -3.3 of the code. Further, it is also averages 42% greater than the
resistance determined by the procedure suggested by Korol. Therefore, it is concluded
that the design of a weld for this type of connection is overly conservative based on the
shear lag requirements of the current code and that Korol's suggested requirements are
more realistic and efficient.

Initial Buckling Loads pe~p.mtko.
AISC
Specimen W r CSA (1997) Experimental CSA AISC
(1998)
(.1997) (1998)
1A 52.3 977 1038 904 0.92 0.87

1B 53.9 1126 1200 1156 1.03 0.96
2A 53.3 1378 1453 1507 1.09 1.04
2B 52.4 1621 1709 1721 1.06 1.01
3A 64.8 813 897 864 1.06 0.96
3B 65.8 924 1016 927 1-00 0.91
3C 61.6 1241 1353 101 1 0.82 0.75
4A 63.5 1232 1346 1381 1.12 1.03
4B 59.7 1510 1636 1435 0.95 0.88
-
Table 5.1 Comparison of Initial Buckling Loads
Specimen
Cycle 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B
4 0.72
5 0.95 0.96 0.90 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.96
6 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.07 1.05 1.11 1.09 1.10
7 1.07 1.11 1.12 0.88 1.07 1.17 1.07 1.12
8 1.07 1.10 1.14 0.82 1.04 1.12 0.93 0.98
9 0.94 0.79 1.00 0.34 0.88 0.83 0.84 0.86
10 0.87 0.5 1 0.77 0.74 0.54 0.76
11 0.40 0.70 0.66 0.71
12 0.66 0.60 0.26
13 0.24 0.54
14 0.50
15 0.48
16 0.46
2
17 0.26
Table 5.2 - Normalized Axial Force at Unloading Point CP,, ,JPy)

Energy Dissipated, Ei (kN-mm)
Cycle Specimen
1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B
1 201 367 526 429 346 332 540 489
2 188 278 442 447 316 51 1 612 426
3 1900 3613 3835 3117 3054 3499 3817 4495
4 3426 5097 4277 3799 4195 5150 5801 6461
5 12138 20777 11180 20996 19714 22950 28018 25166
6 38000 48669 42768 29418 31437 43387 54148 64721
7 56650 70817 72423 31446 50156 63347 52190 69560
8 62784 84778 94278 39020 55921 67569 67103 94457
9 59184 70841 100355 30307 51907 63557 65921 87373
10 52163 81729 47220 61219 60152 87937
11 44697 43101 62215 82489
12 39324 63280 66207
13 30028 62307
14 59564
IS 57615
16 54588
17 51 110
-
Table 5J Total Energy Dissipated by the Specimen Per Cycle (Ed
Energy Dissipated, 2*Ed(kN-mm)
Cycle Specimen
1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 409 404 495 60 64
6 1371 538 579 853 979 1044 974 1185
7 1559 1076 1202 1244 1254 1432 467 783
8 233 1 1404 1576 2005 2044 2322 1508 1987
9 3040 2030 2686 2201 2607 3002 1988 2553
10 3327 3224 2747 3173 2365 3052
11 3574 2552 3466 3482
12 2741 3724 3416
13 2732 3808
14 3747
15 3724
16 3705
17 3686 -
-
Table 5.4 Total Energy Dissipated by the End Connections in each Specimen Per
Cycle (2*Ed
Specimen KL/r b *Y
(b-2t)lt bld
(mm) (mm) (MPa)
lB 53.9 127 127 13.9 1 42 1.O
2A 53.3 152 152 17.0 1 442.0
2B 52-4 152 152 14.0 1 442.0
3A 64.8 127 127 17.8 1 461-0
3B 65.8 127 127 13.9 1 421.O
3C 61.6 127 127 11.4 1 461-0
4A 63.5 152 152 17.0 1 442.0
4B 59.7 152 152 14.0 1 442.0
(Archambaulr)
S1-B 93 .O 76 127 13.9 0.60 395.4
Sl-QB 93-2 76 127 13.9 0.60 395.4
S2-B 108.4 76 102 13.9 0.75 381.4
S3-B 141.8 76 76 13.9 1.OO 388.9
S4-B 97.7 64 127 11.4 0.50 385.4
S4-QB 97.5 64 127 11.4 0.50 371.5
S5-B 113.4 76 102 10.0 0.75 421.7
X1-B 59.7 76 102 13.9 0.75 386.2
X1-QB 59.7 76 102 10.0 0.75 38 1.O
X2-A 76.2 76 76 13.9 1 388.9
X2-QB 76.3 76 76 13.9 1 388.9
X4-B 90.2 64 64 14.8 1 393.1
X6-C 89.8 64 64 11.4 1 396.9
-
Table 5.5 Factors Affkting Fracture Life
*
Specimen Af* Af
Ar-p
(Equation 5.13) (Equation 5.14)
1B 29.3 17.2 21.3
2A 17.6 14.7 19.8
2B 22.0 16.2 25.0
3A 16.2 13.6 21.6
3B 29.9 17.2 21.3
3C 53.5 17.1 37.1
4A 20.9 14.7 19.8
4B 29.4 16.2 25.0
(Archambaulr)
S1-B 28.2 24.0 21.4
S1-QB 18.5 24.1 21.6
S2-B 51.9 38.7 29.7
S3-B 84.0 77.4 66.1
S4-B 27.5 27.4 24.2
S4QB 17.1 28.5 21.3
SS-B 52.1 44.2 68.9
XI-B 14.9 15.9 19.1
XI-QB 5.9 19.0 19.1
X2-A 15.7 22.4 25.7
X2-QB 9.3 22.4 36.1
X4-B 11.7 30.0 13.0
X6-C 34.7 33.5 18.4
-
Table 5.6 Fracture Life Data
Weld Length
Specimen b (or d) t Lwfw Tr Tr PI, I,,
(Lw)
(Korol, 1996) (CSA, 1997)
(mm) (mm) (mm) O N (IrN) (kN)
1B 300 127 8 1.31 1246.2 934.6 1647
2A 350 152 8 1.26 1525.0 1 143.8 2165
28 350 152 9.5 1.26 1793.5 1345.2 2624
3A 300 127 6.4 1.31 1019.0 764.2 1462
3B 300 127 8 1.31 1246.2 934.6 t 632
3C 300 127 9.5 1.3 1 1459.6 1094.7 2284
4A 350 152 8 1.26 1525.O 1143.8 2132
4B 350 152 9.5 1.26 1793.5 1345.2 2585
-
Tabk 5.7 Weld Behaviour Details of Specimens Tested
Figure 5.1 - String Potentiometer Measures Out-of-Plane
Deflection at Specimen Midspan
Figure 5.2 - Out-of-PlaneDeflection: Simplified Geometrical Approach
- - * - - CSA (1997)
+AISC (1998)
--
--
--
I I
-
Figure 5.5 Comparison of Code Buckling Formulas
Pexp./Ptheo. CSA (1997)

