A Horizontal Stiffener Detailing for Shear Links

at the Link-to-Column Connection in

Eccentrically Braced Frames
Shih-Ho Chao, P.E., M.ASCE 1; Ghassan Almasabha 2;
Brandon Price, P.E., S.E. 3; and Chatchai Jiansinlapadamrong, P.E. 4

Abstract: This study investigates the performance and viability of a horizontal stiffener detailing (HSD) to (1) be used at the link-to-column
connection in a D-braced eccentrically braced frame layout where conventional link-to-column connections show poor performance,
(2) minimize the overstrength factor of shear links caused by the hardening of link flanges, and (3) mitigate an undesirable failure mechanism
previously observed in shear links fabricated using ASTM A992 steel. HSD and conventional stiffener detailing (CSD) were tested using
W460 × 60 sections under two loading protocols, including one simulating near-collapse excitation. While the flanges of CSD shear links are
greatly stiffened by vertical stiffeners, webs of HSD shear links exhibit inelastic buckling at large rotation angles. This allows the flanges to
freely deform, thereby reducing the likelihood of brittle fracture at the flange connections, as well as undesirable link overstrength induced by
the flange contribution. This study shows that the horizontal stiffener configuration developed a ductile failure mechanism resulting from
gradually increasing local buckling in the web. The strength degradation of links with horizontal stiffener detailing was much more gradual
due to the ever-increasing web buckling, unlike the sudden brittle fracture at the flange-to-column face of links with CSD. This research
shows that the HSD is a viable and economic alternative for shear links, which has the potential to decrease welding in the shear link while
exhibiting adequate seismic performance. HSD also maintains a low overstrength factor and utilizes a simplistic design approach. Finally, the
bolted extended end-plate connection and its details at the link ends used in the test experiment provided a viable solution for replaceable
links. DOI: 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12090. © 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Eccentrically braced frames; Shear link; Steel frames; Seismic design; Seismic analysis; Steel columns; Digital image
correlation.

Introduction
Eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) combine high elastic stiffness
similar to that of buckling-restrained braced frames with the high
ductility of special moment frames. As the name suggests, EBFs
are frames in which the braces do not attach to the beam concentri-
cally. The eccentric segment of the beam is referred to as the active
link. During a strong earthquake, the inelastic activity within the
frame is contained within the active link and the first-floor column,
limiting the force developed in nondesignated yielding members.
The design forces for the members outside of the active link are
determined using a capacity-design approach based on the adjusted
link shear strength considering the material overstrength and strain-
hardening of the link (AISC 2016a). As such, the performance of
the active link is paramount to the safety, reliability, and economic
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0003-2679-7364. Email: shchao@uta.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineer-
ing, The Hashemite Univ., Zarqa 13133, Jordan. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-1414-3913. Email: ghassans@hu.edu.jo
3
Regional Manager, DN Tanks, 410 E Trinity Blvd., Grand Prairie,
Dallas, TX 75050. Email: brandon.price@dntanks.com
4
Project Engineer, AG&E, 15280 Addison Rd., Addison, TX 75001.
Email: chad_a2@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 21, 2022; ap-
proved on April 4, 2023; published online on June 19, 2023. Discussion
period open until November 19, 2023; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
viability of EBFs. Active links are classified based on the length
of the link, e, as either shear yielding links (e ≤ 1.6 M p =V p ),
intermediate links (1.6 M p =V p ≤ e < 2.6 M p =V p ), or flexural
yielding links (e ≥ 2.6 M p =V p ) (AISC 2016a). Typically, active
links, which fall into the shear yielding link (short link) categori-
zation, are preferred because they provide a frame with an elastic
lateral stiffness similar to buckling-restrained braced frames while
maintaining exceptional ductility and energy dissipation capacity
(Malley and Popov 1984; Hjelmstad and Popov 1983; Kasai and
Popov 1986; Engelhardt and Popov 1989). Also, unlike a flexural
yielding link (long link), the shear strength of a shear yielding link
is independent of the link length, e, which means the frame’s
strength does not change if the link length is adjusted due to archi-
tectural or detailing requirements. In addition, the design moment
of the beam outside of the link can be reduced by using shear yield-
ing links because the end moments for shear yielding links are
smaller than for longer links (AISC 2016a).
High Stress-Triaxiality and Fracture at Weld–Web
Interface
A previously unobserved shear link failure mode was revealed by
experimental tests conducted on wide-flange shear links reinforced
with closely spaced vertical stiffeners (Arce 2002; Galvez 2004;
Okazaki 2004). These specimens developed a ductile web fracture
before the onset of web-buckling initiating from the ends of the
vertical stiffener welds and propagating horizontally across the
web of the shear link. This failure mode prevented several speci-
mens from obtaining the mandated inelastic rotation angle (IRA)

© ASCE 04023114-1 J. Struct. Eng.

