Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Abstract
Cyclic loading tests were conducted to study the behavior of link beams in steel eccentrically braced frames. A total of thirty-seven link
specimens were constructed from five different wide-flange sections, all of ASTM A992 steel, with link length varying from short shear yielding
links to long flexure yielding links. The occurrence of web fracture in shear yielding link specimens led to further study on the cause of these
fractures. Since the link web fracture appeared to be a phenomenon unique to modern rolled shapes, the potential role of material properties on
these fractures is discussed. Based on the test data, a change in the flange slenderness limit is proposed. The link overstrength factor of 1.5, as
assumed in the current U.S. code provisions, appears to be reasonable. The cyclic loading history used for testing was found to significantly affect
link performance. Test observations also suggest new techniques for link stiffener design and detailing for link-to-column connections.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cyclic tests; Steel structures; Seismic design; Flange slenderness ratio; Loading history; Fracture; k-area; Eccentrically braced frame
1. Introduction
The design intent for a seismic-resistant steel Eccentrically
Braced Frame (EBF) is that inelastic action under strong
earthquake motion is restricted primarily to the links. Therefore,
the EBF design procedure prescribed in the 2005 AISC Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings [1] relies on an
understanding of link behavior under severe cyclic loading.
The AISC Seismic Provisions contain U.S. building code rules
for detailing steel structures, including EBFs, for seismic
resistance. The current building code rules for EBFs in the AISC
Seismic Provisions, including link design, link rotation limits,
and link overstrength factors, were developed from rather
extensive experimental studies conducted almost exclusively
on wide-flange shapes of ASTM A36 steel [2]. However,
structural steel shapes most commonly used in the U.S. today
are produced according to the newer ASTM A992 standard,
which provides for a higher yield and tensile strength than A36
steel.
The move to A992 steel raised concerns regarding the
appropriateness of the flange widththickness limits for EBF
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 612 626 0331; fax: +1 612 626 7750.
752
Fig. 1. Test setup: (a) energy dissipation mechanism of EBF; (b) schematic
representation of test setup; and (c) details and dimensions.
Fy (MPa)
Flange
Web
Fu (MPa)
Flange
Web
b f /2t f
Nominal
Actual
367
356
374
379
374
362
319
352
509
507
520
518
518
534
479
499
5.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
8.1
6.6
5.7
5.2
9.2
9.6
9.2
9.6
7.1
6.6
6.1
405
382
365
402
367
392
404
393
531
503
503
530
503
565
531
527
Note: The tabulated Fy is a static yield stress value, measured with the
test machine cross-heads stationary. The tabulated Fu is a dynamic ultimate
strength, measured with the test machine cross-heads in motion.
753
754
Table 2
Test specimens
Group
Specimen
Section
Link length
e (mm)
e/(M p /V p )
Intermediate stiffeners
Loading protocol
1A
1B
1C
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5
6A
6B
7
8
9
10
11
12
W1019
W1019
W1019
W1019
W1019
W1033
W1033
W1033
W1033
W1033
W1033
W1033
W1636
W1636
W1068
W1068
W1840
584
584
584
762
1219
584
584
584
930
1219
1219
1854
930
1219
930
1219
584
1.73
1.73
1.73
2.25
3.61
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.65
2.16
2.16
3.29
1.49
1.95
1.25
1.64
1.02
3@146 mm
3@146 mm
3@146 mm
4@152 mm
152 mm from each end
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
5@156 mm
4@244 mm
4@244 mm
305 mm from each end
6@133 mm
5@203 mm
2@305 mm
3@305 mm
3@146 mm
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
II
4A-RLP
4C-RLP
8-RLP
9-RLP
10-RLP
11-RLP
12-RLP
12-MON
12-SEV
12-RAN
W1033
W1033
W1636
W1636
W1068
W1068
W1840
W1840
W1840
W1840
584
584
930
1219
930
1219
584
584
584
584
1.04
1.04
1.49
1.95
1.25
1.64
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
6@133 mm
5@203 mm
2@305 mm
3@305 mm
3@146 mm
3@146 mm
3@146 mm
3@146 mm
RLP
RLP
RLP
RLP
RLP
RLP
RLP
MON
SEV
RAN
III
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
W1033 (A)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (C)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
W1033 (B)
584
584
584
584
584
584
584
584
584
584
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
3@146 mma
3@146 mma,b
3@146 mma
3@146 mma,b
3@146 mma,b
3@146 mma
2@195 mma,b
SEV
SEV
SEV
SEV
SEV
SEV
SEV
RLP
RLP
RLP
755
756
Table 3
Test results
Specimen
1A
1B
1C
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5
6A
6B
7
8
9
10
11
12
4A-RLP
4C-RLP
8-RLP
9-RLP
10-RLP
11-RLP
12-RLP
12-MON
12-SEV
12-RAN
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
p (rad)
Required
Test
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.042
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.077
0.046
0.046
0.02
0.08
0.059
0.08
0.078
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.059
0.08
0.078
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.042
0.060
0.081
0.070
0.041
0.061
0.071
0.080
0.067
0.047
0.047
0.037
0.077
0.048
0.073
0.068
0.091
0.12
0.12
0.117
0.058
0.113
0.087
0.119
>0.34
0.072
0.125
0.062
0.061
0.072
0.061
0.071
0.051
0.051
0.122
0.101
0.121
757
758
759
760
761
performance between the three specimens, S1, S2, and S3. Due
to the higher hardness and lower elongation in their k-areas,
Specimen S1 (Steel (A)) and S3 (Steel (C)) were expected
to exhibit a smaller rotation capacity compared to Specimen
S2 (Steel (B)). However, the overall performance of the three
specimens was quite similar, with Specimen S3 completing
three more loading cycles than Specimens S1 and S2. All three
specimens failed by fracture of the link web initiating at the
stiffener weld terminations. While these test results indicate that
the steel material can influence link performance, the results
do not clarify the correlation between the reduced material
ductility in the k-area and the occurrence of link web fracture.
It is possible that the difference in k-area material properties
between the three steels, which were all A992 steel, was
insufficient to clearly highlight the influence of k-area material
properties.
A rather large number of tests in this program indicate that
the loading history and stiffener details do not change the failure
mode of shear links from that controlled by link web fracture
to a different failure mode. However, the relation between the
material properties and the link web fracture is less clear. It is
suggested that further studies be conducted to clarify the effect
of material properties, specifically the properties in the k-area,
on link web fracture.
6. Link end welds
Fig. 10. Material properties measured for W1033 sections: (a) hardness
measures along web centerline of link section; and (b) tension coupon test
results for Steel (C).
Steel (A) shows the highest peak hardness value, while Steel
(B) shows somewhat lower hardness values. The peak value
is seen at a distance of 2025 mm from the outer face of
the flange, at the k-line of the section. Tension coupons were
taken from the location of the web indicated in Fig. 10(a). For
Steels (A) and (C), the coupons taken from the k-area showed
2535% higher tensile strength and a two-thirds reduction in
elongation compared to the coupon taken from the mid-depth
of the web. For Steel (B), the coupons taken from the k-area
showed a 5% higher tensile strength and one-third reduction in
elongation compared to the coupon taken from the mid-depth
of the web. Fig. 10(b) shows the tensile coupon test results
for Steel (C), comparing three coupons taken from the edge
of the flange, mid-depth of the web, and k-area of the section.
The figure illustrates the significantly higher tensile strength
and reduced elongation of the coupon taken from the k-area.
Elevated hardness values, elevated tensile strength, and reduced
ductility is characteristic of the k-area of roller straightened
shapes [19], and was observed in all sections used for the link
specimens in this study with the exception of the W1019.
For specimens in Group III, the stiffener weld was
terminated within the region of elevated hardness values, as
indicated in Fig. 10(a), so that the degraded material properties
would influence their performance. The notable difference in
the k-area material properties was expected to cause varying
762
763
Fig. 12. Performance of shear yielding links: (a) inelastic rotation; and (b) overstrength factor.
764
Table 4
Specimen overstrength
Specimen
Vmax /V p
Specimen
Vmax /V p
1A
1B
1C
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5
6A
6B
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.20
1.20
1.23
1.24
1.26
1.40
1.42
1.41
1.34
1.21
1.21
1.27
1.35
1.11
1.44
1.42
1.40
4A-RLP
4C-RLP
8-RLP
9-RLP
10-RLP
11-RLP
12-RLP
12-MON
12-SEV
12-RAN
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
1.45
1.47
1.37
1.05
1.47
1.42
1.44
1.59
1.36
1.62
1.49
1.29
1.56
1.37
1.25
1.32
1.28
1.27
1.43
1.36
welded only to the flanges and not to the web. This technique,
while promising, requires further investigation.
Test data from this program indicate that the flange
slenderness limit of shear yielding links (e 1.6M p /V p ) can
be relaxed to the compact limit of 0.38(E/Fy )1/2 . For longer
links (e > 1.6M p /V p ), it is recommended that the flange
slenderness limit be maintained at the seismically compact
limit of 0.30(E/Fy )1/2 , pending further study of the effects of
shear-flexure interaction on local buckling. All link specimens
conforming to these flange slenderness limits were capable
of achieving the inelastic rotations required in the 2005 AISC
Seismic Provisions.
The ASTM A992 rolled wide-flange links tested in this
program exhibited overstrength factors ranging from 1.05 to
1.62, with an overall average of 1.35. Sections with high
ratios of flange to web areas did not exhibit unusually high
overstrength factors, at least within the range of flange to
web area ratios typical of rolled wide-flange shapes. The
overstrength factor of 1.5, which forms the basis for the
capacity design procedure in the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions,
appears reasonable for links constructed of typical rolled
shapes. However, based on experimental and analytical results
reported by others, a higher overstrength factor may be
appropriate for short links constructed of built-up shapes with
heavy flanges [15].
As a closing remark, the large number of tests conducted in
this research program suggests that EBF links constructed of
ASTM A992 steel and designed according to the 2005 AISC
Seismic Provisions perform well, and meet the performance
requirements of the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions.
Acknowledgements
The writers gratefully acknowledge primary funding
provided for this project by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) and the National Science Foundation
(Grant No. CMS-0000031). The first author expresses gratitude
for sponsorship provided by the Twenty-First Century Center
of Excellence Program awarded to the Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Japan. The tests discussed herein were conducted
as Masters thesis work by former students at the University
of Texas at Austin, Gabriela Arce, Han-Choul Ryu, and Pedro
Galvez. The writers would like to particularly thank Tom
Schlafly of AISC for his support and assistance throughout
this project. The writers thank Chia-Ming Uang, Paul Richards,
James Malley, Subhash Goel, and Tom Sabol for their
assistance and advice on this study.
References
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC) . Seismic provisions
for structural steel buildings. Standard ANSI/AISC 341-05. Chicago (IL,
USA): AISC; 2005.
765
[2] Popov EP, Engelhardt MD. Seismic eccentrically braced frames. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 1988;10:32154.
[3] Itani AM, El-Fass S, Douglas BM. Behavior of built-up shear links under
large cyclic displacement. Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction 2003;40(4):22134.
[4] McDaniel CC, Uang C-M, Seible F. Cyclic testing of built-up steel shear
links for the new bay bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers 2003;129(6):8019.
[5] Hjelmstad KD, Popov EP. Seismic behavior of active beam link in
eccentrically braced frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-83/15. Berkeley
(Richmond, CA, USA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 1983.
[6] Malley JO, Popov EP. Design considerations for shear links in
eccentrically braced frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-83/24. Berkeley
(Richmond, CA, USA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 1983.
[7] Kasai K, Popov EP. A study of seismically resistant eccentrically braced
frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-86/01. Berkeley (Richmond, CA, USA):
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1986.
[8] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC) . Seismic provisions
for structural steel buildings. Standard ANSI/AISC 341-02. Chicago (IL,
USA): AISC; 2002.
[9] Okazaki T, Arce G, Ryu H-C, Engelhardt MD. Experimental study of
local buckling, overstrength, and fracture of links in eccentrically braced
frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineering 2005;131(10):152635.
[10] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC) . Specification for
structural steel buildings. Standard ANSI/AISC 360-05. Chicago (IL,
USA): AISC; 2005.
[11] Arce G. Impact of higher strength steels on local buckling and
overstrength in eccentrically braced frames. Masters thesis. Austin (TX,
USA): Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin;
2002.
[12] Ryu H-C. Effects of loading history on the behavior of links in seismicresistant eccentrically braced frames. Masters thesis. Austin (TX, USA):
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin; 2005.
[13] Galvez P. Investigation of factors affecting web fractures in shear links.
Masters thesis. Austin (TX, USA): Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin; 2004.
[14] Engelhardt MD, Popov EP. Behavior of long links in eccentrically braced
frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-89/01. Berkeley (Richmond, CA, USA):
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1989.
[15] Richards P, Uang C-M. Evaluation of rotation capacity and overstrength
of links in eccentrically braced frames (phase 1). Report No. SSRP2002/18. La Jolla (CA, USA): Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California at San Diego; 2002.
[16] Richards P, Uang C-M. Development of testing protocol for short links
in eccentrically braced frames. Report No. SSRP-2003/08. La Jolla (CA,
USA): Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at
San Diego; 2003.
[17] Richards P. Cyclic stability and capacity design of steel eccentrically
braced frames. Ph.D. dissertation. La Jolla (CA, USA): University of
California, San Diego; 2004.
[18] Krawinkler H, Gupta A, Medina R, Luco N. Loading histories for seismic
performance testing of SMRF components and assemblies. Report No.
SAC/BD-00/10. Sacramento (CA, USA): SAC Joint Venture; 2000.
[19] Miller KR, Frank K. Study of the material properties of the webflange
intersection of rolled shapes. Report No. SAC/BD-99/08. Sacramento
(CA, USA): SAC Join Venture; 1999.
[20] Ramadan T, Ghobarah A. Behavior of bolted linkcolumn joints in
eccentrically braced frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1995;
22:74554.