DUCTILE DETAILING OF STEEL MOMENT FRAMES:

BASIC CONCEPTS, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Michael D. Engelhardt1
Héctor Soto Rodríguez2

SUMMARY

This paper provides a discussion of key issues related to ductile detailing of seismic-
resistant steel moment frames. Basic concepts of ductile detailing are discussed, followed
by a detailed discussion of beam-to-column connections in steel moment frames, and a
brief discussion of stability issues. The paper concludes by looking at several unresolved
issues in ductile detailing of steel moment resisting frames.

INTRODUCTION

Moment resisting frames (MRFs) are among of the most commonly used lateral force
resisting systems for steel buildings. Steel MRFs typically consist of a simple rectangular
arrangement of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the columns to
permit transfer of moment. MRFs resist lateral loads through rigid frame action, i.e., by
the development of bending and shear in the beams and columns. Figure 1 shows a photo
of a recently constructed steel MRF located in California.

MRFs have a number of advantages, which often make them a popular choice for a
lateral force resisting system. A key advantage of MRFs is their architectural versatility.
The openness of this framing system eliminates architectural obstructions caused by
braces or walls, permitting maximum flexibility in space usage. A second reason why
MRFs are frequently chosen as a lateral system is their reputation for providing high
levels of ductility. Despite recent problems with these systems in the Northridge and
Kobe Earthquakes, MRFs still enjoy a reputation as providing excellent ductility and
safety under earthquake loading. Building codes in the US and elsewhere typically assign
MRFs the highest force reduction factors among all structural systems, reflecting the high
level of ductility and safety anticipated for this system. On the other hand, a disadvantage
of MRFs in design can be their flexibility. Compared to braced frames, MRFs have
relatively low stiffness, and therefore often require larger members to satisfy code
specified drift limits.

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
2
Secretario Técnico Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Estructural y de la Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería
Sísmica y Profesor de Estructuras Facultad de Ingeniería UNAM.

1
Steel MRFs have a history of good performance is past earthquakes, with few reported
collapses and little loss of life attributed to these systems. Nonetheless, experience with
steel MRFs in strong earthquakes has not been entirely positive. The collapse of a 22
story building of the Pino Suarez complex in the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake (Ger et al
1993), followed by extensive damage observed at welded moment connections in both
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Youssef et al 1995) and the 1995 Kobe Earthquake
(Steel Committee 1995) demonstrated vulnerabilities in steel MRF systems. The lessons
of these earthquakes indicate that care in the design, detailing, and construction of steel
MRFs is needed to assure satisfactory performance in strong earthquakes. Fortunately,
steel MRF problems observed in recent earthquakes have been extensively investigated,
and lessons learned from these failures have led to improved design and construction
practices, as well as improved building code regulations. In the US, building code
provisions for earthquake resistant steel buildings, including steel MRFs, are contained in
the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings published by the American Institute
of Steel Construction (American 2001). These provisions have been updated frequently in
recent years to reflect lessons learned from Northridge and Kobe.

Figure 1 - Typical Steel Moment Resisting Frame

This paper provides a brief overview of ductile detailing requirements for seismic-
resistant steel MRFs. Emphasis is placed on the behavior and design of moment resisting
beam-to-column connections. Proper design and detailing of connections is critical for

2
ductile response of an MRF, and has been the focus of attention in research since
Northridge and Kobe. This is followed by a brief discussion of stability issues in steel
MRFs.

BASIC CONCEPTS

Under the action of a strong earthquake, an MRF will be driven well into the inelastic
range of response. The fundamental goal of the designer is to understand and control this
inelastic response to permit the development of a plastic mechanism under lateral load
that is capable of sustaining large inelastic deformations, i.e., possessing large ductility.
Effective seismic-resistant design requires an understanding of inelastic frame behavior.
To this end, an understanding of classical methods of plastic analysis and design is highly
beneficial.

Ductile response of a steel MRF is achieved by yielding of steel. Nonductile response of

steel systems is the result of fracture or instability. Consequently, a key design objective
is to maximize the yielding of steel frame elements, while at the same time delaying the
onset of fracture or instability until large inelastic deformations are achieved. To achieve
this objective, the designer must first choose the frame locations where yielding is
intended to occur, i.e., the locations of plastic hinges. In a steel MRF, the designer
generally has the choice of three possible hinge locations: 1) plastic flexural hinges at the
beam ends; 2) plastic shear hinges in the joint panel zones; or 3) plastic flexural hinges at
the clear span ends of columns. Most building code regulations discourage the third
option, i.e., hinge formation in the columns, as this may lead to the formation of a soft
story. The prohibition of column hinges is generally implemented through strong column
– weak girder design requirements. Consequently, plastic hinge formation in steel MRFs
is typically restricted to the beam ends (flexural yielding), or the joint panel zone (shear
yielding), or to a combination of these two.

The designer can control the location of plastic hinges in the MRF by assuring that the
element where the hinge is intended to form is the weakest element in the frame.
Conversely, this can be achieved by assuring that all other frame elements (i.e. elements
where inelastic action should not occur) are stronger, through the application of capacity
design concepts. For example, the most common design philosophy for MRFs is to
develop a plastic mechanism with plastic hinges at the beam ends. To assure that the
hinges actually form in the beam ends, all other frame elements (columns, joints and
connections) are designed to develop the capacity of the beams. In this approach, the
maximum moment that can be generated at the end of a fully yielded and strain hardened
beam is first estimated. This can be taken as the plastic moment of the beam, computed
using an estimate of the actual yield stress of the beam (as opposed to the minimum
specified yield stress), with an additional allowance for strain hardening. This provides a
reasonable upper bound estimate of the maximum moment that can be developed at the
beam ends regardless of the intensity of the earthquake loading on the frame. Next, the
shear at the beam ends that is in equilibrium with the maximum end moments is then
computed. These maximum beam end moments and shear forces are then used as the
loads for which the beam-to-column connections are designed, for which the joint panel

3
is designed, and for which the columns are designed. Thus, the connections, joints and
columns are not designed for code specified lateral forces, but rather are designed to
resist the maximum forces that can be imparted on them by the yielded and strain
hardened beams, i.e., they are designed to develop the capacity of the beams. This design
approach assures that the desired mechanism, i.e., a mechanism with hinges in the beam
ends, will actually form.

