Full-Scale Testing and Design of Special Truss

Moment Frames for High-Seismic Areas

Shih-Ho Chao, M.ASCE 1; Chatchai Jiansinlapadamrong 2;
Sanputt Simasathien 3; and Taichiro Okazaki, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The US design code provisions for steel special truss moment frames (STMFs) were formulated based on research work carried
out in the 1990s with double-angle sections as truss members. To provide the higher capacity needed for STMFs in high-seismic zones,
stronger members using double channels are required. With much stronger sections than double-angle sections, the heavy welding near the
plastic-hinging regions can induce unfavorable restraint. Engineers often remove the X-diagonal web members in the special segments to
meet architectural requirements, which leads to multiple Vierendeel panels with one or two intermediate vertical members (IVMs) in the
special segments (SS). Although IVMs can significantly increase the strength of the special segments, such overstrength is not considered in
the current code provisions. These practical concerns were investigated by a series of component tests and tests on two full-scale STMF
specimens. Current code provisions prescribe an equation to compute the expected vertical shear strength, V ne , of SS for designing all
nonyielding members. However, the current V ne equation considerably overestimates the capacity of SS using heavy sections. A new V ne
equation addressing this issue and including the contribution of IVMs is developed. Other recommended details for enhancing the seismic
performance of STMFs and plastic-hinge models of chord members are also proposed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002541.
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Special truss moment frames; Steel; Plastic-hinge model; Special segments.

Introduction and Research Objectives Buildings (AISC 1997) and remained unchanged through 2005
(AISC 2002, 2005)
Special truss moment frames (STMFs) are designed to dissipate
earthquake energy at ductile special segments located near the 3.75Ry Mnc ðL − Ls Þ
V ne ¼ þ 0.075EI þ Ry ðPnt þ 0.3Pnc Þ sin α
midspan of truss girders. The nonyielding members outside of the Ls L3s
special segment, including truss members, columns, and girder-to- ð1Þ
column connections, are designed to remain elastic by using the
maximum probable strength of the special segment. The truss gird- Eq. (1) was derived by assuming that the postyield slope of the
ers provide very high lateral stiffness to the STMF, which allows for moment-rotation relation of the chord members is a fraction of the
a span length of up to 20 m (65 ft) (AISC 2016). When a STMF is elastic stiffness, EI, and the ultimate strength is reached at a story
subjected to lateral forces, the induced shear force in the middle of drift ratio of 3% (Basha and Goel 1994). For the STMF specimens
the truss girder is resisted primarily by the chord members and consisting of a multiple-paneled special segment, the intermediate
diagonal web members in the special segment, as shown in Fig. 1. vertical members (IVMs) between panels were designed for the
The maximum expected vertical shear strength (V ne ) of the special unbalanced forces between the diagonals (Itani and Goel 1991).
segment (SS) is reached when the special segment is fully yielded Because the double-angle IVMs were small compared with the
and strain-hardened. V ne is used to design the nonyielding mem- chord members and diagonals, the contribution to V ne from these
bers outside of a special segment. Research carried out on STMFs IVMs was inappreciable and not considered in Eq. (1).
using double-angle sections led to Eq. (1) (Basha and Goel 1994, In recent years, the application of STMFs in high-seismic areas
1995; Goel and Itani 1991; Itani and Goel 1991), which is incor- has called for much stronger members than double-angle sections.
porated in the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel For stronger sections, which are generally deeper and hence have
much greater moment of inertia, I, Eq. (1) leads to a very high V ne
and considerable overdesign of members outside of the special seg-
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, ment (nonyielding members). To minimize the overdesign, Chao
Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org and Goel (2008) suggested a slightly revised equation according to
/0000-0003-2679-7364. Email: [email protected] nonlinear time-history analyses, and their equation, Eq. (2), was
2
Project Engineer, AG&E Structural Engenuity, 15280 Addison Rd., incorporated into the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 2010).
Addison, TX 75001. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-1107
3 The equation remained unchanged in the 2016 edition (AISC 2016)
Structural Engineer, Architectural Engineers Collaborative, 3800 N
Lamar Blvd. #330, Austin, TX 78756. and is expressed as follows:
4
Professor, Faculty and Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido 3.60Ry M nc L
Univ., Hokkaido 060-0808, Japan. V ne ¼ þ 0.036EI 3 þ Ry ðPnt þ 0.3Pnc Þ sin α ð2Þ
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 24, 2018; approved on Ls Ls
August 2, 2019; published online on December 30, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until May 30, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for On the other hand, for lighter sections that have smaller I,
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- Eq. (1) could underestimate the value of V ne , leading to an
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. underdesign of the nonyielding members.

© ASCE 04019229-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 Ls
Special segment Vierendeel panels (Fig. 2) have been used in practice even though
F there is no experimental research data to verify their practicality.
Although the vertical intermediate members increase the redun-
dancy of the seismic energy–dissipation mechanism and allow flex-
Plastic hinges ibility in mechanical and architectural layouts when compared with
STMFs with X-diagonals, their presence can also significantly in-
crease V ne (expected vertical shear strength). This V ne increase can
also be referred to as the force demand in the nonyielding members
outside of the special segments. A prior analytical study suggested
Vne that 70% of the energy be dissipated by the chord members and the
remaining 30% by IVMs, unless further research can show that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

