STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL

TECHNICAL INFORMATION & PRODUCT SERVICE

March 2001

Large Seismic Steel Beam-to-Column Connections

by

Egor P. Popov, Professor Shakhzod M. Takhirov, Ph.D.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) University of California, Berkeley

Professor Egor Paul Popov standing next to his last steel connection test specimen (February 2001). Egor Paul Popov, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, passed away Thursday, April 19, 2001, after a brief illness. Professor Popov began his engineering studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and continued with graduate work at the California Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University, where he obtained his doctorate degree in 1946. In his lengthy and illustrious career, he was called upon by NASA for his engineering expertise and played a key role in the structural analyses of the Alaskan Pipeline and the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge. Popov joined the Department of Civil Engineering at UC Berkeley in 1946, and was active in teaching and research there for more than 50 years. His research interests covered a wide spectrum of topics in earthquake engineering, including cyclic testing and modeling of structural members; the development, research, and application of the eccentrically braced frame; research on the seismic resistance of steel connections and the development of improved connection details; and the development of friction devices to retrofit existing structures. He was appointed the first chairman of AISCD's Committee on Seismic Provisions for Steel Buildings and served in this position for several years. Elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1976, Professor Popov was honored in 1999 with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute's highest honor, the George W. Housner Medal.

Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................ii 1 Review of the Previous Research
1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................1 1.2 Overview .........................................................................................1 1.3 Tension Tests on A490 1 Bolts............................................................1 1.4 Test Specimen Design and Detailing.......................................................2

2 Connection Design and Estimate Calculations

2.1. Test specimens based on the proposed design...........................................2 2.2. Basic Parameters Used in the Connection Calculation................................2 2.2.1. Calculation of Plastic Hinge Location in the Beam.....................................3 2.2.2. Calculation of Probable Plastic Moment at the Hinges.................................3 2.2.3. Beam Shear Calculation....................................................................3 2.2.4. Calculation of the Moment at the Centerline of the Column..........................4 2.2.5. Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition....................................4 2.3. The Connection Details Calculations......................................................5 2.3.1. Calculation of the T-section Stem Thickness at the Weakest Section near the Column Face........................................................................................5 2.3.2. Calculation of the T-section Flange Size................................................6 2.3.3. Calculation of Bolt Size Between the T-section and the Column Flanges (During the Design 1 inch High-Strength Bolts were Chosen)......................................7 2.3.4. Calculation of Weld Size to Beam Flanges for Both Specimens (3/4 inch Fillet Weld Was Used).....................................................................................8

3 Experimental Program
3.1 Introduction....................................................................................8 3.2 Test Specimens, Test Setup and Instrumentation.......................................9 3.2.1 Test Setup......................................................................................9 3.2.2 Instrumentation..............................................................................9 5.2.3 Data Acquisition......................................................................................9 3.2.4 Loading History.............................................................................10 3.2.5 Data Processing.............................................................................10 3.3 Test Results....................................................................................11 3.3.1 Specimen 1.....................................................................................11 3.3.2 Specimen 2.....................................................................................12

4 Experimental Results and Conclusions

4.1 Experimental results.........................................................................13 4.2 Conclusions: advantages and disadvantages of proposed connections............13 4.2.1 Advantages....................................................................................13 4.2.2 Disadvantages................................................................................14 4.2.3 Future Research Directions................................................................14 References.....................................................................................15

ABSTRACT
Two large bolted steel moment-resisting connections were studied by experiments. These connections were single-sided beam-column assemblies that are representative of exterior beam-column connections, and they were composed of W36xl50 Grade 50 beams and W14x283 Grade 50 columns. T-sections were cut from W40x264 sections of Grade 50 steel. The T-section stems were welded to the beams and pre-stressed by bolts to the beam flanges in the shop. Final beam-to-column assembly required no additional welding: the T-section flanges were bolted to the column and the column shear tab was bolted to the beam web. The specimens had two symmetrically located T-sections with the difference in web geometry: the Specimen 1 had rectangular shape of stems, whereas the Specimen 2 had U-shaped stems. During the cyclic testing the beam deformation was minimal due to active participation of the T-section flanges: a separation between Tsection flanges and the column flanges were observed. This separation was occurred due bending plastic deformation in the T-section flanges. This phenomenon allowed energy dissipation and prevented the beam flanges and beam web from severe buckling.

ii

1 Review of the Previous Research

1.1 Introduction

The generally accepted detail of attaching steel beams to columns in seismic applications consists of shear tabs attached to the column and direct welding of beam flanges with or without cover plates to column flanges. Numerous tests on this type of a connection were supported by NSF with many specimens donated by the fabricators. The testing of such specimens was organized by SAC Joint Venture.
The moment capacity of such connections depends on cyclic endurance of flange welds in both tension and compression. Under these conditions numerous tension weld failures were observed both in the laboratory and the field. SAC has proposed six connections to avoid future weld failures. We propose another connection that avoids weld failures and it is field bolted and shop welded.