The concept of capacity design can also be understood through an analogy to electrical
wiring in a building. Electrical wiring is protected by a fuse, so that in case of an
electrical overload, the fuse burns out before the wiring is damaged, thereby protecting
the wiring. This protection can only be achieved if the fuse is weaker than the wiring. In a
seismic-resistant frame, the plastic hinge locations serve as a fuse to protect against
overload. In an earthquake, the plastic hinge “fuses” limit the forces that can be
transferred to the remainder of the frame, thereby protecting the remainder of the frame.
However, this can only be achieved if the plastic hinge locations are the weakest
elements of the frame, to assure ductile yielding occurs in the beam ends, before say
fracture of a connection or buckling of a column.

The final key element in the design of a steel MRF is to properly detail the plastic hinge
regions to permit the development of large levels of ductility at the hinges prior to the
occurrence of fracture or instability. For plastic hinges at the beam ends, the goal is to
develop the beam’s fully plastic moment, and maintain this moment through large plastic
rotations. Current US building code requirements for steel MRFs with the highest levels
of ductility (known as Special Moment Frames) require that plastic hinge regions be
capable of developing at least 0.03 radian of plastic rotation without significant loss of
strength. The actual code requirement calls for the development of a total (elastic +
inelastic) interstory drift angle of at least 0.04 radian without loss of strength. This
requirement is based on the assumption that a typical steel MRF yields at an interstory
drift angle of about 0.01 radian, thereby leaving 0.03 radian available for inelastic
rotation.

Proper detailing of the hinge regions therefore requires that the beam ends maintain their
plastic strength for 0.03 radian of plastic rotation without the occurrence of instability or
fracture. Instability can cause premature strength loss, i.e. loss of ductility, through the
occurrence of local buckling in the beam (flange and/or web buckling) or through the
occurrence of lateral torsional buckling of the beam. Premature strength loss due to local
buckling can be prevented by adhering to code specified (American 2000) width-
thickness limits for the beam flanges and web. Similarly, premature strength loss due to
lateral torsional buckling can be prevented by adhering to code specified lateral bracing
requirements. These width-thickness limits and lateral bracing requirements can normally
be easily satisfied for typical steel MRFs with members made of standard hot-rolled wide
flange shapes. However, when beams are made of built-up wide flange shapes or of
trusses, particular care is needed to assure that stability limits are satisfied.

Once stability concerns are addressed through width-thickness limits and lateral bracing,
the other key detailing issue is to prevent premature loss of strength at the beam ends due

4
to the occurrence of fracture. If a fracture is to occur, it will normally occur at the beam-
to-column connection. Thus, a critical issue in the design of a seismic-resistant steel MRF
is the proper design, detailing and construction of the beam-to-column connections to
permit the development of the full plastic strength of the beam and to maintain that
strength through large plastic rotations, without the occurrence of fracture. The
widespread occurrence of fractures at beam-to-column connections in the Northridge
Earthquake clearly indicated that this design goal was not achieved. The experience of
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, followed by a similar experience in the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake, indicated a fundamental deficiency in beam-to-column connections in steel
MRFs. The following sections of this paper provide a detailed discussion of issues related
to beam-to-column connections.

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS

The 1994 Northridge Earthquake caused unprecedented damage at welded beam-to-

column connections in many steel moment frame buildings in the Los Angeles area. This
damage motivated a large number of investigations and research studies aimed at
understanding the causes of the damage and at developing improved design and
construction practices for better performance of welded connections in future
earthquakes. A number of key factors contributing to the damage have been identified,
and a number of improved moment connection details have been developed. Further,
many of the important advances in moment connection design and welding have been
rapidly adopted for the construction of new steel buildings in high seismic zones of the
US.

The following sections provide a brief review of typical US design and welding practices
for steel moment connections prior to the Northridge Earthquake. Some of the most
common types of damage observed at these connections after the Earthquake are then
illustrated. This is followed by a discussion of some of the major factors that have been
identified as contributing causes of the damage. Some of the modifications and
improvements for steel moment connections implemented in US practice since the
Northridge Earthquake are then presented.

Northridge Connection Damage

The primary damage to steel moment frames in the Northridge Earthquake occurred at
the typical welded flange - bolted web moment connection detail widely used in west
coast US construction since the early 1970's. Many thousands of steel moment frame
buildings have been constructed in high seismic zones of the US using this connection
detail. In recent years, the welded flange - bolted web moment connection detail has also
become quite popular in lower seismic zones in the U.S. for resisting lower seismic loads
and wind loads.

5
Figures 2 and 7a show the welded flange - bolted web moment connection detail as
commonly constructed prior to the Northridge Earthquake. The beam flanges were field
welded to the column using single bevel complete penetration groove welds, and the
beam web was field bolted to a single plate shear tab. Field welding of the beam flange
groove welds was most commonly accomplished using the self shielded flux cored arc
welding (SS-FCAW) process. The electrode most commonly used for these welds was
classified as E70T-4 according to the classification system of the American Welding
Society. This electrode provides a specified minimum tensile strength of 480 MPa but has
no minimum specified notch toughness. The backing bars and weld runoff tabs used to
make the groove welds were normally left in place after completion of the weld.

Column

Column Flange Shear Tab

Beam

Weld Access Hole

Beam Bottom Flange

Backing Bar

Detail at Bottom Flange Weld

Figure 2 - Typical Pre-Northridge Welded Flange - Bolted Web Moment Connection

Continuity plates were sometimes provided in the column as shown in Figure 7a.
Similarly, doubler plates were sometimes provided in the column to increase the column
panel zone shear strength. Code provisions and typical design practices for establishing
the need, size and welding details for continuity plates and doubler plates have varied
over the past 30 years. In some cases, additional welds were provided between the shear
tab and the beam web, as shown in Figure 7a. These welds were first required in US
building code provisions released in 1988 (International 1988). These welds were
required for any beam in which the plastic modulus of the beam web was in excess of 30
percent of the total plastic section modulus of the entire cross-section. The additional web
welds were intended to increase the amount of bending moment transferred by the web
connection, thereby relieving somewhat the moment transferred by the flange welds
(Engelhardt and Husain 1993).