yielding of IVMs is not detrimental to the overall performance of an

Ls / 2 STMF (Chao and Goel 2008). As shown in Fig. 2, the IVMs used in
some of the current practice are typically larger and stronger than
the chord members, which can cause the chord members near the
Fig. 1. Yielding mechanism of STMF.
end of the IVMs to yield right after the IVMs yield.
Third, it is verified whether double-channel built-up flexural
members with a proposed new detailing can accommodate large
rotational demand. For the top chord, trusses are typically braced
Metal deck 2L4×4×3/8 through a transverse beam or metal deck connected to it. Diagonal
2L8×4×3/4 brace elements are typically connected to the bottom chords and the
A
adjacent interior beams as shown in Fig. 2. Although these bracing
members provide overall stability of the truss, they do not provide a
direct lateral support to prevent LTB of the chord members in the
2L6×3-1/2×1 A
special segment. This is due to the AISC Seismic Provisions [AISC
2L6×6×1 2L4×4×3/4 341-16 (AISC 2016)], which do not allow welding and bolting in
the plastic-hinging region (i.e., the protected zones). LTB consid-
Brace locations erably reduces the rotational ductility of the chord members.
Unlike beams in moment frames, the rotational demand of chord
Metal deck members in an STMF’s special segment is significantly higher than
STMF the story drift angle. Thus, for a typical STMF when the ratio of the
Interior truss girder span, L, to the length of special segment, Ls , equals to
beam 3.75, the rotational demand of the chord members is as high as 6%
Brace at a 2% story drift ratio (Goel and Chao 2008). To this end, a new
detailing was developed to prevent lateral-torsional buckling (LTB)
A A
of double-channel flexural members, thereby enhancing their rota-
tional ductility (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018). As shown in
Fig. 2. Multiple Vierendeel panel STMF in current practice. Fig. 3, this detail features an extended weld-free region between
the gusset plate and member, allowing the member to freely slide
against the gusset plate while providing a self-stabilizing lateral
Frequently, large openings demanded by architectural require- support at the plastic-hinge region. It provides direct LTB support
ments result in the elimination of X-diagonals, which leaves special without violating AISC’s protected-zone requirements.
segments comprised of multiple Vierendeel panels separated by Fig. 4 shows the cyclic behavior [moment versus rotation re-
IVMs (Fig. 2). Due to the need of such a layout in practice, Chao sponse and finite element analysis (FEA) simulation] of the com-
and Goel (2008) proposed a strength equation [Eq. (3)] that includes ponent specimen made of a 2C8 × 18.75 section. This specimen
the contribution of IVMs in multiple Vierendeel panel STMFs represents the chord members of the STMF subassemblage
3.60Ry M nc (STMF-1) in the full-scale test as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows
L
V ne ¼ þ 0.036EIc 3 that this specimen exhibited a stable response up to the peak
Ls Ls member rotation of 9% and showed no strength degradation until
 
m 3.60Ry M nv L failure due to fracture. Yielding of the specimen spread approxi-
þ þ 0.036EIv 3 ð3Þ
2 Ls Ls mately 2.5 times over the member depth along the flanges, indicat-
ing an exceptional energy-dissipation capacity. Results of the
However, Eq. (3) has not been experimentally validated, which component tests demonstrated that LTB limits the member rotation
is one of the motivations for the experimental research discussed in angle to approximately 4% if the extended weld-free gusset plate is
this paper. The latest version of the AISC Seismic Provisions [AISC not applied (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018). This detailing proved
341-16 (AISC 2016)] does not have a V ne design equation for to significantly enhance the rotational ductility for the chord.
STMFs with multiple Vierendeel panels. The fourth investigation entailed investigating boundary condi-
This paper presents an experimental study whose objective is to tion of the joint at the end of the special segment. Fig. 5 shows an
address design and detailing concerns for STMFs with double- example of detail used in current practice in STMFs with wide flange
channel chord members and IVMs. Seven key investigations were sections as the truss members, where the flanges of a vertical mem-
conducted to meet this objective: ber are typically welded directly to the flange of a chord member
First, the V ne equation was verified according to AISC 341-16. via complete-joint-penetration groove welds (CJP welds). Continu-
Then, the seismic performance of STMF subassemblages with ity plates are also used to transfer force between the vertical
multiple Vierendeel panels were investigated. STMFs with multiple member and chord member. Experimental tests carried out by

© ASCE 04019229-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 Loading Point
152 635 584

Component Specimen

2C8×18.75

508
Extended “weld-
free” gusset plate 2C8-C1

432 292 635 584 584 635 724

508
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

No “butt-up” Extended “weld-

229
connection free” gusset plate

51

508
Dimensions in mm 445

Fig. 3. Example 2C8 × 18.75 component specimen.

Story Drift Ratio (%)

-2.75 -2.5 -2 -1 0 1 2 2.5 2.75
300
200
Experiment
200 150 Special Segment
FEA

Mp 100
Moment (kip-ft)
Moment (kN-m)

100
50
0 0
CJP weld
-50
-100
-100
-200 -Mp -150

-200
-300
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Member Rotation (%)

Fig. 4. Moment versus rotation response of 2C8 × 18.75 component

specimen and FEA simulation.
Double-fillet weld

Jiansinlapadamrong et al. (2018) showed that this practice could Fig. 5. Example of a connection detail of vertical member at the end of
introduce considerable restraint on the flanges of the chord members a special segment (vertical member) welded to the chord member.
at the ends of the special segments (i.e., plastic-hinging regions).
Consequently, the large inelastic deformation capability of the
chord members could be compromised and lead to an undesirable special segment, nor within one-half the panel length from the
early fracture, which in turn would lead to a reduced rotational ends of the special segment.” This requirement presents a postearth-
capacity of the chord members. quake limitation to rehabilitation of STMFs that suffer damages
In Fig. 5, the chord members within the special segment from seismic activity. In this research, after testing, the special seg-
were tapered so that the moment capacity of the chords in the spe- ment of STMF-1 and chord members in one-half of the panels next
cial segment was smaller than that of the chords outside of the spe- to the special segment were replaced by a new special segment with
cial segment. When double-channel built-up members are used as multiple Vierendeel panels for specimen STMF-2. The splice was
STMF members, they are connected at a joint through a gusset done by CJP welds.
plate. For a joint at the end of the special segment, flanges of the Sixth, the possibility of increasing the length-to-depth (aspect)
vertical member should not be welded to the flange of the chord ratio of the Vierendeel panel in the special segment was investi-
member. This boundary condition allows large inelastic deforma- gated. AISC 314-16 states that the length-to-depth ratio of any panel
tion of the plastic-hinge to freely spread, thereby avoiding prema- in the special segment in an STMF shall neither exceed 1.5 nor be
ture fracture failure. less than 0.67. The upper bound is to control the lateral stiffness of
The fifth investigation focused on investigating the possibility the STMF, and the lower bound is to limit the rotational demand of
of relaxing splicing locations of the chord members. AISC 341-16 the chord member because the rotational demands of the chord
states that “splicing of chord members is not permitted within the members in the special segment of STMF are much larger than that

