Cyclic Behavior of Steel Moment-Resisting Connections

Reinforced by Alternative Column Stiffener Details

I. Connection Performance and Continuity Plate Detailing
DAEYONG LEE, SEAN C. COTTON, JEROME F. HAJJAR, ROBERT J. DEXTER,
and YANQUN YE

F ollowing the Northridge earthquake of January 17,

1994, damage occurred to steel moment connections,
most often consisting of brittle fractures of the bottom
girder flange-to-column flange complete-joint-penetration
(CJP) groove welds (Youssef, Bonowitz and Gross, 1995;
Northridge Reconnaissance Team, 1996; FEMA, 2000a;
FEMA, 2000c). The fractures were caused by the use of low
toughness welds; connection design and detailing that led to
larger moment-frame members, less system redundancy, and
higher strain demands on the connections; the use of higher
strength girders leading to unintentional under matching of
the welds; and a number of other connection detailing and
construction practices that were typical prior to the earthquake
(Roeder and Foutch, 1996; FEMA, 2000a, 2000b,
2000c). Additionally, column reinforcement practices have
been cited as a possible contributor to the fractures, largely
as a result of observations that many of the connections
fractured during the Northridge earthquake lacked continuity
plates and that some had weak panel zones (Tremblay,
Timler, Bruneau and Filiatrault, 1995). Finite element
analyses (El-Tawil, Mikesell, Vidarsson and Kunnath, 1998;
El-Tawil, Vidarsson, Mikesell and Kunnath, 1999; El-Tawil,
2000; Ricles, Mao, Lu and Fisher, 2003) also have shown
an increase in stress and strain concentrations in the girder
flange-to-column flange CJP welds associated with excessively
weak panel zones or insufficient continuity plates, and
it has been speculated that these stress and strain concentrations
increase the potential for fracture. As a result of these
observations, there has subsequently been a tendency to be
more conservative than may be necessary in designing and
detailing of the continuity plates and doubler plates in steel
moment-resisting connections.
Research by the SAC Joint Venture has attempted to resolve
many issues related to steel moment connections and
has recently led to the recommendations for the design of
new steel moment-frame buildings, including column reinforcement
design and detailing (FEMA, 2000a). These design
recommendations provide equations for determining
whether continuity plates are required, and indicate that any
required continuity plates must be at least of equal thickness
to the girder flange for interior connections (thinner continuity
plates are permitted for exterior connections), unless connection
qualification testing demonstrates that the continuity
plates are not required. Furthermore, the connection of the
continuity plates to the column flanges must be made with
CJP welds, and reinforcing fillet welds should be placed
under the backing bars (if left in place). Also presented in
FEMA (2000a) are new panel zone design provisions that
seek to balance the onset of yielding between the panel zone
and connected girders.
Design criteria for the limit states related to column reinforcement
are presented in the AISC Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
(AISC, 1993, 1999a), hereafter referred to as the AISC
LRFD Specification. The limit states of primary importance
for stiffening of connections include local flange bending
(LFB), local web yielding (LWY), and panel zone yielding
(PZ). Additional provisions for seismic design of doubler
plates and continuity plates were included in the AISC Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1992,
1997a, 1999b, 2000, 2002), hereafter referred to as the AISC
Seismic Provisions. However, AISC (1997a, 2002) removed
all continuity plate design procedures for Intermediate and
Special Moment Frames, requiring instead that they be proportioned
based on connection qualification tests.
Daeyong Lee is research engineer, RIST Steel Structure
Research Laboratory, Hwaseong, Kyeonggi-Do, Republic of
Korea.
Sean C. Cotton is structural engineer, Hammel Green and
Abrahamson, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Jerome F. Hajjar is professor, department of civil and environmental
engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Robert J. Dexter is associate professor (deceased), department
of civil engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN.
Yanqun Ye is structural engineer, Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers,
Chicago, IL.
190 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
The potential for being more conservative than may be
necessary in column reinforcement design has raised concerns
about economy as well as the potential for cracking of
the k-area in the column web near the web-flange junction
during fabrication due to high residual stresses caused by
highly restrained CJP welds on the continuity plates or doubler
plates (AISC, 1997b; Tide, 2000).
There has been a great deal of past research on the issue of
column reinforcement in steel moment connections, including
recent work since the Northridge earthquake. However,
most of the past experimental research in particular has focused
on the effects of the presence or absence of continuity
plates doubler plates, or both, and not on the associated
design equations and detailing procedures. Therefore, this
combined experimental and computational research study
was conducted at the University of Minnesota to reassess the
recent column reinforcement design and detailing provisions
(AISC, 1992, 1993, 1997a, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2002) and
recommendations (FEMA, 2000a), and to provide economical
alternative stiffener details that minimize welding along
the column k-line while retaining superior performance for
nonseismic and seismic design.
A total of six full-scale, girder-to-column cruciform specimens
were tested in this research program. A welded unreinforced
flange-welded web (WUF-W) connection detail were
used; this connection is discussed in detail in FEMA (2000a).
It was originally planned to test five cruciform specimens
in this experimental study. Due to premature fracturing in
three of the four girder flange-to-column flange CJP welds
in one of these five specimens (as discussed further below),
this specimen was replicated with new base metal and weld
consumables and the new specimen was tested.
The cyclic behavior of three alternative doubler plate
details, specifically a back-beveled fillet-welded detail, a
square-cut fillet-welded detail, and a box (offset) detail, was
investigated, and the performance of these connections was
evaluated. In addition, the performance of one continuity
plate detail was investigated: a continuity plate with thickness
approximately half of the girder flange thickness filletwelded
to both the column flanges and doubler plates. Based
on the experimental results, the current LFB, LWY, and PZ
design and detailing provisions and recommendations were
reassessed, and the applicability of the newly suggested column
reinforcement details was investigated. This research
complements prior, related research done on this project
(Lee, Cotton, Dexter, Hajjar, Ye and Ojard, 2002), which included
nine pull-plate experiments (Prochnow, Dexter, Hajjar
and Cotton, 2000; Prochnow, Ye, Dexter, Hajjar and Cotton,
2002; Dexter, Hajjar, Prochnow, Graeser, Galambos and
Cotton, 2001; Hajjar, Dexter, Ojard, Ye and Cotton, 2003)
that investigated the limit states of LFB and LWY, primarily
for nonseismic design, and tested the alternative doubler
plate and continuity plate stiffener details. Finite element
analyses of all experimental specimens were also conducted
as part of this research as well as parametric studies to assess
the performance of various continuity plate and doubler
plate details not tested (Ye, Hajjar, Dexter, Prochnow and
Cotton, 2000).
This paper reports the results and performance of the six
cruciform tests. In a companion paper (Lee, Cotton, Hajjar,
Dexter and Ye, 2005), the cyclic panel zone behavior and
design in moment-resisting connections, including these test
specimens, is investigated.
COLUMN STIFFENER DESIGN EQUATIONS
Design equations for the column reinforcement included in
the AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999a) and AISC Seismic
Provisions (AISC, 2002) are largely based on research
conducted several decades ago. Research by Sherbourne
and Jensen (1957) and Graham, Sherbourne, Khabbaz and
Jensen (1960) established the provisions for Local Flange
Bending (LFB) and Local Web Yielding (LWY), while research
by Krawinkler, Bertero and Popov (1971), Bertero,
Krawinkler and Popov (1973), and Krawinkler (1978) led
to the seismic panel zone design criteria in AISC (2002). It
should be noted, however, that these provisions were derived
from research conducted on older A7 and A36 steels, and
on member sizes smaller than typically used in current steel
moment frame construction.
Recently, extensive research by the SAC Joint Venture has
led to the recommendations (FEMA, 2000a) for the design
of new steel moment connections. The recommended column
reinforcement design equations within FEMA (2000a)
are briefly described below in comparison with the AISC design
equations (AISC, 1997a, 1999b, 2000, 2002).
AISC Design Provisions
The design of continuity plates in steel moment connections
is primarily governed by LFB and LWY limit states. While
the web crippling limit state is also applicable to steel moment
connection design (AISC, 1999a), a study by Prochnow
et al. (2000) showed that it never governed the need for
continuity plates in typical moment connection configurations.
For the LFB limit state for nonseismic design (AISC,
1999a) and older seismic design provisions (AISC, 1992),
continuity plates must be provided if the required strength
(or demand), Ru , exceeds the design strength (or capacity) of
the column flange, given by
Rn 6 25tcf Fyc 2 . (1)
[Equation K1-1 (AISC, 1999a)]
where
= 0.90
tcf = column flange thickness
Fyc = specified minimum yield stress of the column
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 191
For the LWY limit state, similarly, continuity plates are
required if Ru exceeds the column web design strength,
given by
Interior condition
Rn 5k NFyctcw (2)
[Equation K1-2 (AISC, 1999a)]
End condition
Rn 2.5k NFyctcw (3)
[Equation K1-3 (AISC, 1999a)]
where
= 1.0
k = distance from outer face of column flange to
web toe of column fillet
N = length of bearing surface = girder flange thickness
in moment connections
tcw = column web thickness
The required strengths, Ru , for the above two limit states
(in other words, LFB and LWY) are based on the forces delivered
to the column flanges in the connection. Several possibilities
exist for the calculation of these required strengths,
including (but not limited to):
Ru FygAgf (4)
Ru 1.8FygAgf (5)
R
RFZVa
du
yg yg g g
g

1 1 
0 95
.
.
(6)
Ru 1.1RygFygAgf (7)
where
Fyg = specified minimum yield stress of the girder
Agf = area of one girder flange
Ryg = ratio of expected yield strength of girder to
specified minimum value
Zg = girder plastic section modulus
Vg = shear force in girder at plastic hinge location
a = distance from column face to girder plastic
hinge location
dg = girder depth
The design of continuity plates should also conform to Section
K1.9 of AISC (1999a).
Equation 4 is typically used for nonseismic design, representing
the nominal yield strength of one girder flange. Equation
5 was included in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC, 1992). The 1.8 factor includes a “strain-hardening”
factor of 1.3 to account for the probability of strength much
greater than the minimum specified value and the increase in
strength after significant yielding and another factor of 1.4
(1.4 1.3 1.8) that is related to the assumption that the full
plastic strength of the girder is carried by a force couple of
the flanges only. This factor of 1.4 is the approximate upper
bound ratio of the girder plastic section modulus, Zg, to
the flange section modulus, Zgf (Bruneau, Uang and Whittaker,
1998). Although the stress state in the girder flange
is not uniaxial, the girder flange required strength predicted
by Equation 5 can be put in perspective by comparing to the
maximum possible uniaxial tensile strength of ASTM A992
steel. Equation 5 predicts stresses in the flange of 90 ksi for
Fyg of 50 ksi, well above the likely tensile strength of A992
steel. For example, a survey of more than 20,000 mill reports
from (Dexter, 2000; Dexter et al., 2001; Bartlett, Dexter,
Graeser, Jelinek, Schmidt and Galambos, 2003) showed
that A992 steel has a mean tensile strength of 73 ksi. The
97.5 percentile tensile strength was 80 ksi, and the maximum
value reported was 88 ksi.
