SHEAR FORCE AND WELDED STEEL MOMENT CONNECTIONS

Subhash C. Goel, Prof. of Civil Engin., The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Boidar Stojadinovi, Asst. Prof. of Civil Engin., University of California, Berkeley, CA
Jaehyung Choi, Ph. D., Dept. of Civil Engin., The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Kyoung-Hyeog Lee, Ph. D., CALTRANS, Oakland, CA

ABSTRACT
Following extensive damage to welded steel beam-to-column moment connections
during the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Kobe earthquakes, analytical studies
showed that the flow of shear stresses at the connection is concentrated near the
beam flanges. This concentration overloads the beam flanges in that critical region
and can be a major cause for their failures. This observation led to the development
of truss analogy for the connection designs in contrast to the commonly used beam
theory.
Introduction
Beam-to-column moment connections in steel frames have been traditionally designed by using
classical Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, which leads to the assumption that flanges transfer
moment while the web connection primarily resists the shear force. The results of a recent finite
element study at The University of Michigan show that stress distribution in the vicinity of
moment connections fundamentally differs from the pattern assumed in the classical beam
theory. This is in agreement with the boundary effect postulated in the famous Saint Venants
Principle. The finite element study showed that the magnitude and direction of the principal
stresses in the connection region are better approximated by using truss analogy rather than the
classical beam theory. Thus, both the bending moment and the shear force are transferred
across the connection near the beam flanges through diagonal strut action. As a result, the
beam flange region of a traditionally designed moment connection is overloaded. This
conclusion mainly explains the recent observed steel moment connection failures during the
1994 Northridge earthquake and 1995 Kobe earthquake.
Based on realistic stress conditions in the connection region, two types of beam-to-column
connections have been developed at The University of Michigan. The first connection type,
called the Michigan connection, utilizes the truss analogy in order to resist beam flange overload
and stress concentration by using reinforced connection elements to the beam flanges. The
second connection type, called the Free Flange connection, is designed to create constraintfree region in the beam flange of sufficient length from the column face to the weld access hole.
In this paper, the design concepts of these two connections are introduced and test results of
full size connection specimens are summarized.

276

STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND FORCE FLOW IN THE CONNECTION REGION

Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, considerable research has been carried out in the U.
S. through the SAC/FEMA Joint Venture Program to find the reasons of premature failures of
welded beam-to-column moment connections and to improve their behavior [FEMA/SAC, (1)].
Since most connection fractures occurred in or near the beam and column welding region, poor
welding practice and use of low toughness weld metals were initially considered as the main
reasons. Thus, widely used weld metals, whose notch-toughness was not specified or
controlled, were replaced by notch-tough weld metals with a specified minimum Charpy V-notch
toughness of 20 kips-ft at -20F and backing bar and run-off tabs of the beam bottom flange
were removed after beam flange groove welding. However, experimental results have shown
that those improvements alone were not sufficient to achieve adequate ductility in the
connections. Realistic stress distributions and force transfer mechanisms also need to be
considered.
To examine the actual stress distributions and force flow in the conventional connections, finite
element analyses were carried out. Exterior beam-to-column connection sub-assemblages were
taken from the exterior frame of the building at points of inflection under lateral loading. The
finite element models were prepared using a multi-layered shell element (S4R) with reduced
integration points [Hibbit et al (2)]. The results of elastic analysis were obtained using ABAQUS
finite element analysis program. Figure 1 shows the principal stress vectors in a pre-Northridge
connection.

Figure 1 Principal stress vectors in pre-Northridge connection

As can be seen in Figure 1, the principal stresses near the column face are directed toward the
top and bottom corners of the beam web. Stress-free region is observed in the middle of the
beam web at the column face.
The normal stress distribution along the beam flange width at the connection interface and the
shear stress distribution along the shear tab are shown in Figure 2. The results obtained using
ABAQUS are compared with the results of the classical beam theory. Figure 2 shows that the
actual stress distributions in the connection region are fundamentally different from the results

277

obtained from the conventional beam theory. Normal stress distribution along the beam flange
width at the column face is supposed to be uniform. In reality, the stresses are largest in the
central part of the beam flange and decrease toward the edges. The actual shear stress
distribution in the beam web is reversed compared to the parabolic distribution given by the
classical beam theory. In addition to stress concentrations along the beam flange width, local
flange bending produces a large difference of normal stresses through the beam flange
thickness and can cause yielding in a very localized region of the beam flange. These results
imply that the possibility of brittle fracture in the beam flange is much higher than elsewhere in
the connection.
FEM results

