Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental study on brace to HSS column connection using

through-gusset plate
Samira Ebrahimi a, Seyed Rasoul Mirghaderi a, *, Seyed Mehdi Zahrai a, b, Afshin Najafi c,
Seyed Mojtaba Seyedzadeh Otaghsaraie d
a
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
b
Civil Engineering Department, University of Ottawa, Canada
c
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Iran
d
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In Hollow Structural Section (HSS) column, webs are available at both ends of column flanges. Thus, there is an
Through-gusset plate offset between webs and a gusset plate connected to the middle of this column flange. However, in H-shaped
Hollow Structural Section (HSS) column, both the column web and the gusset plate are connected to the middle of the column flange. On the other
Through-plate
hand, unlike H-shaped column, HSS column flange does not possess an appropriate support and this problem can
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)
induce distortion, out-of-plane deformation, and fracture in HSS column flange. To resolve this problem, this
study proposes a new gusset plate connection passed through HSS column and called through-gusset plate. Also,
force transfer mechanism and design procedure are presented for through-gusset plate. To evaluate the cyclic
response of the proposed connection, an experimental study was conducted on two full-scale one-bay, two-story
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs). This study considered beam-to-column connection as moment
transfer via a through-plate to mobilize the reservation capacity of SCBFs. Square-HSS and circular-HSS cross-
sections were used for braces and columns. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed connection
is acceptable since through-gusset plate can eliminate distortion and out-of-plane deformation of HSS column
flange at the gusset plate vicinity via providing a new load path. The cyclic response of specimens showed that
beam-to-column moment connection by through-plate increased strength, ductility, and energy dissipation ca­
pacity for approximately 41%, 79%, and 110%, respectively. In addition, in the phase of reservation capacity,
noticeable slip in bolts and sudden fracture in connection plates occurred. Consequently, an acceptable perfor­
mance was not observed for beam-to-gusset plate connection proposed in AISC.

1. Introduction buckling strength. Moreover, tubular cross-sections have been widely

Hollow Structural Section (HSS) members are widely employed in
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) as columns and braces
since HSS members possess high compression stiffness and strength,
large bending stiffness and strength about any axis. These advantages
are due to the large moment of inertia and radius of gyration about any
axis compared to wide-flange cross-sections. In addition, large torsional
stiffness without relying upon warping behavior decreases the required
lateral bracing of the column and reduces the strength deteriorations
which are commonly initiated from column rotation such as lateral
torsional buckling of the connection [1]. HSS members are appropriate
for columns due to low sensitivity to local buckling and possessing post-
used in link beams due to the numerous problems in providing the
lateral bracing for link beams with I-shaped cross-sections [2]. Due to
the numerous advantages of braces made of square-HSS and circular-
HSS, many experimental and numerical studies have been carried out
[3,4]. Due to limited width-to-thickness ratio and low fracture stiffness
in the corners of square-HSS, the use of circular-HSS as the braces is a
more attractive option. Han et al. [5] conducted experimental studies on
square-HSS braces to investigate the ductility of braces. Elchalakani
et al. [6] investigated the effect of the width-to-thickness ratio and
slenderness on the behavior of circular-HSS braces. Fell [7], Fell and
Kanvinde [8], and Lai and Mahin [9] studied the braces with various
cross-sections such as square-HSS, circular-HSS and wide-flange.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: samira.ebrahimi@ut.ac.ir (S. Ebrahimi), rmirghaderi@ut.ac.ir (S.R. Mirghaderi), mzahrai@ut.ac.ir (S.M. Zahrai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111948
Received 30 April 2020; Received in revised form 20 December 2020; Accepted 22 January 2021
Available online 13 February 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 1. Through-gusset plate connection for a bracing node with two braces: (a) connection configuration, (b) connection assembly, and (c) a photo of the pro­
posed connection.
Ebrahimi et al. [10] numerically investigated the behavior of various
HSS and Concrete-Filled Tube (CFT) braces under cyclic loading. They
found that the width-to-thickness ratio is the most key parameter to
increase the peak compressive strength of HSS braces by concrete infill.
While to enhance the energy dissipation capacity of HSS braces, the
length-to-width ratio is important on the effect of concrete infill.
The studies on the behavior of the gusset plates started with exper­
imental work conducted by Whitmore in 1952 [11]. He defined Whit­
more effective width determined by extending two lines at about 30◦
with the brace centerline. Many studies were conducted on the elastic
behavior [12–15] and the plastic behavior [16–21] of the gusset plates.
The gusset plate capacity and failure mechanism based on the studies
conducted by Whitmore were investigated by Rosenstrauch et al. [22].
They indicated that the Whitmore method is conservative. Fang et al.
[23] defined two design approaches to study the post-buckling strength
of the gusset plates. Based on the obtained results, they concluded that
both approaches were acceptable. Recently, new methods were pro­
posed by Ebrahimi et al. [24–26] to estimate the dimensions and force
demands of the gusset plates.
Extensive experimental and numerical research has been conducted
on the gusset plate to H-shaped column connection. However, limited
studies have been carried out on the gusset plate to HSS column
2
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
connection. There is a concern about the gusset plate to HSS column
connection because of the offset between the gusset plate and the webs
of the HSS column. Astaneh-Asl et al. [27,28] investigated seventeen
full-scale SCBF specimens with H-shaped columns and the braces made
of double angle cross-sections under cyclic loading. Based on the test
results, they proposed that a length of the gusset plate equal to at least
twice the gusset plate thickness should be considered for the free for­
mation of plastic hinges in the out-of-plane buckling of braces. Uriz [29]
conducted experimental studies on full-scale one-bay, two-story SCBF
specimens with various brace configurations. The H-shaped columns
and beam-to-column connections as pinned were assumed in his design.
The experimental observations showed that the column flange fractured
suddenly at the beam-to-column connection and this fracture extended
from the column flange to the column web. Lai and Mahin [9] carried
out three full-scale tests on one-bay, two-story chevron configuration
SCBF specimens with H-shaped columns. They evaluated the behavior of
braces with various configurations.
Recently, investigations were numerically and experimentally con­
ducted on I-beam to box column moment-connection [30,31]. Ahmadi
and Mirghaderi [32] experimentally studied the moment-connection of
I-beam to HSS/CFT columns. Kosteski and Packer [33] experimentally
and numerically investigated the branch plate to rectangular-HSS
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 2. Through-gusset plate connection for a bracing node with one brace: (a) connection configuration, (b) connection assembly.
column connection. In their study, the branch plate was loaded, in a
quasi-static manner to failure, in axial tension. They considered two
types of connections, including (1) connections with through-plate and
(2) connections without through-plate. They found that the presence of
two yield lines in the connections with through-plate provides approx­
imately twice strength than the connections without through-plate.
Ebrahimi et al. [34] numerically studied the gusset plate to HSS col­
umn connection via through-gusset plate. They indicated that the
through-gusset plate connections can decrease or remove distortion and
out-of-plane deformation which occur at HSS column face adjacent to
the conventional gusset plate connections. Also, they concluded that the
presence of through-gusset plate increased strength, stiffness, and en­
ergy dissipation capacity by approximately 32%, 40%, and 28% in
comparison with the conventional gusset plate connections, respec­
tively. Based on the obtained results, it was found that the strength of
normal force component increased around 4 times at the gusset plate
interface to HSS column.
This study proposes through-gusset plate to provide the sufficient
support for HSS column flange in the vicinity of the gusset plate. In this
research, the force transfer mechanism and design procedure are defined
for the proposed connection. To evaluate the seismic performance of the
proposed connection, experimental studies were conducted on two full-
scale one-bay, two-story diagonal configuration SCBF specimens.
Square-HSS and circular-HSS were utilized for the columns and braces.
In the current study, the moment connections of beam-to-column via
Fig. 3. Force transfer mechanism for the gusset plate connected to the front
side of HSS column.
3
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
through-plate were considered to mobilize the reservation capacity of
SCBF specimens. Also, beam-to-gusset plate connections were designed
according to the method proposed in AISC.
2. Introducing proposed connection
In this study, the gusset plate passed through HSS column is called
through-gusset plate. Through-gusset plate provides an adequate sup­
port for HSS column flange in the vicinity of the gusset plate. Accord­
ingly, it is expected that through-gusset plate can prevent large
distortion and out-of-plane deformation of HSS column flange placed in
the vicinity of the gusset plate. This problem can lead to a fracture of
HSS column flange. Through-gusset plate includes a gusset plate, a part
of the beam web which its length is equal to beam-to-gusset plate
interface, and two vertical plates connected together as cruciform and
passed through HSS column (see Figs. 1 and 2). Note that a vertical plate
can be used instead of a cruciform cross-section. The use of a vertical
plate results in the planar connections which can be employed in the
bracing connections in one direction. In the planar connections, it
should be noted that the shear demand, Vuc , induced at the column-to-
gusset plate interface and equal to the column axial force should be
tolerated by the front and back sides of HSS column (this would be
explained later in upcoming section). However, the use of cruciform
through-gusset plate in the bracing connections in one direction results
in the participation of entire HSS column against induced shear demand.
Consequently, this study considered cruciform through-gusset plates in
the planar specimens to use the participation of entire HSS column faces.
The cruciform through-gusset plate possesses two advantages: (1)
application in orthogonal braced frames, and (2) mobilizing all HSS
column faces to tolerate imposed force demands. It should be noted that
the length of through-gusset plate is equal to the sum of beam depth and
the column-to-gusset plate interface.
As depicted in Figs. 1 and 2, in the connection region, HSS column is
converted to two separate parts. To pass through-gusset plate through
HSS column, aligned slots are prepared on HSS column faces. The
through-gusset plate is passed through these slots and thereafter welded
to them. Two separate parts of HSS column are connected together. It
should be noted that the slots prepared on HSS column, form a reduced
net section resulting from the gap between the slot tip on HSS column
and the edge of through-gusset plate. The HSS column should be rein­
forced in these regions. Thus, reinforcing plates are proposed to place on
both sides of the reduced net sections in the through-gusset plate
connection to HSS column (see Figs. 1 and 2).
To simulate beam flanges, finger stiffeners are used on both sides of
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 4. Participating components in the stiffness of the braced frame.

