International Journal of Steel Structures 17(1): 273-289 (2017)

DOI 10.1007/s13296-015-0070-8
ISSN 1598-2351 (Print)
ISSN 2093-6311 (Online)

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of

Steel Beam-to-column Connection
X. Y. Liu1,2, Y. Q. Wang2,*, J. Xiong3, and Y. J. Shi2
1
College of Basic Education for Commanding Officers, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410072, China
2
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Department of Civil Engineering,
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
3
Nanjing Jianye District Bureau of Construction and Transport, Nanjing 210019, China

Abstract

A large number of steel moment frames fractured at the welds of beam-to-column connections in earthquake. As the weld
damage behavior is a crucial factor for aseismic performance of steel frame connections, 20 local welded connections
representing beam-to-column connections were tested under monotonic and cyclic loads to study the weld damage behavior
in this paper. The failure modes and deformation curves were recorded; the effects of material strength, load types, and beam
geometries on the connection damage behavior were analyzed. Three damage evolution models were calibrated, the relation
between weld damage and macro connection performance was established. The results indicate weld cracking and plate
buckling are the main causes of the connection damage; the range of cyclic loads is the key factor affecting the weld damage
level; the plastic strain based damage model illustrate the damage process with good accuracy. This study provide technical
basis for the damage evaluation and fracture prevention of the welded steel beam-to-column connections.

Keywords: weld damage, steel connection, hysteretic performance, damage model, welded joint, seismic load

1. Introduction worldwide (Fisher et al., 1995; Yang et al., 1995; Tawil

A large number of steel structures were broken at the
weld of beam-to-column connections in the Northridge
earthquake and Kobe earthquake (Toyoda, 2002), which
aroused the attention of researchers to the earthquake
resistance of welded steel connections. Several research
programs were started to study the seismic behavior of
the welded connections, including the SAC joint venture
started by the Structural Engineers Association of California,
the Applied Technology Council, and California Universities
for Research in Earthquake Engineering (SAC, 1995).
These researches showed that in rare earthquakes, the
connection damage was a key factor affecting the frame
strength and stability, simulating the damage and deterioration
of the connections under earthquake appropriately is
crucial for the aseismic design of steel structures.
Some experiments have been conducted to study the
performance of steel connections under cyclic loads
Received April 30, 2015; accepted September 12, 2016;
published online March 31, 2017
© KSSC and Springer 2017
*Corresponding author
Tel: +86-10-6278-8623, Fax: +86-10-6278-8623
E-mail: wang-yq@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
et al., 1998; Shi et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2000; Su, 2005;
Shi et al., 2009). The recent researches indicated that the
weld crack and fracture was one of the most important
factors for the steel connection damage (Shen et al.,
2002; Liu et al., 2002). However, the connection damage
characters are not deeply investigated by these experiments.
On the other hand, some researchers focused on the detail
material properties. Zhang et al. (2004) studied the
material properties of E4303 and E5015 welds, the
standards of these two electrodes are listed in GB/T5117-
1995 (1995) “carbon steel covered electrode”. These tests
have studied the crack performances of different steel and
weld materials, but have not established the relations
between the microstructure of materials and the macro
mechanical models.
In order to investigate the weld in connections, some
simple T-stub tension specimens were designed and tested
by Kaufman (1995). The test results indicated that these
specimens had the same fracture modes as the large-scale
connections. Besides, a few researchers have explored the
weld behavior with fracture mechanics and finite element
methods. Weibull proposed the Weibull probabilistic model
to predict the steel fracture behavior (Beremin, 1983),
Matos et al. improved the Weibull model and employed
it to study the fracture mechanism of the steel joint under
274 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

earthquakes (Matos et al., 2001; Matos et al., 2002). A

formulation using SINTAP was presented by Karal to
predict the fracture behavior of steel beam-to-column
connection with weld defect (Karal et al., 2005). Chi et
al. built up finite element model to analyze the fracture
behavior of connection, according to the weld constructions
of the bottom flange (Chi et al., 2000).
Although there has been some progress in the related
research field, the majority of which are concerned with
the non-structural steel or the effect of welding process
and metallurgical technique. Moreover, most researches
for the weld behavior were conducted by material properties
test, the effect of connection construction needs in-depth
study. Besides, the existing researches are mainly conducted
by monotonic tensile test. The accurate damage evolution
model of beam-to-column connection welds under cyclic
loads has not been established yet. As the weld damage Figure 1. Schematic of the local welded connection.
behavior is the most important factor for earthquake
resisting in steel frame connections, some more detail
researches are essential. steel moment resisting frame (SMRF) in China is generally
In this paper, 20 T-stub local welded connections were fabricated by welding a stub beam to the column with
tested under monotonic and cyclic loads in order to complete joint penetration (CJP) groove weld in the shop.
investigate the weld damage behavior of steel beam-to- Then, a long beam is linked to the stub beam with high
column connections. The effect of material strength, loading strength bolts and CJP weld in the field (Fig. 1). In order
types and connection geometries on the weld damage to study the weld damage mechanism in practical beam-
mechanism were considered. Furthermore, by analyzing to-column connections, the local welded connections
the influence of weld damage and fracture on the connection were tested in this study, so as to exclude other influence
damage, the damage evolution models are calibrated, the factors such as plate buckling. As the beam-to-column
relation between weld damage and macro connection connections are susceptible to fracture at the bottom
mechanical performance was established. beam flange to column flange welds, all the 20 local
connections were designed representing the bottom
2. Tests on the Local Welded Connection region of the full beam-to-column connection as shown in
Fig. 1.
2.1. Test specimens and materials The specimen details are shown in Fig. 2. Each
The widely employed beam-to-column connection in specimen consists of test part and holding part. The

Figure 2. Geometries of the local connection.