100

Normal stress (ksi)

80

Beam theory

60

40
FEM results
Beam theory
20

0
0

Along the beam flange width

10

15

20

Shear stress (ksi)

Figure 2 Normal and shear stress comparison between FEM and beam theory at column face
The stress distribution phenomenon due to local curvature was studied in a recent report [Lee et
al (3)]. As discussed in that report, the column face is significantly stiffer than beam flange. Such
difference in stiffness restrains shear deformation of the beam flange and causes further
redistribution of shear stresses in the beam web. This redistribution is such that the shear
stresses concentrate at the corners of the beam web where the restraint of shear deformation is
largest. This additional shear force causes local bending of the beam flange. Moreover, column
flange prying action, induced by column bending, produces additional flange curvature and
further increases the stress concentration at the center of the top layer of the beam flange. A
typical stress gradient through the thickness of the beam top flange is shown in Figure 3.
Pronounced local flange curvature causes concentrated yielding in a very restricted area, the
center of the top layer of the beam flange. This volume of yielded material is surrounded by still
elastic and stiff material, which prevents spread of yielding out to the beam web and further into
the flange. Such restrained stress state is main reason for beam flange brittle fracture instead of
ductile yielding.
Based on the above observations, it can be concluded that the pre-Northridge connection
configuration cannot achieve ductile response by change of weld metal or improvements in
welding detail alone. Thus, improved connection configurations and design procedures need to
be devised in order to achieve adequate ductility.

278

Flange thickness

Through thickness Mises stress

60ksi
43ksi

50ksi

25ksi

130ksi

90ksi

87ksi
44ksi

23ksi

Top flange

tf
Top layer

A'

Middle layer
0 bf

1/4 b f

1/2 b f

Bottom layer

Figure 3 Different stress level in top and bottom layers of the top flange
DESIGN CONCEPTS OF NEWLY DEVELOPED CONNECTIONS
The analytical study of conventional connection shows that the connection should not be
designed by methods based on classical beam theory. To reflect actual stress distributions and
shear transfer mechanism in connection design, two types of beam-to-column connections were
developed at The University of Michigan by using truss analogy and parallel-shear spring
model. In this paper, design concepts of the two connections are briefly discussed and optimal
connection configurations are presented.

Figure 4 Principal stress vectors and force transmission in the truss model

279

Michigan Connection
As illustrated through the principal stress vectors, most stresses and shear force in the
connection region are concentrated at the corners of beam web and flanges, leaving a
practically stress-free region in the middle of the beam web. The Michigan connection was
developed to account for this stress flow. Figure 4 shows the principal stress vectors and force
transmission along with the truss model for practical design purposes.
According to the truss model, the combined shear and normal forces are reacted at the top and
bottom corners of the connection, which is in good agreement with the principal stress flow.
Therefore, the connection is designed to resist these concentrated forces at the top and bottom
corners near the beam flanges. The connection is made with several elements, such as flange
plate and vertical rib plates in order to resist normal and shear forces at the top and bottom
corners of the connection. A suggested configuration of these connecting elements is shown in
Figure 5. The top and bottom beam flanges are indirectly connected to the column face through
the connecting elements in order to eliminate the constraining boundary effects at the junction of
the web. The normal force due to beam moment is shared by the flange plate and vertical rib
plates, whereas the shear force is assumed to be resisted by the rib plates only. Thus, the rib
plates are designed for their share of normal force and full vertical force. For practical reason,
the inner vertical rib plates at the top and bottom can be combined into one C-shape web plate,
allowing the erection bolts to be used near mid-depth of the beam web. The sizes of the vertical
rib plates and horizontal flange plates and the connecting welds are determined by using the
reaction forces as calculated from the truss model and Von Mises yield criteria. By means of the
connecting plate elements, the stress concentrations in the beam flanges are sufficiently
reduced and the location of the plastic hinge can be moved away from the vulnerable
connection region. The detailed design procedure for the Michigan connection is presented
elsewhere [Goel et al (4)].