1.2 Overview

An attempt at the above approach on several end-plate connections was made by K.C. Tsai and E.P. Popov at University of California, Berkeley (1988 and 1990). An example of this kind of a connection is shown in Fig. 1-1. It is of interest to note that direct welding of a beam to a column stub shown Specimen 9 in Fig. 1-1 results in good behavior, but the erection is not generally practical. Specimen 10 in Fig. 1-1 with no ribs over the beam flanges did not give satisfactory results. Specimen 10R with ribs over the beam flanges at the column stub behaved very well under cyclic loading as can be seen in Fig. 1-2. Note the required large thickness of the end plate (a connection based on the design of Specimens 10 and 10R may require shims during assembling). The above approach recently was also pursued by T.M. Murray and his associates in 2000 at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) with good results. They achieved a number of successful tests with W36xl50 beams. It appears that for larger or heavier beams the use of ribs over beam flanges at columns would be required. An extensive excellent study of bolted connections has been done at Georgia Institute of Technology by R. Leon and his associates in 2000. The work is very comprehensive, but is limited to small and medium size members. The newly developed and tested connection at University of California, Berkeley is somewhat related to the end plate connection but is more versatile as it is more readily adaptable to a larger range of heavier beams. The new connection depends on the use of A490 1 bolts in tension in oversize round holes (as in the column flange and in the Tsection flange as well) and shop fillet welds.

1.3 Tension Tests on A490 1 Bolts

In order to conduct ductility study on the A490 1 bolts two tests were performed. For the first test, a special device was built to test simultaneously the shank of the bolt and the threaded part of the bolt below the nut. The actual failure occurred in the threaded region. The remarkable ductility of A490 bolt was clearly demonstrated and the load versus elongation diagram is presented on Fig. 1-3. Another experiment on a specimen of constant diameter machined from A490 bolt also showed excellent ductility. Figure 1-4 shows stress versus strain diagram for this test.
1.4 Test Specimen Design and Detailing
One of newly developed connections using A490 1 bolts is shown in Fig. 1-5. The details for the two specimens are shown in Fig. 1-6 and 1-7. In both cases the attachment of a beams to a column is made using structural tees cut from W shapes (T-sections). A large choice of such sections is available. By rotating the beam all fillet welds can be done in the shop in a down-hand position. Generous rounded fillets occur in all cases between a beam flange and the stem of the T-sections. Shop experience in fabricating these two specimens was very encouraging.

2 Connection Design and Estimate Calculations

2.1. Test specimens based on the proposed design.
The beams were fabricated from a W36xl50 section of A572-Gr.50 steel, the columns were fabricated from a W14x283 section of A572-Gr.50 steel. The T-sections were made from W40x264 section of A572-Gr.50 steel. The geometrical properties of the beam sections used in the specimens are presented in Tables 2-1 though 2-3. They represent widely available data for standard rolled I-beams with W- shapes (see, for instance, AISC 1995a).

The global dimensions and geometry of the specimens are shown in Fig. 1-5. Figures 1-6 and 1-7 show the design details for the Specimen 1 and the Specimen 2. The material properties of the connections from mill certificate data are presented in Table 2-4. The specimens had two symmetrically located T-sections with the difference in the geometry of the stems: the Specimen 1 had rectangular shape of the stems, whereas the Specimen 2 had U-shaped stems. The T-section stems were welded to the beams in the shop, and later the T-section flanges were bolted to the columns.
2.2. Basic Parameters Used in the Connection Calculation.
Nonlinear deformation of a building frame is typically accommodated through the development of inelastic flexural or shear stains within discrete regions of the structure. At large deformations these regions can develop into plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated rotations without significant changes of the load, as shown in Fig. 2-1. This behavior is accompanied by significant energy dissipation, particularly by members involved in plastic deformation. The formation of plastic hinges in the beams is extremely desirable.

2.2.1. Calculation of Plastic Hinge Location in the Beam.

The probable location for the formation of the plastic hinges is a basic parameter for the connection calculations. Figure 2-2 shows the suggested location of the plastic hinge. The location depends on the type of connection and our design is close to a cover-plate type, therefore the plastic hinge can be developed at the following distance from the face of the column (FEMA 267a):

Lh= dsts+ db/4,

Where: db is a depth of the beam, the value of the beam depth db is presented in the Table 2-1; dsts is a total depth of the T-section. This parameter is 28.75 inches for the Specimen 1 and 20 inches for the Specimen 2, as it is shown in Table 2-3.

Therefore the plastic hinge is located at the following distance from the face of the column: Lh= 37.7 inches, for the Specimen 1 and Lh= 29.0 inches, for the Specimen 2.
2.2.2. Calculation of Probable Plastic Moment at the Hinges.

The probable value of the plastic moment, Mpr, at the location of the plastic hinge should be calculated from the equation, proposed in FEMA-267b:

Mpr=1.1ZbFyb.
Where:

Fyb is the actual yield stress of the beam material, as identified from mill test reports in the Table 2-4, Zb is the plastic modulus of the beam section determined from the Table 2-1. Therefore for the proposed design and for chosen material properties Zb = 581 inch3, and Fyb = 56.6 ksi, the probable value of the plastic moment is as following:
Mpr= 36173 kip*inch.
2.2.3. Beam Shear Calculation.