© ASCE 04019229-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 of flexural members in typical moment frame systems. For STMFs lead to premature fracture of the chord members. Continuity plates
of the same overall length and depth, the special segments with on the chord members were used to transfer forces at the end of the
larger aspect ratios will reduce the rotational demand of the chord IVMs in the special segment. Special details used at the end joints
members in a special segment. For the specimens in this research, of the special segment in STMF-1 were also implemented in the
the aspect ratio of 2.5 was chosen for Specimen STMF-1 to pur- connection to STMF-2. The special details at the end of the IVMs
posely violate this requirement (showing that it can be relaxed). were the same as that of the component test (Jiansinlapadamrong
Finally, the seventh investigation focused on investigating the et al. 2018).
possibility of relaxing the spacing of stitching for built-up chord
members. According to Section E4.5e in AISC 341-16, the “spac-
ing of stitching for built-up chord members in the special segment Test Setup and Procedure
shall not exceed 0.04Ery =Fy , where ry is the radius of gyration of Fig. 8 presents an overview of the test setup at the University of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

individual components about their weak axis.” Component tests Minnesota’s Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) Labora-
(Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018) have shown that, except for the tory, as well as the relative directions of the strong floor and reaction
first pair of stitches, which have a clear spacing to the gusset plate walls. The longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions are aligned
of 25 mm, the spacing can be relaxed to 0.066Ery =Fy (Fig. 3). with the X 0 -, Y 0 -, and Z 0 -directions, respectively. The cyclic lateral
force applied by the six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) crosshead was
transferred to the STMF through a W18 × 106 load-transfer beam.
Experimental Program The applied story drift ratios (SDRs) for the full-scale STMF spec-
imens were based on the AISC seismic provisions loading sequence
Full-Scale STMF Subassemblage Test for the beam-to-column moment connection [AISC 341-16 (AISC
2016)]. The constraints on various DOFs are summarized in Table 1.
STMF-1: STMF with Single Vierendeel Panel In the X 0 -direction, loading was applied by displacement-
Special Segment control according to the protocol specified in Table 2. Displacement
The chord members of STMF-1 were double-channel built-up mem- in the Y 0 -direction was restrained to zero to maintain out-of-plane
bers made of 2C8 × 18.75 sections, which were used in one of the stability of the specimen. It was expected that small displacement
levels of the 9-story STMF investigated and reported by Goel and would be induced in the Z 0 -direction when the specimen is laterally
Chao (2008). The span length and story height are also nearly iden- displaced; however, the force in the Z 0 -direction from the crosshead
tical with that in the 9-story STMF. The length-to-depth ratio of the was restrained to zero to avoid additional force on the columns.
special segment is 2.5. Fig. 6 shows the overall dimensions of the Rotation about the X 0 - and Z 0 -axes of the specimen was maintained
specimen along with the pictures of the proposed detail configura- at zero by displacement control. The overturning moment about
tion at the end of the vertical and chord members in the special seg- the Y 0 -axis was slaved to the force applied in the X 0 -direction to
ment. The length of the weld-free extended part of the gusset plate minimize moment in the load-transfer beam. The eccentricity from
was 0.75 times the depth of the chord member, and a 25-mm gap the load (bottom of the crosshead) to the midheight (of the load-
was between the ends of the vertical members and the flanges of the transfer beam) was measured as 0.3125 m.
chord members. Notably, members outside of the special segment in The peak lateral displacement values used to control the cross-
this specimen were designed using a nonlinear pushover analysis head movement listed in Table 2 are derived based on the
based on the component test results (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. assumption that the load-transfer beam, columns, and truss mem-
2018). These members were designed to withstand the higher V ne bers outside of the special segment are rigid. Due to the geometry
induced by the addition of IVMs in STMF-2 so that once STMF 1 of the test setup, the rotations of the test setup columns were
was tested, members outside of special segments could be reused in slightly different from the rotation of the truss specimen measured
STMF-2 [Fig. 7(a)]. The stitch spacing inside the SS (584 mm) was at the center of the top chord at drift levels larger than 3%. The
greater than the AISC 341-16 requirement (353 mm for C8 × 18.75). crosshead lateral displacements in Table 2 correspond to the drift
levels at the center of the special segment top chord member at
STMF-2: STMF with Multiple Vierendeel Panel specified drift levels. Fig. 9 shows an example of how the peak
Special Segment lateral displacements were obtained using computer-aided design
After STMF-1 was tested, the damaged section was cut out, and drawings.
the special segment of STMF-2, which had three Vierendeel panels Stability bracing of the truss was provided, as required by AISC
with 2C8 × 18.75 chord members and two IVMs made of the 2C6 × 341-16, through the truss lateral support system (Fig. 10). However,
13 section, was spliced to the remaining elastic part of STMF-1 it was located slightly outside of the special segment rather than
[Fig. 7(b)] through CJP welds after a backing bar was placed be- at the end of the special segment. Stability bracing of the truss-to-
tween the two channels. The splice location was within one-half the column connection was provided as per AISC 341-16 for both col-
panel length from ends of the special segment, which violates the umns. Pin connections were used at both ends of the load-transfer
current AISC 341-16 requirement. The length-to-depth ratio of any beam and at the bottom of the columns to simulate column inflec-
panel in the special segment is 0.83. Unlike current practice, where tion points.
the IVMs are larger than the chord members (Fig. 2), the nominal
moment capacity of the 2C6 × 13 section was 52% that of the
Instrumentation
2C8 × 18.75 section (discussed subsequently). IVMs were butted
up against the chord members with a web cut out to increase the Key response parameters included story drifts and onset of yielding
welding area between these members and the chord members to of truss elements in the special segment, as well as the axial force
the gusset plate [Fig. 7(c)]. and shear force in truss elements outside of the special segment.
The moment and rotational demand of the chord member at the Other information essential to this study are the forces in the truss
locations near the IVMs were smaller than at the ends of the special lateral support system, rotation of the special segment, and lateral
segment where plastic hinges would form. As a result, welding the displacement at various heights: top clevis, top chord, and bottom
flanges of the IVMs to the flanges of the chord members could not chord elevations, among others. All information was measured by

© ASCE 04019229-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 W30x261 W30x261
9698
8687
Load Transfer Beam
W18x106

1095

8260

1981
HSS8x4x12 HSS8x4x12
914

8788

25 TYP.
25x76x76 Stitch (TYP.) 330
609 584 432 292 635 584 584 635 724
254
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

127
390

51

432
508
5182

12 0
95 66
1219

2146

1219
66
965
25 TYP. 0

508 229
21

483
64
8 13 51

508
25

25
305 482 432 457 292 445 914
25 TYP.
54 584 584 53
1562

1409 1511 1511 889 1410

2000
48

794

STRONG FLOOR STRONG FLOOR

102

1865 1473 3023 1473 1865

9698

Crosshead

Load transfer beam

1473 3023 1473

1981
584
B

B
1219 2C8×18.75 2146
A

A 2C6×13
2C8×18.75 + 2-1"×10" PL
2000 No “butt-up” Extended
connection 330
“weld-free”
gusset plate

A - A B - B
Dimensions in mm
“Weld-free” zone

Fig. 6. Specimen STMF-1 (unit: millimeter).