Beam flanges are indirectly

connected to the column face

2-7/8" A325 erection Bolts

Figure 5 Optimal configuration of Michigan connection

280

Free Flange Connection

The design of Michigan connection was based on direct stress flow as governed by the
boundary effects. The Free Flange connection, on the other hand, is based on altering the beam
flange stress concentrations and shear force flow by providing enough free length of the beam
flange to deform so that constraining effects in the connection region are sufficiently reduced.
The Free Flange connection is a new connection configuration designed to alleviate both local
flange deformation and flange overload problems. Both objectives are achieved by cutting the
web of the beam back and away from the column, thus creating portions of the beam flanges
where they are not constrained by the web. The length of the web cutback, i.e., the distance
between the column face and the beginning of the tapered web cut, is called the free flange
length. Figure 6 shows the location of the free flange length. The free flange is essential for
ductile behavior of the connection. Ductility of the connection is achieved not only by using
ductile materials but also by providing constraint-free conditions in the connection region. The
free flange length serves two main purposes. First, it reduces the shear stiffness of the flanges,
thus, redirecting most of the shear force (the force that causes local flange bending) back into
the beam web. Second, the free flange lowers the strains and allows yielding to occur over
larger length. Larger web cutout also provides easier access for field welding.
Free Flange Length

Column face line

End of weld access hole

Figure 6 The free flange length

V ff

Top flange
Displ.

Kff

V ff

V tot

Displ.

V wp

Kwp

V wp

Kff

V ff

Web plate

V ff

Bottom flange
Displ.

(Idealized connecting elements near the connection)

(Parallel shear-spring model)

Figure 7 Parallel shear-spring system

281

The shear transfer mechanism in the Free Flange connection can be effectively presented by
employing a parallel shear-spring model as shown in Figure 7. The Free Flange connection
consists of three elements: the top flange, the beam web and web plate, and the bottom flange.
These three elements have the same vertical displacement when the beam undergoes shear
deformation. Thus, the shear stiffness of the Free Flange connection can be modeled as a
parallel spring system shown in Figure 7. In this figure, Vtot is the total tip load applied at the
beam end, Vwp is the shear force acting on the web plate and Vff denotes the shear forces acting
on the top or bottom flanges, assumed to be equal in magnitude. The beam flanges and the
web plate are assumed to have a fixed boundary at the column face and at the end of the free
flange length. Thus, the portion of resultant shear force in the beam flange and web plate can
be calculated as follows:
3
b ff t ff
)
E(
3
V ff
K ff
L ff
1
3
3
Vtot 2 K ff  K wp
1 hwp t wp 3
(6 L wp b ff t ff )  ( L ff hwp t wp )
)D
] 2  ( )(
E[
3
3 L wp b ff
(3L wp L ff )
where Kff is flexural stiffness of the free flange, Kwp is stiffness of the web plate, Lff is length of
the free flange, and bff and tff are width and thickness of the free flange. Lwp is length of the web
plate, and hwp and twp are height and thickness of the web plate, respectively. The factor D is
free flange length to thickness aspect ratio. Using the above equation, the portions of the shear
force in the flange and in the web plate can be calculated. As shown in this equation, the portion
of the resultant shear force in the beam flange decreases hyperbolically as the free flange
length increases. Extensive analytical study on the free flange connection showed that local
beam flange bending is sufficiently reduced and resultant shear force in the beam flanges is
reduced from more than 50% of total shear force for the conventional connection to about 15%
by using free flange connection. As presented in the parallel shear-spring model, use of stiff
web plate with adequate free flange length is essential to redirecting shear force in the flanges
back into the web connection. Figure 8 shows optimal configuration and connection design
forces of the free flange connection based on the analytical results [Choi et al (5)].

L. ff

Tf

h st (eff)

T st
Erection bolts

0.5 V u

Vu

0.5 V u

h st (eff)

M pe

C st

Cf

Figure 8 Optimal connection detail and force transfer mechanism

282

The length of beam free flange, Lff, the distance from the column face to the toe of the access
hole, is computed as Lff = D tff: where tff is thickness of the beam flange, and D is free flange
aspect ratio with a value between 5.0 and 6.0, which represents a balance point between
reduction of shear in the beam flange and increasing potential for buckling of the free flange. A
stiff and properly sized web plate is used to divert more shear force from the beam flanges and
to cover vulnerable weld access hole. Detailed design procedure is presented in the original
report by the authors [Choi et al (5)].
RESULTS OF CONNECTION TESTS
Full size beam-to-column connection specimens were tested in order to evaluate their ductility
and to validate the design procedures. Two identical Michigan connection specimens with a
W30u99 beam and W14u257 column section, and five Free Flange connection specimens with
pairs of beam and column as W24u68 and W14u120, W30u99 and W14u176, and W30u124
and W14u257, were tested. All tests followed the SAC Joint Venture Phase 2 connection testing
protocol. General test setup for both connection specimens is shown in Figure 9.
West