The shear in the beam, at the location of the plastic hinge should be determined. The length of the arm at plastic hinge location is calculated from total beam length, Lb, minus the distance of the hinge location, Lh. Therefore the shear at the plastic hinge Vp can be determined from the formula:

Vp=Mpr/(Lb-Lh).

Therefore the values of the shear at the location of the plastic hinge are

Vp= 375.7 kips, for the Specimen 1, and Vp= 344.4 kips, for the Specimen 2.
2.2.4. Calculation of the Moment at the Centerline of the Column.

The moment at centerline of the column can be calculated as following, as it shown on Fig. 2-3:
Mc = Mpr+ Vp (Lh + dc/2).

This expression is modified by using previous expression for the shear and the formula for the moment calculation has the following form:

Mc = Vp (Lb + dc/2).
In our particular case the values of the moment at the centerline of the column are

Mc = 53485 kip*inch, for the Specimen 1, and Mc = 49030 kip*inch, for the Specimen 2.

2.2.5. Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition.

Buildings with the plastic hinges in the beams dissipate more energy than buildings with plastic hinges in the columns. Therefore, the connection in the building has to develop the plastic hinge in the beam rather than in the column. To determine if the desired strong column - weak beam condition exists, the connection assembly should be checked for the following condition (FEMA 267b):
Z c ( Fyc f a ) / M c > 1.0.
Where: Zc - is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection, Fyc - is the maximum specified yield stress for the column above and below, fa - is the axial stress in the column above and below, M c - is the sum of the column moments at the top and the bottom of the panel zone, respectively, resulting from the development of the probable beam plastic moments, Mpr.

In our case the column moment at the top of the panel zone, Mct, and the moment at the bottom of panel zone, Mcb , are the same:
Mcb= Mct= (MC/2)(LC /2 - dc/2)/( Lc /2) .

For the proposed connection the last formula produces the following values for both specimens:

Mcb= Mct= 23351 kip*inch for the Specimen 1 and

Mcb= Mct= 21406 kip*inch for the Specimen 2.

The axial stress in the column is calculated from the shear load acting in the column divided by the effective area of the column cross section:
fab = fab = Vp/Ac.

In case of the proposed connection the axial stress is calculated as following: fab = fab = 4.51 ksi for the Specimen 1 and fab = fab = 4.13 ksi for the Specimen 2.

Therefore the main criteria for the strong column - weak beam condition will be satisfied for both specimens, because of the following results:
Z c ( Fyc f a ) / M c = 1.10 > 1.0 for the Specimen 1 and Z c ( Fyc f a ) / M c = 1.21 > 1.0 for the Specimen 2.

2.3. The Connection Details Calculations.

2.3.1. Calculation of the T-section Stem Thickness at the Weakest Section near the Column Face.

The weakest cross section near the column face is located at the K-line of the T-section. This section is at a distance, which includes the flange thickness of the T-section, tsts and radius of the fillet in the K-line. This value is equal to 3 inches. The location of the section is presented on Fig. 2-4. The moment at this location is calculated as following:

Mws = Vp(Lb 3).

The numeric values for the moment in case of the proposed connection are calculated as following:
Mws = 49214 kip*inch for the Specimen 1 and Mws = 45114 kip*inch for the Specimen 2.

The chosen cross section consists of the cross sections of T-section stems and the cross section of the shear plate, as it is shown in Fig. 2-5. The out of scale picture of the chosen cross section with the dimensions used during the calculation is presented on Fig.2-5. The connection design allows a plastic deformation in this cross section. Therefore the total moment in this cross section will consists of two moments. The fist moment, M1 , is calculated with the plastic modulus of the shear plate, Z1, and has the following expression:
M1 =Fysp* Z1 ,

where Z1 =(0.75*(24) 2) /4.

The corresponding numerical value (for Fysp = 56.6 ksi) is calculated as following and it is the same for both specimens: M1 =6113 kip*inch.
The second moment, M2, is calculated with the plastic modulus of stems sections, Z2:
M2=Fyts*Z2, where Z2=2*18.4*16*0.96.

Therefore the numerical value of this moment (with Fyts = 64 ksi) can be calculated as
M2 =36176 kip*inch.

The total moment at this cross section calculated with the assumption of plastic deformation of the section is: Mdesigned =42289 kip*inch.

The difference between the designed moment, Mdesigned, and the expected one at this weak section, Mws, is within 14 percent. This difference is acceptable, because the weak cross section has extremely small length (less then 3 percent of the beam depth) and it is followed by a very strong cross section. The strong cross section has very high value of the elastic section modulus and allows only elastic deformation up to the following value of the moment: Mstong =58415 kip*inch.
2.3.2. Calculation of the T-section Flange Size.