Fig. 5. Induced demands at the column-to-gusset plate interface.
the through-gusset plate. The finger stiffeners are connected to the
through-gusset plate via longitudinal connection. Thereafter the beam
web is connected to the through-gusset plate by means of two web
connection plates placed on both sides.
It should be noted that Figs. 1 and 2 are according to the bracing
nodes with two braces and one brace, respectively.

3. Force transfer mechanism

Generally, the gusset plates are welded to the front side of HSS col­
umn. The shear force, Vuc , normal force, Huc , and bending moment, M,
resulting from the force demands of braces and beams, exist at the
column-to-gusset plate interface and are transferred to the front side of
HSS column by the gusset plate to column connection. On the other
hand, the entire HSS column is not effective against the force demands
transferred from the column-to-gusset plate interface. As depicted in
Fig. 3, the normal force, Huc , and the bending moment, M, are tolerated
by the front side of HSS column as out-of-plane action. This behavior
leads to large distortion and out-of-plane deformation on the front side
of HSS column. Thus, the front side of HSS column may experience
fracture under cyclic loading. As depicted in Fig. 3, the shear force, Vuc , Fig. 6. Distribution of the column axial force between HSS column faces.
is tolerated by the front side of HSS column as in-plane action.
In design provisions, the stiffness of the braced frame is defined as force demands of beam are developed, respectively. These force de­
the brace stiffness that its length is equal to the distance between two mands are transferred to the through-gusset plate by means of the brace-
working points (W.P). It is assumed that the stiffness of the gusset plates to-gusset plate and the beam-to-gusset plate connections and thereafter
and the stiffness of the beam and column parts to the working points are are converted to shear force, Vuc , normal force, Huc , and bending
greater than the brace stiffness. As depicted in Fig. 4, the brace, two moment, M, at the column-to-gusset plate interface. As depicted in
gusset plates, and the beam and column parts to the working points can Fig. 5, in the proposed connection, induced demands at the column-to-
be considered as five springs in series. gusset plate interface, namely shear force, Vuc , normal force, Huc , and
The stiffness of the braced frame, K, can be calculated as follows: bending moment, M, should be tolerated by the through-gusset plate
critical section, namely section A − A in Fig. 5.
1 1 1 1 1 1
= + + + + (1) The dimensions of the through-gusset plate can be determined by
K KB− C− 1 KGP1 Kbrace KGP2 KB− C−
considering section A − A (see Fig. 5) and Eqs. (2) and (3) as follows:
2

Where, K, is the stiffness of the braced frame, KB− C− 1 and KB− C− 2 , are
Vuc
the stiffness of the beam and column parts to the working points, KGP1 τ= ≤ 0.6φ × Fy,TGP (2)
t×h
and KGP2 , are the stiffness of two gusset plates placed in two ends of the
brace and, Kbrace , is the brace stiffness. Huc 8 6M
It can be concluded from Eq. (1) that, in conventional gusset plate σ= + × ≤ φ × Fy,TGP (3)
t × h 9 t × h2
connections, distortion and out-of-plane deformation of HSS column
Where, t, is the through-gusset plate thickness, h, is the through-
flange in the vicinity of the gusset plate can lead to decrease the stiffness
gusset plate length, Fy,TGP , is the minimum yield stress of the through-
of the beam and column parts to the working points and consequently,
gusset plate material and φ is the resistance factor.
reduce the stiffness and strength of the braced frame. The numerical
In the proposed connection, induced demands at the column-to-
studies conducted by Ebrahimi et al. [34,35] showed that the through-
gusset plate interface, namely shear force, Vuc , normal force, Huc , and
gusset plate connections can decrease or remove the out-of-plane
bending moment, M, should be transferred to the entire HSS column by
deformation which occurs at HSS column face adjacent to the conven­
through-gusset plate. As shown in Fig. 5, all forces resulting from the
tional gusset plate connections.
beam and brace forces are in the through-gusset plate. It should be noted
At the connection of brace to through-gusset plate and the connec­
that the induced shear force, Vuc , at the column-to-gusset plate interface,
tion of beam to through-gusset plate, the force demands of brace and the
after transferring to the through-gusset plate inside HSS column, is