 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection 275

Table 1. Specimen details

Beam flange Beam flange
Specimen Steel Weld Number Loading type
width W/mm thickness t/mm
1A monotonic
1B cyclic II
SP-1 100 12 Q345B E50 4
1C cyclic I
1D cyclic I
2A monotonic
SP-2 100 12 Q390B E55 2
2B cyclic I
3A monotonic
SP-3 100 12 Q420B E55 2
3B cyclic I
4A monotonic
SP-4 100 12 Q345B E50 2
4B cyclic II
5A monotonic
SP-5 100 10 Q345B E50 2
5B cyclic I
6A monotonic
SP-6 80 12 Q345B E50 2
6B cyclic I
7A monotonic
SP-7 90 12 Q345B E50 2
7B cyclic I
8A monotonic
SP-8 110 12 Q345B E50 2
8B cyclic I
9A monotonic
SP-9 120 12 Q345B E50 2
9B cyclic II
Note: Q345, Q390 and Q420 means the nominal yield strength are 345, 390, and 420 MPa respectively. E50 and E55 means the
ultimate tensile strength are 500, 550 MPa, respectively.

Figure 3. Test setup.

holding parts are designed to fix the specimen to loading little as the Code GB50661-2011 (2011) “Code for welding
device. The test parts are T-stub connections, the beam of steel structures” required.
flange width W=80~120 mm, the width-to-thickness ratio To investigate the influences of the material strength,
W/t=2.83~4.5, which satisfies the requirement of local beam geometries and loading conditions respectively, these
buckling prevention. The local connections are shop-
welded through GMAW (CO2) welding procedure. The Table 2. Chemical compositions of the steel wt%
beam web is CJP welded to the column flange by double C Mn Si S P
grooves (Fig. 2(a)); the beam flange is welded by single
groove with backing bar left (Fig. 2(b)). The weld quality Q345 0.18 1.60 0.44 0.025 0.017
is evaluated as grade I, which means all the welds are Q390 0.16 1.50 0.41 0.002 0.010
tested with ultrasonic flaw detection and the flaws are as Q420 0.16 1.29 0.36 0.018 0.026
276 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

Table 3. Mechanical properties of the steel

Material Q345 (12 mm) Q345 (10 mm) Q390 (12 mm) Q420 (12 mm)
Yield strength/MPa 369.85 438.04 412.30 468.62
Ultimate strength/MPa 531.69 551.67 556.51 600.86
Charpy V impact energy (20oC)/J 93 89 117 132
Elongation/% 24.67 25.08 23.13 24.97

Figure 4. Loading scheme of the connection.

20 specimens are designed to nine types. The column size
of T150 mm×75 mm×12 mm×12 mm is constant, while
the steel strength, beam flange width W, beam flange
thickness t and loading procedures are varied (Table 1).
The steels standard are in accordance with GB-T1591-
1994 (1994) “High strength low alloy structural steels”.
The chemical compositions and mechanical properties of
the tested material are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Nine
specimens are tested under monotonic loading (SP1A~
SP9A), the other 11 specimens are tested under cyclic
loading (SP1B~SP9B, SP1C, SP1D).
2.2. Test setup and loading
The specimen is bolted to the self-balancing reaction
frame by nine high-strength bolts (18 φ 24, Gr. 10.9), and
the load is applied by a 2000kN capacity servo-hydraulic
actuator. Figure 3 shows the experimental equipment.
The axial tension applied to SP-1A~SP-9A increases
linearly until the specimen failure. All the cyclic loading
procedures for SP-1B~SP-9B consists of two phases. In
the first phase, the loading is controlled by loads with
increase of 200 kN until the specimen yielded. Then in
the second phase, the loading is controlled by displacement
with increase of 2Δy (the yield displacement) until the
specimen failure. There are three different cyclic loading
types as shown in Fig. 4. In Cyclic I, the pressure and
tension loads are asymmetric. While for Cyclic II, the
pressure is controlled by loads in the second phase, the
applied cyclic pressure is 50 kN. Besides, in order to
prevent the overall instability of specimen, the maximum
pressure for Cyclic III is controlled within 4Δy. The
details of loading scheme are showed in Fig. 4.
2.3. Test measurement
The extensometers and displacement meters are used
for axial and lateral extension measurement respectively.
Two extensometers are attached to either side of the
specimen to monitor the elongation over the central 180
mm gauge length as shown in Fig. 5. The lateral displace-
ment is measured by displacement meters T1-1 and T1-2.
 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection
Figure 5. Extensometers and displacement meters installation.
3. Test Results
3.1. Test phenomenon
3.1.1. Monotonic loading
Figure 6 shows the failure modes of the nine specimens
under monotonic tension loading. As shown in Fig. 6,
cracks in connection SP-2A, SP-4A, SP-8A and SP-9A
initiate from beam web welds, while connections SP-3A,
SP-5A, SP-6A and SP-7A fracture across the whole
section. Fractures in these four connections initiate from
beam flange at the toe of weld access hole and propagate
Figure 6. Failure modes under monotonic loads.
277
across the whole section. Beam flanges of connection SP-
5A, SP-6A and SP-7A are relatively weaker than those of
SP-4A, SP-8A and SP-9A, therefore fractures seem to
more likely to occur at the beam flanges as shown in Fig.
6. Specimen SP-1A is not loaded to fracture due to the
limitation of testing machine in displacement capacity,
some small cracks can be observed in the weld toe of
beam flange to column weld. The test phenomenon is
summarized in Table 4.
3.1.2. Cyclic loading
The failure modes for the 11 connections subjected to
cyclic loads include beam web weld crack, beam flange
weld crack and flange plate local buckling (Fig. 7). The
test phenomenon of these cyclic loading specimens is
summarized in Table 5.
3.2. Monotonic test results
3.2.1. Load capacity and deformation
The deformation of the tested local connections is
obtained by the average data from the two extensometers.
The load capacity and deformation of specimens under
monotonic loads are listed in Table 6, where the ultimate
load denotes the maximum load during loading process,
the ultimate deformation denotes the deformation corres-
ponding to the specimen fracture point.
3.2.2. Load-displacement curves
The load-displacement curves for monotonic loading
278 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