Reaction wall

East
6.8"

216

103.5"

Actuator

168

Upper lateral bracing

120

145"

Lower lateral bracing

72

26.8
34"
Reaction floor
0

144"

48"

Figure 9 General test setup

283

12"

210"

200
150
100

Load (kip)

50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-8

-6

-4

-2

Displacement (in)

Figure 10 Load-displacement response of Michigan connection (MI-1)

Figure 10 shows typical load-displacement hysteretic response at the center of the column for
the Michigan connection specimens. Significant beam flange yielding was observed outside of
the connection region. This flange yielding spread into the beam web as plastic hinging
progressed. At 3% drift level, localized flange and web buckling occurred due to complete
yielding of that region and some drop in strength and stiffness was observed. Due to limited
actuator capacity, maximum 4% drift cycles were repeated several times and testing was
stopped. The connection behavior was very ductile and stable without any major connection
damage or cracks.

x10

x103

25

15

20
10

15

Moment (kip-in)

Moment (kip-in)

10
5

5
0
-5

-5

-10
-15

-10

-20
-15
-0.06

-25
-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

Figure 11

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

Rotation (radian)

Rotation (radian)

Moment-rotation response of Free Flange connection (Left: strong panel zone

specimen, Right: Weak panel zone specimen)

Figures 11 and 12 show typical moment-connection rotation responses at the center of the
column for the Free Flange connection specimens with weak and strong panel zone strengths,
respectively. As can be seen in these figures, Free Flange connection specimens reached 4% drift

284

without any significant cracking or fracture. Slight local buckling of the free flanges was
observed at the 2% or 3% drift level, but the strength or stiffness of the specimen was not
affected
Although the Free Flange connection specimens showed excellent ductile behavior, some
differences in seismic responses were observed depending on the panel zone strength. In the
strong panel zone specimens, complete beam flange yielding spread into the beam web,
forming typical hourglass pattern plastic hinge approximately at one-half of the beam depth
away from the column face. However, most connection rotation occurred in the beam, which
caused lateral-stability problem and increased need for better lateral support. In the weak panel
zone specimens, excellent ductile connection behavior was observed in terms of rotation
capacity. It sustained more than 4% drift without any significant degradation of the connection
strength or cracking in the beam flanges. However, excessive panel zone yielding causes
column flange kinking, leading to beam flange fracture at large drift levels. Another undesirable
effect of excessive deformation in a weak panel zone is incomplete formation of the beam
plastic hinge. Thus, the contribution of the beam to total plastic rotation of the specimen is
limited. Therefore, inelastic rotation of the panel zone should be limited within an acceptable
range, where the panel zone undergoes some yielding but still has sufficient post-elastic
stiffness.
Figure 12 shows the maximum drift angle and total plastic rotation of Michigan and Free Flange
connection specimens. All specimens achieved a total drift of 4% or more with good connection
plastic rotation capacity. Complete design procedure for the Free Flange connection and more
details of the experimental program are presented in the original report [Choi et al (5)].

(radian)
0.06

Total rotation
Total plastic rotation

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
FF-1

FF-2

FF-3

FF-4

FF-5

MI-1

MI-2

Figure 12 Maximum drift angle and plastic rotation

285

CONCLUSION
Recent analytical and experimental research shows that welded beam-to-column moment
connections should be designed by using models that reflect actual stress distributions and
force flow in the connection region. Truss analogy and parallel-shear spring models, as
discussed in this paper, can be used for practical design work. Newly developed Michigan
connection and Free Flange connection showed excellent ductile behavior achieving more than
4% total connection rotation.

REFERENCES
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Interim Guidelines advisory No. 1, Report No.
SAC-96-03, Supplement to FEMA-267, 1997.
2. ABAQUS, Users Manual Version 5.7, Hibbit, Karlsson, and Sorenson, Inc, 1080 Main
Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860, 1997.
3. Lee, K. H., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B., Boundary effects in Welded Steel Moment
Connections. Technical Report UMCEE 97-20, Dep. of Civil and Environmental Eng., The
University of Michigan, 1997.
4. Goel, S. C., Lee, K. H. and Stojadinovic, B., Design of Welded Steel Moment Connections
Using Truss Analogy. AISC Engineering Journal, 1st Qtr., pp 31 40, 2000.
5. Choi, Jaehyung, Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B., Development of Free Flange Moment
Connection. Technical Report UMCEE 00-15, Dep. of Civil and Environmental Eng., The
University of Michigan, 2000.

286