Fig. 1. Distortion at the end of stiffener and resulting highly stressed region at the web of the shear link with conventional vertical stiffeners.
required by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 2016a). This fail-
ure mechanism was thought to be the results of (1) concentrations
of stress and strain close to the k-area at the termination of the stiff-
ener welds (McDaniel et al. 2003; Dusicka et al. 2004; Richards
2004), (2) the use of an excessively demanding loading protocol
(Richards and Uang 2003), and (3) the susceptibility of the k-area
to low-cycle fatigue (Okazaki et al. 2005). Nonlinear finite element
analysis was carried out by Chao et al. (2006) who concluded that
the observed early ductile fracture at the weld–web interface was
the result of the high triaxial constraints that develop at the weld
ends coupled with elevated local strain demands in this region. The
authors found that the current vertical stiffener layout inevitably
caused high local strain concentrations in the link web near the
end of the stiffeners, as shown in Fig. 1. Chao et al. (2006) ana-
lytically showed that the conventional vertical stiffeners can be re-
placed by a horizontal stiffener (Fig. 2) to alleviate the local strain
concentration at the web-to-stiffeners weld termination and the high
stress-triaxiality.
Fracture of Flange Near Column Face
Current AISC 341 (AISC 2016a) recommends avoiding the
D-braced EBF configuration where the link is attached to the col-
umn, i.e., a link-to-column connection (Fig. 3). The load and de-
formation demand at a link-to-column connection in a D-braced
EBF is substantially different from that of a beam-to-column con-
nection in a special moment frame. A shear link at a link-to-column
connection sustains a much higher moment gradient than a typical
moment connection. Prior experimental results have indicated that
moment connections, showing good performance in moment frame
beam-to-column connections, can demonstrate poor performance
Fig. 2. Horizontal stiffener for shear links. (Reprinted from Chao et al.
2006, © ASCE.)
© ASCE 04023114-2
in link-to-column connections of D-braced EBFs (Okazaki 2004;
Okazaki et al. 2004).
In a link-to-column connection (Fig. 3), the moment developed
at the column side is higher than the moment developed at the
beam–brace side of the link due to the greater rotational restraint
at the column face than at the beam–brace end of the link. In the
elastic range, the moment at the column face (M c ) is higher than the
moment at the beam face (M b ); however, once the yielding occurs
in the shear link, the ratio of M c =Mb gradually decreases to reach a
value close to unity due to the moment redistribution after yielding
the link web.
For example, for shear links where e=ðM p =V p Þ ¼ 1.1 and
e ¼ 635 mm, Okazaki (2004) found that the M c =M b ratio ranged
from 1.64 to 1.83 in the elastic range; however, these ratios gradu-
ally decreased to reach a ratio close to unity after the yielding in
shear links occurred. Therefore, the link at the column side reaches
its plastic moment strength before the beam–brace side. Once the
column side enters its inelastic state, moment redistribution com-
mences, and the beam–brace side gradually reaches its plastic
moment strength. The unequal moments at both ends of a link-
to-column connection cause a combined high moment and shear
Stiffeners
Beam
Link-to-column
connection
Brace
Column
Fig. 3. Wide-flange shear link at a link-to-column connection in a
D-braced EBF.
J. Struct. Eng.
forces to rise in the link near the column face. Notably, Okazaki
et al. (2009) reported that nearly all link-to-column connections
failed due to link flange fracture, including two connections that
used improved details and had reached large link rotation angles.
The reason that the fracture initiated from the link flange could be
attributed to the fact that flanges in a wide-flange shear link rein-
forced with vertical stiffeners can carry a significant amount of
shear that was traditionally assumed to be completely carried by
the web (McDaniel et al. 2003; Richards 2004; Ji et al. 2016;
Yin et al. 2020). Therefore, link flanges at the column face as well
as the welds connecting the link flange and the column face are
subjected to high combined bending and shear stresses.
The shear distributions among the link flanges and web depend
on their relative stiffness in resisting the shear. Past research has
indicated that reducing the stiffness by partially separating it from
the web can effectively shift the shear force into the beam web of a
free-flange moment connection (Choi et al. 2003). On the other
hand, Li et al. (2009) reported that vertical stiffeners added in
the plastic hinging zone of a reduced beam section moment con-
nection can effectively delay local buckling, but the von Mises
stress in the flange has a noticeable increase. In this study, the au-
thors hypothesize that the vertical stiffeners used in the conven-
tional shear links increase the stiffness of the link flanges, which
is one of the contributing factors causing the high cumulative plas-
tic strain in the flange and its fracture. This identification of in-
creased stiffness in the link flanges due to the vertical stiffeners
also encourages replacing the vertical stiffeners with horizontal
stiffeners to reduce the flange stresses at the column side. This
replacement would shift the failure mode from the brittle fracture
of link flanges at the column face to a safer ductile plastic defor-
mation in the link flanges and the link web. The location of failure
initiation can also be shifted away from the link-to-column connec-
tion where severe stress conditions exist.
High Overstrength of Shear Links
Link overstrength is due to strain hardening in a link and is defined
as the ratio between the maximum shear capacity, V u , and the plas-
tic shear strength, V p , in a link. Hence, the plastic shear strength is
computed using V p ¼ 0.6Fy actual ðd − 2tf Þtw based on actual yield
stress (AISC 2016a; Bruneau et al. 2011). d is the overall depth of
the link, tf is the thickness of the flange, and tw is the thickness of
the web. The overstrength of a shear link must be estimated when
designing the nonyielding members outside of the links such as
beams, braces, columns, and connections, which are designed by
the maximum forces imposed on these members due to fully
yielded and strain-hardened links. For economic reasons, AISC
341 (AISC 2016a) suggests an average overstrength value of 1.25
for wide-flange links, although past research has generally recom-
mended an overstrength factor of 1.5 (Popov and Engelhardt 1988).
Numerous studies have found that the actual overstrength of wide-
flange links can be 20% to 60% greater than the value specified by
AISC 341. Three major factors have been suggested (McDaniel
et al. 2003; Richards 2004; Okazaki and Engelhardt 2007; Della
Corte et al. 2013; Ji et al. 2016; Kazemzadeh Azad and Topkaya
2017; Liu et al. 2020) as overstrength causes: (1) axial restraints at
the link ends provided by other structural members, especially at
large link rotation angles; (2) shear resistance of flanges especially
relatively thick flanges; and (3) very large plastic strains due to
considerable cyclic strain-hardening of steel in the link web. To
improve the overstrength-causing factors (2) and (3), the use of
horizontal stiffeners eliminates the stiffening effect on the link
flanges by conventional vertical stiffeners and allows link web in-
elastic buckling. These factors minimize the cyclic strain-hardening
© ASCE 04023114-3
of the web and the transfer of shear forces to the flanges after yield-
ing the web link. This can potentially reduce the overstrength of the
shear link, which in turn reduces the required forces for the non-
yielding members.
This study experimentally investigated the seismic performance
of wide-flange steel links with horizontal stiffener detailing pre-
sented by Chao et al. (2006). First, a proof-of-concept specimen
was tested to determine the viability of the proposed stiffener con-
figuration. Four large-scale specimens were then tested (two with a
horizontal stiffener and two with vertical stiffeners). The specimens
were tested under two loading protocols: one outlined in Section
K2.4c of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 2016a); the other
is a near-collapse (NC) loading protocol developed by Chao and
Price as documented in Price’s thesis (Price 2015). Finally, nonlin-
ear finite element analyses of shear links with horizontal stiffener
detailing were carried out to investigate the application of horizon-
tal stiffeners in deeper sections.
Experimental Program
The testing program was carried out to explore the feasibility of
using horizontal stiffeners in shear links attached to columns, such
as the shear links used in D-braced EBFs. The current practice in
AISC 341 (AISC 2016a) requires the use of vertical stiffeners to
reinforce shear links. Section K2.4c of AISC 341 provides a load-
ing protocol to test link-to-column connections. To qualify as link-
to-column connections, the shear links must sustain their plastic
shear strength for at least one complete loading cycle at an inelastic
link rotation angle of 0.08 rad (8%), in accordance with Section
K2.8 of AISC 341.
Test Setup
Fig. 4(a) shows the test setup for W460 × 60 shear link specimens,
which was designed and constructed to generate internal moment
and shear force distributions that are similar to that of an actual
link-to-column connection in a D-braced EBF, where the moments
are unequal at both ends of the shear link, and the shear force is
constant over the link length. The test setup consisted of a W360 ×
287 column on one side of the shear link and a rigid L-arm on the
other side of the link. One end of the link was rigidly connected to
the W360 × 287 column attached to a stiff H-frame having a col-
umn of W840 × 527. This boundary condition imposed a high rota-
tional restraint like the column end of a shear link in a D-braced
EBF. The other end was connected to a rigid L-arm fabricated using
W360 × 287 sections supported by stabilizing links. Stabilizing
links were provided in-plane on the outside of the L-arm to restrain
its rotation. Axial deformation was allowed in the W460 × 60 shear
link specimens because of the slightly larger hole size than the pin
size in the stabilizing links, which provided greater rotational flex-
ibility to that end of the link, similar to the beam end of a shear link
in a D-braced EBF. The moment ratio between the column end and
the beam end [Fig. 4(a)], M c =M b , will be discussed later. The
L-arm was attached to a closed-loop servo-controlled actuator,
which applied forces to the link’s midspan. A lateral bracing system
was used for the L-arm to prevent any undesired torsion in the
specimen during testing. Notably, the test setup for the proof-of-
concept (POC) shear link specimen [Fig. 4(b)] was different from
the one shown in Fig. 4(a). The stabilizing links in the test setup, as
shown in Fig. 4(b), provided a high axial restraint and did not im-
pose unequal end moments that occur in a D-braced EBF. The shear
link specimen was connected to the test setup using an extended
end-plate moment connection with 19 mm diameter A193 B7 rods.
B7 rods were used because A490 bolts are not recommended for
J. Struct. Eng.
 Test setup for W460×60 links 1335 kN
Actuator

Reaction
Column
Rigid L-Arm

Reaction e/2
1/2"
H-Frame
End-plate
Column Column

1 5/8"
Stabilizing

1168
Links Shear Link

LVDT
e
1"

Column
Beam End
End

Reaction Floor Lateral bracing LVDT

(a)

Test setup for POC-AISC 445 kN Actuator

W150×29.8 link

Reaction
Column
Stabilizing
Reaction Link
Column Reaction
Column

Stabilizing
Links

Link Specimen Stabilizing

Link

Reaction Floor

(b)

Fig. 4. Details of the test setups: (a) test setup for W460 × 60 shear link specimens; and (b) test setup for W150 × 29.8 shear link specimen.

retightening. In addition, while B7 rods and A325 bolts have a sim-
ilar strength, the cost of B7 rods is approximately 60% less than
that of A325 bolts with the same length. Link rotation angles were
computed using the relative displacement between two ends of the
link divided by the link length, minus the rotation of the L-arm,
which is typically negligible.
Loading Protocols
The two loading protocols used in this study are shown in Fig. 5
and Table 1. The AISC loading protocol follows the required load-
ing history prescribed in Section K2.4c of AISC 341 and simulates
25
Total Link Rotation Angle (rad)
the demand imposed on the active link during a design-level ground
motion (Richards 2004). The displacement history is symmetrical,
which subjects the link to equivalent displacements in each direc-
tion. The near-collapse (NC) loading protocol simulates the dis-
placement demands during a near-collapse ground motion, where
a structure is near collapse under a maximum considered earth-
quake (MCE) level ground motion. This type of ground motion
is required for nonlinear time-history (NTH) analysis carried out
following FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009). In the near-collapse situa-
tion, the response is featured by a ratcheting effect, as shown in
Fig. 5. NTH analyses indicate that the shear link’s rotation angle
history is unsymmetrical with one-sided displacements in one di-
rection when an EBF is subjected to the high impulses generated
from near-collapse conditions (Price 2015). The development of the
175 near-collapse loading protocol developed by Price (2015) resem-

20 bles the AISC loading protocol up to 0.75% total link rotation an-
125
15 gle. Once this rotation angle is achieved, the specimen undergoes
Displacement (mm)

10 75 large cyclic rotation angles in one direction to simulate the ratch-

5 eting effect experienced by an EBF in a near-collapse condition.
25
0 Notably, prior shear link testing used a loading protocol with ran-
-5 -25 domly selected large displacements in each direction during the
-10 -75 early cycles, the shear link specimen achieved a 12.5% IRA before
Near-Collapse
-15 failure, which is higher than that attained under the AISC loading
AISC -125
-20 protocol (Okazaki and Engelhardt 2007).
-25 -175
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Cycle Number Specimen Details
One POC shear link specimen and four large-scale specimens
Fig. 5. AISC loading protocol and near-collapse loading protocol.
were tested to investigate the feasibility of using horizontal

© ASCE 04023114-4 J. Struct. Eng.