Table 4. Failure modes and test phenomenon of monotonic loading tests

Crack initiate
Specimen Test phenomenon
position
SP-1A Flange weld Necking phenomenon developed at beam flange, no obvious crack observed
SP-2A Web weld Necking phenomenon developed at beam web
SP-3A Flange weld The beam flange and web to column weld fractured
SP-4A Web weld The web weld cracked without necking
SP-5A Flange weld Necking phenomenon developed at base metal
SP-6A Flange weld Necking phenomenon developed at base metal
Necking phenomenon developed at base metal, and some welding spatters were found in the web
SP-7A Flange weld
weld after fractured.
SP-8A Web weld The web weld cracked without necking.
SP-9A Web weld The beam flange had slight necking.

Figure 7. Failure modes under cyclic loads.

connections are provided in Fig. 8.
3.3. Cyclic test results
3.3.1. Load capacity and deformation
The load capacity and deformation of specimens under
cyclic loading are listed in Table 7, where the ultimate
strength is obtained by the absolute value of the maximum
tension and compression loads, the ultimate displacement
corresponds to the specimen fracture point.
The ductility factor is defined as Eq. (1) (Han, 2004):
μ=Δu /Δy
where Δu denotes the connection ultimate deformation
and Δy is the yield deformation.
3.3.2. Hysteretic curves
The hysteresis loops of the connections subjected to the
three different cyclic load types are shown in Figs. 9, 10,
and 11, respectively.
3.3.3. Energy dissipation
The connection energy dissipation during cyclic loading
is evaluated by the accumulated area of the hysteresis
loops. The energy dissipation values of cyclic specimens
are listed in Table 8, as well as compared with that of the
corresponding monotonic specimens.
(1) 4 Discussion of the Test Results
4.1. Material strength effect
The material strength affects the local welded connections
strength, ductility and hysteretic behaviors, which can be
derived from the test results of connections SP1~SP3.
 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection 279

Table 5. Failure modes and test phenomenon of cyclic loading tests

Specimen Failure mode Test phenomenon
The specimen developed overall buckling after the beam edge yielded. In the loading process one
Web weld side of the specimen was always subjected to tension and the other side was under cyclic loading.
SP-1B
fracture To observe the damage properties, the pressure was controlled. After 20 plastic cycles the specimen
cracked at the weld root of beam web to column weld.
Web weld
SP-1C The web weld cracked in a brittle manner at the 5th plastic cycle.
fracture
Web weld The crack initiated from beam web at the toe of weld access hole. It was closured when subjected to
SP-1D
fracture pressure, while propagated gradually when tensioned.
Web weld The crack initiated from the weld toe of beam web at the weld access hole, it propagated through
SP-2B
fracture the web weld and penetrated the weld finally.
Web weld The load still increased after the beam web weld fractured, and the specimen experienced local
SP-3B
fracture buckling.
Web weld The specimen fractured in a brittle manner with a loud voice, which was similar to the test
SP-4B
fracture phenomenon of the specimen subjected to monotonic loading.
Web weld The crack initiated from the weld toe of beam web at the weld access hole, it propagated along the
SP-5B
fracture web weld and resulted in connection failure finally.
Local The beam flange plate experienced buckling when compressed at the 10th plastic cycle, which lead
SP-6B
buckling to the connection failure. There was no crack observed in the specimen.
Web weld The crack initiated from beam web at the toe of weld access hole, and then propagated through the
SP-7B
fracture weld. The web weld cracked in the 6th plastic cycle and fractured in the 7th plastic cycle.
Local The beam flange plate experienced buckling when compressed at the 3rd plastic cycle with no
SP-8B
buckling crack observed.
The specimen developed overall buckling after the beam edge yielded. In the loading process, one
Flange weld side of the specimen was always subjected to tension and the other side was subjected to cyclic
SP-9B
fracture loads. The crack initiated from the weld toe of flange at the side under cyclic loads, and then
propagated through the thickness of the beam flange beneath the weld access hole.