6
The total number of steel moment frame buildings damaged in the Northridge Earthquake
has not been documented, although the number has been speculated to be well in excess
of 100. The number of damaged moment connections appears to be in the thousands.
The damaged steel buildings cover a wide spectrum of ages, heights, and configurations
(Youssef et al 1995). Many of the damaged buildings were designed and constructed to
the most recent building codes in effect at the time of the earthquake. The widespread
nature of the damage suggests fundamental problems in design and construction practices
for these buildings.

The most common forms of damage observed at these connections after the Northridge
Earthquake were a variety of fractures in the vicinity of the beam flange groove welds
(Youssef et al 1995, American 1994, Bertero et al 1994, Engelhardt and Sabol 1995). The
majority of fractures were observed at beam bottom flange welds, although some damage
also occurred at top flange connections. Interestingly, many of the buildings with
damaged connections showed no outward signs of distress, with virtually no
nonstructural damage. Many of these buildings were believed to be completely
undamaged following the earthquake, with the normal function of the building continuing
uninterrupted. Connection damage was revealed only upon detailed visual and ultrasonic

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
inspection of the connections.

Figure 3 schematically illustrates some typical fractures observed in the vicinity of the
beam bottom flange groove welds. Examples of several of these fractures are shown in
the photographs in Figs. 4 to 6.

Figure 3 - Typical Fractures

Probably the most common type of fracture observed at steel moment connections was
through the weld metal, typically near the face of the column (Fig. 3a). Figure 4

7
illustrates examples of these fractures. Note the business card shown in the photo in Fig.
4a, indicating that the fracture extends the full depth of the weld. In some cases, the
fractures did not extend through the full depth of the weld and could only be detected

through ultrasonic examination of the weld. Subsequent investigations have suggested

that many small weld fractures found near the root of the bottom flange weld were not in
fact caused by the earthquake, but were likely welding defects that occurred during
construction of the buildings (Paret and Freeman 1997).

(a) (b)
Figure 4 - Fractures at Interface of Groove Weld and Column Flange

Figure 5 - "Divot" Type Fracture in Figure 6 - Fracture Through Column

Column Flange Flange and Web

Another type of damage is illustrated in Figs. 3b and 3c. In this case, a fracture initiating
at or near the groove weld runs up through the column flange. In some cases the fracture
stops within the column flange, as in Fig. 3b. In other cases, the fracture emerges from
the column flange at a distance of several centimeters above the top of the groove weld.
For this type of failure, a "divot" of column flange material is pulled away from the
column. The photo in Fig. 5 illustrates such a “divot” type fracture.

8
Figure 3d illustrates a fracture that runs across the column. In some cases, only the
column flange fractured. In other cases the fracture continued into the column web (Fig.
6). In a small number of cases, fractures were reported to run across the full width of the
column, passing through both flanges and the web.

As described earlier, the design intent for a seismic-resistant steel MRF is that in the
event of a strong earthquake, ductile flexural yielding develop at the beam ends without
the occurrence of fracture at the connections. The non-ductile damage observed after the
Northridge Earthquake was clearly contrary to the design intent of a ductile moment
frame. Fortunately, none of the connection damage resulted in collapse of a steel moment
frame building nor did it result in loss of life. Such damage, however, may represent a
more serious safety concern for ground motions that differ in intensity, duration, or
frequency content from that experienced in Northridge. While the safety implications of
the Northridge moment connection damage have been the subject of debate, there appears
to be broad consensus that fractures at moment connections represent an undesirable type
of response that should be prevented in future earthquakes.

Causes of Connection Damage

A great deal of discussion and debate regarding the causes of the Northridge moment
connection damage ensued since the first discovery of fractures shortly following the
earthquake. This discussion has not yet led to a complete consensus among the structural
engineering profession in the US regarding the causes of the damage, and disagreement
still remains on several issues. Nonetheless, a number of field, laboratory, and analytical
studies have been completed investigating moment connection behavior and damage. The
results of these and other studies have provided considerable insight into some of the key
factors that may have contributed to the damage.

A number of laboratory tests on “Pre-Northridge” connections were conducted at several

universities following the earthquake to better understand the behavior and controlling
failure mechanisms of this connection (Popov et al 1995, Shuey et al 1995, Whittaker et
al 1995, Uang and Bondad 1995). These tests were conducted on specimens constructed
using design details and welding practices typical of west coast U.S. construction prior to
the Northridge Earthquake. These test programs confirmed the poor behavior of this
connection detail, with a number of test specimens experiencing connection failures with
little or no ductility. All of the failure modes observed in the field (Fig. 3) were
successfully reproduced in the laboratory tests, including weld fractures, “divot” type
column fractures, and fractures running across the column flange and web.

An example of a tested connection detail is illustrated in Fig. 7a, and its experimental
response, plotted as bending moment at the face of the column versus plastic rotation, is
shown in Fig. 7b (Shuey et al 1995). Typical of many Pre-Northridge specimens, this
connection did not develop the plastic moment of the beam, and exhibited a premature
failure with essentially no ductility. This particular specimen exhibited a divot type
fracture in the column flange material near the bottom flange groove weld, similar to Fig.
3c. Recent building code provisions in the US now require that steel moment connections

9
be capable of developing at least 0.03 radian of plastic rotation without failure. The test
result shown in Fig. 7b clearly falls very short of this requirement. The very poor
performance of this specimen also calls into question the suitability of the Pre-Northridge
type connection for wind load applications.