stiffeners in shear links. Table 2 shows the details of the five
specimens; Table 3 shows their material properties from coupon
tests carried out according to ASTM E8 (ASTM 2016). The first
part of the specimen’s name (HSD or CSD) represents the stiffener
configuration utilized. Thus, HSD corresponds to horizontal stiff-
ener detailing, and CSD corresponds to conventional stiffener
detailing. The second part (AISC or NC) represents the loading
protocol used: AISC represents the AISC loading protocol, and
NC represents the near-collapse loading protocol. A POC shear
Table 1. AISC loading protocol and near-collapse loading protocol
Loading protocol No. of cycles Total link rotation angle
AISC 6 0.375%
6 0.500%
6 0.750%
6 1.0%
4 1.5%
4 2.0%
2 3.0%
1 4.0%
1 5.0%
1 7.0%
1 9.0%
1 11.0%
1 13.0%
Near-collapse 6 0.375% (−0.375%)a
6 0.750% (−0.750%)
1 0.750% (−4.00%)
1 4.0% (2.00%)
1 6.0% (3.00%)
1 8.0% (4.00%)
1 10.0% (5.00%)
1 12.0% (6.00%)
1 14.0% (7.00%)
1 16.0% (8.00%)
1 18.0% (9.00%)
1 20.0% (10.0%)
1 22.0% (11.0%)
a
Value in parentheses denotes the link rotation angle for the opposite
excursion.
link specimen (POC-AISC) utilizing the horizontal stiffener
detailing was constructed with a W150 × 29.8 section made of
ASTM A992 steel and tested under the AISC loading protocol.
The other four specimens were constructed with W460 × 60 sec-
tions made of ASTM A992 steel from the same heat to reduce
variation in material properties and ensure a more direct compari-
son between specimens. The length of W460 × 60 specimens was
similar to that of the shear link specimens tested in prior research
(Okazaki and Engelhardt 2007). During the test, the loading se-
quence was based on the total rotation angle (TRA) of the speci-
mens. Full-field 3D strain and displacement measurements were
taken using digital image correlation (DIC) equipment for all spec-
imens. This noncontact system has a measuring strain accuracy of
0.01% (mm=mm).
Fig. 6 shows the details of the test specimens. POC-AISC
was fabricated using a W150 × 29.8 section with a 10 mm thick
horizontal stiffener located at midheight on one side of the speci-
men. The length of the specimen, 559 mm, corresponds to an
e=ðMp =V p Þ ratio of 1.22 when V p and M p were calculated from
the measured yield strength, well below the 1.6 upper bound for
shear yielding links. HSD-AISC and HSD-NC were fabricated us-
ing W460 × 60 sections with a 13 mm thick longitudinal stiffener
located at midheight, on one side of the specimen. The thickness of
the stiffeners for these specimens was determined to be slightly
thicker than the minimum thickness (10 mm) required by the AISC
341 (AISC 2016a), designed to resemble the flange thickness of the
W460 × 60 section. CSD-AISC and CSD-NC were designed to
compare the behavior of the horizontal stiffener configuration to
the conventional stiffener detailing. They were fabricated using
W460 × 60 sections with four 10 mm thick vertical stiffeners
spaced at 140 mm on center. The 700 mm length of HSD and
CSD specimens corresponds to an e=ðMp =V p Þ ratio of 1.10 when
V p and M p are calculated from measured yield stress.
As shown in Fig. 6, extended end-plate moment connections
were used at the ends of the shear link to facilitate the removal
of the tested specimens and avoid damage to the column and
L-arm of the test setup. The design of the 25 mm thick extended
end-plate (ASTM A572 steel) and the 19 mm diameter fasteners
was based on AISC’s Design Guide 4 (AISC 2015). A prequalified
complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove weld of TC-U4b-GF

Table 2. Test specimens

Link length Intermediate stiffeners
Stiffener type Specimen Section Loading protocol e (mm) e=ðM p =V p Þ Thickness/quantity
Horizontal POC-AISC W150 × 29.8 AISC 559 1.22 10 mm=1 at midheight
HSD-AISC W460 × 60 AISC 700 1.10 13 mm=1 at midheight
HSD-NC W460 × 60 NC 700 1.10 13 mm=1 at midheight
Conventional CSD-AISC W460 × 60 AISC 700 1.10 10 mm=4 at 140 mm
CSD-NC W460 × 60 NC 700 1.10 10 mm=4 at 140 mm

Table 3. Material properties from coupon tests

Flange Web
Specimen Section Loading protocol Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa)
POC-AISC W150 × 29.8 AISC 354 463 360 424
HSD-AISC W460 × 60 AISC 399 532 403 462
HSD-NC W460 × 60 NC 399 532 403 462
CSD-AISC W460 × 60 AISC 399 532 403 462
CSD-NC W460 × 60 NC 399 532 403 462

© ASCE 04023114-5 J. Struct. Eng.

 700
50
50
Section 2-2 CSD Link
CJP welding and access hole
Fig. 6. Details of test specimens (unit: mm).
(AISC 2016b) was used to connect the link flange to the extended
end-plates as per AISC Design Guide 4. Notably, Part 12 of AISC
360 (AISC 2016b) states that, when CJP groove welds are used,
weld access holes should not be used. However, to facilitate the
fabrication, access holes were allowed on the link specimens ac-
cording to the fabricator’s usual practice. These access holes
had curved transition edges from the web to the flange and a radius
prescribed in Section J1.6 of AISC 360 (AISC 2016b). However,
the length and height of these access holes were 32 and 16 mm,
respectively, which were slightly smaller than those required by
AISC 360 (length = 38 mm; height = 19 mm). Testing results in-
dicated that the access holes had no adverse effect on the perfor-
mance of the shear links tested in this study. Before the CJP groove
welds were placed, 8 mm backing fillet welds were first placed on
the beam web side of the beam flanges. The root of the bevel was
then backgouged to remove any contaminants from the 8 mm
backer filler welds. Backgouging of the root was not applied in
the area of the flange directly above the beam web because the
backing fillet weld was not present. Fillet welds were also used
to weld the link web to the end-plate. The gas metal arc welding
process and E49 electrode were used for the CJP groove and fillet
welds. No backing bar or weld tabs were used in the welding pro-
cess. All welds were not ultrasonically tested. Notably, all welds
were not demand-critical because the end-plate was designed ac-
cording to AISC’s Design Guide 4 (AISC 2015) rather than AISC
358 (AISC 2020) for moment connections in special moment
frames. Nonetheless, no premature weld failure was observed in
the test specimens. All specimens were whitewashed on one side
of the specimen, and the DIC system was set up on the other side of
the specimen to observe the yielding patterns and strain distribution
throughout the test.
© ASCE 04023114-6
HSD Link Section 1-1
POC Link Section 3-3
Test Results
Table 4 summarizes the key results obtained from each specimen.
Specimen CSD-AISC was not able to be failed due to its high over-
strength, which led to strength beyond the tensile capacity of the
actuator. The overstrength factor (V u =V p ) is calculated as the ratio
between the maximum measured shear force, V u , and the plastic
shear strength of the link V p ¼ 0.6Fy ðd − 2tf Þtw (AISC 2016a)
based on the measured yield stress (Fy ¼ 403 MPa) of wide-flange
section’s web. The overall depth d of the link was 455 mm
for W460 × 60 and 158 mm for W150 × 29.8. The thickness of
the flange tf was 13.3 mm for W460 × 60 and 9.3 mm for
W150 × 29.8. The thickness of the web tw was 8 mm for W460 ×
60 and 6.6 mm for W150 × 29.8. The IRA, γ p , of the specimens
was determined as follows:
γ p ¼ γ t −V=k0 ð1Þ
where γ t = the link’s total rotation angle (TRA); V = the applied
load; and k0 = the link’s initial elastic stiffness measured from the
shear force versus TRA response. Table 4 summarizes the attainedP
IRA, γ p ; the ultimate IRA, γ pu ; and the cumulative IRA, γp;
maximum measured shear force, V u ; the overstrength factor,
V u =V p ; the failure mechanism; and the cumulative dissipated en-
ergy of each specimen.
Following Sections F3.6e.1(b) and K2.8 of AISC 341 (AISC
2016a), the attained IRA in Table 4 was defined based on the last
complete loading cycle in which the link shear force exceeded the
plastic shear strength of the link, V p , which was computed based on
the measured yield stress of the web where Fy actual ¼ 403 MPa
(AISC 2016a). The ultimate IRA, γ pu , is the maximum IRA that
J. Struct. Eng.
Table 4. Summary of test results
Link shear (kN)
Cumulative dissipated
Specimen γ p (%) γ pu (%) Σγ p (%) Vue V u =V p f Failure mechanism energy (kN-m)
CSD-AISCa 8.1 10.2 154 1,242 1.52 Unable to fail but necking in the k-area was observed 1,115d
CSD-NCa 21.2 21.2 121 1,218 1.49 Flange and web fracture near end plate connection 836
POC-AISCb 9.5 11.8 160 433 2.21 Flange and web fracture near end-plate connection 275
HSD-AISCc 10.4 12.5 247 1,005 1.23 Web fracture after severe WLB 873d
HSD-NCc 21.3 24.4 127 1,102 1.35 Web fracture after severe WLB 924
a
W460 × 60 link with conventional vertical stiffeners.
b
W150 × 29.8 link with proposed horizontal stiffener.
c
W460 × 60 link with proposed horizontal stiffener.
d
Up to the completion of positive excursion of 11% total rotation angle (approximately 10% inelastic rotation angle).
e
V u is the average of the maximum shear forces in both directions (positive and negative).
f
V p ¼ 0.6 Fy actual , ðd − 2tf Þtw based on actual yield stress; V p ¼ 817 kN for W460 × 60 link and V p ¼ 196 kN for W150 × 29.8 link.