Equation 6 is included in AISC Design Guide No. 13
(AISC, 1999c). This equation, and slightly modified forms of
it, have been widely used for the design of column stiffeners
in steel moment connections (FEMA, 2000a). Equation 7
was presented by Prochnow et al. (2000) to provide a more
realistic representation of the girder flange force in steel moment
connections, mostly for use in assessment of the pullplate
experiments (Hajjar et al., 2003).
The AISC Seismic Provisions for the panel zone design
(AISC, 2002) include two design equations. The first specifies
the shear strength of the panel zone and the second places
a limitation on panel zone slenderness:
v v v yc c p
cf cf
gcp
R.Fdt
bt
ddt





061
32
(8)
[Equation 9-1 (AISC, 2002)]
where
v = 1.0
dc = column depth
tp = panel zone thickness
bcf = column flange width
 
t  dz wz / 90 (9)
[Equation 9-2 (AISC, 2002)]
where
t = column web or doubler plate thickness; or total
thickness if doublers are plug welded to the
column web
dz = panel zone depth
wz = panel zone width
192 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
In Equation 8, the term in parentheses accounts for the postyield
strength of the panel zone, as proposed by Krawinkler
(1978).
General procedures for the seismic panel zone shear required
strength calculation are described in AISC (2002).
This formula is a modified approach from that proposed in
AISC Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c) in that it uses
v = 1.0 and removes the factor of 0.8 from the girder
moments. The general formula can be given as
R
RFZVa
d
uV
y yg g g
girders g
c

1 1
0 95
.
.
(10)
where
Vc = story shear
FEMA 350 Design Recommendations
The design recommendations within FEMA (2000a) include
two equations for determining the need for continuity plates
in steel moment connections. Both are based on mitigating
the LFB limit state. Continuity plates are required if
tbt
FR
F R cf gf gf
yg yg
yc yc
0.4 1.8 (11)
or
t
b
cf
gf 
6
(12)
where
bgf = girder flange width
tgf = girder flange thickness
Ryc = ratio of expected yield strength of column to
specified minimum value
The design of continuity plates should also conform to Section
K1.9 of AISC (1999a).
Instead of incorporating the panel zone post-yield strength
recognized in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992,
1997a, 1999b, 2000, 2002) and basing required strength on
the ultimate strength of the connected girders, the recommendations
of FEMA (2000a) attempt to balance the onset
of yielding between the panel zone and connected girders.
It has been shown by Roeder (2002) that this balanced
mechanism leads to better overall connection performance.
The panel zone shear required strength associated with this
method is essentially the shear at the column centerline calculated
from the flexural yielding of the girders, while the
recognized shear strength of the panel zone is that at its first
yield. For example, in the case of exterior connections, the
required panel zone thickness, treq, is determined as
t
CM
hd
h
FRddt
req
yc
g
yc yc c g gf



0.90.6 
(13)
C
C
Z
S
y
pr
ge
g
1
(14)
where
Mc = moment at the centerline of the column
h = average story height of the stories above and
below the panel zone
Cpr = peak connection strength coefficient defined in
FEMA (2000a)
Zge = effective plastic section modulus of the girder at
the zone of plastic hinging
Sg = elastic section modulus at the zone of plastic
hinging
If the required thickness determined by Equation 13 is
greater than the column web thickness, doubler plates should
be placed in the panel zone or the column size should be
increased to a section with adequate web thickness.
DESIGN OF CRUCIFORM TEST SPECIMENS
The five connection configurations tested in this research
program were selected mainly based on a parametric study
of panel zone stiffening requirements and on using sizes that
would highlight specific aspects of the column limit states
being investigated in this research (Lee et al., 2002). In particular,
a relatively shallow girder depth (and thus a relatively
large flange force) and relatively weak column panel zone
were used so as to: (1) create specimens with different characteristics
from the large body of tests that have deeper girders
and stronger panel zones, for which a base of results has
to some extent already been established (for example, Chi
and Uang, 2002; Ricles, Fisher, Lu and Kaufmann, 2002a;
Ricles, Mao, Lu and Fisher, 2002b; and many other studies);
and (2) generate large strains in the connection region and
thus create severe tests for the limit states being investigated
in this research. The test matrix is outlined in Table 1. Figure
1 schematically illustrates the three doubler plate details
used in this work, discussed below. Typical connection topologies
for the cruciform specimens are shown in Figures 2
and 3. Due to unexpected premature brittle failure of girder
flange-to-column flange welds in one of the five cruciform
specimens (in other words, Specimen CR4, discussed further
below), one additional specimen was replicated with new
base metal and weld consumables and the new specimen
was tested. This new specimen was identified as Specimen
CR4R. In the following, designing and detailing of the five
connection topologies are described.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 193
Column Stiffener Design and Detailing
As shown in Table 1, three doubler details were tested in
this experimental study. Doubler plate Detail I and Detail II
represent two different fillet-welded details, while doubler
plate Detail III represents a groove-welded box (offset) detail
(Figure 1). All doubler plates were vertically extended
6 in. above and below the girder flanges. The extension of
the doubler plate corresponds to approximately (2.5k + N),
implying this extension is partly effective in resisting Local
Web Yielding (LWY). Although LWY was not the controlling
limit state within the given girder-to-column combinations,
this was done to be consistent with the doubler plate
details used in the pull-plate experiments (Prochnow et al.,
2000; Hajjar et al., 2003).
One continuity plate detail was also tested, in which the
plate thickness was approximately equal to half the girder
flange thickness, and the plate was fillet-welded to both
the column flanges and doubler plates. The size of the fillet
welds needed for both doubler and continuity plate details
were calculated using procedures given in the AISC Design
Guide No.13 (AISC, 1999c).
One completely unstiffened specimen with a W14283
column (Specimen CR1) was also tested to verify the cyclic
response of a specimen without continuity plates and
doubler plates. In addition, Specimens CR2 and CR5 had no
continuity plates although continuity plates were required as
per AISC (1992) for Specimen CR2 and as per AISC (1992,
1999a, 1999c) for Specimen CR5. These specimens were
used to examine the response of a column flange subjected
to the LFB limit state under cyclic loading.
Doubler Plate Detail I and Detail II
Two fillet-welded doubler plate details are presented in
Figures 1(a) and 1(b). Doubler plate Detail I presented in
Figure 1(a) is essentially the detail shown in Figure C-I-
9.3(b) of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002). This
Table 1. Test Matrix of Cruciform Specimens
CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 and CR4R CR5
Girder W2494 W2494 W2494 W2494 W2494
Column W14283 W14193 W14176 W14176 W14145
Doubler Plate (DP) None Detail II Detail II
Detail III
Box (Offset)
Detail I
DP Thickness NA 0.625 in. 2 @ 0.5 in. 2 @ 0.75 in. 2 @ 0.625 in.
Continuity Plate (CP) None None Fillet-welded None None
CP Thickness NA NA 0.5 in. NA NA
Fig. 1. Alternative doubler plate details: (a) back-beveled fillet-welded doubler (Detail I),
(b) square-cut fillet-welded doubler (Detail II), (c) box (offset) doubler (Detail III).
194 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
Fig. 2. Typical welding details used for cruciform specimens (Specimen CR1).
Fig. 3. Typical welding details used for cruciform specimens (Specimen CR3).
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 195
consists of doubler plates back-beveled at 45 degrees to
minimize interference with the column radius region. It is
intended that the plates be placed flush against the column
web and fillet-welded to the column flanges. This stiffening
detail avoids placing highly restrained CJP welds in the
column k-area.
Doubler plate Detail I has limitations, however, one of
which led to the development of the second fillet-welded
doubler plate detail (in other words, Detail II). As indicated
in AISC (2001), the actual k-values for many W-shapes have
become larger in recent years. The larger fillet radii of the
column made it impossible to position the doubler plates
without the gap between the doubler plates and the column
webs (unless the doubler plates were made to be unreasonably
thick). Forcing these doubler plates flush against the
column web without the gap could result in other gaps between
the doubler plates and column flanges of greater than
z in., which would not be permitted for the fillet welds.
Thus, proper fit-up of the s-in.-thick back-beveled doubler
plates could not be achieved in Specimen CR5 with Detail I
due to the large column fillets. However, this specimen has
member sizes similar to some of the pull-plate specimens
(Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al., 2003). It was desired in
this test program to replicate the doubler plate details tested
on some of the pull-plate specimens to allow correlation between
the tests. A gap between the column web and doubler
plate of approximately 4 in. thus resulted in Specimen CR5.
No welds were placed across the top and bottom of the doubler
plate.
Doubler plate Detail II, shown in Figure 1(b), was developed
as an alternative to the back-beveled doubler plate
detail (Detail I). Instead of beveling the plate to fit against
the column web, the doublers are cut square to the width between
column flanges (approximately 12.5 in. for W14 columns)
and placed in the column until they interfere with the
column radius. As with Detail I, the doubler plates are then
fillet-welded to the column flanges. By cutting the plates just
narrower than the width between flanges, the gap between
the doublers and column flanges remains below z in. A result
of this detail, however, is a gap between the column web
and doubler plate of approximately d in., and no welds were
placed across the top and bottom of the doubler plate. This
doubler plate detail is suggested as an economical alternative
because it requires no beveling, and is fillet-welded as
opposed to groove-welded. Doubler plate Detail II was used
for Specimens CR2 and CR3.
Doubler Plate Detail III — Box (Offset) Detail
The third doubler plate detail tested in this experimental
study is a box (offset) detail similar to that given in Figure
C-I-9.3(c) of the 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC,
2002), with the exception that no continuity plates are used
in the detail tested in this research. This detail is economically
desirable in lieu of using four continuity plates and two
doubler plates because the offset plates are not only carrying
panel zone shear forces but also acting to stiffen the column
flanges and webs. Excessive panel zone yielding as well as
local flange bending and local web yielding can be effectively
mitigated in this doubler plate detail. Like Detail I and Detail
II, the box (offset) detail also avoids welding in the column
k-area. As shown in Figure 1(c), CJP welds were used to join
the plates to the column flanges. The box (offset) doubler
plate detail was used for Specimens CR4 and CR4R.
The location of the doubler plates (in other words, the
amount of offset from the column web) was decided based on
the parametric finite element analyses conducted by Ye et al.
(2000). This study showed that the doubler plates were most
effective when placed between one-third and two-thirds of the
half-girder flange width from the column web. In this location,
the strain concentrations in the center of the girder flanges were
significantly reduced without an excessive increase towards
the girder flange tips. A location corresponding to an offset of
two-thirds of the half-girder flange width was thus selected
for the experiments. For a W24 94 girder, this equates to a
gap of 2 in. between the column web and doubler plate. The
finite element analyses (Ye et al., 2000) also showed that
the shear strains carried by the offset doublers were similar
to the strains in the doublers placed directly against the
column web.