T & B FLANGES
E70T-4
Backing Bar and Weld Tabs
CJP - 3 Sides 10 To Remain In Place
TYP o
30

BOLTS: 10 - 22mm A325-SC

HOLES: 24 mm
W36x150 (A36)
8
8
PL 12 x 150 PL 16 x 127 x 760
(Both Sides)

T & B of PL
8 100

T & B of PL
8 75
W14x257
(A572 Gr. 50)

(a) Connection Detail for Test Specimen

5000
Brittle Fracture at Bottom
4000 Flange Weld
3000 Mp
Bending Moment (kN-m)

X
2000

1000

-1000

-2000
Mp
-3000

-4000

-5000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Plastic Rotation (rad)

(b) Response of Test Specimen

Figure 7 - Example of Experimental Response of Pre-Northridge Connection

In a study conducted at Lehigh University, detailed metallurgical and fractograhic

examinations were made on several failed “Pre-Northridge” laboratory test specimens,
including the specimen shown in Fig. 7 (Kaufmann and Fisher 1995a, Kaufmann et al
1996a). This study also examined portions of damaged connections removed from actual
buildings in the Los Angeles area. The study concluded that the majority of connection
failures occurred by a brittle fracture mechanism initiating at the root of bottom flange
weld. The point of fracture initiation was typically at a weld defect located at mid-width

10
of the weld, i.e. in the area of the weld access hole. Thus, even fractures within the
column, of the type illustrated in Figs. 3b to 3d, appeared to initiate at the weld root in
many cases. The Lehigh study also concluded that low toughness of the weld metal
played a very important role in triggering the brittle fractures. Analytical studies of
building response in the Northridge Earthquake suggest that many connections fractured
while the attached beam was still elastic, further confirming the nonductile behavior of
the connection (SAC 1995).

Numerous studies conducted after the Northridge Earthquake, including those discussed
above, as well as studies conducted prior to the Northridge Earthquake, provide
considerable insight into the problems associated with the “Pre-Northridge” connection
and the causes of the damage observed after the Northridge Earthquake. Following is a
brief discussion of these factors.

Welding Factors

Since the majority of fractures observed after the Northridge Earthquake were at beam
flange groove welds, welding related issues are clearly of importance in understanding
the connection failures. Several issues related to welding have been identified as
potentially contributing to the observed damage, including low weld metal toughness,
poor workmanship, and detrimental effects of backing bars and weld tabs.

Requirements for structural welding in the US are specified in the Structural Welding
Code - Steel, AWS D1.1, published by the American Welding Society (American 2000).
This document includes requirements for qualification of welding procedures and of
welders, as well as requirements for inspection. Prior to the Northridge Earthquake, this
document did not contain specific requirements for earthquake resistant construction. It
did, however, differentiate between statically loaded versus dynamically loaded
structures. The welding requirements for dynamically loaded structures were largely
intended for high cycle fatigue conditions and thus were not usually specified for
earthquake resistant building construction. Welding of the beam flanges therefore was
typically controlled by the static loading requirements of AWS D1.1 in most project
specifications. These requirements did not require removal of backing bars and weld tabs,
and did not require minimum levels of notch toughness for the weld metal.
Nondestructive evaluation of the beam flange groove welds was most commonly
accomplished by ultrasonic testing. Depending on the code jurisdiction and project
specifications, normally between 25 percent and 100 percent of the beam flange groove
welds were ultrasonically tested. Ultrasonic acceptance criteria were typically those
specified for statically loaded structures in AWS D1.1.

Among the most important welding factors contributing to the moment connection
damage observed after the Northridge Earthquake appears to be low weld metal
toughness. Beam flange groove welds prior to the Northridge Earthquake were
commonly made using the E70T-4 electrode using the flux-cored arc welding process.
Charpy V-Notch (CVN) tests on weld metal from damaged building connections, as well

11
as from laboratory specimens, sometimes showed values under 10 to 15J at room
temperature. This low toughness made the connections highly vulnerable to brittle
fracture and was likely a leading factor responsible for the poor performance of the
welded flange – bolted web connection in the Northridge Earthquake and in laboratory
testing of this connection (Kaufmann and Fisher 1995a 1995b, Kaufmann et al 1996b,
Tide 1994, Tide 1998). Prior to the Northridge Earthquake, it was not common practice
to specify toughness requirements for weld metal in building connections, and no such
requirements were contained in US codes for seismic resistant construction. Further, it
appears that little, if any, US research on moment connections prior to the Northridge
Earthquake identified the importance of weld metal toughness for seismic applications.

In addition to low weld metal toughness, inadequate welding workmanship and

inspection have also been identified as potentially important contributors to the observed
damage (Tide 1995, American 1994). Upon discovery of the moment connection damage
after the Northridge Earthquake, poor quality welding combined with inadequate
inspection was widely speculated to be a primary cause. While field investigations clearly
revealed welding defects and poor welding practices in some instances, the precise role
that these defects played in the failures is not clear. For example, large-scale connection
tests conducted shortly after the Northridge Earthquake evaluated welded flange - bolted
web connections that were constructed under close scrutiny with very high quality
welding workmanship (Engelhardt et al 1995). In addition to the very close attention to
workmanship, the backing bars and weld tabs were removed from the groove welds to
eliminate any potential notch condition introduced by these items. The welds passed two
independent ultrasonic tests. Despite these measures to assure the highest levels of
workmanship, the connections still experienced brittle fractures at the beam flange
groove welds at very low levels of ductility. These failed specimens were welded using
the low toughness E70T-4 electrode, suggesting the importance of weld metal toughness.
These test results imply that even with high quality welding workmanship, failures might
still have been expected in the field. In many instances, it appears that low weld metal
toughness, combined with the presence of weld defects, made the connections
particularly vulnerable to brittle fracture.

A final welding related factor implicated in the Northridge damage is the presence of
backing bars and weld tabs (American 1994, Kaufmann and Fisher 1995b, Tide 1995). In
typical practice prior to the Northridge Earthquake, the beam flange groove welds were
made using backing bars and weld tabs that were usually left in place after completion of
the weld. Several investigators have noted that a backing bar may act as an artificial edge
crack, and can initiate a brittle fracture. Similarly, the weld runoff regions contained
within the weld tabs have been speculated to be potential fracture initiation sites. In
addition to introducing a notch, the left-in-place backing bar may also inhibit inspection
of the weld. The backing bar may increase the difficulty in properly interpreting
ultrasonic test results, and also prevent visual inspection of the weld root.