e PexplPtheo. AISC (1998)
-- a a
a
m m
-_ a
m
m
Q
a
I
--
--
i I I I 1 I 1 I
Specimen
-
Figure 5.6 Comparison of Initial Buckling Loads Against CSA and AISC
Code Values
--
--
--
--
+1B-Exp
-- - - 0
CSA
V.V i 1 1 I I I I
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Loading Cycle
-
Figure 5.7 Specimen 1B: Degradation of Compressive Resistance
Experimental versus Theoretical (CSA)
V.&V
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cycle
-
Figure 5.8 Comparison of Compressive Resistance in Cycles FoUowing the
Initial Buckling Cycle
Normalized Compressive Capacity Normalized Compressive Capacity
----..
Equation 5.8
-
- Specimen 2 8
-
- -- .
-
I
I I I I I I
6 7 8
Cycle
(c) Specimen 2B
- r r o r - Equation 5.8
-
-
-Specimen 3A
-
- -- . - - -
I I I I I
6 7
Cycle
(d) Specimen 3A
-
Figure 5.9 (Continued)
-
-
-
I
I
-.
I
--
I
1
I
(e) Specimen 3B
I
-
I
r
- -
I
I
Cycle
I I
* r r o r r
-Specimen 3B
I
L
Equation 5.8
- - - - ----.-
--*
------ Equation 5-8

-
I
I
Specimen 3C
1 I
1
I ?
152
Cycle
( f ) Specimen 3C
-
153
- - - - - r
Equation 5.8
- Specimen 4A
1
i 1 I I i 1
7 8
Cycle
*
(gj Specimen 4A
I - - - - -
Equation 5.8
-
- - . - -
- Specimen 4B
- -*----
- --.- - -
-- -0 .
0-
I 1
I i I I I I 1 1
8 9
Cycle
(h) Specimen 4B
-
-1.0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Normalized Axial Displacement, 6/6,
-
Figure 5.10 Normalized Hysteresis Curves
Specimen 2B vs. Specimen 3B
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Normalized Axial Displacement, W6,
-
Figure 5.11 Normalized Hysteresis Curves
Specimen 2A vs. Specimen 1B
RID610 PLASTIC P
Ei =STRUT ENERGY DISSIPATED IN C Y C L E i
Figure 5.12 - Rigid Plastic Non-Buckling Element

(from Zayas et al., 1980)
+2%,KL/r=52.4
+3A, KL/r-64.8
-0- 3B, KLlr=65.8
+3C, KLIr=61.6
*4A, KLIr-63.5
*4B, K L 1 ~ 5 9 . 7
Zayas et al. - Specimen 5
- - * - - Zayas et al. - Specimen 6
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cycle
Figure 5.14 - Cumulative Energy Dissipation Efficiency by Cycle

Gusset Rotation (radians)
Figure 5.15 - Determining the Energy Dissipation in the Gusset Plate

