Jake Powell Thesis (HSS18-HSS26)

Evaluation of Special Concentrically Braced Frames for
Improved Seismic Performance and Constructability
Jacob A. Powell
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Engineering
University of Washington
2010
Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Graduate School
This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a masters thesis by
Jacob A. Powell
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.
Committee Members:
Dr. Charles W. Roeder
Dr. Dawn E. Lehman
Dr. Greg Miller
Date:
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a masters degree at the
University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for
inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable for scholarly purposes,
consistent with fair use as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any
purposes or by any means shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature ___________________________________
Date ______________________________________
Abstract
Evaluation of Special Concentrically Braced Frames for Improved Seismic Performance and
Constructability
Jacob A. Powell
Chair of Supervisory Committee:

Dr. Charles W. Roeder
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are a lateral force resisting system for steel
structures which have been widely implemented in recent years. Since the damage observed to
moment frames during the 1994 Northgate, CA and 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquakes, designers are
relying more on SCBFs to resist seismic loads for new construction of steel structures. Increased
initial stiffness and less material make SCBFs an economic and efficient choice but researchers and
design engineers admittedly do not fully understand the nonlinear demands to the entire system
when subjected to severe earthquake loading.
Significant past research has focused on the component behaviors for Braced Frames but little
research has been conducted to evaluate the behavior of the entire system, including brace, gusset
plates and framing elements. The research at UW beginning in 2004 and has worked to indentify
inadequacies with the current AISC design procedures for gusset plate design and develop an
alternative method to increase system ductility and improve seismic performance. The Balance
Design Approach for gusset plates is a variation of capacity based design that encourages yielding
beyond the brace while depressing undesirable failure modes to increase the ultimate drift capacity
of the system. Also, an elliptical clearance requirement at the brace end in lieu of the AISC 2t
linear clearance has resulted in more compact, economical gusset plates with increase rotational
capacity.
This thesis builds from the knowledge obtain from the previous work and the investigation of
additional design parameters including in-plane frame stiffness, requirement of net section
reinforcing, alternative brace sections and constructability with bolted connections. Nine full scale
single story, single bay specimens were tested within the UW Structures Lab and the results have
been analyzed to further develop the Balanced Design Approach as an alternative to current design
procedures for SCBF gusset plates to assure a more ductile response and improved seismic
performance.
Acknowledgement
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and patience of my
advisors, Dr. Charles Roeder and Dr. Dawn Lehman. I am indebted to you both for granting me
this opportunity and pushing me to strive to limits beyond what I thought I was capable of.
During this time, you have help me grown as an engineer, as well as a person.
Id like to give
special thanks to my colleagues, KC, EL, JW, DB, AB, and IJ for your friendships, honesty, and
intuitiveness, making my experience at UW memorable on so many different levels.
Most of all, I would like to thank my family: My mother, Amy, for your unwavering love and
support, your belief in me and your example of strength in my life, and my brother, JP, for showing
me what it truly means to put your heart behind your work and to believe in yourself. This also
would not have happened if it wasnt for the people throughout my life that have shaped who I am
today; PJ and AW.
This work is dedicated to the memory of Daniel M. Hamel. In everything I do, you are always in
my thoughts and in my heart.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ix
List of Tables......................................................................................................................... xx
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2
SCBF Design Theory ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Research Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4
Overview of Report .................................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 8

2.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2
Brace Behavior........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3
Gusset Plate Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.4
System Behavior ...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5
Previous UW SCBF Research ............................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3: Specimen Design ................................................................................................. 20

3.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2
Balanced Design Procedure for Gusset Plates Connections ........................................................... 25
3.2.1
Brace Forces ........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2
Brace to Gusset Plate Connection ................................................................................................... 28
3.2.3
Tension Limit States for Gusset Plates ........................................................................................... 29
3.2.4
Gusset Plate Geometry and Elliptical Clearance ........................................................................... 30
3.2.5
Gusset Plate Buckling ........................................................................................................................ 31
3.2.6
Net Section Reinforcement............................................................................................................... 33
3.2.7
Interface Weld Design ....................................................................................................................... 34
3.3
Design Parameters .................................................................................................................................. 35

i
3.3.1
Bolted Shear Plate Beam-to-Column Connection Design ...........................................................35
3.3.2
Bolted Beam End Plate Connection Design ..................................................................................38
3.3.3
Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Connection Design ........................................................................39
Chapter 4: Test Setup ............................................................................................................ 42

4.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................42
4.2
Test Configuration Overview ................................................................................................................42
4.3
Test Setup Components .........................................................................................................................47
4.3.1
Strong Floor and Strong Wall ...........................................................................................................47
4.3.2
Reaction Block and Actuator ............................................................................................................47
4.3.3
Load Transfer Beam ...........................................................................................................................49
4.3.4
Channel Assembly for Reactions......................................................................................................49
4.3.4.1
Channel Assembly Modifications............................................................................................51
4.3.5
Out-of-Plane Supports .......................................................................................................................52
4.3.6
Axial Load System ..............................................................................................................................55
4.3.7
Data Acquisition System and Storage ..............................................................................................56
4.4
Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................................56
4.4.1
Strain Gauges .......................................................................................................................................57
4.4.2
Potentiometers.....................................................................................................................................59
4.4.3
Visual Observations ............................................................................................................................62
4.5
Loading Protocol .....................................................................................................................................62
Chapter 5: Experimental Results........................................................................................... 65

5.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................65
5.2
Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes .................................................................................................65
5.2.1
Plate and Frame Yielding ...................................................................................................................67
5.2.2
Brace Buckling and Brace Damage ..................................................................................................70
5.2.3
Local Buckling .....................................................................................................................................72
5.2.4
Weld Tearing and Fracture ................................................................................................................73
ii
5.2.5
Bolted Connection Slip...................................................................................................................... 74
5.3
Specimen and Test Result Nomenclature ........................................................................................... 74
5.4
HSS-18: Thin Gusset Plate, Unwelded Frame Connection ............................................................. 76
5.4.1
Specimen Overview ........................................................................................................................... 76
5.4.2
Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25% ..................................................................................................... 79
5.4.3
Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75% ......................................................................................... 80
5.4.4
Severe Drift Range: > 2.75% ............................................................................................................ 82
5.4.5
Specimen Summary ............................................................................................................................ 87
5.5
HSS-19: Bolted WT Brace Connection ............................................................................................... 88
5.5.1
5.5.2
Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25% ..................................................................................................... 91
5.5.3
Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75% ......................................................................................... 94
5.5.4
Specimen Summary ............................................................................................................................ 95
5.6
HSS-21: 14 Bolt Beam End Plate Connection ................................................................................... 97
5.6.1
5.6.2
Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25% ................................................................................................... 100
5.6.3
Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75% ....................................................................................... 106
5.6.4
Severe Drift Range: > 2.75% .......................................................................................................... 107
5.6.5
Specimen Summary .......................................................................................................................... 110
5.7
HSS-20: 18 Bolt Beam End Plate Connection ................................................................................. 113
5.7.1
Specimen Overview ......................................................................................................................... 113
5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
Severe Drift Range: > 2.75% .......................................................................................................... 116
5.7.5
Specimen Summary .......................................................................................................................... 117
5.8
5.8.1
HSS-22: Tapered Gusset Plate, Unwelded Frame Connection ..................................................... 119

iii
5.8.2
Initial Drift Ranges: 0% to 1.25% ................................................................................................. 121
5.8.3
Moderate Drift Ranges: 1.25% to 2.75% ..................................................................................... 126
5.8.4
Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75%........................................................................................................ 128
5.8.5
Specimen Summary ......................................................................................................................... 134
5.9
WF-23: Wide-Flange Brace Section ................................................................................................... 136
5.9.1
5.9.2
5.9.3
5.9.4
Severe Drift Range: > 2.75% ......................................................................................................... 148
5.9.5
Specimen Summary ......................................................................................................................... 159
5.10
HSS-24: Welded Flange, Bolted Web Frame Connection ............................................................. 161
5.10.1
Specimen Overview .................................................................................................................... 161
5.10.2
Initial Drift Ranges: 0% to 1.25%............................................................................................. 164
5.10.3
Moderate Drift Ranges: 1.25% to 2.75%................................................................................. 167
5.10.4
Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75% ................................................................................................... 172
5.10.5
Specimen Summary ..................................................................................................................... 179
5.11
HSS-25: Heavy Beam, No Net Section Reinforcing....................................................................... 180
5.11.1
5.11.2
5.11.3
5.11.4
Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75% ................................................................................................... 192
5.11.5
5.12
HSS-26: Heavy Beam, Near-Fault Drift History ............................................................................. 196
5.12.1
5.12.2
5.12.3
5.12.4
iv
Chapter 6: Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 204

6.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 204
6.2
System Response ................................................................................................................................... 204
6.2.1
Force vs. Drift Response................................................................................................................. 207
6.2.2
System Stiffness ................................................................................................................................ 209
6.3
Brace and Gusset Plate Response ...................................................................................................... 214
6.3.1
Brace Response ................................................................................................................................. 215
6.3.2
Brace Buckling Capacity .................................................................................................................. 216
6.3.2.1
6.3.3
Nonlinear Brace Response..................................................................................................... 218
OOP Response of Brace and Gusset Plates ................................................................................ 221
6.3.3.1
Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement........................................................................................ 222
6.3.3.2
Gusset Plate Rotations ........................................................................................................... 224
6.3.3.3
Brace Buckled Shape and Curvature .................................................................................... 226
6.3.3.4
Weld Damage ........................................................................................................................... 230
6.3.4
Brace Behavior in Tension .............................................................................................................. 233
6.3.4.1
Brace Elongation ..................................................................................................................... 233
6.3.4.2
Gusset Plate Elongation ......................................................................................................... 235
6.4
Frame Response .................................................................................................................................... 237
6.4.1
Column Moments............................................................................................................................. 237
6.4.2
Column Shears .................................................................................................................................. 240
6.4.3
Frame Hysteretic Response ............................................................................................................ 244
6.4.4
Shear Tab Connection Rotations ................................................................................................... 245
6.5
Distribution of System Resistance...................................................................................................... 247
6.5.1
Evaluation of Analysis Methods for Resistance .......................................................................... 247
6.5.2
Distribution of Resistance............................................................................................................... 253
6.6
Energy Dissipation................................................................................................................................ 257
6.7
Performance Level Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 264
Chapter 7: Comparison of Design Parameters .................................................................... 270

7.1
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 270
7.1.1
Specimen HSS-01 Overview .......................................................................................................... 272
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
HSS-17 Specimen Overview .......................................................................................................... 278
7.1.5
7.2
Beam-to-Column Connections for Thin Rectangular Gusset Plates ........................................... 280
7.2.1
TRGP System Response Comparison .......................................................................................... 281
7.2.2
TRGP Brace and Gusset Plate Comparison................................................................................ 284
7.2.2.1
TRGP Brace Force Comparison .......................................................................................... 284
7.2.2.2
TRGP Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparisons........................... 288
7.2.2.3
TRGP Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparisons ................................................ 291
7.2.3
TRGP Frame Response Comparison ........................................................................................... 293
7.2.4
TRGP Energy Dissipation.............................................................................................................. 296
7.2.5
TRGP Summary ............................................................................................................................... 298
7.3
Beam-to-Column Connections for Thin Tapered Gusset Plates ................................................. 299
7.3.1
TTGP System Response Comparison .......................................................................................... 300
7.3.2
TTGP Brace and Gusset Plate Comparison................................................................................ 302
7.3.2.1
TTGP Brace Force Comparison .......................................................................................... 302
7.3.2.2
TTGP Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparisons........................... 304
7.3.2.3
TTGP Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparisons ................................................ 308
7.3.3
TTGP Frame Response Comparison ........................................................................................... 310
7.3.4
TTGP Energy Dissipation.............................................................................................................. 312
7.3.5
TTGP Summary ............................................................................................................................... 313
7.4
7.4.1
Wide-Flange Verses HSS Tubular Brace Sections .......................................................................... 314

Wide-Flange vs. HSS System Response Comparison ................................................................ 314
vi
7.4.2
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace and Gusset Plate Response Comparison .................................... 316
7.4.2.1
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Force Comparison ................................................................. 316
7.4.2.2
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison ... 317
7.4.2.3
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison ........................ 321
7.4.3
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Energy Dissipation Comparison ............................................................. 323
7.4.4
Wide-Flange Brace Summary ......................................................................................................... 324
7.5
Bolted Connections for SCBFs .......................................................................................................... 325
7.5.1
HSS-19: Bolted WT Brace to Gusset Plate Connection ............................................................ 325
7.5.2
HSS-20 and HSS-21: Bolted Beam End-plate Connection ....................................................... 326
7.5.3
HSS-24: Welded Flanges, Bolted Web Beam-to-Column Connection .................................... 328
7.6
Net Section Reinforcing Requirement............................................................................................... 331
Chapter 8: Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 333

8.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 333
8.2
Research Summary ................................................................................................................................ 333
8.3
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 333
8.3.1
Balance Design Procedure and Elliptical Clearance ................................................................... 336
8.3.2
Beam-to-Column Connection ........................................................................................................ 336
8.3.3
Bolted SCBF Connections .............................................................................................................. 336
8.3.4
Net Section Reinforcement Requirement..................................................................................... 337
8.3.5
Wide-flange Brace Sections............................................................................................................. 337
8.4
Future Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 337
Appendix A: Specimen Design Calculations ...................................................................... 339

A.1
General.................................................................................................................................................... 339
A.2
Specimen HSS-18 Design Calculation ............................................................................................... 339
A.2.1
Member Selection ........................................................................................................................ 339
A.2.2
Brace Forces ................................................................................................................................. 341
A.2.3
Brace to Gusset Plate Design..................................................................................................... 342
vii
A.2.4
Gusset Plate Design .................................................................................................................... 343
A.2.5
Net Section Reinforcement ....................................................................................................... 347
A.2.6
Interface Weld Design Calculation ........................................................................................... 348
A.3
Specimen WF-23 Design ..................................................................................................................... 348
A.3.1
W6x25 Brace Section Check...................................................................................................... 348
A.3.2
Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Plate Design ............................................................................ 349
Appendix B: Design Drawings............................................................................................ 352

B.1
Specimen Drawings .............................................................................................................................. 352
Appendix C: Analysis Plots ................................................................................................. 361

C.1
Brace and Gusset Plate Behavior ....................................................................................................... 361
C.2
Brace and Gusset Plate Behavior ....................................................................................................... 361
C.2.1
Out-of-Plane Displacement at Brace Center .......................................................................... 361
C.2.2
Gusset Plate Rotation ................................................................................................................. 363
C.2.3
Brace Elongation ......................................................................................................................... 367
C.3
Frame Response.................................................................................................................................... 368
C.3.1
Column Moments........................................................................................................................ 369
C.3.2
Column Shears ............................................................................................................................. 373
C.3.3
Beam Shear Tab Rotations ........................................................................................................ 377
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.1: Response of Single Brace vs. Opposing Braces .................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2.1: Desired Hierarchy of Inelastic Behavior for SCBFs ............................................................ 5
Figure 1.2.2: Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes for SCBFs ................................................................ 6
Figure 2.2.1: Shaback and Brown Test Specimen....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.3.1: Whitmore Effective Width ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.3.2: Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti Test Specimen (1985) ........................................................... 12
Figure 2.3.3: Thornton Effective Length for Buckling Capacity ........................................................... 13
Figure 2.3.4: Cheng and Yam Test Setup (1993) ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.3.5: Astaneh-Asl et al. Test Specimen ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4.1: Uriz and Mahin Test Setup (2004) ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.5.1: Roeder et al Test Specimen (2008) ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.5.2: Gusset Plate Elliptical Clearance .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1.1: Prototype Specimen (Johnson 2005) .................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2.1: Whitmore Effective Width ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3.2.2: Block Shear Area...................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.2.3: Gusset Plate Geometry for Elliptical Clearance Requirement (Kotulka 2007) ............. 31
Figure 3.2.4: Thornton Method for Gusset Plate Buckling ..................................................................... 32
Figure 3.2.5: Reduced Area at Brace to Gusset Connection .................................................................... 33
Figure 3.3.1: Bolted Shear Plate Connection .............................................................................................. 35
Figure 3.3.2: Bolted Web CJP Welded Flange Connection Detail.......................................................... 36
Figure 3.3.3: Uniform Force Method .......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.3.4: UFM Resolved Forces ............................................................................................................ 37
Figure 3.3.5: Bolted Beam End Plate Connection ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.3.6: Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Detail .................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.3.7: Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Section-Cut .......................................................................... 41
Figure 4.2.1: Test Setup and Components .................................................................................................. 43
Figure 4.2.2: Test Setup Layout (Johnson 2005) ...................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.2.3: Actual Test Setup ..................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.3.1: Actuator and Reaction Block Photo .................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.3.2: Actuator and Reaction Block Assembly ............................................................................. 48
Figure 4.3.3: Load Beam ............................................................................................................................... 49
ix
Figure 4.3.4: Channel Assembly Section Detail ........................................................................................ 50

Figure 4.3.5: Channel Assembly Plan Detail ............................................................................................. 50
Figure 4.3.6: Channel Assembly Modifications......................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.3.7: North Beam and West Column Out-of-Plane Supports .................................................. 53
Figure 4.3.8: Load Beam Out-of-Plane Support ....................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.3.9: Modified North Beam OOP Support ................................................................................. 54
Figure 4.3.10: Axial Load System Detail .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.3.11: Tension Rod Tie Downs ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.4.1: Typical Strain Gauge Layout................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.4.2: Potentiometer Layout ............................................................................................................ 59
Figure 4.4.4: BEI Duncan Potentiometers at SW Gusset Plate ............................................................. 61
Figure 4.4.3: String Potentiometers at NE Gusset Plate ......................................................................... 61
Figure 4.5.1: Original Loading Protocol (Johnson 2005) ........................................................................ 63
Figure 4.5.2: Alternate Near-Fault Loading Protocol .............................................................................. 64
Figure 5.2.1: Yield Mechanisms and Failures Modes for Test Specimen .............................................. 66
Figure 5.2.2: Initial/Mild Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y1).................................................................... 68
Figure 5.2.3: Moderate Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y3) ....................................................................... 69
Figure 5.2.4: Significant/Severe Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y5) ........................................................ 69
Figure 5.2.5: Progression of Brace Buckling .............................................................................................. 71
Figure 5.2.6: Brace Damage at Plastic Hinge.............................................................................................. 72
Figure 5.2.7: Local Buckling of HSS-25 Columns ..................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.2.8: Examples of Weld Damage from WF-23 ............................................................................ 74
Figure 5.3.1: Specimen Component Notation (Johnson 2005) ............................................................... 75
Figure 5.3.2: Wide-Flange Area Designations related to Test Set-Up (Johnson 2005) ....................... 75
Figure 5.4.1: HSS-18 Connection Detail ..................................................................................................... 77
Figure 5.4.2: HSS-18 Drift History .............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 5.4.3: HSS-18 Hysteresis.................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.4.4: Y1 Initial Yielding of SW Gusset (0.11%) ........................................................................... 79
Figure 5.4.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of Gusset Plate (0.21%) ...................................................................... 79
Figure 5.4.6: B1 Brace Buckling (-0.12%) ................................................................................................... 80
Figure 5.4.7: B2 Brace Buckling (-0.62%) ................................................................................................... 80
Figure 5.4.8: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of the NE Gusset plate (-0.94/0.41%) ...................................... 81
Figure 5.4.9: Initial Yielding of Brace Net Section (0.74%) ..................................................................... 82
Figure 5.4.10: Slight Edge Buckling (B1) of SW Gusset Plate (1.09%).................................................. 82
Figure 5.4.11: Initial Yielding (Y1) of NE Beam Web (1.10%)............................................................... 83
Figure 5.4.12: Severe Yielding (Y5) of Gusset Plate (1.42%) .................................................................. 83

Figure 5.4.14: Moderate Edge Buckling (B2) of SW Gusset Plate (1.60%)........................................... 84
Figure 5.4.13: Compressive Brace Failure (BC) (-2.09%) ......................................................................... 84
Figure 5.4.16: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of Northeast Beam (-2.54%) ..................................................... 85
Figure 5.4.15: Damage to SW Column (-2.54/1.60%).............................................................................. 85
Figure 5.4.17: Local Compressive Failure of Brace (-2.59%) .................................................................. 86
Figure 5.4.18: Brace Fracture at Plastic Hinge (1.31%) ............................................................................ 86
Figure 5.4.19: Gusset Plate Yielding at Completion of Test .................................................................... 87
Figure 5.4.20: SW Gusset Plate Edge Buckling at Completion of Test ................................................. 88
Figure 5.5.1: HSS-19 Detail ........................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.5.3: HSS-19 Hysteresis.................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5.5.4: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of NE Splice Plate (-0.18%) ........................................................ 91
Figure 5.5.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of the SW Splice Plate (-0.18%) ........................................................ 92
Figure 5.5.6: Severe Yielding (Y5) (-0.33%) ............................................................................................... 92
Figure 5.5.7: Southwest WT slip (BSLP) vs. Cycle .................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.5.8: Moderate Plate Buckling (B2) (-0.65%)................................................................................ 93
Figure 5.5.9: Binding of WT Stem on Brace .............................................................................................. 94
Figure 5.5.10: Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.72%)........................................................................................ 94
Figure 5.5.11: Northeast WT slip (BSLP) vs. Cycle .................................................................................. 95
Figure 5.5.12: Damage at Splice Plate Hinge before and after Fracture (PF) (0.28%) ........................ 95
Figure 5.5.13: Damage from WT and Tube Binding ................................................................................ 96
Figure 5.5.14: SW Gusset Plate at End of Test.......................................................................................... 97
Figure 5.5.15: Fractured Splice Plate at End of Test................................................................................. 97
Figure 5.6.1: HSS-21 Connection Detail ..................................................................................................... 98
Figure 5.6.3: HSS-21 Hysteresis.................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 5.6.4: Initial Yielding (Y1) of NE Gusset Plate (0.07%) ............................................................ 101
Figure 5.6.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of SW Beam/Col Connection (0.10%) .......................................... 101
Figure 5.6.6: Yield Lines Parallel to South Beam Interface Weld ......................................................... 102
Figure 5.6.7: Initial Yielding (Y1) of South Beam Web (0.14%) ........................................................... 102
Figure 5.6.8: Initial Yielding (Y1) of North Beam Web (0.17%) .......................................................... 103
Figure 5.6.9: Initial Yielding (Y1) at SW Gusset to Column Reentrant Corner (-0.34%) ................. 103
Figure 5.6.10: Y3 of the NE Gusset Plate (0.35%) ................................................................................. 104
Figure 5.6.11: Bolt Fracture of SW Beam End Plate Connection (0.36%) ......................................... 104
xi
Figure 5.6.12: Y3 of SW Gusset Plate (0.36%) ........................................................................................ 105

Figure 5.6.13: B2 Brace Buckling (-0.79%) ............................................................................................... 105
Figure 5.6.14: Y1 of NE Column Flange (0.56%) ................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.6.16: BC Damage at Brace Plastic Hinge (-2.13%) .................................................................. 107
Figure 5.6.15: Increased Yielding of Brace and NE Gusset Plate (0.86%) ......................................... 107
Figure 5.6.18: Y3 at NE Beam Web (1.60%) ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 5.6.17: Column Damage (-2.13/1.18%) ........................................................................................ 108
Figure 5.6.20: Tearing of Brace at Plastic Hinge (1.60%)....................................................................... 109
Figure 5.6.19: Yielding at Bolt Holes of NE Column Flange (1.60%) ................................................. 109
Figure 5.6.21: B2 Edge Buckling of NE Gusset Plate (1.60%) ............................................................. 110
Figure 5.6.22: Brace Plastic Hinge Damage and Failure ......................................................................... 110
Figure 5.6.23: Gusset Plate Damage at End of Test ............................................................................... 111
Figure 5.6.25: Southwest End Plate Rotation at Column....................................................................... 112
Figure 5.6.24: Southwest End Plate Prying............................................................................................... 112
Figure 5.7.1: HSS-20 Connection Detail ................................................................................................... 113
Figure 5.7.2: HSS-20 Drift History ............................................................................................................ 114
Figure 5.7.4: Y1 at NE Column Inside Flange (1.39%).......................................................................... 117
Figure 5.7.5: Bolted End Plate Connection with Spacing Washers ...................................................... 118
Figure 5.8.1: HSS-22 Connection Detail ................................................................................................... 119
Figure 5.8.2: HSS-22 Drift History ............................................................................................................ 120
Figure 5.8.4: Y1 of NE Gusset Plate (0.11%) .......................................................................................... 122
Figure 5.8.5: Y1 of SW Gusset Plate (0.13%) .......................................................................................... 122
Figure 5.8.6: Increased Yielding of NE Gusset Plate (0.17%) .............................................................. 123
Figure 5.8.7: Y1 at NE Gusset to Column Reentrant Corner (0.35%) ................................................ 123
Figure 5.8.8: B1 Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.25%).................................................................................. 124
Figure 5.8.9: Yielding along Column Interface Welds (0.42%) ............................................................. 124
Figure 5.8.11: B2 Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.50%) ............................................................................... 125
Figure 5.8.10: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (0.52%)......................................................................................... 125
Figure 5.8.12: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (0.79%) ......................................................................................... 126
Figure 5.8.13: Buckled Shape of Brace (-1.11%)...................................................................................... 127
Figure 5.8.14: WD at SW Column Reentrant Corner (-1.11%)............................................................. 127
Figure 5.8.15: WD SW Gusset to Column Interface Weld Cracking (-1.46%) .................................. 128
Figure 5.8.16: Damage at SW Gusset Plate Welds (-1.86%) .................................................................. 128
xii
Figure 5.8.17: Damage at Southwest Gusset Plate Welds (-1.86%)...................................................... 129

Figure 5.8.18: Damage at NE Gusset Welds (-1.86%) ........................................................................... 129
Figure 5.8.20: Necking of Brace at Hinge (1.49%) .................................................................................. 130
Figure 5.8.19: Tearing of Brace at Plastic Hinge (1.49%)....................................................................... 130
Figure 5.8.21: Y5 of Gusset Plate (1.48%) ................................................................................................ 131
Figure 5.8.22: Local Deformation (BC) of Brace (-2.48%) .................................................................... 131
Figure 5.8.23: SW Gusset to Column Interface Weld Crack (-2.48%)................................................. 132
Figure 5.8.24: Damage at NE Gusset Welds (-2.48%) ........................................................................... 132
Figure 5.8.25: Y1 of SW Column (-2.48%) ............................................................................................... 133
Figure 5.8.26: BF of the Brace Center (1.38%) ........................................................................................ 134
Figure 5.8.27: Residual Deformation of Gusset Plate after Brace Fracture (1.38%) ......................... 134
Figure 5.8.28: NE Beam-to-Column Connection Rotation ................................................................... 135
Figure 5.8.29: NE Beam-to-Column Rotation (1.49%) .......................................................................... 135
Figure 5.8.30: NE Beam Torsion at Connection ..................................................................................... 136
Figure 5.9.1: WF-23 Connection Detail .................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.9.2: WF-23 Displacement History .............................................................................................. 138
Figure 5.9.3: WF-23 Hysteresis ................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5.9.4: Y1 at NE Gusset Plate (0.07%) ........................................................................................... 139
Figure 5.9.5: Y1 at Brace Flange Reduced Section in Tension (0.10%) ............................................... 140
Figure 5.9.6: Y1 of Brace Flange in Compression (-0.08%) .................................................................. 140
Figure 5.9.7: Yielding at NE Brace on Flange (0.12%)........................................................................... 141
Figure 5.9.8: View of Yielding at NE of Brace (0.12%) ......................................................................... 141
Figure 5.9.10: Yielding at NE Gusset Plate (0.20%) ............................................................................... 142
Figure 5.9.9: Y1 on the Lower Edge of the Brace Flange (-0.18%) ..................................................... 142
Figure 5.9.12: Gusset Plate Yielding at Northeast Brace End (-0.27%) .............................................. 143
Figure 5.9.11: Brace Condition (-0.27%)................................................................................................... 143
Figure 5.9.13: Y3 at Brace Center (-0.38%) .............................................................................................. 144
Figure 5.9.14: B2 Buckled Brace Shape (-0.49%) .................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.9.15: Y5 at Brace Center (-0.83%) .............................................................................................. 145
Figure 5.9.16: Y1 at NE Column and Beam Flanges (0.74%) ............................................................... 146
Figure 5.9.17: Y1 at NE Gusset Reentrant Corners (-1.16%) ............................................................... 146
Figure 5.9.18: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (0.98%)......................................................................................... 147
Figure 5.9.19: Y1 at SW Column (-1.48%) ............................................................................................... 147
Figure 5.9.20: Yielding at Brace Center (-1.48%) .................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.9.21: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (1.23%) ......................................................................................... 148
xiii
Figure 5.9.22: Edge Buckling at SW Gusset Plate (1.23%) .................................................................... 149

Figure 5.9.23: SW Column Yielding (-1.80%) .......................................................................................... 149
Figure 5.9.25: Y1 at SW Column/Beam Connection (1.48%) .............................................................. 150
Figure 5.9.24: NE Frame Yielding (1.48%) .............................................................................................. 150
Figure 5.9.26: NE Column Web Yielding (1.48%) .................................................................................. 151
Figure 5.9.27: SW Beam Flange Yielding (1.48%) ................................................................................... 151
Figure 5.9.28: Y3 at SW Column (-2.15%) ............................................................................................... 152
Figure 5.9.29: B2 Edge Buckling at SW Gusset Plate (1.77%) .............................................................. 152
Figure 5.9.31: NE Column Deformation (1.77%) ................................................................................... 153
Figure 5.9.30: Column Web Yielding (1.77%) ......................................................................................... 153
Figure 5.9.32: Y3 at NE Column (-2.49%) ............................................................................................... 154
Figure 5.9.33: Y5 of Gusset Plate (2.05%) ................................................................................................ 154
Figure 5.9.34: SW Column Deformation (2.05%) ................................................................................... 155
Figure 5.9.35: Gusset Edge Plate Buckling (2.05%) ................................................................................ 155
Figure 5.9.37: Residual Deformation at Brace Center (2.35%) ............................................................. 156
Figure 5.9.36: Cracking (WD) at NE Gusset Plate Interface Welds (-2.86%) .................................... 156
Figure 5.9.39: SW Beam/Column Moment Connection Yielding (2.35%) ......................................... 157
Figure 5.9.38: SW Column Damage (2.35%)............................................................................................ 157
Figure 5.9.40: Y3 at NE Column Web (2.35%) ....................................................................................... 158
Figure 5.9.41: Severe Damage at NE Gusset to Beam Weld ................................................................. 158
Figure 5.9.42: System Failure Modes (2.32%) .......................................................................................... 159
Figure 5.9.43: Brace Center Damage (-3.21%) ......................................................................................... 160
Figure 5.9.44: Out-of-Plane Displacement at Brace Center .................................................................. 160
Figure 5.9.45: Bolt-Hole Elongation (Post Test) ..................................................................................... 161
Figure 5.9.46: Damage at SE Shear Tab Connection (Post Test) ......................................................... 161
Figure 5.10.1: HSS-24 Connection Detail ................................................................................................. 162
Figure 5.10.2: HSS-24 Displacement History........................................................................................... 163
Figure 5.10.3: HSS-24 Hysteresis ............................................................................................................... 163
Figure 5.10.4: Y1 at NE Column at Gusset Reentrant Corner (0.27%) .............................................. 165
Figure 5.10.6: NE Column Flange Yielding at Beam/Column Connection (0.37%) ........................ 166
Figure 5.10.5: B1 Level Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement (-0.39%)................................................... 166
Figure 5.10.7: B2 Level Buckling of Brace (-0.63%) ............................................................................... 167
Figure 5.10.8: NE Column Flange Yielding (0.46%) .............................................................................. 168
Figure 5.10.9: Yielding at East Column Base (0.46%) ............................................................................ 168
Figure 5.10.10: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (-0.81%) ..................................................................................... 169
xiv
Figure 5.10.11: Y3 at NE Column Flange (0.68%) ................................................................................. 169

Figure 5.10.12: Buckled Shape of Brace (-1.17%) ................................................................................... 170
Figure 5.10.13: Increased Gusset Plate Yielding and Y1 at SW Column Flange (-1.17%) ............... 170
Figure 5.10.14: B1 at NE Column Flange (0.98%).................................................................................. 171
Figure 5.10.15: Y1 of Beam Flanges at Reentrant Corners (0.87%) ..................................................... 171
Figure 5.10.17: Yielding at NE Beam/Column Connection (1.34%) .................................................. 172
Figure 5.10.16: Y3 at NE Column (1.34%) .............................................................................................. 172
Figure 5.10.18: Unbalanced Yielding at NE Gusset Plate (1.34%)....................................................... 173
Figure 5.10.19: NE Column Web Yielding (-1.83%) .............................................................................. 173
Figure 5.10.20: Y3 Web Yielding and Flange Deformation at SW Column (1.71%) ........................ 174
Figure 5.10.21: B2 Gusset Plate Edge Deformation (1.71%) ................................................................ 174
Figure 5.10.23: Yielding of SW Column Flange (-2.14%) ...................................................................... 175
Figure 5.10.22: Brace Shape and BC Deformation (-2.14%) ................................................................. 175
Figure 5.10.24: Y5 at NE Gusset Plate (1.94%)....................................................................................... 176
Figure 5.10.26: Y3 at SW Column (1.94%)............................................................................................... 177
Figure 5.10.25: Increased Yielding at NE Column (1.94%)................................................................... 177
Figure 5.10.27: Brace Shape and Gusset Plate Rotation (-2.50%) ........................................................ 178
Figure 5.10.28: Column Yielding (-2.50%) ............................................................................................... 178
Figure 5.10.29: NE Gusset Plate to Beam Weld Crack (-2.50%).......................................................... 179
Figure 5.10.30: NW Column Web Damage (Post Test) ......................................................................... 180
Figure 5.10.31: Gusset Plate Damage (Post Test) ................................................................................... 180
Figure 5.11.4: Brace Shape (-0.30%) .......................................................................................................... 184
Figure 5.11.5: B1 Brace Buckled Shape (-0.42%) .................................................................................... 185
Figure 5.11.6: Gusset Plate Yielding at Brace Ends (-0.53%)................................................................ 185
Figure 5.11.7: Yielding of NE Column Flange (0.31%) ......................................................................... 186
Figure 5.11.8: Yielding at Reentrant Corner of NE Column Flange (0.31%) ..................................... 186
Figure 5.11.9: Increased Yielding of Gusset Plate (0.69%) .................................................................... 187
Figure 5.11.10: Increased Yielding at Column Flanges (0.42%)............................................................ 187
Figure 5.11.11: Increased Yielding at SW Gusset Plate (-1.05%).......................................................... 188
Figure 5.11.12: Y3 at NE Column Flange (0.54%) ................................................................................. 188
Figure 5.11.13: Crack Propagation at SW Brace Net Section (0.54%) ................................................. 189
Figure 5.11.14: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (-1.50%) ..................................................................................... 190
xv
Figure 5.11.15: Buckled Brace Shape (-1.50%) ........................................................................................ 190

Figure 5.11.16: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (0.68%)....................................................................................... 191
Figure 5.11.17: Crack Propagation at Brace SW Net Section (0.68%) ................................................. 191
Figure 5.11.18: NE Column Damage (-1.94%)........................................................................................ 192
Figure 5.11.19: NE Column Damage (0.88%) ......................................................................................... 192
Figure 5.11.20: Crack Propagation at Brace SW Net Section (0.88%) ................................................. 193
Figure 5.11.21: Brace Condition (-2.41%) ................................................................................................ 193
Figure 5.11.22: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (-2.41%) ..................................................................................... 194
Figure 5.11.23: Yielding at Column Outside Flanges (-2.41%) ............................................................. 194
Figure 5.11.24: NE Column Damage (-2.41%)........................................................................................ 195
Figure 5.11.25: Shear Tab Bolt Fracture (Post Test) ............................................................................... 195
Figure 5.12.2: Designed Near-Fault Drift History................................................................................... 197
Figure 5.12.5: Buckled Brace Shape (-0.40%) .......................................................................................... 199
Figure 5.12.6: Yielding at Brace Net Section Locations (0.74%) .......................................................... 200
Figure 5.12.7: Y3 at NE Column (0.74%) ................................................................................................ 200
Figure 5.12.8: NSF at SW Brace End (0.99%) ......................................................................................... 201
Figure 5.12.9: SW Column Damage (0.99%)............................................................................................ 202
Figure 5.12.10: NE Column Damage (0.99%) ......................................................................................... 202
Figure 6.2.1: Backbone Curve Description ............................................................................................... 210
Figure 6.3.1: Idealized Inelastic Brace Behavior Under Cyclic Loading (Kotulka 2007) .................. 215
Figure 6.3.2: Brace Strain Gauge Locations.............................................................................................. 216
Figure 6.3.3: Elastic-Plastic Stress/Strain Behavior ................................................................................ 218
Figure 6.3.4: Plasticity Model under Repeat Cyclic Loading .................................................................. 219
Figure 6.3.5: Shape and Curvature of Buckled Brace with Different End Conditions ..................... 222
Figure 6.3.6: Horizontal Drift Range to Brace OOP Displacement Relationship ............................. 223
Figure 6.3.7: Brace Out-of-Plane vs. Total Drift Range Comparison .................................................. 223
Figure 6.3.8: Gusset Plate Rotation............................................................................................................ 224
Figure 6.3.9: Example of NE Gusset Plate Rotations ............................................................................ 225
Figure 6.3.10: Instrumentation for Determining Buckled Brace Shape ............................................... 226
Figure 6.3.11: Brace Shape Comparison at Initial Total Drift Range (Approx. 1.25%) .................... 227
Figure 6.3.12: Brace Shape Comparison at Moderate Total Drift Ranges (Approx. 2.75%) ........... 228
Figure 6.3.13: Buckled Brace Shape Immediately Prior to Failure ....................................................... 229
xvi
Figure 6.3.14: Additional Demands on Gusset Plate Interface Welds ................................................. 231
Figure 6.3.15: Brace Elongation vs. Total Drift Range........................................................................... 234
Figure 6.3.16: Brace Axial Stress vs. Brace Strain .................................................................................... 235
Figure 6.3.17: Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison .............................................................................. 236
Figure 6.3.18: Brace Elongation verses Gusset Plate Elongation ......................................................... 237
Figure 6.4.1: Column Moment Calculation .............................................................................................. 238
Figure 6.4.2: Column Moment at Edge of NE Gusset Plate ................................................................. 239
Figure 6.4.3: Column Moment at Edge of SW Gusset Plate ................................................................. 240
Figure 6.4.4: Column Shear Calculations .................................................................................................. 241
Figure 6.4.5: Shear Tab Rotation Calculation ........................................................................................... 246
Figure 6.4.6: Northwest Shear Tab Rotation Comparison..................................................................... 246
Figure 6.4.7: Southeast Shear Tab Rotation Comparison ...................................................................... 247
Figure 6.6.1: Energy Dissipation (Kotulka 2007) .................................................................................... 258
Figure 6.6.2: Total Energy Dissipation Comparison............................................................................... 259
Figure 6.6.3: Brace Energy Dissipation Comparison .............................................................................. 260
Figure 6.6.4: Frame Energy Dissipation Comparison............................................................................. 261
Figure 6.6.5: WF-23 Energy Dissipation by Component ....................................................................... 264
Figure 7.1.1: Interface Weld Cracking at SW Gusset Plate (1.78% Total Drift Range) .................... 274
Figure 7.1.2: Weld Fracture at SW Gusset Plate (2.65% Total Drift Range) ...................................... 274
Figure 7.1.3: HSS-05 NE Gusset Yielding (4.96% Total Drift Range) ................................................ 277
Figure 7.1.4: Cracking of NE Gusset to Column Weld (4.96% Total Drift Range) .......................... 277
Figure 7.1.5: Severe Gusset Plate Yielding and Severe Weld Damage (-2.79%) ................................ 279
Figure 7.2.1: TRGP Load vs. Drift (Positive Envelop) .......................................................................... 283
Figure 7.2.2: TRGP Load vs. Drift (Negative Envelop) ........................................................................ 284
Figure 7.2.3: TRGP Brace Compression Degradation Comparison .................................................... 287
Figure 7.2.4: TRGP Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement Comparison .................................................. 288
Figure 7.2.5: TRGP NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison ................................................................ 289
Figure 7.2.6: TRGP Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison ................................................ 290
Figure 7.2.7: TRGP Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison ................................................ 290
Figure 7.2.8: TRGP Brace Elongation Comparison................................................................................ 291
Figure 7.2.9: TRGP Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison ................................................................... 292
Figure 7.2.10: TRGP Brace vs. Gusset Plate Elongation ....................................................................... 292
Figure 7.2.11: TRGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (+ Direction) .................................... 293
Figure 7.2.12: TRGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (- Direction) ...................................... 294
Figure 7.3.1: TTGP Load vs. Drift (Positive Envelope) ........................................................................ 301
xvii
Figure 7.3.2: TTGP Load vs. Drift (Negative Envelope)....................................................................... 301

Figure 7.3.3: TTGP Compressive Degradation Comparison ................................................................ 304
Figure 7.3.4: TTGP Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement Comparison .................................................. 305
Figure 7.3.5: TTGP NE Gusset Rotation Comparison .......................................................................... 306
Figure 7.3.6: TTGP Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison ................................................ 307
Figure 7.3.7: TTGP Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison ................................................ 307
Figure 7.3.8: TTGP Brace Elongation vs. Total Drift Range ................................................................ 308
Figure 7.3.9: TTGP Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison ................................................................... 309
Figure 7.3.10: TTGP Brace Strain vs. Gusset Plate Strain Comparison .............................................. 309
Figure 7.3.11: TTGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (+ Direction) .................................... 310
Figure 7.3.12: TTGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (- Direction) ...................................... 311
Figure 7.4.1: WF Backbone Curve Comparison ...................................................................................... 315
Figure 7.4.2: WF Brace Yielding at Plastic Hinge (-3.21%) ................................................................... 318
Figure 7.4.3: WF Brace OOP Displacement Comparison ..................................................................... 319
Figure 7.4.4: NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison for WF............................................................... 319
Figure 7.4.5: WF Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison ..................................................... 320
Figure 7.4.6: WF Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison ..................................................... 321
Figure 7.4.7: Brace Elongation Comparison for WF .............................................................................. 321
Figure 7.4.8: Gusset Plate Elongation for WF ......................................................................................... 322
Figure 7.4.9: WF Brace Strain vs. Gusset Plate Strain Comparison ..................................................... 323
Figure 7.4.10: WF-23 Energy Dissipation................................................................................................. 324
Figure 7.4.11: WF Brace to Gusset Plate Connection ............................................................................ 325
Figure 7.5.1: HSS-21 NE Gusset Plate at End of Test ........................................................................... 327
Figure 7.5.2: HSS-24 SW Gusset Plate Yielding at End of Test ........................................................... 329
Figure 7.5.3: HSS-24 Column Damage at Beam-to-Column Intersection (End of Test) ................. 330
Figure 7.6.1: HSS-25 Net Section Tearing (0.88% Drift Level) ............................................................ 331
Figure A.2.1: Gusset Plate Geometry for Elliptical Clearance Requirement (Kotulka 2007) .......... 344
Figure A.2.2: Buckling Lengths for HSS-18 ............................................................................................. 346
Figure B.1.1: Specimen HSS-18 .................................................................................................................. 352
Figure B.1.6: Specimen WF-23 ................................................................................................................... 357
xviii

xix
List of Tables
Table 1.2.1: Performance Based Objectives for SCBFs (Johnson 2005) ................................................. 3
Table 3.1.1: Thesis 1 Specimens (Johnson 2005)....................................................................................... 21
Table 3.1.2: Thesis 2 Specimen (Herman 2007)......................................................................................... 22
Table 3.1.3: Thesis 3 Specimens (Kotulka 2007) ....................................................................................... 23
Table 3.1.4: Thesis 4 Specimen (Powell 2010) ........................................................................................... 24
Table 5.2.1: Component Damage Nomenclature ...................................................................................... 67
Table 5.2.2: Damage State Shading for Performance Based Design ...................................................... 67
Table 5.4.1: HSS-18 Peak Results ................................................................................................................. 78
Table 5.5.1: HSS-19 Peak Results ................................................................................................................. 91
Table 5.6.1: HSS-21 Peak Results ............................................................................................................... 100
Table 5.9.1: WF-23 Peak Results ................................................................................................................ 139
Table 5.10.1: HSS-24 Peak Results ............................................................................................................ 164
Table 6.2.1: Global Performance Summary ............................................................................................ 206
Table 6.2.2: Hysteresis Comparison........................................................................................................... 207
Table 6.2.3: Elastic and Tangent Stiffness Summary .............................................................................. 211
Table 6.2.4: Backbone Curve Comparison ............................................................................................... 212
Table 6.3.1: Experimental vs. AISC Brace Forces................................................................................... 217
Table 6.3.2: Brace Hysteresis Comparison ............................................................................................... 219
Table 6.3.3: Brace Resistance Summary .................................................................................................... 221
Table 6.3.4: NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison Summary ............................................................ 225
Table 6.3.5: Drift Range and Brace Shape Comparison ......................................................................... 230
Table 6.3.6: Weld Damage Propagation Summary .................................................................................. 232
Table 6.4.1: Framing Element Material Properties .................................................................................. 239
Table 6.4.2: Enveloped Frame Resistance vs. Drift Ratio ...................................................................... 242
Table 6.4.3: Frame Stiffness and Peak Resistance Summary ................................................................. 243
Table 6.4.4: Frame Hysteresis Comparison .............................................................................................. 244
Table 6.5.1: HSS-18 Equilibrium Evaluation ........................................................................................... 249
xx

Table 6.5.6: WF-23 Equilibrium Evaluation............................................................................................. 251
Table 6.5.10: Distribution of System Resistance...................................................................................... 254
Table 6.5.11: Resistance Distribution Summary ...................................................................................... 257
Table 6.6.1: Percent Total Energy Dissipation Summary ...................................................................... 262
Table 6.6.2: Energy Dissipation of Brace vs. Frame ............................................................................... 263
Table 6.7.1: Brace Performance Comparison........................................................................................... 265
Table 6.7.2: Gusset Plate Performance Comparison .............................................................................. 267
Table 6.7.3: Framing Element Performance Comparison...................................................................... 268
Table 7.1.1: Design Summary of Reference Specimens for Comparison ............................................ 271
Table 7.1.2: Peak Performance Summary for Reference Specimens .................................................... 272
Table 7.1.3: Specimen HSS-01 Hysteresis and Gusset Plate Detail ...................................................... 273
Table 7.2.1: Peak Performance Summary Comparison for TRGPs ..................................................... 281
Table 7.2.2: TRGP Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison ....................................................... 285
Table 7.2.3: TRGP Brace Responses ......................................................................................................... 286
Table 7.2.4: TRGP Brace Compressive Capacity Degradation Ratio................................................... 287
Table 7.2.5: TRGP Distribution of Resistance ........................................................................................ 295
Table 7.2.6: Summary of TRGP Resistance Distribution ...................................................................... 296
Table 7.2.7: TRGP Energy Dissipation ..................................................................................................... 296
Table 7.2.8: Summary of Energy Dissipation for TRGP ....................................................................... 297
Table 7.3.1: Peak Performance Summary for TTGP .............................................................................. 300
Table 7.3.2: TTGP Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison ....................................................... 303
Table 7.3.3: TTGP Brace Response ........................................................................................................... 303
Table 7.3.4: TTGP Brace Compression Capacity Degradation Ratio .................................................. 304
Table 7.3.5: TTGP Distribution of Resistance ........................................................................................ 311
xxi
Table 7.3.6: Summary of TTGP Resistance Distribution ...................................................................... 312

Table 7.3.7: TTGP Energy Dissipation Comparison .............................................................................. 313
Table 7.3.8: Summary of Energy Dissipation for TTGP ....................................................................... 313
Table 7.4.1: Peak Performance Summary for WF Comparison ............................................................ 315
Table 7.4.2: Wide-Flange vs. HSS Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison ............................. 316
Table 7.4.3: Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Response ................................................................................. 317
Table 7.4.4: WF Energy Dissipation Comparison ................................................................................... 323
Table C.2.1: Brace OOP Displacement Hysteresis ................................................................................. 361
Table C.2.2: Enveloped Brace OOP Displacements .............................................................................. 363
Table C.2.3: NE and SW Gusset Plate Rotation Hysteresis .................................................................. 364
Table C.2.4: Enveloped NE and SW Gusset Plate Rotations ............................................................... 366
Table C.2.5: Enveloped Brace Elongation................................................................................................ 367
Table C.3.1: Column Moments Hysteresis at Edge of Gusset Plate .................................................... 369
Table C.3.2: Enveloped Column Moments at Edge of Gusset Plate ................................................... 371
Table C.3.3: Column Shear Hysteresis ...................................................................................................... 373
Table C.3.4: Enveloped Column Shears.................................................................................................... 375
Table C.3.5: Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Rotations............................................................................... 377
Table C.3.6: Enveloped Shear Tab Rotations .......................................................................................... 379
xxii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1
Background
Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are lateral load resisting systems for steel structures
frequently used in high seismic regions of the US. A structure subjected to seismic ground motions
is relied upon to resist the inertial forces generated from the buildings dynamic response due to the
ground motion. SCBFs are considered highly effective during frequent less severe earthquakes
because of they provide large lateral resistance and elastic stiffness by resisting lateral load through
the axial stiffness of the bracing members,
. However, during less frequent, more severe
earthquakes, it is uneconomical to design the system to remain elastic, and the structure must
sustain large inelastic displacements and dissipate the induced energy to assure life safety and
collapse prevention.
Since the damage observed to moment frames during the 1994 Northgate, CA and 1995 Kobe,
Japan earthquakes, engineers frequently use SCBFs to resist seismic loads for construction of steel
structures. The focus of this research is to better understand the nonlinear demands on SCBFs
subjected to severe seismic loading and to improve the performance of the system to achieve
ultimate drift capacities.
The inelastic response of SCBFs consists of tensile elongation of the brace and buckling and postbuckling deformation of the brace. The response of a braced frame with a single diagonal is
unsymmetrical and therefore, by design, opposing braces are implemented to assure equal
resistance and ductility in both directions. The lateral load verses horizontal story drift hysteretic
responses of a single diagonal brace and of a frame with opposing brace is illustrated in Figure
1.1.1.
Single Brace Response
Opposing Brace Response
Figure 1.1.1: Response of Single Brace vs. Opposing Braces
1.2
SCBF Design Theory
Concentrically brace frames (CBFs) essentially act as vertical trusses incorporated into steel
structures providing lateral resistance to horizontal loads from wind or earthquakes. Lateral loads
are delivered to the lines of bracing through the structural floor, typically composite concrete slabs
on metal decking connected to the beams and girder with steel shear connectors. The loads are
collected from the floor diaphragms and pass through the braces down to the building foundations
and out of the structure. The term special in SCBF is added to refer to additional design and
detailing requirements for concentrically based frames used in seismic regions to assure an inelastic
response of the system.
Performance Based Design (PBD) criteria have been proposed to evaluate the full nonlinear
response of SCBFs to better predict post-buckling behavior and improve performance for various
2
intensity seismic events. This is a similar approach to what has been done to improve the seismic
performance of steel moment frames (Roeder 2002), which allow specific levels of damage to occur
during the response based on the probability of occurrence of the earthquake intensity. The three
performance levels within Performance Based Design are Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety
(LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). Table 1.2.1 illustrates the three performance levels and the
damage considered acceptable for SCBFs.
Table 1.2.1: Performance Based Objectives for SCBFs (Johnson 2005)
To meet the Immediate Occupancy performance level, the resistance and functionality of the
system cannot be jeopardized and the structure needs to be able to achieve a similar response to
aftershocks or a similar magnitude event. The amount of acceptable damage to the system
increases for less frequently occurring earthquakes.
Under the Life Safety performance level, large buckling displacements and tensile yielding of the
brace would be expected, as well as significant inelastic rotations of the gusset plate. However, the
damage should not approach system failure. Life Safety also relates to nonstructural damage that
could result in injury or death such as falling architectural components or utilities. The level of outof-plane displacement of the brace in buckling, especially if immediately adjacent to the exterior of
the building, could cause damage to the faade and send debris falling on people below. For this
reason, out-of-plane displacement is a relevant performance parameter for SCBFs.
For the most severe expected earthquakes, severe and irreparable damage to the lateral force
resisting system is anticipated but the goal is to avoid partial or total collapse of the structure.
Large inelastic strains due to hinging and large tensile yielding of the brace and significant gusset
3
connection yielding would be expected but brace fracture should be delayed as long as possible.
This research focuses on the gusset plate connection and adjacent beam to column connections to
delay the large inelastic strains associated with brace plastic hinging and extend the life of the brace
to achieve large drift ranges expected during severe seismic events.
The design of SCBFs is a capacity based design approach with the brace as the controlling
component. Brace connections and adjacent framing elements are design to provide the required
strength and ductility to resist the maximum expected forces developed in the brace and to allow
the brace to buckle. The AISC Seismic Provisions define the maximum expected brace forces with
the brace in tension and compression based on Equation (1.2.1) and Equation (1.2.2), respectively.
(1.2.1)
(1.2.2)
The maximum expected brace force in tension is defined using the brace cross sectional area,
the specified yield stress of the brace material,
specified yield stress,
, and the ratio of expected yield stress to the
, based on the variability of material properties. The maximum expected
compressive force uses the nominal buckling capacity,
, of the brace as calculated using AISC
Design Specification (Equation E3-1).