Design Factors

12
Tests conducted on the welded flange – bolted web connection both before and after the
Northridge Earthquake indicate that even if weld fracture is prevented, connection
performance is often still unsatisfactory (Engelhardt and Husain 1993, Tsai and Popov
1988, Stojadinovic et al 2000). Rather than fractures within the weld, fractures are
frequently observed in the base metal region immediately adjacent to the weld. Such base
metal fractures often occur after only limited ductility is developed. Such evidence
suggests fundamental design deficiencies with the welded flange-bolted web detail.

Both laboratory and analytical studies indicate that very high levels of stress and strain
are developed in the vicinity of the beam flange groove welds (El-Tawil et al 2000, Yang
and Popov 1995, Mao et al 2001). These high demands have been attributed to a number
of causes. Inadequate participation of the bolted beam web connection in transferring
moment and shear has been identified as a cause of high beam flange stresses. It appears
that much of the moment and shear normally carried in the beam web, as predicted by
simple beam theory, is actually transferred through the flanges at the connection, which
serves to significantly increase the stress at the beam flange groove welds. Very high
localized stresses and strains are also possible due to local bending of the column and
beam flanges near the beam flange groove welds. The weld access hole also introduces a
significant stress concentration (El-Tawil etal 2000, Mao et al 2001). The severity of this
stress concentration depends on the size, placement and geometry of the access hole.
Deformations of the column panel zone also appear to have an important effect on the
state of stress in the region of the beam flange groove welds, as does the presence and
thickness of continuity plates. Finally, analyses have also suggested that a high degree of
restraint can exist in the beam flange groove welds near the face of the column, resulting
in the development of complex triaxial states of stress. The presence of such triaxial
states of stress has also been conjectured to contribute to poor ductility in this region
(Blodgett 1995, Yang and Popov 1995).

Finite element analyses of welded flange-bolted web connections indicate that very high
localized stresses can occur at the root of the bottom flange groove weld, particularly
near the center portion of the flange in the vicinity of the weld access hole. As noted
earlier, this region also frequently contains weld defects due to the difficulty of welding
and inspection in this area. Consequently, it appears that very high stresses occurred in a
region of the connection that had a high likelihood of defects and very low toughness
material. The combined effects of high stresses, large defects and low toughness seem to
have virtually assured poor performance of this connection.

Base Metal Factors

In typical US practice prior to the Northridge Earthquake, beams in steel moment frames
were specified to be of ASTM A36 steel (minimum specified Fy = 250 MPa). Columns
were normally specified to be either of ASTM A36 steel or of ASTM A572 Grade 50
steel (minimum specified Fy = 345 MPa). There are several factors related to the
properties of the steel in the beams and columns that have been conjectured to have
played a role in the observed connection damage. One of these factors is the high level of

13
actual yield strength in ASTM A36 beams. A statistical study for A36 steel sold in the
US showed a mean yield stress of 340 Mpa for rolled shapes, in comparison with the
minimum specified value of 250 Mpa (SAC 2000b). These high values of yield stress
result in high stresses on the beam flanges, the beam flange groove welds, and in the
column, prior to the development of a plastic hinge in the beam. These higher stress
levels further increase the likelihood of fracture. In effect, the beam-to-column
connection is intended to be stronger than the beam. As beam strength increases due to
elevated yield stress values, the connection may in fact become weaker than the beam,
promoting non-ductile connection failure prior to ductile flexural yielding of the beam.

Elevated yield stress values are not generally accompanied by an equal increase in tensile
strength. Consequently, the yield ratio (Fy /Fu ) of the steel is also increased. A statistical
study showed that the mean value of yield ratio for A36 steel was 0.72, compared to a
value of 0.62 based on the minimum specified yield and tensile strength (SAC 2000b).
High values of yield ratio may further increase the likelihood of beam flange fracture.

Questions have also been raised in regard to through-thickness properties for column
flanges. These questions were motivated largely by the discovery of “divot” type
fractures within columns, as illustrated in Figs. 3b and 3c. As noted earlier, forensic
studies on failed connections suggest that most column fractures initiated at the weld root
and then propagated into the column (Kaufmann and Fisher 1995a). Further, recent tests
evaluating through-thickness loading on column flanges have shown excellent properties
(Dexter 2000). Consequently, currently available research suggests that inadequate
through-thickness properties of column flanges was not likely a significant contributor to
the Northridge connection damage.

Methods to Achieve Improved Connection Performance

US building code provisions for seismic resistant steel construction have been
extensively revised to reflect the experiences of the Northridge Earthquake (American
2000, SAC 2000a). These provisions require that connections for special moment frames
be capable of developing at least 0.04 radian interstory drift angle without failure. This
level of deformation capacity must be verified by cyclic loading tests on full scale or
nearly full-scale specimens using standard loading protocols. As described earlier, this
requirement presumes that approximately 0.01 radian drift angle will be accounted for by
elastic deformations. Consequently, these code provisions imply the need to develop 0.03
radian of plastic rotation. Developing this level of plastic rotation has therefore been the
primary goal in the development of new moment connections for use in US practice. To
achieve this high level of ductility has required improved practices with respect to
welding, connection design and detailing, and steel material characterization.

Major changes to welding practices have been implemented since the Northridge
Earthquake. The most significant change has been recognition of the importance of weld
metal toughness. It has become common practice to specify minimum notch toughness
requirements for weld metal in groove welds. Much of the successful research on

14
improved connection details has used weld metal with a minimum specified CVN value
of 27 J at -29o C. This level of notch toughness is currently required in building code
provisions for seismic resistant steel moment frames (American 2000). In the near future,
this requirement will likely be refined to call for CVN values of 27 J at -18o C and 54 J at
room temperature (SAC 2000a).