End Connections
Cycle
-
Figure 5.17 Cumulative Energy Dissipation by End Connections as a
Percentage of Total Energy Dissipation
Figure 5.18 - Definition of Al and A2 For Determining
Experimental Fracture Life
163
a Experimental
-- IArchambault (1995) -- /Irn
..
/
/
/
/
-- /
/
0 /'
--
--
,,,,,----,,*i
0
0
0 0 0
ro-4-
0
I
I
=.
.' ' /
I
/
/
I
l 1 1 1 1 l . . l 1 1 1 l l 1 l l l l I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I , , I
I I I 1 I I I
-
Figure 5.19 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of W r
-- .
o Experimental
Archambault (1 995)
--
- 7
- .
\
\
\
\
.\
.
\.,.
I
----
8 -------
0
1 1 ,
I I 1 I
-
Figure 5.20 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Width-to-
Thickness Ratio
164
o Experimental
IArchambault (1995) I
I 0
-. - -
I
.
= - --
I
I
aI
l I 1 . 1 1 , 1 , ,
r I i I I I
-
Figure 5.21 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of b/d
--
o Experimental
r Archambault (1 995)
--
I I
--
=
--
I , *
I
1
I.
I.
I
1 1 1
0
1 1
0
8
1 .
*
1 1 1 1
1 I 1
-
Figure 5.22 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Yield Strength
A
0
o Experimental 0
0
/
0
IArchambadt (1995) 0
0
//
-- 0
0
0
/
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
-- 0
0
0
0
0
I , I
0
0
0
-- /'
0
r0
"
c9 0/
m i rn Mean= 1.16
0
0
/ I Standard Deviation = 0.62
- 00° I Coefficient of Variation = 0.53
L . I . , . . , , . . l
I L I L
-
Figure 5.23 Comparison of Experimental Fracture Life to Archambault's
Modifred Fracture Lite Equation
166
J
0
0
0 Experimental 0
0/
Archambault (1995) 0
0/
0
- -
// -
0
0
0
0
0
/ /
0
//
0
0
I * 0
0/ I
//
0
0/
0
//
rn 0
fi a/
/ /
0
-- yO*
/'# m Mean = 1.00
Standard Deviation = 0.36
00 4 I
-
0
I Coefficient of Variation = 0.36
t . . * . . . 8 L , t . , , t t
I 1 I I
20 40 60 80 100
Afi (Eqn. 5.14a&b)
Figure 5.24 - Comparison of Experimental Fracture Life to Proposed Modified

Fracture Life Equation
0
0
0
+ Experimental 00
'
0
0
- 0
/
/
/
0
/
0
0
0
0
4
0
/
0
9'
0
,I*
0
0
0
0
/
9~'
904
0
0
/
- 0
/
/
0 Mean = 1.00
0
/
Y Standard Deviation = 0.15
0
/ Coefficient of Variation = 0.15
/
I I i I
Af, (Eqn. 5.1 5a&b)
-
Figure 5.25 Proposed Fracture Criteria
-
i e
Q
OPtensmax/Tr
1 O
(ICorol, 1996) e
Ptens max/Tr
(CSA, 1997)
L i I I
-
Figure 5.26 Comparison of Weld Smngth to Calculated Resistance
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Summary
The cyclic behaviour of braces with end connections has been examined by an
experimental investigation of full-scale braces for the purpose of expanding upon the
existing database of hysteresis c w e s . Square hollow structural sections were chosen as
the sole section type to be tested due to their previously determined favourable behaviour
as brace sections. The sections were chosen based on current code provisions keeping in
mind the slenderness ratio and width-to-thickness ratio constraints. End connections
were of the gusset plate type welded to a slot in the HSS. End connections were designed
so as to provide stable plastic behaviour when the brace buckles. Nine braces with end
connections were subject to quasi-static reversed cyclic axial loading well into their
inelastic range to identify the hysteresis behaviour of the specimens, out-of-plane
deflection, and degradation in compressive resistance. As well, energy dissipation fiom
the brace and end connections was quantified and the h c h u e life criteria were examined.
These results were analyzed and compared to current code provisions as well as
previously determined equations. Such equations form the basis for efforts to model the
behaviour of braces subject to the effmts of seismic loading. The following is a summary
of the most significant findings fiom this testing programme.
1. The out-of-plane deflection of the specimens tested was accurately predicted by an
empirically determined equation, developed fiom this series of tests, dependent solely
170
upon the compressive ductility ratio. Out-of-plane deflection does not appear to be
dependant upon the effective slenderness ratio or width-to-thickness ratio of the
specimen.
2. Out-of-plane deflection can also be quickly estimated using a simplified, geometrical
relationship of a buckled brace with a plastic hinge at its rnidpsan. This prediction is
somewhat less accurate at low levels of compressive ductility ratio due to the more
elastic buckled shape of the brace.
3. The current code predictions for buckling of virgin columns predicted the initial
buckling capacity of the specimens tested with reasonably good accuracy.
4. There is a significant reduction of compressive capacity in cycles following the initial
buckling cycle for the braces tested in this series- The reduced compressive capacity
is a h c t i o n of Bauschinger effects and residual lateral deflection at the start of a
compressive cycle.
5. The CSA reduced compressive capacity lower bound, C,', of a buckled brace appears
to be nonconservative when compared to the test results derived from this series of
tests. This is due in part to the particular loading sequence employed.
6. The prediction of the reduced compressive capacity for the purposes of
phenomenologicai brace modeling as proposed previously by Lee was compared to
the data in this series of tests. The result was, for the most part, nonconservative
171
over-predicting the reduced compressive capacity by an average of approximately
11%. A better correlation to the equation is displayed at the later cycles of loading
where the effect of a residual lateral displacement is more prominent than that of the
Bauschinger effect.
7. The effective slenderness ratio, W r , is the single most important parameter
influencing the hysteresis behaviour of the specimens tested.
8. As observed in the normalized hysteresis curves of the specimens tested, the width-to-
thickness ratio of the brace influences the brace fiacture life. The width-to-thickness
ratio of the braces appears to have no other effect on the hysteresis behaviour.
9. The energy dissipated by the gusset plate end connections accounted for less than
10% of the total energy dissipated by the specimens for a given cycle of loading. On
average, the energy dissipated by the gussets was less than 4% of the total energy
dissipated. The energy dissipation contribution of the gusset plates increased as the
stiength ratio (R) between the HSS and gusset increased.
10. The experimental fracture life of an HSS section brace appears to be most affected by
the width-to-thickness ratio. Effective slenderness ratio, yield strength, and breadth-
to-depth ratio appear have a less significant effect on the hcture life.
11. A statistically better equation for hcture life prediction has been developed from that
of Archarnbault. Maintaining many of the relationships in Archarnbault's fiachlre life

