SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF DEEP COLUMN-TO-BEAM WELDED

REDUCED BEAM SECTION MOMENT CONNECTIONS

J.M. Ricles, Lehigh University, U.S.A.
X. Zhang, Lehigh University, U.S.A.
J.W. Fisher, Lehigh University, U.S.A
L.W. Lu, Lehigh University, U.S.A
ABSTRACT
An experimental study was conducted to investigate the seismic behavior of
reduced beam section (RBS) moment connections to a deep wide flange
column. The test matrix for the experimental program consisted of six full-scale
interior RBS connections, where the column for the specimens ranged in depth
from a W24 to a W36 wide flange section. All but one of the specimens had a
composite floor slab. The results from the study show that a composite floor
slab provides restraint to the top flange of the beams; reducing the magnitude
of beam top and bottom flange lateral movement in the RBS, column twist, and
strength degradation due to beam instability in the RBS. The performance of
each of the test specimens was found to meet the seismic connection
qualification criteria in Appendix S of the AISC Seismic Provisions, and thereby
have sufficient ductility for seismic resistant design. The results of the
experimental study, along with a nonlinear finite element study were used to
develop seismic design recommendations for RBS connections to deep
columns.
INTRODUCTION
RBS beam-to-column moment connections are often utilized in the design of special steel
moment resistant frames (SMRFs). The details of a typical RBS connection are shown in
Figure 1(a), where the flanges of the beam are reduced in width, away from the column face.
Complete joint penetration (CJP) groove welds attach the beam flanges to the column. The
beam web often is welded to the column flange with a CJP groove weld. By design, the RBS
connection develops inelastic deformations primarily in the region where the beam flange
width has been reduced (referred to herein as the RBS), limiting the inelastic strain developed
in the beam flange-to-column CJP groove welds. With the reduction of the beam flange width,
an RBS connection is more prone to inelastic local buckling of the beam web and flanges in
the RBS. For economical reasons, design engineers in the U.S. prefer to use deep columns
in SMRFs (as large as 914 mm in depth corresponding to a W36 wide flange section) in order
to control seismic drift. Previous tests on RBS connections have been performed primarily on
columns with depths corresponding to a W12 and W14 wide flange section (Roeder (1)),
where the depth was about 305 mm to 356 mm. Some tests using W27 wide flange column
sections (686 mm depth) were conducted by Chi and Uang (2), where the connection was an
exterior connection (i.e., only one beam was connected to the column). It was observed in
these tests, that as a result of inelastic beam web and flange local buckling in the RBS, a
lateral displacement of the beam compression flanges occurs. Shown in Figure 1(b) is the
movement of the compression flanges (the top and bottom flanges of the right and left-hand
beams, respectively), where F1 and F2 represent the beam flange compression forces of the

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

211

two beams. Due to an eccentricity created by the lateral movement of the compression
flanges, a torque is applied to the column. Deep columns tend to have thinner flanges and a
web than a shallower column, resulting in a reduced torsional resistance. Consequently, there
have been concerns that the use of an
RBS connection to a deep column in a
(a)
SMRF can lead to inferior seismic
Erection bolt
performance because of the connection
being susceptibility to torsional loading
from the beams.

Doubler Plate

(b)
e1

FF1
1

e2

F2 2

Figure 1. (a) RBS connection details, and

(b) RBS local buckling and lateral beam
flange movement.

The lack of knowledge of the performance

of
RBS
beam-to-deep
column
connections under seismic loading led to
a study on this topic at Lehigh University
(3). The study involved both finite element
analysis and experimental tests. The
effects of the column depth, a composite
floor slab, panel zone strength, beam web
slenderness, and supplemental lateral
bracing at the end of the RBS section
were examined. Six full-scale specimens
were subsequently tested involving
different column and beam sizes, a
composite floor slab and supplemental
lateral bracing. Results and conclusions
from the experimental study, along with
some design recommendations are
presented in this paper.