extensive instrumentation including 230 strain gauges (uniaxial and crosshead versus SDR responses of the two specimens are shown
rosettes), 12 string potentiometers, 14 LVDTs, 6 tilt meters, and a in Fig. 12.
Krypton camera system. Measurements from the sensors during the STMF-1 exhibited stable and ductile behavior up to the first
loading sequence were collected at a rate of 1 Hz. Simasathien cycle of the 3% SDR. The elastic stiffness of STMF-1 was
(2016) reported the detailed instrumentation plan. 15,492 kN=m. At 1% SDR, very fine cracks were initiated at the
end of the welds connecting the chord members to the gusset plates
at the ends of the special segment. Cracks then slowly propagated
Experimental Test Results toward the flanges of the chord members starting at 1.5% SDR;
however; their length and width remained very small. The strength
Fig. 11 shows the specimens during the tests at different SDRs. and ductility of the chord members were not affected until the sec-
Plastic hinges were also formed at the expected locations, namely ond cycle of the 3% SDR. At this point, cracks at weld tips ex-
at the ends of the chord members and IVMs. The lateral force at the tended into the flanges, and fracturing of the bottom flange and

© ASCE 04019229-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 W30x261 W30x261
9698
8687
Load Transfer Beam
W18x106

1095
8260

1981
1
HSS8x4x 2 HSS8x4x12

914
8788

25 TYP.
25x76x76 Stitch (TYP.) 330
609 584 432 292 724
127 254 254 254
390

51

432
483
508
5182

12 0
66
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

95
1219

2146

1219
66

254
965
25 TYP.

508 229
0

483
64 21
8 13 51

508
483

483
25

25
254254

25 TYP.
305 482 432 457 292 508 508 445 914
54 53
1562

1409 1511 1511 889 1410

2000
48

794
102

STRONG FLOOR STRONG FLOOR

1865 1473 3023 1473 1865
(a)

838 838
SPLICE LOCATIONS

REMOVE BY AIR ARC GOUGING

1143 SPLICE LOCATIONS 1143

STRONG FLOOR STRONG FLOOR

NEW DIAGONAL WEBS TO BE FIELD WELDED

(b)

3023
964 1016 964

2C6×13 Web cutout with

2C8×18.75 “butt-up” weld

Extended “weld-
Dimensions in mm free” gusset plate

(c)

Fig. 7. Specimen STMF-2: (a) detailed dimensions (unit: millimeter); (b) splice scheme; and (c) details of the connection of the intermediate vertical
member.

© ASCE 04019229-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 At the second cycle of the 4% SDR, most of the chord members
Z’
in the special segment were torn at their plastic hinges and the
Positive
capacity of STMF-1 drastically dropped to approximately 17% of
Yaw the peak strength; thus, the experiment was terminated. The peak
Vertical
equivalent vertical shear forces obtained from test results (Fig. 14)
were calculated based on the lateral forces at the crosshead, which
Lateral included the frictions from the lateral support system. Therefore, the
Longitudinal
Roll Pitch calculated equivalent shear was larger than the actual internal shear
X’ Y’ (which is on the conservative side for designing members outside
Positive Positive
of the special segment). Clearly, they were close to the expected
vertical shear strength, V ne , predicted by AISC 341-05 [Eq. (1)], but
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

higher than that by AISC 341-16 [Eq. (2)] by nearly 20%.

STMF-2 exhibited significantly higher elastic stiffness
(30,647 kN=m) and ultimate strength than STMF-1 (approximately
198% and 190%, respectively) due to the addition of IVMs. During
the second cycle of the 1.5% SDR, its strength started to drop
slightly due to fractures around the plastic-hinge regions of the
IVMs. At 2% SDR, the strength of STMF-2 dropped due to a com-
plete rupture of the IVMs at their plastic-hinge locations, and the
hysteretic response began to resemble that of STMF-1 until the end
of the test at the first cycle of 4% SDR. Fig. 15 shows that the peak
equivalent vertical shear force of STMF-2 was larger than the value
obtained from Eq. (3) (Chao and Goel 2008) by approximately
45%. The members outside of the special segment, however, did
Fig. 8. Overview of the test setup with the rotated MAST control not experience any yielding. The maximum strain in members out-
coordinate system. side of the special segment was 0.71εy , where εy , or yield strain,
was approximately 2,000 microstrain based on coupon testing. The
average tensile testing results of the coupon specimens obtained
from the steel section used in the full-scale subassemblages are
Table 1. Control mode of the six DOFs summarized in Table 3. Four coupon specimens were cut from the
DOF Control mode Note flange and four coupon specimens were cut from the web of each
Translation X 0 ;ðΔX 0 Þcrosshead Displacement Specified history
section. All specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM E8/
Translation Y 0
Displacement ΔY 0 ¼ 0 E8M-16a (ASTM 2016).
Translation Z 0 Force (kN) FZ 0 ¼ 0 The overall responses shown in Figs. 14 and 15 and the strain-
Rotation X 0 Displacement θX 0 ¼ 0 gauge data shown in Fig. 16 indicate that the chord members in
Rotation Y 0 Force (kN-m) M Y 0 slaved to X 0 -force, both STMF specimens started to yield at an SDR of between
FX 0 (kN) 0.5% and 0.75%. On the other hand, strain measurement and test
M Y 0 ¼ −0.3175 × FX 0 results (Fig. 11) showed that the IVMs experienced initial yielding
Rotation Z 0 Displacement θZ 0 ¼ 0 at an SDR smaller than 0.375% and failed earlier than the chord
members. In other words, the rotational demand of the intermediate
members was higher than that of the chord members—the same as
Table 2. Displacement and story drift ratio history that found in the pushover analysis. Although different from the
current practice shown in Fig. 2, the test results indicate that using
Peak lateral IVMs that are smaller than the chord members could be advanta-
displacement at bottom Story drift Number of
geous because (1) a more gradual stiffness and strength degradation
Load step of crosshead (mm) ratio, θ (%) cycles, n
occurs once the intermediate vertical member fails; (2) the damaged
1 19.1 0.375 6 IVMs can be replaced more easily than the chord members in the
2 25.4 0.5 6 case of minor to moderate earthquake events; and (3) using strong
3 38.9 0.75 6 IVMs could alter the yielding mechanism in which plastic hinges
4 51.6 1 4
occur in the chord members not only at the ends but also in the
5 77.0 1.5 2
6 102.4 2 2 vicinity of the IVMs. Experimental results showed that even the
7 154.7 3 2 small-size IVMs considerably increased the strength and stiffness
8 206.5 4 2 of an STMF. Therefore, the size of chord members in the special
9 258.1 5 2 segment can be reduced because of the additional contribution from
10 309.6 6 2 the IVMs.
11 361.2 7 2