4
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 7. Transfer mechanism of column axial force (a) through-gusset plate inside HSS column (b) the portion of the column axial force induced at each HSS col­
umn face.
converted to the axial force of the column, PC , (see Fig. 5). Thus, the
induced shear force, Vuc , at the column-to-gusset plate interface is equal
to the column axial force (PC = Vuc ). In the through-gusset plate
connection, as shown in Fig. 6, a portion of the column axial force is
transferred to the front side of HSS column by means of the vertical
welded connection between the through-gusset plate and the front side
of HSS column and is named PTGP− 1 . Through-gusset plate transfers the
remaining column axial force to the back side (PTGP− 2 ), right side
(PTGP− 3 ) and left side (PTGP− 4 ) of HSS column.
Fig. 7 (a) and (b) show the cruciform through-gusset plate inside HSS
column consisting of four components. These four components are
TGP − 1, TGP − 2, TGP − 3, and TGP − 4 which are welded to the front,
back, right, and left sides of HSS column, respectively. In the cruciform
through-gusset plate connections, as shown in Fig. 7 (a) and (b), the
distribution of the column axial force, PC = Vuc , occurs between
TGP − 1, TGP − 2, TGP − 3, and TGP − 4 according to the stiffness of each
component. Afterwards, the force induced to each component is trans­
ferred to a face of HSS column located adjacent to the same component.
Considering Fig. 7(b), equal distances between the column centerline
5
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
and HSS column faces in each plane, and the equilibrium equations, it
can be found that PTGP− 1 = PTGP− 2 and PTGP− 3 = PTGP− 4 . As depicted in
Fig. 7 (a) and (b), the minimum yield stress, Fy,TGP , the thickness, t, and
the length,h, for four components of the through-gusset plate inside HSS
column can be assumed to be similar. Therefore, the shear strengths
calculated for four components of through-gusset plate are equal.
Moreover, it can be assumed that the deformations for four components
of through-gusset plate inside HSS column are similar. Consequently, the
four components of through-gusset plate inside HSS column, namely
TGP − 1, TGP − 2, TGP − 3, and TGP − 4, which possess equal shear
strengths and deformations can be assumed to form four springs with
equal stiffness in parallel. These four springs with equal stiffness in
parallel should resist the column axial force, PC . Consequently, the ratio
of the induced force at each component of through-gusset plate inside
HSS column to the column axial force, PC , is calculated to be 1/4. Note
that the induced force at each component of through-gusset plate inside
HSS column should be transferred to a face of HSS column located
adjacent to the same component by means of the vertical welded
connection between the through-gusset plate and HSS column face. The
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 8. Transfer mechanism of the normal force (a) through-gusset plate inside HSS column (b) the portion of the normal force induced at the front and back sides of
HSS column.
Fig. 9. Transfer mechanism of the bending moment (a) through-gusset plate inside HSS column (b) replacing the bending moment by a couple of opposite shear
forces on the front and back sides of HSS column.
shear forces induced to four components of through-gusset plate inside
HSS column, after transferring to HSS column faces, are converted to the
column axial force. Thus, the force induced at each HSS column face can
be calculated as follow:
PC
PTGP− 1 = PTGP− 2 = PTGP− 3 = PTGP− 4 = (4)
4
It can be concluded that the presence of the through-gusset plate
leads to the participation of the entire HSS column against the column
axial force as in-plane action. Note that in the planar through-gusset
plate connections which have a vertical plate, the column axial force
should be tolerated by the front and back sides of HSS column.
As shown in Fig. 8 (a) and (b), the normal force, Huc , at the column-
to-gusset plate interface after transferring to through-gusset plate inside
HSS column should be tolerated by TGP − 1 and TGP − 2. Afterwards,
this force demand should be transferred to the front and back sides of
HSS column. Note that the components of the cruciform through-gusset
plate located in the gusset plate plane, namelyTGP − 1 and TGP − 2, are
effective to tolerate and transfer the normal force, Huc . Consequently, a
portion of the normal force is transferred to the front side of HSS column
by means of the vertical welded connection between the through-gusset
6
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
plate and the front side of HSS column and the remaining normal force is
transferred to the back side of HSS column by means of the vertical
welded connection between the through-gusset plate and the back side
of HSS column. It is clear that the normal strengths for TGP − 1 and
TGP − 2 are equal resulting from equal minimum yield stress, Fy,TGP ,
thickness, t, and length,h. In addition, it can be assumed that the de­
formations for TGP − 1 and TGP − 2 are similar. Consequently, TGP − 1
and TGP − 2 behave similar to two springs with equal stiffness in parallel
against the normal force, Huc . It can be concluded that half of the normal
force, Huc /2, should be tolerated by TGP − 1 and TGP − 2 and thereafter
transferred to the front and back sides of HSS column as out-of-plane
action.
As shown in Fig. 9 (a) and (b), the bending moment, M, at the
column-to-gusset plate interface, after transferring to the through-gusset
plate inside HSS column, can be replaced by a couple of opposite shear
forces on two components of the cruciform through-gusset plate located
at the gusset plate plane, namelyTGP − 1 and TGP − 2. This couple of
( )
opposite shear forces can be calculated as dMc where, dc , is the column
( )
depth. These opposite shear forces dMc should be tolerated by TGP − 1
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 10. Distribution of the induced normal force and bending moment be­
tween HSS column faces.
Astaneh-Asl [36], showed that the braced frames did not experience
collapse after brace failure. They indicated that beam-to-column con­
nections are the most possible source for existing the reservation ca­
pacity. The beam-to-column moment connection via through-plate
proposed in the studies of Ahmadi and Mirghaderi [32], was used in this
investigation. As depicted in Fig. 11, HSS column is divided into two
separate parts in the connection region and then, aligned slots are placed
on HSS column to pass through-plate through HSS column. Through-
plate is passed through these aligned slots and connected to them. Ac­
cording to the required length for the connection, the beam web is
trimmed and the slots are placed on the beam flanges. The longitudinal
connections are used for connecting the beam flanges to both sides of
through-plate. To connect the beam web to the through-plate, two web
connection plates are used on both sides of the through-plate.
5. Beam-to-gusset plate connection

and TGP − 2 and thereafter transferred to the front and back sides of HSS The presence of the gusset plate in the braced frames leads to induce
column as in-plane action. frame action. The frame action impresses the performance of the braced
Fig. 10 shows the distribution of the induced normal force and frames. Studies carried out by Mahin et al. [37] on buckling restrained
bending moment between HSS column faces and highlights that in the braced frames, showed that distortional pinching forces induced to the
through-gusset plate connections, the normal force, Huc , possesses more
adequate support compared to the conventional gusset plate connec­
tions. Note that the through-gusset plate connections to HSS column
faces should be designed based on the abovementioned demands.
The force and bending moment demands of braces and beams are
transferred to the trough-gusset plate and thereafter are converted to the
shear force, Vuc , normal force, Huc , and bending moment, M, at the
column-to-gusset plate interface. These induced demands at the column-
to-gusset plate interface should be transferred to the entire HSS column
by through-gusset plate. On the other hand, no force and bending
moment demands are transferred to the column by the finger stiffeners.
Consequently, it is not necessary to use the welded connection between
the finger stiffeners and the column.

4. Beam-to-column connection

This study considered beam-to-column connections in the braced

frames as a moment connection via through-plate. The beam-to-column
moment connections were used to mobilize the reservation capacity of
the braced frames after brace fracture. Studies carried out by Liu and Fig. 12. Releasing moment at the beam-to-gusset plate connection.

Fig. 11. Through- plate connection: (a) connection configuration, (b) connection assembly.