the specimens could achieve without the shear strength dropping
below the nominal shear strength.
Shear Forces versus Inelastic Link Rotation Angle,
Failure Mechanism, and Overstrength
Fig. 7 shows the hysteretic responses of the shear force versus the
IRA relationship of the tested specimens. Specimens POC-AISC,
CSD-AISC, HSD-AISC, CSD-NC, and HSD-NC were able to
achieve IRAs of 9.5%, 8.1%, 10.4%, 21.2%, and 21.3%, respec-
tively. None of the tested specimens showed strength degradation
below the plastic shear strength (V p ) until after achieving 8% IRA
for the AISC loading protocol and 19% IRA for the NC loading
protocol.
CSD-AISC
The first yielding of CSD-AISC was observed at the first peak of
the 0.75% TRA by the DIC system, as shown in Fig. 8(a), at a load
of 820 kN. At this point, the majority of the web had yielded. A
strain concentration was located along the vertical stiffener welds in
the outside panels and the middle panel. The vast majority of the
web had a shear strain of less than 3,750 microstrain but the shear
strain in these areas of concentrated strain was in excess of 7,800
microstrain. Necking near the end of welds was noticed at 7%
TRA, and a large strain concentration was located in the k-area
adjacent to the end-plate connection. Fig. 8(b) shows the DIC re-
sults and the necking at the end of the stiffener welds at the first
peak of 11% TRA. The shear strain in the region of the web ad-
jacent to the end-plate connection of the compression flange was in
excess of 0.111 mm=mm. The increased strain in this region was
accompanied by an increase in necking at the end of the stiffener
welds. At this point in the test, no evidence was found of fracture or
buckling at any location on the specimen. The test was concluded
after the first peak of the 11% TRA due to excessive overstrength of
the shear link causing the capacity to exceed the strength limita-
tions of the tensile capacity of the actuator. By the time the testing
was stopped, the specimen exhibited a stable response up to 10.2%
ultimate IRA and 8.1% IRA, beyond the 8% IRA mandated by
AISC 341 (AISC 2016a). The DIC results indicated the presence
of a significant strain concentration near the end of the stiffener
welds, but the specimen was not allowed to continue until failure.
The excessive strain demands accompanied by a significant amount
of necking observed in this area was a good indicator that the speci-
men would have failed due to fracture at the end of the stiffener
welds if allowed to continue until failure. However, due to an ob-
served overstrength of 1.52, the specimen could not be tested until
failure.
CSD-NC
Similar to CSD-AISC, the first yielding of CSD-NC was observed
at the first peak of 0.75% TRA at a load of 730 kN. At this point,
the majority of the specimen web had yielded. A concentration of
shear strain was observed near the end of the vertical stiffener
welds. The majority of the web area in the panels had a shear strain
of less than 3,500 microstrain, but the shear strain around the end of
the vertical stiffener welds was in excess of 9,000 microstrain.
Figs. 9(a and b) show the shear strain and the out-of-plane displace-
ment distributions for CSD-NC at the positive peak of 18% TRA.
According to the DIC results shown in Fig. 9(a), the highest ob-
served shear strain was in excess of 0.149 mm=mm in the web
steel adjacent to the flange connected to the end-plate interface.
The strain along the vertical stiffener welds was approximately
0.105 mm=mm. From Fig. 9(b), it is evident that the web buckling
had increased slightly. The two panels closest to the left end-plate
experienced the largest magnitude of web buckling of 3.6 mm.
Buckling in the other three panels was much less at approximately
1.9 mm. Strength degradation started at the positive peak of 22%
TRA after the flange of the specimen began to crack, although the
fracture did not penetrate all the way through the flange. The high-
est DIC-observed shear strain was approximately 0.222 mm=mm
in the web steel adjacent to the flange to the end-plate interface. It is
important to note that the flange fracture occurred before the onset
of any significant web buckling. Fig. 9(c) shows the fracture propa-
gation at the end of the test (prior to obtaining 24% TRA). At this
point, the test was stopped due to significant strength degradation.
The fracture severed the flanges adjacent to the end-plate and
caused the web to fracture. The fracture was more serious at the
“column” end [Fig. 4(a)] than at the “beam” end. CSD-NC exhib-
ited a stable response up to 21.2% IRA, which is significantly be-
yond the 16% IRA suggested by the authors for the MCE level
ground motions (Price 2015).
POC-AISC
Fig. 10(a) shows the web and flange yielding at 12.7% TRA of
specimen POC-AISC. Cracking at the intersection of the flange
and the end-plate at the column end was first noticed at 9%
TRA [Fig. 10(b)]. This crack did not cause strength degradation.
At a TRA of 11%, the load-carrying capacity did not drop, but the
crack propagated further into the flange; meanwhile, the buckling
of the flange at the beam end was noticed adjacent to the endplate
[Fig. 10(c)]. The specimen failed due to rapid propagation of the
crack through the entirety of the flange and into the web of the
specimen while attempting to reach 13% TRA. POC-AISC attained
a 9.5% IRA, which is greater than the 8% IRA required by AISC
341 (AISC 2016a).

© ASCE 04023114-7 J. Struct. Eng.

 1500 1500
Vu= 1280 kN γp= 8.1% Vu= 1218 kN γp= 21.2% V+u
+
1000 V u 1000

Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

Vp Vp
500 500

0 Stop due to
0
actuator
capacity
-500 -500
-Vp -Vp
-1000
V ˗
u
-1000 V˗ u
-1500 -1500
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
(a) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%) (b) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%)

600
Vu= 433 kN γp= 9.5%
400 V+u

Shear Force (kN)

200
Vp
0

-200 -Vp
-400
V˗ u
-600
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
(c) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%)

1500 1500
Vu= 1005 kN γp= 12.5% V+u Vu= 1102 kN γp= 21.3%
V+u
1000 1000 Vp
Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

Vp
500 500

0 0

-500 -500
-Vp -Vp
-1000 -1000
V˗ u V˗ u
-1500 -1500
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
(d) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%) (e) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%)

Fig. 7. Cyclic responses of the specimens: (a) CSD-AISC; (b) CSD-NC; (c) POC-AISC; (d) HSD-AISC; and (e) HSD-NC. V u ¼ ðV þ −
u þ V u Þ=2, and
γ p is the maximum inelastic rotation angle corresponding to the full cycle reached by the shear link before the shear strength dropped to less than the
plastic shear strength, V p , which was computed based on actual yield stress.

Necking near
end of weld

Stiffener

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. CSD-AISC: (a) shear strain distribution from DIC measurement at first yielding (0.75% TRA); and (b) shear strain distribution from DIC
measurement and necking at the end of the stiffener weld at the first peak of the 11% TRA.

Specimen POC-AISC had a high overstrength of 2.21, which is area-to-web area (bf tf =ðd − 2tf Þtw ) of the POC-AISC speci-
attributed to the following factors: men is higher than the other specimens.
1. POC-AISC had a shallow section with a depth of 157 mm; 3. As the web was stiffened with a horizontal stiffener, the link
therefore, the link web did not buckle even though the web sus- was able to resist greater shear force up to approximately twice
tained large plastic strains [Fig. 10(a)]. the plastic shear strength. Nonlinear finite element analysis
2. The plastic shear strength (V p ¼ 0.6Fy ðd − 2tf Þtw ) does not (details of the FE models are discussed later in this paper)
consider the contribution of flanges. However, the ratio of flange shows the von Mises stresses at the web is approximately

© ASCE 04023114-8 J. Struct. Eng.

 Beam end

Through fracture in
flange and web

Column end

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. CSD-NC: (a) shear strain distribution from DIC measurement at 18% TRA; (b) out-of-plane displacement (mm) distribution from DIC
measurement at 18% TRA; and (c) fracture at the end of the test (immediately before 24% TRA).

Location of
fracture initiation

(a) (b) (c)

Experimental FEM without axial restraint Experimental FEM with axial restraint
600 600

400 400
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%)
(d) (e)

Fig. 10. POC-AISC: (a) web and flange yielding at 12.7% total rotation angle; (b) flange fracture at the “column end,” plate connection (POC-AISC);
(c) flange buckling at the “beam end”; (d) comparison between results from experiment test and FE model without axial restraint; and (e) comparison
between results from experiment test and FE model with axial restraint.