TEST MATRIX
The test matrix for the experimental program is given below in Table 1, where some of the
details of the six full-scale RBS beam-to-deep column connection specimens are
summarized. All specimens represented an interior RBS connection in a perimeter SMRF
with a composite floor slab, with the exception of SPEC-6 which did not have a composite
floor slab. The parameters investigated in the experimental program included: (1) column
size; (2) beam size; (3) the floor slab; and (4) supplemental lateral brace at the end of the
RBS.
The beam and column section sizes for each specimen were selected on the basis of
introducing different degrees of torsional effects, predicted by the recommended design
procedure of Chi and Uang (2), while also satisfying the weak beam-strong column criteria in
the ASIC Seismic Provisions (4). The design procedure by Chi and Uang considers the total
normal stress in the column at 4% story drift due to axial load, flexure load, and torsion. The
predicted total normal stress in the column flange is shown plotted in Figure 2 for various
column sections, including those of the test specimens. Figure 2 indicates that SPEC-2,
SPEC-4, and SPEC-5 are predicted to develop column flange yielding. The columns for all
specimens and the beams for SPEC-3 through SPEC-6 were fabricated from A992 steel. The
beams for SPEC-1 and SPEC-2 were fabricated from A572 Gr. 50 steel. Both A992 and A572
Gr. 50 have a nominal yield strength of 345 MPa.

212

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

Table 1. Test matrix.

SPEC

Column
size

Beam
Size

Doubler
Plate

Supp.
Floor
Lat.
Slab Brace @
RBS

Yield Stress
Flange/Web
(MPa)
Beam

W36x230 W36x150

W27x194 W36x150

W27x194 W36x150

W36x150 W36x150

W27x146 W30x108

W24x131 W30x108

6x800x
1067
13x610x
1067
13x610x
1067
10x8160x
1067
10x610x
914
13x533x
914

Tensile Stress
Flange/Web
(MPa)

Col

Beam

Col

Yes

No

343/378 356/393

478/492

496/514

Yes

No

343/378 372/392

478/492

520/502

Yes

Yes

365/396 356/403

508/506

497/521

Yes

No

365/396 365/396

508/506

508/506

Yes

No

344/353 363/399

471/469

499/513

No

Yes

344/353 334/359

471/469

499/493

Shear Plate

SPEC-4
W36x150
SPEC-2
W27x194

300

Shear tab
6"

SPEC-6 W24x131

SPEC-3 W27x194

100

6"

E71T-8

(supplemental bracing)

200

27"

(supplemental bracing)

9"

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

E71T-8
CJP
No Runoff Tabs
E70T-1

RBS
Flange Cut
Beam

E70T-6
R CJP(TC-U4a-GF)

E70T-1

0
0

E71T-8
E70T-6
CJP(TC-U4a-GF)

erection bolts

SPEC-1
W36x230

400

E70T-1

6"

SPEC-5
W27x146

500

SPEC-5 and 6 had

W30x108 beams; all
others had W36x150
beams

10"

Total Stress (MPa)

600

Continuity plate
Doubler plate
E70T-1
(TYP)

6"

700

Column

E71T-8
E70T-1

Column Section Weight (kg/m)

Figure 2. Column total stress per Chi and Uang

(2) versus column section weight.

Figure 3. Specimen typical connection

details (Note: 1 inch = 25.4 mm).

CONNECTION AND COMPOSITE FLOOR SLAB DETAILS

The elevation of a typical connection detail is shown in Figure 3. Each specimen was
designed in accordance with the criteria recommended by Engelhardt (5) for RBS
connections, where the design moment in the beam at the column face is limited to Mpn,
where Mpn is the nominal plastic capacity of the beam. For the six specimens in the test
matrix, the average value of the beam design moment at the column face was equal to
0.973Mpn. The reduction in flange width at the center of the RBS for each specimen was 50%
of the original flange width, which complied with the design criteria of Engelhardt. The RBS
was flame cut, with the burned surface ground to a surface roughness of 500 micro-inches,
as recommended by FEMA 353 (6). Each specimen had continuity plates the same thickness
as the beam flanges and designed for a balanced panel zone condition. Complete details are
given in Ricles et al. (3). The weld procedure specifications used in the fabrication of the
connections were prequalified in accordance with AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002 (7). All welds were
done using the flux core arc welding procedure, and conformed to the AWS 5.20-95
Specification (8). The beam flange-to-column flange CJP groove field welds and beam webto-column CJP groove field welds utilized E70T-6 and E71T-8 electrodes, respectively. All
shop welds (e.g., shear tab to the column, doubler and continuity plates) were performed
using E70T-1. The run off tabs for the beam flanges were removed following the placement of

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

213

the CJP groove welds, and the weld at the edges of the beam flanges ground to a smooth
transition. The backing bar of the top flange weld was left in place and a reinforcement fillet
weld was provided between the bottom surface of the backing bar and the column flange
using the E71T-8 electrode. The beam bottom flange backing bar was removed using the airarc process, back gouged, and reinforced with a fillet weld using an E71T-8 electrode. No run
off tabs were used for the vertical beam web CJP groove welds. All CJP groove welds were
inspected using the ultrasonic test procedure in order to evaluate whether they complied with
the criteria in AWS D1.1 (7) for weld quality.
The specimen composite floor slab had a total thickness of 133 mm, and consisted of 27.6
MPa nominal compressive strength concrete cast on a 20-gage zinc coated metal deck. A
W4x4 welded wire mesh with wire 152 mm on center was placed in the floor slab prior to
pouring the concrete. The width of the floor slab was 1220 mm to one side, with a 305 mm
overhang on the other side to simulate the conditions for a perimeter SMRF. The ribs of the
decking ran parallel to the main beam (i.e., the beams with the RBS connections) of each test
specimen. To develop the composite action, 19 mm diameter shear studs were placed
outside the RBS region at 305 mm spacing along the beams to attach the deck to the main
beams as well as transverse W14x22 floor beams. These transverse beams were placed at a
spacing of 3048 mm to provide lateral bracing to the main beams and column, where the
distance of 3048 mm satisfied the AISC Seismic Provisions (4).
SPEC-6, which had no composite floor slab, had a supplemental lateral brace at the end of
the RBS in addition to the other lateral bracing noted above for the beams. The lateral
bracing was attached to a W36x150 section that was placed parallel to the beams of the test
specimen to simulate a parallel beam in the prototype building. This parallel beam in the test
setup was allowed to move horizontally with the test specimen, but restrained from out-ofplane movement. The corresponding stiffness of the lateral bracing setup satisfied the AISC
LRFD Specification (9). SPEC-3 also had supplemental lateral braces, but these were
anchored in the floor slab.
TEST SETUP, LOADING PROTOCOL, INSTRUMENTATION
The test setup is shown in Figure 4 (a), with the lateral bracing detail given in Figure 4(b) for
the main beams. The ends of the members in the test setup had pin-connected boundary
conditions, using cylindrical bearings to simulate inflection points at the beam midspan and
column midheight in the prototype frame. The ends of each beam away from the column were
supported by instrumented rigid links, which simulated a roller boundary condition and
enabled horizontal movement of the end of each beam. The lateral bracing detail shown in
Figure 4(b) was used to prevent out-of-plane movement of the beams and column (the
diagonal double angles were not used at the column), and designed for strength and stiffness
in accordance with the AISC LRFD Specification (9). The top of the column was braced
against torsion, while at the base of the column a clevis was used to create the pin boundary
condition. The beams were also braced at the rigid links in order to stabilize the test setup.
The torsional bracing provided at both ends of the column in the test setup was evaluated
using a nonlinear finite element model (3) to examine whether the stiffness would be
representative of the torsional restraint at the column inflection points in the prototype
structure. It was found to be satisfactory and not influence the test results by over-restraining
the ends of the column from twisting.
The specimens were tested by imposing a cyclic story drift history based on the loading
sequence defined in Appendix S of the AISC Seismic Provisions (4). The loading protocol
consisted of initial elastic cycles of story drift, followed by cycles of increased amplitude to
cause inelastic response. A test was terminated when either a fracture occurred, resulting in
214

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

a significant loss of specimen capacity, or after reaching a story drift of 6%. Each specimen
was instrumented to enable measurement of the applied loads, reactions at the rigid links,
specimen story drift; strains in the beam, column, panel zone, and continuity plates; in
addition to panel zone deformation, plastic beam rotation, twisting of the column, and lateral
displacement of the beam at the center of the RBS.
SYM
CL

10'

1312"

Load Cell
Column

Floor Beam
(North Side Only)
Floor Slab

Actuator

Shear Stud

Floor Beam(North Side Only)

No Diagonal Bracing
131 "
2

12"

A325
diam.
(TYP)
W36x150
3

Beam (East)

Beam (West)

Beam Web Stiffener with

Load Cell Diagonal Brace to Floor
Beam (North Side Only)

14'-9"

(b)

Load Cell

1312"

6'-6"

6'-6"

21"

10'

29'-6"

48"

Floor Slab

51 4"

(a)

4"

Double
Angle
2 L2x2x5 16

W14x22

14'-9"

Setup Lateral Bracing

Figure 4. (a) Test setup and (b) beam lateral bracing detail for specimens with a
composite floor slab (Note: 1 inch = 25.4 mm).
TEST RESULTS
A summary of test results for each specimen is given in Table 2, where Rv/Vpz, max, Mf/Mpn,
K,col, , flg, and bf are equal to the ratio of panel zone shear capacity-to-panel zone shear
force corresponding to the plastic flexural moment developing in the RBS, specimen drift from
the last cycle prior to any fracture or strength deterioration to below 80% of the specimen
nominal capacity, ratio of maximum measured beam moment developed at the column faceto-nominal beam flexural capacity, column elastic torsional stiffness, specimen column twist
at 4% story drift, lateral displacement of the beam bottom flange at the RBS at 4% story drift,
and beam flange width, respectively. Typical observed behavior during the testing of a
specimen consisted of yielding in the RBS and the panel zone, followed by cyclic local web
and flange buckling in the RBS. Following the development of local bucking in the RBS,
lateral movement of the bottom beam flange began to occur in the RBS of specimens with a
composite floor slab at 2% to 3% story drift. The combined effect of cyclic local buckling and
lateral flange displacement resulted in a gradual deterioration in specimen capacity to occur
during subsequent cycles where the story drift amplitude was increased. This is evident in the
lateral load-story drift hysteretic response of SPEC-4 shown in Figure 5. The lateral
displacement of the bottom beam flange occurred when it was in compression, and caused
some column twist to develop. Figure 7(a) and (b) shows photographs of SPEC-4 at 4% and
6% story drift, where the yielding in the members and panel zone in the connection region
and lateral beam flange movement in the RBS are visible. The maximum column twist among
the specimens with a floor slab at 4% story drift was 0.037 rads. (SPEC-4). 4% story drift is
the drift at which connections are judged for qualification for seismic use by the AISC Seismic
Provisions (4). SPEC-4, like the other specimens, developed a flange fracture in the RBS
where extensive local flange buckling had occurred (see Figure 7(c)). This occurred at a story
drift of 6%, and was caused by local buckling in the beam flange that led to large cyclic
strains, resulting in a low cycle fatigue failure. SPEC-6, which had a supplemental brace and
lateral bracing attached to the beam that is parallel to the test beam, had minimal
deterioration in capacity as well as column twist (0.004 rads. at 4% story drift), see Figure 6.
Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

215

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

2000

500
0
-500

500
0
-500

-1000

-1000

-1500

-1500
-2000

-2000
-6

-4

-2
0
2
Story Drift (% rad.)

Figure 5. Lateral load-story drift

hysteretic response of SPEC-4.

-6

-4

-2
0
2
Story Drift (% rad.)

Figure 6. Lateral load-story drift

hysteretic response of SPEC-6.

(a) Yielding and

local buckling in
connection
region, 4% drift

fracture
(b) Beam bottom flange lateral movement
at RBS, 4% story drift

(c) Beam bottom flange fracture

at RBS, 6% story drift

Figure 7. Photographs of SPEC-4 during testing.

The reduced amount of deterioration in the capacity of SPEC-6 was due to the specimen
having a weaker panel zone than the other specimens. As noted in Table 2, for SPEC-6 the
ratio of Rv/Vpz is equal to 1.03. Rv is based on the ASIC Seismic Provisions (4). All other
specimens have a value of 1.14 or greater for the ratio of Rv/Vpz. Consequently, these other
specimens developed a larger amount of yielding and local buckling in the RBS than SPEC-6,
leading to local buckling and deterioration in specimen capacity.
In Table 2, all specimens are shown to have a value for max that exceeds 0.04 rads., which is
the current criteria in Appendix S of the AISC Seismic Provisions (4) for qualifying a
connection for seismic use. A summary of the ratio of Mf/Mpn in Table 2 indicates that the
maximum beam moment developed at the column face in the specimens exceeded the
design value of Mpn for which the specimens were designed, with SPEC-5 having the
maximum value of 1.2. The increase in the moment Mf is attributed to the composite floor
slab increasing the moment capacity in the RBS. SPEC-6 had a valve of Mf equal to 1.0, and
had no composite floor slab.

216

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

Table 2. Test results.

SPEC

Rv
Vpz

max
(% rad)

Mf
M pn

K,col
(kN-m/rad)

(1)
(rad)

flg (1)
(mm)

0.2bf
(mm)

1.26

4.0

1.03

3190

0.016

53

61

1.14

4.0

1.13

1404

0.025

34

61

1.28

5.0

1.15

1404

0.006

35

-(2)

1.24

4.0

1.11

947

0.037

38

61

1.21

5.0

1.20

900

0.007

26

53

1.03

4.0

1.00

577

0.004

-(2)

Note: (1) Corresponding to 4% story drift

(2) Chi and Uang criteria (2) for transverse beam flange movement does not apply to
cases with supplemental braces.
6000

SPEC-4
SPEC-6

Strain (microstrain)

4000
2000

y=1765

0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-150

-100
-50
0
50
100
Distance across column flange (mm)

150

Figure 8. Longitudinal strain profile across column flange, just below

RBS connection; 4% story drift.
An examination of the results for column twist in Table 2 reveals that column twist tends to
increase when the elastic torsional stiffness of the column K,col is reduced. However, for a
smaller beam section size is reduced, although the column torsional stiffness is smaller
(e.g., SPEC-5). This phenomenon is associated with a smaller demand on the column when
a smaller beam is used. The column twist is reduced significantly in specimens with a
supplemental brace (SPEC-3 and SPEC-6). The reduction in column twisting in SPEC-6 is
also attributed to a weaker panel zone, which reduced the amount of yielding and local
buckling in the RBS, and subsequently less lateral movement in the RBS. An examination of
the measured specimen beam flange lateral displacement flg in Table 2 shows these results
to be less than the value of 0.2bf, which is the value recommended by Chi and Uang (2) for
determining the design torque T applied to the column. Consequently, the use of the value of
0.2bf for determining the design torsional loading on the column from the RBS will result in a
larger column design torque. This is evident by comparing the column total normal stress at
the connection based on Chi and Uangs recommendation with the measured specimen
response (see Table 3). The criterion by Chi and Uang anticipates column flange yielding
occurring in SPEC-2, 4, and 5; see Figure 2, where the nominal yield stress is 345 MPa. The
measured column flange longitudinal strains in these specimens indicated no yielding in
SPEC-2 and 5, with some minor yielding occurring in SPEC-4 (a maximum strain of 2 to 4
times the yield strain developed). The measured longitudinal strains across the column flange
just below the connection are shown in Figure 8 for SPEC-4 and SPEC-6. These results are

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

217

representative of typical specimen behavior, and show little evidence of a strain gradient
across the flange that would result from the effects of warping normal stresses due to column
torsion.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The strains in the beam bottom flange near the column face were examined to evaluate the
stress distribution across the beam flange that leads to a torque T applied to the column.
Shown below in Figure 9(a) is the distribution of longitudinal stress across the beam bottom
flange at 4% story drift. These stresses are based on measured longitudinal strains in the
specimens. These results correspond to a negative beam moment at the column face (i.e.,
when the bottom flange of the beam is in compression). Similar results for longitudinal
stress across the beam compression flange were obtained from finite element studies (see
Figure 9(b)). The results in Figure 9 show a trend where the stress distribution across the
beam flange has a reduction in stress, which is due to a moment in the plane of the beam
flange caused by the lateral movement of the beam flange at the RBS. This moment is
equivalent to the torque T that is applied by the beam flange to the column. Shown in Figure
10(a) is an idealized uniform longitudinal stress distribution prior to lateral movement of the
beam flange in the RBS (at 2% story drift). The idealized longitudinal stress distribution at 4%
story drift based on the measured and finite element analysis results is given in Figure 10(b).
At 4% drift local buckling and lateral beam flange movement has occurred in the RBS.
Elastic-perfectly stress-strain behavior is assumed in Figure 10, where Fye is the yield stress.

300

Stress (MPa)

200

100

SPEC-1
SPEC-2
SPEC-3
SPEC-4
SPEC-5

0
Longitudinal stress (MPa)

400

100
0
-100

(a)

-200

(b)

-100
-200
-300
-400

-300
-400
-150

-100
-50
0
50
100
Distance across beam flange (mm)

150

-500
-150

-100
-50
0
50
100
Distance across beam flange (mm)

150

Figure 9. Longitudinal stress distribution across beam flange for (a) all test
specimens, and (b) finite element analysis of SPEC-2.

Fye

Fye

(a)

(b)

Figure 10. Idealized longitudinal stress distribution across beam bottom flange at
(a) 2% story drift and (b) 4% story drift.

218

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

For the longitudinal stress distribution shown in Figure 10(b), T can be shown (3) to be equal
to

T=

11
Fyeb 2f t f
150

(1)

where Fye, bf, and tf are equal to the expected beam flange yield stress (1.1Fy), the beam
flange width, and beam flange thickness, respectively.
A design procedure was thus developed in order to determine the total design longitudinal
stress ftotal in the column flange that is attached to an RBS connection. The procedure
involves determining the elastic warping normal stresses fw that develop in the column flange
due to the torque T (10) and superimposing them with the column flange normal stresses
due to bending (fb) and axial loading (fa) to obtain the total normal stress ftotal, where

f w = EWnO "

(2)

In Equation (2) E, WnO, and are equal to the Youngs modulus, normalized warping
function at the column flange tip (10), and the second derivative of the angle of twist in the
column (10), respectively, where is a function of the torque T.
The total stress ftotal is compared to the criteria in the AISC LRFD Specification (9), Equation
(H2-1), where

f total = Fy

(3)

in which and Fy are the resistance factor (0.9) and nominal yield stress of the column
flange, respectively. The above design procedure is similar to that developed by Chi and
Uang (2), except for the method in which the torque is determined.
Table 3. Comparison of column normal flange compression stresses with design procedure.

SPEC

Column

W36x230

W27x194

W27x194

W36x150

W27x146

W24x131

Beam

W36x150

W30x108

Axial
load Bending
stress stress
fa
fb (MPa)
(MPa)

Experimental
Total normal
results, total
stress ftotal (MPa) stress & strain,
4% story drift
Chi
ProProStrain Stress
and
posed
posed
()
(MPa)
Uang

Warping
stress fw
(MPa)
Chi
and
Uang

190

128

66

318

256

1277

255

299

182

101

481

400

2151

372(1)

332

332

332

1797

356(1)

337

321

163

658

500

3296

365(1)

252

180

95

432

347

1598

319

347

347

347

2525

334(1)

Note: (1) Yield stress of the column flange.

The total normal column flange stress based on the above procedure is compared in Table 3
to the measured stress of the test specimens, as well as the stress predicted using the
procedure by Chi and Uang (2). The comparisons in Table 3 indicate that a more accurate
prediction of the total normal stress in the column flange is made using the above procedure
compared to the procedure developed by Chi and Uang (2). The difference between the two
Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

219

methods is the normal warping stress fw predicted by the above procedure is based on a
more accurate value of the torque T applied to the column. For specimens with a
supplemental lateral brace it was assumed that the restraint of the supplemental brace
resulted in no torque applied to the column (i.e., the normal warping stress fw is equal to
zero). This results in a lower predicted stress than the measured response.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An experimental program was conducted in order to evaluate the seismic performance of
RBS connections to deep wide flange columns. The study involved testing six full-scale
specimens to evaluate the effects of column depth, beam size, composite floor slab, and a
supplemental lateral brace.
Based on the experimental study, the following main conclusions are noted:
1. A composite floor slab can significantly reduce the lateral displacement of the beam
bottom flange in the RBS and the amount of twist developed in the column. The slab
appears to be effective in reducing the twist in deeper columns attached to an RBS
connection, and enables the cyclic strength of the beam with an RBS connection to
be better sustained.
2. All of the specimens were able to satisfy the criteria in the AISC Seismic Provisions
(4) for qualifying the connection for seismic use.
3. A weaker panel zone in a deep column RBS connection will not develop as much
column twist and strength degradation as a connection with a stronger panel zone.
However, a weaker panel zone can significantly increase the potential for ductile
fracture of the connection (3). It is recommended that connections be designed with a
balanced panel zone strength condition.
4. A supplemental brace at the end of the RBS significantly reduced the transverse
movement of the beam flanges in the RBS and column twist that leads to cyclic
degradation in specimen capacity.
5. Basing the column torque on a transverse movement of the beam flange in the RBS
of 0.2bf for calculating column flange warping stresses appears to be conservative. A
new procedure for estimating the torsional load applied to the column due to the local
and lateral buckling in the RBS shows improvement in predicting the correct column
flange normal stress.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was supported by a grant from the American Institute of Steel
Construction (Mr. Tom Schlafly program manager) and from the Pennsylvania Department of
Community and Economic Development through the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology
Alliance (PITA) program. The following companies donated materials for the experimental
testing conducted in this research project: Arcelor International America of New York, NY
(steel sections); Nucor Vulcraft Group of Chemung, NY (metal decking); and the Lincoln
Electric Company of Cleveland, OH (welding wire). The support provided by the funding
agencies and companies is greatly appreciated.

220

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

REFERENCES
(1)

Roeder, C. W. (2000). Connection Performance State of Art Report, Report No.

FEMA-355D, FEMA, Washington, D.C.
(2) Chi, B. and Uang, C.-M. (2002). Cyclic Response and Design Recommendations of
Reduced Beam Section Moment Connections with Deep Columns, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(4): 464-473.
(3) Ricles, J., Zhang, X., Lu, L.W., and J. Fisher, (2004). Development of Seismic
Guidelines for Deep-Column Steel Moment Connections, ATLSS Report No. 04-13,
ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
(4) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, (2002). American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
(5) Engelhardt, M. D. (1999). The 1999 T. R. Higgins Lecture: Design of Reduced Beam
Section Moment Connections, Proceedings: 1999 North American Steel Construction
Conference, American Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada, pp. 1-1 to 1-29.
(6) Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel MomentFrame Construction for Seismic Applications, (2000). Report No. FEMA 353, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D. C.
(7) Structural Welding Code Steel, (2002). AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002, American Welding
Society, Miami, Florida.
(8) Specification for Carbon Steel Electrodes for Flux Cored Arc Welding, (1995).
ANSI/AWS A5.20-95, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida.
(9) Manual of Steel Construction-Load and Resistance Factor Design, (2001). Third Ed.,
AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
(10) Seaburg, P., and C. Carter, (1997). Torsional Analysis of Structural Steel Members,
American Institute of Steel Construction Steel Design Guide Series, ASIC, Chicago,
Illinois.

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

221

222

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004