Practices with respect to groove weld backing bars and weld tabs have also changed.
Prior to the earthquake, it was common practice to leave backing bars and weld tabs in
place. Since the Northridge Earthquake, it has become common practice to remove the
bottom flange backing bar in an attempt to eliminate the notch effect of the bar and to
permit better inspection of the weld root. At the top flange groove weld, the backing bar
is typically left in place, but is welded to the column face in an attempt to mitigate the
bar’s notch effect. Weld runoff tabs are typically removed at both the top and bottom
flange groove welds.

A number of tests have been conducted on the welded flange – bolted web connection
detail where the above welding improvements have been implemented (Stojadinovic et al
2000). That is, the connections were welded using electrodes with a CVN rating of of 27
J at -29o C, the bottom flange backing bars were removed, the top flange backing bars
were welded to the face of the column, and weld tabs were removed at the top an bottom
flanges. However, other than these welding modifications, the basic connection design
was not changed. In these tests, no weld fractures were observed, indicating that the
welding modifications were effective in preventing weld failure. However, the
connections still failed by fracture in the base metal or heat affected zone adjoining the
beam flange groove welds, typically initiating near the weld access hole. These
connections developed plastic rotations on the order of about 0.01 to 0.02 radian. These
tests suggest that welding improvements alone cannot assure the development of 0.03
radian of plastic rotation.

In addition to changes in welding practices, improvements have also been made in

structural steel properties. A new grade of structural steel has recently been introduced in
the US. This new grade, designated ASTM A992 provides better control of yield stress
and yield ratio. ASTM A992 has a minimum specified Fy of 345 MPa and a minimum
specified Fu of 450 MPa, the same as A572 Grade 50. However, unlike A572 Grade 50,
the new A992 steel places an upper limit on Fy of 450 MPa, and an upper limit on yield
ratio (Fy / Fu) of 0.85. This closer control on yield and yield ratio should permit more
reliable connection design.

US building code provisions (American 2000) have also been updated to reflect the fact
that steel often has a yield stress higher than the minimum specified value. This has been
accomplished by introducing into building code provisions the expected yield stress of
steel, designated as Fye. The value of Fye is intended to provide an estimate of the actual
expected yield stress of a particular grade of steel. For ASTM A36, A572 Grade 50, and
A992, the value of Fye is specified to be 380 MPa. This indicates that the actual yield
stress of each of these three grades of steel is expected, on average, to be 380 MPa. The
expected yield stress is used for all capacity design calculations. For example, the beam-

15
to-column connection must be designed to develop the capacity of the beam. When
computing the maximum moment expected at the end of a yielded beam, the designer
assumes the yield stress of the beam is equal to the expected yield stress.

In addition to changes in welding practices and material characterization, a wide variety

of connection design and detailing modifications have been investigated in an attempt to
develop improved ductility. Many of these modifications have been implemented in
construction practice. An example of a successful design that is currently seeing
widespread usage in US building construction practice is the Reduced Beam Section
(RBS) connection. In the RBS connection, portions of the beam flanges are trimmed near
the beam-to-column connection. Plastic hinge formation occurs within this reduced
section, rather than at the face of the column, thereby reducing stress and strain demands
in the critical region of the beam flange groove welds. When the RBS is combined with
the welding improvements described above, excellent performance has been achieved in
laboratory tests.

An example of test results on an RBS connection (Engelhardt 1998) is shown in Fig. 8.

Figure 8(a) shows the connection detail, Fig. 8(b) shows response under cyclic loading,
and Fig. 8(c) shows a photo of the specimen at the end of testing. This specimen
developed well above 0.03 radian of plastic rotation without significant strength loss. The
yielding pattern seen in Fig. 8(c) shows the formation of a plastic hinge within the
reduced section. Compared to the response of the Pre-Northridge connection (Fig. 7b),
the response of the RBS shows that excellent connection performance can be achieved.

A number of beam-to-column connection details, including the RBS, have been

investigated in a major research program coordinated by the SAC Joint Venture. These
include both welded and bolted connection options. Through this work, detailed design
guidelines have been developed, and have been published (FEMA 2000a). Consequently,
designers can now have a variety of connection details available for use in steel MRFs
that have been tested and for which design guidance is available.

STABILITY ISSUES

As discussed earlier, the ductility of a steel MRF will ultimately be limited by the
occurrence of fracture or instability. Thus, in addition to addressing fracture concerns at
connections, design of a ductile MRF also requires consideration of stability issues. The
deformation capacity of a plastic hinge in a beam can be limited by the occurrence of
local flange buckling, local web buckling or lateral torsional buckling at the hinge region.
Frequently, a combination of all of three of these types of buckling is observed in
laboratory tests. Building code regulations (American 2000) provide limits on width-
thickness ratios and lateral bracing requirements that are intended to permit a steel
member to develop its full plastic strength, and maintain that plastic strength through
large plastic rotations before local and/or lateral torsional buckling ultimately cause
failure.

16
 B.U. Bar to Remain 5000
10
o Weld B.U. Bar to Column 4000
30 6
Mp
Groove welds:

Bending Moment (kN-m)

E71T-8
3000
Remove Weld Tabs
2000
6
5 45 o W36x194 (A36) 1000
8
PL 25 x 125
Bolts: 25 mm A325 225 mm c-c
0
Holes: 27mm DIA.
W14x426 PL 9.5 x 152 x 762
A572 Gr. 50 -1000

8 After Root is -2000

Cleaned and Inspected
-3000
Remove B.U. Bar Mp
-4000
10 o
30
-5000
1015 mm Radius
8 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Grind Smooth
8 Grind Parallel to Flange Plastic Rotation (rad)
60
190
60

230 685

(a) RBS Connection Test Specimen Detail (b) Response of Test Specimen

(c) Photo of RBS Specimen at Completion of Test

Figure 8 – Example of Experimental Response of an RBS Connection

For wide flange beams in steel MRFs, current codes (American 2000, SAC 2000a) limit
the flange slenderness ratio bf/2tf to a maximum value of 52/ Fy , and the web
slenderness ratio h/tw to a maximum value of 418/ Fy , where Fy is in ksi. The spacing
of beam lateral bracing is limited to a maximum value of 2500ry /Fy. The web slenderness
limit was recently reduced from 520/ F y to 418/ Fy based on studies (Uang and Fang

17
2001) that indicate web buckling plays a particularly important role in triggering strength
degradation and that stricter web slenderness limits are needed.
The RBS specimen shown in Fig. 8(c) clearly shows evidence of local buckling. The
W36x194 beam section used for this specimen fully satisfies the code specified width-
thickness limits and lateral bracing requirements noted above. Thus, although local and
lateral buckling occurred within this beam at large plastic rotation levels, the rate of
strength degradation was quite gradual, as seen in the moment-rotation response in Fig.
8(b) and did not prevent the beam from achieving 0.03 radian of plastic rotation.