690 MPa, which is twice the nominal yield strength of the steel
(345 MPa). Therefore, the flexural stress demand in the link
flanges of the link-to-column connection was significantly in-
creased, which led to the flexural cracks near the column flange
[Fig. 10(b)].
4. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the test setup for POC-AISC imposed
high axial restraint, which in turn led to additional strain-
hardening and shear strength. Figs. 10(d and e) compare the load
versus link rotation results between the experimental test and FE
model without and with axial restraint. It shows that the addi-
tional strain-hardening and shear strength predicted by the FE
analysis agree well with the experimental result when an axial
restraint is included in the FE model.
HSD-AISC
The first yielding of the specimen was observed at the first peak
of the 0.75% TRA, as shown in Fig. 11(a), at a load of 725 kN.
The first yielding of the specimen was concentrated directly above
the stiffener and extended from the beam-end end-plate to approx-
imately 115 mm from the centerline of the specimen. This yielding
appears to be from a uniformly distributed diagonal tension field
along the weld lines of the stiffener. The maximum shear strain
in the specimen was 3,470 microstrain, located at the boundary
between the beam-end end-plate and the horizontal stiffener.
Fig. 11(a) shows that the maximum principal plane was oriented
at approximately 45 degrees throughout the entire length of the
specimen. The short lines indicate the direction of the maximum

© ASCE 04023114-9 J. Struct. Eng.

 (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

Fig. 11. HSD-AISC: (a) shear strain distribution from DIC measurement at first yielding (0.75% TRA); (b) shear strain distribution from DIC
measurement at 7% TRA; (c) out-of-plane displacement (mm) distribution from DIC measurement at 7% TRA; (d) HSD-AISC at the end of
the 7% TRA; (e) out-of-plane displacement (mm) distribution from DIC measurement at 9% TRA; (f) HSD-AISC at the end of the 9% TRA;
(g) HSD-AISC at the end of the 13% TRA; (h) HSD-AISC at the end of testing; and (i) photograph showing no damage at link flanges.

principal strain. Fig. 11(b) shows the shear strain distribution;
Fig. 11(c) shows the out-of-plane displacement of HSD-AISC at
the first peak of 7% TRA at a load of 990 kN. The highest observed
shear strain at this point in the test was in excess of 0.050 mm=mm.
The distribution of shear strain differs from the earlier cycles,
which were similar in pattern to that shown in Fig. 11(a). The shear
strain distribution at the 7% TRA had begun to become distorted
due to the onset of web buckling. The orientation of the maximum
principal strain was distorted around the location of the buckling
bands. It is evident from Fig. 11(c) that several buckling bands had
begun to form at this rotational angle. The maximum displacements
of the two largest buckling bands were approximately 4.2 and
5.0 mm and located in the top panel on either side of the specimen.
It is important to note that, although web buckling was noticed by
the DIC system, this degree of web buckling could not be seen by
the naked eye [Fig. 11(d)].
Figs. 11(e and f) show the DIC results and a photograph of the
buckled web of HSD-AISC at the end of 9% TRA at a load of
845 kN. The load-carrying capacity diminished slightly at this point
in the test but is still 103% of V p . Web buckling was able to be seen
by the naked eye. The comparison between the DIC system and a
traditional camera’s photograph of the specimen’s web shows the
accuracy of the DIC system. The maximum positive and negative
out-of-plane displacements were in excess of 26 and 27 mm, re-
spectively. The buckling was more severe at the end of 9% TRA
than at the first peak. The buckling mode was consistent with the
typical buckling mode of plates with a length-to-depth ratio of 2
(Bulson 1970). Two distinct buckling bands developed on each side
of the horizontal stiffener. The development of a buckling mode
consistent with two adjacent long plates indicates that the stiffener
thickness was sufficient, as it successfully provided adequate re-
straint to prevent buckling in the midheight area of the specimen.

© ASCE 04023114-10 J. Struct. Eng.

If the stiffener thickness was not adequate, the web would buckle
in a manner analogous to specimens previously tested without
stiffeners (Hjelmstad and Popov 1983). Fig. 11(g) displays a photo-
graph of the HSD-AISC web buckling at the end of 13% TRA with
a load of 810 kN, which is only 1% smaller than V p . The buckling
of the web continued to increase in severity, which by now was
obviously causing the overall height of the specimen to decrease.
The severe buckling had begun to cause the horizontal stiffener to
warp. On the way to the first peak of the 15% TRA, the load-
carrying capacity of the specimen dropped due to the development
of a significant fracture in the specimen web as shown in Fig. 11(h).
Fig. 11(i) indicates that, unlike shear links with conventional
vertical stiffeners where failure is due to link flange fracture
(Okazaki et al. 2009), no link flange damage occurs at link-to-
column connections.
The specimen exhibited stable results up to 12.5% IRA, signifi-
cantly beyond the 8% IRA mandated by AISC. At this point, the
loading dropped substantially due to the initiation of a low-cycle
fatigue fracture in the specimen’s web. The load increased at each
step until approximately 8% IRA was reached. After this point, the
load-carrying capacity decreased slightly with each subsequent
step but remained above V p until after 12.5% IRA was obtained.
The hysteretic behavior of this specimen indicates that the hori-
zontal stiffener detailing provides a ductile alternative for shear
links. The ultimate shear force developed in the specimen was
1,005 kN, which corresponds to an overstrength factor of 1.23,
which is 20% less than that of CSD-AISC and is below the 1.50
overstrength factor used for the EBF design specified in AISC
(2016a).
HSD-NC
The first yielding of the specimen was observed at the first peak of
the 0.75% TRA as shown in Fig. 12(a), at a load of 740 kN. The
first yielding of the specimen was concentrated in several bands,
the most notable of which spanned from the stiffener–end-plate in-
terface on the left side of the specimen to the midheight area of the
bottom panel on the right side of the specimen. The specimen’s
maximum shear strain was 6,940 microstrain located along the
crest of the aforementioned most notable band. Fig. 12(b) shows
the shear strain distribution; Fig. 12(c) shows the out-of-plane dis-
placement of HSD-NC at 12% TRA under a load of 1,125 kN. Each
of the web panels experienced significant yielding, which made the
separate bands no longer distinguishable in the panels. The strain
demands in the specimen’s web typically exceeded 0.07 mm=mm
with the highest strain being around 0.09 mm=mm. Fig. 12(c)
clearly shows three main buckling bands, as they began to form
at this point during the test, seen on both the top and bottom panels
of the web. The maximum displacements of the bands on the top
panel were approximately 4.4, 4.5, and 8.9 mm from left to right in
the figure. The maximum displacements of the bands on the bottom
panel were approximately 5.2, 2.9, and 4.5 mm from left to right.
Notably, the onset of web buckling occurred much later for this
specimen (at 12% TRA) than for the HSD-AISC specimen at
7% TRA. The shear strain demands and the buckling pattern of
the two panels are almost identical with only minor discrepancies.
Figs. 12(d and e) show the DIC results and a photograph of the
buckled web of HSD-NC at the 20% TRA under a load of
1,165 kN. This is the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the speci-
men. The buckling mode shape remained the same, but the buck-
ling itself increased in severity. The maximum out-of-plane
displacements of the three buckling bands in the top panel from
left to right are 12.0, 32.3, and 27.9 mm. The maximum out-of-
plane displacements of the three buckling bands in the bottom panel
from left to right are 15.0, 14.8, and 30.2 mm. The out-of-plane
© ASCE 04023114-11
displacement of the buckling bands on the top panel was higher
than those on the bottom panel. It is important to note that, despite
the severe buckling, which had occurred in the specimen web, the
horizontal stiffener maintained the separation of the top and bottom
panels of the web into two distinct panels with an out-of-plane dis-
placement of around zero along the web’s midheight. This shows
that the dimensions used for stiffener width and thickness were ap-
propriate for this specimen.
The link web started to fracture along the weld lines of the hori-
zontal stiffener at the intermediate 10% TRA (unloading excursion
after 20% TRA), as shown in Fig. 12(f). Fig. 12(g) shows the DIC
results for the direction and magnitude of the maximum principal
strain. The figure shows that the maximum principal strain at the
fracture location (along the horizontal stiffener) was oriented
perpendicular to the rest of the web. When the web of each of the
panels experienced a large magnitude of buckling, it induced large
tensile strains in the web steel adjacent to the horizontal stiffener.
Over several cycles, this could have caused fractures to initiate in
this location. At 22% TRA, the web buckling was concentrated into
two bands in the top panel and one band in the bottom panel. The
bands had a maximum out-of-plane displacement of approximately
38 mm. The measured load was 1,060 kN. Although the specimen
load dropped 105 kN, the sustained load was 30% above V p . The
fracture along the horizontal stiffener had propagated, extending
approximately 110 mm in length. Fig. 12(h) shows that, at 24%
TRA, due to excessive local buckling of the web (greater than
51 mm), the load-carrying capacity of the specimen dropped to
900 kN or 75% of the ultimate load and was still 10% above
V p . The fracture along the web–stiffener interface had extended
to 230 mm long and had begun to propagate into the specimen’s
web, as shown in Fig. 12(i). HSD-NC exhibited stable behavior up
to 21.3% IRA, significantly beyond the 16% IRA recommended by
the authors for a suitable collapse level performance (Price 2015).
The load increased at each step until approximately 19% IRA
was reached. After this point, the load decreased slightly with each
subsequent step but remained above V p , until the load-carrying
capacity diminished after 21.3% IRA was obtained. The hysteretic
behavior of this specimen showed that the horizontal stiffener
detailing provides adequate performance for the expected demands
imposed under an MCE level ground motion. HSD-NC had an
overstrength factor of 1.35, which is 10% less than that of
CSD-NC and is below the 1.50 overstrength factor used for the
design of EBF as specified in AISC (2016a).
Test results indicate that HSD-AISC and HSD-NC web frac-
tures were different. In HSD-AISC, the displacement history
was fully reversed, which created alternate tension field action
and compression buckling in two opposite diagonal directions.
Consequently, the web eventually fractured due to low-cycle
fatigue. Conversely, the displacement history of HSD-NC re-
mained fully reversed only up to a small TRA of 0.75%. At large
rotation cycles, the specimen was pushed toward one direction
only, thereby creating buckling bands and increasing only in
one diagonal direction. Notably, although HSD-NC was unloaded
to positive 10% TRA (intermediate) after achieving positive 20%
TRA, some of the compression buckling bands still had a maxi-
mum out-of-plane displacement in excess of 25 mm. This caused a
different web fracture location along the weld lines of the horizon-
tal stiffener.
Strain Demand of Flanges
Strain gauges at the column end were mounted on the link top
flange 38 mm from the end-plate connection (Fig. 4) and were
analyzed to determine the strain at this location for HSD-AISC,
CSD-AISC, HSD-NC, and CSD-NC [Fig. 13(a)]. CSD-AISC
J. Struct. Eng.
 (a) (b) (c)