In order to find the thickness of the T-section's flange the flange was modeled as a fixedend beam shown in Fig. 2-6. The concentrated load acts at the midpoint of the beam and represents the stem's puling force. The maximum force developed in the stem can be calculated as following:
P = Fyts Astem,

where the cross section area of the stem is Astem=16*0.96=15.36 inch2. Therefore the value of the load is as following:

P = 983 kips.
The statically indeterminate beam presented in Fig. 2-6, can be solved for the reaction forces and moments and they have the following expressions (AISC 1995a, page 4-195):

Ra= Rb =P/2,

Ma= Mb=PL/8. Therefore the reaction moment applied at the bolt location has the following maximum value: Ma= Mb=584 kip*inch The connection design assumes that the plastic deformations can be developed near the bolt location. Therefore the required plastic modulus of the flange cross section is as following:
Z required = Ma /Fyts , or Z required = 9.1 inch3.

The chosen flange of the T-section has to have the plastic modulus not lower then the required one, and it's value for the chosen flange thickness is: Zdesigned = 16*(1.73) 2/4 =11.97 inch3.
The elastic section modulus for the rectangular cross section of the flange is 1.5 times less then the plastic one and is equal to

Sdesigned = 7.98 inch3. Therefore the design allows the flange yielding but without developing a plastic hinge near the bolt location. 2.3.3. Calculation of Bolt Size Between the T-section and the Column Flanges (During the Design 1 inch High-Strength Bolts were Chosen). As it was discussed before the model for the T-section flanges is shown in Fig. 2-6. According this model the total axial force acting in each row (of 4 bolts) is: Ra=Rb=P/2=492kips. The corresponding axial force acting in one bolt is: Rbolt=123 kips. For the chosen 1 inch high-strength bolts the design tensile strength is (AISC 1995b) Rbolt(LFRD)=104 kips. The conducted tests on the high-strength bolts (see section 1.3 of this report) show very high ductility of the used bolts, the bolt specimen started to yield at 132 kips with the ultimate tensile load of 150 kips (see results presented on Fig. 1-3). These results explain

the chose of the 1 inch high-strength bolts for the column and the T-section connection.

2.3.4. Calculation of Weld Size to Beam Flanges for Both Specimens (3/4 inch Fillet Weld Was Used).

The total length of the weld is different for the specimens, the length per the beam flange is designed as following (including weld in U-shaped part for Specimen 2):
lweld - 2*23.5=47.0 inch for the Specimen 1 and. lweld = 2*14.75+2*9.25=48.0 inch for the Specimen 2.

The maximum force in the beam flange will be equal to the product of the flange cross section area, Abflange, and the specified yield stress for the beam, Fyb :
Fmax
=

Abflange Fyb.

For the numerical parameters of the proposed connection, the value of this force is equal to Fmax = 638 kips for both specimens. The load per inch of the fillet weld is calculated as following:
Fper\inch =13.3 kips/inch for the Specimen 1 and Fper\inch =13.6 kips/inch for the Specimen 2.
The required leg length is calculated the widely used expression

lleg = F per\inch/(0.707*1.7*21 ksi).

The required leg length for the designed specimens is determined as following:
lleg =0.54 inch for the Specimen 1 and lleg =0.53 inch for the Specimen 2.
Based on the results of these calculations the 3/4 inch weld was used during the manufacturing the specimens.

3 Experimental Program
3.1 Introduction

This section summarizes the results of cyclic testing of two full scale beam-column bolted connection specimens. The specimens were designed by Prof. E.P. Popov and were fabricated by Stoltz Metals, Inc. The tests were carried out in the Structural

Research Laboratory of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.

3.2 Test Specimens, Test Setup and Instrumentation

3.2.1 Test Setup

The specimens were tested in the Structural Research Laboratory of PEER, UC Berkeley. The test setup was designed to accommodate specimens with columns in vertical position, as shown in Fig. 3-1. The specimens were attached to horizontal and vertical frames. The horizontal steel frame was pre-stressed to the strong floor. The columns in the test specimens were attached to the horizontal frame and the vertical reaction frame using short segments of W 14x311 to achieve near pinned boundary conditions. The load was applied to the cantilever beam end by a 400-kip hydraulic actuator, through a clevis bolted to the beam end plate. The testing setup had displacement capacity of 7.75 inches and load capacity of 350-kip. No axial load was applied to the column. The test was conducted using the beam end displacement control. The beam end was at a distance of 134 in from the column face. To prevent out of plane movement of the beam, a vertical bracing system was provided near the beam end. The photograph in Fig. 3-2 shows a view of a test in progress.
3.2.2 Instrumentation

Many sensors were used to monitor the response of the specimens during the test in order to understand the specimen behavior. Figure 3-3 shows the location of displacement measuring instruments on the specimens. The imposed displacement at the end of the beam was measured by LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer). This displacement is denoted by , a load cell in-line with the actuator measured axial force P. The DCDT (which is a LVDT with built-in solid state oscillator and phase-sensitive demodulator) displacement transducers were used to provide the remaining displacement measurements. The deformation of the beam panel zone was calculated from readings at 1 and 2 DCDT locations. Global deflection shape of the column was measured by 3 6 displacement transducers. The amplitude of gap opening between the T-section flanges and the column flanges was measured by two displacement transducers 7 and 8 . Strain gages and rosettes were glued at critical locations to investigate local response. Figures 3-4 shows these locations on the Specimen 1, the strain measuring instrumentation for the Specimen 2 was the same, excluding some minor changes in gage locations. Thirty-eight channels of data were used during testing.
3.2.3 Data Acquisition

The test control and the data acquisition system were run by a PC Windows-based control and acquisition program called Automated Testing System (ATS) developed by SHRP Equipment Corporation of Walnut Creek, California. This Program is capable of signal

generation, four-channel servo-actuator command, and sixteen-channel data acquisition. For the tests the ATS system was used to monitor and control the displacement and forcefeedback signals.