Table 6. Results of monotonic loading tests

Yield Yield Ultimate Ultimate Yield strength Ultimate Comparison with
Specimen
Load/kN Deformation/mm load/kN deformation/mm /MPa strength/MPa material strength
SP-1A 668 0.3 883 6.8 418.55 553.26 4.06%
SP-2A 751 0.12 876 2.4 470.55 548.87 -1.37%
SP-3A 799 0.33 1026 7.7 500.63 642.86 6.99%
SP-4A 584 0.36 849 4.2 365.91 531.95 0.05%
SP-5A 703 0.12 815 7.3 528.57 612.78 11.08%
SP-6A 567 0.18 772 7.8 418.14 569.32 7.08%
SP-7A 681 0.18 831 5.2 461.38 563.01 5.89%
SP-8A 751 0.12 880 3.07 437.65 512.82 -3.55%
SP-9A 819 0.1 976 3.24 446.08 531.59 -0.02%

4.1.1. Specimen strength
As listed in Table 6, the yield strength of welded
connection increases with the material strength increases
under monotonic loading, while the ultimate strength is
not entirely dependent on the material strength. The
ultimate strength of connection SP-2A made of Q390 is
lower than that of SP-1A made of Q345 by 0.8%.
Compared the connections strength between SP-1D,
SP-2B and SP-3B which made of different material
strength under the same cyclic loading type, it can be
seen that the connection strength is lower than the
material strength under cyclic loading as listed in Table 7.
The tested strength of connections made of Q345 and
Q420 are lower than material strength by 10~20%.
Besides, similar with the results of monotonic loading,
the connection fabricated from the high strength steel
may have lower ultimate loading capacity than the
ordinary steel connection. Connection SP-3B has lower
ultimate strength than SP-1D and SP-2B, which may be
correlated with the welding quality of high strength steel.
280 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

Figure 8. Load-displacement curves for monotonic loading specimens.

Table 7. Results of cyclic loading tests

Ductility Load capacity/ Ultimate Ultimate Comparison with
Specimen Total cycles Plastic cycles
factor/y kN strength/MPa deformation/mm material strength
SP-1B 24 20 18 732 3.65 458.7 -13.7%
SP-1C 9 5 3 769 0.62 482.5 -9.3%
SP-1D 16 12 6 756 1.25 471.2 -11.4%
SP-2B 17 13 7 957 0.72 599.6 -0.2%
SP-3B 11 7 3 686 0.74 429.8 -22.8%
SP-4B 31 27 32 876 5.8 548.9 3.2%
SP-5B 16 14 10 779 2.35 585.7 6.2%
SP-6B 12 10 6 741 1.33 546.5 2.8%
SP-7B 9 7 4 738 0.95 500.0 -6.0%
SP-8B 6 3 2 674 0.33 392.8 -26.1%
SP-9B 26 24 32 900 6.26 490.2 -7.8%

4.1.2. Ductility and hysteretic behavior 4.2. Loading type effect

The hysteresis loops and ductility factors are the most
important indices for the earthquake resistance evaluation
of connections. As Table 7 shows, the connection SP-1D
and SP-2B plastically cycled 12 loops and 13 loops
respectively, while SP-1C and SP-3B bore less cycles.
The ductility factor values also indicate SP-1D and SP-
2B have better ductility. Some conclusions can be drawn
from the hysteresis loops as follows:
(1) Connection SP-1C and 1D have the same geometries,
loading conditions and failure modes, while the hysteresis
loops are quite different, the hysteretic performance of the
connection are affected by the welding quality and initial
defects as well.
(2) The enclosed areas of the hysteresis loops for
connection SP-1D and SP-2B are relative larger. The
connection SP-2B which made of higher strength steel
has larger enclosed areas than SP-1D, indicating relatively
higher energy dissipation ability.
(3) The connection SP-3B developed local buckling
soon after it yielded, so its hysteresis loop looks cramped,
which indicates that the plate stability after yielding should
be a concern when utilizing high strength steel under
cyclic loading.
In this study, four load conditions were applied in order
to investigate the influence of loads, including monotonic
loading and three types of cyclic loading (Fig. 4).
4.2.1. Comparison between monotonic and cyclic
loading
By comparing the test results listed in Tables 6 and 7,
it can be concluded that the connections bearing capacity
and deformability are weakened under cyclic loading.
The connections ultimate strength under cyclic load I are
lower than that under monotonic loading by 4-33% except
specimen SP-2, and the deformability deteriorate by 10-
30% under cyclic loading. Moreover, test phenomenon
indicates that most connections fractured right after
reaching the ultimate load under monotonic loading, there
was no obvious load decrease developed before connections
fracture as shown in Fig. 8. However, under cyclic
loading, the connections show gradual damage course
before failure.
4.2.2. Comparison among different cyclic loads
Connection SP-4B was applied Cyclic II load, SP-1B
and SP-9B were applied Cyclic III load, and the others
 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection 281

Figure 9. Hysteresis loops obtained by Cyclic load I.

were tested under Cyclic I load. The influence of the
three cyclic loading procedures can be derived from the
test results.
(1) The SP-4B, SP-1B and SP-9B subjected to Cyclic
II and Cyclic III load have better ductility than the
connections subjected to Cyclic I load, which indicates
that the compressive plastic deformation weakens the
weld ductility when the applied tensile force is similar. In
this test, Cyclic I adopts symmetrical loading, in this
loading type the compressive plastic deformation is the
same as the tension plastic deformation. Cyclic II and III
are asymmetrical loads, the specimens are in elastic phase
when compressed under Cyclic II, while the maximum
plastic deformation is controlled as four times the yield
282 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

Figure 10. Hysteresis loops obtained by Cyclic load II.