When members are used with high width-thickness ratios, i.e., very slender elements, or
adequate lateral bracing is not provided, the ductility of a plastic hinge can be greatly
reduced due to the premature occurrence of local or lateral torisonal buckling. In these
cases, the rate of strength degradation can be very rapid, similar to the rate of strength
degradation due to fracture. Thus, adherence to code specified width-thickness limits and
lateral bracing limits is essential for ductile response.

In a typical MRF, in addition to developing plastic hinges at the beam ends, plastic
hinges can also be expected to form at the base of columns. Consequently, in this region,
width-thickness limits and lateral bracing requirements similar to those used for beams
should also be applied to the colunms. However, even for portions of columns that are
expected to remain elastic, the use of slender cross-section elements or large unbraced
lengths is inadvisable. Even with sophisticated inelastic analysis methods, the response of
a steel MRF to strong earthquake motions cannot be predicted with certainty, and the
possibility of unanticipated inelastic action in the columns must be considered. If slender
elements are used in the column, such unanticipated inelastic action can result in failure
of the column and can endanger the gravity load resisting system of the building. In
general, the use of slender elements should be avoided in any member of an MRF to
provide a robust structural system capable of ductile response under a wide range of
conditions.

In addition to local buckling, more global forms of instability must also be prevented.
These can include the overall buckling of a column, or sidesway instability of a story or
of the entire frame. The prediction of these types of instability under dynamic loading is
not yet completely understood. However, building codes contain a number of simplified
provisions that are intended to prevent global instability of a column, story or the entire
frame. The buckling of an isolated column can be addressed by designing that column
using capacity design concepts. That is, the maximum forces that can be transferred to the
columns by the yielded beams can be estimated, and the columns can then be designed
for these forces. Alternatively, building codes (American 2000) provide a simplified
approach that requires designing the column for a specified amplified force. The
prevention of a story sidesway collapse is typically addressed by strong column – weak
girder requirements. Code imposed drift limits are also intended to contribute to the
prevention of overall frame instability.

Although the prevention of global modes of instability in an MRF is addressed through

simplified rules and approaches, experience suggests that these simple approaches have

18
been effective in providing safe designs. In the long run however, an improved
understanding of frame stability under dynamic loading would be desirable. In the mean
time, however, it is essential to adhere to building code design rules that are intended to
address global instability, particularly strong column – weak girder design provisions as
well as code specified drift limits.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The extensive body of research on steel MRFs combined with many years of experience
with these systems in the field has provided the basic technology needed to design steel
MRF systems capable of providing a high degree of safety under strong earthquake
ground motions. Intensive research efforts since the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes
has significantly extended the understanding of steel MRF behavior, and important
results of this research have been rapidly implemented in building code regulations
(American 2000, SAC 200a) and in practice.

Nonetheless, there are still a number of issues affecting the performance or economy of
steel MRFs are not adequately understood. One of these unresolved issues is the proper
design of the column panel zone region. This region is subject to high shear forces, and
can form a plastic shear hinge in an MRF subject to lateral loading. Test results indicate
that very high levels of ductility can be achieved by permitting shear yielding within the
panel zone. However, tests and analysis also show that very large inelastic shear
deformations in the panel zone can result in fracture at the corners of the panel zone, in
the vicinity of the beam flange groove welds. The degree of shear yielding that be safely
accommodated within the column panel zone is not yet clearly understood. Recent
revisions to US building code (American 2000) provisions limit shear yielding of panel
zones, with the consequent need for relatively thick and expensive web doubler plates in
many designs. Further research is needed to better understand panel zone response,
particularly as it relates to the development of fracture.

Additional research is also needed on the proper design of column base plates in steel
MRFs. Very large forces and deformations can be generated at the base of the columns
under earthquake loading. However, very little research has been conducted on column
baseplates, and very little design guidance is available to designers.

Finally, as noted earlier, issues related to the overall stability of steel MRF systems under
dynamic earthquake loading are not well understood. Stability is currently addressed
through simplified rules and empirical procedures. Further research is needed to better
understand the stability of these systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The National Science Foundation (Award Nos. CMS-9416287 and CMS-9358186), the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and the American Institute of Steel Construction are gratefully

19
acknowledged for their support of the writer’s research on seismic resistant steel moment
frames.

REFERENCES

American Institute of Steel Construction (1994), Proceedings of the AISC Special Task
Committee on the Northridge Earthquake, Los Angeles, 14-15 March 1994.

American Institute of Steel Construction (2000). “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings – Supplement No. 2,” Chicago.

American Welding Society (2000), “Structural welding code – steel”, AWS Standard
D1.1-98, Miami.

Bertero V.V., Anderson, J.C. and Krawinkler, H. (1994), “Performance of steel building
structures during the Northridge earthquake,” Report No. UCB/EERC - 94/09,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.

Blodgett, O. (1995), “Notes On Beam To Column Connections,” Steel Moment Frame

Connection Advisory No. 3. Report No. SAC 95-01. SAC joint Venture. Sacramento.

Dexter, R. and Melendrez, M. (2000), “Through-Thickness Properties of Column Flanges

in Welded Moment Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 126(1): 24-
31.

El-Tawil, S., Mikesell, T., and Kunnath, S.K. (2000), “Effect of Local Details and Yield
Ratio on Behavior of FR Steel Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
126(1): 79-87.