Other data were monitored and recorded using an AutoNet data acquisition system with a capacity of 64 channels. Pacific Signal Conditioners were used to amplify the transducers and the strain gages signals and to remove frequencies above 100 Hz from the analog signal.
3.2.4 Loading History

The testing program was based on the ATC-24 document "Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Steel Structures". The specimens were tested under displacement control, following a loading history consisting of stepwise increasing deformation cycles. At certain stage of plastic deformation of the specimens a few cycles with small amplitude were imposed. Each loading step was defined by the peak beam end displacement and by the number of cycle. Table 3-1 presents the testing program for the Specimen 1 and the Specimen 2.
3.2.5 Data Processing

The specimen behavior was characterized by the following parameters: applied load, beam end displacement, total plastic rotation of the connection, panel zone shear deformation, column deformation, deformation in the T-section flange, and beam deflection. A test specimen layout, the corresponding measurements, and the chosen positive direction of applied load, and measured displacements are shown on Fig. 3-3. Total displacement of the beam end total is caused by rigid body motion of the connection, the deformations of the beam itself, column, panel zone, and deformation in the T-section flange. The rigid body motion was possible due small flexibility in the vertical reaction frame. This part of the displacement was not too large, but it could not be neglected. Therefore the beam end relative displacement was calculated from the total one by subtracting of the rigid body displacement. As a result of the column and panel zone deformations, the panel zone rotates trough an angle c and changes its initial configuration. Four displacement measurements ( 1 , 2, 4, and 5 ) were used to compute the connection rotation due column deflection c and panel shear deformation . The total beam rotation can be separated into four components: rotation due deformation of the beam itself b , rotation caused by rigid connection rotation c , the contribution from the panel zone , and the rotation due gap opening in the T-sections T . These values were determined as follows: Total beam end displacement: total Relative beam end displacement: = total - L( 6 - 3 ) / H . The remainder of the calculation was done using this value of the displacement; where H is a distance from pin to pin along the column, and L is the distance from the beam end to the center line of the column Total rotation: = / L
10

Connection rotation due column deflection: c = ( 5 - 4 ) / d . Where d is a distance between continuity plates 2 2 Panel zone shear deformation: = ( 5 - 4 ) a + b / ( 2ab ). Where a and b are the dimensions of the rectangular panel zone area (distance between targets in horizontal and vertical directions) Rotation due gap opening (and deformation) between T-section flange and column flange: T = ( 8 - 7 )/ d . Total plastic rotation: pl = - M / K . Where M=PL 0 (L0 is a distance from center-line of the actuator to the face of the column) is the moment at the face of the column and K is the elastic stiffness determined from M versus pl curve. The unloading path of one of the elastic cycles below the reverse point was used to estimate this stiffness, to avoid the influence of initial imperfections, clearances, hysteresis, etc.

A set of programs for the MATLAB 5.3 environment was created to process data and to plot results in accordance with the procedure described above.

3.3 Test Results

3.3.1 Specimen 1

Testing of the first specimen was conducted on July 30, 2000. The specimen sustained all loading steps up to and including the 5.69" beam tip displacement cycles without significant damage. Testing was stopped because the maximum load for the test setup was reached. Photo of the specimen's close up side view after the test is presented on Fig. 3-5. During the last set of the load reversals a slight buckling in the beam web and flanges was observed. The residual buckling in the beam flange and web is shown on Fig. 3-6 and Fig. 3-7. During the test energy was dissipated by cyclic yielding of the flanges of the T-sections, the gap between the T-section and column flanges was opening and closing periodically. The residual gap in the upper T-section is shown on Fig. 3-8. Table 3-1 presents the loading protocol for the both specimens. The first row in the table presents total beam end displacement total (in other words: beam end total vertical deflection). The loading history for Specimen 1 is plotted in Fig. 3-9. The plot of applied force versus beam tip displacement response total is presented on Fig. 3-10. The values of the displacement were obtained directly from the LVDT reading. The relative displacement ( ) was calculated from previous displacement by subtracting the specimen's displacement as rigid body. Because of some small flexibility in the vertical reaction frame occurred this displacement could not be neglected. The plot of applied force versus relative beam tip displacement is presented on Fig. 3-11. Based on the values of the relative beam tip displacement the total beam rotation is calculated. The imposed moment versus beam total rotation is presented on Fig. 3-12. Figure 3-13 shows the applied moment versus the beam plastic rotation. The deformation of the column panel zone is presented on Fig. 3-14.