Figure 12. Skeleton curves of SP-1A, SP-1B, SP-4B, SP-1D.

displacement under Cyclic III. As listed in Table 7, these

three specimens tested under Cyclic II and Cyclic III all
cycle more than 24 cycles with a ductility factor larger
than 18. On the other hand, the best record of other
specimens is bearing 17 cycles with the largest ductility
factor of 7, the ductility of these specimens is obviously
lower than that for the connection developing small
compressive plastic deformation.
(2) Cracks are more prone to initiate in the area of
applied larger strain range, enlarging the strain range
accelerates the material damage. The skeleton curves of
SP-1A, SP-1B, SP-4B and SP-1D are compared in Figure
12. These four specimens were tested under four different
Figure 13. Skeleton curves of SP-4A, SP-4B.
loading types. The comparison result of the curves length
is SP1A>SP4B>SP1B>SP1D, showing that the strain
range affects the connection hysteretic performance. The Above all, cyclic loads cause the performance damage
curves of SP-1A and SP-4B do not show obvious damage, of welded connection, the damage is related to the strain
while the specimen of larger strain range has shorter range. When the damage exceeds the critical value, the
skeleton curve, the ductility become worse. Furthermore, macro cracks initiate and propagate as the load increases.
according to the test phenomenon of SP-9B, the crack So the macro cracks in structure are most likely to
occurs in the area subjected to cyclic loads, which also develop in the area where the accumulated strain is the
proves the conclusion above, the larger strain range largest.
causes larger damage.
(3) The SP-4B subjected to Cyclic II load has similar 4.3. Geometry effect
skeleton curve as the monotonic loading connection SP- The stress-strain curve is adopted to analyze the effect
4A, as shown in Fig. 13. It shows that a small compressive of beam geometry on the connection behavior. The strain
stress in elastic phase can hardly cause damage in connections. ε employed in this section is calculated by the following

Figure 11. Hysteresis loops obtained by Cyclic load III.

 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection 283

Table 9. Comparison among specimens with different

width-thickness ratios
Specimen SP-6 SP-7 SP-1 SP-8
Flange width/mm 80 90 100 110
Width-thickness ratio 2.83 3.25 3.67 4.08
Monotonic ultimate strength/MPa 569 563 553 513
Cyclic ultimate strength/MPa 547 500 476 393

loading type I are listed in Table 9. Comparing the test

Figure 14. Normalized stress-strain curves of SP-1, SP-5.
equation:
ε =D/D0 (2)
where D is the mean value of the tested data by
extensometer M1-1 and M1-2, and D0 is the 180 mm
gauge length.
4.3.1. Beam flange thickness effect
For the specimen with a thinner beam thickness (for
SP-5, t =10 mm), the weld behaves better than the other
specimens no matter under monotonic or cyclic loads. To
exclude the influence of material strength, the normalized
stress-strain curve is employed. Figure 14 compares the
normalized stress-strain curves of SP-1 and SP-5, suggesting
that the thinner beam thickness results in higher ultimate
strength. Further, all the cyclic test data of SP-5B, including
hysteresis loop, ductility factor, energy dissipation (area
enclosed by the envelope), shows the weld of thinner
plate has better hysteretic performance.
4.3.2. Beam flange width-thickness ratio effect
Specimens of five different width-thickness ratios were
tested in the study as seen in Table 1. The test results of
four different local connections subjected to the same
results of these specimens, it can be concluded that the
connection with larger width-thickness ratio has lower
bearing capacity under monotonic loads. Under Cyclic
load I, the bearing capacity also decreases with increasing
width-thickness ratio as shown in Fig. 15.
5. Damage Behavior Analyses for the Local
Welded Connection
5.1. Damage feature analysis
According to the test phenomenon and hysteresis loops,
the damage course for the local connections can be
categorized into three different types as follows:
(1) The damage caused by plate buckling. As connection
SP-1B and SP-9B experienced overall buckling after the
beam edge yielded, the maximum pressure and displace-
ment was controlled by Cyclic load III. The bearing
capacity of SP-1B and SP-9B decreases gradually with
increasing tensile displacement as shown in Fig. 9.
Besides, for connection SP-9B, the beam flange weld
cracked at the side subjected to a larger strain range, so
the performance deterioration is more obvious. While for
connection SP-6B and SP-8B subjected to Cyclic I
loading, the flange plate experienced local buckling before
the weld cracking, the failure is of sudden and the
performance shows no gradual damage process.
(2) The damage caused by the crack. Connection SP-
1D, SP-5B and SP-7B cracked at the web weld, after two
cycles they failure. These specimens tensile bearing