Engelhardt, M.D. and Husain, A.S. (1993), “Cyclic loading performance of welded
flange bolted web connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(12):
3537-3550.

Engelhardt, M.D. and Sabol, T.A. (1995) "Lessons Learned from the Northridge
Earthquake: Steel Moment Frame Performance," Proceedings: Symposium on A New
Direction in Seismic Design, Tokyo, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 1-14.

Engelhardt, M.D., Sabol, T.A., Aboutaha, R.S. and Frank, K.H. (1995), “An Overview
Of The AISC Northridge Moment Connection Test Program”, Proceedings of the 1995
National Steel Construction Conference, San Antonio, 17-19 May 1995. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. Chicago.

Engelhardt, M.D., Winneberger, T., Zekany, A.J. ,and Potyraj, T. (1998), “Experimental
Investigation Of Dogbone Moment Connections,” Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction , 35(4), 128-139.

20
FEMA (2000a), “Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings,” Document FEMA-350, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

FEMA (2000b), “State of the Art Report on Base Metals and Fracture,” Document
FEMA-355A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Ger, J.F., Cheng, F.Y. and Lu, L.W. (1993). “Collapse Behavior of Pino Suarez Building
During 1985 Mexico City Earthquake,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119
(3), 852-870.

International Conference of Building Officials (1988), “Uniform Building Code”,

Whittier, California.

Kaufmann, E.J. and Fisher J.W (1995a), “Fracture Analysis Of Failed Moment Frame
Weld Joints Produced In Full Scale Laboratory Tests And Buildings Damaged In The
Northridge Earthquake”, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations of Materials,
Weldments and Nondestructive Examination Techniques. Report SAC 95-08. SAC Joint
Venture. Sacramento.

Kaufmann, E.J. and Fisher, J.W. (1995b), “A Study Of The Effects Of Material And
Welding Factors On Moment Frame Weld Joint Performance Using A Small-Scale
Tension Specimen”, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations of Materials,
Weldments and Nondestructive Examination Techniques. Report SAC 95-08. SAC Joint
Venture. Sacramento.

Kaufmann, E.J., Fisher J.W., DiJulio, R.M. and Bavarian, B.B. (1996a), “Failure
Analysis Of Welded Moment Resisting Frames Damaged In The Northridge
Earthquake”, ATLSS Report No. 96-04. Lehigh University. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Kaufmann, E.J., Xue, M,, Lu, L.W. and Fisher, J.W. (1996b), “Achieving Ductile
Behavior Of Moment Connections”, Modern Steel Construction. American Institute of
Steel Construction, Inc., January.

Mao, C., Ricles, J., Lu, L.W., and Fisher, J. (2001). “Effect of Local Details on Ductility
of Welded Moment Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127(9):
1036-1044.

Paret, T.F. and Freeman, S.A. (1997), “Is Steel Frame Damage Being Diagnosed
Correctly”, Building to Last; Proceedings of Structures Congress XV, Portland, 13-16
April 1997. Vol. 1. ASCE, Washington. 261-266.

Popov, E.P., Blondet, M., Stepanov, L. and Stojadinovic, B. (1995), “Full-Scale Steel
Beam-Column Connection Tests”, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations of
Beam-Column Subassemblages, Report No. SAC 95-09, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento.

21
SAC Joint Venture (1995), “Analytical And Field Investigations Of Buildings Affected
By The Northridge Earthquake Of January 17, 1994”, Report No. SAC 95-04, SAC Joint
Venture, Sacramento.
Shuey, B.D., Engelhardt, M.D. and Sabol, T.A. (1996), “Testing Of Repair Concepts For
Damaged Steel Moment Connections”, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations of
Beam-Column Subassemblages, Report No. SAC 95-09, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento.

Steel Committee of the Kinki Branch of the Architectural Institute of Japan (1995),
“Reconnaissance Report on Damage to Steel Building Structures Observed from the 1995
Hyogenken-Nanbu Earthquake,” (In Japanese).

Stojadinovic, B., Goel, S., Lee, K.H., Margarian, A.G. and Choi, J.H. (2000), “Parametric
Tests on Unreinforced Steel Moment Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 126(1): 40-49.

Tide, R. (1995), “ Fracture Of Beam-To-Column Connections Under Seismic Load”,

Habitat and the High-Rise, Tradition and Innovation; Proceedings of the Fifth World
Congress, Amsterdam, 14-19 May 1995.Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. 1273-1286.

Tide, R. (1998), “Stability Of Weld Metal Subjected To Cyclic Static And Seismic
Loading”, Engineering Structures, (20),4-6.
Tsai K.C. and Popov, E.P. (1988), “Steel Beam-Column Joints In Seismic Moment
Resisting Frames”, Report No. UCB/EERC - 88/19, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California at Berkeley.

Uang, C.M. and Bondad, D. (1995), “Static Cyclic Testing Of Pre-Northridge And
Haunch Repaired Steel Moment Connections”, Technical Report: Experimental
Investigations of Beam-Column Subassemblages, Report No. SAC 95-09, SAC Joint
Venture, Sacramento.

Uang, C.M. and Fang, C.C. (2001). “Cyclic Stability Criteria for Steel Moment
Connections with Reduced Beam Section,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
127(9): 1021-1027.

Whittaker, A., Bertero, V.V. and Gilani, A. (1995), “Full-Scale Seismic Testing Of Steel
Beam-Column Assemblies”, Technical Report: Experimental Investigations of Beam-
Column Subassemblages, Report No. SAC 95-09, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento.

Yang, T. and Popov, E.P. (1995), “Behavior Of Pre-Northridge Moment Resisting Steel
Connections”, Report No. UCB/EERC - 95/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California at Berkeley.

Youssef N.F.G, Bonowitz D. and Gross J.L. (1995) “ A Survey Of Steel Moment-
Resisting Frame Buildings Affected By The 1994 Northridge Earthquake.” NIST Report
No. NISTIR 5625, National Institute of Standards and Technology. United States
Department of Commerce Technology Administration. Washington.

22