REVISIONS

CISC Handbook of Steel Construction, 8

th
Edition

2
nd
Printing, December 2004



Revisions for the 2
nd
printing are given in the following pages. Differences between the
1
st
and 2
nd
printings are highlighted with red boxes and arrows for convenience. In Adobe
Reader, version 6, the pages can be printed with or without the red highlights by setting
the Print What option to Document and comments or Document, respectively.

The list of revised pages is given below:

Part 2 - CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA S16-01

Pages 2-3, 2-27, 2-50, 2-57, 2-61, 2-78, 2-94, 2-111, 2-115, 2-116, 2-119,
2-120, 2-121

Part 3 - Connections and Tension Members

Pages 3-65, 3-83


The following revision has not been included in the 2
nd
printing but has been approved by
CSA and will appear in a subsequent printing of the Handbook:

Part 1 - CSA/CSA S16-01 - Limit States Design of Steel Structures

Page 1-79, Clause 21.3(a):

The formula for the bearing resistance of members with Class 3 or 4 webs should
read as follows:

2
c c
c b c bi
r
) w / h (
) t 10 t ( w 000 640
B
+
=


Eighth Edition
Handbook
of Steel
Construction
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
Institut canadien de la construction en acier
I c c a
CI SC
Second Printing December 2004



Copyright 2004

by

Canadian Institute of Steel Construction





All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must
not be reproduced in any form without the written
permission of the publisher.



Eighth Edition

Second Printing December 2004











ISBN 0-88811-105-3




PRINTED IN CANADA
by
Quadratone Graphics Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario

24. Welding
25. Column Bases and Anchor Rods (previously Clauses 25 and 26)
26. Fatigue (previously Clause 14 and Appendix "K")
27. Seismic Design Requirements
28. Shop and Field Fabrication and Coating (previously Clauses 28 and 29)
29. Erection (previously Clause 30)
30. Inspection (previously Clause 31)
Appendices
A Standard Practice for Structural Steel
B Margins of Safety (previously Appendix "E")
C Crane-Supporting Structures (new Appendix)
D Recommended Maximum Values for Deflection for Specified Design Live and
Wind Loads (previously Appendix "I")
E Guide for Floor Vibrations (previously Appendix "G")
F Effective Lengths of Columns (previously Appendix "B")
G Criteria for Estimating Effective Column Lengths in Continuous Frames (previ-
ously Appendix "C")
H Deflections of Composite Beams Due to Shrinkage of Concrete (previously Appen-
dix "L")
I Arbitration Procedure for Pretensioning Connections (previously Clause 23.7.4)
J Ductile Moment-Resisting Connections (new Appendix)
Appendices "D", "K" and "M" of the 1994 Standard have been incorporated into the
2001 Standard. Appendices "F" and "J" of the 1994 Standard have been deleted.
Highlights of Changes to Some Clauses of CAN/CSA-S16-01
Clause 1
In Clause 1.4, second sentence, the word "supplemented" replaces "used" to empha-
size that this Standard is the one to be used for the design of steel buildings in Canada,
that it takes precedence, and any other criteria used are in fact supplementary.
Clause 2
New definitions introduced. Some new symbols are defined. Other definitions and
symbols, where appropriate, brought forward to Clause 2.
Clause 3
Brought up-to-date. CGSBStandards no longer referenced. NewStandards added.
Clause 4
Title broadened to include structural documents. Information on structural design
documents broadened. Note new Clauses 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.
Clause 5
New bolting assemblies introduced.
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-3
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-27
h w
b
t
x x
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t t
b
t
t
b
x x
x x
b
t b
t
t b
t b
HSS
t
t b
b
box
t
d b
t
D
Detail Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
L's connected
continuously
Flanges of
I's or T's
b
t F
y

145
2-L's or cover
plates symmetric
about plane of
bending (x-x axis).
b
t F
y

170
2-L's or cover
plates symmetric
about plane of
bending (x-x axis).
b
t F
y

200

b
t F
y

200
L's not continuously
connected, flange of
C's, asymmetric cover
plates, plate girder
stiffeners
Symmetric about
plane of bending or
including asymmetry
effects in analysis.
Stems of T's
b
t F
y

145

b
t F
y

170

b
t F
y

340
Bending only
h
w F
y

1100
Axial compression

Bending only
h
w F
y

1700
Axial compression

Bending only
h
w F
y

1900
Axial compression
h
w F
y

670
b
t F
y

420 b
t F
y

525 b
t F
y

670
b
t F
y

525 b
t F
y

525 b
t F
y

670

b
t F
y

840
Bending only
D
t F
y

13 000
Axial compression

Bending only
D
t F
y

18 000
Axial compression

Bending only
D
t F
y

66 000
Axial compression
D
t F
y

23 000
Figure 2-8
Width-Thickness Ratios for Compression Elements
Because the test results do not provide data for e dgreater than 3, an upper limit of
e d = 3 is imposed. That is,
B tdnF
r br u
3f
For the bearing of bolts onsteel, the value off
br
inClause 13.10(c) is to be takenas 0.67
The note directs designers to Clause 13.11, to investigate any potential for block
tear-out when the end distance, e, is small and to Clause 22.3.4 for minimum end dis-
tances.
13.11 Tension and Block Shear Failure
Tension fracture, which is discussed in Clause 13.2, can also take place in combina-
tion with shear. The tension and block shear expressions in Clause 13.11 reflect find-
ings from work of Kulak and Grondin (2000). From Japanese test results, Kulak and
Grondin observed that two modes of failure can occur in gusset plate connections of the
type shown in Figure 2-23.
One mode involves tensile fracture on the net section across A-B accompanied by
shear yielding onthe gross sectionalong A-Dand B-C. This mode of failure is covered by
expression 13.11(a)(i) in S16-01. In this expression, the shear yield strength is taken as
0.6 times the tensile yield strength. This failure mode was not covered in the 1994
Standard.
The other mode of failure, which was covered in Clause 12.3 of the 1994 Standard,
involves tensile fracture onthe net sectionA-Baccompaniedby shear fracture onthe net
section along A-D and B-C. This mode of failure is covered by expression 13.11(a)(ii) in
S16-01. The governing failure mode is the lesser of the two expressions.
Tension and shear block failure may also occur at the end of a coped beamas shown
inFigure 2-24. Here the applied shear force causes tensiononthe horizontal planes and
shear on the vertical planes. Again the Standard nowrequires that both shear yielding
and shear fracture be investigated using expressions 13.11(b)(i) and 13.11(b)(ii) respec-
tively. Tests on coped beams have shown that the block of material rotates as it resists
load, resulting ina very non-uniformtensile stress component. Inrecognitionof this be-
haviour, a factor of 0.5 is applied to the tensile fracture component in the above expres-
sions insteadof the factor of 0.85inthe 1994Standard. For copedbeams, especially with
two vertical lines of fasteners, the use of the block shear model involving shear yielding
onthe gross sectionwiththe 0.5 factor appliedto the tensile component, gave a goodpre-
diction of the test results. See also Franchuk et al. (2003).
2-50 CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01
A
B
D
C
Figure 2-23
Block Tear-out at End of Tension Member
14.3 Webs
14.3.1 Maximum Slenderness
This limit prevents the web from buckling under the action of the vertical compo-
nents of the flange force arising as a result of the curvature of the girder, (Kulak and
Grondin 2002).
14.3.2 Web Crippling and Yielding
Unstiffened webs of beams and girders carrying loads or reactions concentrated nor-
mally over a short length of flange are resisted by compressive stresses in the plane of
the web. The ultimate strength of the unstiffened web subjected to such edge loading
may be governed by either yielding of the web or by crippling of the web (a localized
out-of-plane buckling of the web adjacent to the loaded flange).
If the web is relatively stocky, yielding will occur prior to crippling and expressions
14.3.2(a)(i) and 14.3.2(b)(i) govern web resistances for interior loads and end reactions
respectively.
Relatively thin webs, cripple before yielding and the strength of the web is governed
by expressions 14.3.2(a)(ii) and 14.3.2(b)(ii) for interior loads and end reactions respec-
tively.
The equations presented in the Standard are based on the work of Kennedy et al.
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-57
1 2
1
D 2
1
D
1 2
1
D 2
2 2
1
D 2
2
D
2 2
1
D 2 D 2
2
1

D
SPACING OF HOLES
CENTRE LINE
d
L
d/3
d/3
L/4 L/4
Figure 2-30
Unreinforced Circular Web Openings in Beams
Unreinforced circular holes may be placed anywhere within the hatched zone
without affecting the strength of the beam for design purposes, provided:
1. Beam supports uniformly distributed load.
2 Beam section has an axis of symmetry in plane of bending.
3 Spacing of holes meets the requirements shown below.
cases, the connection of the beamflange to the column cap plate must have strength and
stiffness (Chien, 1989). The restraint offered by the distortion of the web requires very
careful assessment. See also the commentaries on Clause 13.6 and Clause 9.2.
14.8 Copes
Flanges are coped to permit beams to be connected to girder webs with simple
connections while maintaining the tops of the flanges at the same elevation. Long copes
may seriously affect the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of a beam (Cheng and
Yura, 1986). The reduced shear and moment resistance at the coped cross-section
should be examined.
14.10 Torsion
In many cases, beams are not subject to torsion because of the restraint provided by
slabs, bracing or other framing members. The torsional resistance of open sections hav-
ing two flanges consists of the St. Venant torsional resistance and the warping torsional
resistance.
Information on moment-torque interaction diagrams for I-shaped members is given
in Driver and Kennedy (1989). Serviceability criteria will often govern the design of a
beam subject to torsion. Limiting the maximum stress due to bending and warping, at
the specified load level, to the yield strength guards against inelastic deformation. For
inelastic torsion of steel I-beams, see Yong Lin Pi and Trahair (1995). For elastic analy-
ses, see Seaburg andCarter (1997), andBrockenbroughandJohnston(1974). For meth-
ods of predicting the angle of twist in a W-shape beam, see Englekirk (1994).
15. TRUSSES
15.1 Analysis
A "pure" truss is a triangulated system with pinned joints and with loads applied
only at the joints. This being the case, the members of the truss are axially loaded
"two-force" members acting either in tension or compression. Such trusses are nowsel-
dom made and the members meeting at a joint are likely welded or bolted together and
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-61
1.0
0.75
0.60 1.0
M
f
M
r
V
f
V
r
M
f
M
r
V
f
V
r
0.727 + 0.455 = 1.0
Figure 2-34
Combined Shear and Moment Interaction Expression
2-78 CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01
Manufacturer's
Specified
Depth
7 mm
(Cl.16.10.1)
7 mm (Cl.16.10.3)
7 mm
(Cl.16.10.8)

3
m
m
(
C
l
.
1
6
.
1
0
.
7
)
13 mm
(Cl.16.10.2)
3 mm
(Cl.16.10.4)
Hole Location:
2 mm when length 10 m
3 mm when length 10 m
(Cl. 16.10.8)

>
Length
Design Location
of Panel Point
Specified or nominal Camber
(Cl. 16.10.9)
NOTE: End Diagonal
Show actual eccentricities
when gravity axes of members
do not meet at a point
(Clause
AND
16.10.2
16.5.10.4)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
S
h
o
e
D
e
p
t
h
1/50 W max.
(Cl. 16.10.6)
W
Bearing Shoe
Figure 2-50
Joist Manufacturing Tolerances
the boundary beams and columns. With care, it may be possible to use only two fish
plates per panel, one on the underside of the upper beam and the other on one column
with the welded connections on the other two edges being made directly between the
web plate and the column or beam. Bolts or tack welds can be used to hold web plates in
place temporarily during erection.
21. CONNECTIONS
21.3 Restrained Members
When the compressive or tensile force transmitted by a beam flange to a column
(approximated by the factored moment divided by the depth of the beam) exceeds the
factoredwebbearing or flange tensile resistance of the column, stiffeners are requiredto
develop the load in excess of the bearing or tensile resistance.
Taking the lengthof the columnweb resisting the compressive force as the thickness
of the beam flange plus ten times the thickness of the column flange as in Clause
14.3.2(a)(i) results in the first equation given in Clause 21.3 for the bearing resistance of
columns with Class 1 and 2 webs. For members with Class 3 and 4 webs, the bearing re-
sistance of the web is limited by its buckling strength. The expression for the factored
bearing resistance is conservatively based on the critical buckling stress of a plate with
simply-supported edges:
( )( ) ( )
s
p
n
cr
c c c c
min
k
E
h w h w
k =
-
= =
2
2
2 2
12 1
723000
4 when
The number 640 000, given in Clause 21.3(a), reflects a further reduction for the ef-
fect of possible residual stresses.
Although not stated, the bearing resistance computed from the second equation
should not exceed the first. In both expressions, if the compression flange is applied at
the end of a column, the loaded length should be reduced to t t
b c
+ 4 and the resistance
factor should be reduced to f
be
.
Grahamet al. (1959) also show, basedona yieldline analysis, that the columnflange
bending resistance, when subject to a tensile load from the beam flange, can be taken
conservatively to be 7
2
t F
c yc
. Tests have shown that connections proportioned in
accordance with this equation have carried the plastic moment of the beam satisfacto-
rily.
When moment connections are made between beams and columns with relatively
thick flanges (greater than about 50 mm) prudent fabrication practice suggests that the
column flanges be inspected (such as radiographically) in the region surrounding the
proposed weld locations to detect and thereby avoid any possible laminations that might
be detrimental to the through-thickness behaviour of the column flange.
Huang et al. (1973) demonstratedthat beam-columnconnections designedsuchthat
the web was connected only for the shear force were capable of reaching the plastic ca-
pacity of the beam even though in some tests the webs were connected with bolts based
on bearing-type connections in round or slotted holes. The slips that occurred were not
detrimental to the static ultimate load capacity. For joints in zones of high seismicity,
see Commentary on Clause 27.
Bolted extended end plate type connections are also commonly used for beam-to-col-
umn moment connections. Murray (1990) presents equations for the bearing and ten-
sile resistances of the column flange opposite the flanges of the beam, for use with
extended end plate type connections. AISC (2001) and Carter (1999) have adopted the
design equations presented by Murray (1990). Note that the equation used in calcula-
tion of the tensile resistance of the column flange is based on research using only ASTM
2-94 CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01
and Steven 1977; Bruneau et al. 1987), splices are designed more conservatively, and
half-penetration welds on flanges are required as a minimum.
27.2.4 Column Joint Panel Zone
27.2.4.1 The column panel zone has a shear strength greater than the von Mises shear
yieldvalue onthe web due to: (i) considerable strain-hardening inshear, and(ii) flexural
resistance of the column flanges during panel yielding in shear (Krawinkler and Popov
1982). This strength is assumed to be attained at shear distortion equal to four times
the yield shear distortion. This amount of panel zone yielding may be tolerable provided
that plastic hinging first develops in the beams
Yielding in the panel zone is perceived by some as beneficial since it reduces the in-
elastic demand on the beams and provides sharing of energy dissipation. However,
some concerns remain for beam welded connections because of the impact of plastic
shear distortions and localized column flange bending on the integrity of the beam
flange welds. A consensus opinion has not yet been reached. An upper limit of 0.2 is
placed on the term3
2
b t d d w
c c c b
'
to ensure that the panel zone strength is not reached
prior to development of the plastic moment enhanced by strain-hardening in the
adjacent beams.
27.2.4.2 These requirements ensure that the panel zone can undergo cyclic plastic
straining. The entire perimeter of the doubler plates must be welded to contiguous ele-
ments, unless the doubler plate extends beyond the stiffeners. Lateral bracing to the
columnflange may be providedthroughtransverse beams connectedto the columnweb.
Stronger panel zones can usually be provided at low cost, and the Von Mises equa-
tion (058 . F
y
on the entire web of the column) is proposed as an alternative to the panel
zone strength equation of Clause 27.2.4.1. In this case, the panel zone remains elastic
andspecial detailing of the panel zone describedinthe first part of this clause is not war-
ranted. Note that the 0.55 in the shear strength equations is obtained by taking the
depth of column web equal to 095 . d
c
.
27.2.4.3 The details given in this clause are necessary to ensure strength and ductility
of the panel zone and its reinforcement.
27.2.5 Beam-to-Column Joints and Connections
27.2.5.1 Extensive research was initiated following the Northridge earthquake to
identify the reasons that led to the numerous observed beam-to-column connection frac-
tures, and to formulate newconnection design requirements. The result of this large re-
search endeavour is a database of connection types that have been experimentally
proven able to provide satisfactory seismic performance, with specific information re-
garding configurations, details, quality control, and other requirements. Reference to
this material is given in Appendix J.
The designer must either:
(a) use connections conforming to size, material, detail dimension and other limita-
tions, configurations, quality controls and welding types and procedures of those
already proven satisfactory by tests, or
(b) conduct tests to demonstrate that under a number of cycles of loading the re-
quired total drift specified in this clause can be reached. Aprotocol for such test-
ing is referenced in Appendix J.
27.2.5.2 The beamweb connection shall have a resistance adequate to carry shears in-
duced by yielding at the beam-to-column joint.
27.2.6 Bracing
Bracing of both top and bottombeamflanges as well as column flanges shall be con-
sidered. If no transverse beams exist at a level, the column must be designed to provide
restraint to yielding beam flanges in the manner indicated in (d).
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-111
in shear the full yield capacity of the smaller brace component upon subsequent
straightening of the braces, and the stitch connections must be designed accordingly
(Astaneh-Asl and Goel 1985).
Braces with bolt holes at the location of the plastic hinges have exhibited early frac-
ture at the net section, and bolted stitches must be avoided in these regions
(Astaneh-Asl and Goel 1984). In determining the governing overall slenderness of the
bracing members and the location of plastic hinges, attention must be paid to the actual
end fixity and support conditions of the bracing members (see also Clause 27.5.3.1).
Plastic hinges in the bracing members will develop approximately at half the distance
between supports, i.e., at one quarter and three quarters of the brace length in X-brac-
ing, as well as near the brace end connections if such connections do not permit rotation
to develop upon buckling.
27.5.4 Bracing Connections
27.5.4.1 Eccentricities in brace connections can lead to damage under cyclic loading
and should therefore be kept to a minimum in ductile braced frames.
27.5.4.2 Brace connections must be designed to resist brace axial loads that correspond
to the probable buckling strength and tensile yielding strength of the braces. Arealistic
estimate of the actual compressive strength of a brace is obtained by multiplying by 1.2
its nominal compressive resistance, the latter being obtained with the probable yield
stress of the steel (Tremblay 2002). Actual brace end restraint conditions and the pres-
ence of intermediate supports must also be taken into account when evaluating the
buckling strength of the braces (see Clause 27.5.3.1). In tension, the maximum antici-
pated brace force corresponds to the probable yield tensile strength.
In some cases, braces can be oversized to meet other design criteria such as drift,
width-to-thickness ratio, or slenderness limits. For such cases, the brace connection
loads need not exceed the forces induced by a storey shear calculated with R = 10 . . The
possibility of brace buckling under that storey shear must be considered in the calcula-
tions: the forces in the compression braces are limited to the probable buckling
strengths and the load redistribution fromthe compression braces to the tension braces
due to brace buckling must be accounted for when evaluating the forces acting in the
tension braces. The value proposed in Clause 27.5.5.1 for the brace post-buckling
strength can be used in this calculation. In view of the uncertainty associated with the
amplitude of the seismic ground motions and their effects on building structures, con-
nections designed with brace forces associated with a storey shear corresponding to
R = 10 . must be sized to fail in a ductile manner. Details that may be considered to
achieve ductile failure modes include gusset plates proportioned for ductility (Cheng
and Grondin, 1999), connections that rely only on yielding of welds loaded longitudi-
nally or in which bearing failure of bolts governs the tensile resistance in preference to
net section fracture or bolt shear failure.
The brace tension load can be limited by beam yielding in chevron bracing in which
the beams are not designed to carry the full tensile yield load of the braces. In such a
case, the brace tension connection load at any level is determined assuming the beam
yields while the compression brace still carries 1.2 times its probable nominal compres-
sive strength.
The net section resistance of braces may be based on the probable tensile strength of
the material, since the load level corresponds to the probable yield stress. Data assem-
bled by Schmidt (2000) shows that a conservative factor equal to R
y
can be applied to F
u
provided the value does not exceed 1.1. Also, since the principal geometrical parameter
of the net section and gross section are identical, the resistance factor may be taken as
1.0. The factor R
y
f cannot be applied to the gusset plate resistance.
27.5.4.3 Buckling of the braces will induce rotation demand at the brace ends and the
connections must be detailed to avoid any premature fracture at his location. Proper de-
tailing must be provided to allow this rotation to develop through controlled plastic
hinging inthe bracing members, away fromthe connections, or inthe brace connections.
Note that this ductile rotational behaviour must be allowed for, either in or out of the
plane of the frame, depending on the governing effective brace slenderness. If a single
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-115
gusset plate connection is used, the former case can be easily achieved by leaving a clear
distance equal to two times the thickness of the gusset at the end of the bracing member
(or the connecting elements) in order to have a hinge forming in the gusset plate along a
line perpendicular to the brace member longitudinal axis (Astaneh-Asl and Goel 1985).
Tearing of the gusset plate will rapidly develop if this geometry is not carefully met. If a
plastic hinge is to develop in the bracing member, the connection must have a factored
flexural resistance about the anticipated buckling axis equal to11 . R M
y p
of the bracing
member. The Commentary to Clause 27.5.4.2 concerning the factor R
y
f applies also
here, except that R
y
is not limited to 1.1 when both load and resistance are directly re-
lated to the yield stress.
27.5.5 Columns, Beams, and Other Connections
27.5.5.1 Columns, beams, and other connections in the lateral-load-resisting system
must be designed to carry the gravity loads together with the brace forces that are ex-
pected to develop under the design earthquake. Member forces under this condition can
be obtained by replacing the bracing members by the brace forces specified in Clause
27.5.4.2 for the design of the brace connections. In a given storey, it must be assumed
that yielding in the tension braces develops simultaneously with either the buckling or
post-buckling strength of the compression braces, depending upon which case produces
the most critical condition for the element being designed. The tensile yield strength
and the buckling strength of the braces are as defined in Clause 27.5.4.2. The value of
the brace post-buckling compressive strength corresponds to that observed in tests at a
ductility of 3.0. Tests suggest that higher values can be used for bracing members with
very low slenderness (l less than 0.4) (Tremblay 2002). For tension-only systems the
compressive resistance of the braces must be considered. In all cases the brace forces
need not exceed those associated with a storey shear corresponding to R = 10 . (including
load redistribution due to brace buckling).
In multi-storey structures, the likelihood of having all the bracing members develop
their full capacity at the same time diminishes as the number of storeys above the level
under consideration becomes large. In X-bracing (or split-X bracing), this can be ac-
counted for in determining axial forces in columns by using statistical combinations of
the brace induced loads that have been proposed in the literature (Redwood and
Channagiri 1991). Whenthe axial force inthe columnis due to brace buckling only, as in
chevron bracing with the braces framing below the beams, this reduction is less impor-
tant and all braces must be considered as buckling simultaneously (Tremblay and
Robert 2001).
When calculating axial load in beams, attention should be paid to the lateral load
path at the level under consideration.
27.5.5.2 Columns in multi-storey structures are most often continuous over two or
more storeys, and the flexural stiffness and strength of these columns contributes in re-
ducing the concentration of inelastic demand in a given storey along the height of the
building. This behaviour is now explicitly accounted for in S16, and the columns must
therefore be made continuous to prevent soft-storey formation unless another systemis
provided (Tremblay 2000). It should be noted that all columns in the frame, not only
those in the vertical bracing system, are to be treated in this way. In addition, the bend-
ing moments that are expected to develop in the columns must be accounted for in de-
sign. Non-linear dynamic analyses have shown that these moments reach
approximately 20% of the plastic moment of the columns, both for the gravity columns
and the columns of the bracing bents. Pinned column splices are permitted. In order to
maintain structural integrity, every splice in the building must be designed for a shear
force assuming double curvature in the columns.
Gravity columns possess some reserve capacity due to the reduced factored gravity
loads assumed to be present during the design earthquake, and the bending moments
are therefore ignored in their design. Class 3 sections are specified, however, to avoid
brittle failure in case inelastic rotation develops over a short period of time during the
earthquake. More stringent provisions are prescribed for the columns of the braced
bays inviewof their primary role inresisting lateral loads andthe large axial forces they
must sustain due to seismic loading. Class 1 or 2 sections are required and the columns
2-116 CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01
neglected in the design. For a general discussion of EBF behaviour, see Popov et al.
(1989).
For short and moderate lengthlinks inparticular, the web is expected to undergo se-
vere cyclic inelastic action with straining well in to the strain-hardening range. For this
reasondiscontinuities suchas openings andsplices andstress raisers suchas weldedat-
tachments must be avoided. Splices within the link are not acceptable, and should also
be avoided in the outer parts of the link beam near the link ends (with the exception of
links attached directly to columns). The webs should be of uniform depth to maintain
the same shear capacity throughout the link length, thus avoiding confined yielding.
27.7.2 Link Resistance
The nominal resistances of the link are defined, taking into account axial force; this
may be neglected if low. The interaction between bending moment and shearing force
has beenfoundto be negligible andis neglected. The factoredvalues of these resistances
(nominal resistance times f) are used when proportioning the beams for the factored
load effects. The nominal values are used to determine capacity design forces on other
members of the frame (see Clauses 27.7.8, 27.7.9 and 27.7.11).
27.7.3 Length of Link
Very short links are proscribed since they will tend to undergo very high shearing
deformations, and develop very high and unpredictable forces.
Upper limits on the length are needed when the link is subjected to axial force.
These are based on Englehardt and Popov (1989).
27.7.4 Link Rotation
The inelastic link rotation must be limited as specified in this Clause to ensure the
ductile capacity of the link is not exceeded. The inelastic link rotation is computed for
each storey in the following way:
elastic interstorey deflections are obtained from an elastic analysis of the struc-
ture under lateral loads corresponding to the NBCC base shear distributed ac-
cording to NBCC (either based on the static method or the distribution obtained
from modal analysis).
these deflections are multiplied by a factor R 1 - to give an estimate of the maxi-
mum inelastic deflections expected under severe shaking.
assuming the frame undergoes the interstorey drift corresponding to the calcu-
lated inelastic deflections as a rigid plastic mechanism, with the deformations
confined to the link, the link rotation angle, which is the angle between the link
and the link beam outside the link, is obtained. Figure 2-66 shows the relations
between the inelastic drift angle, q
p
, and the link rotation, d, for three EBFconfig-
urations.
27.7.5 Link Stiffeners
Full-depthstiffeners onbothsides of the web are requiredto clearly define the endof
the link and to transfer the high shearing forces over the full web depth. The require-
ments for intermediate web stiffeners are based on physical test results and are needed
to ensure the ductile performance of the link. For short links the stiffeners control shear
buckling of the yielding web, and for long links the stiffeners required near the ends are
to control flange buckling.
Flange-to-stiffener welds of the link end stiffeners are required to develop the full
stiffener yield capacity because of the very high forces that must be transferred between
the brace and link at a point where high shear and bending loads occur.
27.7.6 Lateral Support for Link
The required capacity of lateral bracing is much higher than usually required for
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-119
beams because of the anticipated large inelastic deformations and the accompanying
forces amplified by strain-hardening.
27.7.7 Link Beam-to-Column Connections
When the end of a link is connected directly to the column face, severe straining of the
linkandcolumnflanges canoccur as the linkdeformationis accommodated. This may re-
sult inkinks of the columnflanges andsevere loadingof the welds. Suchaconnectionmay
have details similar to those of moment-resisting frames that performed unsatisfactorily
in the Northridge earthquake, and for this reason such link connections must be demon-
strated as meeting the performance defined in this clause. As for moment-resisting
frames, this demonstration can be provided by cyclic tests of full-scale prototypes of the
link and column assemblage, following the procedures given in AISC (2002).
If the connection region is reinforced so that a short length of beam adjacent to the
columnremains elastic under the actionof the strain-hardened link forces, suchdemon-
stration may not be necessary. For this to be acceptable, the link must be short, thus
limiting the flange forces, and the link end must be defined at the end of the elastic re-
gion by full-depth stiffeners.
27.7.8 Link Beam Resistance
Forces due to strain-hardening of the link are taken as 13 . R
y
times the nominal
strengthof the link, as definedinClause 27.7.2. The 1.3 factor accounts for the enhance-
ment above the yield value due to strain-hardening, and R
y
accounts for the probable
yield stress exceeding the minimum specified value. The forces developed in the outer
beam segment (and the brace, see Clause 27.7.9.2) due to these strain-hardened link
forces must be calculated; if reinforcement of the outer beamsegment is to be avoided, it
will oftenbe necessary to provide amoment-resisting connectionbetweenbrace andlink
beamso that the brace canrelieve the outer beamsegment of some of the resulting bend-
ing moment. It should be noted that this part of the beamwill normally also carry a high
axial force. Because the beamsegment considered in this clause will be part of the same
member as the link, (i), its resistance canbe enhanced by the factor R
y
thus, inthis case,
nullifying any effect of an enhanced yield stress, and (ii), the nominal, rather than fac-
tored, resistance is used since most of the uncertainties associated with the resistance
factor, f, affect both load and resistance identically.
The strain-hardening factor of 1.3 is the same for all link lengths, i.e. whether yield
is related to shear or bending moment. That this factor exceeds the strain-hardening
2-120 CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01
(R-1) D
L
e
g
Amplified link rotation:
(L / e)
where:
(R-1) / h
g q
q D
s
h
s
Figure 2-66
Inelastic Drift Angle vs Link Rotation in an Eccentrically Braced Frame
factor usedfor beams inmoment-resisting frames is due to the shorter span-to-depthra-
tio of the link leading to greater inelastic strains. The outer beamsegment is subject to
bending and axial loads, and must be adequately laterally braced. If a plastic hinge is
expected at the link end of this segment, bracing must conformto Clause 13.7(a), which
requires bracing within a specified distance of the hinge. While a floor slab will often be
present to provide support to the top flange, the bottomflange at this location must also
be braced (or torsional constraint may be provided). The likelihood of a plastic hinge at
the linkendof the outer beamsegment canbe determinedby examining the distribution
of the link end moment between beam and brace according to their relative elastic
stiffnesses.
The factor 1.3 applied to the link nominal resistance is used to estimate the
strain-hardened link force magnitudes. The factored resistances of the other members
must exceed the resulting induced forces. In CSAS16.1-94 a factor of 1.5 was specified,
with resistances based on nominal values. Based on the current edition the correspond-
ing value would be 13 09 144 . . . = . It should be noted however that the probable yield
stress is nowused, andso for most cases, with R
y
=1.1, the factor becomes144 11 158 . . . = .
27.7.9 Diagonal Braces
The forces used for design of braces and their connections are consistent with those
specified for the outer beam segment in Clause 27.7.8. Although expected to respond
elastically, the brace section is restricted to Classes 1 or 2 because of the uncertain
stress distribution in the brace-to-beam connection, and the possibility of excessive
strains in part of the brace cross-section.
27.7.11 Columns
Column design can be based on lower strain-hardening factors than braces and
beams since, except for the top several storeys, the cumulative effect of a number of
yielding links will be less than the sum of their maximum possible developed forces.
Column moments under gravity and lateral loads induced by eccentric shears and
moment-resisting beamconnections can be calculated. Those arising fromvariations in
inelastic drifts between adjacent storeys cannot be predicted unless inelastic dynamic
analysis is performed. The columns serve an important role by providing an alternative
means of resisting storey shear whichis especially mobilizedfollowing linkyield. Under
these conditions the columns can be effective in preventing soft storey deformations.
Column continuity is therefore desirable, and design of connections should consider the
shear and bending that may develop. On the basis of numerical studies of the dynamic
response of a variety of EBFstructures (Kasai andHan(1997), Han(1998)), inelastic dy-
namic analysis may be avoided if these end moments are accounted for by limiting the
interaction summation to 0.85. In the top storeys this should be reduced to 0.65.
The requirements for column splices containing partial-joint-penetration groove
welds follow those for ductile moment frames.
27.8 Plate Walls
27.8.1 General
Kulak (1991) and Driver et al. (1997, 1998(a) and 1998(b)) have demonstrated that
the hysteretic behaviour of plate walls under cyclic lateral loading is stable. Muchof the
cyclic energy imparted to a wall is dissipated by the yielding of web panels in tension
along inclinedlines. Whenthe directionof the lateral shear reverses, the tensionfieldin
a givenpanel reduces until the panel buckles under lowcompressive load and a newten-
sion field develops consistent with shear in the opposite direction.
If the beams of a wall panel are attachedto the columns using standardsimple shear
connections, the hysteretic behaviour is pinched or S-shaped. This behaviour is
characteristics of a steel framing systemthat contains elements that buckle, as the pan-
els do when the shear and tension fields reverse.
Under extreme earthquake loading, the pinched hysteretic behaviour is undesir-
CISC Commentary on CAN/CSA-S16-01 2-121

3-65







Web-Framing Leg with Welds







Outstanding Leg with Welds
WELDED DOUBLE
ANGLE BEAM
CONNECTIONS
1

Table 3-38

E49XX
Fillet Welds
WELD CAPACITY
Factored Load Resistance (kN)
WELD CAPACITY
Factored Load Resistance (kN)
Fillet Size D (mm) Fillet Size D (mm)
Nominal Depth
of Supported Beam
(mm)
5 6 8 10 5 6 8 10
Conn.
Angle
Length
L
(mm)
min. max.
Angle Width W = 76 mm Angle Width W = 89 mm

394 473 631 789 135 157 202 246 150 200 310
550 660 880 1100 303 356 460 563 230 310 460
672 806 1080 1340 473 568 754 933 310 380 610

794 953 1270 1590 596 715 953 1190 390 460 760
916 1100 1470 1830 718 861 1150 1440 470 530 920
1040 1250 1660 2080 840 1010 1340 1680 550 610 1100

1160 1390 1860 2320 962 1150 1540 1920 630 690 1200
1280 1540 2050 2560 1080 1300 1740 2170 710 800
1400 1690 2250 2810 1210 1450 1930 2410 790 900

1530 1830 2440 3050 1330 1600 2130 2660 870 920
1650 1980 2640 3300 1450 1740 2320 2900 950 1100
1770 2130 2830 3540 1570 1890 2520 3150 1030 1200
Angle Width W = 64 mm Angle Width W = 76 mm

382 459 612 765 146 170 218 265 150 200 310
519 623 831 1040 322 380 491 602 230 310 460
641 770 1030 1280 473 568 758 947 310 380 610

764 916 1220 1530 596 715 953 1190 390 460 760
886 1060 1420 1770 718 861 1150 1440 470 530 920
1010 1210 1610 2020 840 1010 1340 1680 550 610 1100

1130 1360 1810 2260 962 1150 1540 1920 630 690 1200
1250 1500 2000 2500 1080 1300 1740 2170 710 800
1370 1650 2200 2750 1210 1450 1930 2410 790 900

1500 1800 2390 2990 1330 1600 2130 2660 870 920
1620 1940 2590 3240 1450 1740 2320 2900 950 1100
1740 2090 2780 3480 1570 1890 2520 3150 1030 1200
Minimum Required Web Thickness
of Supported Beam
2
(mm)
Minimum Thickness of Supporting
Material with Beam Framing on One Side

3
Specified Minimum Yield Strength
of Material (MPa)
7.6 9.1 12.1 15.2 3.8 4.6 6.1 7.6 F
y
= 345

1. Connection angles are assumed to be material with F
y
= 300 MPa.
2. Coped beams may have additional requirements. See page 3-59.
3. For supporting material with beams framing from both sides, use double the tabulated value.

10
L
D
w w w
2D
D
L
3-83
Alternative 1
Single plate field-welded to beam web, shop-welded to column flange, holes for
2 - M20 erection bolts
To resist the factored shear, try 5 mm fillet on 6 mm plate.
Required weld length is 130

/

0.778 = 167 mm (Table 3-24, page 3-41)
Use 230 mm length of plate, for a 410 mm beam (Table 3-38, page 3-65)
Check plate for factored shear capacity. (Clause 13.11(a), S16-01)
Net length is 230 2(20 + 2 + 2) = 182 mm
V
r
of plate is lesser of: 0.6

0.9

230

345 = 257 kN > 130 kN
and: 0.6

0.9

182

450 = 265 kN > 130 kN
Use 6

75

230 plate with 5 mm E49XX fillet weld.
Alternative 2
Single plate shop-welded to column flange, field-bolted to beam web with
M20 A325M bolts
From Table 3-4, page 3-8, factored shear resistance, single shear, threads intercepted,
for M20 A325M bolts = 87.6 kN
For 2 bolts, V
r
= 2

87.6 = 175 kN > 130 kN
Check factored bearing resistance on beam web, w = 7.7 mm
From Table 3-6 on page 3-9, bearing for t = say, 6 mm is 109 kN per bolt
w = 7.7 is OK for 87.6 kN
Try 6 mm plate, 230 mm long, 2 bolts at 160 mm pitch, and check plate thickness for
shear.
Net length =182 mm, as for alternative 1. Required thickness of plate is:
130

10
3
/

(0.6

0.9

230

345) = 3.0 mm < 6 mm
Use 6x80 x 230 plate and two M20 A325M bolts at 160 mm pitch.





Alternative 2 replaces the two
erection bolts with permanent
high-strength bolts, and elimi-
nates vertical field welding (likely
a better solution).



(b) Flange Connection
Two alternatives are shown to illustrate field-bolted and field-welded conditions.

Alternative 1
5
Alternative 2
2 - erection bolts
2 - M20 A325M bolts
PL 6 x 75 x 230
PL 6 x 80 x 230