Table 8. Energy dissipation of the welded local connections

Monotonic ultimate Monotonic energy Maximum cyclic Energy
Specimen
displacement/mm dissipation/J displacement /mm dissipation /J
SP-1B 3.65 20958
SP-1C 6.8 6474 0.62 3781
SP-1D 1.25 8964
SP-2 2.4 2058 0.72 13264
SP-3 7.7 5483 0.74 3851
SP-4 4.2 4268 5.8 6271
SP-5 7.3 8508 2.35 21900
SP-6 7.8 5607 1.33 9366
SP-7 5.2 4258 0.95 5368
SP-8 3.1 2571 0.33 909
SP-9 3.2 2957 6.26 42120
284 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017
Figure 15. Skeleton curves of specimens with different
width-thickness ratio.
capacity decline with the crack propagation, the damage
process is apparent.
(3) The damage is not obvious. All the other local
welded connections fractured by tension at the hardening
stage without distinct damage course.
In summary, the performance damage of these welded
connections is mainly caused by flange weld cracking
and buckling when subjected to Cyclic I tension and
compression respectively. Part of the specimens fractured
earlier at the web weld, which may lead to the connection
failure before it damaged.
Figure 16. Damage curves of the connections bearing capacity.
5.2. Damage process analysis
By comparing the results of the monotonic tests and
cyclic tests, the damage process of the cyclic loading
specimen is analyzed. Based on the damage mechanics,
the damage index can be calculated by Eq. (3) as follows:
D=1−FD /Fu (3)
where FD denotes the connection bearing capacity after
damage, Fu denotes the nondestructive bearing capacity
of the connection.
The bearing capacity of the cyclic loading specimens is
damaged with the plastic deformation develops. So the
accumulated plastic deformation is adopted as the index
to analyze the damage process. The cyclic load and
monotonic load which correspond to this deformation
index are taken as the damage bearing capacity and
nondestructive bearing capacity, respectively. When the
accumulated plastic displacement is beyond the ultimate
displacement under monotonic loading, the ultimate
bearing capacity of the monotonic specimen is adopted as
the nondestructive bearing capacity. The damage process
curves for the SP-1B, SP-5B and SP-7B showing the
significant damage process are shown in Fig. 16.
5.3. Damage model validation
To describe the damage behavior exactly and conveniently,
some research proposed the damage model based on
experimental researches and damage mechanics. Generally,
 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection 285

Table 10. Parameter values used in the damage model

Ultimate displacement
Failure modes Yield load Energy/J
Specimen Damage /mm
Fy /kN
Monotonic Cyclic Monotonic δu Cyclic δmax Monotonic Cyclic
SP-1C whole section web 0.30 6.8 0.62 668 6474 3781
SP-1D whole section web 0.28 6.8 1.25 668 6474 8964
SP-2B web web 0.17 6.8 0.72 751 6776 13264
SP-3B whole section web 0.40 7.7 0.74 799 5483 3851
SP-5B whole section web 0.19 7.3 2.35 703 8508 21900
SP-6B whole section buckling 0.07 7.8 1.33 567 5607 9366
SP-7B web web 0.32 5.2 0.95 681 6077 5368
SP-8B web buckling 0.24 6.8 0.33 751 6871 909

the models are set up based on two damage factors: Table 11. Constant parameters of damage models evaluated
deformation (displacement, rotation, et al.) and energy. from experiments
Kravinkler and Zhorei (1983), Krawinkler and Nassar Deformation Energy Combination
(1992), Powell and Allchabadi (1988), Kato and Akiyama Damage model: model: model:
Specimen
(1975), Cosenza and Manfredi (1992) proposed the index Parameter Parameter Parameter
damage model based on the deformation respectively. C C β
Kumar and Usami (1994) proposed the energy based SP-1C 0.3 1.06 1.15 0.25
model. Park and Ang proposed the model combining the SP-1D 0.28 1.73 1.73 0.06
displacement and energy index (Park et al., 1985). SP-2B 0.17 2.24 2.15 -0.01
In this paper, three damage models are verified by the SP-3B 0.4 1.21 1.22 0.48
experimental data. In the damage models, the damage SP-5B 0.19 4.37 2.63 -0.03
index D is used (D=0 indicates no damage and D ≥1 SP-6B 0.07 3.13 2.69 -0.05
means collapse or failure). The models are listed as
Mean 2.09 1.73 0.23
follows:
COV 0.55 0.40 1.66
Cosenza and Manfredi model (Deformation model)
(Cosenza and Manfredi, 1992):
n
δi – δy ⎞ c
⎛ ------------- dissipated energy and β is constant. In this model, the
D= ∑ ⎝ δu – δ-y⎠ (4)
displacement and energy is combined linearly.
i=1
Some parameters in these models such as Emon and δ u
where δ i is the deformation amplitude of each half cycle, are calibrated by the monotonic test. In this test, four
δ y is the yield deformation, δ u is the ultimate deformation monotonic specimens SP-1A, SP-3A, SP-5A and SP-6A
under monotonic loading and c is constant. failed due to the whole section fracture, the others failed
Kumar and Usami model (Energy model) (Kumar and by web weld crack (local fracture). The ultimate displace-
Usami, 1994): ment δu and energy dissipation Emon of the connections
n
cracked at the whole section are taken as the model
Ei ⎞ c
⎛ ---------- parameters. For the connections fractured locally, these
D= ∑ ⎝ Emon⎠ (5)
two parameter values are scaled by comparing the results
i=1
of the standard specimen SP-1A (totally fractured), the
where Ei is the energy dissipated each half cycle, Emon is scaling factor is according to the ratio of specimen section
the energy dissipated under monotonic loading and c is area and material strength to the standard specimen.
constant. The damage process for the specimens subjected to
Park and Ang model (Combination model) (Park and Cyclic I load are simulated by applying the displacement
Ang, 1985): model, energy model and combination model respectively.
All the cyclic loading specimens fractured at the web
δ max β
∫
weld and partly damaged. The damage index is calculated
D = --------- + ---------- dE (6)
δu Fyδu by Eq. (3). The parameters of these damage models are
obtained by the test data, as shown in Table 10.
where δ max is the maximum deformation under cyclic The constant parameters of the three damage models
loading, δ u is the ultimate deformation under monotonic are evaluated by test data fitting. Some conclusions can
∫
loading, F y is the yield strength, dE is cumulative be drawn from the fitting results as follows:
286 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017

Figure 17. Comparisons between the three different damage models.