Fracture along the horizontal

stiffener weld lines

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

Fig. 12. HSD-NC: (a) shear strain distribution from DIC measurement at first yielding (0.75% TRA); (b) shear strain distribution from DIC mea-
surement at 12% TRA; (c) out-of-plane displacement (mm) distribution from DIC measurement at 12% TRA; (d) out-of-plane displacement (mm)
distribution from DIC measurement at 20% TRA; (e) HSD-NC at 20% TRA; (f) fracture of HSD-NC along the horizontal stiffener weld lines at
intermediate 10% TRA; (g) maximum principal strain of HSD-NC at the intermediate 10% TRA; (h) HSD-NC at the 24% TRA; and (i) fracture of
HSD-NC along the horizontal stiffener weld lines at intermediate 24% TRA.

developed a significantly higher strain than HSD-AISC. CSD-
AISC and HSD-AISC had a maximum strain of 6.0% and 2.9%,
respectively. CSD-NC and HSD-NC developed a maximum strain
of 1.3% and 0.75%, respectively. The horizontal stiffener detailing
alleviates the demand on the flange at the end plate connection
as evidenced by the cumulative and maximum plastic strains
experienced by the specimens. The horizontal stiffener detailing
alleviated the strain demand on the flanges at the end plate connec-
tion as evidenced by the cumulative and maximum plastic strains
experienced by the specimens. This could indicate failure mecha-
nisms of shear links where specimens under the same loading
protocol (with larger maximum and cumulative strain on the
flanges) failed by fracture of the flanges when conventional vertical
stiffeners were used. In addition, prior studies have also shown that
the high overstrength in short shear links is partly the result of
flange participation in shear resistance. The observation from this
research indicates that flange participation can be decreased by
implementing horizontal stiffener detailing. In other words, the
lower overstrength is achieved by horizontal stiffener detailing
when compared with conventional stiffener detailing.
This observation was further verified by FE analyses, as shown
in Fig. 13(b), which provide the average cumulative plastic strains
at 40 mm from the FE model’s flange-to-column connection for
HSD-AISC and CSD-AISC. The cumulative strains of both spec-
imens are identical until the onset of web buckling in HSD-AISC
started at 7% TRA. The rate of increase of CSD-AISC becomes
much higher beyond a cumulative strain of 0.2. The cumulative
plastic strains are 0.67 and 0.43 for the CSD-AISC and HSD-AISC,
respectively, at 11% TRA. This analysis indicates that the lower
flange strains in HSD links are directly related to the stiffener ar-
rangement as the response of HSD-AISC and CSD-AISC was iden-
tical until the buckling in the web of HSD-AISC occurred. This
web buckling would not happen if conventional vertical stiffeners
were used.

© ASCE 04023114-12 J. Struct. Eng.

 6 6 2 6
4 4 4
1
Strain (%)

Strain (%)

Strain (%)

Strain (%)
2 2 2
0 0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-1
-4 CSD-AISC -4 HSD-AISC CSD-NC -4 HSD-NC
-6 -6 -2 -6
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 -6 0 6 12 18 24 -6 0 6 12 18 24
Inelastic Rotation Angle (%) Inelastic Rotation Angle (%) Inelastic Rotation Angle (%) Inelastic Rotation Angle (%)
(a)
HSD-AISC CSD-AISC
0.8
e = 700

Column Side
A
Average Cumulative Plastic

Beam Side
Strain (Section A-A)

TRA = 11%
0.6
Top view of

A 40
specimen CSD-AISC
or HSD-AISC
0.4

Note: Onset of web buckling of HSD-AISC

TRA = 9%
0.2

TRA = 7%
commenced at TRA = 7% and grew at
TRA = 9 and 11%.

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Cycle Number
(b)

Fig. 13. (a) Strains on the flanges throughout the test; and (b) average cumulative plastic strains at 40 mm from the FE model’s flange-to-column
connection for the HSD-AISC and CSD-AISC specimens.

Finite Element Analysis conducted on Model 1 with shear link geometry identical to
the CSD-AISC specimen. Four FE models with different material
A 3D nonlinear finite element (FE) model was developed to sim-
ulate the tested shear links using the ABAQUS 6.14 program properties were tested, and the hysteresis shear force response was
(ABAQUS 2016). This model was also used to investigate other compared with the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 14(d).
parameters such as the M c =M b ratio and the effect of deeper link The calibration process suggested that Material 4 had a better
sections. Fig. 14 summarizes an example of the calibration process agreement with the test results in terms of the overall response
of FE models, which begins from the test results of steel coupons and hardening behavior (i.e., the Bauschinger effect) subjected
taken from the web of shear links [Fig. 14(a)]. Because the coupon to cyclic loading. Therefore, Material 4 was used for the simula-
test is monotonic testing in nature, the stress-strain data cannot tion of CSD-AISC and HSD-AISC specimens. Fig. 15 shows
accurately simulate the hardening and plastic deformation of shear that the experimental response of HSD-AISC and CSD-AISC
links subjected to cyclic loading. Therefore, this study used the have good agreement with the FEA results. Fig. 16 illustrates
combined isotropic and kinematic cyclic hardening model to that the FE model is able to simulate the web buckling in link
consider the plastic deformation of shear links under cyclic loading. HSD-AISC at large TRA. Fig. 17 shows the von Mises stress
Fig. 14(b) shows the estimated stresses using the combined and plastic strain distributions of the simulated CSD-AISC
isotropic and kinematic cyclic hardening model in the ABAQUS using Model 1 at 11% TRA. The figure illustrates the concentra-
6.14 material library, σ ¼ σ0 þ α þ β, where σ0 ¼ 403 MPa tion of plastic strain near the end of vertical stiffeners, which
is the initial yield stress taken from the coupon test, α ¼ agrees with the observed necking near the end of vertical stiffener
C=γð1−eð−γϵÞ Þ is the kinematic hardening component, and β ¼ weld.
Q∞ ð1 − eð−bϵÞ Þ is the isotropic hardening component. ϵ is the plas- As discussed in this paper’s introduction, unequal moments oc-
tic strain. The kinetic hardening parameters, C and γ, and the iso- cur at the column end (Mc ) and beam end (Mb ) in the shear link of a
tropic hardening parameters, Q∞ and b, are material parameters D-braced EBF. The two moments gradually equalize after the link
obtained by calibration using the cyclic behavior of the experimen- enters an inelastic state. Due to higher rotational restraint at the
tally tested shear links. Fig. 14(b) shows the estimated stresses us- column end than at the beam end, the initial M c can be much larger
ing the isotropic/kinematic hardening model with four material than M b , especially for a short link; hence, the accumulated strain
models, Materials 1 to 4. Each model has various parameters near the column face increases faster than that at the beam end,
(C, γ, Q∞ , and b). The stress-plastic strains of Materials 1 to 4 which tends to cause premature failure of link flange at the column
were used for the materials properties of Model 1, which represents end. The test setup used in this study was designed in such a man-
the 3D nonlinear finite element simulation of a shear link with the ner that the unequal moments were generated to simulate the severe
test setup used in this study. The test setup provides shear link demand at the link-to-column connection. Model 1 simulates the
boundary conditions close to that of a link–column connection experimental test setup used in this study; Model 2 simulates a
in a D-braced EBF [Fig. 14(c)]. The calibration process was one-bay two-story D-braced EBF. The models were analyzed to

© ASCE 04023114-13 J. Struct. Eng.