The brace force is typically transferred from the brace to the framing elements using gusset plate
connections. For braces buckling out-of-plane, gusset plates connections consist of flat plates
connected in-plane to the framing elements. The brace is connected directly to the gusset plate,
and the current AISC Design Specification and Seismic Provision require gusset plates to be
designed so that the maximum expected brace forces is less than
for all failure modes. The
gusset plates are sized that Equation (1.2.3) is satisfied.

(1.2.3)
This presents a fundamental flaw in the design of SCBFs. Using a strength design for gusset plate
connections has no relation to the required ductility of the connection. By designing the gusset
plates for only strength and not for more realistic parameters considering a ductile response, the
AISC design procedure assures the brace with buckle and yield in tension but does not address the
behavior beyond that.
An alternative design procedure for gusset plate connection is discussed within this thesis that
considers a hierarchy of yielding to provide a more ductile response. Further discussion and detail
4
of the development of the BDP is available in the previous theses (Johnson 2005, Kotulka 2007).
The Balanced Design Procedure (BDP) is used to design the connections to achieve additional
ductility from desired yield mechanism while suppressing the occurrence of less desirable failure
modes (Johnson 2005). Figure 1.2.1 shows the hierarchy of inelastic behavior for SCBF systems
desired to increase the total ductility and energy dissipation.
Brace Buckling
Tensile Brace
Yielding
Gusset Plate
Yielding
Beam and
Column Yielding
Brace Fracture
Figure 1.2.1: Desired Hierarchy of Inelastic Behavior for SCBFs
The BDP addresses yield mechanism and failure modes similar to AISC strength design by
assigning balance factors, , to the nominal resistance of the connection. Unlike AISC strength
design which evaluates demand verses resistance to yield mechanism and failure modes individually,
the BDP considers the resistance of the connection with regards to each interdependently to assure
yielding occurs where desired. The mean yield resistance of the connection using the Balances
Design Procedure is represented is Equation (1.2.4). The resistance to failure modes is shown in
Equation (1.2.5).
(1.2.4)
(1.2.5)
Yield mechanisms are associated with inelastic component behavior that result in yielding or
deformation but create minimal risk of strength loss. Failure modes, on the other hand, are
associated with inelastic behavior and brittle failure where strength of the component is lost
suddenly and cannot be recovered. The yield mechanisms and failure modes for SCBFs are
illustrated in Figure 1.2.2a and Figure 1.2.2b.
Yielding of Beams
and Columns at
Gusset Plate Edge
Bolt
Fracture
Severe Weld Tearing

Gusset Plate
Buckling
Block
Shear
Inelastic Shortening
Due to Post-buckling
Behavior of Brace
Gusset Plate Net

Section Fracture
Tensile Yielding
of Brace
Yielding of
Gusset Plate
Bolt Hole
Elongation
a) Yield Mechanisms
Brace Net
Section Fracture
b) Failure Modes
Figure 1.2.2: Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes for SCBFs
Larger ultimate drift ranges for SCBFs can be achieved by extending the ductile behavior beyond
buckling and tensile yielding of the brace and into the gusset plates and framing elements. The
experimental results from the previous test series have been used to develop the current factors
recommended within the BDP and have resulted ultimate drift capacities larger than what has been
seen for specimens design following AISC design specification and recommendations for SCBFs.
1.3
Research Objectives
The research within this thesis is part of the National Science Foundation program CMS-0619161,
International Hybrid Simulation of Tomorrows Braced Frame Systems. The specific objectives of this
research are to build upon the knowledge gained from the previous experimental results and
analytical work to further improve the performance of SCBF systems. The selection of test
parameters for investigation and the design of specimens was also greatly influence by
representatives with AISC to study SCBFs with bolted connection to increase constructability while
improving seismic performance. A list of specific objectives for this research is provided below.
Evaluate the balanced design procedure for gusset plate connections with alternative brace
sections
Evaluate bolted connection for SCBF designed with the balanced design approach
Investigate the influence of beam-to-column stiffness on SCBF system
Investigate additional failure modes and AISC requirements for SCBF detailing with
regards to net section fracture
6
1.4
Overview of Report
This thesis documents nine experimental tests completed at the University of Washington
Structures Laboratory between January 11, 2007 and July 10, 2008. A review of previous braced
frame research and their findings are discussed in the Chapter 2: Literature Review. Design issues
and the design procedures for the nine tests within this series are included in Chapter 3: Design.
Chapter 4: Experimental Test Setup describes the physical test setup and instrumentation used to
test each specimen and record data for analysis. The events of each test are described in Chapter
5: Experimental Results, including the methods and nomenclature for describing and documenting
damage as it occurred. Chapter 6: Performance Analysis describes the interpretation and analysis
used to compare performance of the specimens. Comparisons of these nine tests are made with
selected test from the previous test series to evaluate relevant test parameters in Chapter 7:
Comparison of Test Parameters. Finally, conclusion, design recommendations and a discussion of
future work are included in Chapter 8: Conclusions. Appendices are included for Design
Calculations (A), Construction Drawings (B), Instrumentation Drawings (C), and Data Reduction
(D).
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1
Introduction
After the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, insecurity regarding the reliability of special moment
frames has prompted increased usage of SCBFs as the primary seismic resisting system for low
to mid rise steel structures (Roeder 2002). Unfortunately, engineers do not fully understand the
inelastic response demanded of SCBFs under severe, infrequent seismic events. This section
discusses the progression of experimental research that has influenced and contributed to trends
in design philosophy and the 2005 AISC Design Specification and Seismic Provisions. The
majority of past experimental research has focused on brace and gusset plate behaviors and their
failure modes, but little has been done to study the response of the entire system as a whole,
including realistic and varying framing element parameters. This chapter is divided into previous
research related to brace behavior (Section 3.1), gusset plate behavior (Section 3.2), and system
behavior (Section 3.3). The 9 tests included in this thesis are an extension of the related work
completed at UW by Johnson (2005), Herman (2006), and Kotulka (2007). A brief discussion of
their finding is included in Section 3.4.
2.2
Brace Behavior
The behavior of the brace is the most influential to the overall performance of the SCBF
systems. Over the last four decades, extensive experimental research has been completed
evaluating the factors that contribute to improving energy dissipation, achieving larger drifts and
extending fracture life for various brace sections under quasi-static cyclic loading. The current
AISC Seismic Provisions place limitations on brace slenderness and section width-to-thickness
ratios based on the finding, such as Astaneh-Asl (1982), Aslani and Goel (1989), Gugerli and
Goel (1982) and Walpole (1996).
Further work evaluating cold formed hollow steel sections (HSS) as bracing members are
summarized in Shaback and Brown (2003) and Trembley (2002). HSS braces have been
common in recent construction of low to mid rise SCBF structures because of their simple
connections and efficient buckling resistance to area. Their higher radii of gyration and
resistance to local buckling make them a favorable choice to design engineers over other rolled
sections with equivalent area, such as angles or channels.
Shaback and Brown (2003) tested 9 square HSS brace sections of varying sizes and lengths with
slotted gusset plate connections. The main parameters for this test sequence were effective
slenderness ratios, width-to-thickness ratios, and, to a degree, end connection fixity. Slenderness
ratios, KL/r, ranged between 52.3 and 65.8, width-to-thickness ratios, b/t, ranged from 8.93 to
14.60 and the gusset free length varied 1.26 and 2.09 times the gusset plate thickness. Figure
2.2.1 illustrates the schematic setup of the typical test specimen.
gusset plate
HSS brace
gusset width
Plan View
L/2
gusset free length
Elevation View
total gusset length
Figure 2.2.1: Shaback and Brown Test Specimen
Similar trends in hysteretic behavior were noted for all specimens including degradation of
compressive capacity observed after initial buckling occurred. Loss of axial compression
stiffness and residual axial displacement were also consistently observed regardless of test
parameters. The effective slenderness ratio had the most influence on the hysteretic behavior
and energy dissipation capabilities. Specimens with a higher KL/r showed greater degradation in
compressive capacity and a more pinched compressive loops, and therefore dissipated less
energy. The specimens with lower effective slenderness degraded less after initial buckling and
reloaded at a greater stiffness in tension which created fuller hysteretic loops. Slightly higher
tensile resistances were also observed at the larger drifts.
The fracture life of the brace was most influenced by the width-to-depth ratio. Specimens with
lower b/t sustained more cycles and reached larger drift ranges under this specific loading
protocol. Yield strength and effective slenderness ratio showed minimal effect on improving
fracture life.
Trembley (2002) completed a much more comprehensive and thorough evaluation into the
inelastic response of steel bracing members under cyclic loading. The study spanned 9 test
programs and 76 individual test specimen, 41 of which were hollow steel sections (HSS). The
intent of this research was to further evaluate the implications of KL/r and b/t and their affects
on hysteretic behavior, energy dissipation and fracture life, as well as developed equations that
could be used by designer to assure that adequate performance levels are met.
Current design methods using AISC Seismic Provisions for beams and columns in SCBF system
account for the combination of the maximum expected brace forces in addition to gravity loads.
Accurate predictions of the maximum forces in tension and compression are necessary, but also
knowing the minimum compressive capacity of the brace post buckling is needed to determine
when the unbalanced loading condition is at its worst depending on the bracing configuration.
An example where more accurate minimum compressive strengths of the buckled brace is
necessary is in the design of the beams at the intersection of chevron braces toward maximum
expected drifts.
Trembley proposed methods that more accurately predict the maximum compressive capacity,
the minimum compressive strength at increasing ductility levels capturing the nonlinear
regression and the expected achievable drifts before fracture of the brace occurs. An interesting
conclusion from the test data was that fracture life of HSS braces were strongly dependent on
the slenderness ratio and much less on width-to-thickness or induced displacement history,
which contradicts the conclusions of Shaback and Brown (2003). More slender braces were able
to achieve larger drift levels before fracture because as slenderness increases, the strain demand
at the plastic hinge is reduced. It was recommended that minimum slenderness ratios be
established and more rigorous criteria for width-to-thickness ratios should be placed on braces
with smaller slenderness ratios in order to achieve a desire drift level.
Out-of-plane displacement as the brace buckles has been recognized as a potential life-safety
issue where damage to adjacent partition walls or exterior cladding could result in loss of life
during a seismic event (Trembley 2002). Knowing the maximum out-of-plane displacement of
the brace for the expected drift level would allow designers to provide adequate space for the
brace to buckle freely within the wall cavity. An equation to accurately predict the displacement
depending on the expected maximum drift was also presented.
10
2.3
Gusset Plate Behavior
Gusset plates are used to connect the ends of the brace to the framing elements and are
depended upon to transfer the axial compressive and tensile loads as well as provide adequate
rotation as the brace buckles out-of-plane. Research into the behavior and potential failure
mechanisms of gusset plates by Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti (1985), Cheng et al (2000), Grondin
et al (1999), Nast et al (1999) Whitmore (1952) has influenced the current AISC design
specification by addressing the strength and ductility demands for SCBF systems.
Gusset plate geometry can be rectangular or tapered and connections to the framing elements
can be shared by both the beams and columns, or to either the beam or the column only. Brace
axial forces are transferred through an effective width in the gusset plate established by
Whitmore (1952) and referred to as the Whitmore effective width. The connection length
between the brace and gusset plate is used to determine the Whitmore effective width by
extending lines 30o from the start to the end of the connection as shown in Figure 2.3.1.
Additional experimental investigation and finite element analysis by Hardin (1958), Davis (1967)
and Varsarelyi (1971) confirmed that in general using the Whitmore width is a suitable approach
to determine the location of peak elastic stresses.
e
iv
ct
ffe
eE
or dth
tm Wi
hi
W
Gusset Plate
C
Le onn
ng ec
th tio
n
Brace Location
30
Figure 2.3.1: Whitmore Effective Width
Investigation into the inelastic behavior of gusset plates in tension completed by Bjorhovde and
Chakrabarti (1985) identified additional potential failure mechanism. 6 full-scale gusset plate
specimens were tested with bolted brace to gusset connections at 30o, 45o and 60o angles. The
11
typical test specimen is shown in Figure 2.3.2. Hydraulics rams were used to load the brace in
tension until failure of the system or until reaching the maximum capacity of the loading
apparatus. The results from this experimental research showed the potential for tearing across
the bottom bolt row of the brace to gusset connection or tearing from the bottom holes to the
edge of the gusset plate perpendicular to the brace length. This further validated the criteria for
designing maximum stresses across the Whitmore effective width. Hardash and Bjorhovde
(1985) proposed new design methods for gusset plates in tension and included a method for
calculating the block shear capacity based on tensile yielding across the bottom bolt row and
shearing along the length of the bolt configuration to the free edge of the gusset plate.
Figure 2.3.2: Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti Test Specimen (1985)
The method to predict the elastic buckling capacity of the gusset plate was developed by
Thornton (1984) and investigated through experimental and analytical research. The proposed
method calculated capacity by considering idealized column strips extending from the Whitmore
effective width at 3 locations, one at each end and at the brace center, labeled L1, L2 and L3 in
Figure 2.3.3. An effective length factor of 0.65 was used with the maximum strip length to
calculate a lower bound buckling capacity.
12
Brace Location
L1
th
id
eW
or
tm
hi
L3
L2
Gusset Plate
Figure 2.3.3: Thornton Effective Length for Buckling Capacity
Experimental work consisting of 13 tests was conducted by Cheng and Yam (1993) to evaluate
the uni-axial compressive capacity of gusset plates. The typical test setup is shown in Figure
2.3.4. The test parameters under investigation were plate thickness, plate size, angle of the brace,
out-of-plane brace restraint and moments in the framing elements. Plate thickness was the most
influential factor for gusset plate buckling capacity while brace angle and moments in the framing
elements were the parameters that showed minimal impact. An additional analytical study was
performed on the 13 specimen using finite element modeling program ABAQUS by Yam et al
(1998). A comparison of the experimental and analytical results was summarized in a paper by
Cheng et al (2000). It was determined that the Thornton method for calculating the buckling
capacity was overly conservative and did not include effects for redistribution of load as yielding
occurred. The modified Thornton method utilized a 45o angle from the start of the brace to
gusset connection and results in a wider effective width for calculating the maximum
compressive stresses. The buckling predictions using the modified Thornton method more
closely correlate with the experimental and analytical results.
13
Figure 2.3.4: Cheng and Yam Test Setup (1993)
Research into the behavior of gusset plates subjected to cyclic loading has also been valuable to
develop current design specifications for SCBF systems. Jain et al (1978) began by investigating
the contribution of gusset plate bending stiffness on brace behavior by evaluating the
performance of 18 brace configuration with gusset plate connections. Three gusset plate
geometries were used and the clear length from the brace end to the beam to gusset connection
varied as one of the test parameters. It was found that increased stiffness of the gusset plates
reduces the slenderness ration of the brace and therefore improved the energy dissipation
capabilities of the system, similar to decreasing the slenderness ratio of the brace.
Astaneh-Asl (1982) tested 17 full-scale double-angle brace sections with gusset plate connection
in an idealized beam-column frame under cyclic loading. The gusset plates were connected only
to the beams and the framing elements were designed to keep the response elastic for repeat
tests. The typical test specimen is shown in Figure 2.3.5. It was observed that the behavior of
the gusset plates depended greatly on the direction of buckling in the brace. If the brace buckled
in-plane, plastic hinges formed at 3 locations; the midpoint of brace and in the brace just outside
of each gusset plate. For braces that buckled out-of-plane, the plastic hinge still formed at the
brace midpoint, but the two end hinges formed within the gusset plates.
14
Figure 2.3.5: Astaneh-Asl et al. Test Specimen
From the findings, it was recommended that gusset plates be designed with sufficient area at the
brace ends to allow for the formation of plastic hinges as the brace buckles out-of-plane. It was
seen that fracture of the gusset plate could possibly occur after only a few cycles if adequate
clearance to rotate are not provided. Astaneh-Asl (1986) recommended a 2t linear clearance
from the end of brace to a line from the closest re-entrant corner perpendicular to the brace
length, with t being the thickness of the gusset plate.
Aslani and Goel (1989) continued investigating double angle braces within the Astaneh-Asl test
setup shown above but also evaluated additional brace end conditions. Flexible as well as fully
fixed brace end connections were incorporated into specimen design. Increasing the end
connection fixity decreasing the slenderness ratio directly affects the energy dissipation and
buckling capacity of the brace. Adversely, this also limits the fracture life of the brace and could
lead to early failure.
2.4
System Behavior
There has been limited research investigating of the overall system behavior of SCBFs. Few full
scale experimental programs utilized test specimens that consist of brace, gusset plates and
realistically designed framing elements. Current AISC Seismic Provision do have design criteria
to account for the demands on columns and beams from maximum brace forces and brace
configuration but additional investigation is required into the inelastic demands on all
components as a complete system. The response of concentric braced frames cannot be
15
accurately characterized by simple pin-pin truss action. The interaction between gusset plates
and framing elements is difficult to represent in analysis without highly developed FE models.
Flexural demands on the framing elements adjacent to gusset plates and additional stresses on
corner gusset plates due to the opening and closing of beam to column connection at large frame
drifts add to the complex inelastic behavior of SCBF systems.
Uriz and Mahin (2004) evaluated a full scale two story SCBF test specimens with chevron brace
configuration subjected to pseudo-static cyclic loading. The design followed 1997 AISC Design
Specification and Seismic Provisions including 2t linear clearance for gusset plates. The objective
of the research was to obtain experimental data to better understand the relationship between
overall system, component and connection behaviors, validate and improve FE models, and to
evaluate the current design procedures and analysis methods. The test specimen was pseudostatically loaded at the upper beam only and subjected to a displacement controlled symmetric
protocol with increasing amplitude based on an induced drift corresponding to the critical
buckling force in the brace. Figure 2.4.1 illustrates the two story chevron SCBF test specimen
test at University of California Berkeley.
Figure 2.4.1: Uriz and Mahin Test Setup (2004)
The majority of inelastic response occurred at the first story with braces buckling in compression
and yielding in tension, while the second story remained relatively elastic. Plastic hinges formed
at the desired 3 locations over the brace length; at the midpoint and in the 2t region of the gusset
16
plates. Fracture eventually occurred at the brace plastic hinges for both first story braces. The
test continued after brace fracture in order to evaluate the remaining resistance of system.
Fracture of both first story columns occurred just below the intermediate beam with tearing
straight through the inside flanges and into the webs.
This test substantiated the concerns for a potential soft story forming once buckling occurs for
multi-story SCBFs. Even though the response of the first story braces closely match those seen
in previous research with simple brace and gusset plate test specimen, the global response and
resulting drift capacity were poor. Addition research was recommended into varying brace
configurations for multi-story test specimen, further consideration into the fixity of beam to
column connections to improve frame action post brace fracture, and the development of more
efficient gusset plate design.
2.5
Previous UW SCBF Research
The objective of the SCBF research at the University of Washington beginning in 2004 was to
perform a comprehensive parameter study for corner gusset plates in a realistically sized frame
representative of a low-to-mid rise steel structure. AISC Design Specification and Seismic
Provisions recognize the brace as the primary inelastic component and rely on yielding in tension
and buckling to dissipate energy and achieve adequate story drifts. The designs of gusset plates
are to meet the strength demands of the brace and incorporate the 2t linear clearance for out-ofplane rotation as the brace buckles but designs can result in large, overly stiff connections. It is
thought that current design procedures for gusset plates could potentially lead to soft stories,
unexpected failures modes and early brace fracture (Roeder et al. 2004).
Three previous SCBF experimental test programs by three graduate students (Johnson 2005,
Herman 2007, and Kotulka 2007) consisted of full scale single story, single bay test specimen
with a diagonal brace section subject to a pseudo-static cyclic loading protocol. A total of 17
tests were conducted. The typical specimen consisted of a single HSS5x5x5/8 brace connected
to corner gusset plates welded to a 12 by 12 beam and column frame sized to reflect the actual
gravity and lateral demands of a low-to-mid-rise structure. Designs were intended to investigate
various test parameters including gusset plate thickness, gusset plate shape, interface weld design,
alternate clearance requirements for out-of-plane rotation of gusset plates, framing element
stiffness, and beam to column connection detailing. The typical UW test specimen is shown in
Figure 2.5.1.
17
Figure 2.5.1: Roeder et al Test Specimen (2008)
All of the conclusions and recommendations are available in the three theses (Johnson 2005,
Herman 2007, and Kotulka 2007). Some of the key conclusions are discussed below. Results
indicated that more compact and economical gusset plates can be designed using an elliptical
clearance at the brace end and still improve the system ductility, increasing the drift capacity and
delaying fracture of the brace. Figure 2.5.2 is an example illustrating the elliptical clearance
defined by N*tg, with 8*tg showing the most promising results. Tapered gusset plates also
showed better out-of-plane rotation capabilities but subjected the interface welds to greater
demands and higher potential for cracking. More importantly, gusset plate to framing element
interface welds should be designed for the full plastic capacity of the plate and not for the
demands from the brace as calculated by the Uniform Force Method or KISS Method (keep it
simple stupid). Also, the size and stiffness of the beam element has considerable impact on the
global response and total drift capacity of the system.
18
Figure 2.5.2: Gusset Plate Elliptical Clearance
One of the ongoing objectives of this research has been the development of the Balance Design
Approach for SCBF gusset plate design, which is the method of balancing yield mechanisms and
preventing undesirable failure modes with factors. A hierarchy of yielding is established to
maximize the ductility of the system while also suppressing early system failure. This will be
discussed in detail in the following chapter.
In conjunction with the experimental work at UW was the development of a highly sophisticated
FE modeling method using ANSYS to predict the local and global response of SCBFs (Yoo
2006). This analytical research also included an approach to predict brace fracture based on an
equivalent plastic strain at the brace plastic hinge. The results from the experimental tests were
used to improve accuracy of the model in capturing the global and local responses of the system.
As research continues into the holistic behavior of SCBFs as an integrated system of
components, the economical and practical means to experimentally evaluate multi-story test
specimen with varying test parameters become increasingly difficult and accurate analytical tools
emerge as increasing valuable.
19
Chapter 3: Specimen Design

3.1
Introduction
The specimen design is discussed in this chapter. The single story single bay specimen is
representative of a bottom story of a low-rise, or an intermediate story of a mid-rise SCBF
structure. Figure 3.1.1 shows the typical specimen with member sizes. The original specimen
prototype was designed by Shawn Johnson with influence from the current AISC codes, the SAC
building model, and technical advice from practicing engineers. Further discussion regarding
member selection and original details are available in his thesis (Johnson 2005). The Balance
Design Procedure for gusset plate design discussed in Section 3.2 including the procedure for
gusset plate design used for the nine specimens within this test series. Specimen design parameters
having special considerations are described in Section 3.3. Examples of specimen designs are
presented in Appendix A.
Figure 3.1.1: Prototype Specimen (Johnson 2005)
The design procedure and specimen selection for this test series built off the results from previous
tests within this program. A brief summary of the design parameters evaluated for each of the
previous 17 tests are presented in the tables below. Table 3.1.1 shows the five specimens first
tested by Shawn Johnson. Table 3.1.2 summarizes the designs for the six specimen tested by David
20
Herman. The six specimen tested by Brandon Kotulka are shown in Table 3.1.3. The designs for
the nine specimens tested within this test series are presented in Table 3.1.4
Table 3.1.1: Thesis 1 Specimens (Johnson 2005)
21
Table 3.1.2: Thesis 2 Specimen (Herman 2007)
22
Table 3.1.3: Thesis 3 Specimens (Kotulka 2007)
23
Table 3.1.4: Thesis 4 Specimen (Powell 2010)
5/16"
performance with the bolted shear
3
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
1'-
23
4"
1'-9"
HSS-18
Specimen was designed to evaluate
3/8"
plate beam-to-column connection

2'-1"
with rectangular gusset plates

1
2"
1" A490X BOLTS

5/16"
PLATE
0"
1'-
5/16"
03
4"
1-1/8" A490 BOLTS

1'23
4"
1'31
2"
bolted brace to gusset plate

9"
1'-916
connections for improved
3/4" x 12" PLATE
3"
44
HSS-19
WT4x17.5 (BOTH SIDES)

1/2" GUSSET
1/2"
PLATE
constructability
1'-11"
5/16"
3
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
1'-
bolted beam end plate connection
23
4"
1'-9"
Specimen was designed with a
3/8"
for improved constructability
4"
HSS-20
1" END PLATE
2'-0"
18- 43" A490X BOLTS
1" END PLATE

5/16"
GUSSET
PLATE
1'-
3/8"
for improved constructability and

reduced bolt configuration
2'-0"
14- 43" A490X BOLTS
5/16"
plate beam-to-column connection
3
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
1'-
1'-414"
performance with the bolted shear
23
4"
HSS-22
3
8"
23
4"
1'-9"
bolted beam end plate connection
4"
HSS-21
Specimen was designed with a
3/8"
11"
1'-616
with tapered gusset plates
1" A490X BOLTS

5/16"
1
2"
PLATE
24
1"
32
3
8"
WEB PLATE
EA. SIDE
performance with a more ductile
5/16"
3/8"
compared to the HSS tube
5/16"
1'-
23
4"
1'-9"
performance with welded beam
3
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
3/8"
flanges and bolted web at the

2'-1"
beam-to-column connections
PLATE
Specimen was designed to increase

likelihood of net section fracture at
5/16"
brace to gusset connection
1'23
4"
1
2"
1" A490X BOLTS

5/16"
2'-012"
HSS-24
GUSSET
PLATE
1'-987"
HSS-25
1"
wide-flange brace section
ALL AROUND
3
8"
1'-
1'-8"
WF-23
7
8
" GUSSET
PLATE
BACKGOUGE
2'-412"
W16x89
brace to gusset connection

identical to HSS-25
5/16"
1'23
4"
likelihood of net section fracture at
2'-012"
HSS-26
Specimen was designed to increase
7
8
" GUSSET
PLATE
BACKGOUGE
2'-412"
W16x89
3.2
Balanced Design Procedure for Gusset Plates Connections
This section describes the balance design procedure (BDP) used to design the gusset plate
connections for the nine specimens within this test series. The BDP is an alternate to the current
AISC resistance design which addresses strength alone and can neglectfully result in gusset plate
connections overly stiff and prone to brittle failure modes. The current design procedure
recommended in the AISC Specifications utilizes resistance factors, , to assure adequate strength
to statically extreme loading conditions. However, this could be at the expense of system ductility
25
and a more ductile connection can provide adequate resistance while improving the overall
performance of the system.
The fundamental theory of the BDP is to balance resistance to desired yielding mechanism while
suppressing undesirable failure modes to increase the overall ductility of the system and control
behavior at severe drift ranges. Resistances to limit states using the BDP address both strength and
ductility in order to establish a hierarchy of yielding. The desired ductile response is to extend
yielding beyond the brace and into the gusset plates and framing elements. Greater detail into the
development of the BDP is available in the theses of Johnson (2005), Herman (2007) and Kotulka
(2007).
The BDP uses balance factors, , applied to yield mechanism and failure modes to encourage
yielding when desired while delaying the occurrence of undesirable failure modes from controlling
the response of the system. Similar to factors in resistance design, factors are no larger than 1.0
and lower the value, the more conservative the designed resistance with respect to the calculated
nominal resistance,
. The balance equation for determining the mean yield resistance of the
connection is shown in Equation X.

(3.2.1)
The use of the material overstrength factors,
, in the equation is to account for actual stresses of
the connection material to assure desired yielding occurs. The approach to balance resistance to
failure modes is similar, except that material overstrength factors are not included as shown in
Equation Y.
(3.2.2)
This section discusses the general steps used to design gusset plate connection using the BDP with
commentary and equations. The nominal resistances to limit states were calculated using
procedures within the AISC Design Specification and replace factors with factors. Some
variations, such as interface weld designs, are describe in detail. The values for factors are based
on the experimental results from the previous test series and follow the design recommendations
within Kotulkas thesis (2007).
1. Determine brace sizes and forces from seismic analysis of system (Section 3.2.1).
26
2. Design brace to gusset plate connection and length (Section 3.2.2).

3. Determine preliminary gusset plate thickness based on whitmore yielding, whitmore
fracture and block shear (Section 3.2.3).
4. Determine preliminary gusset plate geometry using Elliptical clearance requirement
(Section 3.2.4).
5. Check gusset plate buckling using Thornton Method with preliminary thickness and
geometry (Section 3.2.5). Re-determine gusset plate thickness if required.
6. Design net section reinforcement based on actual slot thickness (Section 3.2.6).
7. Design interface welds for full capacity of gusset plate (Section 3.2.7).
3.2.1
Brace Forces
Brace sections used for SCBFs must meet seismic compactness criteria within the AISC Seismic
Design Manual in Table I-8-1 for resistance to local buckling. HSS tubular brace sections must
have a width-thickness ratio,
or
, that is less than Equation (3.2.3). Wide-flange brace
sections must have a flange width-thickness ratio,

width-thickness ratio,
, less than Equation (3.2.4) and a web
, less than Equation (3.2.5).

(3.2.3)
(3.2.4)
(3.2.5)
The limiting width-thickness ratios,
, are used to determine if a brace (or column) section is
seismically compact and can be used in the design of an SCBF. The variable
of elasticity and
is Youngs modulus
is the minimum yield stress of the brace material.
The gusset plate connections are design to provide the required tensile and compressive resistances
to brace forces calculated using Equations (3.2.6) and (3.2.7) from AISC Seismic Design Manual
(Section 13.3). The term
stress,
is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the minimum specified yield
, accounting for variability in the properties of the brace material. The maximum expected
force in tension,
, is the expected yield stress,
, multiplied by the gross area of the brace

27
cross section,
, and is used to determine required strength of tensile limit states. The maximum
expected brace force in compression is
times the nominal compressive strength,
Although the design manual does not specify the method for determining the effective length of
brace for SCBFs, using an effective length factor, , of 1.0 and the actual brace length for
calculating the nominal compressive strength was recommended as an acceptable method by
practicing engineers.
(3.2.6)
(3.2.7)
3.2.2
Brace to Gusset Plate Connection
The connection between the brace end and the gusset plate can be either welded or bolted. HSS
tubular sections are typically slotted and welded directly to the gusset plate with 4 fillet welds. This
is the connection method typically used to connection the HSS5x5x3/8 brace to the gusset plates
and is described in this section. The resistance of the connection must be greater than the
maximum expected brace force in tension as determined in Equation (3.2.6). This is determined as
the lesser of the shear capacity of the welds and the shear rupture capacity of the brace base
material as calculated using Equations (3.2.8) and (3.2.9), respectively. Similar to the specified AISC
resistance factor for both resistances of the welds and of the base material, a balance factor, , of
0.75 is recommended.
(3.2.8)
(3.2.9)
The variables
and
are the nominal strength of the weld material and the effective throat
thickness of the fillet weld. The wall thickness of the brace is given as
. The number of welds
or the number planes considered is given as . The total length of the splice in both equations is
Using a shorter splice length will reduce gusset plate geometry and in the case of A500 B/C
tubular brace section with nominal yield strength of 46ksi connection to A992 plate steel, the
rupture capacity of the base material controls. The required splice length can be determined from
Equation (3.2.9) and used to size the welds.
28
3.2.3
Tension Limit States for Gusset Plates
The geometric parameters to determine a minimum gusset plate thickness is available once the
brace section and splice length are determined. The preliminary thickness of the gusset plate is
determined based on the resistances to tension limit states: whitmore yielding, whitmore rupture
and block shear. A fundamental part of the BDP is to encourage gusset plate yielding over the
whitmore effective width. This was achieved by using a balance factor, , of 1.0 for whitmore
yielding. Figure 3.2.1 shows the method for determining the whitmore effective width,
, by
extending 30o lines from the start of the brace splice welds to the brace end.
Gusset Plate
30
iv
ct
ffe
eE
or dth
tm Wi
hi
C
Le onn
ng ec
th tio
Brace Location
Figure 3.2.1: Whitmore Effective Width
The resistance to whitmore yielding is calculated using Equation (3.2.10), where
is the plate
thickness. Similarity, resistance to shear rupture is calculated using Equation (3.2.11), where is
0.85 and
is minimum specified tensile strength of the plate.

(3.2.10)
(3.2.11)
Block shear is the tensile limit state where the rectangular shape of the gusset plate bound within
the brace to gusset connection ruptures and separates from the remainder of the plate. Resistance
to block shear is determined as rupture along the net shear path,
path,
, and along the net tensile
. Figure 3.2.2 illustrates the area used to calculate block shear resistance for gusset plates.
The resistance to block shear rupture is calculated using Equation (3.2.12) where the factor
29
accounting for distribution of tension stress,
, is equal to 1.0 assuming tensile stress is uniform.
The recommended factor for block shear is 0.85.
Ln
v
Brace Location
Gusset Plate
t
Ln
Figure 3.2.2: Block Shear Area
(3.2.12)
3.2.4
Gusset Plate Geometry and Elliptical Clearance
The dimension of the gusset plate are determine by providing the elliptical clearance line that
follows the pattern of yielding observed as the gusset plate rotates out-of-plane. This is
accomplished using the preliminary gusset plate thickness determined above and the general
geometry of the adjacent beam to column connection and the angle of the brace. This method,
which was used to design the gusset plates within this test series, was purposed and described in
detail within the thesis design recommendation of Kotulka (2007). The elliptical clearance for
corner gusset plates recommended from the previous experimental results is between 6tp and 8tp
(Johnson 2005 and Kotulka 2007). Figure 3.2.3 shows the gusset plate with variables used to
calculate plate dimensions described in the procedure below. The process is iterative and was
automated during the design of the specimen using Microsoft Excel.
30
Figure 3.2.3: Gusset Plate Geometry for Elliptical Clearance Requirement (Kotulka 2007)
If using the AISC Uniform Force Method to determine the forces on the interface welds, the
height to width ratio of the gusset should be proportioned as to not result in moments acting on
the welds. This is achieved by using dimensions that meet the requirement in Equation (3.2.13)
from the AISC Manual in Chapter 13, where
and
are the depth of the beam and column,
respectively.
(3.2.13)
This adherently sets the variable
equal to
. The purposed method suggests making the free
edges of the plate intersect at the center line of the brace, or setting
equal to 0. Since the
interface welds were not designed using the Uniform Force Method and were instead designed for
the full capacity of the plate as described in Section 3.2.7, it is considered acceptable to set
equal
to 0. This also results in a slightly more compact geometry. However, to keep the gusset plate
design consistent with previous specimens, all specimens with the exception of WF-23 used gusset
plate geometry with variable
3.2.5
equal to
Gusset Plate Buckling
The area of the gusset plate between the brace end and the framing elements was designed to resist
maximum expected brace force in compression as calculated in Equation (3.2.7). The buckling
length was determined using the Thornton Method, which sets three lengths extending parallel to
31
the brace center-line from the whitmore effective width to the flanges of the framing elements.
This is illustrated in Figure 3.2.4.
e
or
tm
hi
W
Brace Location
L1
th
id
W
L3
L2
Gusset Plate
Figure 3.2.4: Thornton Method for Gusset Plate Buckling
The gusset plate resistance to buckling,

recommended
, is calculated using Equation (3.2.14) with a
factor equal to 0.90. The nominal buckling strength,
the AISC Specifications Chapter E using
equal to the average of the three lengths, and the
effective length factor, , equal to 0.5. The buckling area,

multiplied by the plate thickness,
, was calculated following
, is the whitmore width,
.
(3.2.14)
The procedure to calculating the critical buckling stress,
, is as follows:
(3.2.15)
Where
is Youngs modulus of the plate material and is the radius of gyration of the whitmore
cross section. When
, Equation Y is used to calculate
.
(3.2.16)
If
is calculated using Equation (3.2.17).
32
(3.2.17)
If the calculated resistance to buckling was less than the demand, the preliminary gusset plate
thickness would be deemed insufficient and a thicker plate would be required. Gusset plate
geometry would need to be re-determined in order to meet the designated
elliptical clearance
requirement. However, gusset plate resistance to tension limit states would be adequate by
inspection.
3.2.6
Net Section Reinforcement
The slot in the brace that is slid over the gusset plates to connect the brace creates a reduced area
of the brace cross section as shown in Figure 3.2.5. The necessity of net section reinforcement has
been a design parameter evaluated within the previous test series as well as while in the thesis.
Experimental results have shown that specimens with gusset plate design using the BDP and tested
without additional reinforcing plate at the brace to gusset connection were capable of developing
the full capacity of the brace and ultimately failed due to brace fracture at the plastic hinge (Kotulka
2007). The specimens with typical HSS tubular brace sections designed within this thesis were
checked for resistance to net section fracture but reinforcement plates were not included during
fabrication. However, this section does illustrate the procedure for designing net section
reinforcement using a recommended factor of 0.90. The calculated resistance is shown in
Equation (3.2.18).
Reduced Brace
Section
Gusset Plate
hole diameter 41" larger

than gusset plate thickness
Figure 3.2.5: Reduced Area at Brace to Gusset Connection
(3.2.18)
33
The term
is the ratio of expected tensile stress to the specified tensile stress,
material. The reduced net section of the brace is

area of the reinforcement plate are represented as
, for the brace
. The tensile stress and the cross sectional

and
. The term
is a shear lag factor
from AISC Table D3.1 that is applied to account for shear lag effect, or concentration of shear
stress over the length of the connection, . The term
is calculated in Equation (3.2.19) and
uses , the distance from the center of gravity of the brace to the center of gravity to the brace
section split by the slot including the net section area. The values Table D3.1 for
are
approximations and actual values can be calculated using the reinforcing plate dimensions and slot
width iteratively. This resulted in slightly smaller plate area required for reinforcement.
(3.2.19)
3.2.7
Interface Weld Design
The designs of the interface welds connecting the gusset plates to the framing elements for the
specimen within this series are different than what has been recommended by the current AISC
procedure. The stress concentrations that occurs at the gusset plate reentrant corners from both
in-plane rotation of the beam-to-column connection and out-of-plane deformation of the gusset
plate is not considered when sizing the weld for the vertical and horizontal components of the
brace force based on the AISC Uniform Force Method. Sizing the weld for the full plastic capacity
of the gusset plate was recommended as part of the BDP to increase resistance to weld fracture.
Equation (3.2.20) was used to size the welds and was presented in the Kotulka thesis design
recommendation (2007).
(3.2.20)
The balance factor, , used to design the interface welds is equal to 0.65, which is greater than the
resistance factor, , used for fillet welds. The right side of the equation showing the full plastic
capacity of the gusset plate does consider the material overstrength factor,
. The
on the left
of the equation is to account for additional weld capacity in tension. Although the applied brace
force is a combination of shear and tension, the stresses that result in tearing of the interface welds
a tensile stress due to the large deformation demand on the gusset plate.
Specimen HSS-25 and HSS-26 both utilized complete joint penetration weld to connection the
gusset plates to the framing elements. These also develop the full capacity of the gusset plates and
achieve the same effect as the fillet weld. From a design stand point, greater weld material is
34
required to fully develop the plastic capacity of the plate with fillet welds, but CJP welds require
additional consideration for preparing the plate edges and providing backing bars.
3.3
Design Parameters
This section discusses the design parameters that required special consideration during the design
of each specimen. The design of the bolted shear plate connection adjacent to the gusset plates
utilized in specimens HSS-18 and HSS-22 is described in Section 3.3.1. The design of the bolted
end plate connections for HSS-20 and HSS-21 is described in Section 3.3.2. Design consideration
specific for the wide-flange brace to gusset connection of WF-23 is provided in Section 3.3.3.
3.3.1
Bolted Shear Plate Beam-to-Column Connection Design
The designs of specimen HSS-18 and HSS-22 incorporated a bolted shear plate connection rather
than the CJP welded beam-to-column connection adjacent to the gusset plates. These two test
specimens are intended to evaluate modifying the beam-to-column connection method for
specimens with thin rectangular gusset plates and thin tapered gusset plates to assess the effect on
system performance. Specimen HSS-24 also assesses the beam-to-column connection by utilizing a
bolted web and CJP welded flanges. The bolted shear plate connection is shown in Figure 3.3.1
and the bolted web CJP welded flange connection is shown in Figure 3.3.2.
Figure 3.3.1: Bolted Shear Plate Connection
35
Figure 3.3.2: Bolted Web CJP Welded Flange Connection Detail
Specimens HSS-18 and HSS-24 utilized the identical brace and gusset plate design as HSS-05 while
HSS-22 used the tapered gusset plate design identical to HSS-17. The beam-to-column connection
was designed to resist the resolved forces from the brace acting on the beam to gusset plate
connection using the AISC Uniform Force Method calculated in Equations (3.3.1) through (3.3.5).
(3.3.1)
(3.3.2)
(3.3.3)
(3.3.4)
(3.3.5)
The variable
is the maximum expected brace force in tension,
The variables , , ,
and
, calculated in Equation (3.2.6).
are shown in Figure 3.3.3 and the resolved design forces are
shown in Figure 3.3.4.
36
eb
W.P.
ec
Figure 3.3.3: Uniform Force Method
Pu
Vuc
Huc
Vub
Hub
Figure 3.3.4: UFM Resolved Forces
The vertical and horizontal brace forces acting on the beam interface welds were combined into a
single force applied at an angle using Equation (3.3.6). The angle,
Equation (3.3.7). The force on the shear tab,
, was calculated using
, is applied eccentrically to the bolt group
the length of , determine as the horizontal distance between the bolt group center of gravity and
the center of gravity of the beam-to-gusset weld. The capacity of the bolts was determined using
AISC Construction Manual Table 7-7.
37
(3.3.6)
(3.3.7)
AISC Design Specifications were used to determine the connection resistance including factors
for the relevant failure modes.
The shear plate was designed to resist shearing across the reduced area with the bolt holes
and shearing across the gross area.
The fillet welds connecting the plate to the column flange were designed to resist
following AISC Design Specifications Table J2.5 for the nominal resistance of
welds loaded at an angle.
The capacities of the W16x45 beam section were also checked for adequate resistance to
web shearing and block shear where the web area is reduced, based on AISC Design
Specification J5.2 and J5.3.
3.3.2
Bolted Beam End Plate Connection Design
Specimens HSS-20 and HSS-21 utilized bolted beam end plate connections to the columns adjacent
to the gusset plates. These design parameters evaluate the performance of the specimen with
similar gusset plate design to HSS-05 with an alternate bolted beam-to-column connection. The
beam section of the connection is shown in Figure 3.3.5.
38
4"
1'-9"
1'-281"
3'-281"
9"
216
512"
1'-581"
1" PLATE
10"
2'-0"
Figure 3.3.5: Bolted Beam End Plate Connection
The bolted connections were designed to meet strength requirements based on the maximum
capacity of the connecting elements. The required rotational resistance of the bolted connection
was the nominal plastic moment,
, of the W16x45 beam section. The required strength of the
bolted connection was design to resist the combined shear and tension resulting from the vertical
and horizontal components of the maximum expected brace force,
, from Equation (3.2.6). The
flexural capacities of the bolted configurations were calculated following the AISC Manual Part 7
Design Considerations for Bolts using the instantaneous center of rotation method.
The beam web was fillet welded on each side directly to the 1x10 plate. The fillet weld was
designed for the nominal shear capacity of the W16x45 beam,
, determined in the AISC Design
Specifications Section G.
3.3.3
Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Connection Design
The connection between the W6x25 wide-flange brace section and the gusset plates was more
intricate than the simple slotted brace of the typical HSS tube and required additional consideration
during the design. To minimize that amount of additional connection plates and welding, it was
decided to slot and weld the flanges and connect the web using plates. The wide-flange brace to
gusset plate connection is shown in Figure 3.3.6. The method for designing the gusset plates and
framing element connections for specimen WF-23 was the same as previous specimens with the
39
typical HSS tubular brace. A design example of the wide-flange brace to gusset connection is
1'1"
61
2"
GUSSET PLATE
312"x 14"
WEB PLATE
EACH SIDE
BRACE WEB
(.32" THICK)
3
8"
3 SIDES
SEE SECT A TYPICAL
GUSSET PLATE
5
8"
3
8"
5/16"
3
8"
3
8"x
1"
32
1"
61
2"
included in Appendix A.
3
8"x
312"x 14"
WEB PLATE
EACH SIDE
1"
1/4" TYP.
SECTION
1/2"
1
4"
SHIM PLATES
Figure 3.3.6: Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Detail
The required splice length was determined to resist the maximum expected brace force calculated in
Equation (3.2.6) for the W6x25 brace section. The length was controlled by the rupture capacity of
the welds or the flange base material shown in Equations (3.3.8) and (3.3.9) using a balance factor,
, of 0.75 for both calculations.
(3.3.8)
(3.3.9)
In both equations, the length of the splice connection was given as
. The strength of the welds
here was calculated similarly to those for the HSS brace to gusset splice in Equation (3.2.8). The
strength of the base material calculated in Equation (3.3.9) used the flange thickness,
, and the
number of shear planes, , taken as four for the slotted wide-flange. The actual splice length in the
design of specimen WF-23 was 13 in., which was larger than what was required by design in order
to result in gusset plate geometry comparable to previous specimens with HSS braces.
The web plates provided continuity between the web and the gusset plate and act as net section
reinforcement from the reduced brace area from the slotted flanges. The plates were sized similarly
as net section reinforcement for the reduced section for the HSS brace in Section 3.2.6. The
variable names were modified for the web plates and shown in Equation (3.3.10). The total area of
the web plates is given as
and the total reduced flange area as
. A balance
factor, , of 0.9 was used.