 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection
Figure 18. Comparisons of damage curves between damage models and test results.
(1) From Table 11 it can be observed that some β
values of combination model are negative, which indicates
the effect of the cycle with maximum displacement is
overestimated in that model.
(2) The dispersion of the three damage models is
different when simulating the damage course of welded
connections. From the coefficient of variation (COV), it
can be perceived all the three models has large scatter,
moreover, the dispersion of combination model is larger
than the other two models.
(3) As the steel material can be assumed to be rigid-
perfectly plastic, the Eq. (4) can be simplified as Eq. (7):
n
δ pi⎞ c
∑ ⎛⎝ -----
D= - (7)
δu ⎠
i=1
where δ pi denotes the plastic deformation of each half
cycle, δ u is the ultimate deformation under monotonic
loading.
Comparing Eq. (7) with Eq. (4), it shows great agreement
between the energy model and displacement model. The
fitting parameters of these two models are similar to each
other as listed in Table 11, which also indicates that the
two models can be converted to each other approximately.
To avoid the conflict between the definition of parameter
β and the negative values of the specimen, the combination
287
model is not used for SP-2B, SP-5B and SP-6B. The
damage curves calculated by the three damage models are
illustrated in Fig. 17 and some conclusions can be made
as follows:
The combination model is a linear accumulated model;
the linear fitting gives the same weighting for each cycle,
except for the cycle with maximum displacement. While
the displacement model and energy model are accelerated
damage models, the parameter c has large effect on the
connection damage process.
All the displacement model and energy model curves
have obvious threshold. In this experiment, all the critical
values are near the yield point. The damage curves show
that the obvious damage occurred after the specimen
yielded, which is in accordance with the models physic
meaning. On the other hand, the terraced curve of
combination model shows a different damage process
with the other two, the critical points are not apparent.
That curves show the damage at the elastic cycle and
cannot reflect the real situation at the initial stage.
The effects of connection geometry on damage process
are not significant for displacement model and energy
model. Although specimen SP-1, SP-5, SP-6, SP-7 and
SP-8 has different geometries, the two damage model
curves all agree well with each other.
The scatter of the fitting results could be resulted from
288 X. Y. Liu et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(1), 273-289, 2017
the following reasons:
The welding defects and residual stress existed in the
welded connection causes the connection has different
welding quality.
The welded connection may be eccentric loaded
differently during loading procedure, which leads to the
different lateral buckling for the different specimen. The
lateral buckling makes the connection damage unilaterally,
while the extensometers are installed at two sides of
specimen, they cannot measure the displacement distribution
at different locations of the specimen. So the mean values
are adopted to evaluate the connection performance,
which leads to the difference between test results and real
values.
The fitting curves obtained by the damage models are
compared with the test curves of specimen SP-1D, SP-5B
and SP-7B as shown in Fig. 18.
As shown in Fig. 18, the displacement model and
energy model curves are approximate to the test curves
when accumulated plastic deformation is large. While the
curve shape of the combination model agrees well with
the test curve, especially for the nonuniform damage
acceleration process, the variation trend of the curve
slope is more similar to test curve. Accordingly, these
three models have their own merits when simulating
welded connections damage, the result of displacement
model is more accurate.
6. Summary and Conclusions
In this study, a series of 20 local connections representative
of beam-to-column connections in SMRFs are tested
under monotonic tension loading and cyclic loading to
investigate weld damage behavior for the connection. The
influence of the material strength, loading type and connection
geometry on the damage behavior and fracture for the
weld zone of connection are investigated. Besides, damage
process for the local welded connection is analyzed and
damage evolution models are calibrated based on the test
results. The test results obtained in this study provide
technical basis for the damage evaluation and fracture
prevention of the welded beam-to-column connections in
SMRFs. The following conclusions can be drawn from
the present study:
The test phenomenon shows that for the nine monotonic
loading connections, four connections fracture at the toe
of beam web to column flange weld; while in another
four connections, cracks firstly initiate from the toes of
weld access holes in the beam flange and finally fracture
across the whole section. Specimen SP-1A is not loaded
to fracture due to the limitation of testing machine in
displacement capacity. For the 11 specimens tested under
cyclic loading, eight connections failure are due to beam
web weld fracture, two specimens experienced flange
plate buckling, and one connection fracture at the beam
flange just beneath the weld access hole.
The connection made of high strength steel probably
has a lower ultimate loading capacity, which may be
correlated with the welding quality of high strength steel.
The connection with larger beam flange width-thickness
ratio has lower ultimate strength and deformation. Cyclic
loading results in crack initiate and propagate in the
connection weld, which weakens the bearing capacity and
deformation capacity of the welded connections. The
range of cyclic loads is the key factor affecting the weld
damage level.
Weld cracking and plate buckling are the major causes