Special Detailing at the End Joint of the

the bottom half of the web occurred in one of the channels as shown Special Segment
in Fig. 13. This ductile fracture process was also observed in the Fig. 17 shows the special detailing at the end joint of the special
component tests (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018). Beyond 3% segment of STMF-1 at the end of the test (4% SDR). The weld-free
SDR, the strength of STMF-1 started to degrade significantly, and area between the extended gusset plate and chord member allowed
the chord members (the portion beyond the weld-free regions) in the member to freely slide against the gusset plate while providing
the special segment started to twist. direct lateral support at the plastic-hinge region. The plastic-hinge

© ASCE 04019229-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 156.4 154.8 156.4

0.028r

2387
0.03r 0.03r
2400
96.8 96.8 96.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3219

2401

STRONG FLOOR STRONG FLOOR

Fig. 9. Estimated displacement at 3% story drift ratio (unit: millimeter).

and Goel 1994): (1) the maximum expected developed moments of

the chord members occur at 3% SDR, and (2) the strain-hardening
ratio of the chord member is 10%, which is the ratio of the postyield
stiffness to the elastic stiffness in the moment-rotation relation-
ship of the members. For an STMF with a length, L, of 9,698 mm
(31 ft, 10 in.) and special segment length, Ls , of 0.2L and 0.3L, the
V ne from Eq. (2) was used to back-calculate the maximum devel-
oped moments for various 2C6, 2C8, 2C12, and 2MC18 channel
sections. The moment versus rotation relationship of these sections
was then constructed based on the two assumptions used and is
shown in Fig. 18.
Clearly, the strain-hardening ratio of 10% resulted in very high
overstrength factors for heavy sections because the elastic stiffness
of heavy sections is much greater. In addition, assuming that the
maximum moment always develops at 3% SDR resulted in a very
large rotational demand of the member when Ls =L ratio is small,
which in turn leads to an unrealistically large moment and V ne .
Fig. 10. Lateral support systems for the specimen. For example, as indicated in Fig. 18, the maximum moments
of MC18 × 42.7 section with Ls equal to 0.2L and 0.3L were
4.2Ry M nc and 1.8Ry M nc at 3% SDR, respectively. These numbers
were compared with results of a finite-element analysis calibrated
zone extended greater than the depth of the chord members as in- according to component test results.
dicated by the flaking of the whitewash on the members much like Figs. 4 and 19 show moment versus rotation relations from
the component test results. It is evident that this proposed detailing experimental tests (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018) and devel-
configuration at the end of the special segment eliminated LTB at oped finite-element (FE) models of component specimens 2C8 ×
the plastic hinge. On the other hand, beyond the plastic-hinge zone, 18.75 and 2C12 × 20.7, respectively. The details of the FE mod-
the chord members had no lateral support from the gusset plate and els and their parameters have been given in recent research by
started to twist at a very large SDR (3%). It can also be observed Jiansinlapadamrong et al. (2019). The FE model used for 2C12 ×
from Fig. 17(b) that not connecting the vertical members to the 20.7 was then used to analyze 2MC18 × 42.7 because they have
chord members allows the inelastic deformation in the flanges of similar h=t and b=t ratios. The FE analysis result in Fig. 20
the chord members to develop without restraint. shows that the maximum moment capacity of 2MC18 × 42.7
was 1.3Ry M nc , which was much less than the maximum moment
(Fig. 19) used in AISC V ne Eq. (2). Therefore, using AISC’s V ne
Expected Shear Strength of STMFs
equation will yield a very uneconomical design of the nonyielding
The current AISC V ne [Eq. (2)] for a single Vierendeel panel STMF members outside of the special segment when large chord members
was derived based on two assumptions used in a prior study (Basha are used in the special segment, especially if the special segment

© ASCE 04019229-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Special segments of specimens during tests: (a) STMF-1 at 1.0% drift; (b) STMF-1 at 2.0% drift; (c) STMF-2 at 1.0% drift; and (d) STMF-2
at 2.0% drift.

Lateral Displacement (mm) according to AISC 341-05 and 341-16 (AISC 2005, 2016), pro-
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 posed new equations (discussed subsequently), and the equivalent
1500
300 shear force computed from the equilibrium condition and measured
reactions from the tests.
1000
200 The presence of IVMs in the special segment contributed sig-
Lateral Force (kips)
Lateral Force (kN)

500 nificant additional strength to STMF-2, as indicated in Table 4.

100
This was not considered in the current AISC equation, which could
0 0 result in considerable yielding in nonyielding members outside of
the special segment. A previously proposed V ne equation for STMF
-500 -100 with multiple Vierendeel panels [Eq. (3)] was also derived based on
the same assumptions used in Eq. (2) for both chord members and
-200
-1000 STMF 1 IVMs. Moreover, both the chord and IVMs were assumed to have
STMF 2 the same plastic rotation when the yield mechanism was reached
-300
-1500 (Chao and Goel 2008), which is in fact not the case. An illustration
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Story Drift Ratio (%) of the yield mechanism in STMFs with multiple Vierendeel panels
is shown in Fig. 21.
Fig. 12. Lateral force versus drift ratio response. In reality, as shown in Fig. 3, because double-channel [or double-
angle and double hollow structural section (double-HSS)] members
must be welded to gusset plates at truss joints, plastic hinges would
not form at the very end of the chord members or vertical members
has a span length shorter than 0.3L. On the other hand, for smaller like the idealization shown in Fig. 21. However, they would form at
sections, as shown in Fig. 19, the current AISC equation can lead to the end of the welds connecting the members and the gusset plate.
an unconservative design by underestimating V ne due to their small For the chord members, it is conservative to assume the length be-
elastic stiffness, as observed from the test result of STMF-1 in tween plastic hinges on both ends to be 90% of the special segment
Table 4. Table 4 also summarizes the calculated values of design V ne length or 0.9Ls. For the IVMs, plastic-hinge formation creates an

Crack at weld tip

Fig. 13. Fracture at 3% story drift ratio (STMF-1).

© ASCE 04019229-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 Because an intermediate vertical member generally experiences
larger rotation than the chord member at the same drift level, it will
reach maximum moment capacity and fail earlier than the chord
member. Fig. 15 shows that the maximum V ne in STMF-2 occurred
at 1.5% SDR. At this SDR, Fig. 14 shows that V ne in STMF-1 has
not reached its maximum yet. This proved that for an STMF with
IVMs, V ne consists of maximum moment capacity of IVMs and
nonmaximum moment capacity of the chord members.
Extensive double-channel component tests showed that the
maximum moment of various double-channel sections of similar
length that represented the chord member in the special segment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ranged from 1.3Ry M nc to 1.6Ry M nc when LTB was eliminated

(Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018). The average maximum mo-
ment capacity of these double-channel sections is approximately
1.4Ry M nc . The maximum moment capacity of Specimen 2C6 was
1.7 times Ry Mnv . Because 2C6 represents the intermediate vertical
Fig. 14. Equivalent shear force of STMF-1. member and had a much shorter length, its strain-hardening ratio is
higher than the specimens representing the chord members.
Additionally, Ry ¼ 1.1 for channels [AISC 341-16 (AISC 2016)].
To simplify the equation, the maximum moment capacity of the
chord members and IVMs are both assumed to have a strain-
hardening factor ω ¼ 1.4. The underestimate of the maximum mo-
ment of the IVMs somewhat compensates for the overestimate of
the contribution to V ne by the chord member (because the peak
strength does not occur at exactly the same time with that of the
IVMs). By substituting the maximum expected moments of the
members, Eq. (5) becomes

4ωRy M nc 2mωRy M nv l
V ne ¼ þ ð6Þ
0.9Ls 0.9Ls ðl − 2eÞ

where m = number of IVMs; ω = strain-hardening factor, where for

channel sections ω ¼ 1.4; l = depth of truss between horizontal
chord member centerlines; and (l − 2e) = distance between end
plastic hinges in the IVMs. As a first approximation the ratio of
Fig. 15. Equivalent shear force of STMF-2. l=ðl − 2eÞ can be taken as 1.75. For an STMF without the inter-
mediate vertical member, the second term of Eq. (6) is eliminated
by substituting m ¼ 0.
Table 3. Tensile coupon test results Eq. (6) eliminates two assumptions used in prior studies (Basha
and Goel 1994) by using an expected maximum moment capacity
C6 × 13 C8 × 18.75
Information on of the members instead. Table 4 indicates that Eq. (6) gives V ne
coupon specimen Flange Web Flange Web values that are nearly the same as the test result for STMF-1 and
Yield stress 395 (57.3) 365 (52.9) 405 (58.7) 470 (68.2) slightly higher (5%) than the test result for STMF-2. The proposed
[MPa (Ksi)] equation gives a more realistic V ne than Eqs. (2) and (3) for STMFs
Ultimate stress 560 (81.2) 550 (79.8) 530 (76.8) 520 (75.4) with large sections and a small special segment-to-truss span length
[MPa (Ksi)] ratio (Ls =L).
Elongation (%) 33.6 37.2 35.9 39.8

Suggested Design Approach for Nonyielding Members

eccentricity, e, as shown in Fig. 22. Moreover, because of the eccen- Outside of the Special Segment
tricity, there was an additional contribution to the maximum vertical A traditional way of designing nonyielding members outside of a
shear strength (V ne ) of the special segment coming from the shear special segment of an STMF is an elastic design using the expected
force multiplied by this eccentricity. The expected maximum shear shear strength, V ne , along with code-specified external forces, to
strength of the special segment with one intermediate vertical apply to half of the STMF free-body diagram (Goel and Chao
member [Fig. 22(a)] can be derived as follows: 2008). This method might not be as straightforward when a three-
4M c;max 4M 0 dimensional (3D) model of a building has already been created in a
V ne ¼ þ ð4Þ commercial software. When a 3D model of a building is readily
0.9Ls 0.9Ls
available, a nonlinear pushover analysis can easily be done to de-
For a special segment with two IVMs as shown in Fig. 22(b), the termine internal forces in nonyielding members, given that the
maximum shear strength can be derived as follows: plastic-hinge model of the chord and intermediate vertical members
in the special segment are included.
2Mv;max e A general moment versus rotation relationship of a double-
4M c;max 4ð2M 0 Þ M v;max þ l−2e
V ne ¼ þ where M 0 ¼ ð5Þ channel section is shown in Fig. 23(a). It follows the envelope
0.9Ls 0.9Ls 2 of the cyclic response from double-channel component tests

© ASCE 04019229-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Strain profiles at different story drift ratios along the length of the top right chord members at the end of special segments: (a) STMF-1; and
(b) STMF-2.

Inelastic
deformation

Extended End vertical

No LTB gusset plate member

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Special detailing at the end joint of the special segment at 4% story drift ratio: (a) bottom view; and (b) side view.

5000
3500
4500 LS=0.2L LS=0.3L
4000 2MC18 2MC18 3000
2C12 2C12
Moment (kN-m)

Moment (kip-ft)

3500 2C8 2C8 2500

3000 2C6 2C6
2000
2500
2MC18x42.7 1500
2000
1500 1000
RyMnc of 2MC18x42.7
1000
500
500
0 0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Member Rotation (rad)

Fig. 18. Maximum flexural capacity of chord member in SS at 3%

story drift ratio according to the AISC 341-16 V ne equation.
Fig. 19. Moment versus rotation response of 2C12 × 20.7 component
specimen and FEA.
(Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2018) up to a member rotation of 8%
and is then followed by a rapid strength degradation to consider
the strength loss due to fracture. In most commercial software, as shown in Fig. 23(b). Table 5 provides suggested values for
elastic rotation will be automatically determined according to plastic-hinge model parameters of double-channel chord members
a specified yielding moment, M y . The other parameters needed and IVMs subjected to design-basis earthquakes (DBEs) and near-
for the plastic-hinge model are ultimate moment, M u , residual mo- collapse earthquakes (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2019). These
ment, M r , and plastic rotations corresponding to specified moments models were developed for double-channel members using

© ASCE 04019229-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 Story Drift Ratio (%)
potential instability of the system. Nonlinear time-history (NTH)
-2.75 -2 -1 0 1 2 2.75
1250 analyses were carried out for STMF-2 using the models in Fig. 23
1000 FEA 800 and Table 5. All the ground motions were scaled up until their
600 intensities can fail the IVMs when the plastic rotation demand
750 Mp
400
exceeds Dl . Two of the responses are shown in Fig. 24.
500
Moment (kN-m)

All responses showed no evidence of instability after the IVMs

Moment (kip-ft)
250 200
fail. This can be attributed to the ductility of the chord members.
0 0 Extensive NTH analyses carried out by Jiansinlapadamrong et al.
-250 -200 (2019) on prototype very-long-span buildings indicated that an
-500 STMF with a ratio of 23% [i.e., ratio between the second term
-400
of Eq. (6) to the total V ne ] exhibited a stable response under strong
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-750 -600 ground motions. Based on these results and to prevent chord sec-
-1000 -Mp
-800 tions adjacent to the end of the IVMs from yielding, conservatively,
-1250
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 it is suggested that the contribution of the IVMs to the V ne be no
Member Rotation (%) more than 25%–33% of the total V ne .
If the strength of IMVs is included in the design of an STMF,
Fig. 20. Moment versus rotation result from FEA of 2MC18 × 42.7. the SDR of the system can be controlled to prevent the strength
degradation of the chord members and IVMs under a design-basis
earthquake. The maximum allowable plastic rotation can be as-
sumed as 0.07 as given in Fig. 23(b) and Table 5. The plastic rota-
recommended connection details by Jiansinlapadamrong et al. tional demands of IVMs and chord members with respect to the
(2019) and having compactness ratios meeting the requirements SDR can be established by using the yield mechanism shown
for highly ductile members (AISC 2016). Figs. 23(c and d) show in Fig. 25. The plastic rotation, θP , can be estimated by using
that the pushover curves using the proposed plastic model provide Eqs. (7) and (8)
good agreement with the responses of STMF-1 and STMF-2, re-
ðL − 0.9Ls Þ L
spectively. Plastic-hinge models for double-HSS chord members in θP;Chord ðradÞ ¼ γ þ θ ¼ θ þθ¼ θ ð7Þ
STMFs can be found in the research of Simasathien et al. (2017). 0.9Ls 0.9Ls

ðL − 0.9Ls Þ l
Design of Intermediate Vertical Members θP;IVM ðradÞ ¼ γ þ θ 0 ¼ θ þ θ ð8Þ
0.9Ls l − 2e
The contribution of the IVMs of STMF-2 to the V ne [second term
of Eq. (6)] is 47%, whereas it is 45% from the test result (that is, the where θ = plastic story drift ratio (PSDR). Eqs. (7) and (8) apply to
strength difference between STMF-2 and STMF-1). The experi- any shapes used for the chord members and IVMs. Fig. 25 and
mental result shows a significant strength drop after the IVMs Eqs. (7) and (8) indicate that the rotational demand of IVMs are
failed. Although the chord members could continue to dissipate greater than that of chord members; therefore, they typically reach
the energy in a ductile manner, a contribution from IVMs smaller their capacity before chord members do. This is also demonstrated
than this ratio would yield a smoother transition and prevent any in the experimental results of STMF-2.

Table 4. Calculated V ne and equivalent shear force from test results

Equivalent shear force from
Calculated V ne (kN) full-scale test results (kN)
AISC 341-05 AISC 341-16 Chao and Goel (2008) Proposed equation
Specimen [Eq. (1)] [Eq. (2)] [Eq. (3)] [Eq. (6)] Positive drift Negative drift
STMF-1 347 298 298 355 351 362
STMF-2 — — 442 675a 645 640
Chord members ¼ 53%; IVMs ¼ 47%; for C6 × 13, Z ðfor two channelsÞ ¼ 238,923 mm3 ; for C8 × 18.75, Z ðfor two channelsÞ ¼ 455,560 mm3 ; ω ¼ 1.4;
a

Ry ¼ 1.1, Fy ¼ 345 MPa; Ls ¼ 3,023 mm; l ¼ 1,219 mm; and e ¼ 254 mm.

Mc ,max Mc ,max

Δ Mv ,max Δ Mv ,max
h h
h h

Ls Ls

L L

Fig. 21. Yield mechanism of STMF with multiple Vierendeel panels.

© ASCE 04019229-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 l
l

e 0.9LS
0.9LS

0.9LS Vne
Vne Vne Mc ,max
2 2
2 2 M'
Mc ,max M' l M=0 e
2 M v ,max
M' 2Mv,max e
l – 2e
l – 2e Mv ,max Mv ,max
0.9LS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mv ,max 2Mv,max 2Mv ,max

2
l – 2e e l – 2e
2Mv ,maxe
Mv ,max +
l – 2e
M' =
2
(a) (b)

Fig. 22. Calculation of V ne for (a) one IVM; and (b) two IVMs.

300
200
150 Moment
200

Mp 100
Mu
Mement (kip-ft)
Mement (kN-m)

100
50 My
0 0
-50
-100 Mr
-100
-200 -Mp -150
Plastic
-200
-300 Du Dl Dr Rotation
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(a) Member Rotation (%) (b)

Lateral Displacement (in.) Lateral Displacement (in.)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
200 300

1000 1000
200
Lateral Force (kips)

Lateral Force (kips)

100

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

500 100 500

0 0 0 0

-500 -100 -500

-100
-1000 -200
-1000
-200 -300
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(c) Story Drift Ratio (%) (d) Story Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 23. (a) General moment versus rotation model of a double-channel section; (b) general plastic-hinge model in commercial software; (c) pushover
versus experimental results of STMF-1; and (d) pushover versus experimental results of STMF-2.

Table 5. Plastic-hinge modeling parameters Summary, Conclusions, and Design

Du Dl Dr Recommendations
Ground-motion excitations My Mu Mr (rad) (rad) (rad)
The major objectives of this study are (1) verifying whether larger
Design-basis earthquakes Ry Fy Z 1.4M y 0.1M u 0.03 0.07 0.09 sections (double-channel built-up members) could accommodate
Near-collapse earthquakea Ry Fy Z 1.4M y 0.1M u 0.03 0.13 0.15 the large rotational demand needed in an STMF; (2) investigating
a
According to component test results (Jiansinlapadamrong et al. 2019). connection details of the joint at the end of a special segment;

© ASCE 04019229-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 0.02 0.03
IVMs Failed
0.02 IVMs Failed
0.01
Story Drift Ratio

Story Drift Ratio

0.01
0
0

-0.01
-0.01
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.02 -0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 24. Time history of story drift ratios of STMF-2 under two selected ground motions.