Continuity Plate Detail
Specimen CR3 included continuity plates with a thickness
of approximately half the girder flange thickness, and continuity
plates fillet-welded to both the column flanges and
doubler plates. These approximately half-thickness, filletwelded
continuity plates were shown to perform adequately
in the monotonically loaded pull-plate tests (Prochnow et al.,
2000; Hajjar et al., 2003). This detail was also tested in this
experimental program primarily to investigate its suitability
for the seismic applications. The detail may be considered
an economical alternative to the full-thickness, groovewelded
continuity plates typically specified following the
Northridge earthquake. A 5-in.-wide plate, which is slightly
larger than half of the girder flange width, was selected in
compliance with the requirements of t b 1.79 Fy E and
b bgf 3 tp 2 contained in AISC (1999a) (see Figure 3).
In addition, 1 in. clips were provided to avoid interference
with the fillet welds connecting the doubler plates to the
column flanges.
Panel Zone Design
As one focus of the cruciform tests is to investigate the design
provisions for panel zones and column stiffeners and to test
new stiffening alternatives, the panel zones were designed
with the intent to exceed the shear deformation of 4y, where
196 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
y is the panel zone shear yield strain. The design shear deformation
level of 4y was suggested by Krawinkler et al.
(1971) and Krawinkler (1978) and is implied in the AISC
nonseismic and seismic panel zone design equations (AISC,
1999a; AISC, 2002). Designing the specimens with relatively
weak panel zones ensures that all column reinforcement
details are rigorously tested through large localized cyclic
strains, and provides a means for evaluating the strength of
the panel zone at the level of design deformation.
It is also desirable, however, to ensure the panel zones are
strong enough to allow for development of the plastic moment
strength of the girders. This is necessary to develop
large girder flange forces, thereby placing high force demands
on the column flanges and continuity plates. To meet
this balance of girder and panel zone strength, a method of
estimating the relative strengths was used for the design of
panel zones in this experimental study. The quantity of most
interest for the purpose of the panel zone design was the
ratio of nominal panel zone strength (Pz) to nominal girder
strength (Pg). These strengths were calculated as the total
girder tip loads required to reach the strength level under
consideration, and are given by
P
Fdt
bt
ddt
L
d
Lz
yc c p
cf cf
gcp
g
g







061
32
.
gc
c
d
L



/
2
(15)
P
ZF
Lg
g yg
g

2
(16)
where
Lg = girder length between load pin and column
face
Lc = column length between top and bottom load
pins
These equations are similar to those used by El-Tawil et al.
(1998) to make strength ratio comparisons in their parametric
finite element studies. In Equation 15, the panel zone strength
is based on the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997a,
1999b, 2000, 2002) with a resistance factor of v = 1.0. The
girder strength presented in Equation 16 is calculated from the
summation of the girder plastic moments at the column face.
A baseline value of Pz /Pg equal to 1.0 was targeted for the
design of the panel zones. This implies that the panel zone
strength (at an average shear distortion of 4y) is achieved at
the same time the girders reach their plastic moment capacities.
By selecting this ratio, the intent is to achieve the goals
of exceeding both plastic moment Mp in the girders and
shear distortion of 4y in the panel zones. Table 2 expresses
the panel zone strengths of the tested six specimens in terms
of Pz /Pg ratio (using both the nominal and measured material
strengths; the coupon test results of the material are presented
in a later section), the vRv /Ru ratio [based on the AISC
Seismic Provisions (2002) and nominal material properties],
and the tp /treq ratio [where treq was calculated from FEMA
(2000a) using nominal material properties]. The panel zone
required strength, Ru, was calculated from Equation 10.
As shown in Table 2, significant deviations from the target
Pz /Pg were made for Specimens CR4 and CR4R. These
specimens feature the box (offset) doubler plate detail, and
it was expected that this type of detail would be less than
fully effective, based on the results of Bertero et al. (1973).
Thus, the doubler plates provided were approximately 30%
thicker than those of Specimen CR3, which has the same
W2494 girder section and W14176 column section. The
capacity-to-demand ratios given in Table 2 for AISC (2002)
and FEMA 350 (FEMA, 2000a) procedures reveal that the
panel zones of most of the specimens are weak.
Description of Test Specimens
Table 3 presents the design strength-to-demand ratios using
nominal material properties for the LFB, LWY, and panel
zone limit states using various methods of required strength
Table 2. Comparison of Panel Zone Strengths
Specimen
Pz /Pg
(nominal)
Pz /Pg
(measured)
vRv /Ru
(AISC)
tp /treq
(FEMA 350)
CR1 1.02 1.05 0.72 0.61
CR2 0.93 0.99 0.66 0.67
CR3 1.05 1.12 0.74 0.79
CR4 1.31 1.49 0.93 1.01
CR4R 1.31 1.47 0.93 1.01
CR5 1.04 1.21 0.74 0.82
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 197
calculations; in other words, using Equations 4 through 7.
The design strengths shown for LFB and LWY are the design
strengths of the column shape alone and do not include
the column reinforcement, if any. Also shown in Table 3 are
the column-girder moment ratios calculated from the 2002
AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002), assuming no axial
compression in the column. In this table, the panel zone
capacity-to-demand ratios presented in Table 2 are repeated
for the comparison with other column reinforcement design
criteria. As mentioned above, panel zone strengths are based
on the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997a, 1999b, 2000,
2002), with a resistance factor of v = 1.0, while the LFB
and LWY strengths are based on the AISC LRFD Specification
(AISC, 1993, 1999a). Table 3 shows that Equations 5 and
6 provide similar required strength values. Key aspects of
the specimens are discussed below, focusing on the details
of the column stiffening and the limit states targeted in
each test.
Specimen CR1 represents a relatively large, unreinforced
interior connection with a relatively weak panel zone. It is
intended primarily to study the panel zone strength provision
for thick column flanges. The relatively thick column
flange of 2.07 in. coupled with the unreinforced panel zone
results in a post-elastic panel zone strength contribution of
approximately 40% in Equation 8. This specimen meets the
Strong Column-Weak Beam (SCWB) criteria of the 2002
AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002), also shown in Table
3 in the first column. No continuity plates are needed as per
the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) (in other
words, using Equation 5) or the AISC Design Guide No. 13
(AISC, 1999c) (in other words, using Equation 6).
Specimen CR1 is also intended to show that continuity plates
are not necessarily needed for all seismic moment connection
details.
Specimen CR2 represents a moderately-sized, reinforced
interior connection with a single-sided doubler plate. It is
intended primarily as a verification of the LFB criteria of the
1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC
Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c). This specimen is also
intended to confirm that continuity plates are not always
needed for seismic moment connections. A relatively weak
panel zone, similar to Specimen CR1, is provided. A squarecut
fillet-welded doubler plate detail (Detail II) is utilized.
The SCWB moment ratio is close to unity in Specimen CR2.
The presence of the doubler plate and thinner column flanges
reduces the value of the post-elastic panel zone strength
contribution in Equation 8 to approximately 17%.
Specimen CR3 represents a moderately-sized, reinforced
interior connection with both doubler plates and continuity
plates. This is the second test of doubler plate Detail II.
Specimen CR3 requires continuity plates as per the 1992
AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC Design
Guide No. 13 (1999c), and is intended to show that a
fillet-welded continuity plate detail using a continuity plate
that is approximately half as thick as the girder flange can
perform satisfactorily in cyclic loading applications. The
nominal strength of this continuity plate, computed as
2 2 2 0 9 50 0 5 5 0 1 0 t n t g y P A F 

. . . . 180 kips
was approximately 30% less than the required strength:
1.8FygAgf 6.25tc2f Fyc 1.8509.070.8750 9. 1.8FygAgf 6.25tc2f Fyc 1.8509.070.8750 96 251
3150232 2 . . .
1.8FygAgf 6.25tc2f Fyc 1.8509.070.8750 96 251 3150232 2 . . . kips
(The nominal strength is approximately equal to the required
strength with a factor of 1.0 used for local flange bending).
The value of 1.0 in the parenthetical difference term
Table 3. Nominal Capacity/Demand Ratios of PZ Yielding, LFB and LWY Limit States
Specimen
M
M
pc
pb
*
*



(AISC)
PZ
vRv /Ru
(AISC)
LFB Rn /Ru LWY Rn /Ru
Eq. 4a Eq. 5a Eq. 6a Eq. 7a Eq. 4a Eq. 5a Eq. 6a Eq. 7a
CR1 1.50 0.72 3.04 (3.38)b 1.69 (1.88) 1.64 (1.82) 2.51 (2.78) 2.38 1.32 1.29 1.97
CR2 0.99 0.66 1.47 (1.63) 0.82 (0.91) 0.80 (0.89) 1.22 (1.36) 2.20 1.22 1.19 1.82
CR3 0.89 0.74 1.22 (1.36) 0.68 (0.76) 0.66 (0.73) 1.01 (1.12) 2.51 1.39 1.36 2.07
CR4 (&CR4R) 0.89 0.93 1.22 (1.36) 0.68 (0.76) 0.66 (0.73) 1.01 (1.12) 3.19 1.77 1.73 2.64
CR5 0.73 0.74 0.84 (0.93) 0.47 (0.52) 0.46 (0.51) 0.70 (0.78) 2.34 1.30 1.27 1.94
a Equation used to calculate demand, Ru.
b Values in parentheses reflect use of = 1.0.
198 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
accounts for 1 in. clips in the continuity plate. The SCWB
moment ratio is lower than unity in this specimen. The panel
zone strength is similar to Specimens CR1 and CR2. Because
of the thinner column flanges and heavier panel zone
reinforcement as compared with the preceding two specimens,
the predicted post-elastic strength of the panel zone is
reduced to approximately 12%.
Specimen CR4 (and CR4R) represents a moderately
sized, reinforced interior connection with relatively heavy
panel zone reinforcement using the box (offset) detail and
no continuity plates in a situation in which continuity plates
would be required according to the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC, 1992) and the AISC Design Guide No. 13
(AISC, 1999c). Doubler plate Detail III is used as the column
reinforcement of this specimen in order to investigate
the feasibility of this detail to resist both panel zone shear and
column local flange bending. Unlike the other specimens, a
relatively strong panel zone is provided, based on the recommendations
of Bertero et al. (1973) on a similar stiffening
detail tested on a smaller column size. The panel zone design
thus meets the requirements of FEMA (2000a) (in other
words, the panel zone thickness is larger than that calculated
by Equation 13), although it is just below the design strength
from AISC (2002). As with Specimen CR3, this specimen
does not meet the SCWB criteria of AISC (2002) for the
case of no axial compression. The thick doubler plates result
in a post-elastic panel zone strength contribution just below
10%.
Specimen CR5 represents the smallest column section
tested, with fillet-welded doubler plates and no continuity
plates. Doubler plate Detail I, the back-beveled fillet-welded
detail, is tested in Specimen CR5. This specimen requires
continuity plates as per the nonseismic and seismic (AISC,
1999a; AISC, 1992, 1999c) design requirements [in other
words, LFB, Rn /Ru = 0.84 as per AISC (1999a), Rn /Ru =
0.47 as per AISC (1992), and Rn /Ru = 0.46 as per AISC
(1999c)], but no continuity plates were used. While tested
cyclically, the nonseismic details of this specimen (in other
words, lack of continuity plates) were intended to investigate
the LFB design criteria of the AISC LRFD Specification
(1999a) as well as to provide further evidence that continuity
plates may not be required in all seismic moment connections.
The panel zone strength is similar to Specimens CR1,
CR2, and CR3. Because a smaller column was needed to
breach the nonseismic LFB limits, the SCWB moment ratio
is much lower than unity in Specimen CR5. A post-elastic
panel zone strength contribution of approximately 8% is calculated
for this specimen from Equation 8.
Weld Details
The weld details were as recommended in FEMA (2000a)
for the WUF-W connection, as modified in connections tested
by Ricles et al. (2002a, 2002b). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate
the typical connection welding details used to fabricate the
specimens in this experimental study (represented by the details
for Specimens CR1 and CR3, respectively). All welding
was done with the Flux-Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) process.
The welding was done in two stages, with shop welds
made at the fabricator and field welds made in the Structural
Engineering Laboratory at the University of Minnesota by
experienced erection welders.
E70T-1 (Lincoln Outershield 70) wire with 100% O2
shielding gas was used for all shop welding, including the
shear tab welding to the column flange (see Figure 2), the
welding of the doubler plates (see Figure 3), and the welding
of the continuity plates (see Figure 3). The notch toughness
of the E70T-1 wire is required by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995)
to be 20 ft-lb at 0 F and, according to the Lincoln Electric
product family literature, the typical values for Outershield
70 are 23 ft-lb at –20 F and 28 ft-lb at 0 F (Lincoln Electric
Company, 2003). The shear tab was welded using 4 in.
fillet welds on each side of the plate, although this deviated
from the recommended WUF-W connection welding details,
which require partial-joint-penetration (PJP) groove welds at
this location.
The field welds were made with the self-shielded FCAW
process. The girder flange-to-column flange CJP groove
welds were made in the flat position with E70T-6 (Lincoln
Innershield NR-305) wire. Welds made with E70T-6 wire
are required by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995) and AISC (2002)
to have notch toughness of 20 ft-lb at –20 F and 40 ft-lb
at 70 F. FEMA (2000a) has recommended minimum notch
toughness requirements at two temperatures, 20 ft-lb at
0 F and 40 ft-lb at 70 F. According to the Lincoln Electric
Company product family literature (Lincoln Electric Company,
2004), the typical values for NR-305 are 21 to 35 ft-lb
at –20 F and 21 to 54 ft-lb at 0 F.
For the first two specimens that were fabricated (in other
words, Specimens CR1 and CR4), 5/64-in.-diameter NR-305
wire was used for girder flange-to-column flange CJP groove
welds. However, this wire and the weld procedures were subsequently
found to produce weld metal with only 2 to 3 ft-lb
at 0 F that did not meet the FEMA (2000a) recommended
minimum notch toughness requirements [a discussion of the
possible causes for this low toughness is presented in Lee et
al. (2002)]. For this reason, for the remaining specimens, it
was decided to use a lot of NR-305 weld wire with W-in.-
diameter that was previously characterized by the Edison
Welding Institute (EWI) and was known to have good
notch toughness (Lee et al., 2002). This particular lot of
W-in.-diameter NR-305 wire was used for the CJP welds in
Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5. In addition, as shown
in Table 4, different welding equipment and procedures were
also used for the remaining specimens. All CJP welds were
ultrasonically tested by a certified inspector in conformance
with Table 6.3 of AWS D1.1-2000 (AWS, 2000) for cyclically
loaded joints.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 199
The out-of-position field welds, including the CJP welds
connecting the girder web to the column flange and all
reinforcing fillet welds were made with 0.068 in. diameter
E71T-8 (Lincoln Innershield NR-203MP) wire for Specimens
CR1 and CR4, and 5/64-in.-diameter E71T-8 (Lincoln
Innershield NR-232) wire for the other specimens (see
Figure 2). Welds made with E71T-8 wire are required
by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995) to have notch toughness of
20 ft-lb at –20 F. According to the Lincoln Electric Company
product family literature (Lincoln Electric Company,
2004), the typical values for NR-203MP are 50 to 200 ft-lb
at –20 F and the typical values for NR-232 are 20 to
69 ft-lb at –20 F.
As shown in Figure 4, the shear tab was designed to extend
approximately 0.25 in. into the top and bottom access
holes and acted as the backing bar for the CJP welds of the
girder web to the column flange. This extension acted as a
short runoff tab, allowing the weld to extend the full depth
of the girder web. Ricles et al. (2002a, 2002b) recommended
that these runoff tabs of the vertical web weld be ground
smooth, which is labor intensive. Since it was felt that this
might not be necessary, these runoff tabs were not ground
smooth in the specimens tested in the present study.
As shown in Figure 2, c in. reinforcing fillet welds were
placed under the top girder flange backing bar and below the
back-gouged region under the bottom girder flange. Supplemental
fillet welds were also provided between the shear tab
and girder web, with c in. fillet welds being placed along
the full height of the shear tab using the E71T-8 wire.
Weld Access Hole Detail
The weld access holes for the test specimens were designed
based on the research of Mao, Ricles, Lu and Fisher (2001)
and Ricles et al. (2002a, 2002b) and are similar to those
shown in AISC (2002). Figure 4 illustrates the dimensions
of the access hole used in this experimental study. The key
parameter in this type of access hole is the slope of the flat
transition region between the girder flange and the drilled
Table 4. Summary of Parameters Used for CJP Welds
CR1 CR4 CR2 CR3 CR4R CR5
Electrode Manufacturer Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln
Trade Name NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305
AWS Designation E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6
Electrode Type FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s
Electrode Diameter (in.) 5/64
5/64
3/32
3/32
3/32
3/32
Power Supply
Miller
Maxtron 450
Miller
Inverter
Lincoln
DC-600
Lincoln
DC-600
Lincoln
DC-600
Lincoln
DC-600
Wire Feeder
Miller
S-64
Lincoln
LN-25
Lincoln
LN-10
Lincoln
LN-10
Lincoln
LN-10
Lincoln
LN-10
Voltage (V) 28.5–29.5 29–30 26–28 26–28 26–28 26–28
WFS (ipm) 380 380 280 280 280 280
Current (A) 430–460 330–380 470–500 470–500 470–500 470–500
Preheat (F) 150 min. 150 min. 50 min. 50 min. 50 min. 50 min.
Interpass (F) 150 min. 150 min. 50 min. 50 min. 50 min. 50 min.
Electrode Extension (in.) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Travel Speed (ipm) 10–15 10–15 10–15 10–15 10–15 10–15
Fig. 4. Weld access hole detail.
200 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
Table 5. W-Shape Tensile Properties
W2494 flange
(All Girders Except CR3)
W2494 web
(All Girders Except CR3)
W2494 flange
(CR3 Girder)
W2494 web
(CR3 Girder)
W14283 flange
(CR1 Column)
W14283 web
(CR1 Column)
W14193 flange
(CR2 Column)
W14193 web
(CR2 Column)
W14176 flange
(CR3 & CR4 Column)
W14176 web
(CR3 & CR4 Column)
W14176 flange
(CR4R Column)
W14176 web
(CR4R Column)
W14145 flange
(CR5 Column)
W14145 web
(CR5 Column)
Coupon Test Results
Fy,dyn (ksi) 50.6 59.7 54.3 60.0 50.7 52.3 50.1 54.0 55.2 57.5 54.3 56.8 56.6 58.7
Fy,st (ksi) 46.4 55.0 NA NA 47.8 48.8 46.4 49.8 51.8 53.6 NA NA 52.9 54.8
Fu (ksi) 69.2 74.1 72.3 7 6.0 73.1 72.6 72.2 72.4 76.6 76.1 73.8 74.3 77.2 77.2
E x 103 (ksi) 28.3 29.5 NA NA 28.2 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.5 29.8 NA NA 29.1 29.4
Esh (ksi) 535 272 NA NA 636 572 572 479 564 486 NA NA 507 500
Y/T (%) 73.1 80.6 75.1 78.9 69.1 72.0 69.4 74.6 72.1 75.5 73.6 76.4 73.3 76.1
% Elong. 30.7 25.0 34.5 83.5 31.3 29.7 31.8 28.0 29.0 27.1 34.0 34.0 27.0 26.1
Mill Test Results
Fy (ksi) 50.0 NA 54.0 54.5 57.0 55.0 57.5
Fu (ksi) 68.5 NA 73.5 74.0 76.0 72.0 76.5
% Elong. 27.5 NA 22.0 25.5 25.0 27.0 21.5
Table 6. Plate Material Tensile Properties
Plate Thickness Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) % Elongation
1/2 in. (CR3) NA NA NA
5/8 in.a (CR2 & CR5) 62.0 81.0 34.0
5/8 in.b (CR2 & CR5) 57.8 81.0 80.5
3/4 in.b (CR4) 48.8 73.2 33.8
3/4 in.b (CR4R) 57.5 77.3 31.0
a Properties obtained from mill test report.
b Properties obtained from coupon test.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 201
hole. A shallow slope reduces the plastic strain demand at
the toe of the transition (Mao et al., 2001), delaying the
onset of low cycle fatigue (LCF) cracks at this location.
Using the dimensions of the access hole shown in Figure
4, a slope of 15 degrees was provided for the test specimens.
As mentioned above, the runoff tabs were not ground
smooth as they were in the specimens tested by Ricles et al.
(2002a, 2002b).
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND TEST SETUP
Material testing was performed on all wide-flange shapes
and available stiffener plates used for the test specimens.
All rolled sections were fabricated from ASTM A992 wideflange
sections, and ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel was selected
for all stiffener materials. For each W-section, two coupons
were taken from the flanges and two from the web. The edge
of web coupons was taken no closer than 2 in. from the
k-line, as recommended in the SAC (1997) testing protocol.
For each thickness of the stiffener plate, when the materials
were available, two or three coupons were prepared and tested.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the tensile test results (average
values of the coupons are shown) and mill certificate values
for the W-shapes and the stiffener plates. The ASTM specification
for A992 steel specifies the yield strength between
50 and 65 ksi, a minimum tensile strength of 65 ksi, a maximum
Y/T of 0.85, and a minimum elongation of 18%. Referring
to Table 5, all shapes met these requirements of the
ASTM specification when the dynamic (0.2% offset) yield
strength values are used.
In order to verify the material properties of the girder
flange-to-column flange CJP welds, one weld test plate was
made as per Figure 2A of AWS A5.20-95 (AWS, 1995)
for Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 at the time of
the connection welding. The test results, which followed
ASTM E23 for the Charpy V-Notch (CVN) impact test
and ASTM E8 for the tensile coupon test, are presented in
Table 7. Table 7 also shows the CVN test results for Specimens
CR1 and CR4. These CVN specimens were machined
from one of the girder flange-to-column flange groove welds
that showed no signs of fracture after the test. Specimens
CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 satisfied the minimum requirements
discussed in FEMA (2000a), in other words, filler
metals providing CVN toughness of 20 ft-lbs at 0 F and 40
ft-lb at 70 F, minimum tensile strength above 70 ksi, and
elongation above 22%. As shown in Table 7, however, only
the CJP welds in Specimen CR2 satisfied the supplemental
requirements in FEMA (2000b) of the minimum filler metal
yield strength of 58 ksi.
Figure 5 shows a schematic of the test setup. The load pins
placed at the top and bottom of the column were designed to
allow free rotation of the column ends during loading, simulating
inflection points at the mid-height of the column in
steel moment frames. The total length of the column was
171 in., measured to the pin centerlines. Each girder length,
measured from the centerline of the column to the centerline
of the actuator attachment, was 140 in. The effective length
of the girders measured from the face of the column to the
point of load application was approximately 132 in. For the
W2494 girders, this effective length requires approximately
96 kips of load to reach the nominal plastic moment strength
of 12,700 kip-in.
Four bracing members, not shown in Figure 5, were attached
to the diagonal load frame members to restrict the
out-of-plane deformation of the girders due to lateraltorsional
buckling. These braces were placed approximately
95 in. from the column face on both sides. This is in accordance
with the AISC Seismic Provisions (2002) which,
for the W2494 section, limits the unbraced length to 0.086
ry Es /Fy = 98.8 in.
Quasi-static, anti-symmetric, cyclic loads were applied
to the girder tips by using four MTS hydraulic actuators, in
other words, two actuators for each side. Each actuator was
capable of 77 kips at a stroke of +/– 6.0 in. The SAC (1997)
Table 7. Tested Weld Material Properties (E70T-6 only)
E70T-6a
5/64 in. wire
E70T-6
3/32 in. wire
CR1a CR4a CR2 CR3 CR4R CR5
CVN @ 0 F (ft-lb) 2.6 2.0 34.3 44.3 33.0 33.0
CVN @ 70 F (ft-lb) 19.3 2.3 54.3 73.3 58.7 53.7
Fy (ksi) NA NA 59.5 50.0 56.0 53.5
Fu (ksi) NA NA 79.5 72.5 78.2 75.5
% Elongation NA NA 25.0 23.0 27.5 26.0
aFor Specimens CR1 and CR4, the CVN tests were performed on specimens machined after the experiment from the welds that did
not fracture in the cruciform joints.
202 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
loading history was applied to ensure results could be compared
to numerous other SAC girder-to-column tests conducted,
in which six cycles were applied at each interstory
drift level of 0.375%, 0.5%, and 0.75%, and four cycles were
applied at 1.0% interstory drift level, and two cycles were
applied at each interstory drift level of 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%,
and 4.0%. Completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift
also satisfies the loading sequence requirement for qualifying
beam-to-column connections according to AISC (2002).
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All specimens, excluding Specimen CR4, completed the SAC
(1997) loading history up to 4.0% interstory drift without
noticeable strength degradation. The plots of moment versus
total plastic rotation for one representative connection from
each of the five specimens are presented in Figures 6 through
10. After completing the two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift
required by the SAC (1997) protocol, additional 4.0% interstory
drift cycles were applied until each specimen failed.
Specimens CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4R were subjected to
14, 16, 14, and 12 cycles, respectively, before significant
strength degradation was noticed. It cannot be determined
that there is any significance to the variation in number of
cycles in the range from 12 to 16 cycles. Thus, it can be
assumed that these four specimens performed equally well.
Specimen CR5 also performed satisfactorily, completing
six cycles at 4.0% interstory drift even though the column
stiffeners of this specimen were significantly underdesigned
as per the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997a, 2002) and the
AISC LRFD Specification (1993, 1999a).
In these five successful tests, the primary failure mode
was low cycle fatigue cracking and rupturing near the girder
flange-to-column flange junction region. Visible cracking
in the connections typically first occurred at the top or bottom
edge of the shear tab in the 4.0% interstory drift cycles
in some specimens (and in the second cycle at 2.0% interstory
drift in Specimen CR5), but the connections suffered
no strength degradation until the girder flanges were locally
buckled or until the low cycle fatigue cracks in the girder
flange were significant after several 4.0% drift cycles. Except
for Specimen CR5, the initial girder flange cracks in these
specimens originated in the center of girder flange width (in
both the top and bottom flanges in the various specimens) at
the toe of the girder-to-column fillet welds that reinforced
the topside of the CJP welds. This initiation occurred visibly
in the 3.0% interstory drift cycles for Specimens CR2 (second
cycle), CR3 (second cycle), and CR5 (first cycle), in the
4.0% interstory drift in Specimens CR1 (eleventh cycle) and
Fig. 5. Experimental test setup.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 203
CR4R (second cycle). However, as discussed previously and
seen in Figures 6 through 10, no strength degradation occurred
until these cracks started propagating, which occurred
after several cycles at 4.0% interstory drift. A typical girder
flange failure, from Specimen CR2, is shown in Figure 11.
On the other hand, as shown in Figure 12, the major crack
in Specimen CR5 was observed in the middle of the CJP
welds instead of at the toe of the CJP welds. Details of
the progression of failure in each specimen are given in
Lee et al. (2002).
Finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted on the five
cruciform specimens for comparison to the experimental results.
A detailed discussion of the models and results can be
found in Ye et al. (2000). For computational efficiency, half
of each specimen was modeled, using the mid-plane of the
girder and column webs as a plane of symmetry. The nominal
Fig. 6. Moment versus total plastic rotation for Specimen CR1
(East connection).
Fig. 7. Moment versus total plastic rotation for Specimen CR2
(West connection).
Fig. 8. Moment versus total plastic rotation for Specimen CR3
(East connection).
Fig. 9. Moment versus total plastic rotation for Specimen CR4R
(East connection).
Fig. 10. Moment versus total plastic rotation for Specimen CR5
(West connection).
204 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
Fig. 11. Typical low cycle fatigue (LCF) rupture in cruciform specimens (Specimen CR2).
Fig. 12. Low cycle fatigue (LCF) rupture in Specimen CR5.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 205
dimensions of all shapes were used to construct the models.
Eight-node solid elements were used in the connection region,
while two-node beam elements were used for the portions
of girders and columns expected to remain elastic. Four
layers of solid elements were used through the thickness of
the girder flanges, girder webs, and column webs. Three layers
were used through the thickness of the column flanges.
Smaller element sizes were used in the connection regions in
areas of expected high stress and strain gradients. The welds
connecting the girder flanges and web to the column, as well
as all stiffener welds, were explicitly modeled. Meshes were
refined until convergence was seen in the results. A displacement
controlled, antisymmetric load history was applied to
the ends of the girders. For computational efficiency, monotonic
displacements were applied to the girders at the same
drift increments as used in the experiments and specified by
the SAC (1997) protocol.
The yield and tensile strength properties used in the models
from Ye et al. (2000) were taken from mill report data.
The shape of the stress-strain curve was based on a study by
Frank (1999), and included a yield plateau at the measured
dynamic yield stress, Fy, a strain-hardening region spanning
from 8.73 to 86.2 times the corresponding yield strain, followed
by a plateau at the measured tensile strength, Fu. The
static, nonlinear analyses were conducted accounting for
both material and geometric nonlinearity. Figure 13 shows a
typical comparison of results from the FEA as compared to
the backbone of the experimental results for the East girder
of Specimen CR3, plotting plastic rotation versus moment in
the girder at the column face. These plots reveal the typically
strong correlation between the experimental and computational
results. Nonlinearity was observed earlier in the tests
than predicted by the numerical analysis, possibly due to
residual stress effects, which were not modeled in the FEA.
The loads from the FEA are also somewhat under-predicted
at larger drift levels, most likely due to the effects of cyclic
strain hardening that were also not modeled in the monotonic
analyses.
Brittle Failure in Specimen CR4
Specimen CR4 exhibited premature brittle failure in three of
four girder flange-to-column flange CJP welds in the early
stage of the SAC (1997) loading history. The test of Specimen
CR4 was stopped after one-half cycle at 2.0% interstory
drift due to the fracturing of these three girder flange welds.
The welds were sectioned and polished and the sections
and fracture surfaces were examined using a light microscope
and scanning electron microscope (Lee et al., 2002).
Charpy specimens and samples for chemical analysis were
extracted from the welds. It was found that this specimen
was unintentionally prepared with low toughness weld metal,
having an average of 2.0 ft-lb at 0 F and 2.3 ft-lb at
70 F as shown in Table 7. In contrast, the FEMA (2000a)
recommendations require 20 ft-lb at 0 F and 40 ft-lb at
70 F as a minimum notch toughness. The welds produced
for the AWS Certificate of Conformance for this filler metal
met the minimum toughness requirement of AWS A5.20
(AWS, 1995) of 20 ft-lb at –20 F (Lincoln Electric Co.,
1999).
Specimen CR4R was essentially a replicate test of Specimen
CR4, except that the batch of weld metal used for
Specimen CR4R met the minimum requirements of FEMA
(2000a). In contrast to the performance of Specimen CR4,
Specimen CR4R not only performed acceptably according
to the SAC (1997) requirements, it performed as well as any
of the other specimens successfully tested in this experimental
study. This result is an example of the importance of
weld metal notch toughness in achieving good seismic performance
of groove-welded (fully restrained) connections.
The fact that the box (offset) doubler plate detail performed
well in Specimen CR4R indicates that the detail itself was
probably not a factor in the fracture that occurred in Specimen
CR4. These results also indicate that the relatively high
stiffness of the panel zone in Specimen CR4 and CR4R
was probably not a factor in the premature fractures in
Specimen CR4.
Weld Metal Notch Toughness
Following the premature brittle failure in Specimen CR4, it
was found that the previously tested Specimen CR1 also had
relatively low weld-metal notch toughness, with an average
of 2.6 ft-lb at 0 F and 19.3 ft-lb at 70 F as presented in
Table 7. Specimen CR1, which was welded using the same
wire and the similar welding unit as Specimen CR4 (see Table
4), performed very well, experiencing 14 cycles of 4.0%
Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and FEA girder moment
versus plastic rotation for Specimen CR3.
206 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
interstory drift before the significant strength degradation. If
the difference in the column stiffening between Specimens
CR1 and CR4 is not a factor in the fracture of Specimen
CR4, then the better performance of Specimen CR1 shows
that the marginal difference in notch toughness between
this specimen and Specimen CR4 may be sufficient to resist
fracture. Thus, these two experiments have potentially
closely bounded the approximate minimum notch toughness
required for adequate performance of CJP welds.
In addition to this investigation of these brittle fractures
(Lee et al., 2002), an outside group commissioned by AISC
also investigated the fracture (Barsom and Pellegrino, 2001).
At the end of these investigations, no definitive conclusions
were obtained explaining the reason for the low toughness of
the welds of both specimens.
Based on these results, further evaluation of the present
weld toughness criteria is suggested. It is believed that the
SAC requirements (FEMA, 2000a) for minimum toughness
are adequate, provided they can be consistently met.
The acceptable results of Specimen CR1, despite toughness
below the specified minimums, are encouraging in this
regard. FEMA (2000b) requires toughness testing on each
production lot of the specified filler metal. However, upon
approval of the Engineer, this requirement may be waived
and the consumable manufacturer’s certification testing may
be used to verify the material’s suitability (FEMA, 2000b).
The certification testing need only be conducted once per
year on a single production lot of the particular electrode.
As described above, the 5/64-in.-diameter E70T-6 produced
in 1999 had been certified by the manufacturer as meeting
the minimum 20 ft-lb at –20 F required by the AWS certification
test (AWS, 1995).
Doubler Plate Detail
This test program featured a range of doubler plate details.
Three different doubler plate details, presented in Figure 1,
were tested under excessive strain demand conditions developed
by large girder flange forces coupled with large panel
zone deformations. Specimen CR5, reinforced by doubler
plate Detail I (back-beveled fillet-welded detail), satisfactorily
completed the SAC (1997) loading history. Specimens
CR2 and CR3 showed better cyclic connection performance,
when compared with the test results of Specimen CR5, with
the doubler plate Detail II (square-cut fillet-welded detail),
although the column flanges and panel zones in general were
stronger in these specimens, which more likely contributed
to the difference in performance. In addition, the comparable
performance of Specimen CR4R relative to Specimen CR3,
which consisted of the same girder and column sizes, showed
that the doubler plate Detail III (box detail) can also provide
a similarly ductile connection performance and is equally
effective in functioning as continuity plates. This finding
was also indicated in the pull-plate tests conducted as part
of this research (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al., 2003),
and the cruciform tests verify that cyclic loading test does
not change those conclusions. Within the limited number of
experiments, it has been found that the above three different
variations had no significant impact on the cyclic connection
performance. Thus, it cannot be concluded that any of those
details are more advantageous. Instead, the most economical
detail may be recommended.
Continuity Plate Detail
The continuity plates of Specimen CR3 were heavily instrumented
and largely showed strains below yield for the full
loading history. Figure 14 shows some of the largest strain
magnitudes achieved, measuring strain in the continuity
plate in a direction parallel to the column web at a location
close to the fillet weld to the column flange, opposite the
east top girder flange when that girder flange was in compression.
At 4.0% interstory drift, some yielding was just
beginning (strains just greater than 0.2%) on the continuity
plate near the 1 in. clip (see Figure 3). Note that because of
the clip, this cross section of the continuity plate has reduced
area relative to the remainder of the continuity plate, which
remained elastic.
While the multi-axial strain state in a continuity plate is
complex, these results imply that the plastic moment may
be achieved in the girder without significantly yielding the
continuity plate. The fact that this specimen performed well
provides two important conclusions. First, when continuity
plates are used, it should not be necessary to use full thickness
continuity plates that are groove-welded to the column
flanges. Second, the use of smaller fillet-weld sizes is feasible
for attaching thinner continuity plates to the column
flanges. For Specimen CR3, only a in. fillet welds on each
side were required to connect the 2 in. continuity plates to
Fig. 14. Strain distribution in Specimen CR3 continuity plate close
to flange fillet weld (East girder top flange in compression).
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 207
the column flanges, and c in. fillet welds were required to
connect to the doubler plates (see Figure 3). Fillet welds,
especially relatively small fillet welds such as these, pose a
less significant risk of causing k-area cracking in the column
due to the lower restraint and resultant tensile residual stress.
It is thus proposed that it may be sufficient to design the continuity
plate size and associated fillet welds using procedures
given in the AISC Design Guide No.13 for both nonseismic
and seismic design (AISC, 1999c).
Previously reported pull-plate tests performed as part of
this project (Prochnow et al., 2000; Prochnow et al., 2002;
Hajjar et al., 2003) also support these conclusions. Two pull
plate specimens with continuity plates that were only half
as thick as the pull plates and were fillet-welded to both the
column web and flanges performed satisfactorily, and performed
as well as full-thickness groove welded continuity
plates. The half-thickness continuity plates did not yield
across the entire full-width region of the plates, and the
plates effectively restrained the column section from excessive
web yielding or flange bending. The fillet welds made
with an E70T-1 electrode did not fracture.
The 1999 AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999a) explicitly
requires that the fillet welds develop the full strength
of the continuity plate. This implies that the welds are required
to essentially remain elastic when the plate is fully
plastified. In this way, it is assured that the fillet welds are
not the weak link in the column details. Although the fillet
welds in these test specimens were designed for this criterion,
the fact that the continuity plates are not fully plastified
across their gross section indicates that the fillet welds need
not necessarily develop the full plastic strength of the continuity
plate. This issue often arises when continuity plates
are sized greater than they need to be for LFB, to use a particular
standard thickness for example or to accommodate a
weak axis connection. In these cases the continuity plate will
clearly not be yielded and the welds need not develop the
full plate strength but rather need only to provide strength
greater than the difference between the required strength and
the LFB design strength of the flanges without continuity
plates (accounting appropriately for stresses induced by a
weak axis connection as well).
Strain Distribution in Girder Flange
To understand the complex stress and strain distributions and
force flows near the girder-to-column junction, the distributions
of strains in the longitudinal direction of girder flanges
near the CJP welds were investigated (Lee et al., 2002). In
all five successfully tested specimens, the maximum longitudinal
tensile strains measured in the middle of the West
girder top flanges were within the range of 19,000 to 26,500
at the first peak of 4.0% interstory drift. Similarly, the
maximum longitudinal tensile strains in the middle of the
East girder bottom flange were within the range of 10,000 to
33,000 at the first peak at 4.0% interstory drift. Figure 15
shows typical strain gradients in the East girder bottom
flange in Specimens CR2 and CR3, without and with continuity
plates, respectively. In Figure 15a, finite element results
are shown for interstory drift levels of 2.0% and 4.0%.
At 4.0% interstory drift, the computed strains agree fairly
well with the measured strains. However, the computed
strains were somewhat higher than measured strains at 2.0%
interstory drift.
Although the peak strain levels are about the same, Specimens
CR3 and CR4R (not shown in the figure) showed relatively
lower strain gradients along the girder flange width
at higher drifts as compared with the other three specimens.
It is believed that the trend towards having lower strain
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15. Longitudinal strain on East girder bottom flange near
column flange CJP weld (girder flange in tension):
(a) Specimen CR2; (b) Specimen CR3.
208 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
gradients in Specimens CR3 and CR4R girder flanges is primarily
due to their column reinforcement details. These results
reinforce that both the half-thickness continuity plates
(in the case of Specimen CR3) and the box (offset) doubler
plate detail (in the case of Specimen CR4R) are effective
as column stiffeners to mitigate the local flange bending in
column flanges.
However, while the general trends in the results are as
discussed above, Figure 15 shows that the actual difference
in strain gradients between a specimen with and without
a stiffened flange may often be subtle. For example,
Specimen CR1 had low notch toughness [far less than the
FEMA (2000a) requirements], yet the high strain gradient
did not cause a brittle fracture. In addition, a low-cycle fatigue
crack in the girder flange-to-column flange CJP weld
of Specimens CR2, CR3 and CR5 developed in the 3.0%
interstory drift rather than in the 4.0% interstory drift cycles
as in Specimens CR1 and CR4R, although the specimens
showed no detrimental behavior in connection performance
until several cycles at 4.0% interstory drift were achieved,
as discussed above. However, the strain gradient was also
worse in the West girder top flange of Specimen CR1 than in
Specimen CR2 (not shown in the figure), whereas Specimen
CR1 did not require continuity plates and Specimen CR2
did, based upon the seismic girder required strength. Therefore,
some of the variation in the strain gradient among the
different specimens may be somewhat random, based upon
local residual stresses, etc., and this research indicates that
having a strain gradient in the girder flange does not necessarily
precipitate premature fracture. These results provide
evidence that if a column flange is sufficiently thick, such
as for Specimen CR1, continuity plates should not be
necessary.
Local Flange Bending and Local Web Yielding
Design Criteria
While the pull-plate tests (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al.,
2003) investigated both the LFB and LWY limit states, the
investigation of both nonseismic and seismic design criteria
for LWY was limited with the cruciform tests. As shown in
Table 3, the selected five cruciform specimens satisfied all
the LWY design criteria considered in this research program,
as would be customary for girder-to-column cruciform connections.
In the pull-plate tests (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et
al., 2003), the LFB yield mechanism was defined by limiting
the column flange separation, measured between the
column flanges at the edges of the pull-plates (simulating the
girder flanges). A flange separation limit of 4 in. between
the two flanges was established for the nonseismic design
(Prochnow et al., 2000). In the cyclic cruciform experiments,
this limiting deformation was taken as one-half the
pull-plate separation value of 4 in., as the deformation of
only one flange measured. The measured maximum column
flange displacements in Specimens CR1 and CR5 were thus
compared with a limit of 8 in. Specimen CR1 developed
relatively small column flange deformations up to 4.0% interstory
drift cycles (just 26% of the 8 in. limit), as was
expected from the large LFB design strength/demand ratios
presented in Table 3. In Specimen CR5, an unexpectedly
low maximum column flange deformation (49% of the
8 in. limit) was measured during 4.0% interstory drift cycles
even though Specimen CR5 did not even meet the nonseismic
LFB design criteria. These tests thus indicate that the
LFB strength predicted by Equation 1 (AISC, 1999a) may
be suitable for use for seismic design as well.
With respect to seismic demand, Specimen CR5 was the
most substantially under-designed cruciform specimen with
respect to LFB. As shown in Table 3, the design strength-todemand
ratio was only 0.84 for nonseismic required strength
as per the AISC LRFD Specification (1999a), and it equaled
to 0.47 and 0.46 for the seismic required strengths within the
1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC
Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c), respectively. However,
Specimen CR5 performed satisfactorily up to 4.0% interstory
drift cycles without any damage induced by the lack of
LFB mitigation. Therefore, within this limited experimental
study of the WUF-W connection, it may be possible to consider
the use of the LFB strength provisions of AISC (1993,
1999a) (in other words, Equation 1) to be sufficient even for
seismic loading, complementing similar conclusions reached
by Prochnow et al. (2000) related to nonseismic design.
However, at a minimum, observation of the five successful
cruciform tests and the pull-plate tests indicated that
the seismic required strength given by Equation 6 (AISC,
1999c) is adequate and conservative for determining seismic
LFB required strength when the design strength presented
in Equation 1 is used. Equation 6 provides a more rational
basis for calculation of the required force than does Equation
5 (both equations often yield similar values). Table 3
indicates that both Specimens CR2 and CR5 would require
continuity plates if Equation 1 is used in conjunction with
Equation 6 (using nominal properties). Placing a reduction
factor of 0.85 on Equation 6, particularly for use with interior
connections, would change these values to 0.94 and
0.54 respectively, putting Specimen CR2 just over the cusp
of breaching the LFB limit state.
Use of Equation 6 with a reduction factor of 0.85 for
interior connections, coupled with Equation 1 to compute
strength, also compares favorably when compared to other
test results. For example, Specimens C1 and C3 from Ricles
et al. (2002a, 2002b), which each had two W36150 (50 ksi)
girders framing into a W14398 (50 ksi) column (for Specimen
C1) and a W27258 (50 ksi) column (for Specimen
C3) using the WUF-W connection with no continuity plates,
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 209
performed adequately through the SAC (1997) loading history.
Their ratio of LFB design strength to required strength
using Equation 6 with a reduction factor of 0.85 was 2.32
and 0.76, respectively. Thus, Specimen C1 clearly should not
need continuity plates. Specimens CR2 from this work and
Specimen C3 (Ricles et al., 2002a, 2002b) could also both
go without continuity plates, thus showing that the proposed
0.85 factor on Equation 6 would often be conservative.
Panel Zone Behavior
All of the WUF-W specimens, shown in Table 2, had inadequate
panel zone strengths as per AISC (1999b, 2002). In
spite of the weaker panel zones, however, these specimens
(excluding Specimen CR4) showed stable, ductile panel
zone response. The analyses of the panel zone elastic and
inelastic behavior indicated significant energy dissipation in
this region for Specimens CR1, CR2 and CR3. Relatively
mild energy dissipation was observed in Specimens CR4R
and CR5 even though the measured maximum amount of
the connection total plastic rotation was similar in all cases.
The smaller panel zone energy dissipation in these two
specimens were mostly caused by the design of a stronger
panel zone in the case of Specimen CR4R, and by the larger
column flange yielding around each girder flange in the case
of Specimen CR5.
As discussed further in Lee et al. (2005) and Ricles et al.
(2002a, 2002b), columns with weaker panel zones will cause
higher stress concentrations at the ends of the weld of the
girder web to the column flange, or in the adjacent shear tab
weld. However, with the exception of Specimen CR5, which
was well under-designed for both panel zone shear and local
flange bending, cracking at the top and bottom of the web
welds occurred only during the 4.0% interstory drift cycles
after having completed the SAC loading history. Additionally,
fracturing in the shear tab edges seemed to be more
directly affected by girder flange local buckling, low cycle
fatigue crack opening in the girder flanges, or both, under
large connection deformations. Local buckling in the bottom
girder flange, for example, can increase the inelastic demand
in the top girder flange, which may contribute to the initial
crack at the shear tab top edge. A detailed discussion of the
panel zone behavior in this research, and evaluation of the
seismic panel zone design criteria, are presented in the companion
paper (Lee et al., 2005).
CONCLUSIONS
A total of six full-scale interior steel moment connections,
classified as Welded Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web
(WUF-W) connections, were tested to investigate the current
criteria of column reinforcement design and detailing, and
to provide economical alternative column stiffener details
that avoid welding in the k-area of the columns. These
experimental results were corroborated by finite element
analyses (Ye et al., 2000) and by related research conducted
by the authors on pull plate specimens subjected to monotonic
loading (Prochnow et al., 2000). Based on the study
of cyclic connection performance, several conclusions may
be made:
1. Specimens CR1, CR2, CR3, CR4R and CR5 completed
the SAC (1997) loading history up to 4.0% interstory drift
cycles without any significant strength degradation in the
connections, and ductile failure modes were observed in
all specimens [completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory
drift without significant strength degradation also satisfies
the loading sequence requirement for qualifying beam-tocolumn
connections according to AISC (2002)]. The primary
failure mode of these five specimens was low cycle
fatigue crack growth and eventual rupture of one or more
girder flange-to-column flange complete-joint-penetration
(CJP) groove welds. The cracks initiated typically at the
toe of the fillet welds that reinforced the topside of these
CJP welds. A crack became visible in the 3.0% interstory
drift cycles for Specimens CR2 (second cycle), CR3
(second cycle), and CR5 (first cycle), in the 4.0%
interstory drift in Specimens CR1 (eleventh cycle) and
CR4R (second cycle). However, no strength degradation
occurred until these cracks started propagating, which
occurred after several cycles at 4.0% interstory drift.
The weld access hole detail chosen for this experimental
study showed good performance under repeated large
cyclic connection deformations. No low cycle fatigue
cracking occurred at the toe of the weld access hole prior
to significant cracking occurring elsewhere in the connection,
particularly at the toe of the CJP welds of the girder
flange to the column flange.
2. These experimental results showed that, when properly
detailed and welded with notch-tough filler metal, the
WUF-W steel moment connections can perform adequately
under large quasi-static cyclic loads even though
relatively weak panel zones and low local flange bending
strengths were chosen as per the current design provisions
and recommendations (AISC, 1992, 1997a, 1999a,
1999b, 2000, 2002; FEMA, 2000a).
3. Specimen CR4 was unintentionally prepared with weld
metal that had Charpy V-Notch (CVN) values that were
much lower than the minimum requirements of FEMA
(2000a). This was the only test that did not complete
the SAC (1997) loading history with two cycles at 4.0%
interstory drift level. The premature brittle failure of
this specimen reconfirmed that achieving the required
minimum CVN toughness in the girder flange-to-column
flange CJP welds is critical for good performance in steel
moment connections.
210 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
4. Application of the alternative column reinforcement details
(including a back-beveled fillet-welded doubler plate
detail; a square-cut fillet-welded doubler plate detail; a
groove-welded box (offset) doubler plate detail; and
fillet-welded 2-in.-thick continuity plates) in the WUF-W
steel moment connections was successfully verified.
No cracks or distortions were observed in the welds
connecting these stiffeners to column flanges before
the rupturing of the girder flange-to-column flange CJP
welds. Additionally, no cracking occurred in the k-area of
the columns in these column-stiffened specimens.
5. For the range of column sections and doubler plate detailing
investigated in this work, strain gradients and
strain magnitudes well above the yield strain in the girder
flanges did not prevent the specimens from achieving the
connection prequalification requirement of completing
two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without significant
strength degradation. This was even the case for Specimen
CR1, which had notch toughness in the CJP weld
metal connecting the girder flange to the column flange
that was significantly below the requirements in the
FEMA (2000a, 2000b) guidelines. In addition, for the
cruciform specimens, the measured maximum column
flange deformation due to the concentrated girder flange
force in the unstiffened specimens ranged from 26% of
the assumed yield mechanism limit of 8 in. flange deformation
in the case of Specimen CR1, to 49% of the
8 in. limit in the case of Specimen CR5. Specimen CR5
was the most substantially under-designed specimen for
local flange bending—the design strength-to-required
strength ratio was only 0.84 for nonseismic required
strength as per AISC (1999a), and it was equal to 0.47 for
seismic required strength as per AISC (1992). Specimens
CR1, CR2, CR4R and CR5, none of which had continuity
plates (although Specimen CR4R included the offset
doubler plate detail), showed ductile connection behavior
even though only Specimen CR1 met the seismic requirements
of AISC (1992) and FEMA (2000a) with respect to
continuity plates for the limit state of local flange bending.
These results indicate that the column reinforcement
detailing may not have a significant effect on the potential
for brittle fracture at the girder flange-to-column flange
weld and that continuity plates may thus not be necessary
in interior columns in steel moment connections that
satisfy the limit state equations based upon the column
flange or web thicknesses. Note that this conclusion is
contrary to previous finite-element analyses reported
in the literature using theoretical fracture criteria that
have predicted a significant effect of using or omitting
continuity plates. Design provisions similar to those in
AISC (1992, 1999a) or FEMA (2000a) permitting the
design, or lack of inclusion, of continuity plates are thus
recommended for consideration for reintroduction into
the AISC Seismic Provisions. Specifically, it is recommended
that the provisions for LFB strength of AISC
(1992, 1999a) (Equation 1) be considered for seismic
design, and that the calculation for LFB required strength
according to AISC (1999c) (Equation 6) is conservative
and may be considered for use; reducing this LFB
required strength by a factor of 0.85 for interior connections
is also recommended for consideration.
6. If continuity plates are required, fillet-welded continuity
plates that were approximately half of the girder flange
thickness performed well. The results showed that only
minor local yielding occurred in these continuity plates in
a portion of the cross section next to the clip at peak drift
level and that these strains were not sufficient to cause
cracking or distortion in the continuity plate or to change
the strain gradients in the girder flange substantially.
These results were consistent with previously reported
pull-plate test results (Hajjar et al., 2003). Since continuity
plates do not significantly yield, it may not be necessary
to size the welds large enough to develop the continuity
plate. Rather the weld and the plate may only need to be
designed for the difference between the required strength
and the design strength of the column shape without
the continuity plate (however, more research is required
to verify this conclusion, particularly for cyclic
applications).
7. The box (offset) doubler plate detail was found to function
effectively as continuity plates while simultaneously serving
as column web doubler plates. Ye et al. (2000) showed
in a finite element parametric study that the doubler plates
were likely to be most effective when placed between
one-third and two-thirds of the half-girder flange width
from the column web. There was insufficient testing to
determine definitively an appropriate means of calculating
the nominal strength of the doubler plate to quantify
its effectiveness as a continuity plate to withstand local
flange bending. However, a reasonable calculation for
this nominal strength to resist LFB and LWY would be to
use a formula based on the limit state of LWY for an end
condition, Equation 3. For this calculation, the k dimension
would be taken as the column flange thickness (since
the doubler plate is away from the column fillet), the N
dimension would be taken as the girder flange thickness,
and the thickness would be that of the two doubler plates
in the box (offset) detail if they are assumed to resist as a
pair the required strength imparted by the girder flange.
Using a thickness equal to the larger required for resisting
(1) LFB and LWY; and (2) PZ yielding seems reasonable,
but further research is necessary to confirm this.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 211
8. In all the five successful tests, the seismic performance
of the relatively weak panel zones was stable and ductile,
and the panel zones exhibited good energy dissipation.
9. Within the limited number of WUF-W experimental studies,
a strong correlation between the panel zone strength
and fracturing of the girder web weld to the column flange
at its top and bottom edges was not observed [these cracks
became visible during the 4.0% interstory drift cycles,
except for Specimen CR5 which exhibited cracking at
the ends of the shear tab during the 2.0% interstory drift
cycles, but with little strength degradation resulting (Lee
et al., 2005)]. Instead, fracturing in the shear tab edges
seems to be more directly affected by girder flange local
buckling, low cycle fatigue crack opening in the girder
flanges, or both, under large connection deformations.
Extrapolation of these conclusions beyond WUF-W connections
may be reasonable by recognizing that, with the use of
notch tough weld metal and a properly detailed weld access
hole, neither varying strain gradients in the connected girder
flanges nor weak panel zones caused premature fracture in
the connections that led to strength degradation. With respect
to the response of other connection types, Pantelides,
Okahashi and Reaveley (2004) report similar conclusions for
RBS connections having no continuity plates, for example.
Thus, the conclusions related to the effects of local flange
bending of the column on connection performance, and
related to the column reinforcement detailing procedures
investigated in this work, are likely to be reasonably independent
of the connection type for several different types
of moment resisting connections in which the girder flanges
are welded to the column flange, the girder web is attached
is some manner to the column flange, and the resulting flow
of forces from the girder to the column is similar to that of
the WUF-W connection.
As a result of this study, the following additional research
is recommended. First, column reinforcement detailing
for deep columns should be assessed. Ricles et al. (2002a,
2002b, 2003) have conducted some preliminary research on
using deep columns with WUF-W connections and no continuity
plates, showing good results, but indicating that further
research is required. Alternately, Chi and Uang (2002) had
poorer results using deep column sections due to excessive
twisting of the column. Second, continuity plates with undersized
fillet welds should be tested to confirm that the weld
need not develop the full continuity plate strength. Third,
further work is needed to develop a procedure for computing
the nominal strength of the doubler plate in the box (offset)
detail relative to it serving as a continuity plate to withstand
local flange bending and local web yielding in combination
with panel zone yielding. Fourth, because of the possibility
of obtaining brittle weld metal despite the fact that weld
certifications show adequate toughness, additional studies
should be considered to characterize the typical variability
in the CVN and other properties of the CJP weld. Consideration
should be given to use of filler metals and welding
procedures with a distribution of CVN such that there is a
sufficiently small probability of not meeting the minimum
required values. Fifth, the local flange bending and local
web yielding criteria proposed in this work, if they are to
be adopted for general design purposes, should be evaluated
for a wider range of concentrated loading cases (for example,
due to support reactions on beams). Finally, similar research
for other connection configurations that have a markedly
different flow of forces between the girder and column as
compared to the WUF-W connection should be conducted
to help to bolster the conclusions reported in this work for
column reinforcement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was sponsored by the American Institute of
Steel Construction, Inc., and by the University of Minnesota.
In-kind funding and materials were provided by
LeJeune Steel Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Danny’s
Construction Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Braun
Intertec, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nucor-Yamato Steel
Company, Blytheville, Arkansas; Lincoln Electric Company,
Cleveland, Ohio; and Edison Welding Institute, Cleveland,
Ohio. Supercomputing resources were provided by the Minnesota
Supercomputing Institute. The authors wish to thank
Dr. T.V. Galambos, Dr. J.C. Nelson, Mr. P.M. Bergson,
Ms. S.D. Ojard, Mr. D. Webster and Ms. A. Kingsley of the
University of Minnesota, Mr. L.A. Kloiber of LeJeune Steel
Company, and the members of the external advisory committee
on this project for their valuable assistance.
While this paper was under review, co-author Robert Dexter
passed away unexpectedly in November 2004. Dr. Dexter
was known nationally and internationally for his work on
fracture and fatigue of steel structures. His sudden death cut
short a rising career in applied steel research, one that influenced
an unusually wide number of areas, including fracture
problems in buildings, fatigue in bridges, cracking in ship
panels, and collapse of overhead highway signs. He contributed
extensively to the writing of the AISC Specification, the
AASHTO steel bridge design specification, the RCSC bolt
specification, and the AWS welding specification. His
contributions to the research reported in this paper were integral
throughout the project. He will be greatly missed by his
colleagues around the world.
REFERENCES
AISC (1992), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago,
IL.
212 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005
AISC (1993), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (1997a), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago,
IL.
AISC (1997b), “AISC Advisory on Mechanical Properties
Near the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and Interim Recommendations,
January 10, 1997,” Modern Steel Construction,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL, February, p. 18.
AISC (1999a), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (1999b), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings—
Supplement No. 1, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (1999c), Stiffening of Wide-Flange Columns at Moment
Connections: Wind and Seismic Applications, Design
Guide No. 13, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (2000), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings—
Supplement No. 2, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (2001), “AISC Advisory on Changes to T, k, and k1
Dimensions for W-Shapes, February 14, 2001,” American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (2002), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago,
IL.
AWS (1995), Specification for Carbon Steel Electrodes for
Flux Cored Arc Welding, AWS A5.20-95, American Welding
Society, Miami, FL.
AWS (2000), Structural Welding Code—Steel, AWS D1.1-
2000, AWS, Miami, FL.
Barsom, J.M. and Pellegrino, J.V. (2001), “Failure Analysis
of a Welded Moment-Resisting Interior Connection,” Report
to AISC, Barsom Consulting, Ltd., Pittsburgh, PA.
Bartlett, F.M., Dexter, R.J., Graeser, M.D., Jelinek, J.J.,
Schmidt, B.J., and Galambos, T.V. (2003), “Updating
Standard Shape Material Properties Database for Design
and Reliability,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp. 2–14.
Bertero, V.V., Krawinkler, H., and Popov, E.P. (1973), Further
Studies on Seismic Behavior of Steel Beam-Column
Subassemblages, Report No. EERC-73/27, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C., and Whittaker, A. (1998), Ductile
Design of Steel Structures, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, New York.
Chi, B. and Uang, C.-M. (2002), “Cyclic Response and Design
Recommendations of Reduced Beam Section Moment
Connections with Deep Columns,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 464–473.
Dexter, R.J. (2000), “Structural Shape Material Property Survey,”
Final Report to Structural Shape Producer’s Council,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Dexter, R.J., Hajjar, J.F., Prochnow, S.D., Graeser, M.D.,
Galambos, T.V., and Cotton, S.C. (2001), “Evaluation
of the Design Requirements for Column Stiffeners and
Doublers and the Variation in Properties of A992 Shapes,”
Proceedings of the North American Steel Construction
Conference, AISC, Chicago, IL.
El-Tawil, S., Mikesell, T., Vidarsson, E., and Kunnath, S.
(1998), Strength and Ductility of FR Welded-Bolted Connections,
Report No. SAC/BD-98/01, SAC Joint Venture,
Sacramento, CA.
El-Tawil, S., Vidarsson, E., Mikesell, T., and Kunnath, S.K.
(1999), “Inelastic Behavior and Design of Steel Panel
Zones,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 183–193.
El-Tawil, S. (2000), “Panel Zone Yielding in Steel Moment
Connections,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 37, No. 1,
pp. 120–131.
FEMA (2000a), Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for
New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Report No. FEMA
350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C.
FEMA (2000b), Recommended Specifications and Quality
Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction
for Seismic Applications, Report No. FEMA 353,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C.
FEMA (2000c), State-of-the-Art Report on Past Performance
of Steel Moment Frame Buildings in Earthquakes,
Report No. FEMA 355E, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Frank, K.H. (1999), “State-of-Art Report on Structural Steel
Shapes,” Internal Report, 80% draft, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Graham, J.D., Sherbourne, A.N., Khabbaz, R.N., and Jensen,
C.D. (1960), Welded Interior Beam-to-Column Connections,
Bulletin No. 63, Welding Research Council, New
York, New York, pp. 1–28.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 2005 / 213
Hajjar, J.F., Dexter, R.J., Ojard, S.D., Ye,Y., and Cotton,
S.C. (2003), “Continuity Plate Detailing for Steel
Moment-Resisting Connections,” Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 189–211.
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P. (1971),
Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-Column Subassemblages,
Report No. EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Krawinkler, H. (1978), “Shear in Beam-Column Joints in
Seismic Design of Steel Frames,” Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 82–91.
Lee, D., Cotton, S., Dexter, R.J., Hajjar, J.F., Ye, Y., and
Ojard, S.D. (2002), Column Stiffener Detailing and Panel
Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections,
Report No. ST-01-3.2, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lee, D., Cotton, S.C., Hajjar, J.F., Dexter, R.J., and Ye, Y.
(2005), “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Moment-Resisting
Connections Reinforced by Alternative Column Stiffener
Details. II. Panel Zone Behavior and Doubler Plate Detailing,”
Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 42, No. 4.
Lincoln Electric Company (2003), “Outershield Wire Products
Catalog,” Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland,
OH.
Lincoln Electric Company (2004), “Innershield Wire Products
Catalog,” Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland,
OH.
Mao, C., Ricles, J. M., Lu, L., and Fisher, J.W. (2001), “Effect
of Local Details on Ductility of Welded Moment
Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 127, No. 9, pp. 1036–1044.
Northridge Reconnaissance Team (1996), Northridge Earthquake
of January 17, 1994, Reconnaissance Report (Supplement
C-2 to Volume 11), EERI, Oakland, CA.
Pantelides, C.P., Okahashi, Y., and Reaveley, L.D. (2004),
“Experimental Investigation of Reduced Beam Section
Moment Connections without Continuity Plates,” Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 4, November, pp. 1185–1209.
Prochnow, S.D., Dexter, R.J., Hajjar, J.F., Ye, Y., and Cotton,
S.C. (2000), Local Flange Bending and Local Web Yielding
Limit States in Steel Moment-Resisting Connections,
Report No. ST-00-4, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Prochnow, S.D., Ye., Y., Dexter, R.J., Hajjar, J.F., and Cotton,
S.C. (2002), “Local Flange Bending and Local Web
Yielding Limit States in Steel Moment-Resisting Connections,”
Connections in Steel Structures IV, Roanoke, Virginia,
October 22–24, 2000, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL, pp. 318–328.
Ricles, J.M., Fisher, J.W., Lu, L.-W., and Kaufmann, E.J.
(2002a), “Development of Improved Welded Moment
Connections for Earthquake-Resistant Design,” Journal
of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, Nos. 5–8,
pp. 505–604.
Ricles, J.M., Mao, C., Lu, L., and Fisher, J.W. (2002b), “Inelastic
Cyclic Testing of Welded Unreinforced Moment
Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 429–440.
Ricles, J.M., Mao, C., Lu, L.-W., and Fisher, J.W. (2003),
“Ductile Details for Welded Unreinforced Moment Connections
Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Loading,” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 667–680.
Roeder, C.W. and Foutch, D.A. (1996), “Experimental Results
for Seismic Resistant Steel Moment Frame Connections,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 122, No. 6, pp. 581–588.
Roeder, C.W. (2002), “General Issues Influencing Connection
Performance,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 420–428.
SAC (1997), Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing,
and Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests
and Other Experimental Specimens, Report No. SAC/BD-
97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
Sherbourne, A.N. and Jensen, C.D. (1957), Direct Welded
Beam Column Connections, Report. No. 233.12, Fritz
Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Tide, R.H.R. (2000), “Evaluation of Steel Properties and
Cracking in k–area of W Shapes,” Engineering Structures,
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 128–134.
Tremblay, R., Timler, P., Bruneau, M., and Filiatrault, A.
(1995), “Performance of Steel Structures during the 1994
Northridge Earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 22, pp. 338–360.
Ye, Y., Hajjar, J.F., Dexter, R.D., Prochnow, S.C., and
Cotton, S.C. (2000), Nonlinear Analysis of Continuity
Plate and Doubler Plate Details in Steel Moment Frame
Connections, Report No. ST-00-3, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Youssef, N.F.G., Bonowitz, D., and Gross, J.H. (1995),
A Survey of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings
Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Report
No. NISTIR 5625, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.