40
(3.3.10)
The shear lag factor
was calculated following AISC Design Specifications Table D3.1 in
Equation (3.3.11). The splice length is and the distance between the gusset plate face and the
center of gravity of half the splice connection, , is shown in Figure 3.3.7. This distance accounted
for the unsymmetrical connection because of the shim plates used to induce an initial eccentricity in
the brace to control the direction of buckling.
(3.3.11)
3
8"x
312"x 14" WEB

PLATE EACH SIDE
3
8"GUSSET
PLATE
x
1
4"SHIM
CENTERLINE
OF BRACE
c.g.
BRACE
FLANGE
PLATE
CENTERLINE OF
GUSSET PLATE
Figure 3.3.7: Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Section-Cut
The length of the web plates was determined based on the length of weld required to develop the
plastic capacity of the plate. This is calculated using Equation (3.3.12) with
of longitudinal welds and
gusset plate, and
two times
equal to the number
is the length of weld connecting the web plate to the brace web or
is the cross sectional area of the web plate. The actual length of the plate was
plus one inch clear between the gusset plate and brace weld.
(3.3.12)
41
Chapter 4: Test Setup

4.1
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the experimental test setup used to test the nine specimens within this
test program at the University of Washington Structures Laboratory. The test setup was
designed and constructed for the first set of one story, one bay SCBF tests in 2005, and reused
for this test program (Johnson 2005). This chapter outlines the general concept of the test setup
(Section 4.2), the major components including modifications made to improve the experimental
boundary conditions (Section 4.3) and the instrumentation used to capture the response during
the tests (Section 4.4). Description of the two drift histories is also included (Section 4.5).
4.2
Test Configuration Overview
Accurately matching actual field conditions in the laboratory can be difficult and expensive when
testing full scale structural steel experiments. The objective of the test setup is to successfully
test the single story, single bay system subjected to pseudo-static loading with the focus on the
diagonal brace and gusset plate connections. This testing configuration, which tests the
specimens parallel to the floor, was designed to simulate as closely as possible the boundary
conditions and degrees of freedom of an actual SCBF for gusset plate connections, while taking
into account the space, construction, and financial limitations of the tests. Figure 4.2.1 shows a
plan view of the test setup with labels for the major test components. Dimensions for the layout
of each component are shown in Figure 4.2.2. Photos of the actual test setup are shown in
Figure 4.2.3.
42
Threaded Rods to
stress (G) to (A)
(D)SE
(G)
Base Shear
Connection
(D)SW
(B)
(A)
(A) Strong Wall

(B) Strong Floor
(C) Reaction Block
(D) Out-of-Plane Supports
(E) Actuator and Swivel
(F) Load Beam
(G) Channel Assembly
(H) Gravity Load System
(I) Test Specimen
(D)West
(I)
(D)East
(C)
(D)Load
Beam
(D)NE
Swivel
(D)North
Load Beam
(H)
(E)
Threaded Rods
stress (E) to (C)
Figure 4.2.1: Test Setup and Components
43
Figure 4.2.2: Test Setup Layout (Johnson 2005)
44
Data Acquisition Center
Strong Wall
Channel Assembly
Out-of-Plane
Supports
Gravity
Load System
Load Beam
Actuator
Out-of-Plane
Supports
Strong Floor
Figure 4.2.3: Actual Test Setup
45
The horizontal and vertical load paths that result during testing can be described using Figure
4.2.1 to reference the components within the test setup. Horizontal load is applied to the
northeast corner of the specimen through a single hydraulic actuator and load beam, labeled (E)
and (F), respectively. The actuator is supported by the reaction block, (C), which is tensioned to
the strong floor, (B), to resist the applied load delivered to the system. The applied horizontal
force, or story shear, exits the specimen through the bolted shear connection between the south
beam and the channel assembly, (G). The channel assembly is connected and tensioned to the
strong wall, (A). Vertical load, representative of gravity loads from the theoretical structure
above, is applied to the columns by the gravity load system, (H), through high-strength tension
rods between the north ends of the columns and the channel assembly. Vertical overturning
forces at the column bases, compression and tension, are resisted by direct bearing between the
base of the columns and the channel assembly, and tension in the gravity load system.
The bolted connections between the north and south beams of the specimen and the test setup
provide the boundary conditions for the system. These are intended to be representative of an
actual SCBF, including the composite slab which transfers lateral load to the system and restrain
the system in-plane, however, including a section of composite slab to the test specimen was
determined too costly and the specimen were constructed and tested without a composite slab.
The focus of this research is on the brace and gusset plate behaviors and on the framing
members immediately adjacent to the gusset plates. It is thought that this test setup was realistic
enough to provide accurate results for SCBF systems in the field and meets our testing
objectives. The test boundary conditions and the elimination of the composite slab can create
behaviors that in some cases did not reflect actual field behavior, and therefore must be
recognized as unique to this test setup.
The test specimen is restrained in-plane using a system of out-of-plane supports, (D) in Figure
4.2.1, which are tied to the strong floor, (B), using threaded rod. The supports restrict out-ofplane movement of the beams and columns while allowing freedom for the entire frame to move
in-plane. The brace and gusset plates are not restrained and free to displace out-of-plane as
expected in compression.
The quasi-static loading protocol was input into the system through the actuator controller in the
form of input displacement, rate of loading, and type of loading. Instrumentation was placed
over the specimen to capture the global response as well as local responses of the components.
Strain gauges were used to continuously record the strains at strategic locations on the beams,
columns, and brace sections. The actuator and instrumentation data was recorded by the data
46
acquisition system throughout the test. Visual and verbal documentation of observations were
also used to record the response of the specimen.
4.3
4.3.1
Test Setup Components

Strong Floor and Strong Wall
The strong floor and strong wall, also referred to as a reaction wall, are permanent components
of the structures lab and shown in Error! Reference source not found. as (A) and (B). A
easonable assumption in the test setup is that the strong floor and strong wall provide rigid
support for attaching components and do not move during testing. The strong floor is a 30 inch
thick prestressed concrete floor system with embedded threaded tie down anchors spaced in
each direction at 36 inches. The L shaped strong wall stands 13-6 above the strong floor and
also consists of 30 thick prestressed concrete. The wall provides conduits spaced at 18 in. on
center for through bolting and stressing of horizontally mounted test component.
4.3.2
Reaction Block and Actuator
The MTS hydraulic actuator used to apply the load to the specimens and the Reaction Block are
shown in Figure 4.3.1 and Figure 4.3.2. Displacement of the actuator is controlled using the
MTS controller. The actuator has a stroke range of 10 and a maximum capacity of 470k
pushing and 330k pulling at 3000 psi hydraulic pressure. The specimens were constructed to
have the actuator pushing while the brace was in tension so that the reduced capacity coincided
with the smaller brace capacity in compression.
2 Anchor
Rods
Hydraulic Hoses
Load Cell
Swivel
Actuator
Spiral Washers
Reaction Block
1-1/8 Threaded Rods
Figure 4.3.1: Actuator and Reaction Block Photo
47
Reaction Block
2" Williams Anchor

Rods (6 total)
Swivel Head and

Side Plate
3
5
4"x 1'-0"x 1'-98"
Spacer Plate
Actuator
2"x 1'-2"x 1'-2"

thick Elastometric
Bearing Pad
Load Cell
Load Beam
Spiral Washers
4" Adaptor Plate
181" B-7 Threaded

Rods (6 total)
Figure 4.3.2: Actuator and Reaction Block Assembly
The base of the actuator was mounted to a 6x8x4 concrete reaction block and tensioned to the
strong floor using six 2 diameter Williams rods stressed to 220k each. Hydro-Stone was used
to provide uniform bearing between the surfaces at the bottom of the block and the strong floor
and the top of the block and the tension rod washer plates. The actuator and the block were
connected by six 1-1/8 diameter B-7 threaded rods stressed for a total of 360k. A 4 in. thick
adapter plate and a 2 in. thick elastomeric bearing pad were compressed between the two. The
load train between the reaction block and the load beam was as follows: actuator, load cell,
spiral washers, swivel, and load beam. The load cell was used to determine the load in the
actuator and has been periodically calibrated over the course of this test sequence for accuracy.
The swivel at the end of the actuator acts to allow rotational freedom between the actuator and
load beam assuring only horizontal shear was applied to the specimen. An additional in. plate
was added between the swivel head and load beam for HSS24 thru HSS26 to position the start
point of the actuator closer to the zero point of the stroke length, giving full range in both
directions.
The Load Cell and the LVDT within the actuator provided a continuous loop of information to
the MTS controller during operation. The actuator was set to displacement control and values
for the induced LVDT displacement and the rate of loading were manually input for each
movement of the actuator. More information on the loading protocol is included in Section 4.5.
48
4.3.3
Load Transfer Beam
A built-up W21x62 beam section was used to transfer the load imposed by the actuator to the
specimen and is shown in Figure 4.3.3. The beam was designed to minimize local yielding in the
specimen and transfer the lateral load over 40% of the beam length. The beam was mounted to
the actuator swivel head and bolted to the flange of the north beam with ten 1 in. diameter A490
bolts. The swivel between the actuator and load beam allows for rotation in three directions and
acted to apply the actuator force as a horizontal load to the specimen in bolt shear. The
eccentric location of the load beam resulted in a significant torque on the end of the load beam
unique to the test setup which does not reflect true field conditions. A web doubler welded to
the north beam at this location to reduce local deformation and web buckling was included in
the design of the test specimens.
10-1" A490 Bolts at
Shear Connection
Test Specimen
3
8"x
1'-2"x 1'-1121" Doubler

Plate (Bottom Only)
1
2"
Flange Plate
3
4"
2" Stiffener Plates

(Top and Bottom)
Spacer Plate
Actuator Swivel Head
1
2" Triangular
Stiff Plates
712"
Cutouts for
Gravity Load
System
W21x62
Load Beam
1087"
11"
1'-3"
8"
1'-985"
" Stiffener Plates

(Top and Bottom)
5"
1
2
1" Hex-head
Bolts (4 total)
2" End Plate
5'-243"
Figure 4.3.3: Load Beam
4.3.4
Channel Assembly for Reactions
The channel assembly was design and fabricated by Shawn Johnson for the first SCBF test
program (Johnson 2005). The cross section detail through the assembly is shown in Figure 4.3.4
and the plan view of the corner and the shear connection are shown in Figure 4.3.5.It consisted
of two C15x50 channel sections built up with plate steel. The assembly was mounted and posttensioned to the strong wall and provided shear transfer for the south beam of the specimen and
distributed overturning column forces to the strong wall.
49
Strong Wall
Hydro-Stone
2-C15x50
1
2"
Threaded Rods stresses

Channels to Strong Wall
Top Plate
121" Plate at
Shear Connection
1
2"
C15x50
Bottom Plate
Strong Floor
Figure 4.3.4: Channel Assembly Section Detail
185" Threaded rods stresses

Channels to Strong Wall in
both directions (5 total)
Tension Rod
Tie-down
1" Threaded rods stresses

Channels to Strong Wall in
both directions (7 total)
Channel Assembly at
Shear Connection
Hydro-Stone
Strong Wall
1
2"
Bearing
Plate
Channel Assembly
at Corner
Test Specimen
Tension Rod
10-1" A490 Bolts at

Shear Connection
121" Plate at
Shear Connection
Figure 4.3.5: Channel Assembly Plan Detail
The nominal shear capacity of the connection, 589.3 kip, in Figure 4.3.5 was designed to resist
the maximum horizontal force that could be applied by the actuator, 470 kip. Ten 1 diameter
A490 bolts connected the south flange of the south beam to the 1-1/2 in. thick shear transfer
plate of the channel assembly. The minimum pretension force of 64 kip per bolts was applied,
although base shear was transferred through bolt bearing during testing.
50
Five 1-3/4 in. diameter Williams Form high-strength tension rods were tensioned to 220 kip
each and seven 1 in. diameter threaded rods were tensioned to 60 kips to attach the channel
assembly to the strong wall. The surface between the assembly and the concrete wall was filled
with Hydro-Stone to assure uniform bearing and shear transfer in friction. The assembly
connected to both legs of the L shaped strong wall at the corner transferring the applied shear
from the specimen to the wall through bearing and tension/compression of the east wall and
friction at the south wall. A coefficient of friction of 0.2 was used for the steel to concrete
surface in the calculations for the assembly design (Johnson 2005). The overturning forces in the
columns were resisted through direct bearing and tension of the gravity system tension rods,
which were anchored into the channel assembly. More regarding the tension rods and anchors
is discussed under Section 4.3.6 to follow.
4.3.4.1
Channel Assembly Modifications
Part of the modifications to the test setup in December 2007 after specimens HSS23 and before
HSS24 was the replacement of the bearing plates at the location where the specimen column
bases contact the channel assembly. The in. bearing plates that were part of the original
configuration showed considerable local deformation as a result of repeat testing and were
replaced with new in. bearing plates. Deformation was also noticed in the front plate of the
channel assembly at the 1-3/4 in. diameter tension rod locations. Additional in. plates were
added to better distribute the force of the tension rods. Figure 4.3.6 shows the modifications to
the channel assembly front face.
51
Plan View of
Test Setup
1 Original Face of Support Channel

1
2"
Bearing Plate at
West Column
1
2" Bearing Plate at
East Column
Location of
Specimen Column
1
2" Face Plate of
Channel Assembly
New 21" Bearing Plate

at West Column
New 21" Bearing Plate

at East Column
1
2"
Plate at
Tension Rod
Location of
Specimen Column
Holes for Thru Rods

to Strong Wall
Holes for
Gravity Load
System Rods
1
2"
Plates at
Tension Rods
1 Modified Face of Support Channel
Figure 4.3.6: Channel Assembly Modifications
4.3.5
Out-of-Plane Supports
Out-of-plane (OOP) supports were used to restrain the specimen from substantial overall
movement while permitting lateral movement. Photos of the out-of-plane support
configurations for the north beam and west column are shown in Figure 4.3.7. The out-of-plane
support at the load beam is shown in Figure 4.3.8. The locations of the out-of-plane supports
can be seen in Figure 4.2.1. Each OOP support consisted of wide-flange beam sections secured
to the strong floor with 1 in. diameter rods. These assemblies were also used to prop up the
specimen to the testing height during installation. Threaded rods were used to connect the
bottom support to the top wide-flange section. Metal shims were placed under the bottom
section to level the support and top and bottom bolts holding the top sections in place were only
snug tightened.
52
The frictionless contact surfaces between the specimen and the supports consisted of nylon
bumpers coated with silicone lubricant that were notched and placed over the flange edges of the
columns (top only), north beam and load beam at the support locations. Polished stainless steel
plates were placed between the wide-flange support sections and the bumpers. The lubricant
was also applied to the stainless steel plates to cover the expected full range of movement during
the test. A slight variation to this method was used at the underside of each column. Flat pads
of nylon were placed on the bottom out-of-plane support and coated with the silicone lubricant.
Stainless steel plates with edges bent upward were placed between the column section and the
nylon pads and would moved with the columns in-plane.
Stainless
Steel Plates
Nylon Bumpers
Specimen
Specimen
Stainless
Nylon Pad
Steel Plates
North Beam
West Column
Figure 4.3.7: North Beam and West Column Out-of-Plane Supports
53
Load Beam
Load Beam
Figure 4.3.8: Load Beam Out-of-Plane Support
Specimens HSS25 and HSS26 utilized a heavier W16x89 beam section in the frame as one of the
test parameters. The dimensions of the larger beam section required a modification to the north
beam out-of-plane support. The modified configuration of the north beam support is shown in
Figure 4.3.9. The bottom wide-flange support was rotated 90o and propped with W4 sections to
reach the appropriate height. The threaded rods anchoring the support to the strong floor were
attached through the web, rather than the flanges of the bottom support.
Specimen
Figure 4.3.9: Modified North Beam OOP Support
54
4.3.6
Axial Load System
Column axial loads were applied to simulate the gravity load from the theoretical structure above
and to resist the overturning forces. Details of the gravity load system with labeled components
are shown in Figure 4.3.10. Similar to the previous test series, a force of 350 kip was applied to
each column for specimens HSS18 through HSS23 through two 1-3/8 in. diameter (150ksi)
Williams Form rods tensioned symmetrically on each side of the web. Heavier rods were used
for specimens HSS24 through HSS26, and a force of 450 kip was applied to each column using
two 1-3/4 in. diameter rods. The larger rods were used to reduce uplift of column from the
channel assembly.
Channel Assembly
Strong Wall
Load Beam
Test Specimen
West Column
Spherical Hex
Nut with 1"
thick Dish Plate
4" thick Cap Plate
Spherical Hex
Nut with 1"
thick Dish
Plate
183" or 143" Williams Form

Tension Rods (top and bottom)
HSS4x4x21 (top
and bottom)
Figure 4.3.10: Axial Load System Detail
The column axial load was applied by tensioning the Williams Form rods using a short-stroke
hydraulic ram to the appropriate pre-tensioned force. 4 inch thick cap plates distributed the load
to the load beam at the north of the west column and directly to the west column. The rods
passed along either side of the columns and were anchored into the channel assembly by passing
through HSS4x4x1/2 tubes welded to the channel webs. The ends of the rods are fastened with
Williams Form spherical hex nuts and dish plates. The surface between the hex nut dome and
dish plates was coated with machine greased to allow rotation as the rods moves with the frame.
Increasing the pre-tensioned column force 350 kip to 450 kip was a primary modification of the
test setup in December of 2007. The rod diameter was increased from 1-3/8 in. to 1-3/4 in. and
the design force increased from 175 kips per rod to approximately 225 kips. In addition, the
modifications to the channel assembly were also required. The lengths of the HSS4x4 tubes
were shortened from 9-3/8 in. to 8-3/8 in. to allow for larger spherical hex nuts and dish plates.
55
in. thick plates were added to each side of the tubes and welded to the channel webs to
increase the capacity of the connection. A photo of the original tension rod tie down
configuration for specimens HSS18 through HSS23 and of the modified connection used for
HSS24 through HSS26 are shown in Figure 4.3.11.
Spherical Hex
Nut and Dish
Spherical Hex
Nut and Dish
Plate
Plate
Addl
Plates
HSS4x4x1/2
1-3/8 Williams
Rod
1-3/4 Williams Rod
Original
Modified
Figure 4.3.11: Tension Rod Tie Downs
4.3.7
Data Acquisition System and Storage
The data acquisition system was controlled through a personal computer using the Windows
based software LabVIEW verson 7.1. Calibration factors were assigned to each channel to
convert the measured changes in voltage to physical quantities of strain, rotation, displacement,
or force. The available data channels were organized and labeled within the program and stored
for each test. Readings were taken and recorded at each second and stored in a tab delimited
data file. This output file was then processed and analyzed with MatLab and Microsoft Excel.
National Instrument hardware was used for the data acquisition system and consisted of SCXI
1001 Chassis, SCXI 1100 and SCXI 1300 modules for potentiometers, and SCXI 1121 and SCXI
1321 modules for strain gauges. The constant 10 volts required for the instrumentation was
provided by a Hewlett Packard E3611A DC Power supply.
4.4
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used to measure the global and local responses of the system are described
in the following sub sections. The general instrumentation scheme was developed for the
56
previous three test series and used for this series. Some adjustments and additions were made to
capture specific behavior based on test parameter and to improve the overall scheme.
The types of instrumentation used are strain gauges, potentiometers, and visual observations.
Visual observations refer to whitewashing the specimen, still photographs, continuous video
taken from atop the strong wall, and the detail description of where and when specific events
occurred during the test.
4.4.1
Strain Gauges
The strains in the brace and framing elements were recorded at locations shown in Figure 4.4.1.
The strain gauges used for this test series were the Tokyo Sokki Kenkyuho Co. Ltd. FLA-6-115L model. These are a uni-axial stain gauge having a 6 mm gauge length and nominal gauge
factor of 2.12. Their accuracy is reliable for strain ranges of 5%. The stress-strain curves were
obtain through coupon tests to determine that actual material properties of the members. Using
these relations, stresses, axial forces and moments can then be calculated at the location of
interest. Strain gauges were placed to measure:
Brace axial load (strain gauges 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Brace in-plane moment at location (strain gauges 14 and 16)
Brace out-of-plane moment at location (strain gauges 13 and 15)
Beam moments at location (strain gauges 5, 6, 11 and 12)
Column moments at location (strain gauges 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10)
Column shears (strain gauges 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10)
57
CHANNEL ASSEMBLY
W16x45
6
7
= Strain Gauge
S
14
W
3
16
W12x72
W12x72
13 (top)
15 (bot)
10
Dimension
x1
1'-4"
x2
5' 2-7/8"
x3
1'-1"
x4
5' 2-7/8"
x5
2'-4"
x6
1'-10"
x7
3' 3-1/2"
12
W16x45
11
LOAD BEAM
Figure 4.4.1: Typical Strain Gauge Layout
The procedure for attaching the strain gauges was as follows. Each location was marked and a
belt sander was used to expose clean steel with no rust or mill scale present. The area is then
sanded by hand with a fine grit paper until smooth. Acid and base was applied alternately until
each wipe clean of any dirt or residue. The strain gauge was set on strain gauge tape and placed
into the desired location. Once the gauge cross hairs were in-line with the local axes of the steel
section, Tokyo Sokki Kenkyuho Co. Ltd. strain gauge glue was applied to the underside of the
gauge head. The gauge was bonded to the steel was sustained pressure for 3 minutes. The two
wires were directly connected or soldered to the appropriate channel in the modules. The actual
initial resistance of each gauge was recorded and input into LabView. A factor was also input
into LabView to bridge the initial voltage which reduced the amplitude of error to 10-6,
essentially cleaning the sinusoidal chatter typical of strain gauge readings.
58
4.4.2
Potentiometers
Potentiometers monitored both the global and local movements of the specimen and the test
setup by measuring linear displacement between the point of support, or base, and the point of
contact to the specimen. In some cases, potentiometers measured the relative displacements
between two points on the specimen, such as the movement/rotation between the beam web
and column flange at the shear tab connection. For other applications, pots measured
movement of the specimen from a stationary point, such as brace out-of-plane displacement at
the midpoint which was measured from an instrumentation block located on the strong floor.
The values obtained from the potentiometers in some cases required corrections to convert to
the potentiometer readings to actual displacements for plots and figures. The methods and
equations used to extract the values are summarized in Appendix D. The general layout of
potentiometers is illustrated in Figure 4.4.2 with designations to the type of pots at each
location.
Figure 4.4.2: Potentiometer Layout
Potentiometers were placed to capture the following responses from the test specimen:
59
Horizontal displacement of the frame (#36)

Diagonal displacement of the frame from the NE to the SW work points (#42)
Brace elongation and shortening (#41)
Brace out-of-plane displacement at mid-point (#s 53 and 54)
Buckled Brace Shape (#s 32, 1, 15, 9, 53, 54, 5, and 10)
Gusset Plate out-of-plane rotation (#s 35, 6, 0, and 24)
Rotation at plastic hinge region of beams and columns adjacent to gusset plates (#s 12,
14, 23, 26, 2, 11, 19 and 20)
Rotations at beam to column shear tab connections (#s 27, 28, 44 and 45)
It was also necessary to monitor the test setup for movement to more accurately determine the
response of the specimen. The following is a list of movements monitored.
Uplift and slip between the channel assembly and the strong wall (#s 30, 43 and 47
Uplift and slip between the columns and the channel assembly (#s 40, 29, 49 and 3)
Horizontal slip at the south beam shear connection (#25)
Horizontal slip at the load beam connection (#22)
Vertical movement of the specimen at the corner work points (#s 7, 13, 21 and 33)
Movement between the actuator reaction block and the strong floor (#s 34, 51 and 52)
Three types of potentiometers were used for this test series. UniMeasure model P510 string
potentiometers were used to measure displacement larger than approximately 3 in. Because the
out-of-plane movement of the northeast gusset plate was measured relative to the overhead
crane, string potentiometers were attached to the gusset plate with piano wire and screws were
tapped into the gusset plate steel. This setup allowed a large distance between the support and
the contact point on the specimen permitting (because of small angles) the in-plane movement
of the gusset plate to be neglected. Figure 4.4.3 demonstrates the method to attach the string
pots and wires to the crane beam overhead.
60
Wires to
UniMeasure
Tapped Screws
P510 String Pots
Crane Beam
Figure 4.4.3: String Potentiometers at NE Gusset Plate
Two types of BEI Duncan linear conductive potentiometers were used. The 9600 Series was
used for small displacements, to 2. The BEI Duncan 600 Series were used to measure
medium range displacements, 2 to 5. Stands were built from available material as required
to support the 600 Series pots. Figure 4.4.4 shows the instrumentation for measuring the
southwest gusset plate out-of-plane displacement with 600 Series pots.
BEI Duncan
600 Series
Stand
Figure 4.4.4: BEI Duncan Potentiometers at SW Gusset Plate
Additional pots or modifications to the previous layout were necessary in order to capture
specific behavior depending on the changing specimen design and connection configurations.
All of the potentiometer setups with dimensions for each test specimen are included in
Appendix D.
61
4.4.3
Visual Observations
Visual observations and photographs were a valuable way to document and record damage as it
occurred during the tests. A whitewash mixture was applied to the wide-flange framing elements
over the mill-scale. When yielding occurs in the steel, flaking of the mill-scale and of the
whitewash made the patterns and location of yielding clearly visible. The whitewash also acted as
an effective contrast to the darker yield lines in photographs. The simple mixture was 3 parts
water to 1 part standard Plaster-of-Paris powder and applied with a paint brush. The cold
formed HSS brace section are not prepared with mill-scale so whitewashing would not have been
useful for showing yielding of the brace. The video camera placed on the top of the strong wall
focused on the overall response of the system. The camera was turned on and record
continuously once buckling of the brace could be seen.
A tablet was photographed before each change in the test protocol noting the cycle and the
induced drift that was used to organize the photos after the test. Observers walked around the
specimen during the test looking for initial yielding, changes in behavior, and noting progression
of damage as the drift ranges increased. A recorder would write the observations as they were
called out into a file that referenced when in the test protocol the event occurred.
4.5
Loading Protocol
The symmetric cyclic loading protocol with increasing amplitude used for Specimen HSS18
through HSS25 was adopted from the previous test series. The protocol was developed based
on recommendations from the ATC-24 Protocol and the SAC Steel Project (Johnson 2005). A
plot of the protocol is shown in Figure 4.5.1. The key parameter, y, is based on the interstory
drift angle that corresponds to the onset of yielding or buckling of the brace section. The value
for y was originally based on the results from an idealized computer model and verified through
the experimental results from earlier test specimens. The value used for the loading protocol for
this series of tests relates to a horizontal frame displacement at the top of the frame of
approximately 0.625 (Kotulka 2007).
62
Figure 4.5.1: Original Loading Protocol (Johnson 2005)
Considerable differences can be seen between the induced displacement and the actual story
displacement for each test. This was due to losses in the system because of uplift at the column
bases and slip in the bolts at the load beam to north beam connection and at the south beam to
shear connection in the channel assembly. The affect of the losses was most significant with the
brace in tension because of the greater stiffness in the frame and larger force in the actuator.
The actual displacement history for each specimen is included in Chapter 5.
The actuator was pushed to the maximum displacement of the cycle and held at peak while
damage was photographed and observation taken. The specimen was then pulled back through
zero to the maximum negative displacement and held at valley. After time for observations
and photographs, the specimen was returned to zero and the appropriate adjustment to the MTS
controller settings made before attempting the next cycle. The total rate of loading for each full
cycle was also based on the ATC recommendations and increased as the displacement increased.
For 0 < 1.0y
60 seconds cycles
For 1.0y < 2.0y
80 seconds cycles
For 2.0y < 4.0y
120 seconds cycles
For 4.0y
160 seconds cycles
An alternate tension dominated near-fault loading protocol was introduced and used for
specimen HSS-26. At the time of this test series, there had not been an established near-fault
loading protocol for SCBF systems. The manner for loading the specimen was taken from the
SAC recommended Near-Fault Drift History for Special Moment Frames set forth in FEMA
63
355D. The amplitude of the first large tension push was based on the maximum expected tensile
displacement of the brace from cyclically loaded SCBF tests and subsequent cycles were scaled
based on that value. The tension dominated near-fault loading protocol for HSS-26 is shown in
Figure 4.5.2.
HSS26 Near Fault Loading History
3.0
2.536%
3.888"
2.536%
3.888"
2.5
2.121%
3.251"
2.0
Drift, %
Displacement, inches
1.705%
2.614"
1.290%
1.978"
Drift, %
1.5
0.875%
1.341"
1.0
0.875%
1.341"
0.5
0.459%
0.704"
0.0
0
10
-0.371%
-0.569"
11
12
-0.044%
-0.068"
13
14
15
16
-0.5
-0.787%
-1.206"
-0.787%
-1.206"
-0.984%
-1.508"
-1.0
Cycle
Figure 4.5.2: Alternate Near-Fault Loading Protocol
64
Chapter 5: Experimental Results

5.1
Introduction
The experimental results for HSS-18 through HSS-26 are presented in this chapter. Detail
descriptions of the events of each test are provided including photographs documenting
component behavior and damage as it occurred. Section 5.2 describes potential yield
mechanisms and failure modes of SCBFs. This also includes descriptions of the method and
nomenclature used for the initiation and progression of damage as it occurred during the tests.
Section 5.3 outlines the components of the test and the approach to describe where on the
specimen damage occurred. A section is provided for each specimen describing in detail the
events during the test. The specimens are described and an explanation is provided for testing
each specific design and test parameters. The behavior of the specimen during the tests is
described in terms of yield mechanisms and failure modes. These behaviors are related to the
performance of the specimen and described at three frame drift ranges: intermediate, moderate,
and severe. Damage is noted at maximum and minimum drift ratios and applied horizontal force
from the actuator. A summary reiterating important observations are then included at the end of
each section.
Methods used to improve the overall performance have repeatedly been supported through the
three previous test programs at UW since the original base line test following AISC design
procedures, HSS-01. A number of the test specimens from this series were chosen based on
discussions with consultants from AISC to better improve the constructability of SCBFs in the
field while maintaining improved performance. A table of general information for all the
specimens tested from HSS-01 to HSS-26 is shown in Table 5.0.1 with study parameters
highlighted.
5.2
Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes
This section outlines the yield mechanisms and failure modes observed during the tests. Figure
5.2.1 shows the locations of potential yield mechanisms and system failure modes. Damage of
specimen components is documented throughout the test. The term damage can be deceiving
when describing specimen behavior because some types of damage is desired and expected. The
balance design approach discussed in Chapter 4 depends on the desirable yield mechanisms of
specific components in order to improve the overall system performance.
65
Figure 5.2.1: Yield Mechanisms and Failures Modes for Test Specimen
Table 5.1.1 outlines the nomenclature used in the results section of each test to describe the type
and level of damage observed. The table defines the damage levels used in this research study.
However, the severity suggested by individual damage levels does not necessarily coincide with
actual performance design damage states. For example, moderate or severe yielding of a framing
element would not necessarily be considered moderate or severe system damage, since it will
often not reduce strength or limit the systems ability to perform in future events. Instead, many
of these damage states are relative indicators of progress of damage and progression of yield
deformation. Table 5.1.2 is included to relate each damage state to their potential consequences
related to performance levels: Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse
Prevention (CP). The shading used to denote the severity of damage is used in the tables
summarizing the damage states as they occurred during each test. Darker shading indicates more
severe damage.
66
Table 5.2.1: Component Damage Nomenclature
Table 5.2.2: Damage State Shading for Performance Based Design

SCBF Damage State Shading for Performance Based Design
Gusset Plates Beams/Columns
Performance Based Description
Superficial damage not effecting stength of system.
Minor
Y1; B1
Y1; B1
Repairs not required for IO.
Some obvious yielding or residual deformation.
Y3; B2; B3;
Moderate Y3; B2; NSD
Minimal loss of strength. Repairs possibly required
Y3; B2
WD; WDB
for IO perception.
Severe visual yielding and residual deformations.
Y5; BS; BC;
Y5; SWD;
Severe
Some loss of strength but okay for LS and CP.
Y5
PC; NSD
SWDB
Component would have to be replacd for IO.
Fracture of component. Major loss of strength and
BF; BS; PF;
Failure
potential for system failure or collaspe. Beyond LS
WF; WFB
BS
NSF
and possibly CP.
Brace
Y1; B1;
BSLP
5.2.1
Plate and Frame Yielding
Yielding of plates and of beams and columns is referenced at three performance levels:
initial/mild, moderate, and significant/severe. Determining the level of yielding of components
67
was done by visual inspection during the test. Whitewash is applied over the mill scale of hotrolled steel sections and plates to flake as the steel yields. This visually enhances the yielding for
observations and photographs.
Gusset plate yielding is an important performance characteristic of gusset plate connections.
The gusset plates may yield when the brace is in tension as well as in compression due to the outof-plane rotation from the brace buckling. The yield lines vary depending on the type and
direction of the stresses applied to the plate. Concentrated yielding can occur at highly stressed
areas at the brace ends or at reentrant corners. Figure 5.1.2 shows initial or mild yielding of the
NE gusset plate at the brace end for HSS-24. This level of yielding is referred to as Y1 in the
individual test sections. Moderate yielding is defined when the yield lines extend beyond half of
the depth or width of the member being observed. Figure 5.1.3 is an example of moderate
yielding (Y3) covering approximately half of the NE gusset plate area during HSS-24.
Figure 5.2.2: Initial/Mild Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y1)
68
Figure 5.2.3: Moderate Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y3)
The Y5 gusset plate yielding damage state is described as significant or severe yielding covering
most of the section or surface being observed. Figure 5.2.4 shows significant or severe yielding
of the NE gusset plate during HSS-24.
Figure 5.2.4: Significant/Severe Yielding of the Gusset Plate (Y5)
Yielding of the frame elements is also referenced by this same damage scale. For wide-flange
sections, the damage might occur on the web but not necessarily the flanges. As a result, the
location of yielding is also noted for wide-flange sections. Yielding of the HSS brace was more
difficult to visually observe during testing because these sections do not have mill scale. As a
result, measured brace elongation can be used to determine when tensile yielding occurs as
illustrated in the equation below. Yielding of the brace was defined as occurring when the strain
69
reaches 0.2%. The original length of brace,
, is taken as the brace length from
clear edge of gusset to clear edge of gusset.
5.2.2
Brace Buckling and Brace Damage
Figure 5.1.5 shows the progression of brace buckling during the test HSS-24. Three distinct
damage states are defined for classifying the brace out-of-plane movement. Figure 5.2.5a shows
the first damage state, B1, which is initial buckling of the brace. This is achieved when the
vertical out-of-plane movement reaches 2% of the brace length, Lb. In this case the entire brace
length,
, is defined as the actual length of the wide-flange or HSS tube brace. Figure 5.2.5b
shows the B2 damage state and it is determined when the vertical out-of-plane displacement
exceeds the member depth. The brace continues to buckle until a plastic hinge and localization
of damage formed at the center as shown in Figure 5.2.5e and this behavior characterizes damage
state BC. Typically cupping of the underside and bulging of the two adjacent sides of HSS
tubular braces is observed as seen in Figure 5.2.5f.
70
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Figure 5.2.5: Progression of Brace Buckling
Fracture of the brace hinge is the anticipated failure mode of the system. Typically micro-cracks
begin to develop on the underside of the brace and shortly there after, the brace begins to tear in
tension. The designation BF for brace fracture is assigned to the point when the brace begins to
tear and the load resisting capability of the system is lost. Figure 5.2.6a from HSS-18 is an
example of micro-cracks and a larger partial tear through the center of the brace. Figure 5.2.6b
71
shows a fractured brace from HSS-22.
a) BF Brace Fracture
b) Total Brace Fracture

Figure 5.2.6: Brace Damage at Plastic Hinge
Another potential failure mode of the system is net section fracture of the brace at the reduced
section located at the bored hole at the end of the gusset plate slot. AISC design specifications
required net section reinforcing by design. The designation used for cracking or tearing of the
brace material at the net section in Table 5.1.1 is NSD. The designation for fracture of the brace
at the net section is NSF.
5.2.3
Local Buckling
Initialization and progression of local buckling of components was visually observed during the
tests and correlated to frame drift and various damage states. Similar designations are given for
local bucking of plates, beams and columns. B1 is defined when initial buckling deformation
becomes visible. Figure 5.2.7a is an example of B1 flange buckling of the column at flange at the
beam column connection during test HSS-25. Damage state B2 describes moderate local
buckling and is again achieved when the local deformation exceeds the thickness of the buckled
element. Figure 5.2.7b shows B2 flange buckling of the HSS-25 column adjacent to the gusset
plate. Damage state B3 occurs when local buckling progresses to a point that local deformation
simulates cupping and bulging of the plastic hinge of the brace (designated as BC) and illustrated
in Figure 5.2.5f.
72
a) B1 initial buckling
b) B2 initial buckling
Figure 5.2.7: Local Buckling of HSS-25 Columns
5.2.4
Weld Tearing and Fracture
The designations used for describing crack initiation, crack propagation and fracture depend on
where the crack is observed. Mild ductile tearing of gusset plate welds progresses after crack
initiation and can have a favorable effect in achieving greater drifts while maintaining total frame
resistance. As cracks continue to propagate, the risk for complete weld fracture increases as the
controlling failure mechanism of the system.
Crack initiation is designated at WD, noting the first observable weld damage. The WD damage
state is used for weld damage up 5% of the total weld length including both the beam and
column interface weld lengths. Crack lengths greater than 5% and less than 10% of the total
weld length is referred to as MWD, moderate weld damage. Crack lengths greater than 10%
designate severe weld damage, SWD. The undesirable failure mechanism of weld fracture is
referred to as WF. Weld crack initiation can be seen directly in the weld material or in the heat
affected zone (HAZ) of the base metal. Weld damage located in the based material is indicated
with a B at the end of the damage state designation. Figure 5.2.8a is an example of the
MWDB damage state at the NE interface weld of WF-23. Figure 5.2.8b shows SWD weld
damage that initiated in the base material and propagated into the weld material extending nearly
the full length of the gusset-to-beam weld.
73
a) Initial Cracking in Base Material (WDB)
a) Severe Weld Cracking (SWD)
Figure 5.2.8: Examples of Weld Damage from WF-23
5.2.5
Bolted Connection Slip
When bolted connections were designed to transfer shear forces, slip critical bolts were used.
The action of the shear forces overcoming the bolt resistance and slipping is referred to as BSLP.
The bolts would then act in bearing to transfer the load. Bolt fracture at shear tab connections
or anywhere else on the specimen is referred to as BS. Specimen HSS-19 implemented a bolted
brace to gusset connection.
5.3
Specimen and Test Result Nomenclature
Each section summarizing the test result presents will follow a similar format. Plots for drift
history and the hysteretic behavior are provided. The actual frame drift history varies from the
induced drift history due to losses from column uplift, and bolt slip between the north beam and
the actuator load beam. A table is provided relating frame drift ratio, horizontal frame force, and
the performance of each specimen. The performance of the specimen is explained using the
damage states and severity shading as described in the previous section. Columns within the
tables are sectioned for brace, gusset plates, and frame behavior. Abbreviated designations for
damage states are added denoting the level of damage and where and when it occurred. This
allows the reader to review the table and quickly gain an impression of test specimens
performance.
Abbreviated nomenclature is used to minimize the amount of writing necessary to describe what
and where damage was observed during the tests. Figure 5.3.1 outlines the letter designations
pertaining to different components of the typical specimen. The column and beam designations
74
can refer to only the web for flange of the section by and W or F, such as SWBF refers to
the south west beam flange. The flanges of the framing elements are referred to as inner and
outer. Inner flanges are toward the inside of the frame while outside flanges are to the outside.
The manner used to refer to specific areas of the wide-flange frame elements related to the test
set-up is described in Figure 5.3.2.
Figure 5.3.1: Specimen Component Notation (Johnson 2005)
Figure 5.3.2: Wide-Flange Area Designations related to Test Set-Up (Johnson 2005)
Specific verbiage is use for consistency when discussing welds. The welds connecting the brace
ends to the gusset plates are referred to as brace splice welds and the welds connecting the gusset to
the frame elements are gusset interface welds. Complete joint penetration welds between the beam
and column flanges are referred to as beam/column flange welds.
75
Three ranges of frame drift ratio are used to evaluate the test results, initial drift range, moderate
drift range, and severe drift range (Kotulka 2007). Drift range is total between the maximum
positive and minimum negative drift. Initial drift range is between zero and 1.25%. Moderate
drift range is between 1.25% and 2.75% and severe is greater than 2.75%. Based on the
orientation of the test specimen, positive drift results in brace tension and negative drift result in
brace compression. The frame must retain resistant to consider successfully reaching a drift.
The value for maximum or minimum drift is taken up to the point of system failure. If the
system failure is not sudden and obvious, resistance is considered lost when the applied
horizontal force drops below 70% of the yield force.
5.4
5.4.1
HSS-18: Thin Gusset Plate, Unwelded Frame Connection