172
prediction and adding the data fiom this series of tests, a new equation was developed
to predict the theoretical h c h u e life of hollow structural steel sections that develop
local buckling and subsequent material fi-actwe.
12. From the set of data derived fiom this series of tests, the experimentally determined
hcture life has been shown to be better predicted assuming that compressive
displacement is more damaging than previously assumed. It is thought that the large
compressive displacement cycles initiate tearing on the inside of the HSS leading to
the ultimate h c t u r e of the specimen at a later cycle.
13. The behaviour of the HSS-to-gusset plate welds based on the requirements of Korol
(Korol, 1996) was found to be satisfactory. Gross section yielding of the HSS
occurred and no shear lag failure occurred in any of the specimens tested.
14. The fiee length provided in the gusset plate end connection facilitated the fiee
formation of a plastic hinge in the connection. Free lengths in excess of 1.25 times
the thickness of the gusset plate (Q were used. As the fiee length approached 1.25
times t , less ductile behaviour was evident in the initiation of surficial tearing in the
gusset plate in the late cycles of loading.

173
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the summary provided above, the following recommendations and
suggestions are provided to facilitate fhture research on the behaviour of HSS braces
subject to cyclic loading.
I . A study should be performed to identify the physical optimum brace and end
connection configuration. The aim of the study would be to maximize the energy
dissipation of the system.
2. Due to the variability in testing between different researchers, it is recommended that
a standard be developed governing the suggested loading sequences applied to test
specimens in fbture experimental series on braces. This would provide for better
comparison between different researchers' results. It is perhaps more usefbl to
compare the sequences to real seismic events therefore forcing the brace to represent
one in a real structure.
3. Further refinement of the fkacture life equation may be required upon the addition of
more data. Consideration should be given to the detrimental effects of the
compressive displacement excursion on the hcture life. Further, it was recognized
that local buckling at the midspan plastic hinge region was a significant precursor to
the fracture of the specimen. Eliminating or delaying the onset of locai buckling
could be very beneficial to the overall behaviour of the brace. Previous tests by Liu
and Goel (1988) showed promise in delaying the onset of local buckling with the
I 74
addition of expansive concrete to the inside of the tube. Further examination of
concrete-filled braces in the context of hcture life should be undertaken.
It is evident that the current h c t u r e life predictions are not precise. It is therefore
suggested that a new method be developed to model the k t u r e life of a brace.
The CSA standard for a lower bound compressive resistance should be verified and
possibly modified to account for loading sequence, as it was shown to be
nonconservative for this series of tests.