of connection damage. The load capacity decreases greatly
with the crack propagating and plate buckling. For the
welded connection designed to have higher load capacity
than components, the damage of its bearing capacity and
stiffness is mainly caused by the crack evolution in weld.
A variety of damage evolution equations applied in
engineering are calibrated and compared, the comparison
results indicate that the damage model adopting the
connection plastic deformation index shows a reasonable
good accuracy to fit the test data. Moreover, that model
has less relation with the connection geometries so that it
can be widely applied, which means adopting the plastic
deformation to illustrate damage process of metal material
conforms to its physical mechanism. The damage models
based on the macro mechanics index can reveal the
connection deterioration behavior to a certain extent.
Acknowledgment
This project is funded by the Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 51678339 and No. 51378289). The
financial support is deeply acknowledged.
References
Beremin F.M. (1983). “A local criterion for cleavage fracture
of a nuclear pressure vessel steel”, Metall. Trans. Vol. 11,
pp. 2277-2287.
Binnur G.K. and Secil E. (2005). “Prediction of fracture
behavior of steel beam-to-column connections with weld
defect using the SINTAP”, Engineering Structures, Vol.
27, pp. 760-768.
Chi W. M., Deierlein G. G., and Ingraffea A. (2000).
“Fracture toughness demands in welded beam-column
moment connections”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 126, No.1, pp. 88-97.
Cosenza E. and Manfredi G. (1992). “Seismic Analysis of
Degrading Models by means of Damage Functions
Concept”, Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Elsevier.
GB/T5117-1995 (2011). Carbon steel covered electrode,
China Standards Press.
GB50661-2011 (2011). Code for welding of steel structures,
China building industry press.
GB-T1591-1994 (1994). High strength low alloy structural
steels, China Standards Press.
Han Lin Hai. (2004). “The concrete filled-steel tube
 Investigation on the Weld Damage Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Connection
structure: theory and practice”, Beijing: Science Press.
John W. F., Robert J. D., and Eric J. K. (1995). “Fracture
Mechanics of Welded Structural Steel Connections”,
SAC report No. 95-09, Washington, DC.
Kato B. and Akiyama H. (1975). “Aseismic Limit Design of
Steel Rigid Frames”, Proceeding of Architectural Institute
of Japan, No.237, Nov., 1975.
Kaufmann E.J. and Fisher J.W. (1995). “A study of the
effects of material and welding factors on moment frame
weld joint performance using a small scale tension
specimen”, Technical report SAC 95-08.
Kravinkler H. and Zhorei M. (1983). “Cumulative Damge in
Steel Structures Subjected to Earthquake Ground Motions”,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 16, pp. 1-4.
Krawinkler H. and Nassar A. A. (1992). “Seismic Design
based on Ductility and Cumulative Damage Demands
and Capacities”, Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Elsevier.
Kumar S. and Usami T. (1994). “A note on evaluation of
damage in steel structures under cyclic loading.” Journal
of Structure Engineering”, JSCE, Vol. 40A, pp. 177-178.
Liu Y.M., Chen Y.Y. and Chen Y.J. (2002). “Hysterical
Model of Steel Frame Connection Considering Partial
Fracture”, Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science),
Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 525-539.
Matos C.G. and Dodds R.H. (2001). “Probabilistic modeling
of weld fracture in steel frame connections part I: quasi-
static loading”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, pp. 1011-
1030.
Matos C.G. and Dodds R.H. (2002). “Probabilistic modeling
of weld fracture in steel frame connections part II:
seismic loading”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, pp.
687-705.
Park A. J. and Ang H. S. (1985). “Mechanistic Seismic
Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete”, Journal of
Structure Engineering, Vol.111, No.4, pp. 195-207.
Powell G. H. and Allchabadi R. (1988). “Seismic damage
289
prediction by deterministic methods: Concept and
procedures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 719-734.
SAC. (1995). “Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair,
Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame
Structures”, SAC-95-02, Sacramento, California.
Shen Z.Y. and Shen S. (2002). “Seismic Analysis of Tall
Steel Structures with Damage Cumulation and Fracture
Effects”, Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science),
Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 393-398.
Tawil S., Mikesell T., Vidarsson E. and Kunnath S.K.
(1998). “Strength and Ductility of FR Welded-Bolted
Connections”, SAC report No. 98-01, Washington, DC.
Shi W.L, Xiao Y., Li G.Q. and Ye Z.M. (2008). “Pseudo-
dynamic tests on composite joints with flush end plate
connections”, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 124-133.
Shi Y.J., Ao X.L., Wang Y.Q. and Shi G. (2009).
“Experimental study on the seismic performance of
beam-to-column composite connections in medium-high
strength steel frame structures”, China Civil Engineering
Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 48-54.
Su D. (2005). “Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Connections
in Steel Structure with Composite Effect”, Tsinghua
University.
Toyoda M. (2002). “Properties of steel structures damaged in
Hanshin-Japan and Northridge-USA earthquake”, Seminar
notes. Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir(Turkey).
Yang T.S. and Popov E.P. (1995). “Experimental and
Analytical Studies of Steel Connections and Energy
Dissipators”, SAC report No. 95-13, Washington, DC.
Zhang L. (2004). “Study on earthquake resistance of rigid
beam-to-column connection of steel structure”, Tianjin
University.
Zhao D.W., Shi Y.J. and Chen H. (2000). “Experimental
Research on Beam-column Connections Under Cyclic
Loading”, Building Structure, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 3-6.