Specimen Overview
The necessity of a fully welded beam/column moment connections for SCBFs is an economic
deterrent and a topic of interest to engineers. The current AISC Seismic Provisions do not
require a full moment beam-to-column connection adjacent to the gusset plates, but these
connections have been used by design engineers in high seismic hazard areas of the United
States.
Specimen HSS-18 evaluated the affect unwelded flanges and a shear plate beam-to-column
connection has to the overall frame performance. Shear tab connections designed to account for
the additional vertical force component from the UFM were implemented at the beam column
connections adjacent to the gusset plates. The shear tab was in. thick and connected to the
beam with 4-1 in. A490 bolts. The gusset plate and brace were identical to HSS-05. The 3/8 in.
thick gusset plate used an 8t elliptical clearance and fillet interface welds were sized to develop
the full capacity of the plate. The detail for specimen HSS-18 is shown in Figure 5.4.1
76
Figure 5.4.1: HSS-18 Connection Detail
HSS-18 was tested January 1, 2007 and the specimen ultimately failed in the 35th cycle due to
brace fracture at the plastic hinge. Maximum and minimum drift ratios of 1.60% and -2.59% for
a range of 4.19% were achieved. The maximum story shear forces resisted in the frame with the
brace in tension was 323.8 kip and -152.1 kip in compression for a range of 475.9 kip. Figure
5.4.2 is the frame drift history. Figure 5.4.3 shows the hysteretic behavior of the specimen.
Figure 5.4.2: HSS-18 Drift History
77
Figure 5.4.3: HSS-18 Hysteresis
Table 5.4.1 is a summary of results during the test including drift ratios, lateral load, and
performance of specimen components. The level of gusset plate yielding is especially notable for
this test. Y5 level damage was observed for both the NE and SW gusset plates at the higher
drifts.
Table 5.4.1: HSS-18 Peak Results
78
5.4.2
Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25%
Slight initial tensile yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset plate at the brace end was observed at
0.11% drift. Yield lines diagonal to the longitudinal axis of the brace extend approximately 2 in.
from the brace end as shown in Figure 5.4.4. Similarly, Y1 yielding at the brace end of the
northeast gusset plate was observed at a drift of 0.14%. Figure 5.4.5a and Figure 5.4.5b show
initial yielding of the column reentrant corner for the southwest gusset plate and the
beam/column intersection corner of the northeast gusset plate at 0.21% drift, respectively.
Figure 5.4.4: Y1 Initial Yielding of SW Gusset (0.11%)
a) Y1 Yielding of SWG Column Corner
b) Y1 Yielding of NEG Beam/Col Intersection
Figure 5.4.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of Gusset Plate (0.21%)
79
B1 buckling of the brace out-of-plane exceeding 2% of the brace length, 3 1/8 in., was achieved at
-0.31% drift. Figure 5.4.6 shows the B1 buckled shape of the brace. Out-of-plane displacement
reached B2 level buckling, 5 in., at -0.62% drift and is shown in Figure 5.4.7.
Figure 5.4.6: B1 Brace Buckling (-0.12%)
5.4.3
Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75%
Yielding of both gussets plates quickly increased to the Y3 damage state due to a combination of
both the tensile stresses at 0.41% drift and stresses from the out-of-plane rotation in
compression at -0.94% drift. Long slashing yield lines from the end of the brace extend to the
80
gusset edges and moderate yielding was observed between the brace splice weld and the framing
elements. Figure 5.4.8 shows the extent of the yielding for the northeast gusset plate.
Figure 5.4.8: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of the NE Gusset plate (-0.94/0.41%)
Initial yielding was observed on the top flange of the north beam at the east end of the load
beam connection. This type of yielding is commonly seen in previous test series and is a result
of the local couple created by the eccentricity of the actuator load beam to the work point of the
north beam. This unique condition of the testing load path has been discussed further in
Chapter 4.
The brace elongation exceeded 0.2% and is considered to have initial Y1 yield over the entire
length of the brace between the ends of the gusset plates at 0.73% drift. Initial yielding of the
southeast side of the brace at the net section at the gusset plate slot was observed at 0.74% drift
as shown in Figure 5.4.9. Initial yielding was also observed on the outside flange of the
southwest column at 0.74% drift.
81
Figure 5.4.9: Initial Yielding of Brace Net Section (0.74%)
5.4.4
Severe Drift Range: > 2.75%
Slight edge buckling (B1) of both the northeast and southwest gusset was observed at 1.09%
drift. Figure 5.4.10 shows this behavior at the column edge of the southwest gusset plate. Initial
yielding (Y1) of the north beam flange at the gusset reentrant corner was also seen at this drift.
Yielding of the northeast beam at the beam/column connection was observed extending out
from the bolts shear tab. This initial yielding (Y1) at 1.10% drift is shown in Figure 5.4.11.
Figure 5.4.10: Slight Edge Buckling (B1) of SW Gusset Plate (1.09%)
82
Figure 5.4.11: Initial Yielding (Y1) of NE Beam Web (1.10%)
Gusset plate yielding has continued to increase. Severe yielding (Y5) is observed at a drift of
1.42% across the northeast and southwest plates thoroughly extending from edge to edge.
Figure 5.4.12a and Figure 5.4.12b show severe yielding of the northeast and southwest gussets
respectively.
a) NE Gusset Plate Yielding
b) SW Gusset Plate Yielding
Figure 5.4.12: Severe Yielding (Y5) of Gusset Plate (1.42%)
A plastic hinge has formed at the center of the brace. Cupping of the underside and bulging of
the two vertical sides of the brace were observed at -2.09% drift. Figure 5.4.13 shows the start
of the compressive brace failure (BC) at the hinge location and the buckled shape of the brace.
83
Figure 5.4.13: Compressive Brace Failure (BC) (-2.09%)
Gusset plate edge buckling has progressed to more than the thickness of the plate (B2) at 1.60%
drift. This is seen at both the beam and column edges of the northeast and southwest gussets
and shown in Figure 5.4.14. This moderate edge buckling is likely due to a combination of the
increased opening and closing rotation at the beam/column connections and inelastic
lengthening of the gussets in tension.
Figure 5.4.14: Moderate Edge Buckling (B2) of SW Gusset Plate (1.60%)
Local buckling (B1) and moderate yielding (Y3) were observed on the outside flange of the
southwest column at -2.54/1.60% drift. Figure 5.4.15 shows the concentration of damage which
is across from the gusset plate free edge and can be attributed to the high moment demand as
84
the frame opens and closes. Moderate yielding (Y3) was also observed on the north beam web at
-2.54% drift with yield lines across the entire depth of the web and highly concentrated at the
center. This is shown in Figure 5.4.16.
a) Moderate Yielding (Y3)
b) Local Buckling (B1)
Figure 5.4.15: Damage to SW Column (-2.54/1.60%)
Figure 5.4.16: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of Northeast Beam (-2.54%)
Tiny cracks could be seen on the underside of the brace plastic hinge while in tension at 1.59%
drift. A minimum drift of -2.59% was achieved before fracture of the brace at the hinge location
during the following cycle. The brace center displaced out-of-plane a maximum value of 15.89
in. Figure 5.4.17 shows the level of local failure, cupping and bulging, at the hinge during this
85
final compression cycle. The brace fractured (BF) at 1.31% drift and a lateral load of 207.4 kip
applied to the frame, approximately 64% of the maximum lateral load the specimen resisted.
Figure 5.4.18a shows the brace necking at the hinge location and tearing from the bottom up.
Figure 5.4.18b is of the fracture brace.
Figure 5.4.17: Local Compressive Failure of Brace (-2.59%)
a) Brace Tearing at Failure (BF)
b) Brace Fracture
Figure 5.4.18: Brace Fracture at Plastic Hinge (1.31%)
86
5.4.5
Specimen Summary
HSS-18 was designed with a thin gusset plates, 8t elliptical clearance and interface weld designed
to develop the full plastic capacity of the gusset plate, similar to HSS-05, the best performing
specimen from previous test series. The major test parameter was the elimination of the CJP
welded moment connection between the beams and columns adjacent to the gusset connection
and the usage of a bolted shear plate connection. The bolted shear plate beam-to-column placed
significantly larger demands on the gusset plates than previous tests. Figure 5.4.19a and Figure
5.4.19b show the northeast gusset plate and the southwest gusset plate at the completion of the
test, respectively. The amount of yielding is complete and widespread compared to those of
pervious tests. This increase demand on the gusset plates is also seen in the resulting edge
buckling seen in Figure 5.4.20.
a) NE Gusset Plate
a) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.19: Gusset Plate Yielding at Completion of Test
87
Figure 5.4.20: SW Gusset Plate Edge Buckling at Completion of Test
There was also significantly less damage to the framing elements during this test than seen
previously. Further, no weld cracking was observed in this test. These factors may also be
attributed to the observation that by eliminating the CJP welded moment beam-to-column
connection, the specimen exhibits less frame action which would reduce the moment demands
on the beam and columns as the frame opens and closes. This minimizes inelastic behavior
within the framing elements which could increase the overall ductility of the system.
5.5
5.5.1
HSS-19: Bolted WT Brace Connection

Specimen Overview
Specimen HSS-19 was a bolted brace to gusset plate connection as shown in Figure 5.5.1 and
was developed based on consultation with representatives with AISC and design engineers.
HSS-16 (Kotulka 2007) used a large single plate to connect the brace to the gusset with 15 1-1/8
in. A490 bolts in order to eliminate the need for net section reinforcing and to evaluate a
connection that can be bolted in the field. The specimen achieved very large drifts, 5.89% total
drift range, but was significantly less stiff and failed at the extension plate connecting the brace to
the southwest gusset plate. The specimen failed in the connection at a resistance significantly
lower than the buckling resistance of the brace.
HSS-19 looked to improve on this performance by using two WTs to connect the brace to the
gusset plate. The WT was chosen because of its out-of-plane stiffness and connectability
through the flanges. Figure 5.5.1 shows a detail of the gusset to brace connection. The in.
88
gusset plate was design with a 6.8t elliptical clearance and the interface welds were designed to
develop the full plastic capacity of the plate.
Figure 5.5.1: HSS-19 Detail
Specimen HSS-19 was tested March 21, 2007 and ultimately failed through fracture of the splice
plate connecting the WTs to the brace during the 25th cycle. The connection did not develop
buckling of the brace in compression and the frame reached only moderate drift levels. Figure
5.5.2 shows the frame drift history. The maximum and minimum drifts achieved were 0.31%
and -1.01% for a total drift range of 1.32%. The maximum and minimum lateral forces resisted
by the frame are 224.3 kip with the brace in tension and -101.9 kip in compression. Figure 5.5.3
shows the hysteretic behavior of the specimen.
89
The summary of the test results are included in Table 5.5.1. As stated before, the specimen only
achieved moderate drift ranges and fractured prematurely at the 7/8 in. splice plate between the
brace and the WTs at the southwest gusset connection. Minimal yielding of specimen
components was observed prior to failure.
90
5.5.2
Initial downward buckling was observed at -0.09% drift. At -0.18% drift, it became clear that a
hinge was forming at both the northeast and southwest in the 7/8 in. splice plates between brace
end and the WTs. Moderate yielding (Y3) and slight buckling (B1) of the northeast splice plate
can be seen in Figure 5.5.4. Initial yielding (Y1) was observed at the similar location on the
southwest splice plate as shown in Figure 5.5.5.
Figure 5.5.4: Moderate Yielding (Y3) of NE Splice Plate (-0.18%)
91
Figure 5.5.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of the SW Splice Plate (-0.18%)
Moderate yielding (Y3) and initial buckling (B1) was observed at the southwest splice plate at 0.33% drift. Severe yielding (Y5) of both the northeast and southwest splice plates is achieved
during a repeat cycle at -0.33% as shown in Figure 5.5.6a and Figure 5.5.6b, respectively.
a) NE WT Splice Plate
b) SW WT Splice Plate
Figure 5.5.6: Severe Yielding (Y5) (-0.33%)
Bolt slip occurred at the southwest brace to gusset plate connection. Potentiometers were place
to capture potential bolt slippage and shown in Figure 5.5.7. The plot shows southwest WT slip
verses cycle and a spike can be seen at cycle 17, pertaining to 0.21% drift and 177.6 kip of lateral
force resisted by the frame.
92
Figure 5.5.7: Southwest WT slip (BSLP) vs. Cycle
A clear hinge has formed at the southwest brace splice plate. Moderate buckling is observed at 0.65% drift as shown in Figure 5.5.8. As the brace kinks at the hinge, the stem of the WT is
binding on the HSS brace and causing severe local deformation of the tube. This can be seen in
Figure 5.5.9.
Figure 5.5.8: Moderate Plate Buckling (B2) (-0.65%)
93
Figure 5.5.9: Binding of WT Stem on Brace
Initial Yielding of the southwest gusset plate beam reentrant corner was observed at -0.72% drift.
This is not surprising considering the large rotational demand on the southwest gusset bending
out-of-plane as the brace hinges at the splice plate. Figure 5.5.10 shows the deformed shape of
the gusset with the brace in compression.
Figure 5.5.10: Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.72%)
5.5.3
Bolts slip of the northeast gusset connection occurred at a frame story drift and lateral load of
0.28% and 224.3 kip at cycle 23. A plot of the northeast WT slip vs. cycle shown in Figure
5.5.11 shows jump at cycle 23 as bolt slip occurred. The hinge at the southwest brace splice plate
94
yielded over the entire area and exhibited severe buckling (B3) at -1.01% drift. Initial yielding
was also observed on the southwest gusset at the column reentrant corner. Figure 5.5.12 shows
the splice plate immediately before and after fracture. Fracture occurred at 0.28% drift with the
brace in tension.
Figure 5.5.11: Northeast WT slip (BSLP) vs. Cycle
Figure 5.5.12: Damage at Splice Plate Hinge before and after Fracture (PF) (0.28%)
5.5.4
Specimen Summary
This specimen came well short of performance expectations for drift, strength and desired failure
mode. From a performance based design stand point, this specimen would not have achieved
collapsed prevention or life safety performance levels for a moderate seismic event. This type of
connection should not be used in a seismic region without further study.
95
This brace configuration relied on multiple elements and wasnt able to buckle over the full
length. Initial the brace buckled over the full length but the splice plates acted as a weak point
resulting is early lose of compressive strength and hinging. An alternate design could maintain
out-of-plane stiffness over this transition in order to develop buckling in the brace. This could
possibly be done by shop welding a vertical fin to the brace that would then connect to the WT
stem with slip critical bolts in the field. This would also eliminate the binding damage between
the WT and tube and the plate hinges shown in Figure 5.5.13.
Figure 5.5.13: Damage from WT and Tube Binding
There was virtually no damage to the framing elements at the completion of this test. Only the
southwest gusset plates saw very minimal yielding at the reentrant corners as shown in Figure
5.5.14. These results completely contrast what this research is trying to accomplish in utilizing
the total ductility provided by tensile yield and post-buckling deformation of the brace as well as
limited yield deformation of the gusset plates and frame elements in order to increase system
performance. All of the inelastic behavior was concentrated in to one 7/8 in. plate which not
surprisingly fractured very early. Figure 5.5.15 shows the fracture splice plate at the completion
of the test.
96
Figure 5.5.14: SW Gusset Plate at End of Test
Figure 5.5.15: Fractured Splice Plate at End of Test
5.6
5.6.1
HSS-21: 14 Bolt Beam End Plate Connection

Specimen Overview
Contractors, erectors and fabricators of steel structures have at times expressed preference for
bolted connections rather than welded connections to speed construction and reduce labor costs.
The connection detail chosen for the next two test specimen was proposed by Tom Schafly of
AISC and Tim Fraser of CANRON to evaluate a bolted beam end plate connection and its
affect on the system performance. Specimen HSS-21 and HSS-20 both use this alternate beam
to column connection which consists of 1 in. thick plates shop welded beam web and gusset and
97
then bolted to the columns. The specimens were both fabricated by CANRON, since geometric
control of the fabrication is more critical with this connection geometry. The results of HSS-21
are discussed first followed by HSS-20 in the proceeding section. This is because the test photos
from HSS-20 were inadvertently deleted and the photos from HSS-21 will be reference when
needed for clarity. The behavior and patterns of yielding on the gusset plates and frame
elements was very similar for both tests.
Two identical sets of beams and columns were fabricated by Canron Western Constructors in
Portland, OR. Because this configuration would be professionally shop fabricated, the interface
welds connecting the gusset plate to the beam and the end plate would be welded in a controlled
environment which typically results in fewer imperfections, which is more desirable to the
designers.
The 3/8 in. gusset plates were designed with a 6.8t elliptical clearance and 7/16 in. fillet interface
welds to develop the plastic capacity of the gusset plate. The HSS5x5 brace section was
fabricated at UW and the frame was assembled on site in the lab. HSS-21 uses a 14 3/4 in.
A490 bolt configuration. The bolts were pretensioned to the required minimum bolt pretension
given in the AISC Specification, Table J3.1, of 35 kip each. Direct tension indicator (DTI)
washers were used to assure the correct pretensioning. Figure 5.6.1 is of HSS-21 which has
empty bolt hole at the 3rd and 5th rows from the top.
The beam web and gusset plate were welded to the end plate with fillet welds on both sides but
the beam flanges are not weld to the gusset. They are flush to the face of the end plate and
98
should develop bearing of the compression flange at the end plate during the opening and
closing of the frame as it cycles through the test. This is different from HSS-18, which used a
shear tab connection instead of a fully welded moment connection at this location but allowed
adequate room for the beam to rotate to avoid bearing on the column flange. The HSS-20 and
21 connections are expected to exhibit stiffness somewhere in between the rigidity of a fully
welded moment connection and the simple shear tab connection evaluated in HSS-18.
Additional instrumentation was added for this test to monitor rotation or prying of the end
plates from the columns.
HSS-21 was tested June 15, 2007. The specimen ultimately failed on the 35th cycle by fracturing
the plastic hinge of the brace. A total drift range of 4.14% was achieved, 1.60% with the brace in
tension and -2.55% in compression. The maximum and minimum lateral load resisted by the
frame was 347.6 kip and -163.7 kip for a total force range of 511.3 kip. The increase in drift and
loss of strength in the brace compression direction could be attributed to reduced stiffness of the
connection by using bolts. Figure 5.6.2 shows the HSS-21 frame drift history and HSS-21
hysteresis is shown in Figure 5.6.3. The peak results including observed damage are shown in
Table 5.6.1.
99

5.6.2
Initial yielding at the brace ends of both the southwest and northeast gusset plates was observed
at 0.07% drift and 73.2 kip resisted by the frame. Figure 5.6.4 shows the short yield lines
protruding from the end of the brace to gusset welds of the northeast connection. At 0.10%
drift, loud concussions could be heard toward the northeast and southwest of the frame and
were suspected to be slip of the beam to column connection bolts. Initial yielding of the
southwest column flange at the southern most bolt row was also observed at this drift. This is
understandable considering the highest tensile force occurs at this outside bolt row from the
100
rotational moment as the frame closes. Figure 5.6.5 shows the yielding southwest column flange
at the beam outside flange of the beam-to-column connection.
Figure 5.6.4: Initial Yielding (Y1) of NE Gusset Plate (0.07%)
Figure 5.6.5: Initial Yielding (Y1) of SW Beam/Col Connection (0.10%)
Yielding continues to increase at both northeast and southwest gusset plates. Long yield lines
running parallel to the south beam to gusset weld were observed at -0.22% drift as shown in
Figure 5.6.6. Figure 5.6.7 shows initial yielding (Y1) of the south beam web which is seen the
following cycle at 0.14% drift.
101
Figure 5.6.6: Yield Lines Parallel to South Beam Interface Weld
Figure 5.6.7: Initial Yielding (Y1) of South Beam Web (0.14%)
At 0.17% drift, initial yielding (Y1) of the north beam web was observed running parallel to the
gusset interface welds and extending approximately 5 in. as shown in Figure 5.6.8. Initial yielding
(Y1) of the northeast and southwest gusset plate reentrant corners at the column was observed at
-0.34% drift. Yielding at the southwest gusset reentrant corner adjacent to the end plate
connected to the column is shown in Figure 5.6.9. Out-of-plane displacement of the brace
center in buckling exceeded the 2% of the total brace length (B1) at a drift of -0.40%.
102
Figure 5.6.8: Initial Yielding (Y1) of North Beam Web (0.17%)
Figure 5.6.9: Initial Yielding (Y1) at SW Gusset to Column Reentrant Corner (-0.34%)
Moderate yielding (Y3) of the northeast gusset plate could be observed at 0.35% drift. The
gusset plate has exhibited yielding across most of its surface and yield lines can be seen extending
from behind the brace end to the free edges in Figure 5.6.10. At drift -0.79%, initial yielding
(Y1) at the northeast gusset plate beam reentrant corner was observed.
103
Figure 5.6.10: Y3 of the NE Gusset Plate (0.35%)
The top bolt from the middle row of the southwest connection and the bottom bolt from the
middle row of the northeast connection fractured (BS) in tension at 0.36% drift. Figure 5.6.11a
shows the location of the bolt fracture for the southwest end plate connection. The fracture
occurred in the bolt rows that most closely follow the line of the brace as it intersects the
beam/column work point. Figure 5.6.11b shows the failure plane of the bolts in the reduced
section of the threads with no shear deformation which is typical of a bolt tension failure. While
tensile bolt fracture is clearly a failure mode of the connection, this bolt fracture did not limit the
resistance and deformation capacity of the frame and the connection. The bolts were not
replaced, and the test was continued.
Beam
Gusset
Plate
a) Bolt Fracture Location
b) Tensile Fracture of Bolts
Figure 5.6.11: Bolt Fracture of SW Beam End Plate Connection (0.36%)
104
Also at 0.36% drift, the total brace elongation has exceeded 0.2% signifying moderate yielding
(Y3) over its entire length. Figure 5.6.12 shows yielding of the southwest gusset plate which has
also increased to the moderate level covering most of the surface at this drift. Out-of-plane
displacement of the brace center at -0.79% drift had increased greater than 5 in. (B2) as shown in
Figure 5.6.13. Initial yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset plate beam reentrant corner was also
observed at this negative drift level.
Figure 5.6.12: Y3 of SW Gusset Plate (0.36%)
105
5.6.3
Initial yielding of the southwest beam flange was observed at -1.06 drift along the gusset
interface weld. Initial yielding of the north beam flange at the southern extreme bolt rows was
observed at 0.56% drift. This is shown in Figure 5.6.14. Yielding of the south beam web at the
south edge of the beam to end plate weld was also observed at this drift.
Figure 5.6.14: Y1 of NE Column Flange (0.56%)
A number of damage observations were documented at 0.86% drift. Figure 5.6.15a and Figure
5.6.15b show the concentration of yielding at the brace center resulting in flaking of the mill
scale and severe yielding (Y5) at the northeast gusset plate, respectively. Moderate yielding was
observed at the north beam flange at the end of the load beam. Yielding was also observed on
the flanges of both the east and west columns at their supports.
106
a) Yielding at Brace Center
b) Y5 at NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.6.15: Increased Yielding of Brace and NE Gusset Plate (0.86%)
5.6.4
Cupping and bulging of the plastic hinge could be observed at -2.13% drift and is shown in
Figure 5.6.16. The opening and closing moments also increased the yielding for the northeast
and southwest columns. The inside flange of the northeast column is shown yielded at 1.18%
drift in Figure 5.6.17a. The moderate yielding (Y3) of the southwest column outside flange is
shown in Figure 5.6.17b.
Figure 5.6.16: BC Damage at Brace Plastic Hinge (-2.13%)
107
a) Yielding of NE Inside Column Flange
b) Yielding of SW Outside Column Flange
Figure 5.6.17: Column Damage (-2.13/1.18%)
At 1.60% drift, yielding of the north beam flange adjacent to the gusset plate has increased to a
moderate level (Y3) as shown in Figure 5.6.18. Yielding has also increased at the northeast
column flange bolt holes as a result of the concentrated tensile forces from the extreme bolts as
the frame closes. The concentration of yielding can be seen in Figure 5.6.19.
Figure 5.6.18: Y3 at NE Beam Web (1.60%)
108
Figure 5.6.19: Yielding at Bolt Holes of NE Column Flange (1.60%)
Slight tearing of the brace at the plastic hinge could be seen in Figure 5.6.20 at the maximum
positive drift ratio achieved of 1.60%. A larger hole was present at the original location of the
tapped screw used to connect the out-of-plane displacement potentiometer. B3 level edge
buckling was observed at both the northeast and southwest gusset plates. Figure 5.6.21 shows
edge buckling of the northeast gusset plate.
Figure 5.6.20: Tearing of Brace at Plastic Hinge (1.60%)
109
Figure 5.6.21: B2 Edge Buckling of NE Gusset Plate (1.60%)
The level of deformation, cupping and bulging, of the plastic hinge at the minimum drift ratio
achieved of -2.55% is shown in Figure 5.6.22a. The brace fractured the next tension cycle at a
drift of 1.48%. The tear started at the bottom of the plastic hinge (at the tapped screw hole) and
propagated up and around the section. Figure 5.6.22b shows the fractured brace.
a) Plastic Hinge prior to Fracture (-2.55%)
b) Brace Fracture (1.48%)
Figure 5.6.22: Brace Plastic Hinge Damage and Failure
5.6.5
Specimen Summary
The overall performance of this specimen was positive in that the frame reached high drift levels,
4.14% total, and that the controlling failure mode was fracture of the brace at the plastic hinge.
The gusset plates both experience severe yielding over their entire surface equal to or great than
what was seen in previous test. But, no cracking of the interface welds was observed as seen
110
before. Figure 5.6.23a and Figure 5.6.23b show the condition of the northeast and southwest
gusset plates at the end of the test. This level of yielding is more than what was typically seen in
previous test with 3/8 in. rectangular gusset plates.
a) NE Gusset Plate
b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.6.23: Gusset Plate Damage at End of Test
The frame elements, on the other hand, exhibited much less damage than previous tests.
Moderate yielding was observed at the north beam web but only slight yielding was observed at
the south beam web and at either beams flanges. The southwest column saw the most yielding
but still experienced no inelastic deformation as typically seen at the completion of prior tests.
By not transferring yielding from the gusset to the frame elements, the 1 in. thick end plate
connection is not maximizing the full potential ductility of the beam and columns in order to
increase the total drift capacity of the system.
Potentiometers were places at the southwest connection to monitor movement between the
beam end plate and the face of the column. The prying at the north and south of the plate is
plotted over drift and shown in Figure 5.6.24a and Figure 5.6.24b, respectively. The rotation of
the end plate with respect to the column face is plotted in Figure 5.6.25. This is not the same as
the rotation of the entire beam to column connection because it does not account for rotation of
the beam related to the end plate.
111
a) Prying at North Edge of SW End Plate
b) Prying at South Edge of SW End Plate
Figure 5.6.24: Southwest End Plate Prying
Figure 5.6.25: Southwest End Plate Rotation at Column
The 14 in. A490 bolts used for the beam end plate connections was a reduced configuration
and did not effectively withstand the demands from the brace forces and the opening and closing
moments on the frame. Significant consideration was given to the demands of the extreme line
of bolts resisting the connection moment during the design but the tension force in the brace
was assumed to be distributed evenly over all the bolts. This is a simplified approach and did not
correlate with what resulted during the test. The fracture of the bolts in the center row at both
the northeast and southwest connections shows greater demand on the bolts closets to the
center line of the brace to transfer the axial load to the frame elements. Accurately modeling
bolt group behavior is a difficult engineering problem and would be helpful in further
understanding the stress and strain demands for this type of bolted connection.
112
5.7
5.7.1
HSS-20: 18 Bolt Beam End Plate Connection

Specimen Overview
Specimen HSS-20 utilized an 18 bolt configuration of in. A490 bolts for the beam end plate
connection to the columns. Figure 5.7.1 shows the detail of the beam to column connection.
The members were fabricated by Canron Western Constructors in Portland, OR and erected at
the UW Structures Lab. As stated in the previous section, this test was completed before HSS21 but is discuss in a later section in order to be able to reference photos of similar damage and
behavior when necessary.
The design was proposed by Tom Schafly with AISC and Tim Fraser of CANRON to evaluate
the performance of the connection and its influence to the overall performance of the system.
The same 3/8 in. thick gusset plate with 6.8t elliptical clearance was used connected to the 1 in.
thick end plate and the beam with 7/16 in. fillet welds. The beam is welded to the end plate only
at the web and not the flange.
HSS-20 was tested April 20, 2007 and failed during the 35th cycle. The specimen ultimately failed
due to brace fracture at the plastic hinge. A maximum and minimum drift of 1.69% and -2.28
were achieved for a total range of 3.97%. The maximum and minimum lateral loads resisted by
the frame were 321.5 kip and -187.7 kip for total range of 509.2 kip. Figure 5.7.2 shows the
HSS-20 frame drift history during the test and Figure 5.7.3 is a plot of the hysteretic behavior.
113
Table 5.7.1 shows peak results from the HSS-20. The performance section was created using the
written observations from the test and the recorded data. Photo documentation has always been
one of the most effective and important instrumentation tools in recording the behavior of the
test specimen. Without it, relating the drift ranges to exactly when damage occurred loses its
accuracy. Photos are also extremely valuable for reexamining the tests at a later date which
114
almost always results in the reviewer noticing behavior or damage that was not documented on
the day of the test. However, photographic data is not available for this test, because the files
containing the photos were not back up and inadvertently loss with a crashed hard drive.
HSS-20
Drift
Range
Initial
Moderate
Severe
5.7.2
Cycle
From To
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Drift Ratio
Min Max Range
-0.07 0.09 0.15
-0.08 0.15 0.23
-0.09 0.22 0.30
-0.10 0.28 0.38
-0.13 0.34 0.47
-0.22 0.38 0.60
-0.31 0.41 0.72
23
24
-0.60 0.48
1.08
25
27
29
26
28
30
-0.78 0.53
-1.20 0.76
-1.56 1.07
1.32
1.96
2.63
31
32
-1.94 1.39
3.34
33
35
34
35
-2.28 1.69
1.89
3.97
-
Performance
Load (kips)
Brace
Gusset Plates
Beams
Columns
Min Max Comp Tens
Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
-73.9 72.3
Y1-SWGE
-114.0 103.7
YI-NEGE
Y1-SWCF
-145.7 127.0
-170.7 152.2
-181.2 179.2
Y1-SWGC
Y1-SWBW
-181.9 203.9 B1
Y1-NEGC
Y1-NEBW
-179.0 221.0
Y1-SWGB, Y3-NEG,
NEGB
SWG
-176.7 256.4 B2
Y3
Y1-NEBF,
SWBF
-175.8 276.3
-183.5 304.5
Y1-NLB
-187.3 318.8
Y1-NECF
Y5-NEG,
SWG; B1NEGB
-187.7 321.5 BC
Y1-NECW
B2-NEG,
Y3-SWCF;
SWG
-182.7 320.5
B1-NECF B1-SWCF
164.2
BF
Initial yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset plate at the brace end was observed at 0.09% drift.
The lateral force resisted in the frame was 72.3 kip. Slight buckling upward of the brace was
noticed during the first compression cycle at a drift -0.06%. Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast
gusset plate at the brace end occurred at a drift of 0.15% and the yielding of the southwest gusset
plate increased. Yielding of the southwest column flange (Y1) at the extreme southern bolt hole
was also observed at this drift level. A concussion was heard through the frame at -0.08% drift
but the exact location was unknown. The concussion could possibly be from slip at either bolted
end plate connection as the shear force in the beam to column connection exceeds the frictional
resistance of the pretensioned bolts.
Slight yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset plate column reentrant corner was observed at 0.13% drift. Initial yield lines were observed running parallel to the gusset interface weld on the
southwest beam web at 0.34% drift.
At 0.38% drift, yielding of both gusset plates has increased slightly and yield line were observed
at all of the southwest column flange bolts holes for the southwest end plate connection. Initial
yielding (Y1) the north beam web was also seen. Out-of-plane displacement of the brace center
115
in buckling exceeded the 2% of the brace length (B1) at -0.22% drift as well as initial yielding
(Y1) of the northeast gusset plate column reentrant corner.
Moderate yielding (Y3) of the brace in tension was calculated as occurring at 0.48% when the
brace elongation exceeded 0.2% of the length. Moderate yielding (Y3) of the northeast and
southwest gusset plate was achieved at this drift. Documentation states that yield lines are
extending from the brace end to the area between the brace and the interface welds, covering the
majority of the gusset plate surfaces. The brace buckled out-of-plane further than 5 in. (B2) the
ensuing compression cycle at a drift of -0.60%. The large displacement as brace buckles
adherently resulted in larger rotational demands of the gusset connections and high
concentration of stress at the reentrant corners. Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast and
southwest gusset plate beam reentrant corners was also observed at this negative drift.
5.7.3
Slight yielding (Y1) was observed at -0.78% drift on the beam flanges at the ends of the
northeast and southwest beam interface welds. Initial yielding of the north beam flange at the
end of the load beam from the couple created by the eccentricity between the actuator and the
north beam center lines was observed at 0.76% drift. Yielding was also observed at the column
supports for the east and west column bases. Local yielding of the column flanges is occurring
as the axial load in the columns increases due to overturning.
5.7.4
The yielding of the gusset plates continued to increase. Yield lines are running parallel and
perpendicular to the column and beam interface welds and concentrating along the beam
interface welds. Initial yielding of the northeast column flanges occurred around the two
furthest north and south end plate bolts holes at 1.07% drift. The buckled shape of the brace
has become more linear and is clear hinge is forming at the center.
Gusset plate yielding at northeast and southwest connections has increase to severe (Y5) at a
drift of 1.39%. Edge plate buckling of the northeast gusset was observed perpendicular to the
north beam flange. Yielding occurred at the northeast column at the south of the end plate
connection with yield lines flaring out from the edge of the end plate on the inside flange face
and extending into the web. Similar yielding is shown in Figure 5.7.4. Local deformation of the
plastic hinge (BC) could be seen in the form of cupping at the underside and bulging of vertical
sides of the brace section at a drift of -2.13%.
116
Figure 5.7.4: Y1 at NE Column Inside Flange (1.39%)
Moderate yielding (Y3) was observed at the outside flange of the southwest column at 1.69%
drift. Yield line covered the entire flange and has extended into the web. Significant edge plate
buckling (B2) was also observed at the northeast and southwest gusset connections deflecting
greater than the thickness of the plate. Local deformation was could be seen on the inside
flanges of the northeast and southwest columns at a drift of -2.28/1.69% in line with the edge of
the end plates. The 1 in. thick end plates are significantly stiffer than the column flanges and the
edges appeared to be acting as a leverage points during the opening and closing of the frame and
resulting in local damage in this area.
The local deformation of the plastic hinge was extremely severe at the minimum drift of -2.28%.
The surface of the tube was actually warm to the touch from the level of yielding exhibited by
the section. The brace fracture at the plastic hinge the following cycle. Necking of the brace
section could be observed immediately before tearing started from the underside of the section
and propagated up and around.
5.7.5
Specimen Summary
The specimen performed well in that the controlling failure mode was fracture at the plastic
hinge and yielding was distributed through the gusset plate and into the framing elements. Also,
no cracking of the gusset interface welds was observed. Specimen HSS-20 achieved slightly
lower drift levels than HSS-21, 3.97% compared to 4.14%. Although the total range of
resistance for HSS-20 and HSS-21 were approximately the same, 509.2 and 511.3 kip
117
respectively, frame resistance varied directionally between the two tests. HSS-20 minimum
resistance while the brace was in compression was -187.7 kip while for HSS-20, the specimen
resistance was significantly less (12.8%) at -163.7 kip. The maximum frame resistance with the
brace in tension was larger (7.5%) for HSS-21, 347.6 kip compared to 321.5 kip. Further
comparison of the two tests is included in Chapter 6.
The stiffness of the 1 in. beam end plate limited the frames ability to transfer yielding from the
gusset plate to the web of the column. Although some yielding of the columns was observed,
this connection does not capitalize on the potential ductility of column as seen on the beams.
This connection shows excellent potential for constructability and performance. It would be
worthwhile to look deeper into bolted end plate connections analytically to better understand the
behavior in this type of SCBF. Test parameters related directly to this connection including end
plate thickness, other bolt configurations, and the use of washers as spacers between the end
plate and the column flange face would be useful in determining the maximum achievable
performance for frames with bolted end plate connections. The use of washers as spacers is
shown in Figure 5.7.5 and is thought to help reduce local damage plate edge by creating a gap
and eliminating a pinching point. Yielding would be more evenly distributed over the column
from the opening and closing moments in the frame.
Figure 5.7.5: Bolted End Plate Connection with Spacing Washers
118
5.8
5.8.1
HSS-22: Tapered Gusset Plate, Unwelded Frame Connection

Specimen Overview
This specimen is similar to HSS-18 in that is uses simple shear tab connection rather than fully
welded beam to column connection adjacent to the gusset plate. Significant material and labor is
required for the fully welded beam to column moment connections used for SCBFs. The AISC
Seismic Provisions does not require a moment connection adjacent to the gusset plate but it has
become the trend of design engineers in major seismic hazard zone to incorporate this
connection for increased stiffness and robustness within the system. Similar to HSS-18,
Specimen HSS-22 was chosen to evaluate the effects of eliminating the fully welded beam
column connection on the overall performance of the system.
The gusset plate thickness and geometry is identical to what was previously tested in HSS-17
(Kotulka 2007). The plate was 3/8 in. thick and uses an 8t elliptical clearance. The 3/8 in. fillet
interface welds were sized to develop the full plastic capacity of the gusset plate. Figure 5.8.1
shows the connection detail for the specimen. Tapered gusset plates have performed well in past
test and have been able to achieve high total drift ranges up to 4.8%. Interface weld damage can
be a major concern because the tapered shape results in a shorter weld length.
119
Specimen HSS-22 was tested August 1, 2007. The specimen failed due to brace fracture at the
plastic hinge while going to peak positive displacement of the 35th cycle. The maximum and
minimum drift ratios achieved were 1.49% and -2.48% for a total drift range of 3.97%. The
frame resisted a maximum and minimum lateral load of 301.8 kip and -132.8 kip for a total range
of 434.6 kip. Figure 5.8.2 shows the actual displacement history for the test. The load verses
drift ratio hysteretic behavior is shown in Figure 5.8.3.
120
The performance of the specimen is summarized in Table 5.8.1 showing peak results for drift
ratio, lateral load, and damage. The controlling failure mode was fracture of the brace and
yielding extending beyond the brace and into the gussets. Severe yielding and interface weld
cracking was exhibited but very little yielding was observed in the framing elements.
HSS-22
Cycle
Drift
Range From
1
7
9
11
Initial
17
19
21
23
25
27
Moderate
29
31
Drift Ratio
To
6
8
10
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Min
-0.08
-0.12
-0.16
-0.21
-0.22
-0.25
-0.31
-0.50
-0.70
-1.11
30
32
-1.46 1.02
-1.86 1.21
Load (kips)
Max Range Min

0.07 0.15 -68.0
0.11 0.22 -99.3
0.13 0.29 -122.6
0.17 0.38 -134.5
0.25 0.47 -135.4
0.35 0.60 -132.6
0.42 0.73 -127.8
0.52 1.02 -126.0
0.61 1.31 -125.9
0.79 1.90 -130.1
2.48
3.08
Brace
Max Comp Tens
65.9
101.8
132.4
162.9
185.3
208.6 B1
226.9
245.7 B2
261.5
Y3
287.7
-132.8 298.2
-131.4 297.3
5.8.2
34
-2.48 1.50
1.38
3.97
-
Columns
Comp
Tens
Y1-NEGE
Y1-SWG
Y1-SWGE
Y1-NEGB
Y1-SWGB
WD-SWGC
WD-SWGB,
NEGC, NEGB
Y1-NEGC
Y1-NEBF
Y3-NEG
B1-NEGB
Y3-SWG
Y1-NLBF
BC
Y1-SWCF
Y5-NEG, SWG;
B1-NEGC,
SWGB, SWGC
Severe
33
Performance
Gusset Plates
Beams
Comp
Tens
Comp Tens
-125.2 301.8
171.0
BF
Initial Drift Ranges: 0% to 1.25%
Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast gusset plate occurred at 0.11% drift with the brace in
tension. The resistance in the frame was 101.8 kip when small yielding lines were observed at
the brace end as shown in Figure 5.8.4. Slight upward buckling of the brace could be observed
at -0.12% drift. Yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset plate was observed at 0.13% drift. Figure
5.8.5 shows small yield lines south of the brace to gusset welds of the southwest gusset plate
connection.
121
Figure 5.8.4: Y1 of NE Gusset Plate (0.11%)
Figure 5.8.5: Y1 of SW Gusset Plate (0.13%)
Yielding of the northeast gusset plate increased at 0.17% drift exhibiting long multidirectional
yield lines extending from the brace end to towards the beam and column interface welds. Initial
yielding was also observed at the brace end of the southwest gusset plate. Figure 5.8.6 shows the
increased yielding of the northeast gusset plate at this drift.
122
Figure 5.8.6: Increased Yielding of NE Gusset Plate (0.17%)
At 0.35% drift, initial yielding (Y1) was observed at the column reentrant corner of the northeast
gusset plate. Initial yielding (Y1) was also observed on the northeast beam flange at the gusset
reentrant corner. Figure 5.8.7 shows the yielding at the column reentrant corner. The out-ofplane displacement of the brace as it buckled in compression exceeded the 2% (B1) of the brace
length at a drift of -0.25%. The slight arching of the buckled brace is shown in Figure 5.8.8.
Figure 5.8.7: Y1 at NE Gusset to Column Reentrant Corner (0.35%)
123
Figure 5.8.8: B1 Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.25%)
Yielding was observed on the northeast and southwest gusset plates along the column interface
welds at 0.42% drift. Figure 5.8.9a and Figure 5.8.9b shows the yield lines stretching from the
beam/column intersection corners out toward the column reentrant corners of the northeast and
southwest gusset plates, respectively. At -0.31% drift, initial yielding (Y1) was observed on the
northeast gusset plate at the beam reentrant corner and yielding increased at the column
reentrant corner. Residual out-of-plane deformation of the brace could be seen after the frame
was returned to the original zero point which would indicate axial lengthening of the brace in
tension.
a) NE Gusset Plate Yielding
b) SW Gusset Plate Yielding
Figure 5.8.9: Yielding along Column Interface Welds (0.42%)
Yielding of the northeast gusset plate increased with yielding extending over most of the surface
(Y3) at 0.52% drift. The multidirectional yield lines can be seen in Figure 5.8.10 running parallel
124
to the framing elements and crossing behind the brace end. Yielding also increase on the
southwest gusset place, most notably along the gusset to south beam interface weld. Initial
yielding (Y1) was noted at the north beam flange at the end of the load beam from the
concentrated moment created by the eccentricity of the actuator and the beam. The out-of-plane
displacement of the buckled brace at -0.50% drift reached over 5 in. and is shown in Figure
5.8.11. Initial yielding (Y1) was also observed at the southwest gusset to beam reentrant corner.
Figure 5.8.10: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (0.52%)
Figure 5.8.11: B2 Buckled Shape of Brace (-0.50%)
125
5.8.3
Moderate Drift Ranges: 1.25% to 2.75%
The calculation for elongation of the brace indicates that the total elongation reached 0.2% at a
drift of 0.61%. The yielding of both gusset plates continued to increase along the interface welds
and in the beam/column intersection corner. Slight edge buckling of the northeast column
along the beam side was also observed. During the opening moment in the frame at -0.70%,
rotation of the northeast shear tab connection could be observed visually.
Yielding of the southwest gusset plate increased to moderate level (Y3) at 0.79% drift. Figure
5.8.12 shows the yield lines covering the majority of the plate and concentrating in the
beam/column intersection corner and along the welds. At -1.11% drift, the buckled shape of the
brace in compression was becoming more linear and forming a hinge at the center as shown in
Figure 5.8.13. Initial cracking was also observed in the plane between the base metal and weld
material at the southwest column reentrant corner. Figure 5.8.14 shows the initiation of cracking
at this location.
Figure 5.8.12: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (0.79%)
126
Figure 5.8.14: WD at SW Column Reentrant Corner (-1.11%)
Large out-of-plane rotation of the gusset plates was occurring as the brace buckled at -1.46%
drift. As the gusset plate rotates, high stress concentrations occur at the ends of the gusset
interface welds. Initial cracking was observed at both northeast gusset plate reentrant corners
and in the beam reentrant corner of the southwest gusset plate. The crack at the column
reentrant corner of the southwest connection propagated to approximately 3/8 in. as shown in
Figure 5.8.15. All cracking observed is in the heat affect zone (HAZ) of the base metal.
127
Figure 5.8.15: WD SW Gusset to Column Interface Weld Cracking (-1.46%)
5.8.4
Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75%
Initial yielding of the southwest column flange reentrant corner occurred at 1.21% drift. Overall,
very little yielding has been observed to the framing elements considering the total drift range
has reached 3.08%. The yielding that has been observed is only located at the column flanges
adjacent to gusset plate reentrant corners. As the brace buckled at -1.86% drift, slight plastic
deformation of the brace center was noted in the form of cupping on the underside and bulging
at the vertical sides of the section. Figure 5.8.16a and Figure 5.8.16b show the deformation of
the plastic hinge from above and below.
a)
b)
Figure 5.8.16: Damage at SW Gusset Plate Welds (-1.86%)
128
Propagation of the weld cracks at all locations was also observed at -1.86% drift. The crack
length for the southwest gusset to column weld was approximately 7/8 in. and 5/8 in. for the
gusset to beam weld as shown in Figure 5.8.17a and Figure 5.8.17b respectively. The cracks
lengths for the northeast gusset to column and gusset to beam welds were both in. and shown
in Figure 5.8.18a and Figure 5.8.18b, respectively.
a) Column Reentrant Corner
b) Beam Reentrant Corner
Figure 5.8.17: Damage at Southwest Gusset Plate Welds (-1.86%)
Figure 5.8.18: Damage at NE Gusset Welds (-1.86%)
Tearing of the underside of the brace starting at the tap location of the out-of-plane
displacement string potentiometer attachment was observed at the maximum positive drift
achieved of 1.49%. Figure 5.8.19 shows the small tearing at the edges of the tubes section and
the larger hole where the material was tapped to set the 0.11 in. diameter attachment screw.
With the brace in 301.8 kip of tension, necking of the brace could be clearly seen at the hinge as
129
Figure 5.8.19: Tearing of Brace at Plastic Hinge (1.49%)
Figure 5.8.20: Necking of Brace at Hinge (1.49%)
The yielding of both the northeast and the southwest gusset plates increased to severe (Y5).
Yielding was extensive and uniform for nearly the entire surface of the plates from the brace to
the interface welds as shown in Figure 5.8.21a and Figure 5.8.21b. Large rotation could be
observed at the northeast beam to column shear tab connection. The inside flange of the north
beam was binding on the inside flange of the east column at the frame reached the peak
maximum drift of 1.48%. The pinching at the beam/column intersection corner of the
northeast gusset plate closed caused local deformation in the form of a bulge in the gusset plate.
Local buckling of all the gusset plate edges (B1) was also observed.
130
a) NE Gusset Plate
b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.8.21: Y5 of Gusset Plate (1.48%)
The local deformation at the brace plastic hinge increased to severe (BC) during the final
successful compression cycle at -2.48% drift. Figure 5.8.22 shows the extent of the local
deformation prior to failure the following tension cycle. The crack at the southwest gusset to
column propagated to approximately 1 in. as shown in Figure 5.8.23. The northeast gusset to
column and gusset to beam weld cracks propagated to approximately 1 in. and 1 in. Figure
5.8.24 clearly shows the cracks within the HAZ of the base metal at both locations.
Figure 5.8.22: Local Deformation (BC) of Brace (-2.48%)
131
Figure 5.8.23: SW Gusset to Column Interface Weld Crack (-2.48%)
Figure 5.8.24: Damage at NE Gusset Welds (-2.48%)
Initial yielding of the inside face of the southwest column outer flange opposite the gusset plate
was observed and is shown in Figure 5.8.25. This is the only frame yielding observed beside the
small yield lines observed directly adjacent to the gusset plate reentrant corners at the northeast
beam and southwest column.
132
a) Inside Face of Column Outer Flange
b) Outside Face of Column Outer Flange
Figure 5.8.25: Y1 of SW Column (-2.48%)
The brace fractured (BF) the next tension cycle at 1.38% drift and 171.0 kip resisted by the
frame. Figure 5.8.26 shows the fractured brace which unusually tore along a diagonal line across
the tube section. The residual deformation of the gusset plates after failure shown in Figure
5.8.27a and Figure 5.8.27b was severe. A section of the fractured brace was removed and two
additional cycles were complete to evaluate the stiffness of the frame without the brace.
133
Figure 5.8.26: BF of the Brace Center (1.38%)
a) NE Gusset Plate Connection
a) SW Gusset Plate Connection
Figure 5.8.27: Residual Deformation of Gusset Plate after Brace Fracture (1.38%)
5.8.5
Specimen Summary
This specimen exhibited weld cracking and severe yielding to the gusset plates while experiencing
little to no yielding of the framing elements. The balance design approach discussed in Chapter
4 is intended to distribute desirable yielding from the brace to the gusset plates and to the
framing elements in order to maximum the ductility of the system. HSS-22 was unable to
capitalize on the potential ductility within the framing elements and concentrated inelastic
deformation and energy dissipation to the brace a gusset plates. Even though the controlling
failure mode of the system was brace fracture at the plastic hinge, the amount of damage at the
welds and severity of the gusset yielding is not encouraging.
Additional instrumentation was added to monitor specific behavior for the shear plate beam-tocolumn connection adjacent to the gusset plate. The rotation of the northeast connection
adjacent to the gusset plate was monitored and shown in Figure 5.8.28. It was clear from the
134
observations that the beam was rotating with respects to the column shear tab connection at the
higher drift ranges. Figure 5.8.29 shows the rotation of the connection by the markings on the
whitewash and the binding of the inside beam flange against the inside column flange. The
tapered gusset plate adds less rotational stiffness than the rectangular geometry evaluated in HSS18. The larger rotational demands of the frame at these connections attributed to the increased
yielding of the gusset plates and the cracking observed at the reentrant corners.
Figure 5.8.28: NE Beam-to-Column Connection Rotation
Figure 5.8.29: NE Beam-to-Column Rotation (1.49%)
135
The stiffness of the fully welded connection also adds torsional resistance to the beam as the
gusset plate rotates out-of-plane to accommodate the displacement of the buckled brace. This
type of rotation could translate to the beams of a composite floor system causing considerable
damage to slab. Instrumentation was added to monitor the torsional rotation of the north beam
12 in. away from the column face. The plot shown in Figure 5.8.30 shows the peak torsional
rotations as the northeast gusset plate rotated. The rotations are small but are increasing. A
stiffer gusset plate configuration than the thin tapered plate used in HSS-22 would increase this
behavior.
Figure 5.8.30: NE Beam Torsion at Connection
5.9
5.9.1
WF-23: Wide-Flange Brace Section