11

During the test the visible opening between the T-section flanges and the column flanges was observed. The amplitude of the opening between flanges was measured in the following way, the installed DCDT shows the relative displacement between targets located at the center plane of the column and the T-section flanges (see details in Fig.33). Therefore during mutual compression of two flanges this displacement is negative, whereas the tension in T-sections web increases this distance and it becomes positive. This relative displacement between the flanges is called as "gap opening" in the report. Figure 3-15a and 3-15b shows these values during the test. The gap opening between Tsection flange and column flange for the upper T-section is presented on Fig. 3-15a. The same value for the lower T-section is presented on Fig. 3-15b. The beam rotation due these openings in the T-sections is presented on Fig.3-16. The imposed force versus beam rotation due panel zone rotation is presented on Fig. 317. The relative beam rotation calculated by subtracting rotation of the panel zone, rotation due gap opening in T-sections and the panel zone deformation is presented on Fig.3-18.

3.3.2 Specimen 2
Testing of the second specimen was conducted on July 20, 2000. The specimen sustained all loading steps up to the 5.69" beam tip displacement cycles and failed at the first ramp of the last cycle. The fracture was caused by crack in the web of the lower T-section. The crack line started at the end of the weld and went through the hole for 1 inch bolt. Testing was stopped after the finishing this cycle. Photo of the specimen's side view after the testing is presented on Fig. 3-19.

During the test some energy was dissipated by cyclic yielding of the T-sections, the gap between the T-section and the column flanges was open and closed periodically. The residual gap in the top T-section is shown on Fig. 3-20. At the end of the test a slight buckle in the beam web and flanges was observed. The residual buckling in the beam flanges is shown on Fig. 3-21 and Fig. 3-22.
The crack in the stem of the bottom T-section is shown on Fig. 3-23 and 3-24. Fig. 3-23 presents the view of the location of this crack on the stem of the T-section. The location was close to the K-line of the T-section and it was parallel to it. The crack started from the end of the fillet weld, continues through the nearest hole for the 1 in bolt and ends at the next bolt hole. The close view of the crack is presented on Fig. 3-24. The arrows trace the crack line. The loading protocol for the Specimen 2 is presented in Table 3-1. The loading history is plotted in Fig. 3-25.

The layout of the displacement measuring instrumentation was identical for both specimens given in Fig. 3-3. The displacement at the beam tip was measured by LVDT, whereas the remainder of displacement measurement was done using DCDT.

12

The plot of applied force versus beam tip total displacement is presented on Fig. 3-26. The values of the displacements were obtained directly from the LVDT reading. The relative displacement was calculated from previous displacement by subtracting the specimen's displacement as a rigid body. The flexibility of the reacting frame was taken into account. The plot of applied force versus relative beam tip displacement is presented on Fig. 3-27. Based on the values of the relative beam tip displacement the total beam rotation is calculated. The imposed moment versus the beam total rotation is presented on Fig. 3-28. Figure 3-29 shows the applied moment versus the beam plastic rotation. The deformation of the column panel zone is presented on Fig. 3-30. During the test the visible opening between the T-section and column flanges was observed. The values of the gap opening were measured by DCDT. Figure 3-3la and 331b shows these values during the test. The gap opening between the T-section flange and column flange for the top T-section is presented on Fig. 3-3la. The same data for the bottom T-section is presented on Fig. 2-31b. The beam rotation due these openings in the T-sections is presented on Fig. 3-32.
The imposed force versus beam rotation due panel zone rotation is presented on Fig. 333. The relative beam rotation calculated by subtracting rotation of the panel zone, rotation due gap opening in the T-sections and the panel zone deformation is presented on Fig.3-34.

4 Experimental Results and Conclusions

4.1 Experimental results

A brief summary of experimental results and key parameters characterizing the performance of tested specimens is presented in Table 4-1. The beam end displacement corresponds to the relative beam end displacement .
4.2 Conclusions: advantages and disadvantages of proposed connections
4.2.1 Advantages

The design and performance of the proposed beam-to-column connections shows the following advantages: - all welding work can be done in a welding shop, in convenient welding positions - final assembling with bolts is relatively easy procedure and does not require a rigorous quality assurance inspection (in order to achieve the required clamping force between the column and the T-section flanges the widely available torque multiplier from WRIGHTTOOL: Model 9S393A was used; the device does not produce any noise and has an accuracy of 5%)

13

after test disassembling of Specimen 2 shows that repairing and replacing beam with new T-section is neither difficult nor expensive the beam deformation is minimal due to active participation of the T-sections flanges and the column flanges during cyclic input with shims properly installed, the connection develops less residual strain eliminating large quantities of field weld greatly helps the connecting work to keep up with the steel erection.