REFERENCES
AISC. (1998). Load & Resistance Factor Design - Manual of Steel Construction.
American Institute of Steel Construction, hc. 2ndEdition, 1998.
AISI. 1991. The performance of steel buildings in past earthquakes. American Iron and
Steel Institute, Washington D.C.
Archambault, M.-H. 1995. ~ t u d edu comportement seisrnique des cantreventements

ductiles en X avec profiles tubulaires en acier. Report No EPM/GCS-1995-09.
Department of Civil Engineering, ~ c o l Polytechnique,
e Montreal, Septembre 1995.
Andreus, U., and Gaudenzi, P. 1989, Modelling of cyclic behaviour of steel braces, Res
Mechanics, 26: 267-288.
Astaneh-Asl, A. 1992. Cyclic Behaviour of Gusset Plate Connections in V-Braced Steel

Frames. In Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading,
Fukomoto, Y. and Lee, G. editors, CRC press, Florida.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C. 1984. Cyclic in-plane buckling of double angle bracing.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, llO(9): 2036-2055.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D. 1985. Cyclic out-of-plane buckling of
double angle bracing. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 11l(5): 1135-1 153.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C., and Whittaker, A. 1998. Ductile Design of Steel Structures.
McGraw-Hill.
Cheng, J.J.R., Kulak, G.L., and Khoo, H. 1998. Strength of slotted tubular tension
members. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25 (6): 982-991.
CSA. 1997. Limit states design of steel structures. CAN/CSA-S 16.1-94, Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario.
El-Tayem, A.A., and Goel, S.C. 1986. Effective length factor for the design of X-braced
systems. Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1:4 1-45.
Hassan, O.F. and Goel, S.C. 1991. Modeling of bracing members and seismic behaviour
of concentrically braced steel structures. Report No. UMCE 91-1. Department of
Civil Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January, 1991.
Jkeda, K., and Mahin, S.A., 1986. Cyclic response of steel braces. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 112(2): 342-361.
Jain, A.K., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D. 1978. Inelastic response of restrained steel
tubes. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 104(6): 897-9 10.
Jain, A.K., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D. 1980. Hysteretic cycles of axially loaded steel
members. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, lM(ST8): 1777-1795-
Kahn, L.F. and Hanson, R.D. 1976. Inelastic cycles of axially loaded steel members.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 102(ST5): 947-959.
Korol, R.M. 1996. Shear lag in slotted HSS tension members. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 23(6): 1350-1 354.
Lee, S. and Goel, S.C. 1987. Seismic behavior of hollow and concrete-filled square
tubular bracing members. Report No. UMCE 87-1 1, Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Michigan, Arm Arbor. December. 1987.
Liu, Z., and Goel, S.C. 1988. Cyclic load behaviour of concrete filled tubular braces.
Journal of the Structwal Division, ASCE, 114(7): 1488-1506.
Maison, B.F., and Popov, E.P. 1980. Cyclic response prediction for braced steel fiames.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 106(ST7): 1401- 1416.
NRCC. 1995. National building code of Canada, 1995. Associate Committee on the
National Building Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Popov, E.P., and Black, R.G. 198 1. Steel struts under severe cyclic loadings. Journal of
the Structural Division. 107(ST9): 1857-1881.
Prathuangsit, D., Goel S.C., and Hanson, R.D. 1978. Axial hysteretic behavior with end
restraints. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 104(ST6): 883-896.
Rabinovitch, I.S., and Cheng, J.J.R. 1993. Cyclic behavior of steel gusset plate
connections. Structural Engineering Report no. 191, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
SSRC. 1988. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures. Edited by Theodore
V. Galambos John Wiley and Sons Inc., 4'h Edition, 786 p., 1988.
Tang, X., and Goel, S.C. 1987. Seismic analysis and design considerations of braced steel
structures. Report No. UMCE 87-4. June. Ann Arbor: Department of Civil
Engineering. The University of Michigan.
Tremblay, R., Bruneau, M., Nakashima, M., Prion, H.G.L., Filiatrault, A., and DeVall, R,
1996. Seismic design of steel buildings: lessons from the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
earthquake. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(3): 727-756.
Tremblay, R., Timler, P., Bruneau, M., and Filiatrault, A. 1995. Performance of steel
structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Canadian Journd of Civil
Engineering, 22(2): 338-360.
Whitmore, R.E., 1952. Experimental Investigation o f Stresses in Gusset Plates. Bulletin

No. 16, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Tennessee.
Zayas, V.A., Popov, E.P., and Mabin, S.A. 1980. Cyclic inelastic buckling of tubular steel
braces. Report No. UCBIEERC-80116. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center. University of California.
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TEST DATA
1 79
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TEST DATA
Data not presented in the main body of this report are given in this appendix. The
Grst set of figures, A.1 to A.8, displays the raw strain gauge data collected during the
tests. Figures A.9 (a) through (h) provide the normalized hysteresis loops for each
specimen and Figures A.10 (a) through (h) present the hysteresis curves for the end
connections.
C W W V
-40000 -20000 0 20000 40000

Strain (ME)
(a) Strain Gauges 1 & 2
(b) Strain Gauges 3 & 5
Figure A.1- Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 1B

(c) Strain Gauges 4 & 6
(d) Strain Gauges 7 & 8
Figure A . l - Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 1B

-20000 -10000 0 Loo00 20000
Strain (JE)
(a) Strain Gauges I & 2
(ID) Strain Gauges 3 & 5
-
Figure A.2 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 2A
-&a-
-25000 -12500 0 12500 25000