Specimen Overview
Specimen WF-23 was selected to evaluate an alternate brace section other than the typical
HSS5x5x3/8. A W6x25 wide-flange section was selected for its similar tension capacity but has a
lower expected compressive capacity. The material used to manufacture HSS tubes is carbon
steel under the ASTM designation A500 Gr. B. Experimental tests have shown that the cold
rolled A500 steel tubes do not perform well when subjected to nonlinear cyclic loading. Wideflange sections are thought to be a more ductile brace section and have a better tolerance to low
cycle fatigue. Wide-flange shapes are hot-rolled sections manufactured using high strength, low
alloy steel. Also because of the geometry of tubes, approximately 50% of the sectional area is
near the extreme fibers and it has a larger radius of gyration about both axes. Although this
136
geometry is ideal for elastic buckling, the material at the extreme ends experiences the highest
stresses and largest strains in the inelastic buckled state. Typically, initiation of cracking and
tearing of the brace occurs shortly after large strains and local deformation are exhibited at the
brace plastic hinge. Wide-flange sections have less material at the extreme edges when buckling
about the weak axis.
The connection detail was based on discussions with design engineers from Rutherford and
Chekene Structural Engineers in San Francisco, CA and is oriented to buckle out-of-plane about
its weak axis. The connection detail is shown in Figure 5.9.1. It consisted of a slotted extended
brace flanges and a brace web connected with splice plates. The web splice plates are designed
to account for the reduced net section due to the slots in the flanges. The 3/8 in. thick gusset
plate geometry utilizes an 8t elliptical clearance and the 3/8 in. interface fillet welds are sized to
develop the full plastic capacity of the plate. The beam to column connections adjacent to the
gusset plates are fully welded moment connections.
Specimen WF-23
Figure 5.9.1: WF-23 Connection Detail
WF-23 was tested September 25th, 2007 and was subjected to 41 cycles before failing
simultaneously due to fracture of northeast gusset interface welds and complete bolt fracture of
the northwest shear tab connection. The specimen achieved maximum and minimum story
drifts of, 2.35% and -3.21%, for a total drift range of 5.56%. The frame maximum and
minimum lateral resistance was 338.2 kip and -149.5 kip, for a total range of 487.7 kip. Figure
137
5.9.2 shows the actual frame displacement during the test cycles. The resulting hysteretic
behavior is plotted in Figure 5.9.3.
Figure 5.9.2: WF-23 Displacement History
Figure 5.9.3: WF-23 Hysteresis
Whitewash was used to assist in identifying yielding of the brace section for this test. The
nomenclature used to describe damage is similar for the wide flange brace section as for the
framing element described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. For example, initial yielding o the brace
flange at the northeast end of the brace would be labeled Y1-NEF under the brace section of the
138
performance summary in Table 5.9.1 below. Table 5.9.1 also shows the maximum and minimum
drift ratios, lateral forces resisted by the frame, and performance of components are all peak
values during the test.
Table 5.9.1: WF-23 Peak Results
HSS-23
Drift
Range
Initial
Moderate
Severe
Cycle
Load (kips)
From
1
To
6
Min
-0.06
Max Range Min

0.07 0.12 -69.5
-0.09
0.10
0.18
-99.4 112.1
9
11
17
10
16
18
-0.12
-0.18
-0.27
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.25
0.35
0.48
-120.8 141.0
-128.5 173.6
-121.0 193.9
19
21
23
25
20
22
24
26
-0.38
-0.49
-0.67
-0.83
0.24
0.29
0.40
0.53
0.62
0.78
1.07
1.36
-107.0
-100.0
-103.7
-109.1
27
28
-1.16
0.74
1.90
-121.8 291.7
Max
78.8
215.4
232.2
255.5
264.9
29
31
33
30
32
34
-1.48
-1.80
-2.15
0.98
1.23
1.48
2.47
3.02
3.63
-135.5 305.4
-141.5 316.5
-145.6 324.9
35
36
-2.49
1.77
4.26
-148.4 330.8
37
39
41
5.9.2
Drift Ratio
38
40
41
-2.86
-3.21
-
2.05
2.35
2.32
4.91
5.56
-
Brace
Comp
Tens
Performance
Gusset Plates
Beams
Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
Y1-NEGE
Columns
Comp
Tens
Y1-NEF,
SWF
Y1-NEF,
SWF
Y1
Y1-SWGE
Y1-NEGC
Y1-SWBW
B1;
Y3-BH
B2
Y1-NLBF
Y3
Y1-NEBW
Y1-NEBF
Y5-BH
-149.5 336.3
-137.3 338.2
243.5
Y1-NEGB, NEGC,
SWGB, SWGC
B1-NLBF
Y1-NECF
Y3-NEG; B1NEG, SWG

Y3-SWG
Y1-SWCF Y1-NECW
Y3-SWCF
WDB-NEGB,
NEGC, SWGC
SWD-NEGB
B2-NEG,
SWG
Y5-NEG,
SWG
Y1-SWCW;
B1-NECF
Y3-NECF
Y1-SEBW
B1-SWCF
Y3-NEBF Y3-NECW Y5-SWCF
WF-NEGB
Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast gusset plate at the brace end was observed after the first
cycle at 0.07% drift. A few small yield lines visible off the end of the south flange as shown in
Figure 5.9.4. Very slight upward buckling was noticed in the brace at -0.06% drift.
139
At 0.10% drift, initial yielding (Y1) of the brace was observed around each hole at the end of the
slotted flanges at the northeast and southwest brace ends connecting to the gusset plate. The
lateral force resisted by the frame at the initial yielding was 78.8 kip. Figure 5.9.5 shows an
example of the yielding at the north flange of the southwest brace to gusset plate connection.
Initial yielding of the northeast gusset plate was observed between the brace and the north beam
weld. A small amount of yielding was noticed approximately 6 in. away from the gusset edge on
the brace flanges while the brace was in compression at -0.08% drift. This can be seen in Figure
5.9.6a and occurs close to the end of the web slice plate. Initial yielding (Y1) was also noted on
the flange of the southwest brace end 2 in. inside the gusset plate as shown in Figure 5.9.6b.
Figure 5.9.5: Y1 at Brace Flange Reduced Section in Tension (0.10%)
a)
b)
Figure 5.9.6: Y1 of Brace Flange in Compression (-0.08%)
The yielding of the brace, along the north flange, approximately 6 in. off the gusset edge at the
140
northeast and southwest ends increased slightly at -0.12% drift. Initial yielding (Y1) of the brace
flange two inches inside the start of the northeast gusset plate, similar to that on the southwest
end, was observed. Figure 5.9.7 shows both of these types of yielding for the north flange at the
northeast brace end. Figure 5.9.8 shows the location of the yielding relative to the web splice
plate of the brace to gusset connection.
Figure 5.9.7: Yielding at NE Brace on Flange (0.12%)
Figure 5.9.8: View of Yielding at NE of Brace (0.12%)
Initial yielding (Y1) of the southwest gusset at the brace end and the southwest beam web
occurred at 0.16% drift. Initial yielding (Y1) of the lower edge of the brace flanges occurred as
the brace buckled at -0.18% drift. Figure 5.9.9 shows the buckled shape of the brace and the
yielding over the length. Increased yielding was observed at the brace ends for the northeast and
southwest gusset plates in compression. Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast beam flange at the
gusset plate reentrant corner was noted at -0.18% drift.
141
Figure 5.9.9: Y1 on the Lower Edge of the Brace Flange (-0.18%)
Yielding of the northeast gusset plate column reentrant corner was observed at 0.20% drift. The
yielding at the brace ends of the northeast and southwest gusset plates has increase at this
deformation as shown in Figure 5.9.10.
Figure 5.9.10: Yielding at NE Gusset Plate (0.20%)
At -0.27% drift, weak axis flexural yielding of the brace had increased. Yielding at the top edge
of the brace flanges and significantly more yielding along the bottom edge toward the center of
the brace was observed. Figure 5.9.11a and Figure 5.9.11b show the brace yielding and buckled
shape, respectively. Yielding at the northeast brace end has significantly increased as the gusset
plate rotated out-of-plane. A concentrated yield pattern at the brace end of the gusset plate is
142
a) Brace Yielding
b) Brace Buckled Shape

Figure 5.9.11: Brace Condition (-0.27%)
Figure 5.9.12: Gusset Plate Yielding at Northeast Brace End (-0.27%)
Initial yielding of the north beam flange at the end of the load beam was noted at 0.24% drift.
The out-of-plane displacement of 3.95 in. at the brace center exceeded 2% of the brace length
(B1) at -0.38% drift. Moderate Yielding (Y3) concentrated at the brace center was observed as
the buckled shape began to look more linear. Figure 5.9.13 shows the yielding of the brace
center at -0.38% drift. This yielding is designated in the performance portion of Table 5.9.1 as
Y3-BH, for moderate yielding at the brace hinge.
143
Figure 5.9.13: Y3 at Brace Center (-0.38%)
Out-of-plane brace buckling exceeded 5 in. at -0.49% drift displacing 5.14 in. (B2). The yielding
at the brace center continued to increase and hinging could be seen in the buckled shape. Figure
5.9.14 shows the buckled shape of the brace in compression.
Figure 5.9.14: B2 Buckled Brace Shape (-0.49%)
Instrumentation monitoring the brace elongation indicated that the brace elongation exceeded
0.2% at 0.40% drift and tensile yielding had clearly occurred. The total brace elongation was 0.35
in. over the brace length, gusset edge to gusset edge, of 132 11/16 in.. Very slight yielding (Y1)
was also observed at the northeast beam web running parallel to the gusset plate interface weld at
0.40% drift.
144
5.9.3
Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast beam flange approximately 5 in. from the face of the
column and at the beam reentrant corner was observed at -0.83% drift. Yielding of the brace
center has increased to severe (Y5) and is covering both the brace flanges and web. Figure 5.9.15
shows the yielding of the brace center at -0.83% drift.
Figure 5.9.15: Y5 at Brace Center (-0.83%)
At 0.74% drift, both gusset plates increased yielding. Multidirectional yield lines extended from
the brace ends at both the northeast and southwest locations. Initial yielding of the northeast
column flange at the gusset reentrant corner and increased yielding at the northeast beam flange
at the gusset reentrant corner are shown in Figure 5.9.16a and Figure 5.9.16b. Very slight
yielding of the southwest beam inside flange approximately 5 in. from the west column face was
noted.
145
a) Northeast Column
b) Northeast Beam
Figure 5.9.16: Y1 at NE Column and Beam Flanges (0.74%)
At -1.59% drift, the couple created by the eccentricity of the actuator from the beam caused local
deformation of the north beam flange and yielding across the beam web. Yielding was also
observed at the load beam bolts of the north beam flange. As the out-of-plane rotation of the
gusset plates due to brace buckling increased, initial yielding of both reentrant corners of the
southwest and northeast gusset connection occurred. Increased yielding of the column flange at
the northeast gusset reentrant corner was also observed. Figure 5.9.17 shows the yielding of the
northeast gusset reentrant corners at -1.16% drift.
a) Northeast Beam Reentrant Corner
b) Northeast Column Reentrant
Corner Corners (-1.16%)

Figure 5.9.17: Y1 at NE Gusset Reentrant
Yielding increased over the majority of the surface of the northeast gusset plate at 0.98% drift.
Moderate yielding (Y3) was concentrated at the brace end but extended to the reentrant corners
and along the gusset to brace welds as shown in Figure 5.9.18. Local buckling (B1) of all the
146
gusset plate edges was observed at 0.98% drift. Yielding also increase over the southwest gusset
plate and at the northeast column inside flange at the reentrant corner. Slight initial yielding (Y1)
was noted at the northeast column web adjacent to the fully welded beam web connection.
Initial yielding (Y1) at the outside flange of the southwest column occurred at -1.48% frame
drift. Figure 5.9.19 shows the yielding opposite the gusset edge on the outside face of the
southwest column flange. The yielding at the center of the brace was concentrated over an
approximate 18 in. length as shown in Figure 5.9.20. Yielding also increased at all of the gusset
plate reentrant corners.
Figure 5.9.19: Y1 at SW Column (-1.48%)
147
Figure 5.9.20: Yielding at Brace Center (-1.48%)
5.9.4
Yielding of the southwest gusset plate increased to moderate (Y3) at 1.23% drift. Figure 5.9.21
shows yield lines covering the majority of the plate from the brace end extending to the reentrant
corners and along the gusset to brace welds. Yielding also increased at the northeast gusset plate.
Local deformation of the brace center was observed in the form of pinching at the top edges of
the flanges and flaring out at the bottom edges.
Figure 5.9.21: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (1.23%)
Local edge buckling of the gusset plate edges also increased as the opening and closing moment
at the beam/column connection increased at these higher drifts. Figure 5.9.22 shows edge
buckling of the southwest gusset plate column edge. Significant rotations of the northwest and
southeast shear tabs connections were also observed at 1.23% drift.
148
Figure 5.9.22: Edge Buckling at SW Gusset Plate (1.23%)
Yielding of the framing elements increased at -1.80% drift. The yielding at the outside flange of
the southwest column increased and is shown in Figure 5.8.24. The northeast column flange
adjacent to the gust reentrant corner exhibited increased yielding and yield line running
perpendicular to the length of the column were observed in the web. Yielding of the east
column support was observed at the completion of the cycle at drifts -1.80% and 1.23%.
Figure 5.9.23: SW Column Yielding (-1.80%)
Increased yielding of northeast beam and column inside flanges are shown in Figure 5.9.24a and
Figure 5.9.24b at 1.48% drift, respectively. The yielding at both locations extends over the full
width of the flange at the gusset plate reentrant corners. Initial yielding was observed at the
southwest column inside flange intersecting with the inside flange of the south beam. Figure
5.9.25 shows yielding at the fully welded beam flange.
149
a) Northeast Beam
b) Northeast Column
Figure 5.9.24: NE Frame Yielding (1.48%)
Figure 5.9.25: Y1 at SW Column/Beam Connection (1.48%)
Increase yielding of the northeast column web was also observed at 1.48% drift. Figure 5.9.26
shows the pattern of yielding with lines running perpendicular to the length of the column.
Yielding was also noted at inside face of the southwest beam inside flange as shown in Figure
5.9.27.
150
Figure 5.9.26: NE Column Web Yielding (1.48%)
Figure 5.9.27: SW Beam Flange Yielding (1.48%)
The outside flange of the southwest column flange significantly increased to a moderate damage
state (Y3) at -2.15% drift. Figure 5.9.28 shows clear V shaped yielding at the inside face of the
outside flange of the southwest column opposite the edge of the gusset plate.
151
Figure 5.9.28: Y3 at SW Column (-2.15%)
All the described damage below occurred at 1.77% drift. Moderate level edge buckling (B2) was
observed at all four gusset plate edges. The local out-of-plane buckling greater than the
thickness of the plate is shown in Figure 5.9.29. Yielding of the southwest column web
increased adjacent to the beam web and gusset plate welds. Figure 5.9.30a and Figure 5.9.30b
shows this yielding and the increased yielding of the northeast column web. In both cases, the
yield lines are running perpendicular to the length of the column. Local deformation of the
northeast column inside flange was observed and is shown in Figure 5.9.31. Also, it was
observed that the top flanges at the center of the brace remained buckled inward while the brace
was in tension.
Figure 5.9.29: B2 Edge Buckling at SW Gusset Plate (1.77%)
152
a) SW Column
b) NE Column
Figure 5.9.30: Column Web Yielding (1.77%)
Figure 5.9.31: NE Column Deformation (1.77%)
Yielding at the northeast column inside flange increase to moderate level (Y3) and extended into
the column web at -2.49%. Figure 5.8.34a and 5.8.34b show the yielding at the northeast column
flange and web located at the edge of the gusset plate. Binding of the south beam inside flange
against the southeast column inside flange was noted due to the rotation of the southeast shear
tab connection.
153
a) Column Flange
b) Column Web
Figure 5.9.32: Y3 at NE Column (-2.49%)
Yielding of the northeast and southwest gusset plates has increased to severe (Y5) at 2.05% drift.
Both plates experienced significant yielding over the entire surface and have wide spread yielding
in areas as shown in Figure 5.9.33a and Figure 5.9.33b. Local deformation of the northeast
column inside flange increased and initial deformation (B1) of the southwest column outside
flange was observed as shown in Figure 5.9.34. Buckling of the gusset plate edges also increased
with local deformation of the northeast gusset plate beam edge shown in Figure 5.9.35.
a) NE Gusset Plate
b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.9.33: Y5 of Gusset Plate (2.05%)
154
Figure 5.9.34: SW Column Deformation (2.05%)
Figure 5.9.35: Gusset Edge Plate Buckling (2.05%)
Cracking occurred at the interface welds as the gusset plates rotated to accommodate the out-ofplane displacement of the brace at -2.86% drift. The length of the crack at the northeast gusset
beam reentrant corner was approximately 2 in. and is shown in Figure 5.9.36a. Figure 5.9.36b
shows the crack at the column reentrant corner of the northeast gusset plate reaching
approximately 1 in. in length. A smaller crack of in. was observed at the southwest gusset
plate column reentrant corner. All of the cracks initiated at the plane between the weld material
and the base metal and propagated in the HAZ of the base material.
155
a) Beam Reentrant Corner
b) Column Reentrant Corner
Figure 5.9.36: Cracking (WD) at NE Gusset Plate Interface Welds (-2.86%)
Residual deformation of the brace center was observed as the brace was in tension at 2.35%
drift. Figure 5.9.37 shows brace center yielded and the pinching at the top edges of the flanges.
Yielding of the framing elements also increased. Both yielding and deformation of the southwest
column flange and web increased. The severe yielding (Y5) shown in Figure 5.9.38a and Figure
5.9.38b cover the full width of the flange and extend through the web. Yielding also increased at
the southwest beam/column moment connection on the flange of the inside column around the
CJP. This is shown in Figure 5.9.39.
Figure 5.9.37: Residual Deformation at Brace Center (2.35%)
156
a) Web and Inside Flange
b) Outside Flange
Figure 5.9.38: SW Column Damage (2.35%)
Figure 5.9.39: SW Beam/Column Moment Connection Yielding (2.35%)
Gusset plate edge deformation increased at 2.35% drift at all four locations. Yielding of the
southwest beam inside flange increased to cover a significant area around the gusset plate
reentrant corner. The yielding in the web of the northeast column increased to a moderate level
(Y3) and is shown in Figure 5.9.40.
157
Figure 5.9.40: Y3 at NE Column Web (2.35%)
A peak minimum drift of -3.21% was achieved prior to failure the following tension cycle. All
the descriptions below occurred at this drift. Yielding of the northeast column increased and
extended to the outside flange face of the section. The gusset plate interface weld damage
increased as the gusset rotated and the brace buckled. The northeast gusset plate to beam weld
propagated through the base material leaving only approximately 1 in. of weld remaining. Figure
5.9.41a and Figure 5.9.41b show the extent of the weld damage at -2.97% and then at -3.21%,
respectively. The crack at the southwest gusset plate to column weld propagated to
approximately 1 in.
a) SWB at NE Gusset Plate (-2.97%)
b) SWB at NE Gusset Plate (-3.21%)
Figure 5.9.41: Severe Damage at NE Gusset to Beam Weld
The northeast gusset plate interface welds failed before reaching the peak maximum drift of the
following tension cycle. The drift at failure was 2.32%. All four bolts at the northwest shear tab
connection sheared and severe shear deformation could be seen in the bolts of the southeast
158
shear tab connection after removal. Figure 5.9.42a and Figure 5.9.42b show the fracture welds at
the northeast gusset plate and the failed northwest shear tab connection, respectively.
a) NE Gusset to Frame Welds Fracture
b) NW Shear Tab Bolt Fracture
Figure 5.9.42: System Failure Modes (2.32%)
5.9.5
Specimen Summary
WF-23 achieved a large total drift range and yielding was distribution from the brace to the
gusset plate and into the framing elements follows the intended of the Balance Design
Procedure. It is difficult to determine the sequence of the failure between fracture of the
northeast gusset plate interface welds and the northwest shear tab bolt fracture and if one was
possibly the result of the other. The desired failure mode of brace fracture was not achieved.
Figure 5.9.43 shows the condition of the hinge at the brace center at the peak minimum drift of 3.21%. Yielding is severe and some deformation was noted but the section was not able to fully
develop the concentrated local deformation and large strains associated with the plastic hinge
seen with tube brace sections and other tests using wide-flange brace sections.
159
Figure 5.9.43: Brace Center Damage (-3.21%)
The out-of-plane displacement of the brace was greater than any seen in the previous SCBF tests
at UW. Figure 5.9.44 shows the out-of-plane displacement at the center of the brace related to
drift.
Figure 5.9.44: Out-of-Plane Displacement at Brace Center
As the total drift on the frame increased, the rotational demands of the shear tab connections
also increased. Bolt-hole elongation of the beam web from bearing at the northwest connection
was observed after fracture as shown in Figure 5.9.45. The southeast shear tab connection saw
yielding at the beam web adjacent to the connection plate. There was also significant shear
deformation of the bolts. Figure 5.9.46a and Figure 5.9.46b shows the conditions of the
southeast shear tab connection and bolts after system failure.
160
Figure 5.9.45: Bolt-Hole Elongation (Post Test)
a) Beam Yielding
b) Shear Deformation of Bolt
Figure 5.9.46: Damage at SE Shear Tab Connection (Post Test)
5.10 HSS-24: Welded Flange, Bolted Web Frame Connection

5.10.1 Specimen Overview
Specimen HSS-24 was chosen to evaluate an alternate beam to column connection adjacent to
the gusset plate. Most test specimens in this research program utilized complete joint
penetration (CJP) welds to connect the flanges and web of the beam to the column. These welds
enhance the system performance but the benefit must be weighed against the cost of material
and labor during construction. The HSS-24 connection consisted of a bolted shear plate and
CJP welded flange beam-to-column connection. The connection should be stiffer and stronger
than the simple shear connections evaluated in test HSS-18 and HSS-22.
161
The 3/8 in. thick gusset plate geometry uses an 8t elliptical clearance and interface welds sized to
develop the full plastic capacity of the plate. This again as well as the brace is identical to that of
HSS-05 that achieved the drift ranges within the previous UW test programs. The shear tab was
design for the vertical component based of force distribution from the AISC Uniform Force
Method (UFM). The in. thick shear tab is welded to the column with 5/16 in. fillet weld on
each side and bolted to the beam using 4-1 in. diameter A490 bolts tightened to a force of 64 kip
based on AISC Table J3.1 for the Minimum Bolt Pretension. Figure 5.10.1 shows the
connection detail.
HSS-24 was tested in the UW Structures Lab May 7, 2008. The specimen fractured at the brace
center while achieving maximum and minimum drift ratios of 1.94% and -2.50% for a total range
of 4.44%. The maximum and minimum forces resisted by the frame were 339.7 kip and -164.1
kip. The frame displacement history is shown in Figure 5.10.2. The hysteretic behavior of the
specimen is given in Figure 5.10.3.
162
Figure 5.10.2: HSS-24 Displacement History
Peak performance values are given in Table 5.10.1along with a summary of component damage.
Yielding was observed brace and gusset plates and into the framing elements. The damage
observed to the columns was significantly more than what was seen in the beams. The yield
pattern over the gusset plate was also unique with more yielding closer to the column interface
weld than the beam. Some ductile tearing was observed at the end of the gusset interface welds.
The bolt fractures that occurred at the shear tab connections prior to brace fracture were
attributed to the use of a shorter bolt length than in previous tests. The bolt length was
163
incorrectly selected and inadvertently aligned with the threads into the shear plane of the bolted
connection. After the bolts fractured, new bolts were installed in order to complete the test.
HSS-24
Drift
Range
Initial
Moderate
Severe
Cycle
Drift Ratio
Load (kips)
Max Range Min

0.07 0.14 -63.7
0.11 0.21 -87.1
0.15 0.27 -114.2
0.20 0.36 -135.1
0.23 0.44 -144.9
0.27 0.58 -146.3
Brace
Max Comp Tens
81.7
116.1
145.9
177.0
200.2
222.5
From
1
7
9
11
17
19
To
6
8
10
16
18
20
Min
-0.07
-0.09
-0.12
-0.16
-0.21
-0.30
21
22
-0.39 0.30
0.69
-144.4 237.7
B1
23
25
27
24
26
28
-0.63 0.37
-0.81 0.46
-1.17 0.68
0.99
1.27
1.86
-144.0 268.1
-145.7 287.0
-154.8 316.1
B2
29
30
-1.50 0.98
2.48
-161.6 331.0
31
32
-1.83 1.34
3.17
-164.1 336.4
33
34
-2.14 1.71
3.85
-154.4 337.0
35
36
35
36
-2.50 1.94
2.07
4.44
-
-148.0 339.7
187.2
Performance
Gusset Plates
Beams
Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
Y1-NEGE
Y1-SWGE
Columns
Comp
Tens
Y1-SWBF
Y1-NECF
Y1-NEGC,
Y1-SWBW
SWGC
Y3
Y1-NLB
Y1-NEBW
Y3-NEG
Y1-SWCF Y3-NECF
B1-NEG,
SWG
Y1-NEBF,
SWBF
WD-NEGB,
NEGC, SWGC
B1-NECF
Y1-SWCF
B2-NEG,
SWG
Y5-NEG
BC
Y3-NECW
Y3-SWCF
BF
5.10.2 Initial Drift Ranges: 0% to 1.25%

Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast gusset plate was observed at 0.07% drift of the first cycle
and 81.7 kip resisted by the frame with the brace in tension. Small yield lines could be seen
extending from the end of the brace toward the northeast column. Initial yielding (Y1) of the
southwest gusset plate in a similar fashion was observed at 0.11% drift.
At -0.16% frame drift, initial yielding of the southwest beam flange at the gusset plate reentrant
corner was observed. Upward out-of-plane displacement and elastic buckling was observed in
the brace while in compression at a drift of -0.21%. Tensile yielding has also increased at both
the northeast and southwest gusset plates at the brace ends at a drift of 0.23%.
Initial yielding was observed in the form of small whitewash flaking from the column flange of
the northeast gusset plate reentrant corner at this drift. Figure 5.10.4 shows the initial yielding
(Y1) at the northeast column flange at 0.27% drift.
164
Figure 5.10.4: Y1 at NE Column at Gusset Reentrant Corner (0.27%)
All of the following descriptions of yielding occurred at 0.30% drift and a force of 237.7 kip
resisted by the frame with the brace in tension. Increased yielding occurred at the ends of the
brace at the northeast and southwest gusset plates. Yielding of the northeast has extended
beyond the brace end and toward the beam interface weld. Yield lines were also visible along the
brace to gusset plate weld of the southwest gusset plate connection. Initial yielding (Y1) of the
gusset plate was observed at the northeast column reentrant corner and southwest column
reentrant corner.
At -0.39% drift and 144.4 kip of force resisted by the frame with brace in compression, the brace
out-of-plane displacement of 3.56 in. exceeded 2% of the brace total length (B1). The buckled
shape and the brace and the out-of-plane rotation of the northeast gusset plate can be seen in
Figure 5.10.5a and Figure 5.10.5b, respectively. Compressive yielding of the southwest gusset
plate seen as a concentration of yield lines at the brace end occurred as the gusset plate rotated to
accommodate the out-of-plane displacement of the buckling brace. Initial yielding (Y1) of the
southwest beam web was also observed with perpendicular yield lines running along the gusset
interface weld.
165
a) Buckled Shape
b) SW Gusset Plate Rotation
Figure 5.10.5: B1 Level Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement (-0.39%)
At 0.37% drift and 268.1 kip frame resistance, yielding increased at the gusset plates and in the
framing elements. Increased yielding along the brace to gusset welds was seen at both the
northeast and southwest gusset plates. Yielding of southwest beam web also increased with yield
lines running perpendicular to and along the gusset interface welds. Yielding increased at the
northeast column flange at the gusset plate reentrant corner. Initial yielding of the northeast
column flange also occurred at the north beam inside flange to column connection. The yielding
resulting from the beam flange forces being transferred to the column as the frame closes is
shown in Figure 5.10.6 at the drift of 0.37%. Initial yielding (Y1) was also observed at the north
beam flange at the end of the load beam due to the concentrated moment from the actuator
eccentricity to the beam work point.
Figure 5.10.6: NE Column Flange Yielding at Beam/Column Connection (0.37%)
166
The buckled brace center out-of-plane displacement reached 5.24 in. and exceeded the depth of
the member (B2) at a drift of -0.63% and -144.0 kip resisted by the frame. The buckled shape of
the brace is shown in Figure 5.10.7. Also at this drift, increased yielding of the northeast gusset
plate resulted in long stretching yield lines from the brace end to the column interface weld.
Yielding also increased on the southwest gusset plate directly at the brace end from the out-ofplane rotation of the plate as the braced buckled. Residual out-of-plane displacement of the
brace could be seen after the completion of this cycle and the frame was return to the original set
point.
Figure 5.10.7: B2 Level Buckling of Brace (-0.63%)
5.10.3 Moderate Drift Ranges: 1.25% to 2.75%

The potentiometer monitoring the brace elongation reached 0.27 in., more than 0.2% of the
original length (Y3), free edge of gusset plate to free edge of gusset plate, at a drift of 0.46% and
287.0 kip resisted by the frame. Yielding of the northeast column flange at the gusset plate
reentrant also increased at this drift level as shown in Figure 5.10.8 extending upward over the
flange width. Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast beam web in the form of a two small yield
lines towards the center of the section was observed. Also at this drift, the yielding of the
northeast gusset plate notably increased.
167
Figure 5.10.8: NE Column Flange Yielding (0.46%)
The base of the east column showed compressive yielding over the east flange due to the
overturning forces concentrated at the column based as the frame was pushed out to the drift of
0.46%. This is shown in Figure 5.10.9.
Figure 5.10.9: Yielding at East Column Base (0.46%)
Yielding of the northeast gusset plate significantly increased to the moderate level (Y3) at -0.81%
drift and 145.7 kip of resistance from the frame. The yielding extends over most of the plate
from the brace end, along the brace to gusset weld, and to the interface welds as shown in Figure
5.10.10. Yielding of the southwest beam web increased along the interface weld, with yield lines
running parallel as well as perpendicular to the direction of the weld. It was also noted that
168
additional yielding occurred at the northeast column flange at the gusset plate reentrant corner
with the brace in compression and the frame opening.
Figure 5.10.10: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (-0.81%)
Yielding of the northeast column at the reentrant corner significantly increased at 0.68% frame
drift, to a moderate damage level (Y3) with evidence of yielding over the width of the flange and
extending through the web. Figure 5.10.11 shows yielding from the inside view of the column
adjacent to the gusset plate reentrant corner. Yielding of the northeast and southwest gusset
plates also increased in the area between the brace to gusset weld and the interface welds.
Yielding of the southwest beam web and the north beam flange at the end of the load beam also
increased at 0.68% drift and 316.1 kip resisted by the frame.
Figure 5.10.11: Y3 at NE Column Flange (0.68%)
169
The shape of the buckled brace in compression began to appear more linear at -1.17% drift.
Figure 5.10.12 shows the buckled shape and the formation of 3 hinges, at the gusset plates and at
the brace center. Again, yielding of both gusset plates visibly increased, although yielding at the
southwest was less than at the northeast gusset plate.
Initial yielding of the southwest column flange at the gusset plate reentrant corner was observed
at -1.17% drift. The yielding of the gusset plate at the southwest column reentrant corner also
increased at this drift. Both conditions can be seen in Figure 5.10.13.
Column
Gusset
Plate
Figure 5.10.13: Increased Gusset Plate Yielding and Y1 at SW Column Flange (-1.17%)
At 0.98% drift, slight deformation of the gusset plate free edges was observed. Yielding
increased across the web of the northeast beam adjacent to the interface weld toward the shear
tab beam to column connection. There was also a slight increase in yielding at the southwest
170
beam web. Yielding increased and extended over the northeast and southwest gusset plates.
Slight deformation of the northeast column inside flange was noted along the gusset plate.
Figure 5.10.14 shows the deformation of the column flange at this drift.
Figure 5.10.14: B1 at NE Column Flange (0.98%)
All of the following damage observations occurred during the ensuing compression cycle at 1.50% drift and frame resistance of -161.6 kip. Yielding increased at the ends of the brace and
along the brace to gusset welds at both the northeast and southwest gusset plates. Initial yielding
(Y1) was observed at the north and south beam flanges at the gusset reentrant corners. This
yielding extended from the edge of the gussets is shown for the northeast and southwest beams
in Figure 5.10.15a and Figure 5.10.15a, respectively. The yielding on the both the NE and SW
gusset plates at the beam and column reentrant corners also increased. Significant increase of
yielding of the northeast column web was observed while long yielding lines extending most of
the length of the adjacent interface weld toward the beam/column connection.
a) NE Beam Flange
b) SW Beam Flange
Figure 5.10.15: Y1 of Beam Flanges at Reentrant Corners (0.87%)
171
5.10.4 Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75%

Yielding of the northeast column in the area around the gusset plate reentrant corner
significantly increased to a moderate damage level (Y3) at 1.34% drift and 336.4 kip of frame
resistance. Figure 5.10.16a and Figure 5.10.16b show the damage over the flange and web of the
northeast column. Yielding also increased at the south flange of the beam to column connection
as shown in Figure 5.10.17.
a) NE Column Flange
b) NE Column Web
Figure 5.10.16: Y3 at NE Column (1.34%)
Figure 5.10.17: Yielding at NE Beam/Column Connection (1.34%)
Again, yielding increased on the gusset plates in the area between the brace and the interface
welds, especially between at the southwest beam interface welds at 1.34% drift. It was also noted
that the yielding of the northeast gusset plate was more severe between the brace and the beam
interface weld rather than brace and the column. The unbalanced yield patterns are likely due to
the inability of the beam to transfer vertical forces from the brace to the column because of the
172
reduce stiffness at the bolted shear tab connection. The asymmetric yielding of the northeast
gusset plate is shown in Figure 5.10.18.
Figure 5.10.18: Unbalanced Yielding at NE Gusset Plate (1.34%)
The frame resisted the minimum force of -164.1 kip at a drift of -1.83%. Initial cracking of the
northeast column and northeast beam interface welds were observed at this drift. Initial cracking
was also observed at southwest gusset plate to column weld. Initial yielding (Y1) of the
southwest column flange was seen in the area across from the gusset plate end. Significant
increased of yielding to the northeast column web could be seen and is shown in Figure 5.10.19
with long lines running longitudinally up the column length toward the beam/column
intersection.
Figure 5.10.19: NE Column Web Yielding (-1.83%)
173
Moderate level yielding (Y3) and increased deformation of the inside flange were observed at the
northeast column as the yielding over the section increased at 1.71% drift. Figure 5.10.20a and
Figure 5.10.20b show the condition of both the flange and the web. Gusset plate edge buckling
increased to moderate levels (B2) when the buckling out-of-plane exceeded the thickness of the
3/8
in. gusset plates at this drift. The column edge of southwest gusset plate and beam edge of
the northeast gusset plate are shown in Figure 5.10.21a and Figure 5.10.21b. Yielding also
increased at the outside flange of the north beam at the end of the load beam connection.
a)
b)
Figure 5.10.20: Y3 Web Yielding and Flange Deformation at SW Column (1.71%)
a) SW Gusset Plate
b) NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.10.21: B2 Gusset Plate Edge Deformation (1.71%)
The hinge at the brace center exhibited plastic deformation in the form of cupping of the
underside and bulging of the vertical sides at -1.95% drift. Figure 5.10.22a and Figure 5.10.22b
show the brace buckled shape and the local plastic deformations at the brace center due to the
174
large strains at the hinge. Yielding increased at numerous locations including the southwest
gusset plate, southwest column flanges, northeast beam web and northeast column web.
Cracking within the weld metal initiated at the northeast gusset plate to beam weld propagated to
approximately in. Yielding of the southwest column outside flange is shown in Figure 5.10.23
at this drift of -1.95%.
a) Buckled Brace Shape
b) BC Local Deformation of Hinge
Figure 5.10.22: Brace Shape and BC Deformation (-2.14%)
Figure 5.10.23: Yielding of SW Column Flange (-2.14%)
Also at -1.95% drift, bolt fracture occurred at both the northwest and southeast shear tab
connections. It was determined that the in. diameter A490 bolts used for the shear tab
connections of Specimen HSS-24 were shorter than of those used in previous tests and the
threads were within the shear plane between the shear tab and the beam web. The design of the
shear tab connections for the specimen calls for the threads of the bolts to be outside the shear
175
plane. The early fracture of the bolts was attributed an error in fabrication and not an actual
failure mode resulting from testing. The two bolts from the northwest connection and the single
bolt from the southeast connection were replaced in order to complete the test. Initiation of
micro-cracking was observed at the corners of the brace plastic hinge while in tension at 1.71%
frame drift.
The local deformation of the plastic hinge increased with more severe cupping and bulging
visible at -2.14% drift. Yielding increased at the southwest gusset plate between the brace and
the beam interface weld. Weld cracking at the northeast gusset plate to beam weld propagated to
approximately 1.5 in. Figure
The final successful tension cycle prior to brace failure resulted in 339.7 kip resisted and 1.94%
frame drift. Northeast gusset plate yielding significantly increased to severe levels (Y5) with wide
slashing yielding lines covering the entire plate as shown in Figure 5.10.24. Yielding and
deformation also increased at the northeast column with long yield lines continuing to extend up
the length of the column. Figure 5.10.25a and Figure 5.10.25b show the damage to the inside
column face and over the web.
176
a)
b)
Figure 5.10.25: Increased Yielding at NE Column (1.94%)
Yielding of the southwest column outside flange also increased to a moderate damage level (Y3)
at 1.94%. Yielding lines have spread over the depth of the outside flange as shown in Figure
5.10.26. Gusset plate edge buckling increased and large rotations were visible at the northwest
and southeast shear tab connections. Yielding also increased over the southwest beam web with
yield lines running perpendicular to and along the interface weld.
Figure 5.10.26: Y3 at SW Column (1.94%)
A frame drift of -2.50% was achieved on the final compression cycle before brace failure. The
buckled brace shape is shown in Figure 5.10.27a and the out-of-plane rotation of the northeast
gusset plate is shown in Figure 5.10.27b. The plastic deformation also increased with severe
cupping and bulging at the hinge.
177
b) NE Gusset Rotation
Figure 5.10.27: Brace Shape and Gusset Plate Rotation (-2.50%)
Yielding increased over the southwest gusset plate at -2.50%. Significant increase in yielding
occurred at the outside flanges of the southwest and northeast columns as shown in Figure
5.10.28a and Figure 5.10.28b, respectively. Crack propagation increased to approximately 2 in. at
the northeast gusset plate to beam interface weld. Figure 5.10.29 shows the crack in the weld
material at this location at this drift.
a) SW Column
b) NE Column
Figure 5.10.28: Column Yielding (-2.50%)
178
Figure 5.10.29: NE Gusset Plate to Beam Weld Crack (-2.50%)
Brace fracture (BF) occurred at the plastic hinge while heading to but before peak. The
maximum frame drift achieved was 2.07% and the frame resistance at failure was 187.2 kip. Two
additional cycles were completed with a section of the brace removed to obtain the stiffness of
the frame. Bolt fracture again occurred at the shear tab connections.
5.10.5 Specimen Summary

Specimen HSS-24 was capable of achieving large drift ranges, greater than 4%, and was
controlled by the desired failure mechanism of brace fracture at the plastic hinge. The modified
beam to column connection resulted in uneven distribution of yielding over the gusset plates and
between the framing elements. The reduced stiffness of the shear tab connection between the
beam web and column show limited ability to transfer the vertical shear component of from the
brace. This likely resulted in the more severe yielding to the columns. Figure 5.10.30 shows the
yielding over the northeast column web. The unique pattern of yielding over the gusset plates is
shown in Figure 5.10.31a and Figure 5.10.31a. The typical crescent shape of yielding around the
brace end is not clearly visible and there is another significant arch of yielding adjacent to the
gusset to column interface weld.
179
Figure 5.10.30: NW Column Web Damage (Post Test)
a) SW Gusset Plate
b) NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.10.31: Gusset Plate Damage (Post Test)
5.11 HSS-25: Heavy Beam, No Net Section Reinforcing

5.11.1
Specimen Overview
Specimen HSS-25 was chosen to evaluate a frame with a heavier, stiffer beam section and thick,
stiff gusset plate connections. The design of the specimen is identical to that of HSS-11 with the
exception of the removal of the brace net section reinforcing plates. Braced frame research at
UC Berkeley (Yang and Mahin, 2005) supports the potential for brace fracture at the reduced net
section. This failure mode has not controlled in any of the UW tests since the removal of the net
section reinforcing for Specimen HSS-14 (Koltulka, 2007). The heavier beam and stiff gusset
plate connections are expected to put greater demand on the brace due to in-plane bending.
180
W16x89 beam sections were used rather than the typical W16x45 of previous tests. The beams
were connected to the W12x72 columns with fully welded web and flanges adjacent to the gusset
plate connections. The gusset plates were 7/8 in. thick and utilized at 4*tg elliptical clearance.
The connection detail for this specimen is shown in Figure 5.11.1.
The gusset plate to frame interface welds from HSS-11 called for CJP welds. The gusset plate
was prepared with a double bevel and back-gouging was required to remove slag prior to welding
the opposite side of the plate. A modified method was used for HSS-25. It was decide to only
fully back-gouge the 8 inches from the gusset free edge and partially back-gouge the balance
because of the difficulty to access the full weld length and the time required to perform the work.
Specimen HSS-25 was tested in the UW Structures Lab on June 5, 2008. The specimen
ultimately failed by brace fracture at the brace center hinge location. The maximum and
minimum frame drift ratios achieved were 0.88% and -2.41% for a total range of 3.30%. The
maximum and minimum forces resisted by the frame were 384.6 and -191.9 kip. The resistance
of Specimen HSS-25 was significantly greater than any of the previous test specimen with the
typical W16x45 beam section. The actual displacement history from the test is shown in Figure
5.11.2 and the hysteretic behavior of the specimen is shown in Figure 5.11.3.
181
Particular observation during the test was paid to brace at the ends of the slot connecting to the
gusset plate. While the frame is pushed to positive drifts and the brace is in tension, in-plane
bending occurs and adds additional stresses at the slotted locations of the brace. Initial cracking
originating at the end of the slot did occur but did propagate. The nomenclature for cracking or
tearing of the steel at the brace net section designated in the Table 5.1.1 is NSD, Net Section
Damage. Fracture of the brace is designated as NSF, Net Section Fracture.
182
Table 5.11.1 summarizes component damage at peak values during the test. It is important to
note the level of damage sustained to the columns which is significantly more than what is
typically observed when the frames consists of the W16x45 beam sections and a thinner gusset
plate configuration. Also, very little damage was observed at the heavier W16x89 beams.
HSS-25
Drift
Range
Initial
Moderate
Severe
Cycle
Drift Ratio
Load (kips)
From
1
7
To
6
8
Brace
Min Max Range Min Max Comp Tens
-0.06 0.06 0.12 -70.9 76.1
-0.09 0.10 0.19 -104.3 110.8
10
-0.12 0.13
0.24
-131.0 144.0
11
17
19
21
23
16
18
20
22
24
-0.20
-0.24
-0.30
-0.38
-0.53
0.36
0.38
0.48
0.59
0.79
-165.2
-182.0
-191.1
-191.9
-191.1
0.16
0.15
0.18
0.22
0.25
169.6
189.3
215.3
237.3
271.0
25
26
-0.72 0.31
1.03
-190.2 299.0
27
29
31
28
30
32
-1.05 0.42
-1.50 0.54
-1.94 0.68
1.47
2.03
2.62
-188.5 334.5
-187.2 359.2
-189.9 375.3
33
34
35
35
-2.41 0.88
-
1.11
3.30
-
Performance
Gusset Plates
Beams
Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
B1-SWCF,
NECF
Y1-SWCF,
NECF
Y1-SWGE
Y1-NEGE
NSD
B1
Y1-SWGB,
NEGB,
NEGC
B2
Y3
Y1-NECW,
SWCW
Y1-SWGC
Y3-SWG
BC
Y3-NECF
WD-NEGC
-178.0 384.6
-
242.0
Columns
Comp
Tens
BF
Y3-NECW,
SWCF; Y5- B2-NECF;
NECF
B1-NECW
Y1-SWBF
BS-NWB,
SEB
-