 Experimental results of CSD-AISC
Material 1 Material 3
529
Material 2 Material 4
1500

Stress, MPa 403

1000

Shear Force (kN)

500

-500

0.002 0.1 -1000

Strain, mm/mm -1500

-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
(a)
Link Inelastic Rotation Angle (%)
(d)
Material 1 Material 3 Note: The rigid L-arm,
Material 2 Material 4 stabilizing links, and rigid Loading
600 column are restrained in Direction
Combined Stress (σ), MPa

U1 and UR3 to prevent the

500 out-of-plane deformation
U1 = 0
400 U2 = 0
U3 = 0
σ0 = 403 MPa U1 = 0
300 UR1 = 0
U2 = 0 2
b Q∞ γ C UR2 = 0
200 U3 = 0
Material 1 10 18.4 90 834 3 UR3 = 0
Material 2 10 7.95 90 1307 UR1 = 0
100 1
Material 3 3 5.67 75 1540 UR2 = 0
Material 4 0 0 65 1741 UR3 = 0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 UR: Rotation
Plastic strain (ε), mm/mm Model 1
U: Displacement
(b) (c)

Fig. 14. Model calibration process for shear link Model 1: (a) tensile stress-strain relation from coupon steel obtained from the link web; (b) materials
1 to 4 are used to calibrate the hardening and plastic parameters using the combined isotropic and kinematic stresses model; (c) use materials 1 to 4 to
analyze Model 1 for CSD-AISC; and (d) link shear force versus IRA response based on four material models and experiment results.

Experimental Test Model 1 Experimental Test Model 1

1500 1500
1000 1000
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
(a) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%) (b) Inelastic Link Rotation Angle (%)

Fig. 15. Experimental results and Model 1 analysis: (a) HSD-AISC; and (b) CSD-AISC.

compare the moment ratio, M c =M b . Fig. 18 shows the M c =M b ra- by the strain measurements from two strain gauges (SG1 and SG2)
tio versus the TRA responses of the link in Model 1. Fig. 18 also attached at the flange near the column end of CSD-AISC and an-
shows the first-story link in Model 2 subjected to monotonic other two strain gauges (SG3 and SG4) mounted at the flange near
displacement-controlled loading. While the M c =M b ratio of Model the beam end. Fig. 18 shows the measured average strain near the
1 and Model 2 are unequal at small link rotations, the Mc =Mb ratio column end, ðSG1 þ SG2Þ=2, versus the average strain near the
approaches unity once the shear link yields at large link rotations beam end, ðSG3 þ SG4Þ=2. Plots A and B illustrate the average
when the moment redistribution occurs from the column end to the strain at the flange near the column end versus the beam end up
beam end. Fig. 18 indicates that the Mc =M b ratio in Model 2 is to 2% and 5% TRA, respectively. The hysteresis curves in Plot
greater but comes closer to that of Model 1 after 0.375% TRA. A show the maximum recorded strain value at the column end
Therefore, Model 1, which simulates the experimental setup of (εc;A ) and beam end (εb;A ) at 2% TRA were 0.0137 and 0.0082,
this study, behaves similar to a link-to-column connection in the respectively, with a strain ratio (εc;A =εb;A ) of 1.67. However, in
D-braced EBF of Model 2. This can also be indirectly demonstrated Plot B, this ratio dropped to 1.02 at 5% TRA.

© ASCE 04023114-14 J. Struct. Eng.

 (a) (b)

Fig. 16. FEA results of HSD-AISC using Model 1: (a) comparison of buckling bands in tested specimen with the FE model at 9% TRA; and
(b) increase in web buckling and horizontal stiffener at 11% TRA.

Necking near
end of weld

Stiffener
Necking near
end of weld

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. FEA results of CSD-AISC using Model 1: (a) von Mises stress distribution at 11% TRA; and (b) plastic strain distribution and necking of
tested specimen at the end of the stiffener weld at 11% TRA.

εc,A and εb,A : average strain at column and beam ends at 2% TRA, respectively
εc,B and εb,B : average strain at column and beam ends at 5% TRA, respectively
3
Lateral displacement
Average strain at column

A
end, (SG1+SG2)/2

2.5 εc,A εc,A

εb,A = 1.67
End moment ratio (Mc / Mb)

Lateral
displacement
2
εb,A

Average strain at beam end, (SG3+SG4)/2

1.5
εc,B B
Average strain at column

8.9 m
end, (SG1+SG2)/2

εc,B
1
e = 700 εb,B = 1.02
Column End
Beam End
0.375%

SG3 SG1 εb,B

0.5
SG4 SG2
38 Top view of specimen 38 0.005
A B CSD-AISC Average strain at beam end, (SG3+SG4)/2
0
0 2 4 5 6 8 10 12 14
Total Rotation Angle, TRA (%)

Fig. 18. Mc =M b ratio versus of TRA responses of Model 1 and Model 2 and average strain ratios (for tested CSD-AISC specimen) at the column and
beam ends.

© ASCE 04023114-15 J. Struct. Eng.