Strain (w)
-
Figure A 2 Strain Gauge Data, Spechen 2A
(a) Strain Gauges 1& 2
-
Figure A.3 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 2B
-3000
-20000 -10000 0 loo00 20000
Strain ( p ~ )
-
Figure A 3 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen 2B
-
- - -- *- - -- - -- --- - -
-- - - - --- ------.
. - -
-- - -- -- . . -- SGI --
e m - - - -
SG2
I I I I
(b)Strain Gauges 3 & 5
-
-wwv
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 loo00 15000

swain
-- - - -- --- - -- --- -
SG7
*.***- SGS
I I
-vvv I 1 I
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 loo00 15000

Strain ( p ~ )
(d)Strain Gauges 7 & 8
-
Strain (p)
(a)Strain Gauges 1& 2
SG3
-.-...
SGS
&VVV I I I 1
-75000 -50000 -25000 0 25000 SOOOO 75000

Strain (pe)
(b) Straio Gauges 3 & 5
-
Strain (p)
-
-
Figure A.6 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen X
Strain (p&)
&VVV
-20000 -10000 0 1 m 20000
Strain (PI
-
Figure A.6 Strain Gauge Data, Specimen X
.
---.
- -- - -SGl -
- 0 . 0 . .
SG2
I
1 I I
-
Strain (p)
-10000 0 loo00
swain (w)
-
----- - - -. -----
- - - - -- - -. --
- -. A .-. . - - - -.- .-. .-.

. - -
a -- - - -- - ---- - - -
SG3 -
I - L I I I
SGS
t
1 I I I I
-
strain (PI
4
0
Strain (p)
-
-5 0 5
Normalized Axial Displacement, 6 4
(a) Specimen 1B
-5 0 5
(b) Specimen 2A
-
Figure A 9 Normalized Hysteresis Curves
-5 0 5 10
Normalized Axial Displacement, 616,
(c) Specimen 2B
- 1.5
- 10 -5 0 5 10
(d) Specimen 3A
-
-5 0 5 10
(e) Specimen 3B
-5 0 5 10
(0 Specimen 3C
-
-5 0 5
(g) Specimen 4A
-5 0 5
Normalized Axial Displacement, &6,
(h) Specimen 4B
-
Figure A 9 Normalized Hysteresis CUN~S
15
-
E
10 --
- - -
- 15 I I I I
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Gusset Rotation, 0 (radians)
(a) Specimen 1B
- I d
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

(b) Specimen 2A
-
Figure A.10 End Connection Hysteresis Curves
(c) Specimen 2B
(d) Specimen 3A
-
(e) Specimen 3B
(0 Specimen 3C
-
Figure A.10 End Connection Hysteresis C w e s
(g) Specimen 4A
(h) Specimen 4B
-
B.1 Introduction
The details of the design of each specimen are given in this section. Because the
purpose of the research was to expand upon the existing experimental data for brace
members with end connections, the specimens were designed so as to comply with
existing code standards, where applicable, with one exception. The HSS-to-gusset plate
welds were proportioned as per the suggestions coming fiom research on the shear lag
effects in HSS sections (KoroI, 1996).
B.2 Design Methodology
The test specimen design can be subdivided into two phases, the strength design,
and the ductility design. The strength design encompasses the design of the brace, gusset
plate, and brace-to-gusset plate connection to resist the applied loads. In this case, the
maximum load to be resisted is the yield load of the gross cross-section of the brace.
Ductile design requires making the necessary adjustments to the strength design to ensure
adequate ductility while the brace absorbs energy through buckling and yielding. Each
design phase will be outlined and the appropriate code clauses will be referenced for each
step. The end connection chosen represents an inexpensive and simply fabricated
connection. The HSS is slotted longitudinally and a gusset plate is inserted into this slot.
The tube is then welded to the gusset using parallel, longitudinal fillet welds. Refer to
206
Figure B. 1 for each of the brace and end connection elements requiring design. Further,
Table B. 1 provides the dimensions for each specimen as referenced in Figure B. 1.
B.2.1 Choke of Brace Specimens
The preliminary criteria for choosing test specimen sizes was based on the
capacity and geometric limitations of the test frame. It was first decided that HSS shapes
would be used for the tests. HSS shapes, as braces, are a popular choice in the design
community due to their ease of connection to existing fiame members, their high radius
of gyration, and their resistance to local buckling for the same cross-sectional area
relative to other rolled shapes such as W and T sections (Bruneau et al., 1998). With a
test fiame capacity of 3.0MN and an expected HSS yield strength in the order of 450MPa,
it was decided that the maximum HSS size to be used would be an HSS 152x 152x9.5mm
section. This left the actual yield capacity of the brace, Thy, well within the limits of the
hydraulic actuators. Other important parameters including the slenderness ratio and
width-to-thickness ratio were also considered when choosing the HSS specimens to be
tested.
B.2.2 Strength Design
The strength design of a brace initially involves a gravity and lateral load andysis
using the appropriate load combinations as well as considering P-A effects. From this -
optimum brace sections are chosen. However, as mentioned previously, this testing
207
programme used HSS sections for braces. These sections were pre-determined according
to test h e capacity and dimension restrictions. With the braces already chosen, the
gusset plates only needed attention in sizing for strength requirements. CSA (1997)
requires the factored resistance of the brace connection to exceed the unfactored brace
yield load. This implies the following equation:
where the subscript g and b indicate the gusset plate and brace respectively.
This will inevitably account for any unforeseen overstrength in the brace. From
this equation the cross-sectional area of the gusset plate can be determined, A, For this
series of specimens the gusset plate thickness was held constant thus giving the gusset
plate depth required.
The length of the gusset plate is the last dimension involved in the strength
design. The length of the gusset is the sum of the weld length required and the fiee length
of the gusset necessary for ductility requirements. Only the strength requirements, that
being the weld length, will be addressed at this time. The strength design for the HSS-to-
gusset plate weld has been based on the research presented by Korol (1996). This
research has suggested that current CSA code provisions for the strength of a slotted
connection based on shear lag is overly conservative. Korol proposes the following
equation to determine the resistance of slotted gusset plate connections to rectangular or