Out-of-plane deformation of the brace while in compression was observed at -0.06% frame drift
and -70.9 kip resisted by the frame. Local buckling (B1) of the inside flanges of the northeast
and southwest columns were observed initially at 0.13% drift where the inside flanges of the
beams connect to the column flanges. The force resisted by the frame was 144.0 kip with the
brace in tension. Initial yielding of northeast and southwest column flanges at the gusset plate
reentrant corners occurred at 0.16% frame drift. Significant rotation of the northwest and
southeast shear tab connection was also observed at this drift level.
The following cycle, the maximum drift ratio actually decreased though the induced displacement
of the actuator increased. This could likely be caused by losses with the test set up such as slip of
the connection between the load beam and north beam, between the support beam and the
south beam, or due to rigid body rotation of the frame as the east column uplifts. The yielding at
the northeast and southwest column flanges at the reentrant corners increased slightly at 0.15%
183
frame drift. Initial yielding was also observed on the inside face of southwest column flange
approximately 8 in. north of the beam to column connection.
A clear out-of-plane rotation was observed at both the northeast and southwest gusset plates to
accommodate the elastic buckling of the brace at -0.24% drift. The inside flanges of northeast
and southwest columns could be seen deforming as the frame opened at the minimum drift of
the cycle. Very slight, initial yielding (Y1) also occurred at the brace end of the southwest gusset
plate.
Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast gusset was observed at -0.30% drift at the brace end. The
slight out-of-plane displacement as the brace elastically buckled is shown in Figure 5.11.4.
Figure 5.11.4: Brace Shape (-0.30%)
At a frame drift of 0.22%, slight initial cracking of the brace net section (NSD) was observed at
the southwest end, north side of the brace. The crack initiated along the edge of the brace to
gusset plate weld and the HAZ at this location. Slight yielding of the northeast and southwest
gusset plates increased at ends of the brace. Yielding increased at the brace ends of both the
northeast and southwest gusset plates at -0.38% frame drift. Yielding also increased at the
reentrant corners on the northeast and southwest column flanges.
Instrumentation indicated that the out-of-plane displacement of the buckling brace reached 3.29
in. exceeding 2% of the total length of the brace (B1), 148.75 in., at -0.42% frame drift and 190.3 kip resisted by the frame. Figure 5.11.5 shows the shape of the buckled brace and the
extent of the out-of-plane displacement. Yielding of the northeast and southwest gusset plates
significantly increased at the brace ends at -0.53% drift. The flaking has begun to spread from
the brace ends but no clear pattern of yielding was visible at this drift. The level of yielding can
184
be seen in Figure 5.11.6a and Figure 5.11.6b for the northeast gusset plate and southwest gusset
plates, respectively.
Figure 5.11.5: B1 Brace Buckled Shape (-0.42%)
a) NE Gusset Plate
b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.11.6: Gusset Plate Yielding at Brace Ends (-0.53%)
Yielding of the northeast column flange increased at 0.31% and can be seen in the area behind
the instrumentation on the inside flange in Figure 5.11.7. Similar yielding was observed at the
southwest column. Yielding increased on the northeast and southwest column flanges at the
reentrant corner. Figure 5.11.8 shows the extent of the yielding at the northeast column flange.
185
Figure 5.11.7: Yielding of NE Column Flange (0.31%)
Figure 5.11.8: Yielding at Reentrant Corner of NE Column Flange (0.31%)
The out-of-plane displacement at the center of the brace increased to 5.16 in., which is greater
than the depth of the brace (B2) at a frame drift of -0.69%. At -0.72% drift, yielding significantly
increased at the northeast and southwest gusset plates. Initial yielding (Y1) was observed
extending beyond the brace ends and into the areas between the brace and the beam interface
welds for the southwest gusset plate and between the brace and both the beam and column
interfaces welds at the northeast gusset plate. Figure 5.11.9a and Figure 5.11.9b show the
yielding over the northeast and southwest gusset plates, respectively. Initial yielding of the
southwest gusset plate was also observed at the beam reentrant corner.
186
a) NE Gusset Plate
b) SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.11.9: Increased Yielding of Gusset Plate (0.69%)

At 0.42% drift and 334.5 kip frame resistance, yielding of the northeast and southwest column
flanges increased at the reentrant corners and in the area approximately 8 in. from the interface
weld end. Figure 5.11.10a and Figure 5.11.10b shows the yielding at reentrant corners for the
northeast and southwest columns, respectively. Slight propagation was observed at the north
side of the southwest brace net section. The crack length on the upper side of the slot has
increased to approximately 3/8 in.
a) NE Column
b) SW Column
Figure 5.11.10: Increased Yielding at Column Flanges (0.42%)
Yielding of both the northeast and southwest gusset plates increased as they rotated out-of-plane
to accommodate the brace buckling at -1.05% drift. The gusset plate yielding began to form the
elliptical shaped crescent as shown in Figure 5.11.11 for the southwest connection, including
187
initial yielding (Y1) between the brace and the column interface weld. Initial yielding (Y1) was
observed at the northeast and southwest column webs at the inside beam flange of the beam to
column moment connection.
Figure 5.11.11: Increased Yielding at SW Gusset Plate (-1.05%)
The instrumentation monitoring the tensile elongation of the brace indicated that the total brace
elongation of 0.31 in. at 0.54% drift over the original length 119.25 in. from free edge of the
gusset to free edge of gusset exceeded 0.2% (Y3). Yielding of the northeast column flange
adjacent to the interface weld has increased to a moderate damage level (Y3). Figure 5.11.12
shows the yielded flange partially obstructed by the instrumentation of the northeast column at
0.54% frame drift. Increased yielding of the northeast and southwest column flanges at the
reentrant corners was observed as well as yielding extending into the web to both locations.
Yielding also increased over the both gusset plates in the elliptical shape.
Figure 5.11.12: Y3 at NE Column Flange (0.54%)
188
The cracking of the southwest brace net section slightly propagated at 0.54% frame drift to
approximately in. on the upper side and 3/8 in. on the lower side of the gusset plate. The
cracks can be seen extending from the slot edges in Figure 5.11.13.
Figure 5.11.13: Crack Propagation at SW Brace Net Section (0.54%)
Significant increased yielding was observed at the northeast and southwest gusset plates at 1.50% frame drift. The yielding of the southwest gusset plate as it rotated out-of-plane was
described as moderate (Y3) covering most of the plate area, as shown in Figure 5.11.14. Yielding
increased at the northeast column web and inside flange at the location near the gusset plate
edge. This yielding was evidence of a plastic moment, or hinge, occurring at the column as the
frame opens at this minimum drift. Three distinct hinges have begun to form as the buckled
brace shape looked more linear: one at each gusset plate and one at the brace center. The
buckled brace shape and northeast gusset plate rotation are shown in Figure 5.11.15 and Figure
5.11.15b.
189
Figure 5.11.14: Y3 at SW Gusset Plate (-1.50%)
a) Buckled Shape
b) NE Gusset Plate Rotation

Figure 5.11.15: Buckled Brace Shape (-1.50%)
At 0.68% drift, yielding increased to a moderate damage level over the northeast gusset plate as
shown in Figure 5.11.16. Increased yielding was observed over the webs of the northeast and
southwest columns, as well as at the inside flanges and reentrant corners. The cracking of the
southwest brace end increased length to approximately 9/16 in. at the upper side and in. at the
lower side of the gusset plate slot. Figure 5.11.17 shows the extent of the cracking at the net
section of the brace. Initial cracking (WD) of the modified CJP interface weld was observed as
the northeast column reentrant corner.
190
Figure 5.11.17: Crack Propagation at Brace SW Net Section (0.68%)
Local deformation of the plastic hinge at the brace center was observed at -1.94% frame drift in
the form of cupping at the underside and bugling on the vertical sides of the section. Yielding of
the northeast column increased over the inside flange and the web. Deformation increased and
initial yielding over the outside flange opposite the gusset plate edge was observed for the
northeast column at this drift. Northeast column damage is shown in Figure 5.11.18a and Figure
5.11.18b. Increased yielding of the southwest column flange and web was also observed.
191
a) Outside Flange Yielding
b) Web Yielding
Figure 5.11.18: NE Column Damage (-1.94%)
5.11.4 Severe Drift Ranges: > 2.75%

This positive drift level of 0.88% with 384.6 kip resisted by the frame was the final successful
cycles achieved prior to fracture of the brace center at the hinge location. Significant increase in
yielding and deformation of the northeast column was observed in the hinge area near the gusset
plate edge at 0.88% drift. B2 level local buckling of the column flange can be seen in Figure
5.11.19a as well as increased yielding across the web in Figure 5.11.19b. Yielding of the
southwest column web increased similar to the northeast column.
a) Flange Deformation
b) Web Yielding
Figure 5.11.19: NE Column Damage (0.88%)
The crack in the weld material of the northeast gusset plate to column interface weld propagated
to approximately 5/8 in. at 0.88% frame drift. The cracks in the brace at the southwest net
section has also increased. Figure 5.11.20 shows the crack lengths extending approximately 5/8
192
in. on the upper side and 9/16 in. on the lower side of the gusset plate slot. The slot thickness is 1
in. wide leaving 4 in. of material remaining of the slotted side. The cracks total length of 1 3/16
in. is 30% of the material at the cracked face. Finally at this frame drift, slight initial yielding (Y1)
was observed at the southwest beam flange at the reentrant corner.
Figure 5.11.20: Crack Propagation at Brace SW Net Section (0.88%)
The minimum frame drift achieved prior to brace fracture the following cycle was -2.41%.
Figure 5.11.21a shows the out-of-plane deformation of the buckled brace while Figure 5.11.21b
depicts the level of local deformation at the brace plastic hinge.
b) Brace Plastic Hinge

Figure 5.11.21: Brace Condition (-2.41%)
Moderate yielding (Y3) of the northeast gusset plate was observed with yielding extending over
the majority of the plate surface. Figure 5.11.22 shows the condition of the northeast gusset at -
193
2.41% drift. Yielding continued to increase at the northeast and southwest columns at the hinge
areas at -2.41% frame drift. Increased yielding was observed on the outside flange of both the
northeast and southwest columns as shown in Figure 5.11.23a and Figure 5.11.23b, respectively.
Severe yielding (Y5) of the inside flange and increased deformation of both flanges of the
northeast column can be seen in Figure 5.11.24a and Figure 5.11.24b. The northeast column
web also exhibited local buckling (B1) in the form of bulging in the area adjacent to the edge of
the gusset plate.
Figure 5.11.22: Y3 at NE Gusset Plate (-2.41%)
a) NE Column
b) SW Column
Figure 5.11.23: Yielding at Column Outside Flanges (-2.41%)
194
a) Y5 at Inside Column
b) Column Flange Deformation
Figure 5.11.24: NE Column Damage (-2.41%)
Brace fracture occurred while heading to peak frame drift with 242.0 kip of resistance.
Simultaneously, all four bolts at the northwest shear tab connection and one bolt at the southeast
connection shear tab. It is difficult to determine if the failure of the shear tab connections was a
result of the load transfer immediately after the brace fractured or if it was an accurate
representation of what could happen in the field in a severe seismic event. The northwest and
southeast shear tab connections are shown in Figure 5.11.25a and Figure 5.11.25b after failure,
respectively.
a) NW Connection
b) SE Connection
Figure 5.11.25: Shear Tab Bolt Fracture (Post Test)

The most important aspect of this test was in evaluating the potential for net section failure.
Even though the controlling failure mechanism was brace fracture at the plastic hinge, the test
195
did show the possibility for fracture at the net section by exhibiting tearing at relatively moderate
drifts with the brace in tension. The cracks did not propagate to fracture but the effect of the
heavier beam section and the thicker, stiff gusset plate does show greater potential for net
section failure. Specimen HSS-26 looks further into this potential for net section failure with a
specimen with the heavier beam section and a thick, stiff gusset plate.
5.12 HSS-26: Heavy Beam, Near-Fault Drift History

5.12.1 Specimen Overview
Specimen HSS-26 is identical to specimen HSS-25. The specimen utilizes a heavier beam section
and a thick gusset plate. Figure 5.12.1 shows the connection detail for the specimen. Again, the
brace does not include net section reinforcing at the brace to gusset plate connection. This test
was chosen to evaluate the specimen while subjected to an alternate near-fault imposed drift
history. A study experimentally evaluated the affect of different drift histories and effective net
section area on the potential for net section fracture showed that the requirement for net section
reinforcing is more critical for tension near-fault drift histories (Yang and Mahin, 2005). HSS-26
is the first of the UW SCBF tests that implemented an alternative near-fault drift history.
The design of the tension near-fault drift history was based on the SAC recommended near-fault
drift history for Special Moment Frames outlined in FEMA 355D and the experimental nearfault drift history used by UC Berkeley in the tests mentioned above. No established near-fault
196
history existed for SCBFs so the amplitudes were chosen based on expected compressive and
tensile yielding of the brace as seen in HSS-25. Figure 5.12.2 shows the designed imposed nearfault drift history for HSS-26. The intent was to modify the input LVDT displacement during
the test based on the actual frame drift calculated by the frame diagonal displacement to account
for the losses with in the test set up and to more accurately obtain the desired story drift.
HSS26 Near Fault Loading History
3.0
2.536%
3.888"
2.536%
3.888"
2.5
2.121%
3.251"
2.0
Drift, %
Displacement, inches
1.705%
2.614"
1.290%
1.978"
Drift, %
1.5
0.875%
1.341"
1.0
0.875%
1.341"
0.5
0.459%
0.704"
0.0
0
10
-0.371%
-0.569"
11
12
-0.044%
-0.068"
13
14
15
16
-0.5
-0.787%
-1.206"
-0.787%
-1.206"
-0.984%
-1.508"
-1.0
Cycle
Figure 5.12.2: Designed Near-Fault Drift History
The specimen ultimately failed by net section fracture while pushing to the largest positive story
drift with the brace in tension. The fracture occurred at the southwest end of the brace with
initial tearing originating at the north side of the brace at the end of the gusset plate slot. The
maximum and minimum drift ratios achieved were -0.40% and 0.99% for a total range of 1.39%.
The maximum and minimum lateral forces resisted by the frame were -197.0 kip and 392.6 kip.
The total range was 589.6 kip total. This test was started with a small displacement test cycle to
verify instrumentation. The actual displacement history of HSS-26 is show in Figure 5.12.3.
Figure 5.12.4 show the hysteretic behavior the specimen.
197
The actual testing of Specimen HSS-26 was completed very quickly because of the early fracture
of the brace. Photos have consistently been a valuable method for documenting the progression
of damage to components at increasing story drifts for previous test. Unfortunately, limited
photos were taken at specific points in the test and it is difficult to determine when exactly
yielding initial occurred because of the nature of this test protocol. Peak values drift and lateral
force and corresponding component damage levels are summarized in Table 5.12.1.
198

HSS-26
Drift
Range
Initial
Moderate
Cycle
From
To
Drift Ratio
Min
-0.05
-0.33
-0.33
Performance
Brace
Gusset Plates
Beams
Columns
Max Comp
Tens
Comp
Tens
Comp Tens Comp
Tens
68.6
211.3 B1
Y1-SWCW
327.2
Y3
Y1-SWNS,
Y1-NECF, Y3-NECF,
385.3
NENS; NSDSWCF, NECW; B1SWNS
SWCW
NECF
Y3-SWCF;
392.6
NSF
Y1-SWGC
B1-SWCF
Load (kips)
Max Range Min

0.05 0.10 -72.8
0.15 0.47 -193.6
0.36 0.69 -193.6
-0.40 0.74
1.14
-197.0
-0.40 0.99
1.38
-197.0

The instrumentation monitoring the out-of-plane displacement of the brace center showed that
the displacement of the buckled brace reached 2% (B1) of the total brace length, 148.75 in., at 0.33% drift and -193.6 kip resisted by the frame. Initial yielding (Y1) of the southwest column
flange and web adjacent to the gusset plate occurred at -0.40% drift. The lateral force resisted by
the frame with the brace in compression was -197.0 kip. Initial yielding (Y1) of the northeast
column flange at the reentrant corner was observed at the same drift ratio. Slight yielding was
also observed at the northeast column flange at the beam to column connection, in the location
of the south flange. The maximum out-of-plane displacement of the brace center at -0.40% was
3.70 in. The buckled brace is shown in Figure 5.12.5.
Figure 5.12.5: Buckled Brace Shape (-0.40%)
Initial yielding (Y1) of the southwest column flange web while the brace was in tension was
observed at 0.15% and 211.3 kip resisted by the frame. The brace elongation instrumentation
indicated that the total elongation of the brace, from end of gusset plate to end of gusset plate, at
0.36% and 327.2 kip frame resistance reached 0.2%, signifying moderate yielding (Y3).
199
The test was paused at 0.74% drift with 385.3 kip resisted by the frame to evaluate damage at an
intermediate point before reaching the desired maximum drift ratio. Slight concentration of
yielding (Y1) of brace at the northeast and southwest net sections were observed around the hole
at the end of the slot. It was also noted that a very slight tearing (NSD) of the brace steel at the
southwest net section was observed. Figure 5.12.6a and Figure 5.12.6b show the yielding at the
northeast and southwest net section locations, respectively.
a) Northeast
b) Southwest
Figure 5.12.6: Yielding at Brace Net Section Locations (0.74%)
Yielding of the northeast column flange and web significantly increase to a moderate damage
levels (Y3). Figure 5.12.7a and Figure 5.12.7b show the extent of the yielding for each at 0.74%
drift. Slight local buckling could be observed at the northeast column flange in the same area.
Yielding of the southwest column flange also increased.
a) Column Flange
b) Column Web
Figure 5.12.7: Y3 at NE Column (0.74%)
200

Fracture of the southwest net section (NSF) occurred at 0.99% drift and 392.6 kip frame
resistance. Yielding around the area that the fracture initiated could be seen clearly. Figure
5.12.8a and Figure 5.12.8b show the fractures net section of the brace. The only gusset plate
yielding (Y1) observed during this test occurred at the southeast gusset plate at the column
reentrant corner observed after the brace fractured.
a)
b)
Figure 5.12.8: NSF at SW Brace End (0.99%)
Damage to the southwest column increased significantly. Moderate yielding (Y3) was observed
over the southwest column flange and yielding increase through the web. Local deformation of
the flange was clearly exhibited adjacent to the edge of the gusset plate. Figure 5.12.9a and
Figure 5.12.9b show the damage to the southwest column. Yielding and location deformation
also increase at the northeast column flange and web. This is shown in Figure 5.12.10a and
Figure 5.12.10b below.
201
b) Y3 Yielding at Flange and Web

Figure 5.12.9: SW Column Damage (0.99%)
a) Flange and Web Yielding

Figure 5.12.10: NE Column Damage (0.99%)

Specimen HSS-26 proved susceptible to the undesirable failure mechanics of net section fracture
with the elimination of the net section reinforcement under at near-fault drift history. The heavy
beam and thick gusset also play a part in increasing the specimen likeliness to net section
fracture. The majority of strain elongation across the diagonal must occur in the brace rather
than being spread thru the brace, gusset plates and framing elements.
This test showed the difficulties in implementing an appropriate near-fault drift history to a full
scale SCBF test specimen. The SAC recommended near-fault drift history is intended for a
much more flexible system, Special Moment Frames, and accurately scaling that first maximum
drift amplitude needs further review. The point at which the fracture occurred was in the same
202
range as maximum positive drift value achieved before fracture of the brace at the plastic hinge
in HSS-25 with the normal increasing amplitude cyclic loading protocol, 0.88% compared to
0.99%. The maximum frame resistance with the brace in tension was also similar, 384.6 kip for
HSS-25 and 392.6 kip for HSS-26.
203
Chapter 6: Data Analysis

6.1
Introduction
The data analyses used to evaluate the global and local responses of the nine specimens within this
test program are provided in this chapter. Descriptions of the analysis methods and the results are
provided including comparisons to illustrate a specific behavior or response. Plots of the analysis
results that are not included in this chapter are compiled in Appendix C.
Analysis of the system response was evaluated in Section 6.2 including evaluation of the lateral load
verses story drift hysteretic response and nonlinear system stiffness. The response over the brace
diagonal, including the brace and gusset plates was analyzed and discussed in Section 6.3. Analysis
of the frame response was presented in Section 6.4. The distribution of system resistance between
the brace and the framing elements was evaluated in Section 6.5, which also assessed of the analysis
methods for determining forces in the brace and the frame. The energy dissipated by each
specimen was determined in Section 6.6. Lastly, Section 6.7 compares the damage levels observed
during the test with regards to performance level criteria within Performance Based Design
Methods.
Extensive calculations and data interpretation of the test data was necessary for creating the
comparison plots. The methods and equations used for calculating the variables for each
comparison are outlined in Appendix D. A combination of software including Matlab Version
R2007a and Microsoft Office Excel were used to analyze the data and to create comparison plots.
In cases where instrumentation was damaged or electronic error during recording occurred, the
data was determined erroneous and unusable for the comparison plots. Corrections where also
made for any adjustments or unintended movement of instrumentation during testing such as repositioning of instruments or bumping string potentiometer wires.
6.2
System Response
This section evaluates the system response of the nine specimens within this test program. The
two factors that best signify the performance of the system are ultimate drift capacity and lateral
load resistance. Comparisons are presented to evaluate the ductility and load resistance of the
specimens to evaluate the effect of the test parameters on the system performance. Sections are
204
provided to evaluate and discuss lateral force verses drift hysteresis and the elastic and inelastic
stiffness based on backbone curves from the enveloped hysteretic response.
The ultimate drift capacity of the specimen is the clearest indicator of system ductility and the
ability of the lateral bracing system to withstand extreme seismic demands. The dynamic response
to seismic loading inherently induces large story drifts during a severe seismic event. The capability
of a specimen to maintain lateral load resistance while achieving large drift levels shows superior
performance.
The strengths of the specimens are evaluated to determine how each test parameter affects the
lateral resistance of the system. The single diagonal configuration of these test specimens exhibits
an unsymmetrical response and has different inelastic resistance with the brace in tension and in
compression. For an actual SCBF system, brace directions are offset to provide equal resistance in
both directions. The lateral resistance is normalized by the lateral load associated with brace tensile
yielding,
, neglecting resistance of the frame. The load is calculated using the nominal brace yield
force,
, and the brace angle, , as shown in Equation (1.2.1).

(6.2.1)
The elastic stiffness is inherently important for the design of an SCBF when considering moderate,
more frequently experienced earthquakes, and performance based design criteria for immediate
occupancy. Once the brace buckles in compression and yields in tension, the nonlinear behavior
affects energy dissipation and the ultimate resistance of the system. The inelastic post buckling and
tensile yielding performance are critical to the response of the system for more severe and less
frequent seismic events. The ability of the system to effectively dissipate energy and maintain
resistance at larger drift ranges improves the seismic performance and increases the performance
based design levels of life safety and collapse prevention for a maximum credible design
earthquake.
A global performance summary for the nine test specimens is presented in Table 6.2.1. The
ultimate drift capacity and total range, as well as the ultimate positive and negative resistances and
total drift range are summarized. Description of system failure mechanisms and the relevant test
parameters for each specimen are also included.
205
Table 6.2.1: Global Performance Summary
Range
Drift Ratio, %
Min
Max
Resistance
P/Py
HSS-18
4.19
-2.59
1.60
-0.76
1.59
HSS-19
1.31
-1.01
0.31
-0.51
1.12
HSS-20
3.97
-2.28
1.69
-0.93
1.59
HSS-21
4.14
-2.55
1.59
-0.81
1.73
HSS-22
3.98
-2.48
1.50
-0.66
1.50
WF-23
5.56
-3.21
2.35
-0.58
1.30
HSS-24
4.44
-2.50
1.94
-0.80
1.69
HSS-25
3.30
-2.41
0.88
-0.95
1.91
HSS-26
1.38
-0.40
0.99
-0.98
1.95
Failure
Mechanism
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Interface
Weld
Fracture
Discription
Bolted Shear Plate
Connection
Bolted WT Brace
Connection
18 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
14 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
Bolted Shear PL. and
Tapered GP
WF brace section
Brace
Fracture
Bolted Web Weld

Flange Beam/Col Conn.
Brace
Fracture
Brace Net
Section
Fracture
Heavy Beam and

Gusset Plate
Heavy Bm and GP with
Near-Fault Loading
When discussing ultimate drift capacity, total drift range is normally used because it is
representative of the complete response of the system in both directions. WF-23 with the W6x25
wide-flange brace section reached the highest total drift range of 5.56% and drift ratios in both
directions of the nine specimens in this test program before failure occurred. The ultimate failure
was fracture of the northeast gusset plate interface welds. Of the specimens with HSS5x5x3/8
brace sections, HSS-24 with the bolted shear plate welded flange beam-to-column connection and
thin rectangular gusset plates reached the highest total drift range, 4.44%. HSS-18, HSS-21 and
HSS-20 utilized thin rectangular gussets but different beam-to-column connections and reached
4.19%, 4.14%, and 3.97% total drift ranges, respectively. HSS-22 utilized a bolted shear plate
beam-to-column connection and thin tapered gusset plates, and achieved 3.98% total drift range.
HSS-25 incorporated a heavier beam section and a thick rectangular gusset without net section
reinforcement and only achieved 3.30% with brace fracture as the ultimate failure. HSS-26 was an
identical design as HSS-25 but subjected to a tension dominated near-fault loading protocol which
resulted in a total drift range of 1.38% and fracture at the brace net section. Lastly, HSS-19 only
achieved 1.31% total drift due to an undesired failure mechanism controlling and fracture occurring
at the brace extension plate early in the test.
Expectedly, specimens HSS-25 and HSS-26 exhibited the greatest resistance because of the
increased frame resistance from the larger beam sections for the positive direction and stiffer gusset
206
plate connections increase the buckling capacity in the negative direction. HSS-22 showed the
lowest resistance for specimens with the HSS tubular braces, which is also expected considering the
simple shear tab beam-to-column connection and the thin tapered gusset plates providing more
flexible end supports for the brace in compression.
6.2.1
Force vs. Drift Response
The lateral force verse drift ratio hysteresis behavior is commonly used as a basis for evaluating
overall performance. The ultimate drift capacity, ultimate resistance and initiation of yielding can be
extracted from the plots. Hysteretic plots also indicate the level of ductility within the system and
the energy dissipation. Large, wide loops suggest greater energy dissipation, damping, and
distribution of yielding, while tight loops or pinching indicate reduced dissipation of energy.
The hysteretic plots are provided in Table 6.2.2 and are arranged with a detail of each gusset plate
design. The load cell in the actuator was used to record the lateral load applied the specimens and
the drift ratio is taken as the horizontal frame drift divided by the story height in percent. The
horizontal frame drift is calculated from the diagonal elongation from the southwest to the
northeast work points, divided by the cosine of the original brace angle, 45o. This method was
chosen to determine the frame drift rather than instrumentation measuring the relative horizontal
displacement at the northeast corner from a fixed point on the strong floor, because it is
independent of horizontal frame slip at the base connection and rigid body rotation of the frame,
which was significant at larger drifts and required multiple corrections during analysis.
Table 6.2.2: Hysteresis Comparison
Bolted Shear Plate Beam-toHSS-18
Column Connection
3/8 Thick Rectangular Gusset
Plate with 7*tg Elliptical
Clearance
207
WT Bolted Brace to Gusset
HSS-19
Plate Connection
Rectangular Gusset Plate
with 7*tg Elliptical Clearance
CJP Welded Beam-to-Column
Connection
Bolted Beam End Plate
HSS-20
Connection to Column
18 Bolt Configuration
3/8 Rectangular Gusset Plate
Bolted Beam End Plate
HSS-21
Connection to Column
14 Bolt Configuration
HSS-22
Bolted Shear Plate Beam-toColumn Connection

3/8 Thick Tapered Gusset
Plates with 7*tg Elliptical
Clearance
208
W6x25 Wide-Flange Brace

Section
WF-23

CJP Welded Beam-to-Column
Connection
Bolted Shear Plate CJP Welded

HSS-24
Flange Beam-to-Column
Connection
W16x89 Beam Section CJP
Welded to Column
HSS-25

No Net Section Reinforcing
Typical Loading Protocol
W16x89 Beam Section CJP
Welded to Column
HSS-26

No Net Section Reinforcing
Near-Fault Loading Protocol
6.2.2
System Stiffness
This section evaluates the initial and nonlinear stiffness for the nine test specimens. Envelope
curves, or backbone curves, were created using the values from lateral load and drift ratio for each
209
specimen. Figure 6.2.1 shows an example of a backbone curve for a SCBF with a single diagonal
brace, and it illustrates the key values are used to determine the initial elastic stiffness of the system,
, and the post-yield tangent stiffness after tensile yielding or brace buckling occurs,
and
respectively.
KPt
RYt
KE
Yt
Yc
KPc
RYc
Figure 6.2.1: Backbone Curve Description
The elastic stiffness and the inelastic tangent stiffness in tension and compression were calculated
and summarized in Table 6.2.3 for each specimen. Resistances at yield and buckling,
and
and the drift ratios at which these occurred are also included in the summary.
210
Table 6.2.3: Elastic and Tangent Stiffness Summary
Tangent Stiffness
Elastic
Post
Post
Specimen Stiffness,
Yield
Buckling Ryt (kips)
KE (k/in) Stiffness, Stiffness,
KPt (k/in) KPc (k/in)
614.5
24.8
0.7
221.0
HSS-18
739.0
N/A
-1.6
224.3
HSS-19
664.2
11.0
2.6
186.4
HSS-20
604.5
19.8
1.4
262.1
HSS-21
581.4
10.3
-1.0
206.5
HSS-22
740.2
19.4
9.9
225.0
WF-23
682.8
10.9
3.8
252.4
HSS-24
808.4
72.3
-6.2
291.8
HSS-25
776.3
42.0
N/A
295.7
HSS-26
yt (%) Ryc (kips)
yc (%)
0.315
0.276
0.350
0.362
0.351
0.274
0.328
0.294
0.296
-0.235
-0.092
-0.134
-0.338
-0.224
-0.129
-0.205
-0.292
-0.167
-151.9
-92.5
-181.2
-155.1
-134.5
-128.5
-144.9
-190.2
-168.1
Regression analysis was used to determine the elastic stiffness from initial small cycles of the testing
protocol by fitting a linear equation over the enveloped load verses drift response. The slope of the
line is equivalent to the stiffness of the system. The same method was used to determine the postyield and post buckling tangent stiffness based on the load verse drift response beyond yield. A
leveling or decrease in compressive resistance and then the obvious transition to the nonlinear
response marks the occurrence of buckling. The buckling resistance and the drift ratio at buckling
are taken as the maximum resistance in the transition region and the associated drift from the
backbone curve. The transition between the elastic and nonlinear responses is less clearly defined
with the brace in tension, since no definitive point of yielding is observed as when the brace
buckles in compression. The intersection of the elastic stiffness and the post-yield tangent stiffness
was taken as the drift at yield for comparison, as shown in Figure 6.2.1. The lateral resistance in the
system at this drift is considered the yield resistance. The backbone curves for the nine test
specimens are shown in Table 6.2.4. Elastic stiffness, post-yield and post-buckling tangent
stiffness, and the resistance and drift ratio at brace buckling and yielding are also included for each
specimen.
211
HSS-26
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-21
HSS-20
HSS-19
HSS-18
Table 6.2.4: Backbone Curve Comparison
212
The backbone curves give an interesting global comparison for considering how gusset plate
geometry and beam-to-column connection type affects the elastic and post-yield and buckling
tangent stiffness of the system. Specimens HSS-25 and HSS-26 showed the largest elastic stiffness,
808.4 k/in and 776.3 k/in respectively. Both specimens had heavier beam sections and the larger
geometries with the 7/8 thick gusset plates. At positive drifts, these specimens achieved the
largest resistance at initial yield. At negative drifts, HSS-25 showed the greatest compressive
buckling resistance, -190.2 kips at -0.29% drift, because of the increased rigidity of the gusset plate
connections and subsequent affect on the brace slenderness ratio. The post-buckling tangent
stiffness of -6.2 k/in for HSS-25 was the lowest of all the specimens.
HSS-22 had the lowest elastic stiffness, 581.4 k/in, because of the bolted shear plate beam-tocolumn connection and the thin tapered gusset plates. This also resulted in a lower buckling
resistance because of the increased flexibility at the brace ends, -134.5 kips at -0.22% drift. The
post-yield tangent stiffness, 2.0 k/in, was lower than specimens with rectangular gusset plates and
the post-buckling tangent stiffness, -1.0 k/in, showed a loss of resistance over the plastic region.
WF-23 showed a larger elastic stiffness by comparison, 740.2 k/in, because of the increased brace
area of the W6x25. Buckling occurred at a resistance of -128.5 kip and -0.13% drift. The specimen
continued to increase resistance post yield in the positive direction and showed a post-yield
stiffness of 16.2 k/in while achieving the largest positive drift levels. After an immediately loss in
resistance after buckling, WF-23 exhibited a positive stiffness of 9.9 k/in at increasing negative
drifts.
HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21 and HSS-24 all had identical gusset plate designs but varied beam-tocolumn connections. Similar elastic stiffness was seen for all four specimens ranging between 604.5
k/in for HSS-21 and 682.8 k/in for HSS-24. HSS-20, with the 18 bolt beam endplate connection,
had a larger stiffness than HSS-21 with the 14 bolt configuration, of 664.5 k/in. HSS-18 showed
an elastic resistance of 614.5 k/in with the bolted shear plate beam-to-column connection. Postyield tangent stiffness ranged between 3.3 k/in for HSS-20 and 15.3 k/in for HSS-20. Similar postbuckling tangent stiffness was shown for the four specimens between 0.7 k/in for HSS-18 and 3.8
k/in for HSS-24.
The backbone curves for HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21 and HSS-22 show small changes in the stiffness
prior to a clear transition to the inelastic response in the positive direction. It is difficult to
determine what behavior attributes to this small change in stiffness. It also makes the
213
determination of initial tensile yielding someone subjective. The values tabulated above are for
comparison purposes and do not reflect the actual drift level or lateral resistance associated with
tensile yielding of the brace. Brace yielding is discussed in greater detail in a later section.
Comparing the elastic stiffness for HSS-25 and HSS-22, a specimen with heavier beam fully welded
and thick rectangular gusset is 28.1% stiffer than a specimen with the bolted shear plate beam with
thin tapered gusset plates. Specimens HSS-18 and HSS-22 both shared the same beam-to-column
detail but the rectangular geometry exhibited a 5.7% increase in elastic stiffness.
6.3
Brace and Gusset Plate Response
The behavior of the diagonal brace is the primary inelastic response component in an SCBF
system. The ability for the brace to freely buckle, elongate in tension, and cycle between inelastic
post-buckling and tensile yield deformation will determine the cyclic response of the frame. When
the brace fractures, the lateral resistance of the system is diminished, and this is viewed as the
controlling failure mode of the system. The behavior of the brace beyond the elastic stages under
cyclic loading is critical to the overall performance of the SCBF.
This section compares the performance of components over the full brace diagonal including the
gusset plates. The inelastic brace behavior is summarized below in Figure 6.3.1. Each of the
specimens followed this model with the exception of HSS-19 which buckled and eventually
fractured the splice plate to the connection. HSS-26 was subjected to an alternate tension
dominated near-fault loading protocol which did not induce negative drift required to fully develop
buckling in the brace.
214
Figure 6.3.1: Idealized Inelastic Brace Behavior Under Cyclic Loading (Kotulka 2007)
Stage 1 shows the buckled shape of the brace as it deflects due to initial imperfections and reaches
the critical buckling load. Curvature increases as load and deflection increase eventually forming a
plastic hinge at the brace center, as shown in Stage 2. Stage 3 shows how the shape of the buckled
brace has changed and strain is more concentrated at the hinge region after significant yielding
occurs. As the loading returns to zero, residual strain at the plastic hinge and residual out-of-plane
displacement of the brace are evident. As the brace is pulled in tension, the hinge behavior is
reversed increasing strain accumulation at the plastic hinge, shown as Stage 4. At Stage 5, the brace
is yielding in tension. Tensile strain is not evenly distributed over the length but more likely
concentrated at the plastic hinge region. Finally, fracture of brace section typically occurs at the
plastic hinge while in tension.
The concentration of strain at the center plastic hinge appears to be the factor which ultimately
leads to cracking and then fracture of the brace. One of the objectives within this research is to
delay the onset of these large strains by developing gusset plate connection designs that reduce the
local strain concentration and extend of the life cycle of the brace.
6.3.1
Brace Response
The brace forces were determined using strain gauge data recorded during the tests. Figure 6.3.2
shows the placement of strain gauges for the typical HSS5x5x3/8 and W6x25 brace cross sections.
The exact locations of the strain gauges along the length of the brace are shown in Appendix B,
and are approximately at the southwest quarter-point of the brace length. This section first
215
evaluates the buckling capacity of the braces the experimental buckling brace force to the nominal
buckling force based on AISC specifications. Secondly, the complete inelastic response is
determined using analysis methods that account for the nonlinear behavior of the brace material to
evaluate brace response beyond yielding.
HSS5x5x3/8
W6x25
4
3
= strain guage
Figure 6.3.2: Brace Strain Gauge Locations
6.3.2
Brace Buckling Capacity
The loading protocol used in testing the specimen begins with small induced drift levels which
allow the specimens response to remain elastic. The brace strain gauge records can be converted to
brace force prior to yielding. After yielding, a more sophisticated analysis method is required to
convert strain to stress.
(6.3.1)
The critical buckling load determined experimentally is compared to the nominal buckling capacity
of the brace as calculated per AISC Design Specifications. The nominal buckling capacity is
calculated using a K factor of 1.0 and the actual brace length. The values are summarized in Table
6.3.1. In addition, the effective length coefficient, K, based on the experimental buckling force,
and the resulting effective slenderness ratio,
, using the actual brace length, l, was evaluated for
each specimen and provided in the table.

The AISC Seismic Provisions limits the effective slenderness ratio to
A500 B/C (
) HSS steel and 96.33 for A992 wide-flange sections (
which is 100.43 for

). This
216
gives a comparison of the gusset plate connection flexibility. A more flexible connection results in
values closer the effective length factor for pinned-pinned end supports, 1.0, while more
rotationally stiff gusset connections produce values closer to the theoretical fixed end condition,
0.50.
Table 6.3.1: Experimental vs. AISC Brace Forces
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-26
Experimental
AISC
Pcr
188.6
115.9
199.9
182.7
176.3
167.0
206.7
241.4
241.1
Pn=FcrAg
176.2
179.9
176.2
176.2
176.7
165.4
176.2
185.7
185.7
Experimental
Exp/AISC
Effective Length
Pcr/Pn
Factor, K
1.07
0.96
0.64
N/A
1.13
0.86
1.04
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.99
1.17
0.82
1.30
0.62
1.30
0.62
Experimental
Slenderness
Ratio (Kl/r)
81.3
N/A
72.4
81.1
84.3
103.8
68.8
49.3
49.5
Observations from the table are as follows:

HSS-19 brace buckled at the extension plate prior to reaching the critical buckling force of
the brace. All of the other specimens buckled over the length of the brace at or below the
calculated nominal buckling capacity which experimentally supports the AISC equations
for calculating nominal buckling capacities of compression members.
The thin tapered gusset plates for HSS-22 resulted in a lower experimental buckling force
and calculated effective length factor, , equal to 1.0.
As expected, the increase stiffness from the 7/8 thick gusset plates for HSS-25 and HSS26 increased the experimental critical buckling force and resulted in a equal to 0.62. Here
the rigidity of the gusset plates increases the critical buckling load and using a equal to 1.0
and the actual brace length underestimates the nominal buckling capacity by 30%.
All of the actual slenderness ratios for specimens with HSS tubular brace sections are far
below the limit established within the AISC Seismic Provisions. However, WF-23 with the
wide-flange brace section did exceed the limit but this was anticipated in the design of the
specimen and deemed acceptable in order to maximize the brace section size within limits
of the UW test setup and actuator capacity.
217
6.3.2.1
Nonlinear Brace Response
Nonlinear brace responses were determined by evaluating peak values and brace hysteresis behavior
over the full test. The hysteretic response of the brace uses actual calculated brace forces and
displacement over the diagonal work point to work point. Strain gauges were placed around the
brace section at the southwest quarter point to record the strains during each test. These strains
were converted to stress using a plasticity model created using MatLab. The elastic-plastic stressstrain relationship illustrated in Figure 6.3.3 defines the nonlinear behavior of the A500 B/C steel.
The model addresses large cyclic strains by calculating the plastic strain accumulated prior to
reversal for each cycle. The model calculates stress equal to
in the elastic range until yielding
occurred, where it was taken as the input yield stress until the reversal point. Unloading and
reloading stiffness follows the modulus of elasticity, , equal to 29000ksi. The material properties
of the A500 B/C tubular braces sections and the A992 W6x25 brace section used in WF-23 were
not attained from coupon test. The yield stress in the model was taken as RyFy from the AISC
Seismic Provision, 55ksi and 64.4ksi, for the respectively. Figure 6.3.4 shows a theoretical strain
record under cyclic loading and the resulting stress-strain response from the plasticity model.
Fy
E=29000ksi
Figure 6.3.3: Elastic-Plastic Stress/Strain Behavior
218
10.0y
Fy
8.0y
6.0y
4.0y
2.0y
2.0y
1.0y
-Fy
-1.0y
Figure 6.3.4: Plasticity Model under Repeat Cyclic Loading
Brace hysteresis plots for each specimen are shown in Table 6.3.2. The plots were created using
the brace forces from the strain gauge data verses the total displacement over the frame diagonal.
Ideally, brace elongation would be a more telling variable for the brace behavior but the
instrumentation capturing the elongation was affected by the out-of-plane rotation at the gusset
plates at negative drifts. A simplified approach was used to correct for this effect but the resulting
values were deemed unreliable for this comparison. The peak brace force values normalized by the
brace yield force,
, and the maximum elongation of the frame diagonal as a
percent of the total length, work-point to work-point, are summarized in Table 6.3.3. Brace
elongation over the actual brace lengths is also included for positive drifts only.
HSS-19
HSS-18
Table 6.3.2: Brace Hysteresis Comparison
219
220
HSS-26
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-21
HSS-20
Table 6.3.3: Brace Resistance Summary
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-26
Experimental Brace
Force, kips
Pmax
Tmax
-188.6
398.0
-117.1
238.2
-198.2
398.0
-175.0
398.0
-174.0
389.7
-167.0
351.5
-175.0
391.6
-237.4
398.0
-218.3
398.0
Frame Diagonal Elongation,%