7
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 13. Slots at both ends of HSS brace.
Fig. 14. Use of reinforcing cover plates at the reduced net sections of
HSS brace.
gusset plates were due to the frame action. Kishiki et al. [38] investi­
gated the effects of the gusset plate presence on the structural perfor­
mance of beam-column frame subassemblies. They concluded that the
presence of the gusset plates shortened the effective length of the beam
and moved the critical section of the beam to the toe of the gusset plate.
Lopez et al. [39] observed the gusset plate pinching in their experi­
mental results. Lai and Mahin [9] indicated that beams experienced
local buckling and failure due to the frame action.
To resolve this problem, Thornton and Muir [40] proposed smaller
and more compact gusset plates or releasing moment at the edge of
beam-to-gusset plate connection. It should be noted that AISC proposes
Thornton and Muir connection. In addition, the release of beam end
moment was considered in the study conducted by Lai and Mahin [9]. In
their experimental study, the web connection plates were welded to the
beam web and bolted to the gusset plate. In this study, as shown in
Fig. 12, the release of beam end moment was considered for the beam-
to-gusset plate connections similar to the method used by Lai and Mahin
[9].
6. Brace-to-gusset plate connection
The HSS braces are widely employed in the braced frames. Generally,
the HSS braces are slotted at both ends and then welded to the gusset
plates (Fig. 13). In HSS brace connection to the gusset plate exists a
reduced net section due to the gap between the slot tip and gusset plate
edge. This reduced net section may lead to premature brittle failure. To
overcome the cross-section deficiencies of HSS brace at the reduced net
section, reinforcing cover plates are utilized at these regions as depicted
in Fig. 14.
8
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
Fig. 15. Overview of bracing configuration in the test specimens.
7. Experimental program
To evaluate and monitor the seismic response of the proposed
connection, two full-scale one-bay, two-story SCBF specimens were
assumed to be tested under an incremental cyclic loading protocol.
Fig. 15 shows an overview of bracing configuration in the test speci­
mens. It is clear that both tension and compression braces are essential
in each story of the braced frames, but due to experimental limitations,
the SCBF specimens were assumed to possess a diagonal brace in each
story. By this assumption, under cyclic loading, the diagonal brace be­
haves in either tension or compression. However, it should be noted that
the important aim of this research was to evaluate the performance of
the proposed connection.
As depicted in Fig. 15, this study considered three bracing nodes. The
first bracing node includes the proposed connection in the base plate. In
the second bracing node, two braces intersect each other in the working
point. It should be noted that this bracing node includes both tension
and compression braces. Consequently, the maximum shear force is
induced at the column-to-gusset plate interface. There is one brace
connected to the gusset plate in the third bracing node. Thus, the
maximum normal force is induced at the column-to-gusset plate inter­
face. It can be concluded that the bracing configuration considered in
this study, included three critical bracing nodes in the bracing frames.
The HSS members are frequently made up as square, rectangular,
and circular. Note that the behavior of square-HSS is similar to that of
rectangular-HSS. Unlike rectangular-HSS members, square-HSS and
circular-HSS members have been widely used by researchers. Conse­
quently, square-HSS and circular-HSS members were considered for
columns and braces in this study. The SCBF specimens were designed
based on the AISC Seismic Provision recommendations [41]. In this
study, the gusset plates were designed according to the methods pro­
posed by Ebrahimi et al. [24,26]. The detailing of the gusset plates in the
SCBF specimens was designed in a way to allow the out-of-plane buck­
ling of braces. Thus, a 2tGP (tGP is the thickness of the gusset plate) linear
clearance was considered between the end of the brace and the
restrained lines of the gusset plate. In this research, based on designs,
plates with 20 mm thickness were selected as through-gusset plates and
through-plates. In this investigation, beams, columns, braces, through-
gusset plates, through-plates, stiffeners, and the other members were
all A36 steel.
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 16. Connection between HSS column faces and through-gusset plate by the
full penetration groove weld.

Table 1
Welded connection types between different members (dimensions have units of
mm).
Name Weld properties

Connection between the parts of cruciform ER70S− CJP GMAW

through-gusset plate
Connection between the parts of cruciform ER70S− CJP GMAW
through-plate
Connection between the two separate parts of ER70S− CJP GMAW
HSS column
Connection between through-gusset plate and ER70S− CJP GMAW
HSS column faces
Connection between through-plate and HSS ER70S− CJP GMAW
column faces
Connection between the beam flanges and Fig. 18. Overview of square-HSS specimen (dimensions are in mm).
ER70S− CJP GMAW
through-plate
Connection between HSS brace and the gusset ER70S− CJP GMAW 7.1. Construction procedure
plate
Connection between the finger stiffeners and ER70S− CJP GMAW
through-gusset plate In the connection joints, through-gusset plates and through-plates
Connection between the finger stiffeners and ER70S− CJP GMAW were made cruciform by means of a full penetration groove weld to
HSS column faces provide the possibility of the use of these joints for the braced frames in
Connection between the beam flange and the ER70S− Fillet two perpendicular directions. The two separate parts of HSS columns
beam web
Weld were welded together using the full penetration groove weld. The beam
Connection between the web connection plate ER70S− Fillet flanges, HSS column faces and both ends of HSS braces were slotted and
and the beam web beveled in the connection areas and then welded by the full penetration
Weld
Connection between the web connection plate ER70S− Fillet
groove welds to through-plates, through-gusset plates or through-plates
and through-plate
Weld
and gusset plates, respectively (Fig. 16). Also, the full penetration
Connection between the reinforcing plate and
groove welds were used for the connection of the finger stiffeners to
ER70S− Fillet
HSS column faces through-gusset plates and HSS column faces. The connection of the
Weld
reinforcing plates to HSS columns, the reinforcing cover plates to HSS
Connection between the reinforcing cover plate ER70S− Fillet braces, the beam flanges to the beam webs, the web connection plates to
and HSS brace
Weld the beam webs or through-plates and the stiffeners to the free edges of
Connection between the stiffener and the free ER70S− Fillet gusset plates were provided using fillet welds. Table 1 presents the
edge of gusset plate
Weld welded connection types used between the different members.
The web connection plates were connected to the through-gusset
plate using twelve 20 − mm bolts. The property class of bolts was 10.9
and the bolt holes were 2 mm larger in diameter than the bolts. In

Fig. 17. Connection between the beam and through-plate (a) square-HSS (b) circular-HSS columns.

9
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 20. Stress–strain curves for steel material coupons.

Fig. 19. Overview of circular-HSS specimen (dimensions are in mm).

Table 2
Mechanical characteristics of the steel materials.
Member Yield Ultimate Elongation
Fig. 21. Configuration of the test setup.
strength(MPa) strength(MPa) (%)

Plate 10 mm 281 449 36 10 mm, respectively. The height of stories and the width of the ­
Plate 20 mm 253 421 46 span were considered 3600 mm. The details and dimensions of square-
Square − HSS 100 × 100 × 327 397 33 HSS specimen are completely presented in Appendix A.
7 mm
Square − HSS 120 × 120 × 290 308 44
7 mm
7.3. Second specimen (circular-HSS specimen)
Square − HSS 200 × 200 × 283 451 38
10 mm The second specimen of this study was considered as a full-scale one-
Circular − HSS 141 × 302 470 30 bay, two-story SCBF (Fig. 19). The columns and braces were assumed to
6.55 mm be circular-HSS. Therefore, this specimen was called circular-HSS. The
Circular − HSS 168 × 335 483 30 second specimen consisted of the columns, the brace of the first story
7.11 mm and the brace of the second story with the cross-sections of circular-HSS
Circular − HSS 273 × 265 460 36 273 × 9.27, circular-HSS 168 × 7.11 and circular-HSS 141 × 6.55,
9.27 mm
respectively. The height of stories and the width of the span were
selected to be 3600 mm. The built-up I-shaped cross-section was
considered for the beams such that its flange and web dimensions were
addition, as shown in Fig. 17 (a) and (b), a gap equal to 15 mm was
150 mm × 10 mm and 280 mm × 10 mm, respectively. The details and
considered between the beam flanges and HSS column face in the
dimensions of circular-HSS specimen are fully presented in Appendix A.
through-plate connections.
The mechanical characteristics of the steel materials resulting from
the standard coupon of the tension tests based on ASTM A370 Standards
7.2. First specimen (square-HSS specimen) [42] are given in Table 2. In addition, Fig. 20 shows stress–strain curves
obtained from uniaxial tension tests on steel material coupons.
As depicted in Fig. 18, the first specimen was a full-scale one-bay, It is clear that loading rates affect the fracture behavior of steel
two-story SCBF with columns and braces selected to be square-HSS and materials. The impact resistance of steel materials should be considered
thus this specimen was called square-HSS. Square-HSS 200 × 200 × 10, in high loading rates which can change a stable ductile behavior to an
square-HSS 120 × 120 × 7, and square-HSS 100 × 100 × 7 were selected unstable brittle fracture. In this research, a lateral loading with low rate
for the columns, the brace of the first story and the brace of the second was quasi-statically applied to the experimental specimens by the ac­
story, respectively. This specimen consisted of built-up I-shaped beams tuators. Consequently, it is not necessary to determine the impact
with the flange and web dimensions of 150 mm × 10 mm and 280 mm × resistance of steel materials.

10
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 22. Dimensions of the test setup.

Fig. 23. Load distribution as inverted triangular in floor levels.

11
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 24. Simulating hinged supports with 45 steel bars.

Fig. 25. Location of LVDTs on the test specimens.

12
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 26. Location of strain gauges on square-HSS specimen.
7.4. Test setup
Based on experimental limitations, the specimens were assumed to
test as the frame plane oriented horizontally (see Figs. 21 and 22). The
members of test setup were assumed to be built-up I-shaped cross-
sections. To transfer the forces from the specimens to the test setup,
the column base plates were bolted to the member of Reaction Beam (see
Fig. 21) which possesses the most important role in the test setup. This
member captures and transfers base shear force to the strong floor via
bolts that connect the bottom flange of Reaction Beam to the strong floor.
Also, Reaction Beam member is transferred the column axial forces to the
members of Column − 1 and Column − 2 by means of bolts that connect
the top flange and web stiffeners of Reaction Beam to the top flange and
web of the members of Column − 1 and Column − 2, respectively (see
Fig. 21). To transfer the column axial forces to the strong floor, the
bottom flanges of Column − 1 and Column − 2 were bolted to the strong
floor. To apply the cyclic lateral load, two actuators with a capacity of
1000 kN and a stroke of 250 mm were placed between
Support − Actuator and Load Beam at the right and left sides of the frame
specimens (see Fig. 21). To transfer loads from the actuators to the
strong floor, Support − Actuators were connected to Right and
Left Actuators by the full penetration groove welds. Right and
Left Actuators transfer loads to the strong floor via bolts that connect
their bottom flanges to the strong floor. To impose lateral loads to the
floor levels, Load Beams were considered between the actuators and two
sides of specimens (see Fig. 21). The role of Load Beams and the location
of Right and Left Actuators will be explained in Sec. 7–5. The columns
and beams should be retained in the plane of the specimens. Accord­
ingly, the columns in beam-to-column and beam/brace-to-column joints
and the beams in the entire spans were restrained from out-of-plane
movement using Bottom − Lateral Support, Top − Lateral Support, and
Supports. Top − Lateral Support was attached to Bottom − Lateral Support
by Supports. Also, these members retain Load beams in the loading plane
and prevent their out-of-plane or torsional movement. Bottom −
13
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
Lateral Supports should tolerate the weight of specimens and
Load beams. Top − Lateral Supports were laterally supported via
Lateral bracings at their mid-span to prevent out-of-plane movement.
Fig. 22 shows the dimensions of the test setup.
7.5. Loading pattern
The experimental specimens were subjected to a quasi-static cyclic
lateral loading. One of the aims of this study was to impose lateral
loading as an inverted triangular distribution to floor levels. The
inverted triangular distribution means that the ratio of induced load at
the second floor level to induced load at the first floor level is 2. To
achieve this aim, Load Beam members were considered between the
actuators and two sides of the test specimens. The length of Load Beams
was equal to the sum of the height of the second story and the beam
depth. As depicted in Fig. 23, Load Beams were placed at the second
story and the load was applied at 13 of the height of the second story from
the mid-depth of the beam of the second level. Therefore, the actuators,
Right and Left Actuators were placed in such locations. In the floor levels,
Load Beams should be connected to the specimens by means of hinged
supports. Hence, to simulate the hinged supports, 45 steel bars with a
height of 100 mm were welded to the right and left sides of specimens in
the floor levels (see Fig. 24). Consequently, the force calculated in the
load cell of the actuators was imposed with the ratio of 2 to 1 at the
second and first floor levels.
This study considered the displacement-controlled loading protocol
adapted from ATC-24 [43]. The cyclic displacement of the roof level was
monitored and controlled based on the loading protocol of ATC-24. On
the other hand, the actuator force was controlled according to the
displacement of the roof level.
7.6. Instrumentation
The cyclic lateral load imposed by two actuators was measured
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 27. Location of strain gauges on circular-HSS specimen.

Fig. 28. Overview of square-HSS specimen (a) before testing (b) after fracturing both braces.

14
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

through the use of two load cells mounted between the actuators and
Support − Actuatormembers. Fig. 25 shows approximate locations
selected for LVDTs. Two LVDTs of CL − 0 and CR − 0 were installed at 13 of
the height of the second story from the mid-depth of the second story
beam on columns to monitor the lateral displacement of these points.
LVDTs of CL − 1, CR − 1, CL − 2, CR − 2, CL − 3 and, CR − 3 were devoted
on the column base plates to measure the potential slip of the base
plates. The results showed that no noticeable slip occurred in the column
base plates.
To measure the lateral displacement at the floor levels, LVDTs of
CL − 4 and CR − 4 at the first floor level and LVDTs of CL − 5 andCR − 5 at
the second floor level were installed on the columns. The average of
displacements recorded from LVDTs of CL − 5 and CR − 5 was used to
control the ATC-24 loading protocol imposed to the test specimens.
LVDTs of GP1 − 1, GP2 − 1, GP2 − 2, and GP3 − 1 were devoted on the
Fig. 29. Cyclic loading steps imposed to square-HSS specimen.
gusset plates to record their out-of-plane deformations. Additionally, to

Fig. 30. Photos of square-HSS specimen in different roof drifts.

15
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 31. Examining connections in square-HSS specimen (a) through-gusset plate connection, (b) through-plate connection, and (c) brace-to-gusset plate connection.

measure the out-of-plane deformations of braces, LVDTs of Br1 − 1,

Br1 − 2, Br1 − 3, and Br1 − 4 on the brace of the first story and LVDTs of
Br2 − 1, Br2 − 2, Br2 − 3, and Br2 − 4 on the brace of the second story
were installed. Moreover, LVDTs of B1 − 1 and B2 − 1 measured the out-
of-plane deflections of beams in the first and second stories, respectively.
According to Figs. 26 and 27, many linear and rosette strain gauges
were installed at the different locations of the specimens to record the
stain of plastic hinges, strain distributions, and strain magnitudes. The
test specimens were coated through the use of a whitewash to show the
progression of yielding and damage during the test.

8. General experimental observations

In the tests, it was assumed that positive lateral displacements were

assigned to a scenario in which the first and second story braces behaved
as compression and tension, respectively. While, in negative lateral
displacements, the first story brace was in tension and the second story
brace was in compression. It should be noted that describing frame yield
( )
drift θy is essential in the ATC-24 loading protocol. Hence, this study
( )
determined the frame yield drift θy for the tests through the use of
numerical analysis. Thereafter, the values extracted for θy from the
numerical analysis were controlled with those obtained from the tests.
8.1. Square-HSS specimen observations
Fig. 28 depicts square-HSS specimen before testing and after frac­
turing both braces. According to the numerical analysis and the test
( )
results, the specimen roof yield drift θy was assumed to be at about
0.26%.
Fig. 29 illustrates the cyclic loading steps imposed to square-HSS
specimen. The explanations of specified points on Fig. 29 are as fol­
lows: (1) out-of-plane global buckling started in the first story brace and
gradually increased (see Fig. 30(a)), (2) out-of-plane global buckling
started in the second story brace and gradually increased (see Fig. 30
(b)), (3) around the middle portion of both braces, very minor flaking of
Fig. 33. Cyclic loading steps imposed to circular-HSS specimen.
whitewash was observed in the outside corners of the brace sections, (4)
local buckling occurred in the brace webs of the second story around the
middle portion of brace, (5) according to Fig. 30(c), in the second story
brace, local buckling propagated from the brace webs to the brace
flanges, (6) the minor local buckling was observed at the brace flange of
the first story at around its middle portion, (7) the flaking of whitewash
initiated in 2tGP linear clearance on the gusset plates of the second story,
(8) the flaking of whitewash initiated in 2tGP linear clearance on the
gusset plates of the first story. Additionally, some cracks were found on
the whitewash of the column flanges near the base plate, (9) as depicted
in Fig. 30(d), in the second story brace, cracks occurred in the outside
corners of brace webs, (10) as shown in Fig. 30(e), the bottom flange of
the second story brace fractured, (11) due to mobilize the beam-to-
column moment connection, the specimen strength increased and also
necking was observed in the middle portion of the first story brace, (12)
as depicted in Fig. 30(f), the brace of the second story completely frac­
tured, (13) in the first story brace, cracks were observed in the outside
corners of brace top flange. Additionally, the flaking of whitewash

Fig. 32. Overview of circular-HSS specimen (a) before testing (b) after fracturing both braces.

16
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 34. Photos of circular-HSS specimen in different roof drifts.

17
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 35. Examining connections in circular-HSS specimen (a) through-gusset plate connection, (b) through-plate connection, and (c) brace-to-gusset
plate connection.

initiated in the beam flanges of the first story at beam-to-column joint

next to through-plate, (14) in the first story, cracks propagated from the
outside corners of brace top flange to the center of the brace section, (15)
as shown in Fig. 30(g), the top flange of the first story brace completely
fractured and also the flaking of whitewash increased in 2tGP linear
clearance on the gusset plates of the first story (see Fig. 30(h)), (16) as
shown in Fig. 30(i), the first story brace completely fractured, (17) the
web connection plates of beam-to-gusset plate connections in both
stories experienced the flaking of whitewash, (18) minor local buckling
occurred in both columns near the base plates, (19) local buckling was
observed in the beam flanges of the first story, (20) local buckling and
plasticity propagated from the beam flanges to its web, (21) as shown in
Fig. 30(j), the bolts of the first row in the web connection plates of beam-
to-gusset plate connections in both stories experienced slip, (22) the
specimen strength level degraded at about 20%, (23) in the first story,
the web connection plates of beam-to-gusset plate connection fractured
incompletely in the reduced net section, (24) as shown in Fig. 30(k), in
the first story, complete fracture occurred in the reduced net section of
the web connection plates of beam-to-gusset plate connection and test
was stopped at about 4.75% roof drift.
The experimental observations exhibited that during the test process,
no crack and defect occurred in through-gusset plate connections,
through-plate connections, and brace-to-gusset plate connections
(Fig. 31).

8.2. Circular-HSS specimen observations

Fig. 32 illustrates circular-HSS specimen before testing and after

fracturing both braces. The value of 0.39% was considered for the
( )
specimen roof yield drift θy according to the numerical analysis and
the test results.
Fig. 33 shows the process of cyclic loading for circular-HSS specimen.
The explanations of specified points on Fig. 33 are as follows: (1)
appearing out-of-plane global buckling in the first story brace and
increasing it gradually (see Fig. 34(a)), (2) appearing out-of-plane global
buckling in the second story brace and increasing it gradually (see
Fig. 34(b)), (3) around the middle portion of the first story brace, the
flaking of whitewash and minor local buckling occurred in the bottom
side of the brace section (see Fig. 34(c)) and increased gradually (see
Fig. 34(d)). In this step, the flaking of whitewash initiated in 2tGP linear
clearance on the gusset plates of the first story brace, (4) the flaking of
whitewash initiated in 2tGP linear clearance on the gusset plates of the
second story brace, (5) as depicted in Fig. 34(e), around the middle
portion of the first story brace, the fracture incompletely occurred in the
farthest point from the neutral axis, (6) the first story brace completely
fractured (see Fig. 34(f)), (7) the whitewash on the column near the base
plate began flaking, (8) in the first story, the flaking of whitewash
occurred on the web connection plates of beam-to-gusset plate
connection, (9) around the middle portion of the second story brace, the
flaking of whitewash was observed in the bottom side of the brace
Fig. 36. Hysteretic curves of the base shear versus roof drift for square-HSS and
circular-HSS specimens.
section and increased gradually. In this step, the flaking of whitewash
became so extensive in 2tGP linear clearance on the gusset plates of the
second story brace, (10) due to the formation of soft story mechanism
(see Fig. 34(g)), cracks were observed at the column base next to rein­
forcing plates. Thus, the column base was reinforced and the test was
continued, (11) the local buckling was observed in the bottom side of the
second story brace (see Fig. 34(h)) and increased gradually (see Fig. 34
(i)). In this step, slip occurred in the bolts of the first row installed on the
web connection plates of beam-to-gusset plate connection in the first
story, (12) the flaking of whitewash and local buckling started on the
beam flanges of the first story at beam-to-column joint next to through-
plate, (13) necking was observed in the bottom side of the second story
brace (see Fig. 34(j)), (14) as depicted in Fig. 34(k), around the middle

18
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. 37. Normalized strains of the beam flanges versus roof drift (a) square-HSS (b) circular-HSS specimens.
Fig. 38. Braced frame behavior compared to that of the moment frame.
portion of the second story brace, the fracture incompletely occurred in
the farthest point from the neutral axis and the flaking of whitewash
became so extensive in 2tGP linear clearance on the gusset plates of the
second story brace (see Fig. 34(l)), (15) the second story brace
completely fractured (see Fig. 34(m)), (16) in the first story, local
buckling and plasticity propagated from the beam flanges to its web,
(17) the welded connections between the reinforcing plates and the
column base experienced cracks, (18) the cracks expanded on the wel­
ded connections between the reinforcing plates and the column base.
Additionally, local buckling and plasticity became so extensive on the
beam of the first story (see Fig. 34(n)), (19) cracks were observed on the
reinforcing plates of the column base (see Fig. 34(o)) and finally the test
was terminated at around 4.28% roof drift.
The experimental observations indicated that no crack and defect
appeared in through-gusset plate connections, through-plate connec­
tions, and brace-to-gusset plate connections (Fig. 35).
The experimental observations showed that circular braces rapidly
fractured after appearing crack. While cracks started in the outside
corners of square braces and gradually propagated to the center of this
cross-section. Finally, the entire square cross-section gradually frac­
tured. On the other hand, in square braces, unlike circular braces, there
were some loading cycles between crack and fracture but circular braces
fractured rapidly. This behavioral difference is resulted from the cross-
section shapes. In square cross-sections, there is an area in the farthest
point from the neutral axis but in circular cross-sections, just a point
exists in that location. Consequently, the strength of a square brace
against fracture is better in comparison with a circular brace.
9. General evaluation of the test specimens
The hysteretic curves of the base shear versus roof drift for the
19
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
experimental specimens are illustrated in Fig. 36 indicated that the
strength of both specimens increased up to roof yield drift. Thereafter,
the strength of the specimens degraded because out-of-plane global
buckling occurred in both braces. Square-HSS specimen at 1.3% roof
drift and circular-HSS specimen at 0.78% roof drift showed an increase
in the frame strength. It can be concluded that the strength increase is
due to mobilizing the beam-to-column moment connections. Fig. 36
shows that the strength level of specimens degraded with the fracturing
of each brace. After removing both braces, tests were continued to
evaluate the reservation capacity of specimens resulted from beam-to-
column moment connections.
Fig. 37(a) and (b) show the normalized strains of the beam flanges
versus the roof drift for square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens,
respectively. It should be noted that the label of the strain gauges is
illustrated in Figs. 26 and 27.
To calculate the normalized strain, the outputs recorded from the
strain gauges should be divided by the steel yield strain. The results
demonstrated that the yielding started in the first story beam at 1.1%
and 0.97% roof drifts for square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens,
respectively. On the other hand, approximately at the roof drifts that
specimens experienced the strength improvement, the yielding started
in the beam of the specimens.
In this study, the through-plate moment connections were utilized at
the beam-to-column joints of SCBF specimens. On the other hand, the
moment connections were considered as the reservation capacity of the
braced frames after removing braces. The presence of the moment
connections in SCBFs namely the combination of the braced frame with
the moment frame. Fig. 38 illustrates the braced frame behavior in
comparison with that of the moment frame.
As depicted in Fig. 38, the braced frame possesses high strength and
stiffness but low ductility while the moment frame results in low
strength and stiffness but high ductility. Generally, the braced frame
achieves maximum strength in low drifts (approximately 0.2% to 0.4%
drift) and thereafter, due to the brace buckling, experiences the strength
degradation. While the moment frame experiences maximum strength in
high drifts (approximately 1% drift) and sustains that up to 4% drift. In
the combination of the braced frame and the moment frame, it can be
concluded from Fig. 38 that in low drift levels (Phase 1), the strength
and stiffness of the braced frame are dominant. Then, the braced frame
experiences the strength degradation due to the brace buckling. With
increasing drift levels (Phase 2), the moment connections mobilize.
Thus, the strength improvement is resulted from adding the strength and
stiffness of the moment frame to those of the braced frame. In Phase 3,
the braced frame loses its influence since the braces experience fracture
and damage. Hence, the strength and stiffness of the moment frame are
dominant. The results showed that the combination of the braced frame
and the moment frame led to improve strength, ductility, and energy
dissipation capacity at around 41%, 79% and 110%, respectively.
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 39. Hysteretic curves of the brace axial force versus brace axial deformation.

Fig. 40. Formation of a soft story mechanism in (a) square-HSS (b) circular-HSS specimens.

Fig. 41. Relationship between interstory displacements (a) square-HSS (b) circular-HSS specimens.

20
S. Ebrahimi et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948

Fig. 42. Normalized strains of the column bases versus roof drift (a) square-HSS (b) circular-HSS specimens.

10. Behavior of braces

The experimental observations and the outputs recorded from the

strain gauges indicated that the yielding of the test specimens initialized
at the middle of braces and thereafter occurred in 2tGP linear clearance
on the gusset plates. The hysteretic curves of brace axial force versus
brace axial deformation are illustrated in Fig. 39. The strain gauge
outputs of Br1 − 2 and Br2 − 2 were used to calculate the brace axial
force in the first and second stories, respectively. These strain gauges
were installed at 14 of the length of braces on their web. In these locations,
approximately no bending moment existed. Additionally, the results of
the recorded strains and the experimental observations showed that
these locations remained elastic.
Fig. 43. Formation of the plastic hinge in the column base. With increasing compression axial deformation and appearing global
buckling in braces, the compression strength of the braces degraded. In
both specimens, the plastic hinges formed in the middle of the braces

Fig. 44. Normalized von Mises stresses for (a) bracing nodes with two braces, (b) bracing nodes with one brace (see Figs . 26 and 27 for the labels of the
strain gauges).

21
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. A1. Specifications and dimensions of square-HSS specimen (dimensions are in mm).
and 2tGP linear clearance on the gusset plates. It should be noted that the
braces in tension show limited tension axial deformations. However, the
braces in compression experience in-plane buckling or out-of-plane
buckling and consequently, show large compression axial de­
formations. Thus, the axial deformations of the braces are not symmetric
in tension and compression.
11. Soft story mechanism
Uriz and Mahin [44] carried out an experimental study on a two-
story, one-bay chevron-SCBF. They observed that a soft story mecha­
nism formed at the lower story. In this study, the experimental obser­
vations indicated the formation of soft story mechanism in both stories
(Fig. 40). The relationship between interstory displacements in the first
and second stories is depicted in Fig. 41 (a) and (b) for square-HSS and
circular-HSS specimens, respectively.
From the experimental observations and Fig. 41(a) and (b), it can be
concluded that the soft story mechanism formed at the stories with the
compression brace. This problem was resulted from imposing large out-
of-plane deformations in the compression braces.
12. Plastic hinges in the column bases
Fig. 42 (a) and (b) show the normalized strains of the column bases
versus the roof drift for square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens,
22
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
respectively. The experimental observations (Fig. 43) and the outputs of
strain gauges installed on the column bases illustrated that the plastic
hinges appeared in the column bases at 0.4% and 0.49% roof drifts for
square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens, respectively. It can be
concluded that the plastic hinges, similar to the moment frames, formed
in the column bases of the braced frames that their design is essential.
The effects of large second-order moments at the column bases
created the plastic hinges. The second-order moment was resulted from
the soft story mechanism and large axial force in the columns.
13. Evaluation of the through-gusset plate connection
To evaluate the behavior of through-gusset plate connection pro­
posed in this study, several rosette strain gauges were installed on the
height of the through-gusset plates adjacent to the column face as shown
in Figs. 26 and 27. The recorded outputs of the rosette strain gauges
were considered to calculate von Mises stresses. The normalized von
Mises stresses were determined through dividing the von Mises stresses
to the steel yield stress. Fig. 44 (a) and (b) illustrate the normalized von
Mises stresses along the height of through-gusset plates for square-HSS
and circular-HSS specimens. Fig. 44 (a) and (b) show that the normal­
ized von Mises stresses calculated at the ends of the through-gusset plate
height exhibited maximum numerical values due to adjacent to 2tGP
linear clearance. Note that the ends of the through-gusset plate height
were adjacent to the plastic hinges formed on gusset plates in 2tGP linear
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. A1. (continued).
clearance. Consequently, maximum numerical values were obtained for
the normalized von Mises stresses at the ends of the through-gusset plate
height. It can be concluded from Fig. 44 (a) and (b) that through-gusset
plates behaved relatively elastic during the loading process.
14. Conclusion
In the gusset plate connections to HSS columns, the offset between
HSS column webs and the gusset plate leads to induce out-of-plane
deformation and fracture in HSS column flange. This study introduces
a new gusset plate connection called through-gusset plate. The cyclic
behavior of the proposed connection was evaluated through the exper­
imental tests on two full-scale one-bay, two-story SCBF specimens. The
moment connection of beam-to-column via through-plate was consid­
23
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
ered to mobilize the reservation capacity of SCBF specimens after the
brace fracture. According to the obtained results, the following can be
concluded:
(1) The through-gusset plate connection can effectively supply
adequate support for HSS column flange to prevent large out-of-
plane deformation and fracture of HSS column face placed in the
vicinity of the gusset plate.
(2) Through-gusset plate imposes the shear force, Vuc , to the entire
cross-section of HSS column as in-plane action. The normal force,
Huc , is imposed to the front and back sides of HSS column as out-
of-plane action using the through-gusset plate. Also, through-
gusset plate helps the front and back sides of HSS column to
sustain the bending moment, M, as in-plane action.
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. A2. Specifications and dimensions of circular-HSS specimen (dimensions are in mm).
(3) The obtained results showed that the beam-to-column moment
connection via through-plate led to an increase in the strength of
square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens at 1.3% and 0.78% roof
drifts, respectively.
(4) The results exhibited that the combination of the braced frame
and the moment frame improved the strength, ductility, and en­
ergy dissipation capacity at around 41%, 79%, and 110%,
respectively.
(5) The experimental observations exhibited that releasing moment
at the edge of beam-to-gusset plate connection proposed by AISC
Seismic Provision recommendations, was appropriate in the
phase of the braced frame. While this connection did not display
an acceptable performance in the phase of the reservation ca­
pacity and experienced slip in bolts and sudden fracture in the
web connection plates.
(6) During the process of the tests, no crack and defect were observed
in through-gusset plate connections, through-plate connections,
and brace-to-gusset plate connections.
(7) The experimental observations showed that circular-HSS braces
experienced rapid fracture after appearing cracks. While in
square-HSS braces, cracks gradually propagated from the outside
corners to the center of the cross-section and finally, the entire
cross-section experienced fracture. This behavioral difference is
due to existing an area and a point in the farthest point from the
24
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
neutral axis in square-HSS and circular-HSS cross-sections,
respectively.
(8) The results depicted the formation of soft story mechanism at the
stories with the compression brace due to large out-of-plane
deformation of the compression braces.
(9) The square-HSS and circular-HSS specimens experienced the
formation of the plastic hinges in the column bases at 0.4% and
0.49% roof drifts, respectively resulted from large second-order
moments, soft story mechanism, and large axial force in the
columns.
(10) The outputs of the rosette strain gauges installed on the through-
gusset plates at both specimens showed that through-gusset
plates behaved relatively elastic during the loading process.
(11) In order to highlight the performance superiority of through-
gusset plate connections, an experimental comparison between
the performance of through-gusset plate connections and that of
conventional gusset plate connections is proposed.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
S. Ebrahimi et al.
Fig. A2. (continued).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to appreciate Kashane Betony Moghavem
Company, Sazvar Sazeh Azarestan Company, and Iran Tohid Company
for supporting this research and Building and Housing Research Center
(BHRC) of Iran for performing the tests.
Appendix A
In this appendix, the details and dimensions of square-HSS and
circular-HSS specimens are presented (Figs. A1 and A2).
25
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
References
[1] Chen CC, Lin CC, Tsai CL. Evaluation of reinforced connections between steel
beams and box columns. Eng Struct 2004;26:1889–904.
[2] Ebrahimi S, Shakib H, Soltani M, Zahrai SM. Hysteretic behavior of link beams with
different cross-sections and stiffener arrangements. J Constr Steel Res 2020;170.
[3] Nip KH, Gardner L, Elghazouli AY. Cyclic testing and numerical modelling of
carbon steel and stainless steel tubular bracing members. Eng. Struct., Elsevier
2010;32(2):424–41.
[4] Sheehan T, Chan TM. Cyclic response of hollow and concrete-filled circular hollow
section braces. Struct. Build. Proc Inst Civ Eng 2013;167(3):140–52.
[5] Han SW, Kim WT, Foutch DA. Seismic Behavior of HSS Bracing Members according
to Width-Thickness Ratio under Symmetric Cyclic Loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133
(2):264–73.
[6] Elchalakani M, Zhao XL, Grzebieta R. Tests of cold-formed circular tubular braces
under cyclic axial loading. J Struct Eng 2003;129(4):507–14.
S. Ebrahimi et al.
[7] Fell, B. V. (2008). Large-scale testing and simulation of earthquake-induced ultra
low cycle fatigue in bracing members subjected to cyclic inelastic buckling.
(Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS).
[8] Fell BV, Kanvinde AM. Tensile forces for seismic design of braced frame
connections—Experimental results. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(4):496–503.
[9] Lai, J. W., & Mahin, S. (2013). Experimental and analytical studies on the seismic
behavior of conventional and hybrid braced frames.
[10] Ebrahimi S, Zahrai SM, Mirghaderi SR. Cyclic Performance Evaluation of Hollow
Structural Section (HSS) and Concrete-Filled Tube (CFT) Braces. Int J Struct Stab
Dyn 2019;19(11):1950140.
[11] Whitmore RE. Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates. Engineering
Experiment Station. Knoxville: University of Tennessee; 1952.
[12] Irvan, W. G. (1957). Experimental study of primary stresses in gusset plates of a
double plane pratt truss. Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering,
University of Kentucky.
[13] Hardin, B. O. (1958). Experimental investigation of the primary stress distribution
in the gusset plates of a double plane pratt truss joint with chord splice at the joint.
Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky.
[14] Davis, C. S. (1967). Computer Analysis of the Stresses in a Gusset Plate. Thesis
presented to the University of Washington in Seattle, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Masters of Science.
[15] Vasarhelyi DD. Tests of gusset plate models. Journal of the Structural Division
1971;97(2):665–78.
[16] Astaneh, A. (1992). Cyclic Behavior of Gusset Plate Connections in V-Braced
Frames. Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures Under Cyclic Loading, ed. Y.
Fukumoto and GC Lee, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 63-74.
[17] Cheng, J. R., Grondin, G. Y., & Yam, M. C. (2000). Design and Behavior of Gusset
Plate Connections. Proceeding of the Forth International Workshop on Connections
in Steel Structures, Roanoke, VA, USA.
[18] Sheng N, Yam CH, Iu VP. Analytical investigation and the design of the
compressive strength of steel gusset plate connections. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58
(11):1473–93.
[19] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Behavior and design of gusset plate connections in
compression. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(5):1143–59.
[20] Roeder CW, Yoo JH. Improved seismic design of steel frame connections.
International Journal of Steel Structures 2005;5(2):141–53.
[21] Yoo JH. Analytical investigation on the seismic performance of special
concentrically braced frames. Seattle: Univ. of Washington; 2006. Ph.D.
dissertation.
[22] Rosenstrauch PL, Sanayei M, Brenner BR. Capacity analysis of gusset plate
connections using the Whitmore, block shear, global section shear, and finite
element methods. Eng Struct 2013;48:543–57.
[23] Fang C, Yam MC, Zhou X, Zhang Y. Post-buckling resistance of gusset plate
connections: Behaviour, strength, and design considerations. Eng Struct 2015;99:
9–27.
[24] Ebrahimi S, Mirghaderi SR, Zahrai SM. Proposed design procedure for gusset plate
dimensions and force distribution at its interfaces to beam and column. Eng Struct
2019;178:554–72.
26
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111948
[25] Ebrahimi S, Mirghaderi SR. Designing gusset plates of chevron-SCBFs through a
new method. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2021:e1835. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tal.1835.
[26] Ebrahimi, S., Mirghaderi, S. R. (Forthcoming). A seismic design method for one-
piece gusset plate connections. Journal of Building Engineering.
[27] Astaneh-Asl A, Goel SC, Hanson RD. Cyclic out-of-plane buckling of double-angle
bracing. J Struct Eng 1985;111(5):1135–53.
[28] Astaneh-Asl A, Goel SC. Cyclic in-plane buckling of double angle bracing. J Struct
Eng 1984;110(9):2036–55.
[29] Uriz P. Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame
structures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 2008.
[30] Mirghaderi SR, Torabian S, Keshavarzi F. I-beam to box–column connection by a
vertical plate passing through the column. J Struct Eng 2010;32(8):2034–48.
[31] Torabian S, Mirghaderi SR, Keshavarzi F. Moment-connection between I-beam and
built-up square column by a diagonal through plate. J Constr Steel Res 2012;70:
385–401.
[32] Ahmadi MM, Mirghaderi SR. Experimental studies on through-plate moment
connection for beam to HSS/CFT column. J Constr Steel Res 2019;161:154–70.
[33] Kosteski N, Packer JA. Longitudinal plate and through plate-to-hollow structural
section welded connections. J Struct Eng 2003;129(4):478–86.
[34] Ebrahimi S, Zahrai SM, Mirghaderi SR. Numerical study on force transfer
mechanism in through gusset plates of SCBFs with HSS columns & beams. Steel and
Composite Structures 2019;31(6):541–58.
[35] Ebrahimi S, Mirghaderi SR, Zahrai SM. Cyclic Behavior of SCBFs with Through-
Gusset Plate Connections and Concrete-Filled Tube Columns. J Earthquake Eng
2020:1–29.
[36] Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Cyclic testing of simple connections including effects of slab.
J Struct Eng 2000 Jan;126(1):32–9.
[37] Mahin, S., Uriz, P., Aiken, I., Field, C. and Ko, E. [2004, August] “Seismic
performance of buckling restrained braced frame systems,” In 13th World
Conference on Earthqauke Engineering, Paper No. 1681, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[38] Kishiki, S., Yamada, S. and Wada, A. (2008, October), “Experimental evaluation of
structural behavior of gusset plate connection in BRB frame system”, In 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
[39] Lopez WA, Gwie DS, Lauck TW, Saunders C. Structural design and experimental
verification of a buckling-restrained braced frame system. Engineering Journal
2004;41(4):177–86.
[40] Thornton WA, Muir LS. Design of vertical bracing connections for high-seismic
drift. Modern Steel Construction 2009:61–5.
[41] AISC/ANSI 341-05. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL):
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.; 2016.
[42] ASTM A370. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel
products. ASTM International; 2012. p. 1.
[43] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of
components of steel structures. 1992.
[44] Uriz P, Mahin SA. (2008). Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically
braced steel-frame structures, PEER Report 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.