208
square hollow structural section. It is useful to refer to Figure B.2 for identification of
key parameters.
For fi c 0.6, base metal shear resistance V, will govern, provided that the fillet
weId size is nongoveming. In this case,
For U w > 0.6, shear lag resistance governs and is determined using the following
equation:
The reduction factor, a, can be calculated as follows:
For U w > 1-2,a = 1-0 (net/gross section failure governs);
For 0.6 IU w I1.O, a= 0.4 + 0.5Uw (shear lag governing);
For U w < 0.6, block shear tear-out governs.
The factored resistance of the weld, like the gross-section resistance of the gusset
plate, must be greater than the dactored yield load of the brace. Therefore, the length of
weld required can be determined fkom the above equations. It is also good practice to
check the resistance of the gusset plate across the effective width based on a cross-section
identified in research by Whitmore (1952). This cross-section, described in Figure 8.3, is

209
outlined by two lines extending from the h n t of the weld on either side at a 30 degree
angle. The gusset plate yield load can then be determined using this effective width. The
applicable equation is as follows:
where A, is the net cross-sectional area of the gusset plate defined by Whitmore.
From the weld length calculated by equation B.2.a and B.2.b a reasonable size of
weld was determined based on the current code provision for fillet weld resistance.
Further, a closing weld across the thickness of the gusset plate was used. This additional
weld theoretically makes available the full cross-section of the tube to carry load. This
implies that the net section available for resistance is equivalent to the gross section of the
brace. The addition of this extra weld does not represent a major cost while providing for
added ductility in the connection (Cheng et d., 1998). This approach to designing the
gusset plate for strength provides a simple and efficient design.
The ductility requirements must now be addressed to meet the code provisions for
a ductile braced h e .
B.23 Ductility Design
The ductility design of the specimens involved re-visiting the strength design and
ensuring that all parameters of this design conform to ductility requirements outlined by
210
the appropriate CSA code provisions. This involved two phases First, because the goal
of the testing programme was to examine the current code requirements while at the same
time expanding the existing database of brace behaviour it was necessary to address
current code provisions for ductile detailing of the brace and the end connection.
Therefore, Clause 27.4 of the CSA code was adhered to in the design of the specimens.
The clauses pertaining to the bracing members and connections were most relevant to this
research.
Clause 27.4.3.1 ensures the slenderness ratio and the width-to-thickness ratio of
the brace fall within the specified limits to maximize energy dissipation and reduce the
possibility of low-cycle fatigue failure of the brace. From this code clause, the following
equations are outlined:
These equations were instrumental in selecting the HSS shapes to be tested.
Further, Equation B.4 provided a maximum length of brace to be tested to fall within
specified limits.
21 1
Clause 27.4.4.3 requires that the brace connection, the gusset plate, be detailed to
avoid brittle failures due to the rotation of the brace when it buckles. This was achieved
by providing s&cient fiee length of the gusset plate to allow for this rotation. As
research by Astaneh-As1 et al. (1985) has suggested, the specimens were originally
designed to have a fiee length equal to twice the thickness of the gusset plate.
Uafortunately, due to a limitation imposed by the testing h e , this fiee length had to be
modified resulting in fiee lengths in the order of 1.25 to 2.0 times the thickness of the
gusset plate. Modification of the free length altered the effective length factor, K, for the
specimens. The effective length factor is a fiction of the flexural stiffness of the HSS
and the connection. The connection, or gusset plate, flexural stiffbess, ke,and flexural
stifiess coefficient, p, are defined as follows:
From the above equations, the effective length factor is calculated as follows:
212
Most often in design, however, the effective length factor, K, is conservatively assumed
to be 1.O.
A second "phase" was briefly addressed in the ductility design. This phase looked
at the strength ratio and balanced strength ratio between the gusset and the HSS brace.
The idea of a balanced condition or a balanced strength ratio was identified by
Prathuangsit (1978) in an attempt to optimize the behaviour in the brace and end
connection. Although this research was used as a general guideline for sizing the gusset
plates, providing a balanced strength gusset plate requires prohibitively thick gussets.
Further, such gussets are unrealistic and would prove extremely costly if used on a large
scale in bracing connections. Perhaps a more economical approach to providing a
balanced end connection might be to provide edge stiffeners to the gusset plates. This
however, was not in the scope of this research.