 27 in. 30 in. 33 in.
One horizontal stiffener
2 Two horizontal stiffeners
1.5
VFEA, 0.08 / Vp
1 sions can be drawn from this study:
W690x140
W760x161
W840x210
0.5
0
690 760 840
Link depth (mm)
Fig. 19. Effects of link depth and quantity of one-sided horizontal stif-
feners on the link shear capacity.
Horizontal Stiffeners for Deeper Links
As the depth of the link increases, the web-buckling amplitude
could be too large if only one horizontal stiffener is used. Conse-
quently, an FEA was carried out to investigate if more horizontal
stiffeners are needed when the link depth becomes deeper. Model 1
was used for shear links with depths of 690, 760, and 840 mm. The
considered wide-flange sections were W690 × 140, W760 × 161,
and W840 × 210. The length of each link was selected to maintain
a link length ratio expressed as e=ðM p =V p Þ ¼ 1.1, which equals
the used link length ratio for the tested specimens. In each model,
the shear force corresponding to the IRA of 0.08 rad (V FEA;0.08 ) was
recorded for shear links with one or two horizontal stiffeners.
Fig. 19 indicates that links with a depth of 690 mm have a
V FEA;0.08 =V p ratio of 1.3, and a ratio of 1.46 for links with one
horizontal stiffener and two equally spaced horizontal stiffeners,
respectively, where V p is computed based on the measured yield
stress of the web (= 403 MPa). The shear strength improvement
made possible by using two horizontal stiffeners is also observed
for links with depths of 760 and 840 mm. The analysis indicates the
840 mm deep links with one horizontal stiffener had a V FEA;0.08 =V p
ratio below 1.0. Therefore, it is recommended to use two equally
spaced horizontal stiffeners for short links having a depth of more
than 760 mm.
Summary and Conclusions
Current AISC 341 (AISC 2016a) recommends avoiding a D-braced
EBF configuration, where the link is attached to the column, be-
cause the shear link at a link-to-column connection sustains a much
higher moment gradient than a typical moment connection. Shear
links reinforced by conventional vertical stiffeners tend to develop
high strain demands at the link flanges due to the stiffened link
flanges. A horizontal stiffener detailing, which can relieve the high
flange strain demand, was investigated in this study. Five shear link
specimens were fabricated and tested to investigate the perfor-
mance of a horizontal stiffener detailing for D-braced EBF shear
links. Tests were performed using a setup that was able to produce
a high unequal moment at both ends of a shear link, similar to that
at the link-to-column connection in a D-braced EBF. The horizontal
stiffener detailing on a proof-of-concept W150 × 29.8 specimen
and two large-scale W460 × 60 specimens under the AISC loading
protocol and a near-collapse loading protocol. The response
© ASCE
obtained from the near-collapse loading protocol, which features
a ratcheting effect, can be used for structural collapse simulations
according to FEMA P695. Two large-scale, W460 × 60 specimens
utilizing the conventional (vertical) stiffener detailing were tested
under these loading protocols to compare the performance. The
tests confirmed that horizontal stiffener detailing is a viable alter-
native to conventional stiffener detailing. The following conclu-
1. Current AISC 341 (AISC 2016a) requires full-depth inter-
mediate web stiffeners to effectively resist web buckling
and to limit strength degradation due to flange local buckling
and lateral-torsional buckling. This study shows that the
horizontal stiffener configuration developed a ductile failure
mechanism resulting from gradually increasing local buckling
in the web. Large deformation of the flange was observed at
large link rotation angles; yet, no torsional buckling was ob-
served. The strength degradation of links with the horizontal
stiffener detailing was much more gradual due to the ever-
increasing web buckling, which was the opposite of the sud-
den brittle fractures occurring at the flange-to-column face of
links with conventional vertical stiffener detailing.
2. Unlike shear links with conventional vertical stiffeners where
failure is due to link flange fracture (Okazaki et al. 2009), no
link flange damage occurred in the W460 × 60 link specimens
with horizontal stiffener detailing. As the failure occurs on the
web, the effect of the large moment at the link-to-column con-
nection in the shear link of a D-braced EBF does not have a
major impact on the behavior of a shear link with a horizontal
stiffener.
3. Replacing conventional vertical stiffeners with a horizontal
stiffener allows web buckling in multiple bands, which softens
the flanges and web. This in turn reduces the strain demands in
the link flange and the overstrength of the link.
4. Strain gauge data showed that the horizontal stiffener detailing
decreased the maximum strain demands by nearly 50% at the
flange to end-plate interface.
5. The overstrength factor of the W460 × 60 link specimens that
utilized the horizontal stiffener detailing was lower than the
conventional stiffener detailing (i.e., 1.23 versus 1.52), which
decreased the likelihood of undesired inelastic activity in the
nonyielding members outside of the link. The overstrength for
the CSD (1.52) was similar to that recognized by AISC (1.50).
Based on a simple ratio of the overstrength of the HSD to
CSD, it is now possible to reduce the design overstrength from
1.25 to 1.05 for shear links utilizing the horizontal stiffener
detailing (AISC 2016a). This decrease in the overstrength fac-
tor is attributed to a lower shear resistance from the flanges in
the horizontal stiffener detailing than in the vertical stiffener
detailing, which has a higher flange restraint and flange shear
stiffness (Ji et al. 2016).
6. The ultimate rotation angle of the W460 × 60 specimen with
the conventional stiffener detailing under the AISC loading
protocol was not reached, but both stiffener details exceeded
the 8% IRA mandated by AISC, reaching an IRA of at least
8.1% and 12.5% for the CSD and HSD specimens, respec-
tively. Both stiffener details were capable of sustaining large
plastic rotations, 21.3% (HSD) and 21.2% (CSD) when sub-
jected to the near-collapse loading protocol.
7. DIC results showed that there was essentially no out-of-plane
displacement at the location of the horizontal stiffener after the
onset of buckling indicating that the dimensions of the stiffener
were sufficient. The analytical study agreed that the stiffener
thickness can use the current AISC requirement (the greater
of 0.75tw or 10 mm) with satisfactory performance. According
04023114-16 J. Struct. Eng.
 to the design of the experimental specimens and analytical
models, the stiffeners shall extrude from the web an approxi-
mate distance of (bf =2−tw =2).
8. The test setup produced different end restraints. The end mo-
ments were greater at the column end than at the beam end
[Fig. 4(a)], which simulates the boundary conditions at a
link-to-column connection in a D-braced EBF. Nonlinear
FEA was carried out to show that the unequal end moments
during the elastic stage were similar to that expected in links
with one end connected to a column. The same analysis shows
that the end moment gradually equalizes as the link yield pri-
marily in shear. Besides, the experimental data of strain gauges
show that the recorded strain ratio at the link column end to the
beam end is 1.67 at 2% TRA. The ratio gradually decreased
nearly to unity beyond 5% TRA.
9. It is recommended to use one-sided, two equally spaced
horizontal stiffeners for shear links having a depth of more
than 760 mm.
10. The proposed horizontal stiffener detailing has the potential to
decrease welding in the shear link (due to the reduced quantity
of stiffeners and using a one-sided stiffener only) while exhib-
iting adequate seismic performance, maintaining a lower over-
strength factor, and utilizing a simplistic design approach.
11. Welds used in all specimens were not demand-critical because
the end-plate was designed according to AISC Design Guide 4
(AISC 2015) rather than AISC 358 (AISC 2020). Because no
premature weld failure was observed in the test specimens, it
indicates using the welding requirements in AISC Design
Guide 4 are satisfactory for a shear link end-plate.
12. In all the tests, the link was connected to the test setup through
bolted extended end-plates. The experimental results indicate
that the proposed details can be used as a replaceable link
when attached to the beam and column through bolted ex-
tended end-plates.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the American Institute of
Steel Construction Milek Fellowship.
References
ABAQUS. 2016. ABAQUS user’s manual V. 6.14. Pawtucket, RI: Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp.
AISC. 2015. Extended end-plate moment connections—Seismic and wind
applications. 2nd ed. Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2016a. Seismic provisions for structural steel building. ANSI/AISC
341-16. Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2016b. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC
360-16. Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2020. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel
moment frames for seismic applications, including supplements No. 1
and No. 2. ANSI/AISC 358s2-20. Chicago: AISC.
Arce, G. 2002. “Impact of higher strength steels on local buckling and over-
strength of links in eccentrically braced frames.” Master’s thesis, Dept.
of Civil Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at
Austin.
© ASCE 04023114-17
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materi-
als. ASTM E8/E8M-16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bruneau, M., C.-M. Uang, and R. Sabelli. 2011. Ductile design of steel
structures. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bulson, P. S. 1970. The stability of flat plates. London: Chatto and
Windus.
Chao, S.-H., K. Khandelwal, and S. El-Tawil. 2006. “Ductile web fracture
initiation in steel shear links.” J. Struct. Eng. 132 (8): 1192–1200.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:8(1192).
Choi, J., B. Stojadinovic, and S. C. Goel. 2003. “Design of free flange
moment connection.” Eng. J. AISC 40 25–41.
Della Corte, G., M. D’Aniello, and R. Landolfo. 2013. “Analytical and
numerical study of plastic overstrength of shear links.” J. Constr. Steel
Res. 82 (Mar): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.11.013.
Dusicka, P., A. M. Itani, and I. G. Buckle. 2004. “Evaluation of conven-
tional and specialty steels in shear link hysteretic energy dissipators.” In
Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo:
International Associations of Earthquake Engineering.
Engelhardt, M. D., and E. P. Popov. 1989. “On design of eccentrically
braced frames.” Earthquake Spectra 5 (3): 495–511. https://doi.org/10
.1193/1.1585537.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Qualification of
building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695. Washington, DC:
FEMA.
Galvez, P. 2004. “Investigation of factors affecting web fractures in shear
links.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Hjelmstad, K. D., and E. P. Popov. 1983. Seismic behavior of active beam
links in eccentrically braced frames. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-83/15.
Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
California, Berkeley.
Ji, X., Y. Wang, Q. Ma, and T. Okazaki. 2016. “Cyclic behavior of very
short steel shear links.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2): 04015114. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001375.
Kasai, K., and E. P. Popov. 1986. “Cyclic web buckling control for shear
link beams.” J. Struct. Eng. 112 (2): 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:2(362).
Kazemzadeh Azad, S., and C. Topkaya. 2017. “A review of research on
steel eccentrically braced frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (Jan):
53–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.07.032.
Li, F.-X., I. Kanao, J. Li, and K. Morisako. 2009. “Local buckling of RBS
beams subjected to cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (12): 1491–
1498. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000073.
Liu, X.-G., J.-S. Fan, Y.-F. Liu, M.-Z. Zheng, and J.-G. Nie. 2020. “Theo-
retical research into cyclic web buckling and plastic overstrength of
shear links.” Thin-Walled Struct. 152 (Jul): 106644. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.tws.2020.106644.
Malley, J. O., and E. P. Popov. 1984. “Shear links in eccentrically braced
frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 110 (9): 2275–2295. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1984)110:9(2275).
McDaniel, C. C., C.-M. Uang, and F. Seible. 2003. “Cyclic testing of
built-up steel shear links for the new bay bridge.” J. Struct. Eng.
129 (6): 801–809. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)
129:6(801).
Okazaki, T. 2004. “Seismic performance of link-to-column connections in
steel eccentrically braced frames.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Ar-
chitectural and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Okazaki, T., G. Arce, H. C. Ryu, and M. D. Engelhardt. 2005.
“Experimental study of local buckling, overstrength, and fracture
of links in eccentrically braced frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 131 (10):
1526–1535. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:10
(1526).
Okazaki, T., and M. D. Engelhardt. 2007. “Cyclic loading behavior of EBF
links constructed of A992 Steel.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (6): 751–765.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.08.004.
Okazaki, T., M. D. Engelhardt, A. Drolias, E. Schell, J.-K. Hong, and C.-M.
Uang. 2009. “Experimental investigation of link-to-column connections
in eccentrically braced frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (7): 1401–1412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.02.003.
J. Struct. Eng.
Okazaki, T., M. D. Engelhardt, M. Nakashima, and K. Suita. 2004.
“Experimental study on link-to-column connections in steel eccentri-
cally braced frames.” In Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engi-
neering. Tokyo: International Associations of Earthquake Engineering.
Popov, E. P., and M. D. Engelhardt. 1988. “Seismic eccentrically braced
frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 10: 321–354. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0143-974X(88)90034-X.
Price, B. 2015. “Investigation on innovative shear link configurations and
optimal design for earthquake resistant steel eccentrically braced
frames.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas
at Arlington.
© ASCE 04023114-18
Richards, P. W. 2004. “Cyclic stability and capacity design of steel eccentri-
cally braced frames.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Structural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of California, San Diego.
Richards, P. W., and C.-M. Uang. 2003. Development of testing protocol for
short links in eccentrically braced frames. Rep. No. SSRP-2003/08.
San Diego: Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California,
San Diego.
Yin, W.-H., F.-F. Sun, H.-J. Jin, and D.-Z. Hu. 2020. “Experimental and
analytical study on plastic overstrength of shear links covering the full
range of length ratio.” Eng. Struct. 220 (Oct): 110961. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110961.
J. Struct. Eng.