4.2.2 Disadvantages

The chosen design and the failure of Specimen 2 show the following disadvantages and suggested improvements: - steel along the K-line of the T-section must be carefully selected - 1 inch bolts (as used in Specimen 2 to pre-stress the T-section web to beam flange) requires a greater distance between the bolt and the end of the fillet weld. Alternatively, it appears that the bolts can be omitted altogether - steel material of 1 " bolts has to be high quality as used in the tested connections - connection based on the proposed design require shims for field assembly - beams with welded top and bottom T-sections require more shipping space during transportation.
4.2.3 Future Research Directions

Based on the conducted tests and followed data analysis the following future research on this type of connections is planned: - conduct 3D finite element analysis (FEA) of the connection to explore the possibility of exchanging the existing 1 inch bolts to clamps and to investigate the decision to remove some or all of them - conduct 3D FEA of the connection to evaluate the critical parameters at the columntee joint, including the T-section size, bolt diameter, the clamping load variation and the prying action - fabricate and test new specimens with an improved design based on the theoretical research and results of the previous tests.

14

References:
1. Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E.P. 1990. Cyclic behavior of end-plate moment connections. ASCE J. of Struct. Engineering, Vol.116, No.11. 2. Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E.P. 1988. Steel Beam-Column Joints in Moment Resisting Frames. Report No. UCB/EERC 88/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
3. Murray, T.M. et al. 2000. Cyclic testing of bolted moment end plate connections. Struct. And Materials Lab., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
4. Leon, Roberto et al. 2000. Tests on bolted connections. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Report No. SEMM 00-02, Georgia Institute of Technology.

5. FEMA-267. 1995a. Interim guidelines: evaluation, repair, modification and design of welded steel moment frames. FEMA Report No. 267. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

6. FEMA-267. 1995b. Interim guidelines: advisory No. 1. supplement to FEMA 267. FEMA Report No. 267. Washington, B.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
7. AISC. 1995a. Manual of steel construction. Load & resistance factor design. Vol.1, Structural members, Specifications & codes, Second edition. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

8. AISC. 1995b. Manual of Steel Construction. Load & Resistance Factor Design. Vol.2, Connections, Second edition. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

15

Table 2-1. Dimensions of the W36xl50 beam. Flange Web Depth, db Section Flange width, thickness, [inch] modulus, thickness, t bfb fb
[inch]
12

[inch]
0.94

twb [inch] 0.625

35.85

[inch ] 581

zb 3

Area, Ab [inch2]
44.2

Moment of Length, Lb [inch] inertia, I b

[inch4]

9040

134

Table 2-2. Dimensions of the W14x283 column.

Flange width,
[inch]

bf

Web Flange Depth, dc Section thickness, tfc thickness, [inch] modulus,

[inch]
2.06

16.125

tf [inch] 1.29

16.74

Zc [inch3] 542

Area, Ac Moment of Length, Lc [inch2] [inch] inertia, Ic [inch4]

83.3
3840
136

Table 2-3. Dimensions of the T-sections cut fromW40x264.

Flange width, Flange thickness, Stem thickness, fts [inch] tfts tsts [inch] [inch] 12 1.73 0.96

Total depth for Specimen 1

(Specimen 2), dsts [inch] 28.75 (20)

Length, Lts [inch]

16

Table 2-4. Material Properties.

No Part of Connection Yield Stress, Fy [ksi] Beam 56.6 1 2 Column 52 3 T-section 64

Ultimate Stress [ksi] 74.4 66 79

Section Size W36xl50 W14x283 WT40x264

Grade Gr50 Gr50 Gr50

Table 3-1. Testing program for the both specimens. Total beam end
displacement [inch]

0.36 0.53 0.71 1.07 1.42 2.14 0.53 2.85 4.27 5.69

No of cycles

4 2 * Only 2 cycles at this level were performed for Specimen 2.

6*

16

Table 4-1. Short summary of test results

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Key parameters 230 230 Yield load [kips] Beam end displacement at the yield point [inch] 1.2 1.2 180 178 Elastic stiffness of the connection [kips/inch] Maximum beam end displacement 5.2 5.2 N/A 3.5 Beam end displacement at failure [inch] 345 327 Maximum imposed load [kips] 43164 Maximum imposed moment at the column face [kips*inch] 48645 4 Maximum connection rotation [ % ] 4 Maximum plastic connection rotation [ % ] 2.5 3.3 Maximum rotation due gap opening [ % ] 1.0 0.7 Maximum relative beam rotation itself [ % ] 0.6 1.5* This value is high because it includes the beam rotation after the bottom beam flange failure

17

Figure 1-1. Design details of end-plate connections for Specimens 10 and 10R, and that of direct welding to column, Specimen 9 (K.C. Tsai, E.P. Popov 1988, 1990).

Load (kips)

Beam Rotation (%)

Figure 1-2. Cantilever beam load versus beam rotation for Specimen 10R (K.C. Tsai, E.P.

Popov 1988, 1990).

18

Figure 1-3. Load versus elongation for A490 1 bolt.

Figure 1-4. Stress versus strain for coupon test of A490 1 bolt material.

19

20

Figure 1-5. Global dimensions and geometry of the tested specimens.

21

Figure 1-6. Design details of Specimen 1.

22

Figure 1-7. Design details of Specimen 2.

Figure 2-1. Desired plastic frame behavior with plastic hinges developed in beams.

Figure 2-2. Probable plastic hinge location.

23

Figure 2-3. Calculation of the moment at the centerline of the column.