Gusset Gusset Gusset Free Weld Fillet Weld
Specimen
ws HSSLength,L
Thickness, t Depth, d, Length, L, I, Length, L, Size, D
Designation
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1A 127x127x6.4 3350 25.4 200 50 3W 8
IB 127~127~8.0 3350 25.4 225 51 300 8
2A 152~152~8.0 3950 25,4 250 45 350 10

2B 152x152~9.5 3950 25.4 300 39 350 10
3A 127x127x6.4 4350 25.4 200 53 300 8
3B 127x127~8.0 4350 25.4 225 48 300 8
3C 127x127x9.5 4350 25.4 250 32 300 10
4A 152~152~8.0 4850 25.4 250 47 350 10

4B 152~152~9.5 4850 25.4 300 32 350 10
Table B.1- Specimen Schedule

Gusset Plate
Fiiet Weld
HSS Section
Figure B 2 - HSS to Gusset Plate Connection
Figure B.3 - Whitmore cross-section

Sha Back

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sha Back

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Legacy Theses

Behavior of square HSS braces with end connections

Behaviour of Square HSS Braces with End Connections

under Reversed Cyciic Axial Loading

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

O J. Brad Shaback 2001

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

been examined by experimental investigation. Brace slendemess ratio, width-to-thickness

behaviour. Out-of-plane deflection of the brace can be accurately predicted using a

width-to-thickness ratio and effective slenderness ratio. An empirical equation was

proposed to determine the theoretical fracture life of an HSS brace.

Laboratories at the University of Calgary has been greatly appreciated.

APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................................... 1

APPROVAL PAGE ......................................................................................................... **.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES., ....................................................................................................... v...u ~

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................. xviii

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 16

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ............................................................................... .49

5. ANALYSIS OF EXPE-NTAL R E S ~ T S o ~ . . o o o o . . o - o ~ ~ ~ o 101

4.1 Materid Properties ................... . . .................................................................... 67

4.2 Average Material Properties by Specimen ............................................................ 68

4.4 Maximum Compressive and Tensile Displacements in Each Cycle ........................70

5.1 Comparison of Initial Buckling Loads...............

5.2 Normalized Axial Force at Unloading Point (PI, mamy).................................... 137

5.6 Fracture Life Data ................................................................................................. 1 4 1

B.1 Specimen Schedule................................................................................................ -213

1.3 Hysteretic Energy of Structural Steel

1-4 Hysteresis Curve for a Half-Scale Concentric Braced Frame Experiment

3.1 Typical Brace Specimen with End Connections

3.2 Plan View: Specimen Connection Detail ................................................................. 42

3.4 Elevation: Test Frame Assembly .............................................................................. 44

4.1 Photograph of Stub-Column Test Set-up..................................................................71

4.6 kvial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 1B .......................................... 76

4.7 Elastic Buckling. Cycle #3 :Specimen I B ................................................................77

4.10 Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle #11: Specimen 1B ................................................ 7 9

4.12 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 2A ........................

4.15 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 2B ..........................................82

4.1 6 Overall Buckling, Cycle #5 :Specimen 2B .............................................................. 83

4.1 7 Cross-Sectional Failure, Cycle # 10: Specimen 2B ...................................................84

4.18 Specimen 3A Pre-Test ........................................................................................... 85

4.20 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 3A ..........................................86

4.21 Typical Weld Crack Across Thickness of Gusset Plate .............................

4.24 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement, Specimen 3B .....................................,.. 89

4.25 Initiation of Local Buckling, Cycle #1 1: Specimen 3B ............................................ 90

4.32 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement. Specimen 4A ........................................ 95

4.35 Axial Load versus Lateral Displacement. Specimen 4B .......................................... 97

5.1 String Potentiometer Measures Out-of-Plane Deflection at Specimen Midspan ...143

5.2 Out-of-Plane Deflection: Simplified Geometrical Approach ................................. 144

5.4 Normalized Out-of-Plane Deflection as a Function of Ductility Ratio. p .............. 146

5.5 Comparison of Code Buckling Formulas ..............................................................147

5.1 1 Normalized Hysteresis Curves. Specimen 2A vs. 1B ......................... ..... ..........155

5.17 Cumulative Energy Dissipation by End Connections as Percentage of

5.18 Definition of Al and A2 For Determining the Experimental Fracture Life

5.19 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of W r.................................... . .1 6 3

5.20 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Width-to-Thickness Ratio................163

5.2 1 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of b/d ................................................ 1 6 4

5.22 Experimental Fracture Life as a Function of Yield Strength...............