Compression
-1.29
-0.50
-1.14
-1.28
-1.31
-1.71
-1.26
-1.21
-0.22
Tension
0.81
0.15
0.85
0.80
0.79
1.26
0.97
0.45
0.49
Brace Elongation,%
Compression Tension
N/A
0.78
N/A
0.17
N/A
0.94
N/A
0.90
N/A
0.84
N/A
1.65
N/A
1.04
N/A
0.69
N/A
0.70
For all of the specimens with HSS brace sections, the braces reached their maximum resistance in
tension and then maintained strength or degraded slightly as positive diagonal deformation
increased. The force in WF-23 continues to increase with positive deformation and reached the
maximum resistance immediately prior to failure of the system. In compression, the largest brace
force was recorded immediately prior to buckling and resistance decreased as negative deformation
increased because of P* effects. The wide-flange brace section in WF-23 quickly loses resistance
after buckling while the specimens with HSS brace sections appear to degrade at a slower rate. The
drop in compressive resistance appears more severe for HSS-22 than HSS-25 which would suggest
that the fixity of the gusset plate connections contributes to this behavior.
6.3.3
OOP Response of Brace and Gusset Plates
This section compares the behavior of the brace and gusset plates in compression and their effect
on the ultimate drift capacity of the system. Out-of-plane displacement of the brace is evaluated in
Section 6.3.3.1. The brace is forced geometrically to buckle out-of-plane as the frame is pushed to
negative drifts. The level of out-of-plane displacement should be empirically similar at a given total
drift range regardless of gusset plate size and thickness. The shape and the curvature of the
buckled brace are greatly affected by the gusset plate rotational stiffness. Increased curvature of the
brace leads to strain accumulation at the brace center and fracture at smaller frame deflections
(Kotulka 2007).
Gusset plate rotations are discussed and compared in Section 6.3.3.2. A more flexible gusset plate
will allow the brace to buckle similarly to a pinned-end member. Stiffer gusset plate connections
result in the double curvature typical of a fixed-end member, as shown in Figure 6.3.5. The
curvature at the brace center is less severe at a given out-of-plane displacement for a brace with
more flexible connections. Comparisons of buckled brace shape are compared in Section 6.3.3.3.
221
Figure 6.3.5: Shape and Curvature of Buckled Brace with Different End Conditions
Damage to the interface weld connecting the gusset plates to the framing elements typically initiates
while the brace is in compression. Section 6.3.3.4 discusses weld damage and compares cracking as
observed during the tests.
6.3.3.1
Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement
The maximum out-of-plane displacements at the brace center are determined and discussed in this
section. The instruments used to measure out-of-plane displacement of the brace were fixed at one
end to the strong floor, and the instruments developed an angle of inclination with the frame
deflection. Corrections were made to account for the changing angles as the frame deflected.
These corrections are summarized in Appendix D.
Displacement at the brace midpoint should be relatively close comparatively based on geometry of
all the specimen frames. This is based on OOP displacement of the brace being directly related to
the story drift. The relationship between horizontal drift range and brace out-of-plane
displacement is illustrated in Figure 6.3.6 using Equations (6.3.2) through (6.3.5). The angle inplane angle of the brace is given as .
(6.3.2)
(6.3.3)
(6.3.4)
(6.3.5)
222
Figure 6.3.6: Horizontal Drift Range to Brace OOP Displacement Relationship
Figure 6.3.7 plots the out-of-plane displacement of the brace center verses the total drift range for
three of the specimens; WF-23 with the wide-flange brace section, HSS-24 utilizing the thin
rectangular gusset plate and bolted shear plate welded flange beam-to-column connection, and
HSS-22 with the thin tapered gusset plate and shear plate beam-to-column connection. The brace
displacement is normalized by the actual brace length, end to end.
Figure 6.3.7: Brace Out-of-Plane vs. Total Drift Range Comparison
The trends in the behavior are relatively close for all of the HSS specimens but the displacement of
the wide-flange brace section for WF-23 was greater than both HSS-22 and HSS-24 at the smaller
223
drift ranges, less than 3%. The specimen with thin tapered gusset plates, HSS-22, showed larger
out-of-plane displacements at the larger drift ranges.
6.3.3.2
Gusset Plate Rotations
The rotation of the gusset plates as the brace buckled out-of-plane in compression presented in this
section. The gusset plate designs for all of the specimens in this test program utilized an elliptical
clearance to permit rotations and the development of hinges at the brace ends. Instrumentation
recorded the linear displacements at two points near the free edge of the gusset plate,
and
and were used to determine gusset plate rotations. The displacements are divided by the distance
from the adjacent beam or column flange to the instrumentation point of contact,
and , and
averaged to give rotation in radians, . This method for is illustrated in Figure 6.3.8.
Figure 6.3.8: Gusset Plate Rotation
The gusset plate thickness and geometry attributed to the level of rotation achieved during the tests.
Figure 6.3.9 shows the rotations in radians at the northeast gusset plate for three of the specimens,
HSS-22, HSS-24, and HSS-25, over total drift range. The thin tapered gusset plates from HSS-22
were more flexible and achieved larger out-of-plane displacement and rotation than rectangular
gusset plates at a given drift range. Also, the 3/8 rectangular gusset plates in HSS-24 achieved
larger rotations than the 7/8 thick rectangular gusset plates of HSS-25.
224
Figure 6.3.9: Example of NE Gusset Plate Rotations
Table 6.3.4 summarizes the northeast gusset plate rotations and compares values at two drift ranges
and immediately prior to system failure. The first selected drift range for comparison is at 1.25%.
In all cases visible rotation of the gusset plates was observed and out-of-plane displacement of the
brace center exceeded the B2 damage level. The second drift range is at 2.75%. For most of the
specimen, this is immediately prior to observing local deformation in the plastic hinge at the brace
center. The maximum-recorded rotations with the corresponding total drift ranges are included for
each specimen. An average rotation of the NE gusset plate for the seven specimens is calculated
and also included for comparison.
Table 6.3.4: NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison Summary
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
Average
Rotation
at 1.25%
0.0868
0.0838
0.0876
0.1094
0.0934
0.0882
0.0785
0.0897
Rotation Maximum Recorded

at 2.75% Rotation Drift Range
0.1212
0.1435
4.19
0.1254
0.1484
3.97
0.1262
0.1494
4.14
0.1546
0.1971
3.98
0.1378
0.1907
5.56
0.1257
0.1535
4.44
0.1181
0.1272
3.30
0.1299
0.1585
4.23
Gusset Plate
Thickness, in.
0.375
Unwelded Beam/Col Conn.
0.375
18 Bolted Beam End Plate Conn.
0.375
14 Bolted Beam End Plate Conn.
0.375
Unwelded Beam/Col Conn.
0.375
WF brace section
0.375
Bolted Web CJP Flange Conn.
0.875
Heavy Beam and Gusset Plate
Discription
Gusset
Shape
Rectangle
Rectangle
Rectangle
Tapered
Rectangle
Rectangle
Rectangle
-
HSS-22 with the thin tapered gusset plates exhibited the largest rotations of all the specimens. At
1.25% drift range, the rotation reached 0.1094 radians, 22% more than the average rotation. The
rotation reached 0.1546 radians at 2.75% drift range, 19% larger than the average. HSS-25 utilized
a 7/8 thick gusset plate, which resulted in smaller rotations than the other specimen at both
compared drift ranges, 0.0785 radians at 1.25% and 0.1181 radians at 2.75%. This is 12.5% and 9%
225
below the average rotations from the seven tests in this comparison, respectively. HSS-18, HSS-20,
HSS-21, and HSS-24 all had identical gusset plate designs and the behaviors exhibited by all four
specimens were very similar.
6.3.3.3
Brace Buckled Shape and Curvature
Displacements over the brace length were used to create the buckled brace shape for comparison.
Potentiometers recorded the out-of-plane displacements at four points along the northwest half of
the brace which were mirrored to the southeast portion of the brace assuming symmetry. A picture
of the buckled brace shape is created that can be used to evaluate the curvature over the brace
length. The values for displacement and the locations of the instrumentation along the brace are
shown as a percent of the original brace length. Figure 6.3.10 illustrates the approach for plotting
the buckled brace shapes in this section. Straight lines are used connecting the known
displacements along the brace but theory of the actual curvature can be made based on the change
in slopes between lines.
%=
poteniometer
Plotted Buckled Shape
/Loriginal
Estimated Curvature
Northwest
Direction
Original Brace Position
e
ac
o
ge
an
sp
t
in
Po
t
se
us
fG
id
eM
ac
Br
Br
Ed
nd
eE
ac
Br
Loriginal
Figure 6.3.10: Instrumentation for Determining Buckled Brace Shape
Brace shape was compared at the different total drift ranges rather than only negative story drift
because the out-of-plane displacement and resulting shape are dependent on a combination of both
the tensile yielding and residual elongation and the buckling behavior of the brace in compression.
The same descriptions for initial (0% to 1.25%) and moderate (1.25% to 2.75%) drift ranges used in
Chapter 5 when evaluating test performance are used here to show the progression of brace shape.
The comparison for the six specimens in Figure 6.3.11 was taken for initial drift ranges from 1.27%
to 1.44% and for moderate drift ranges from 2.61% to 3.04% for Figure 6.3.12. The B1 and B2
damage levels for brace buckling were typically reached within the initial drift ranges. In the
226
moderate ranges, the brace began showing less parabolic shape and tended to form a more
triangular shape as the plastic hinge formed at the brace midpoint.
The brace shapes for HSS-19 was not included in the comparisons because the brace buckled
downward and immediately formed a hinge at the extension plates connecting the brace to the
WTs. The brace shapes for HSS-21 were left out due to erroneous potentiometer data at the brace
center and at the gusset plates. HSS-26 was also left out because the test protocol focused on the
tension dominated near-fault loading history and fracture of the brace occurred prior to significant
brace buckling.
Figure 6.3.11: Brace Shape Comparison at Initial Total Drift Range (Approx. 1.25%)
The shape of WF-23 with the W6x25 brace section shows the largest displacements of the six
specimens compared at this initial total drift range. All of the other specimens display similar
maximum out-of-plane displacement at midpoint but there are some variations in the shape of the
brace. It can be seen that the gusset plate rotations for HSS-25 near the lowest of those compare
but the displacement at the points in near to highest. This is an example of double curvature
over the brace length due to the increase rigidity of the heavier gusset plates. The shape of the
other specimens are somewhat clustered and display a parabolic shape over the length more typical
of pinned-pinned connections. The buckled brace shapes are shown in Figure 6.3.12 for moderate
drift ranges, approximately 2.75%.
227
Figure 6.3.12: Brace Shape Comparison at Moderate Total Drift Ranges (Approx. 2.75%)
The progression of the buckled brace into a more triangular shape at the moderate total drift ranges
can be seen. All of the specimens are showing increased pinching near the brace midpoint as the
plastic hinge formed. This increased curvature indicates increased local strains in this region and
strain accumulation occurring at a smaller drift ranges could limit the life of the brace under cyclic
loading. HSS-25 again shows smaller rotations at the gusset plates more closely resembling a
compressive member with fixed-fixed end supports. HSS-20 achieved a larger midpoint
displacement but relatively lower point displacements which resulted in great curvature over the
plastic hinge region. HSS-25 and HSS-20 both achieved the smallest total drift range of the
specimens compared, 3.30% for HSS-25 and 3.97% for HSS-20. The gusset plate rotations for
HSS-22 were the largest of those compared and the midpoint out-of-plane displacement was the
largest of the specimens with the tubular HSS brace at this drift range. This suggests at this drift
range that the inelastic behavior of the brace and gussets plates has progressed to higher level for
HSS-22, which only achieved 3.98% total drift range. HSS-18, HSS-24 and WF-23 exhibited more
of a parabolic curve over the length but also show higher curvature at the brace midpoint and also
resulted in higher total drift ranges. Local deformation, cupping and bulging, was observed shortly
after 2.75% drift range in all specimens with the exception of WF-23, which fractured at the
northeast gusset to frame interface welds before local deformation could occur.
The brace shapes shown in Figure 6.3.13 are from the last successful full cycle prior to brace (or
system) failure. Increased curvature over the brace lengths with severe pinching at the brace center
was visible for all test specimens, with the exception of WF-23. The buckled brace of Specimen
WF-23 maintained a half-sine shape throughout the test and never exhibited the local deformation
228
of a fully formed plastic hinge at the brace center. All five of the other specimens with the HSS
brace sections showed extreme local deformation at the plastic hinge which is reflected in the
curvature over the brace shape.
Figure 6.3.13: Buckled Brace Shape Immediately Prior to Failure
The buckled shape of the brace is important to the overall life of the system, the best evidence of
this being the brace behavior of specimen WF-23. The W6x25 wide-flange brace section was able
to achieve larger out-of-plane displacements and delayed the formation of the plastic hinge at the
brace center. A logical reason for this variation is the significant difference in local deformation as
brace buckling occurs. WF-23 showed a gradually curving buckled shape throughout the entire
test, and resulted in the largest total drift range.
HSS-24 and HSS-18 achieved larger total drift ranges compared to the other HSS brace section
specimens in this comparison. HSS-18 and HSS-24 both displayed a more favorable buckled brace
shape at 2.75% and the severity of curvature before fracture was less than those of HSS-22, HSS-20
and HSS-25. Buckled braces that maintain a half-sine wave shape, similar to that of a pinnedpinned member, delayed the formation of the plastic hinge at the midpoint and improved the
ultimate total drift range achieved by the system. Conversely, HSS-22 showed the largest rotation
at the gusset connections, most resembling pinned-pinned end supports, but resulted in early
concentration of damage at the brace midpoint and smaller total drift range. This suggests that the
brace behavior and the brace life are also influenced by the rigidity of the beam-to-column
connection and not just the gusset plate behavior.
229
However, it is clear that the gusset plate behavior in compression plays a crucial role to the overall
performance of the system and the ultimate total drift range. Stiffer gusset plates like those used in
HSS-25 induce double curvature into the buckled brace shape at smaller drift levels and ultimately
limit the life of the brace. Larger curvature demands of the brace result in greater inelastic strain at
the brace center. Once the plastic hinge is formed, the HSS brace sections quickly develop severe
local buckling in compression and micro-cracks in tension, eventually propagating through the
section. By delaying the localization of damage that is related to the local strain and curvature of
the brace and that immediately precedes buckling, the overall life of the system will be increased.
Table 6.3.5 arranges the test by their total drift ranges and compares observations related to the
buckled brace shape.
Table 6.3.5: Drift Range and Brace Shape Comparison
Specimen
Drift Ratio, %
Range Min Max
Buckled Brace Shape

Least Deformation of
-3.21 2.35
Hinge at Failure
Pinching at Hinge Prior to
-2.50 1.94
Failure
Pinching at Hinge Prior to
-2.59 1.60
Failure
WF-23
5.56
HSS-24
4.44
HSS-18
4.19
HSS-21
4.14
-2.55 1.59
HSS-22
3.98
-2.48 1.50
HSS-20
3.97
HSS-25
3.30
HSS-26
1.38
-0.40 0.99
N/A
HSS-19
1.31
-1.01 0.31
N/A
6.3.3.4
N/A
Largest Gusset Rotations

and Pinching at Hinge at
Moderate Drift Range
Pinching at Hinge at
-2.28 1.69
Moderate Drift Range
Smallest Gusset Rotations
-2.41 0.88
and Double Curvature
Discription
Gusset
Plate
Gusset
Shape
WF brace section
0.375
Rectangle
0.375
Rectangle
0.375
Rectangle
0.375
Rectangle
0.375
Tapered
0.375
Rectangle
0.875
Rectangle
0.875
Rectangle
0.500
Rectangle
Modified Beam/Col
Conn.
Bolted Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
14 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
Bolted Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
18 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
Heavy Beam and
Gusset Plate
Heavy Bm and GP
with Near-Fault
Loading
Bolted WT Brace
Connection
Weld Damage
The behavior and damage to the beam to column interface welds are discussed in this section. The
interface welds are required to transfer load from the gusset plates to the beams and columns, and
provide the necessary resistance and deformability to allow the brace and gusset plate to rotation
out-of-plane. Current AISC design procedures size the welds for the maximum expected
combination of tension and shear from the expected brace force and provide the 2t linear clearance
at the end of the brace to allow for out-of-plane rotation of the brace. Experimental research has
shown that additional stress and deformation demands occur on the gusset plates and interface
welds at the reentrant corners because of gusset rotation and the opening and closing of the frame
230
under cyclic loading. At large drift ranges, cracking of the weld material or in the heat affected
zone (HAZ) of the gusset plate has been observed (Johnson 2005). If these cracks grow to
sufficient length that they reach their critical fracture stability limit, weld fracture may occur. A
schematic illustrating the additional demands on the gusset plates is provided in Figure 6.3.14.
Out-of-Plane Rotation
of Gusset Plate
Br
ac
ei
Co
m
pr
es
sio
n
Opening Moment
at Connection
Column
Brace
SECTION
1
-
Tension Across
Gusset Plate
Figure 6.3.14: Additional Demands on Gusset Plate Interface Welds
Complete fracture of the gusset to frame interface welds is an undesirable failure mechanism
SCBFs but some ductile tearing can be tolerated if it is controlled (Kotulka 2007). Ductile tearing
at the reentrant corners essentially reduces the gusset plate rotational stiffness and permits greater
brace end rotations. As the stiffness decreases, the effective length factor
increases along with
the slenderness ratio of the brace. This potentially increases the ultimate drift capacity of the brace
by reducing the strain demand at the plastic hinge at the brace center.
During design of the nine specimens, the interface welds were sized to develop the full capacity of
the gusset plates or CJP welds were utilized. Interface weld cracking still occurred for HSS-22, WF23, HSS-24 and HSS-25. Fracture of the northeast gusset interface welds for WF-23 ultimately
controlled as the system failure mechanism. This occurred prior to fully developing the plastic
231
hinge at the wide-flange brace section midpoint. The level of interface weld tearing is summarized
in Table 6.3.6. The length of weld tearing is given as a percentage of the total weld length for both
the gusset to beam and gusset column edges. The scale used to show the crack length is
proportioned because the majority of damage was less than 10% of the total length. The negative
drift ratio at which cracking initiated or propagated is also provided.
Table 6.3.6: Weld Damage Propagation Summary
Initial
Crack 0
*-1.86
NE -1.46
HSS-22
SW -1.11
Length of Weld Tearing, % of Total Length

5
10
50
Specimen
NE
SW
-2.86
-2.86
NE
HSS-24
SW
-1.83
-1.83
NE
SW
-1.94
WF-23
*-1.86
100
*-2.46
*-2.46
**(B) *-2.86
*-3.21
*WF
*-1.95
HSS-25
*-2.50
*-2.41
*Numbers indicate Negative Drift Ratio in % at Propagation

*B indicates cracking in base material (HAZ)
In HSS-22 cracking initiated in the gusset plates at moderate drift levels of -1.11% (1.90% total drift
range) and propagated to approximately 5.7% of the total interface weld length at the northeast
gusset and 5.4% at the southwest at -2.46% (3.97% total). The bolted shear plate beam-to-column
connection and the thin tapered gusset plates provide less stiffness at the frame connection which
increased the level of rotation at peak drift levels. HSS-22 noted severe yielding and deformation
of the gusset plates and nearly zero yielding of the framing elements.
The performance of WF-23 exceeded all other specimens for ultimate drift capacity and the local
displacement of the brace center. Initial cracking of the reentrant corners did not occur until the
negative drift level of -2.86% (4.91% total drift range) and was immediately observed as 7.2% of
total weld length for the northeast gusset connection. Weld damage then propagated to 49% of the
entire length at -3.21% drift (5.56% total drift range) and fractured during the subsequent tension
cycle. Additional available ductility is recognized for A992 wide-flange brace sections compared to
A500 B/C HSS sections. However, this increased deformation capacity also increases the ductility
demand of the gusset plate connection, including the interface welds, to accommodate the large
232
out-of-plane rotations of the gussets and increased drift levels in the frame needed to develop and
eventually fracture the brace at the plastic hinge.
HSS-24 and HSS-25 both showed only moderate levels of weld damage during the tests. For HSS24, cracking initiated at -1.83% drift (3.17% total) and propagated to a maximum 4.3% of the total
weld length at the northeast gusset plate prior to brace fracture and -2.50% drift (4.44% total).
HSS-25 initiated cracking at the northeast gusset plate at -1.94% drift (2.62% total). At the
maximum negative drift level of -2.41% (3.30% total drift range), cracking propagated to only 1.2%
of the total weld length.
The behavior of HSS-22, HSS-24 and HSS-25 show that ductile tearing of the interface welds is not
detrimental to the seismic performance of the system. Both achieved large negative drift levels and
the level of damage observed did not jeopardize the integrity of the welds to transfer forces
between the gusset plate and the framing elements. The damage to the interface weld observed in
WF-23 clearly exceeded what could be considered acceptable or beneficial. Specimen HSS-22, on
the other hand, maintained maximum resistance in the system and in the brace in tension and the
controlling failure mechanism occurred at the brace plastic hinge.
6.3.4
Brace Behavior in Tension
This section compares both brace and gusset plate elongation at total drift ranges. As the frame is
pushed to positive drifts, the distance across the diagonal must elongate to accommodate the
changed geometry. AISC Seismic Provisions for Capacity Based Design of a SCBF size the
diagonal brace section to yield in tension prior to any other component. The design of the
connections is based on the maximum expected force delivered from the braced and includes
strength reduction factors, , to limit the yielding to only the brace. As discussed in Chapter 4, the
Balance Design Approach intends to utilize the additional potential ductility in the system beyond
the brace to extend the life of the system at more severe drift ranges. Yielding of the gusset plates
in tension can reduce the strain demand over the brace length and potentially increase the life of
the system under cyclic loading.
6.3.4.1
Brace Elongation
This section compares the in-plane elongation of the brace. Instrumentation on the test specimen
measured the change in length of the brace, L. The elongation is plotted as a strain value, in/in,
calculated as L/Lo, with Lo being the brace length between gusset plate free ends not including
the overlapping splice length within the gusset plate. The strain calculated here is an
approximation of the actual brace strain. After buckling, the brace does not fully straighten at zero
233
displacement but hinges at the brace center. Yielding is concentrated at the hinge location rather
than over the full brace length.
Brace elongation is compared to the overall total drift ranges in Figure 6.3.15 for four of the
specimen for comparison. Specimen HSS-22 with thin tapered gusset plates, HSS-24 with 3/8 in
thick rectangular gusset plates, HSS-25 with 7/8 in. thick rectangular gusset plates, and WF-23 with
3/8 in thick gusset plates and the W6x25 brace section. Brace Elongation plots for all nine
specimens are included in Appendix C.
Figure 6.3.15: Brace Elongation vs. Total Drift Range
The W6x25 brace section in WF-23 was ASTM A992 steel and elongated more at a given drift
range than the HSS brace sections. The brace in HSS-25 having thicker gusset plate connections
also exhibited more elongation than the other specimens at similar drifts. The heavier 7/8 gussets
appear to increase the elongation in the brace. Specimen HSS-24 achieved slightly greater
elongation with the 3/8 in. rectangular gusset plates than HSS-22 having the tapered geometry.
Brace axial stress verses brace strain is plotted in Figure 6.3.16. Brace stress was calculated as
using the brace axial forces, , from Section 6.3.1.
234
Figure 6.3.16: Brace Axial Stress vs. Brace Strain
The experimental stress/strain relationship from the brace in tension closely resembles that of the
brace material coupon test. As expected for A500 B/C steel, the HSS braces does not strain
harden after yielding, where as the wide-flange section exhibited a clear yield plateau, and strain
hardening occurred further increasing the brace stress. This behavior could be one benefit of using
wide-flange brace sections. No coupon values were obtained for the A992 Grade 50 W6x25 brace
section but the yield stress is much lower than what would be expected.
6.3.4.2
Gusset Plate Elongation
Gusset plate elongation is taken as the elongation occurring from the beam to column work points
to the free edges of the gusset plates. It is calculated by subtracting the recorded brace elongation
data from the diagonal work point displacement data. The result is then divided by the original
length across the diagonal minus the brace length, free end from free end. The Balance Design
Procedure promotes tensile yielding of the gusset plates to increase the ductility of the system by
utilizing a factor of 1.0 for yielding across the effective Whitmore width. The capacity of the
gusset plates must be sufficient to develop yielding of the brace section and as strain hardening
occurs in the brace, the gusset plates should yield, increasing the total elongation over the diagonal.
Gusset plate elongation verses total drift range is present in Figure 6.3.17.
235
Figure 6.3.17: Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison
Specimen HSS-22 exhibited the most gusset plate elongation until a total drift range of 2.5%.
Specimen HSS-18 achieved that most gusset plate elongation prior to failure. Both specimens
utilized the bolted shear plate beam-to-column connections adjacent to the gusset connections.
Significant yielding was observed over the entire area for the tapered gusset plates and the weld
damage observed at higher drift ranges was more than seen in any of the other test with HSS brace
sections. The heavier gusset plate used in HSS-25 showed no observed tensile yielding during the
test, which is consistent with the plot above. The gusset plate elongation of WF-23 was less than
the other specimens with thin rectangular gusset plates.
The gusset plate elongation can be compared to the brace elongation as illustrated in Figure 6.3.18.
The Balance Design Procedure has been used to increase the total ductility of the system by
extending yielding beyond the brace and into the gusset plate connections. Tensile yielding of the
gusset plates is encouraged by implementing a factor of 1.0 in the design. However, the extent of
yielding should not limit the force developed in the brace and as a result brace yielding. A line
showing brace elongation equal to gusset plate elongation is provided for comparison. Specimens
that fall below the line show yielding of the gusset plate greater than in the brace such as HSS-18
and HSS-22, both of which utilized the bolted shear plate beam-to-column connections. HSS-20,
WF-23 and HSS-26 exhibit a response dominated by brace yielding and minimal tensile yielding in
the gusset plates. HSS-20 and HSS-24 show yielding balanced between both the brace and the
gusset plates.
236
Figure 6.3.18: Brace Elongation verses Gusset Plate Elongation
6.4
Frame Response
The in-plane rigidity of the beam-to-column connections is not easily determined and is a
combination of the actual beam-to-column connection fixity and the in-plane stiffness of the gusset
plate. A frame designed with a great elastic stiffness relative to brace stiffness will increase the
demands on the framing elements. As the system increases drift range and yielding and buckling of
the brace occur, the response of the frame plays a more crucial role to the response of the system.
The following sections evaluate the performance of the frames by comparing column moments and
shears for each specimen in Sections 6.4.1 and Section 6.4.2. The lateral frame resistance is
discussed in Section 6.4.3 including hysteretic plots of the frame response. Lastly, rotations of the
northwest and southeast shear tab connections are evaluated in Section 6.4.4
6.4.1
Column Moments
This section evaluates the column moments directly adjacent to the free edge of the gusset plate
where yielding and deformation typically were observed during the tests. Two gauges were
positioned at the outside center extreme fiber of ach flange at locations where the column was
expected to remain elastic. Plane sections remain plane implies profile is linear over the depth and
stresses are calculated by elastic theory. Moments are calculated as described in Figure 6.4.1 with
modulus of elasticity, , for structural steel equal to 29000ksi.. By having the moments at two
locations over the length of the column, the moment at the edge of gusset plate can be determined
237
through equilibrium. The method for calculating the moment at the edge of the gusset plate is also
illustrated in Figure 6.4.1.
a
E
b
M=I*( a- b)
d
Mgusset = (Mnorth-Msouth) *Lg - Msouth

Lv
Mgusset < Mp
Lg
Mnorth
Lv
W12x72
Msouth
Figure 6.4.1: Column Moment Calculation
The maximum moment from extrapolation is limited to the plastic moment of the sections
calculated as
using the actual yield stresses obtained from material coupon tests
summarized in Table 6.4.1. Material properties for HSS-18 were not available and in some cases,
the results from the coupon tests were unavailable. In those cases, the yield stress was taken
as
. The column moments at the northeast and southwest gusset plates are plots verses the
story drift in Figure 6.4.2 and Figure 6.4.3, respectively, for specimens HSS-22, HSS-24 and HSS-25
to illustrate different moment responses with different gusset plate design and beam-to-column
connection details. Moment is normalized by nominal or plastic moment,
of the W12x72
column section. Figures illustrating column moments are available for all nine specimens in this
test series in Appendix C.
238
Table 6.4.1: Framing Element Material Properties
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-26
Actual Yield Stress, Fy (ksi)

Beams
Columns
North
South
East
West
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
62.73
63.57
58.94
57.2
60.54
59.22
N/A
N/A
62.35
60.1
56.75
56.65
60.53
60.53
47.74
59.13
60.47
61.95
59.7
53.85
62.05
62.72
54.69
N/A
56.79
56.79
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
55.14
58.46
Figure 6.4.2: Column Moment at Edge of NE Gusset Plate
239
Figure 6.4.3: Column Moment at Edge of SW Gusset Plate
The increased stiffness from the CJP welded beam-to-column connection, the heavier W16x89
beam sections, and larger gusset plates resulted in increased moments at the edge of gusset plate for
HSS-25. Specimen HSS-22, which utilized the bolted shear plate beam-to-column connection and
3/8 in. thick tapered gusset plates, exhibited the lower negative moment in the northeast column
with the brace in compression but comparable moments at the southwest column. In tension,
specimen HSS-22 exhibited little moment resistance at the edge of the tapered gusset plates for
both columns. Specimen HSS-24 utilized the bolted web CJP welded flange beam-to-column
connection and 3/8 in. rectangular gusset plates and achieved smaller moments than HSS-25 but
greater than HSS-22.
6.4.2
Column Shears
Column shears were calculated using the column moments from the strain gauge data from each
specimen and tabulated in Appendix C for all nine specimens. Moments were calculated at the two
locations over the length of the columns. Having no external forces applied over this length, the
shear is uniform between the two locations. The shear forces in each column can then be
calculated directly as illustrated in Figure 6.4.4.
240
E
b
M=I*( a- b)
d
Vcolumn = (Mnorth-Msouth)
Lv
Vframe =Veast col.+Vwest col.
a
Mnorth
Vcolumn
Lv
Msouth
Figure 6.4.4: Column Shear Calculations
The total shear resisted by both columns is equal to the lateral force resisted by the frame.
Maximum values of frame resistances were determined at peak drift ratios for the nine specimens.
The enveloped curves are plotted together in Table 6.4.2 for comparison. The frame resistance is
normalized by
, the nominal lateral resistance of the theoretical frame assuming pinned
connections at the NW and SE shear tab connections and fixed connections at the NE and SW
connections adjacent to the gusset plates. The nominal resistance was determined as the force that
develops
of the column at the fixed connections.
and used a height of the frame,
was calculated in Equation (6.4.1)
, equal to 144 in.

(6.4.1)
241
HSS-19
WF-23
HSS-25
HSS-21
HSS-22
HSS-26
HSS-24
HSS-20
HSS-18
Table 6.4.2: Enveloped Frame Resistance vs. Drift Ratio
242
The initial slope of the plotted line is the elastic stiffness of the frame which was calculated using
the first small cycles from the enveloped resistances verses horizontal drift in inches for each
specimen in Table 6.4.2. In general, the plots show a nonlinear response for frame resistance that
gradually arches from the elastic to the inelastic region at larger drifts. The variation in response
was more substantial at positive drifts than at negative drifts because the in-plane stiffness of the
gusset plate influenced the in-plane stiffness of the beam-to-column connection greater in the
positive direction than the negative. The ratio of frame stiffness over total stiffness has been
calculated to evaluate the relative contribution from the frame during the elastic response of the
total system. Frame elastic stiffness, frame stiffness ratio, maximum resistances and corresponding
drift ratios are summarized in Table 6.4.3.
Table 6.4.3: Frame Stiffness and Peak Resistance Summary
Frame Stiffness,
k/in
Specimen
KE,frame/
KE,frame
KE,total
HSS-18
87.8
0.143
HSS-19
89.1
0.121
HSS-20
98.9
0.149
HSS-21
99.1
0.164
HSS-22
81.3
0.140
WF-23
89.1
0.120
HSS-24
87.0
0.127
HSS-25
118.8
0.147
HSS-26
143.4
0.185
Frame Resistance, kips
Frame Drift Ratio, %
Comp Tension Range Comp Tension Range

-109.8
-68.5
-138.0
-120.0
-107.5
-126.2
-122.6
-127.9
-76.6
81.5
49.0
95.3
109.7
62.4
122.0
88.9
108.4
100.2
191.3
117.5
233.3
229.7
170.0
248.2
211.5
236.2
176.8
-2.59
-1.01
-2.28
-2.55
-2.48
-3.21
-2.50
-2.41
-0.40
1.60
0.31
1.69
1.59
1.50
2.35
1.94
0.88
0.99
4.19
1.31
3.97
4.14
3.98
5.56
4.44
3.30
1.38
The specimen with the heavier beam sections and stiffer gusset plate connections, HSS-25 and
HSS-26, exhibited the largest frame stiffness as expected but not the largest positive or negative
frame resistances. The bolted end plate beam to column connection also resulted in larger initial
stiffness of the frame, as seen with HSS-20 and HSS-21. The thin tapered gusset plates and bolted
shear plate beam-to-column connections of HSS-22 resulted in the lowest initial stiffness, while
specimens with thin rectangular gusset plates exhibited comparable initial stiffness, regardless of
beam-to-column connection detail.
In the positive direction, WF-23 achieved the largest frame resistance, 122.0 kip. In the negative
direction, the 18 bolt beam end plate connection specimen, HSS-20, achieved the largest negative
resistance, -138.0 kip, followed by WF-23 with 126.2 kip. Not including HSS-19 and HSS-26, the
243
thin tapered gusset plates and bolted shear plate connections in HSS-22 achieved the smallest
positive and negative resistances, -107.5 kip and 62.4 kip.
6.4.3
Frame Hysteretic Response
Hysteresis plots of the total column shear, or frame resistance, verses frame drift ratio are
compared in Table 6.4.4. The widening of the hysteretic loops at large drift ranges indicates the
nonlinear response of the frame. Wide, full loops represent more inelastic deformation of the
framing elements and increased energy dissipated by the frame.
HSS-21
WF-23
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-22
HSS-18
Table 6.4.4: Frame Hysteresis Comparison
244
HSS-25
HSS-24
HSS-26
6.4.4
Shear Tab Connection Rotations
The shear tab connection rotations are compared in this section. Bolt elongation of shear
connections is considered a yield mechanism that can attribute to the ultimate drift capacity of the
system. Bolt fracture at the shear tabs is also recognized as a potential failure mode. The desired
behavior of the shear tabs is to be able to rotate to accommodate large drift ranges while
maintaining shear resistance. Potentiometers were connected to the inside of the beam flanges at
the shear tab connection to record horizontal displacement between beam and the column flange
outside face. The displacements were used to calculate rotation of the shear tab connection in
radians in Equation (6.4.2) and illustrated in Figure 6.4.5. Rotations are plotted verses the story
drift for the northwest shear tab in Figure 6.4.6 and for the southeast in Figure 6.4.7.
(6.4.2)
245
Lrot
Column
Beam
=Potentiometers
( a- b)
sheartab (radians) =
Lrot
Figure 6.4.5: Shear Tab Rotation Calculation
Figure 6.4.6: Northwest Shear Tab Rotation Comparison
246
Figure 6.4.7: Southeast Shear Tab Rotation Comparison
The shear tab rotations exhibit a linear response to story drift. The behavior is closely banded for
all specimens at the southeast connection. There appears to be more discrepancy at the northwest
connection which could likely be attributed to the influence of the load beam connected at the
northwest corner of the specimen.
6.5
Distribution of System Resistance
This section compared the resistance of the system by dividing the contribution of story shear into
brace and frame resistances. In order to compare the calculated frame and brace resistance, a
measure is necessary to determine the accuracy of the analysis methods used to determine
resistance. Section 6.5.1 discusses the methods used to determine resistance and Section 6.5.2
assesses the distribution between brace resistance and frame resistance as a percentage of the total
system resistance over the full nonlinear response.
6.5.1
Evaluation of Analysis Methods for Resistance
The brace and frame resistances were calculated from component strain gauge data based on the
analysis methods describe in the previous sections. This section evaluates the accuracy of the
analysis methods for calculating brace and frame resistance by checking for equilibrium with the
applied lateral load acting on the specimen. The horizontal component of the brace force plus the
column shears should equal the applied lateral load as shown in Equation (6.5.1).
247
(6.5.1)
Table 6.5.1 through Table 6.5.9 summarizes the results from checking equilibrium between the
applied load verses internal forces calculated through strain gauge data for each specimen. In each
table the plot on the left compares the enveloped brace axial forces obtained directly through the
brace strain gauge data as described in Section 6.3.2.1 and the brace force based on the measured
column shears minus the calculated shear in the columns as described in 6.4.2. The expected
horizontal force resisted by the brace only is determined by subtracting column shears from the
applied lateral load. The brace shear is divided by the cosine of the brace angle to obtain the
expected brace force and shown in Equation (6.5.2).
(6.5.2)
The right plot in the tables is a comparison of the system hysteretic response calculated using
applied actuator load,
, and the total calculated horizontal resistance,
, which is
determined by adding the frame shear resistance from Section 6.4.3 with the horizontal
components of the brace resistance as described in Section 6.3.2.1. Percent error is calculated at
three positive and negative drift levels; at tensile yield and buckling, at 1.0% drift, and at the
ultimate positive and negative drift levels. Percent error is calculated using Equation (6.5.3).
(6.5.3)
248
Table 6.5.1: HSS-18 Equilibrium Evaluation
249
250
Table 6.5.6: WF-23 Equilibrium Evaluation
System Comparison
Brace Force Comparison
WF-23 Equilibrium Evaluation
% Error Between Applied and Calculated Total Resistances

Location of System Plot
% Error in Tension
Drift% at Brace Yield/Buckling

+/-1.0%
Ultimate Drift%
2.6
7.3
9.6
% Error in
Compression
5.5
-2.7
-8.3
251
252
The applied and calculated resistances were within a maximum 25% at brace yield and at ultimate
drifts for all specimens in this test series. Typically, the largest differences between the calculated
resistance and the applied force occurred at maximum compressive forces immediately after brace
buckling. The calculated values for brace and frame resistance are used in the following section to
evaluate the distribution of lateral force resisted by each.
6.5.2
Distribution of Resistance
The nonlinear response an SCBF system is a combination of axial response of the brace and the
flexural response of the frame. At small drifts, the majority of resistance can be attributed to the
brace but as drift increases, the demands on the frame also increase and frame action plays are
more significant role to the total resistance of the system. This section evaluates the distribution of
resistance between the brace and the frame. SCBFs under severe seismic loading are expected to
respond nonlinearly to accommodate the large drift demands. The nonlinear response of the
system is a combination of the brace and frame responses with the contribution of each varying as
drifts increase. This section looks to evaluate the relationship between the brace and frame
resistances over the full drift range and whether the distribution attributes to increased drift
capacity and delayed brace fracture. The percentages of the total story shear resisted by the brace
and by the frame are calculated for each specimen in Equation (6.5.4) and (6.5.5), respectively.
253
(6.5.4)
(6.5.5)
Table 6.5.10 shows the distribution of resistance over drift ratio for each specimen. These plots are
an effective illustration of how the system of brace and frame work together to resist the applied
load. The previous section showed that the behavior of frame resistance at negative drifts was
similar for all of the specimens. At positive drifts, the beam to column connection type and the
gusset plate stiffness have a greater effect on the demands placed on the frame. In these plots the
rate of transfer between brace resistance to frame resistance as drifts increase reflects the efficiency
of the system. A steep drop off at negative drifts shows less than ideal performance of the brace
and places more demand on the frame at earlier drift levels. A flat slope at positive drifts levels
indicates that resistance in the frame is not being developed and demands are isolated to the brace.
The specimens that showed the highest performance for ultimate drift capacity and resistance
exhibited a balance between brace and frame resistance.
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
Table 6.5.10: Distribution of System Resistance
254
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-26
HSS-24 performed well for comparison purposes in that it reached comparable negative drift levels
and the largest positive drift levels and total drift range of the other specimens with HSS braces
within this test program. In the plot above, the transition between brace resistance contribution to
frame resistance is fairly gradual and the lines cross at approximately -1.25% drift. HSS-22 on the
other hand reached comparable negative drift levels but was near the bottom when comparing
positive drift levels and total drift range. The distribution plot for HSS-22 shows a steep decline in
brace resistance and relied more on the frame resistance at an earlier negative drift level,
approximately -0.55%. The thin tapered gusset plate and bolted shear plate beam-to-column
connection appear to result in a less balanced response, placing more demand on the brace and
gusset plates in tension and more on the framing elements in compression at larger drift ranges.
HSS-24 exhibited a more balanced response and showed more brace contribution at larger positive
and negative drift levels prior to brace fracture.
255
The plots of HSS-18, HSS-20 and HSS-21 show the majority of resistance is attributed to the brace
until transition occurred at smaller negative drift levels, approximately -0.90%, -0.55%, and -0.70%
for HSS-18, HSS-20 and HSS-21, respectively. The brace in HSS-25 showed the slowest rate of
degradation which is reflected in the distribution plot. The majority of resistance transferred from
the brace to the frame at approximately -1.6% drift. At positive drifts, the stiffness of the heavier
beam section and the large gusset plates increased the influence of the frame contribution to the
total resistance immediately after brace yielding.
The distribution plot for WF-23 shows that the brace resistance quickly dropped off and the
majority of story shear was resisted by the frame at early negative drift levels, approximately 0.65%. At negative drifts, the opening moment of the beam-to-column connection increase the
demands at the gusset plate reentrant corners and interface welds. This could be reason why WF23 experienced severe damage at the gusset plate interface welds and eventually fractured.
Significant weld damage was also observed for HSS-22 which has similar behavior.
The distributions of resistance are summarized in Table 6.5.11. The percentages of resistance are
tabulated at drifts levels corresponding to buckling of the brace in compression and yielding in
tension and at ultimate drift levels. It can be noted that the balance between resistances for HSS24, which is thought to have shown better performance, was better compared to HSS-22. At
ultimate drifts, the distribution of resistance for HSS-24 was 29.3% brace and 70.7% frame in the
negative direction, and 74.6% brace and 25.4% frame for the positive direction. For HSS-22, the
resistance in the negative direction was calculated as zero for the brace relying completely on the
frame. In the positive direction, 81.0% of the total shear was resisted by the brace and 19.0% by
the frame. This seems to support that a more balance response at negative drift levels after
buckling of the brace has occurred can improve the performance of the system. Also, HSS-25
shows larger contribution of frame resistance at the ultimate negative drift level and resulted in
limited total drift capacity and early brace fracture. This suggests that a stiffer frame resulting in
higher frame resistance at ultimate drift levels can also work adversely against the overall
performance of the system. Of the nine specimens in this research, HSS-24 exhibits a balanced
response between brace and frame resistances that resulted in the largest ultimate drift capacity.
256
Table 6.5.11: Resistance Distribution Summary
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-26
6.6
% Resistance at Brace Yield/Buckling

-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
82.5
17.5
83.6
16.4
81.9
18.2
80.2
19.8
79.5
20.5
86.7
13.4
79.2
20.8
83.6
16.4
85.4
14.6
87.8
12.2
87.2
12.9
82.7
17.3
84.9
15.2
86.8
13.2
87.3
12.7
85.0
15.0
78.1
21.9
83.2
16.8
% Resistance at Ultimate
-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
16.1
83.9
76.9
23.1
10.1
89.9
76.0
24.0
18.3
81.7
73.4
26.6
13.2
86.8
71.6
28.5
0.0
100.0
81.0
19.0
5.7
94.3
67.1
32.9
29.3
70.7
74.6
25.4
34.0
66.0
71.8
28.2
62.8
37.2
70.7
29.3
Energy Dissipation
The nonlinear response of SCBF systems dissipate energy through brace buckling and yielding of
the brace, gusset plates and framing elements. This section evaluates each specimen by calculating
the energy dissipation of the total system as well as energy dissipated by the brace and by the frame.
Energy dissipation of a cyclic system is calculated using Equation (6.6.1) with
equal to applied
force and equal to displacement in the direction of the applied force. The variable is the initial
increment and
is the total number increments of a cycle.

(6.6.1)
For each specimen in this test program, the total energy dissipation is calculated using load and
horizontal frame displacement data from the instrumentations. Energy dissipated per cycle is the
area enclosed within each completed hysteretic loops and calculated using Equation (6.6.2). An
illustration of dissipated energy is shown in Figure 6.6.1.
(6.6.2)
257
Figure 6.6.1: Energy Dissipation (Kotulka 2007)
Dissipation of energy is an interesting global comparison but should be noted that the total energy
dissipated is dependent on the number of cycles completed during the test. Although all the tests
with the exception of HSS-26 were subjected to the same induced loading protocol, the actual
displacement response per specimen varied due to losses in the test setup. A specific specimen that
experienced significant losses during the testing procedure between the actual and induced
displacement could have completed more cycles in order to reach a given drift. This would
increase the total dissipation of energy at a given drift range. In order to be directly comparable, all
specimens would have had to been subjected to identical displacement histories. Regardless, the
displacement histories from this test program were similar and the energy dissipation comparisons
are still valuable and reflect the total inelastic response of the system. Total energy dissipation
verses total range is compared in Figure 6.6.2.
258
Figure 6.6.2: Total Energy Dissipation Comparison
The rate of total energy dissipation is relatively similar for all of the specimens with the exception
of HSS-25. Specimens that achieved larger drift ranges essentially dissipated greater total energy. A
more creditable evaluation in the how each test parameter affects energy dissipation is to
distinguish between energy dissipated through the brace diagonal and energy dissipated by the
framing elements. Figure 6.6.3 shows a comparison of energy dissipated over the brace diagonal
which includes the contributions from the brace and the gusset plates combined. The actual brace
force determined from strain gauge data and displacements over the frame diagonal, work point to
work point, were used to calculate energy dissipation.
259
Figure 6.6.3: Brace Energy Dissipation Comparison
The rate of energy dissipation for the HSS-25 brace diagonal is higher than the other specimens
because the increased stiffness of the gusset plate connections develops higher resistance in the
brace. Also, the brace in HSS-25 showed the least degradation of resistance after buckling and the
largest reloading stiffness from the hysteretic plots, both of which increase energy dissipation. The
wide-flange brace section of WF-23 dissipated energy over the diagonal at a lower rate for total
drift ranges greater than approximately 2.75%. This is consistent with the specimen achieving a
lower maximum tensile brace force and the steep degradation of compressive resistance post
buckling. HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, HSS-22 and HSS-24 all show very similar energy dissipation
behavior for the brace diagonal. At drift ranges of approximately 4%, close to the maximum drift
range for all five, it is possible to distinguish between the values with HSS-22 dissipating the least
energy and HSS-24 and HSS-21 dissipating the most. Comparison of the energy dissipation by the
framing elements are provided in Figure 6.6.4
260
Figure 6.6.4: Frame Energy Dissipation Comparison
Specimen HSS-22 dissipated the most energy through the frame at a given drift range. The HSS-22
frame hysteresis from Table 6.4.4 shows the bolted shear plate connection exhibited the lowest
resistance but also the response is highly inelastic in both the positive and negative direction. This
created wide hysteretic loops and dissipated more energy than the other specimens for a given drift
range greater than 2.0%. Interestingly, specimen HSS-22 exhibited very little observable frame
damage during the test but still dissipated energy effectively. Observations of HSS-24, on the other
hand, note significant column yielding and deformation at larger drift ranges but have lower total
energy dissipation from the frame at a given drift range. This suggests that observed inelastic
deformation of the framing elements does not necessarily equate to the ability of the frame to
dissipate energy.
Figure 6.6.4 shows that energy dissipation for all the specimens other than HSS-22 are fairly banded
up to approximately 3.0% total drift range when the energy dissipated by WF-23 and HSS-20
increased for a given drift range. WF-23 dissipated the most energy through the frame followed by
HSS-22. The least energy dissipated through the frames was by HSS-19 and HSS-25. A summary
of the maximum energy dissipated by the system, brace diagonal and by the frame are displayed in
Table 6.6.1.
261
Table 6.6.1: Percent Total Energy Dissipation Summary
Specimen
HSS-18
HSS-19
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
Total Energy Brace Diagonal Energy

Dissipation
Dissipated,
kip-in
kip-in
%
5000
3848
77
620
483
78
5019
3824
76
4825
3891
81
4589
3341
73
8300
5259
63
5237
4161
79
4181
3397
81
Frame Diagonal
Energy Dissipation
kip-in
%
997
20
55
9
1044
21
976
20
1248
27
2963
36
972
19
630
15
Total Drift
Range, %
4.19
1.31
3.97
4.14
3.98
5.56
4.44
3.30
HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, and HSS-24 dissipated between 4825 kip-in and 5237 kip-in of energy
and reached total drift ranges from 3.97% to 4.44%. These specimens all shared identical gusset
plate designs but varied the beam-to-column connection type. The welded beam flanges and
bolted web plate connection for HSS-24 dissipated the most total energy while the 14-bolt beam
end-plate connection for HSS-21 dissipating the least. The distribution of energy dissipated by
these specimens between the brace diagonal and the frame were also similar and ranged between
76% and 81% of the total energy dissipated.
HSS-22 with the tapered gusset plate and bolted shear plate beam-to-column connection dissipated
less energy, 4589 kip-in, than the specimens with rectangular gusset plates. HSS-25 also dissipated
less energy, 4181 kip-in, and utilized the thick rectangular gusset plate and heavier beam section.
Both showed lower amounts of energy dissipated by the braces, 3341 kip-in and 3397 kip-in, for
HSS-22 and HSS-25 respectively. HSS-22 showed more energy dissipated by the frame than the
stiffer HSS-25 but neither were able to dissipate energy throughout the entire system as the
specimen with thin rectangular gusset plates.
WF-23 reached the largest total drift range and showed in Figure 6.6.4 that the rate of energy
dissipation from the frame increased at larger drift ranges, whereas energy dissipated by the brace in
Figure 6.6.3 increased evenly at drift ranges beyond what was achieved by any other specimen.
WF-23 dissipated 8300 kip-in of energy total and exhibited the largest contribution through energy
dissipated by the frame than the other specimens, 36%.
Table 6.6.2 shows energy dissipated by the system, brace diagonal and by the frame for specimens
HSS-18 thru HSS-25. Energy dissipation through the brace was calculated using the brace forces
determined in Section 6.3.2.1. The frame resistances determined in Section 6.4.3 were used o
calculated the frame energy dissipation.
262
HSS-19
WF-23
HSS-25
HSS-21
HSS-22
HSS-24
HSS-20
HSS-18
Table 6.6.2: Energy Dissipation of Brace vs. Frame
The breakdown of energy dissipation can be taken further and the energy dissipated by the brace
diagonal can be divided into energy dissipated by the actual brace section and by the gusset plates.
The same energy calculation is used as with the diagonal with the exception that the brace uses the
displacement over the actual brace length and the gusset plates use the difference between the
diagonal and the brace displacements. Unfortunately, the corrections for the instrumentation that
263
recorded the displacement over the actual brace length accounting for gusset plate rotations does
not provide a level of accuracy needed for the energy calculation. However, reliable values were
obtained for WF-23 and the distribution of total energy dissipation is shown for the brace, the
gusset plates and the frame. The percentages for each for WF-23 are as follows: 52.4% Brace,
10.9% Gusset Plates, and 35.7% Frame.
Figure 6.6.5: WF-23 Energy Dissipation by Component
6.7
Performance Level Comparisons
This section compares the performance levels for each component within the system related to
immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention. The nonlinear responses of SCBFs
subjected to seismic loading are expected to produce damage in the form yielding and deformation.
More favorable behavior would be to achieve larger drift ranges while minimizing the level of
damage in the components in order to achieve a higher performance level based on Performance
Based Design criteria. Visual observations during the test and instrumentation were used to
determine at what drift levels specific levels of damage occurred. Damage state designations were
established in Chapter 5 based on severity and potential for inducing system failure. The total drift
range was also separated into three performance levels in Chapter 5, initial, moderate and severe, is
referred to when describing when damage occurred.
The performance of each specimen is evaluated in a tabulated format that uses shading to denote
progression of damage as total drift range increased. Component performance levels are compared
separately for the brace, gusset plates and the framing elements. Designations for component
264
damage levels are used which were described in Chapter 5, Section 5.2. The damage is separated
into tensile and compressive system behaviors depending on the direction of drift during the test.
Table 6.7.1 below compares brace performances.
Table 6.7.1: Brace Performance Comparison
The performance of the brace for HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21 HSS-22, and HSS-24 are all similar
with severe damage not occurring until severe drift ranges. The onset and progression of brace
buckling in compression (B1 and B2) and yielding in tension (Y3) occurred near the same drift
levels for all four specimens. However, HSS-24 developed the local deformation associated with
the plastic hinge (BC) at a higher drift range and was able to achieve larger total drift ranges than
the other three.
WF-23 saw severe yielding of the brace in the region near the mid span at moderate drift ranges but
this damage did not appear to affect the integrity of the brace. The wide-flange brace section was
the only specimen to be painted with white wash over the length of the brace and the level of
yielding observed was significant. However, even well into severe drift levels, no local deformation
associated with the formation of the plastic hinge was observed. Fracture did not occur in the
brace but the northeast gusset plate interface welds fractured.
265
Specimen HSS-25 and HSS-26 had no net section reinforcement. The brace performance for HSS25 shows that net section damage (NSD) occurred at an initial drift range in tension and can be
seen as the darker shading associated with the severe damage state. Initial buckling and the early
progression occurred at similar drifts as with the specimens mentioned above but the local
deformation at the plastic hinge in compression and eventual brace fracture tension both occurred
at smaller drift ranges.
When comparing the performance of the HSS-26 brace, it should be considered that the specimen
was subjected to the alternative tension dominated near fault loading protocol. The brace was able
to achieve initial buckling (B1) but the majority of brace response occurred in tension. It is seen
that net section damage occurred at initial drift levels proceeded by net section fracture and an early
moderate drift range.
Specimen HSS-19 is an example of poor connection performance because the connection did not
permit development of the brace. Buckling occurred in the brace extension plates connecting the
HSS5x5x3/8 to the two WT4x17.5 sections. Moderate and then severe damage states were
observed at initial drift ranges and fracture at an early moderate drift range. Severe yielding and
buckling in the concentrated area of the extension plate drastically shortened the life of the brace.
Gusset plate performances are compared in Table 6.7.2
266
Table 6.7.2: Gusset Plate Performance Comparison
HSS-18, HSS-20, and HSS-21 exhibited similar gusset plate performances. Minor yielding in
compression and tension were observed at initial drift ranges. Moderate yielding occurred earlier
for HSS-21, followed by HSS-20 and HSS-18 near the transition between initial and moderate drift
ranges. At severe drift ranges, all three exhibited severe yielding over their entire area and
deformation along the free edges extending from the reentrant corners. The gusset plate
performance of HSS-24 was also comparable. The progression of damage followed those of HSS18, HSS-20 and HSS-21 for initial and moderate drift ranges, but in the severe drift range, weld
damage was observed and severe yielding was not noted until immediately prior to fracture failure.
HSS-22 saw moderate damage at initial drift ranges and weld damage at moderate drift ranges.
Severe yield was also not observed until immediately prior to failure.
The gusset plate performance for WF-23 varied from those with HSS brace sections. Tensile
yielding also occurred early in initial drift range but compressive yielding as the gusset plate rotated
out-of-plane was not observed until the moderate drift range. This is interesting considering the
brace behavior and the level of buckling at initial drift ranges shown in Table 6.7.1. The gusset
plate exhibited significantly less damage at initial and moderate drift ranges than the specimens with
267
HSS brace sections. Well into the severe drift range, severe yielding was noted and interface weld
damage occurred. The damage propagated becoming the controlling failure mechanism.
HSS-25 and HSS-26 utilized the heavier 7/8 gusset plates. HSS-25 showed no damage in tension
throughout the test but did exhibit yielding at the plate rotated out of plate. Minor yielding was
observed in the initial drift range followed by moderate yielding in the moderate range. Weld
damage was also observed in the moderate drift range but only slightly propagated. The gusset
plates for HSS-26 stay exhibited only limited yielding at one reentrant corne after failure.
Only minor damage was observed in the gusset plates for HSS-19 because of the reduced
maximum brace forces and location of hinging at the extension plate connecting the brace to the
southwest gusset plate. Minor yielding did occur in the initial drift range as the gusset plates rotated
out-of-plane but no damage was observed with the brace in tension prior to failure.
Table 6.7.3: Framing Element Performance Comparison
The framing element performance varies considerably for HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21 and HSS-24.
Gusset plate and brace designs were identical for these four tests but the crucial test parameter was
in the beam-to-column connection detail. The un-welded connection for HSS-18 was the most
flexible connection and minimized damage. Minor yielding occurred in the beams and columns
268
during the moderate drift range. Moderate yielding was noted during the severe drift range
immediately prior to failure.
HSS-20 and HSS-21 both utilized the bolted beam endplate connection detail with an 18 bolt
configuration for HSS-20 and 14 bolts for HSS-21. Bolt exhibited minor yielding of the beams and
columns with the brace in tension at the initial drift range but HSS-21 also saw bolt fracture. Minor
yielding with the brace in compression for occurred at moderate drift ranges for both. At severe
drift ranges, HSS-21 showed moderate yielding of the columns earlier than HSS-20 also saw
moderate yielding of the beam prior to brace fracture. For HSS-24 with the modified beam-tocolumn connection, the flanges were fully welded but the web was bolts with a shear tab. The
performance of the framing elements show the majority of damage concentrated to the columns.
Minor yielding was observed in both at initial drift ranges but the progression of yielding increased
in the columns only. Moderate yielding in tension and local deformation was observed at the
moderate drift range and moderate yielding with the brace in compression was observed in the
severe range. Only minor yielding was observed in the beams through the end of the test.
HSS-22 was likely the most flexible frame of the nine specimens tested having the un-welded beamto-column detail and thin tapered gusset plates. Very little damage of the framing elements was
observed during the test. Minor yielding occurred in the beams at the initial drift range and not in
the columns until the severe drift range, both with the brace in compression.
The frame performance for WF-23 shows significant damage delayed until severe drift. Only
minor damage was observed through initial and moderate drift ranges. Moderate yielding of the
columns with the brace in compression and tension were not observed until the severe drift range.
Finally, severe yielding of the columns and moderate yielding of the beams were observed prior to
interface weld failure at the ultimate drift range.
The heavy beam sections and larger gusset plates used in HSS-25 and HSS-26 inherently increased
the frame stiffness. For both, damage was concentrated to the column rather than the beams.
HSS-25 saw minor yielding with the brace in tension at initial drift levels and moderate yielding at
moderate drift ranges. Also at moderate drift ranges, minor yielding was observed with the brace in
compression. Minor beam yielding was finally observed at severe drift levels as well as severe
yielding and local deformation of the columns. Bolt shearing of the northwest shear tab
connection occurred simultaneously with brace fracture at system failure. For HSS-26, all of the
yielding occurred in the columns within the initial drift range. No damage of the framing element
was observed for HSS-19.
269
Chapter 7: Comparison of Design Parameters