g g considerably overestimate the capacity of the special segment

l-2e
using large sections. A new V ne equation [Eq. (6)] based on pre-
l θ′ ferred yield mechanism was derived by using realistic plastic-
θ hinge properties obtained from component tests. This equation
Δ provides consistent overstrength irrespective of the member sizes.
θ= lθ lθ • Where IVMs are used, their contribution to the strength of
h h
STMFs needs to be explicitly considered in the design of mem-
bers outside of the special segment. When IVMs are smaller than
0.9Ls
the chord members, they yield and fail before the chord members
due to their greater rotational demands. In other words, they
L serve as the first elements that dissipate most earthquake energy.
This behavior could be beneficial because if only the IVMs are
damaged in a moderate seismic event, they can be easily re-
Fig. 25. Relationship among story drift ratio, chord rotation, and IVM placed. On the other hand, IVMs with high flexural capacity
rotation. can lead to an unfavorable yield mechanism where the chord
sections adjacent to the end of the IVMs yield, and could lead
to a drastic drop of the lateral strength of an STMF once they fail.
Therefore, it is suggested that the contribution of the IVMs to the
(3) verifying a new detailing configuration at the plastic-hinge re- V ne be no more than 25%–33% of the total V ne . This contribu-
gion to minimize LTB and boundary conditions of the join at the tion can be calculated from Eq. (6) with reasonable accuracy.
end of the special segment at full-scale level; and (4) investigating In current practice, where the IVMs are larger than the chord
seismic performance of STMF with a special segment having single members, which was not experimentally investigated in this
and multiple Vierendeel panels and suggesting a design equation study, an analysis should be done to confirm that the preferred
considering the contribution of IVMs to V ne . The results from yielding mechanism can be achieved and their contribution to the
the experimental tests of double-channel components and full-scale V ne would not cause detrimental degradation of strength once
STMF subassemblages were compared with the current practice they fail.
and AISC seismic provisions. The conclusions and design recom-
mendations are drawn as follows:
• Proposed special detailing: extended gusset plates with a weld- Acknowledgments
free zone (plastic-hinge region) at the ends of the chord in the
special segment and the IVMs can minimize LTB and thereby This research was supported by the US National Science Founda-
effectively enhance the rotational ductility. tion under award CMMI-0936563 and by the American Institute
• It is recommended that the end of vertical members at the end of of Steel Construction (AISC). The authors would like to thank
special segments should not be welded directly to the flanges of Dr. Carol Shield, Paul Bergson, Rachel Gaulke, Michael Boldischar,
the chord members. This is to allow for a free spread of large Lauren Snyder, and the staff at the University of Minnesota’s Multi-
inelastic deformation in plastic hinges, thereby preventing un- Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) Laboratory for their assis-
desirable early failure due to fractures. tance. Contributions from Brandon Price and Rachel Simer [former
• Full-scale STMF testing indicated that splicing of chord mem- NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) students] are
bers can be permitted within one-half the panel length from the also appreciated. Dr. Kyongsub Park (Postdoctoral Fellow at UTA)
ends of the special segment. generously assisted with the finite-element analysis in this study.
• The upper bound length-to-depth ratio of the special segment in
an STMF in AISC 314-16 can be relaxed to 2.5.
• Except for the first pair of stitches, which have a clear spacing to Notation
the gusset plate of 25 mm, the spacing of other stitches for the
built-up chord members can be relaxed to 0.066Ery =Fy . The following symbols are used in this paper:
• The current AISC 341-16 V ne equation [Eq. (2)] can underesti- Dl = plastic rotation corresponding to the beginning of
mate the capacity of the special segment using small sections and strength degradation;

© ASCE 04019229-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229

 Dr = plastic rotation corresponding to the end of strength References
degradation;
AISC. 1997. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago:
Du = plastic rotation corresponding to ultimate flexural
AISC.
strength;
AISC. 2002. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC 341-02.
E = modulus of elasticity of steel; Chicago: AISC.
e = distance from center of the chord member to the end of AISC. 2005. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC 341-05.
weld of the intermediate vertical member; Chicago: AISC.
Fy = specified minimum yield stress; AISC. 2010. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC 341-10.
I = moment of inertia; Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2016. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC 341-16.
I c = moment of inertia of the chord member of the special
Chicago: AISC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

segment; ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materi-
I v = moment of inertia of the intermediate vertical member of als. ASTM E8/E8M-16a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
the special segment; Basha, H. S., and S. C. Goel. 1994. Seismic resistant truss moment frames
L = span length of truss; with ductile vierendeel segment. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan.
Ls = length of special segment; Basha, H. S., and S. C. Goel. 1995. “Special truss moment frames with
l = depth of the truss between horizontal chord member Vierendeel middle panel.” Eng. Struct. 17 (5): 352–358. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0141-0296(95)00018-3.
centerlines;
Chao, S.-H., and S. C. Goel. 2008. “A modified equation for expected
M c;max = maximum expected developed moments in the chord maximum shear strength of the special segment for design of special
member; truss moment frames.” Eng. J. 45 (2): 117–125.
M nc = nominal flexural strength of the chord member of the Goel, S. C., and S.-H. Chao. 2008. Performance-based plastic design:
special segment; Earthquake-resistant steel structures. Country Club Hills, IL:
M nv = nominal flexural strength of the intermediate vertical International Code Council.
member of the special segment; Goel, S. C., and A. M. Itani. 1991. “Seismic resistant special truss moment
frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 120 (6): 1781–1797. https://doi.org/10.1061
M p = nominal plastic flexural strength;
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:6(1781).
M r = residue flexural strength; Itani, A. M., and S. C. Goel. 1991. Earthquake resistant design of open web
M u = ultimate flexural strength; framing systems. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan.
M v;max = maximum expected developed moments in the Jiansinlapadamrong, C., K. Park, J. Hooper, and S.-H. Chao. 2019.
intermediate vertical member; “Seismic design and performance evaluation of long-span special truss
M y = expected yield flexural strength; moment frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (7): 04019053. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002340.
m = number of IVMs;
Jiansinlapadamrong, C., B. Price, and S.-H. Chao. 2018. “Cyclic behavior of
Pnc = nominal compressive strength of the chord member at steel double-channel built-up components with a new lateral-torsional-
the ends; buckling prevention detail.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (8): 04018127. https://doi
Pnt = nominal axial tensile strength of diagonal members of .org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002125.
the special segment; Simasathien, S. 2016. “Cyclic loading performance of special truss moment
Ry = ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified frames and modified structural layouts for staggered truss framing sys-
minimum yield stress, Fy ; tem for seismically active areas.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
V ne = expected vertical shear strength of the special segment;
Simasathien, S., C. Jiansinlapadamrong, and S.-H. Chao. 2017. “Seismic
α = angle of diagonal members with horizontal plane; behavior of special truss moment frame with double hollow structural
θ = story drift ratio; and sections as chord members.” Eng. Struct. 131 (Jan): 14–27. https://doi
ω = strain-hardening factor. .org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.001.

© ASCE 04019229-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019229