Figure 2-4. The weakest cross-section of the beam near the column face.

24

Figure 2-5. Dimensions of the weakest cross section near the column face.

Figure 2-6. View of the column and T-section connection with the corresponding mechanical model.

25

Figure 3-1. Test setup for both specimens.

Figure 3-2. View of a test in progress.

26

Figure 3-3. Reference dimensions and measurements for the test specimens.

Figure 3-4. Strain gages and rosettes location for Specimen 1.

27

Figure 3-5. Specimen 1 after the test (side view).

Figure 3-6. Residual beam flange buckling (after the test).

28

Figure 3-7. Residual beam web buckling (after the test).

Figure 3-8. Residual gap opening in the upper T-section (after the test).

29

Tip Displacement [inch]

Time [sec]

Figure 3-9. Loading history for Specimen 1.

Actuator force [kips]

Beam end total displacement [inch]

Figure 3-10. Imposed load versus total beam end displacement for Specimen 1.

30

Actuator force [kips]

Beam end displacement [inch]

Figure 3-11. Imposed load versus beam end displacement for Specimen 1.

Moment [kips*inch]

Beam Rotation [%]

Figure 3-12. Moment versus beam total rotation for Specimen 1.

31

Moment [kips*inch]

Beam Plastic Rotation [%]

Figure 3-13. Moment versus beam plastic rotation for Specimen 1.

Actuator force [kips]

Panel zone shear deformation [%]

Figure 3-14. Imposed load versus deformation in panel zone for Specimen 1.

32

Actuator force [kips]

Relative displacement between flanges[inch]

Figure 2-15a. Relative displacement between column and top T-section flanges for Specimen 1.

Actuator force [kips]

Relative displacement between flanges[inch]

Figure 3-15b. Relative displacement between column and bottom T-section flanges for Specimen 1.
33

Actuator force [kips]

Rotation [%]

Figure 3-16. Imposed load versus beam rotation due gap opening in T-sections (Specimen 1).

Actuator force [kips]

Rotation [%]

Figure 3-17. Imposed load versus panel zone rotation for Specimen 1.

34

Actuator force [kips]

Relative beam rotation [%]

Figure 3-18. Imposed load versus relative beam rotation for Specimen 1.

35

Figure 3-19. Specimen 2 after the test (side view).

Figure 3-20. Specimen 2: Residual gap opening in top T-section.

36

Figure 3-21. Specimen 2: top beam flange buckling.

Figure 3-22. Specimen 2: bottom beam flange buckling.

37

Figure 3-23. Specimen 2: crack line location.

Figure 3-24. Specimen 2: close view of the crack line.

38

Tip Displacement [inch]

Time [sec]

Figure 3-25. Loading history for Specimen 2.

Force [kips]

Tip Displacement [inch]

Figure 3-26. Imposed load versus total beam end displacement (Specimen 2).

39

Force [kips]

Tip Displacement [inch]

Figure 3-27. Imposed load versus beam end displacement (Specimen 2).

Moment [kips*inch]

Beam Rotation [%]

Figure 3-28. Moment versus beam total rotation (Specimen 2).

40

Moment [kips*inch]

Beam Plastic Rotation [%]

Figure 3-29. Moment versus beam plastic rotation (Specimen 2).

Force [kips]

Panel Zone Shear Deformation [%]

Figure 3-30. Imposed load versus column panel zone deformation (Specimen 2).

41

Force [kips]

Gap Opening [inch]

Figure 3-3la. Relative displacement between column and top T-section flanges (Specimen 2).

Force [kips]

Gap Opening [inch]

Figure 3-31b. Relative displacement between column and bottom T-section flanges (Specimen 2).
42

Force [kips]

Rotation [%]

Figure 3-32. Imposed load versus beam rotation due gap opening in T-sections (Specimen 2).

Force [kips]

Rotation [%]

Figure 3-33. Imposed load versus panel zone rotation for Specimen 2.

43

Force [kips]

Rotation [%]

Figure 3-34. Imposed load versus relative beam rotation for Specimen 2.

44

STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL

P.O. Box 6190 Moraga, CA 94570 Tel. (925) 631-1313 Fax. (925) 631-1112

Fred Boettler, Administrator

Steel tips may be viewed and downloaded at www.aisc.org

S P O N S O R S
Adams & Smith Bannister Steel, Inc. Baresel Corp
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Four Star Erectors
PDM Strocal, Inc.

Gayle Manufacturing The Herrick Corporation

Hoertig Iron Works

Plas-Tal Manufacturing Co.

Reno Iron Works SME Industries Shollenbarger-Borello, Inc. Templeton Steel Fabrication

Bickerton Industries, Inc. Bostrum Bergen California Erectors

Eagle Iron Construcion

Junior Steel Co. McLean Steel Inc.

Martin Iron Works, Inc. Nelson Stud Welding Co.

Verco Manufacturing, Inc.

Vulcraft Sales Corp. Western Steel & Metals, Inc.

Trade Arbed

Oregon Steel Mills Eandi Metal Works

The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage to cost comparisons, fabrication details and delivery schedules.

Funding for this publication provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust.