SEMI-RIGID BEAM-TO-COLUMN

CONNECTIONS FOR BRACED FRAMES

Ralph M. Richard1 and Rudolph E. Radau2

ABSTRACT

Braced frames, including those that are designed to resist seismic or large wind loads,
traditionally have been analyzed and designed as trusses with all joints pinned. However, braced
frames using gusset plates are actually braced-moment frames because the presence of a typical
gusset plate creates a rigid joint zone generally larger than that of a moment frame connection.
Described herein is a semi-rigid flexure connection design for braced frames which eliminates
the undesirable effects caused by rigid beam-gusset-column connections that typically cause
large moments and shears in the beams and columns. With a proper design of the strength and
flexibility of this semi-rigid beam-to-gusset-to-column connection, the required axial force
capacity in the beams and columns is maintained. The frame moments and shears are reduced so
that both the beams and columns remain elastic at the target story drifts and support primarily
only gravity and frame axial loadings. After a seismic event that damages the braces, the frame
may be repaired by removing and replacing the braces and, if required, repairing or replacing the
elements of the semi-rigid connection without having the residual frame drift caused by the
inelastic distortion of the beams and columns which is consistent with the concept of the design
of “damage tolerant structures”.

__________________________

1. Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85718

2. President, ROM Engineering, Inc., Tucson, AZ 85719

Richard R., Radau R., Semi-Rigid Beam-to-Column Connections for Braced Frames, Proceedings of the10th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK,
2014.
 SEMI-RIGID BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS FOR
BRACED FRAMES

Ralph M. Richard1 and Rudolph E. Radau2

ABSTRACT

Braced frames, including those that resist seismic or large wind loads, traditionally have been analyzed
and designed as trusses with all joints pinned. However, braced frames using gusset plates are actually
braced-moment frames because the presence of a typical gusset plate creates a rigid joint zone generally
larger than that of a moment frame beam-to-column connection. Described herein is a semi-rigid flexure
connection design for braced frames which eliminates the undesirable effects caused by rigid beam-
gusset-column connections that typically result in large moments and shears in the beams and columns.
With a proper design of the strength and flexibility of this connection the required axial force capacity is
maintained. The frame moments and shears are reduced so that both the beams and columns remain
elastic at the target story drifts and support primarily only gravity and axial loadings. After a seismic
event that damages the braces, the frame may be repaired by replacing the braces and repairing or
replacing the semi-rigid connection elements without having residual frame drift which is consistent
with the concept of the design of “damage tolerant structures”.

Introduction

Braced frames, including those that resist seismic or large wind loads, traditionally have been
analyzed and designed as trusses with all joints pinned. However, braced frames using gusset
plates are actually braced-moment frames [1] because the gusset plate creates a joint zone that is

____________________________

1. Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

2. President, ROM Engineering, Inc., Tucson, AZ

Richard R., Radau R., Semi-Rigid Beam-to-Column Connections for Braced Frames, Proceedings of the10th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK,
2014.
typically larger and more complicated than that of a moment frame connection [2]. The
traditional practice of neglecting this complicated behavior is acceptable for low wind and low
seismic designs wherein the lateral story drift is of the order of 0.0025 (1/400) radian so that the
braces remain elastic. However, in seismic designs the bracing systems are often designed and
detailed for story drifts of the order of 0.020 (1/50) radian. This requires that the braces must be
designed to account for their yielding and or buckling [3].
The relation between story drift and the brace strain is shown in Fig. 1. Also shown is frame
action that results in closure of the lower left and upper right beam-to-column angles whereas
frame action opens the angles at the opposite corners.

Figure 1. Story drift vs. brace strains and frame action

Full-scale tests of braced frames designed to resist seismic loads with story drifts of 0.025
radian [4, 5, 6] have shown that the structural elements (beams, columns, and gusset plates)
surrounding the braces create a moment frame that is the “primary” lateral force-resisting
structure rather than the brace(s). For typical braced frames designed to resist seismic or large
lateral loads, joint rigidity can result in the buckling or “pinching” (crushing) of the gusset plate
and/or the fracturing of the beams and columns due to the moment frame action as shown in full
scale tests [4, 5, 6]. To eliminate both of these undesirable effects a semi-rigid beam-gusset-
column connection design is presented herein to improve the performance of steel braced frames.

Proprietary Semi-rigid Flexure Connection Design

The semi-rigid connection design presented herein is a flexure assembly that typically comprises
a flexplate welded normal to the gusset plate and column flange and bolted through spacer plates
to the beam flange as shown in Fig. 2.
 Brace

Color code: Gusset

Plate
Red – Flexplate
Green-Spacer Plates

Snug tight bolts

in slotted holes

Flange stabilizing plate

Proprietary Braced Frame Flexure Assembly

US Patent 8,365,476

Figure 2. Semi-rigid Connection Flexure Assembly

The working point for this connection is at the intersection of the beam and column flanges
which results in a compact gusset plate design. This connection allows a rigid rotation of the
gusset plate equal to the same drift angle as the frame column. It also eliminates “pinching”
and/or buckling of the gusset plate. Additionally, this connection reduces the end moments in the
braces resulting from story drift. The minimum thickness of the spacer plates is equal to the
design story drift in radians times the length of the gusset plate. All of the frame horizontal drag
forces are transferred from the brace and gusset plate to the top flange of the beam through the
flexplate. This result is because the beam web shear plate with snug tight bolts in slotted holes
allows beam rotation. This is an optimum load path since the frame deck is the primary load path
for the drag forces at each story level [2]. With a proper design of the flexibility and strength of
this connection, frame moments are reduced. Consequently, both the beams and columns remain
elastic at the seismic design story drifts and support primarily only gravity and axial loading. The
flexplate is typically field bolted through the spacer plates to the outer edges of the beam flange.
Designs using double framing angles or bent plates bolted to the gusset plate in place of the
flexplate are alternate designs. Since the flexplate and gusset plate may be shop welded to the
column flange, this assembly procedure eliminates field welding for this connection. A
stabilizing angle or a plate welded to the column and bolted through long slotted holes to the
bottom beam flange as shown may be provided if required.
 Finite Element Analyses of a Braced Frame Subassembly

To demonstrate the beneficial effects of this semi-rigid flexure connection, a one story
subassembly of a braced frame shown in Fig. 3 is analyzed using finite element analyses (FEA).
The chevron (inverted “V”) braces are Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) which are welded to
the gusset plates. Also shown are the boundary conditions that were used in the analyses for the
displacements, forces, stresses, and strains when this subassembly is subjected to a lateral drift.

240”

Lateral displacement

120”

24”
Lateral support

Columns: W14x176, Beams: W21x101, Gussets: 18”x18”x3/4”, Braces: BRBs with

Acore = 6.00 in.2 , Flexplates: 18”x12”x5/8”, Spacer Plates: 18”x2-1/2”x5/8”

Figure 3. Braced frame subassembly

A lateral displacement of 3.00” was applied at the mid-point of the top beam to generate a story
drift of 0.025 radian. The frame and plate members were assigned a yield strength of 54 ksi and
bilinear stress-strain relationship with E= 29,000 ksi, Ep= 580 ksi (2% E), and a Poisson ratio of
0.30. These properties are consistent with those of A992 steel. The ANSYS FEA program was
used with the von Mises yield criterion and the Prandtl-Reuss kinematic hardening flow rule.
The flexplate and the spacer plates are 5/8” thick, the gussets are 18”x18”x 3/4”. Beams,
columns, braces, and plates are modeled using 20 node hexahedrons. The fillet welds are
modeled using 10 node tetrahedrons. The BRBs have a core yield stress of 42 ksi and are
modeled as inelastic beam elements. The FEA model for this frame comprised approximately
468,000 nodes and 96,000 elements. Shown in Fig. 4 is the finite element mesh for the semi-rigid
flexure connection.

Figure 4. Finite element mesh of the semi-rigid flexure connection

Shown in Fig. 5 are the lateral forces in the subassembly as a result of the 3.00” lateral
displacement of the top beam which generates a 0.025 radian story drift. The resulting 563 k
lateral force is resisted primarily by the two braces whose horizontal components are 234 k
tension and 237 k compression. The column shears are 46 k each which shows that the braces
resist 84% of the lateral story shear at 0.025 (1/40) radian story drift. At a story drift of 0.30” or
0.0025 (1/400) radians when the braces first yield, the lateral story force from Fig. 5 is 396 k and
where the braces resist 360 k which is 91% of the lateral load. The linear response of the frame
after the braces first yield shows that essentially all the inelastic behavior is limited to the strain
hardening of the braces. The brace angles are 45 degrees so from Fig. 1, the brace w.p. to w.p.
(working point to working point) strain is equal to one half the drift angle: 0.0025/2 = 0.00125.
For an effective BRB length of 85% of the w.p to w.p. length for this model, the brace strain is
then 0.00147 which is equal to the yield strain of the 42 ksi steel core. A separate frame analysis,
not shown here, showed that, conversely, when the beam-to-gusset-to-column rigid connections
are used with this frame, 48% of the lateral force is resisted by the moment frame at the same
0.025 radian drift. Full plastic moments occurred in the beams where their hinging region was at
the ends of the gusset plates. This structural behavior is consist with the results of full scale tests
[4] .With the rigid connections very significant residual drifts would remain in the frame after a
seismic event that results in a story drift of 0.025 radian [4,7].
 Figure 5. Lateral force distributions in the subassembly vs. story drift

Shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are the vertical displacements of the gusset for a 0.025 radian story drift.

Figure 6. Flexplate downward deflection at the tension brace

In Fig. 6, frame action, which results in the closure of the angle between the beam and column
when the brace is in tension as shown in Fig. 1, causes the gusset plate end to deflect the
flexplate downward 0.480”. For the 18” long flexplate this corresponds to rigid body drift angle
of the gusset plate of 0.0267 radian, which is approximately equal to the subassembly story drift
angle of 0.025 radian.

The frame action shown in Fig. 7, where the brace is in compression, results in the opening
of the angle between the beam and column and causes the gusset plate end to deflect the
flexplate upward 0.480”. This result corresponds to rigid body drift angle of the gusset plate of
0.0267 drift which is approximately equal to the subassembly story drift angle of 0.025 radian.

Figure 7. Flexplate upward deflection at the compression brace

The structural action of the flexplate as shown in these Figs. 6 and 7, essentially eliminates
the “pinching” and/or buckling of the gusset plate, and additionally reduces the end moments in
the braces caused by the subassembly story drift. Moreover, these two figures illustrate that
frame distortion effects, as shown in Fig. 1, dominate the force distributions in braced frames
that are designed for seismic or large wind loadings that result in inelastic brace action.

The deflected shape and the von Mises stresses and strains in the flexplate at a 0.025 radian
story drift are shown in Fig. 8. The transition of the structural action of the flexplate is from
essentially a pure tension parallel to the beam axis at the face of the column to essentially pure
flexure normal to the beam axis at the outboard end of the flexplate. Typically, the flexplate
width should be designed equal the beam flange width for maximum flexibility. The flexplate
thickness may be determined based upon the strength required from the gusset horizontal shear
forces. Since the beams and columns remain elastic at the 0.025 radian target drift, all the
inelastic action is limited to the BRBs and the flexplates. After a seismic event that damages the
braces and the flexplate, these structural elements may be removed and replaced without any
residual drift of the braced frame which is consistent with the design concept of “damage tolerant
structures” [8].
 Figure 8. Deflected shape and von Mises stresses and strains in the flexplate at 2.5% drift

The computer generated hysteresis loop for the frame subassembly shown in Fig.3 is
shown in Fig. 9 for +0.025 radian story drift. As also shown in Fig.5, the maximum lateral frame
forces are equal (+563 kips) where 84% of the lateral load is resisted by the braces. The braces
yield at a story drift of 0.30” (0.0025 radian) and then strain harden linearly demonstrating that
the inelastic action in the frame occurs only in the braces and flexplates. The shear in each
column is limited to 46 kips.
 Figure 9. Subassembly hysteresis loop for + 2.5 % drift

Conclusion

A semi-rigid flexure connection for steel braced frames has been presented herein which is
consistent with the concept of the design of damage tolerant structures. This connection reduces
moment frame action in typical braced frames when these frames are subjected to seismic target
design drifts of 0.025 radian (2.5%) to 0.030 radian (3.0%). Full scale tests of braced frames
with typical gusset plate connections have shown braced-moment frame structural behavior. For
these frames at seismic drifts of the order of 0.025 radian, typically 50% of the lateral loads on
the frame are resisted by the inelastic moments and shears in the beams and columns that
comprise the moment frame. The semi-rigid beam-to-gusset-to-column flexure connection
presented herein reduces the moments and shears in the beams and columns and limits the
inelastic behavior of the braced frame members to the braces and the flexplate of the connection.
This behavior would make the repair of the frame after a seismic event, if required, economically
feasible since the beams and columns of the frame remain elastic. By removing and replacing the
damaged braces residual drift in the frame is eliminated.
 References
1. Richard, R.M. Analysis of Large Bracing Connection Designs for Heavy Construction, National Steel
Construction Conference Proceedings 1986; AISC, Chicago, IL, pp 31: 1-24.
2. Walters, M.T., Maxwell, B.H., and Berkowitz, R.A. Design for Improved Performance of Buckling-
Restrained Braced Frames, Proceedings of the Structural Engineers Association of California 2004
Convention 2004; pp. 507-513.
3. Richard, R.M. Braced-frame steel structures 402 – When and why frame action matters, Structural
Engineer, April, 2009, pp 20-25.
4. Mahin, S, and Patxi, U. Summary of Full Scale Braced Frame Test Using Buckling Restrained Braces,
UCB 2002 Test3, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
5. Lopez, W. A., Gwie, D.S., Saunders, C.M., and Lauck, T.W. Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Tests of
Unbonded Braced Frame Subassemblies, Proceedings of the Structural Engineers Association of
California 2002 Convention; pp. 171-183.
6. Lopez, W. A., Gwie, D.S., Saunders, C.M., and Lauck, T.W. Structural Design and Experimental
Verification of a Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame System, Engineering Journal 2004, Vol. 41, No. 4,
pp 77-86, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
7. Fahnestock, L.A., Ricles, J.M. Design, Analysis and Testing of an Earthquake-Resistant Buckling-
Restrained Braced Frame, Proceedings of the Structural Engineers Association of California 2006
Convention, pp. 119-135.
8. Wada, A., Connor, J., Kawai, H., Iwata, M., and Watanabe, A. Damage Tolerant Structures, Proceedings,
5th U.S. – Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Design and Construction Practices, ATC-24
15-4, Applied Technology Council, 1992, San Diego, CA, pp. 27-39.