7.1
Introduction
The nine tests within this program are an extension of the previous research by Shawn Johnson
(2004), David Herman (2007), and Brandon Kotulka (2007). This chapter compares the results
from these nine tests with selected tests from the previous 17 in order to evaluate the effect each
design parameters has on overall performance. The design parameters evaluated in this chapter are
as follows
Beam-to-column connection method with thin rectangular gusset plates (HSS-18, HSS-20,
HSS-21, and HSS-24)
Beam-to-column connection method with thin tapered gusset plates (HSS-22)
Wide-flange verses HSS tube brace sections (WF-23)
Bolted connections for SCBFs (HSS-19, HSS-20, and HSS-21)
Net Section Reinforcement Requirement (HSS-25 and HSS-26)
Five specimens from the previous test programs were used for comparison that are either reference
specimen to simulate the current AISC design procedures, or specimen with similar design to those
in this series. A brief description of each is provided below:
HSS-01 and HSS-12
Both designed to simulate the current AISC design specifications and procedures for
rectangular gusset plates
Provide base-line comparisons of specimen performance utilizing current standards
HSS-05
Designed during the development of the Balance Design Procedure and utilized thin
rectangular gusset plates with elliptical clearance at brace ends
CJP welded web and flange beam-to-column connection
Identical gusset plate design as HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, and HSS-24 from this test series
Achieved large ultimate drift levels and is used as an upper bound for comparing
performance for specimens with thin rectangular gusset plates
270
HSS-17
Designed following the BDP and utilized thin tapered gusset plates with elliptical clearance
requirement
CJP welded web and flange beam-to-column connection
Identical gusset plate design as HSS-22
Achieved large ultimate drift levels and is used as an upper bound for comparing
performance for specimens with tapered gusset plates
HSS-11
Designed to evaluate potential for net section fracture of the brace by utilizing larger beam
sections and thicker gusset plates to increase likelihood of occurrence
Identical specimen design as HSS-25 and HSS-26 from this test series, except included net
section reinforcement at brace to gusset plate connection designed per AISC Equation
D3.1 and Table D3.1
Summaries of these specimens including the design information are shown in Table 7.1.1. Peak
performance results for each are summarized in Table 7.1.2. An overview of the design and
experimental results are presented for each of the comparison test specimens within Sections 7.1.1
through 7.1.5.
Table 7.1.1: Design Summary of Reference Specimens for Comparison
271
Table 7.1.2: Peak Performance Summary for Reference Specimens

Specimen
Range
Drift Ratio, %
Min
Max
Resistance
P/Py
Failure
Mechanism
Interface
Weld
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
HSS-01
2.65
-1.64
1.01
-0.95
1.64
HSS-05
4.96
-3.09
1.87
-0.80
1.76
HSS-11
3.96
-2.34
1.63
-1.00
2.04
HSS-12
3.49
-2.10
1.39
-0.90
1.86
Brace
Fracture
HSS-17
4.94
-2.79
2.15
-0.79
1.77
Brace
Fracture
Discription
AISC Reference
Specimen
Balanced Designed
Thin Rectangular GP
Thick GP & Heavy
Beam
AISC Reference
Specimen with CJP
Interface Welds
Balanced Designed
Thin Tapered GP
Comparisons are made between specimens with similar gusset plate designs and geometry to isolate
the relevant design parameter. Section 7.2 considers the variations of beam-to-column connections
for thin rectangular gusset plates by comparing the performances of HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, and
HSS-24 with HSS-05 and the two AISC reference specimens. Section 7.3 compares the
performance of HSS-22 with HSS-17 and the two AISC reference specimens to evaluate the effect
of beam-to-columns connections for thin tapered gusset plates. Specimen WF-23 evaluated the
performance of a wide-flange brace section with thin rectangular gusset plates designed using the
Balanced Design Procedure. The performance of this specimen is compared with HSS-05 and the
two AISC reference specimens in Section 7.4.
Bolted connections as a design parameter are evaluated in section 7.5. The performance of HSS19, HSS-20, HSS-21 and HSS-24 are compared to HSS-05 and the AISC reference specimens to
evaluate the benefits and draw-backs of each type of bolted connection for performance and
constructability. Specimens HSS-25 and HSS-26 were the continuation of the investigation for net
section fracture of the brace evaluated previously by Kotulka (2007). The potential for net section
fracture and the necessity of net section reinforcement are discussed in Section 7.6.
7.1.1
Specimen HSS-01 Overview
Specimen HSS-01 was the first specimen tested within the SCBF research at UW and was designed
following AISC specifications and procedures and was intended to be used as a reference specimen
for subsequent test (Johnson 2005). The gusset plate design utilized strength reduction factors and
resulted in thick rectangular gusset plates. The 2t linear clearance was implemented from the
end of the brace and resulted in 34 x 30 dimensions adjacent to the beam and column. The
interface welds was designed for the vertical and horizontal components of the expected brace
force based on the AISC Uniform Force Method, resulting in fillets welds. Net section
272
reinforcing was included for the reduced slotted area of the brace at the gusset plate connection. A
fully welded moment connection was used to connect the beam and column adjacent to the gusset
plates.
The specimen achieved a total drift range of 2.74%, -1.64% in the negative direction and 1.11% in
the positive. The system resisted -191.7 kip with the brace in compression and 330.6 kip with the
brace in tension, for a range of 522.3 kip total. The specimen ultimately failed due to complete
weld fracture of the southwest gusset plate interface welds. The hysteretic response and the gusset
plate connection detail are shown in Table 7.1.3.
HSS-01
Table 7.1.3: Specimen HSS-01 Hysteresis and Gusset Plate Detail
Inelastic behavior primarily occurred in the brace as tensile yielding and buckling. Minor yielding
was also observed in the columns adjacent to the gusset connections. Cracking within the weld
material was observed at both gusset plate connections at early moderate total drift ranges, 1.78%.
The cracks propagated within the weld material and eventually separated the southwest gusset plate
from the framing elements in tension. Cracking of the southwest gusset plate to beam interface
weld is shown in Figure 7.1.1 at 2.45% total drift range. Figure 7.1.2 shows the southwest gusset
plate fully separated from the frame. The gusset plate appears undamaged after the completion of
the test.
273
Figure 7.1.1: Interface Weld Cracking at SW Gusset Plate (1.78% Total Drift Range)
Figure 7.1.2: Weld Fracture at SW Gusset Plate (2.65% Total Drift Range)
Specimen HSS-01 demonstrated the issues with the current AISC design specifications and
procedures. The plate thickness and 2t linear clearance can result in gusset plate designs of
large proportions with increased rotational stiffness. The welds were sized for forces determined
from the Uniform Force Method and as a result showed that they were susceptible to cracking to
accommodate gusset plate rotation as the brace buckled.
7.1.2
HSS-12 was tested to establish a baseline specimen reflecting AISC design specifications and
procedures with increased interface weld capacity (Kotulka 2007). The specimen utilized the
274
identical gusset plate design and geometry using AISC strength reduction factors and the 2t
linear clearance. The interface weld design varied from HSS-01 by incorporating CJP welds to
connect the gusset plate to the framing elements and discourage the potential for weld fracture.
This specimen also utilized CJP welded moment connections to connect framing elements and
included net section reinforcing at the brace to gusset plate connection.
Fracture of the brace at the plastic hinge was the controlling failure mechanism. The specimen
reached positive and negative drift levels of 1.39% and -2.10% for a total drift range of 3.49%.
Positive and negative lateral resistances of 373.3 kip and -180.2 kip were achieved totaling 553.5
kip. Cracking did not occur along the CJP interface welds connecting the gusset plates to framing
elements. The hysteretic response of HSS-12 and the gusset plate detail are shown in Table 7.1.4.
HSS-12
The specimen achieved the desired brace behavior by yielding in tension and buckling in
compression. The brace behavior progressed to inelastic buckling eventually developing the local
deformations of prior hinging at the brace center and fracturing in tension. The gusset plates again
exhibited limited rotational capacity and minimal yielding within the 2t clearance region. Also, no
tensile yielding was observed during the tests. Moderate yielding was observed in the beams and
columns but the majority of inelastic damage occurred within the brace. The performance of this
specimen, as well as HSS-01, are considered the baseline for comparison purposes providing a
lower bound expected limit for ultimate drift capacity.
7.1.3
Specimen HSS-05 was designed during the development of the Balanced Design Procedure with a
thinner gusset plate exceeding the AISC design procedure to encourage yielding in tension. The
resulting 3/8 thick gusset plates incorporated a 8t elliptical clearance to reduce the geometry to
275
25 x 21 at the beam and column. The interface welds were designed for the plastic capacity of
the gusset plates using a factor of 0.80. The beam-to-column connections were fully welded
moment connections and net section reinforcing was also included at the brace to gusset plate
connection.
The total drift range, 4.96%, achieved by HSS-05 has been considered an upper mark when
assessing performance of subsequent tests. The specimen reached negative and positive drift levels
of -3.09% and 1.87% and resisted -161.0 kip with the brace in compression and 353.5 kip in
tension for a total range of 514.5 kip. The system ultimately failed due to brace fracture at the
plastic hinge but not until after severe tearing of the gusset plate welds had occurred. Table 7.1.5
shows the lateral load verses drift ratio hysteresis and the gusset plate connection detail.
HSS-05
The specimen exhibited inelastic deformation of the brace and gusset plates in tension and
compression, as well moderate yielding and local buckling of the framing elements at larger drift
levels. The gusset plate connections experienced moderate yielding (Y2) in tension and developed
elliptical yield patterns extending from the reentrant corners around the end of the brace as out-ofplane buckling occurred. The northeast gusset plate is shown in Figure 7.1.3.
276
Figure 7.1.3: HSS-05 NE Gusset Yielding (4.96% Total Drift Range)
The progression of yielding of the gusset plates as they rotated out-of-plane was limited by the
onset of ductile tearing of the interface welds. Cracking began at the free edges within the weld
material and propagated inward. This allowed the plate to deform as the brace buckled without
inducing flexural strain through the elliptical region as typically seen in both previous and
subsequent tests with similar gusset plate designs. Severe cracking extended completely through
the northeast gusset to column weld and total crack length at the northeast connection reached
54% to the total interface weld lengths, beam at column combine. Total cracking of the southwest
interface welds exceeded 20%. Cracking of the northeast gusset to column weld is shown in Figure
7.1.4. Regardless, at maximum drift levels, the local deformation and strain accumulation at the
brace plastic hinge produced tearing of the tubular section resulting in brace fracture prior to
separation of the gusset plate from the framing elements.
Figure 7.1.4: Cracking of NE Gusset to Column Weld (4.96% Total Drift Range)
277
HSS-05 achieved a larger total drift range than any other specimen test within this program and
exhibited yielding beyond the brace and into the gusset plates and framing elements, as desired by
the Balanced Design Procedure. For these reason, HSS-05 is used in comparisons of performance
parameters as the upper bound but obtainable goals for the performance of the specimens within
this test series.
7.1.4
HSS-17 Specimen Overview
The 3/8 tapered gusset plates for HSS-17 were designed following the Balanced Design Approach
and used an 8t elliptical clearance at the end of the brace for rotation. The interface welds were
design for the plastic capacity of the gusset plate using a factor of 0.65, resulting in 3/8 fillet
welds on each side. The framing elements were connected with CJP welded moment connection
adjacent to the gusset plates. The brace to gusset plate connection did not included net section
reinforcing plates.
The specimen performed well in that the maximum total drift range achieved was close to that of
HSS-05. In the positive direction, 2.15% drift was achieved, and -2.79% in the negative direction,
for a total drift range of 4.94%. The maximum positive and negative resistances were 355.0 kip and
159.0 kip, for a total range of 514.0 kips. The controlling failure mechanism of the system was
brace fracture at the plastic hinge in tension. The lateral load verses drift ratio hysteresis and the
gusset plate connection details are shown in Table 7.1.6.
HSS-17
Inelastic behavior was observed in the brace in the form of buckling and tensile yielding, in the
beams and columns and, most notably, in the gusset plates. The 3/8 tapered gusset plates had
lower in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness than rectangular plates of the same thickness which
resulted in severe yielding and deformation observed during the test. Severe cracking at both the
278
NE and SW column interface welds within the based material (HAZ) was also observed at severe
drift levels. Figure 7.1.5 shows the level of gusset plate yielding and the extent of weld damage
observed at the maximum negative drift level prior to brace fracture the following tension cycle.
Figure 7.1.5: Severe Gusset Plate Yielding and Severe Weld Damage (-2.79%)
Moderate yielding of the beams and columns in the area adjacent to the gusset reentrant corner was
observed at severe drifts levels but the majority of visible damage occurred within the brace and
gusset plates. Cracking of the base material at the NE column interface weld propagated to 15 at 2.79% drift, which is 43% percent of the total weld length connecting the gusset plate to the frame.
The damage at the brace plastic hinge lead to fracture before interface weld cracking continued but
this suggests an inherent issue with thin, tapered gusset plates. The smaller geometry, increased
deformation, and decreased lengths of interface weld increases the potential for weld damage
(Kotulka 2007). However, HSS-22 showed that large ultimate drifts are achievable with tapered
gusset plates and the performance will be held as the upper bound for comparison with HSS-22.
7.1.5
The design of specimen HSS-11 was based on the parametric nonlinear study evaluating varies
beam sizes and gusset plate thickness on the performance of the brace (Herman 2007). HSS-11
utilized a heavier beam section, W16x89, than what had been tested in previous specimen with a
7/8 thick gusset plate because the increased frame and gusset plate stiffness resulted in larger
inelastic demand on the brace and early brace fracture. This specimen is included in the
279
comparison to HSS-25 and HSS-26 because the design is identical with the exception of the
inclusion of net section reinforcing at the brace to gusset connection.
The specimen ultimately failure due to fracture at the brace midpoint hinge and achieved a total
drift range of 3.96%. The positive and negative resistances observed were 410.9 kip and -200.3 kip,
for a total of 611.2 kip. The lateral load verses drift ratio hysteresis and the gusset plate connection
detail are shown in Table 7.1.7
HSS-11
Inelastic behavior for HSS-11 occurred in the brace as bucking in compression and yielding in
tension. The 8t elliptical clearance at the brace ends provide sufficient area for the gusset plates to
rotation out-of-plane but minimal yielding was observed in tension. The column section also
experience significant yielding and deformation in the region adjacent to the gusset plate reentrant
corners.
7.2
Beam-to-Column Connections for Thin Rectangular Gusset Plates
This section compares the performances of specimens with 3/8 thin rectangular gusset plates
(TRGP) within this test series (HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, and HSS-24) with those of the AISC
reference specimens, HSS-01 and HSS12, and with HSS-05. Specimen HSS-05 utilized identical
gusset plate thickness and geometry as the four TRGP specimens from this series, while the two
AISC reference specimens are included to give a comparison to specimen with gusset plates
designed by the current procedure. The objective of this section is to evaluate the effect the beamto-column connection detail has as the primary design parameters with regards to system
performance.
280
Evaluation of the system responses is compared in Section 7.2.1. The response of the brace
diagonal, including the brace and gusset plate responses in compression and tension, is evaluated in
Section 7.2.2. Comparison of the frame response is discussed in 7.2.3 followed by comparison of
energy dissipation in Section 7.2.4. Data interpretation and analysis methods for generating plots
are outlined in Chapter 6 and reference for clarity.
7.2.1
TRGP System Response Comparison
The peak performance values for TRGP specimens are compared in Table 7.2.1. The table
includes ultimate drift levels and total drift range as a measure of system ductility. The maximum
positive and negative resistances of the system are normalized by
, the theoretical lateral force
associated with tensile brace yielding, shown in Equation (1.2.1).

(7.2.1)
Maximum resistance of the system typically occurs after the brace buckles in compression and
yields in tension, and is largely attributed to the contribution of frame resistance and the ability of
the brace to maintain compressive resistance post-buckling. For these reasons, maximum
resistance is limited as a parameter for assessing performance of the system. However, it does
provide a general value for comparing system resistance at a glance. Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3
investigate brace and frame resistances over the full nonlinear response of the system, respectively.
Table 7.2.1: Peak Performance Summary Comparison for TRGPs
Specimen
Range
Drift Ratio, %
Min
Max
Resistance
P/Py
HSS-01
2.65
-1.64
1.01
-0.95
1.64
HSS-05
4.96
-3.09
1.87
-0.80
1.76
HSS-12
3.49
-2.10
1.39
-0.90
1.86
HSS-18
4.19
-2.59
1.60
-0.76
1.59
HSS-20
3.97
-2.28
1.69
-0.93
1.59
HSS-21
4.14
-2.55
1.59
-0.81
1.73
HSS-24
4.44
-2.50
1.94
-0.80
1.69
Failure
Mechanism
Interface
Weld
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Discription
Simulate AISC Design
with Fillet Welds
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
Brace
Fracture
CJP Welded Bm/Col

Thin Rectangular GP
with CJP Interface
Welds
Bolted Shear Plate
Connection
18 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
14 Bolted Beam End
Plate Conn.
Brace
Fracture
Bolted Web Weld

Flange Beam/Col Conn.
Brace
Fracture
281
The four specimens from the current test series reached total drift ranges less than HSS-05 but
greater than both the AISC reference specimens, HSS-01 and HSS-12. Specimen HSS-24, with the
welded flanges and bolted web plate beam-to-column connection, was most similar to HSS-05 and
achieved the largest total drift range, 4.44%, of the four within this test series. A slight loss in
maximum resistance was observed in the positive direction with the modified beam-to-column
connection.
Both the specimens with bolted beam end plate connections saw significant reductions in total drift
range than what was achieved with the CJP welded connection in HSS-05. The 14-bolt
configuration of HSS-21 achieved 4.14% total drift range followed by HSS-20, which achieved
3.97%. The maximum resistance of HSS-20 was notably larger with the brace in compression and
smaller while in tension than HSS-05. Specimen HSS-21, however, showed comparable maximum
resistances in both directions. Specimen HSS-18 utilized the bolted shear plate beam-to-column
connection and resulted in a lower ultimate drift capacity, 3.96% total drift range. The maximum
positive and negative resistances were both less than specimen HSS-05.
The enveloped lateral force verse drift ratio response in the positive directions is compared in
Figure 7.2.1. The lateral force is normalized by
, the nominal yield force of the brace. The
specimens utilizing the bolted shear plate connection and the 18 bolt beam end plate connection
exhibited the least resistance after yielding occurred. The 14 bolt beam end plate connection and
the bolted web CJP welded flange connection showed greater resistance post yielding, but were still
below the maximum positive resistance achieved by the CJP welded beam-to-column connection in
HSS-05. All four connections allowed the specimens to retain or continue increasing resistance
prior to failure, where as HSS-05 lost positive resistance at larger drift levels.
282
Figure 7.2.1: TRGP Load vs. Drift (Positive Envelop)
The enveloped load verses drift ratio response is shown in the negative direction in Figure 7.2.2.
As expected, the larger geometry and increased thickness, in., of the AISC reference specimens
resulted in greater resistances at brace buckling, with the exception of the 18 bolt beam end plate
connection of HSS-20 which exhibited a larger elastic stiffness and resistance at brace buckling than
specimens with similar gusset plate designs. The specimens with the bolted shear plate connection
(HSS-18), the 14 bolt beam end plate connection (HSS-21), and the bolted web CJP welded flange
connection (HSS-24) exhibited similar system resistance at buckling. The bolted shear plate
connection saw the lowest resistance post buckling for a given negative drift level.
283
Figure 7.2.2: TRGP Load vs. Drift (Negative Envelop)
7.2.2
TRGP Brace and Gusset Plate Comparison
This section compares the responses of the brace and gusset plates in compression and tension.
Section 7.2.2.1 evaluates the brace forces by comparing the buckling capacity of the brace and the
full nonlinear brace response. The physical behaviors of the brace diagonal in compression are
compared in Section 7.2.2.2 including out-of-plane brace displacement, gusset plate rotation in
buckling, and residual out-of plane displacement of the brace and gusset plates. Brace and gusset
plate elongation in tension are compared in Section 7.2.2.3.
7.2.2.1
TRGP Brace Force Comparison
Comparisons of the brace buckling capacities are shown in Table 7.2.2. The critical buckling force
in the brace,
, was determined using strain gauge data as described in Chapter 6. Also included
in the table are the design nominal buckling capacities as calculated in the AISC Design
Specifications,
, the effective length factor, , based on the experimental critical buckling load,
, and the experimental slenderness ration,
284
Table 7.2.2: TRGP Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison
Design Parameter
AISC w/ Fillet
AISC w/ CJP
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn
18 Bolt Beam End
Plate
14 Bolt Beam End
Plate
Bolted Web CJP
Welded Flange
Experimental
Exp/AISC
Effective Length
Pcr/Pn
Factor, K
1.04
0.94
0.98
1.04
Experimental
Slenderness
Ratio (Kl/r)
67.4
74.5
Experimental
AISC
Pcr
209.5
195.7
Pn=FcrAg
200.7
200.7
174.8
176.2
0.99
1.01
85.0
188.6
176.2
1.07
0.96
81.3
199.9
176.2
1.13
0.86
72.4
182.7
176.2
1.04
0.96
81.1
175.0
176.2
0.99
1.01
84.9
The critical buckling loads determined experimentally for the five specimens with similar brace
lengths and gusset plate designs varied between 174.8 kip and 199.9 kip. This resulted in effective
length factors between 0.86 and 1.01, which is supports the use of an effective length factor of 1.0
in the design. The bolted shear plate connection has less in-plane stiffness than the CJP welded
connection or the bolted web CJP welded flange connection but exhibited a larger buckling
capacity than both. However, the 18 bolt beam end plate connection has greater in-plane stiffness
than the bolted shear tab connection and resulted in a larger buckling capacity, 199.9 kip. This
comparison suggests that the beam-to-column connection method and in-plane stiffness do not
affect the buckling capacity of the brace.
The full nonlinear brace responses are shown in Table 7.2.3 for the TRGP specimens and the two
AISC reference specimens. Brace force verses diagonal elongation, work point to work point, are
plotted. Brace force is normalized by the nominal tensile yield force of the brace,
calculated in Equation (7.2.2). The brace forces for the test specimens in this series were calculated
as described in Chapter 6. The full strain gauge record for the AISC reference specimen with fillet
interface welds and the TRGP specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections were not
available and the brace force was extracts by subtracting the column shears from the applied lateral
load to determine the horizontal load resisted by the brace.
(7.2.2)
285
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
14 Bolt Beam End
Plate
AISC w/CJP
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn.
Bolted Web CJP
Flange Conn.
18 Bolted Beam End

Plate
AISC w/Fillet
Table 7.2.3: TRGP Brace Responses
The degradation of brace compressive capacity is compared for the TRGP specimens by plotting
the brace compressive force verses total drift range in Figure 7.2.3. To be consistent, the brace
force in this comparison is determined by subtracting the column shears from the applied lateral
load to determine the horizontal force component in the brace for all five specimens. The AISC
reference specimens are not included in this comparison to focus on the influence the beam-tocolumn connection design parameter has on the compressive capacity of the brace.
286
Figure 7.2.3: TRGP Brace Compression Degradation Comparison
The bolted shear plate, bolted web CJP welded flange, and the CJP welded beam-to-column
connections resulted in similar brace compressive capacity degradation. The bolted beam end plate
connection both degraded more significantly at smaller drift ranges, less than 1.5% total, but still
achieve similar minimum capacities. The ratios of capacity remaining immediately prior to
fracture,
, over the critical buckling load,
, are shown in Table 7.2.4. The specimens with
the 18 bolt and 14 bolt beam end plate connections retained the largest compressive capacity
compared to their critical buckling load, 0.28 and 0.24, respectively. The CJP welded beam-tocolumn connection retained the least, 0.20, but all were between 0.20 and 0.28 and the behavior
was similar in all cases.
Table 7.2.4: TRGP Brace Compressive Capacity Degradation Ratio
Design Parameter
CJP Welded Beam/Col
Conn
Shear Plate Beam/Col
Conn
18 Bolt Beam End
Plate
14 Bolt Beam End
Plate
Bolted Web CJP
Welded Flange
Pcr*
Pmin
Pmin/*Pcr
164.2
32.3
0.20
182.3
43.6
0.24
207.7
58.9
0.28
168.3
43.7
0.26
173.7
41.3
0.24
* critical buckling load calculated by subtracting column shears

from applied lateral load for horizontal componet resisted by
brace
287
7.2.2.2
TRGP Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparisons
Brace displacement and gusset plate rotations are compared in this section to evaluate the behavior
of the brace in compression and determine how the beam-to-column connection detail influences
the brace response. The out-of-plane behaviors of the brace center and gusset connections reflect
the shape and curvature of the buckled brace. Larger curvatures at smaller drift ranges increase the
strain at the brace plastic hinge, potentially limiting the life of brace.
The displacement at the brace midpoint for TRGP specimens are compared in Figure 7.2.4
including the AISC reference specimen HSS-12. The values for displacement have been plotted as
a percentage of the total brace length. The midpoint displacement values for specimen with the
CJP welded beam-to-column connection (HSS-05) are limited because of loss of instrumentation to
a total drift range of 4.30%, along reached 4.96%. Similarly, the 18 and 14 bolt beam end plate
connection specimens (HSS-20 and HSS-21) were plotted up to a total drift range of 3.30% and
1.96% but reached 3.96% and 4.14% total drift range, respectively. Data for the bolted shear plate
connection (HSS-18) was also limited to 3.41% but achieved 4.19% total.
Figure 7.2.4: TRGP Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement Comparison
The center displacements of TRGP specimens from this test series and the CJP welded beam-tocolumn connection were similar for a given drift level, with the exception of the 18 bolt beam end
plate connection (HSS-20), which were notably larger. The AISC reference specimen with CJP
interface welds (HSS-12) exhibited somewhat different behavior by increasing more for a given
increment of total drift range beyond 1.25% and resulted in larger displacement at the maximum
drift range of 3.49%.
288
Gusset plate rotations over total drift range for the northeast connection are shown in Figure 7.2.5.
The southwest gusset plate rotations are not shown and assumed to be similar. Stiffer gusset plates
connections limit rotation at the brace ends resulting in more severe curvature of the brace than
more flexible connections.
Figure 7.2.5: TRGP NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison
The gusset plate rotations for the TRGP specimens in this test series were nearly identical for a
given drift range with the bolted shear plate connection (HSS-18) achieved slightly less rotation at
failure. The specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connection (HSS-05) exhibited smaller
rotations at a given drift range less than 3.25% but increased at larger drift ranges achieving larger
maximum rotations than any other specimen. As shown in Figure 7.2.4, the 18 bolt beam end plate
connection (HSS-21) exhibited the largest midpoint displacements but only achieved comparable
gusset rotations at a given drift range. This would have resulted in a more pinched brace shape and
increased strain accumulation at the plastic hinge, limiting the life of the brace and fracturing at
lower total drift ranges. The same can be said for the AISC reference specimen with CJP interface
welds (HSS-12). Larger center out-of-plane displacements and smaller gusset plate rotations
resulted in increased curvature and more strain at the plastic hinge location which is consistent with
the observed early brace fracture and limited ultimate drift capacity.
The residual out-of-plane displacements at the brace center and the gusset rotations are shown in
Figure 7.2.6 and Figure 7.2.7, respectively. These illustrate the level of plastic deformations that
occurred over the brace diagonal for a given drift level. Specimens that experienced larger plastic
289
deformation required additional force to straighten the brace in tension and increase the level of
plastic strain accumulated at the brace plastic hinge.
Figure 7.2.6: TRGP Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison
Figure 7.2.7: TRGP Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison
The specimen with the 18 bolt beam end plate connection (HSS-20) and the AISC reference
specimen (HSS-12) both showed the largest residual displacement of the brace and the smallest
residual gusset plate rotations. This combination resulted in increase curvature in the braced shape
and larger plastic strain at the brace center. The AISC reference specimen achieved significantly
290
smaller total drift range than any of the TRGP specimens and the 18 bolt beam end plate
connection specimen was the lowest of the five TRGP specimens. The specimen having the bolted
web and CJP welded flanges (HSS-24) showed the opposite behavior having smaller brace
displacement and larger gusset plate rotations. This specimen achieved the largest total drift range
of the four TRGP specimens in this test series.
7.2.2.3
TRGP Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparisons
This section compares the behavior of the brace and gusset plates in tension. Brace elongation for
the five TRGP specimens are plotted over total drift range in Figure 7.2.8. Brace elongation is
normalized by the original brace length from edge of gusset to edge of gusset and given as a unitless measure, or in./in. The data for the CJP welded beam-to-column connection specimen (HSS05) is incomplete in that it was not available beyond 4.30% total drift range. The elongation of the
braces are well banded for all of the TRGP specimens with the exception of the bolted shear plate
connection (HSS-18), which exhibited less elongation at a given drift range.
Figure 7.2.8: TRGP Brace Elongation Comparison
Elongation occurring in the gusset plates was determined by subtracting the brace elongation from
the diagonal displacement, work point to work point, and normalized by the length from edge of
gusset plate to the beam/column work point. Additional description of the analysis method is
available in Chapter 6. The gusset plate elongations over total drift range are compared for the
TRGP specimen in Figure 7.2.9. It can be seen that the gusset plate elongation for the bolted shear
plate connection specimen (HSS-18) were greater for a given drift range greater than 2.0%. Also,
291
gusset plate elongation for the 14 bolt beam end plate beam-to-column connection (HSS-21) was
lower than the other TRGP specimens for a given drift level.
Figure 7.2.9: TRGP Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison
Figure 7.2.10 compares the elongation of both the brace and gusset plates. The line labeled Oneto-One is provided to designate a balance between brace and gusset plate elongation. The BDP
encourages gusset plate yielding beyond the brace to increase the total ductility of the system and
this comparison illustrates the balance between brace and gusset plate elongation.
Figure 7.2.10: TRGP Brace vs. Gusset Plate Elongation
292
The specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS-05) and the specimen with
bolted shear plate and CJP welded flanges (HSS-24) reached the largest total drift ranges, 4.96%
and 4.44% respectively, and both show elongation balanced between the brace and the gusset
plates, and slightly more brace elongation at larger drift ranges. The specimen having bolted web
CJP welded flange connections (HSS-18) exhibited a response more dominated by gusset plate
elongation and achieved a lower maximum drift range, 4.19%. The 14 bolt beam end plate
connection (HSS-21) showed the opposite having more elongation occurring in the brace
compared to the gusset plates and also achieved a smaller drift range, 4.14%.
7.2.3
TRGP Frame Response Comparison
The frame responses are compared using the calculated columns shears determined in Chapter 6 to
evaluate the resistance of the frame with varying connection details. Column strain gauge data
from AISC reference specimen with CJP interface welds (HSS-12) contained errors and was not
included in this comparison. Figure 7.2.11 and Figure 7.2.12 display frame resistances verses story
drift ratio in the positive and negative directions, respectively. The frame resistance, is normalized
by
, the theoretical shear force to achieve the plastic moment of the column,
, at the beam-
to-column intersection.
Figure 7.2.11: TRGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (+ Direction)
293
Figure 7.2.12: TRGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (- Direction)
Observations of the frame resistance comparison are below:

The AISC reference specimen with fillet interface welds exhibited higher resistances in
both directions because of the CJP welded beam-to-column connection and larger, stiffer
gusset plate geometry.
Both specimens with beam end plate connections (HSS-20 and HSS-21) showed higher
resistances comparatively. The 1 thick end plate extended the full length of the beam
and gusset plate shortening the unbraced length of the column and increased the stiffness
of the frame.
The specimen with bolted shear plate beam-to-column connections (HSS-18) was
intuitively less stiff than the other TRGP specimens and exhibited the lowest resistance in
the negative direction and lower resistance in the positive direction comparatively.
The bolted web CJP welded flange connection (HSS-24) resulted in similar frame
resistance as the CJP welded beam-to-column connection of HSS-05 in the negative
direction but lower resistance in the positive.
Comparisons of the horizontal shear resisted by the brace and the frame are shown in Table 7.2.5
as a percentage of the total lateral shear. Values at brace yielding and at the ultimate drift levels are
presented in Table 7.2.6. As discussed in Chapter 6, larger total drift ranges were obtained when
294
the distribution of system resistance was approximately 75-80% brace and 20-25% frame at the
ultimate negative drift levels. Typically when brace contribution declined rapidly at smaller negative
drift levels, brace fracture occurred earlier and smaller total drift ranges were achieved.
18 Bolted Beam End

Plate
Bolted Web CJP
Flange
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn.
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
14 Bolted Beam End
Plate
AISC w/Fillet
Table 7.2.5: TRGP Distribution of Resistance
295
Table 7.2.6: Summary of TRGP Resistance Distribution
Specimen
AISC w/ CJP
CJP Welded
Beam/Col
Conn
Shear Plate
Beam/Col
Conn
18 Bolt Beam
End Plate
14 Bolt Beam
End Plate
Bolted Web
CJP Welded
Flange
7.2.4

-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
78.0
22.1
80.3
19.7
-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
36.0
64.0
73.2
26.8
80.3
19.7
83.8
16.2
19.7
80.3
68.2
31.8
82.5
17.5
83.6
16.4
16.1
83.9
76.9
23.1
79.5
20.5
86.7
13.4
18.3
81.7
73.4
26.6
79.2
20.8
83.6
16.4
13.2
86.8
71.6
28.5
84.9
15.2
86.8
13.2
29.3
70.7
74.6
25.4
TRGP Energy Dissipation
The energies dissipated by the TRGP specimens are compared in this section. Table 7.2.7 displays
the total energy dissipated as well as energy dissipated by the brace diagonal and by the frame
individually. The total energy is calculated using the applied lateral load and the horizontal
displacement of the frame as described in Section 6.6, which also outlines the equations used to
determine energy dissipated by the brace diagonal and by the frame. Energy dissipated by the brace
diagonal considers the inelastic responses of both the brace and the gusset plates and is calculated
using the brace force from Section 6.3.1.2 and the axial deformation over the brace diagonal, work
point to work point. Frame energy dissipation is calculated using the total column shears as
determined in Section 6.4.2 and the frame horizontal displacement. The total energy dissipated by
the system, brace diagonal and by the frame are summarized in Table 7.2.8 for each TRGP
specimen and the AISC reference specimens.
AISC w/CJP
AISC w/Fillet
Table 7.2.7: TRGP Energy Dissipation
296
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
14 Bolt Beam End
Plate
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn.
18 Bolted Beam End
Plate
Bolted Web CJP
Flange Conn.
Table 7.2.8: Summary of Energy Dissipation for TRGP

Dissipation
Design Parameter Dissipated,
kip-in
kip-in
%
AISC w/ Fillet
3334
3181
95
AISC w/ CJP
3219
N/A
N/A
CJP Welded
6941
5451
79
Beam/Col Conn
Shear Plate
5000
3848
77
Beam/Col Conn
18 Bolt Beam End
5019
3824
76
Plate
14 Bolt Beam End
4825
3891
81
Plate
Bolted Web CJP
5237
4161
79
Welded Flange
Frame Diagonal
Energy Dissipation
Total Drift
Range, %
kip-in
153
N/A
%
5
N/A
2.65
3.49
1490
21
4.96
997
20
4.19
1044
21
3.97
976
20
4.14
972
19
4.44
All of the TRGP specimens within the current test series (HSS-18, HSS-20, HSS-21, and HSS-24)
showed similar total energy dissipation and distribution between energy dissipated by the brace
diagonal and the frame. These specimens dissipated between 4825 kip-in and 5237 kip-in of
297
energy, with 76%-81% occurring over the brace diagonal. The specimen with CJP welded beamto-column connections (HSS-05) dissipated significantly more total energy, 6941 kip-in, with similar
distribution between brace diagonal and frame as the current specimens.
All of the TRGP specimens showed significant improvement in energy dissipation compared to the
two AISC reference specimens (HSS-01 and HSS-12). The AISC designed reference specimen with
fillet interface welds (HSS-01) dissipated 3334 kip-in of total energy with 95% over the brace
diagonal, whereas the TRGP specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS-05)
showed a 108% improvement in energy dissipation with the more compact, thinner gusset plate
using the Balance Design Procedure resulting in a more ductile response of the system. The TRGP
specimen with bolted web CJP welded flange connections (HSS-24) resulted in 24.5% decrease in
total energy dissipation compared the CJP welded web and flange connection, 23.7% decrease from
the brace diagonal and most notably 34.8 % less energy dissipated through the frame. The bolted
shear plate beam-to-column connection (HSS-18) saw 28.0% less total energy dissipated by the
system than the CJP welded connection. The brace diagonal and frame dissipated 29.4% and
33.1% less energy, respectively.
The 18 bolt and 14 bolt beam end plate connections (HSS-20 and HSS-21) resulted in 50.5% and
44.7% improvements in energy dissipated compared to the AISC reference specimen with fillet
interface welds (HSS-01), but could not achieve similar levels as the TRGP specimen with CJP
welded beam-to-column connections. The 18 bolt configuration saw a 27.7% loss in total energy
dissipation and the 14 bolt configuration lost 30.5%.
7.2.5
TRGP Summary
This comparison has shown that modifications from the CJP welded beam-to-column connection
utilized in HSS-05 resulted in reductions in ultimate drift capacity and energy dissipation, but not
necessarily in total resistance. All TRGP specimen is this test series achieve larger total drift ranges
and more desirable brace behavior that either AISC reference specimens. The specimen with the
bolted web CJP welded flange connection (HSS-24) showed the closest similarity in response to full
CJP welded beam-to-column connection (HSS-05) by achieving the larger total drift range and
dissipating more energy than the others but the decrease in these important performance
parameters was significant by only modifying the beam web connection to the column. The bolted
shear plate beam-to-column connection (HSS-18) resulted in more significant reduction in ultimate
drift capacity and total resistance of the system, which can be attributed to the decrease in frame
stiffness and early brace fracture.
298
The stiffness of the beam-to-column section also appears to influence the level of residual
deformation of the brace and gusset plate out-of-plane. Under cyclic loading, larger strain demands
are required to straighten the brace in tension once plastic deformation has occurred, increasing the
total plastic strain accumulated at the brace center. This could potentially lead to early brace
fracture at smaller drift ranges as illustrated for the bolted shear plate connection (HSS-18), which
saw larger residual out-of-plane displacements than the bolted web CJP flange connection (HSS-24)
and failed at a lower drift range, 4.19% compared to 4.44%.
Both bolted end plate connection (HSS-20 and HSS-21) exhibited decreases in ultimate drift
capacity and energy dissipation compared to the CJP welded beam-to-column connection (HSS05), but exhibited increased stiffness and maximum resistance. The response of the frame with the
bolted connection, resistance verses drift ratio, was also comparable to that of HSS-05 and achieved
larger resistances at a given drift level.
7.3
Beam-to-Column Connections for Thin Tapered Gusset Plates
Thin tapered gusset plates (TTGP) have shown the ability to achieve large ultimate drift capacities
and also reduce the amount of material and welding time during construction. The geometry of the
tapered plates allows for free rotations as the brace buckles out-of-plane but also reduces the
buckling capacity of the brace by increasing the effective slenderness ratio. Specimen HSS-17 and
HSS-22 utilized the identical gusset plate designs, but HSS-17 consisted of CJP welded web and
flanges, rather than bolted shear plate connection in HSS-22, adjacent to the gusset plates. The
specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS-17) achieved an ultimate drift range
of 4.94% and is considered the upper bound performance for specimen with tapered gusset plates.
This section evaluates the performance of HSS-22 having the bolted shear plate beam-to-column
connection by comparing it to HSS-17. The two AISC reference specimens (HSS-01 and HSS-12)
are also included in the some of the comparisons to illustrate improved behavior of the system by
utilizing the Balance Design Procedure for TTGP specimens.
Comparison of the system response is discussed first in Section 7.3.1 followed by a comparison of
the response of the brace and gusset plates in Section 7.3.2. The response of the framing elements
are compared in Section 7.3.3 followed by a comparison of energy dissipation for TTGP specimen
in Section 7.3.4.
299
7.3.1
TTGP System Response Comparison
The system responses were evaluated by comparing the lateral load verses drift response for the
two TTGP specimens and the two AISC reference specimens. Table 7.3.1 summarizes the peak
values of drift and maximum lateral load resisted, and includes a description of the controlling
failure mechanism and design parameter for each specimen. The resistance is normalized by the
theoretical lateral force associated with brace yielding calculated in Equation (1.2.1).
Table 7.3.1: Peak Performance Summary for TTGP
Specimen
Range
Drift Ratio, %
Min
Max
Resistance
P/Py
Failure
Mechanism
Interface
Weld
Fracture
Discription
with Fillet Welds
HSS-01
2.65
-1.64
1.01
-0.95
1.64
HSS-12
3.49
-2.10
1.39
-0.90
1.86
Brace
Fracture
HSS-17
4.94
-2.79
2.15
-0.79
1.77
Brace
Fracture

with CJP Interface
Welds
CJP Welded Bm/Col
Thin Tapered GP
HSS-22
3.98
-2.48
1.50
-0.66
1.50
Brace
Fracture
Bolted Shear Plate

Conn Thin Tapered GP
Both TTGP specimens achieved larger drift ratios than either AISC reference specimen. The
TTGP specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS-17) achieved a total drift
range of 4.94%, which is 41.5% greater than the AISC reference specimen with CJP interface welds
(HSS-12). The total drift range of the bolted shear plate connection specimen (HSS-22), 3.98%,
increased by only 14.0% compared to HSS-12. Both TTGP specimen exhibited smaller maximum
negative resistance than the AISC reference specimens and the specimen with the bolted shear
plate connections (HSS-22) also exhibited lower maximum positive resistance than any test in this
comparison.
The enveloped values for the lateral load verses drift ratio response were used to compare the
global response of the system. Figure 7.3.1 compares the global responses of the two TTGP
specimens and the two AISC reference specimens in the positive direction. The responses in the
negative direction are shown in Figure 7.3.2.
300
Figure 7.3.1: TTGP Load vs. Drift (Positive Envelope)
The TTGP specimens both exhibit initial tensile yielding at relatively small positive drift levels,
approximately 0.5%, but continued to increase resistance as drift increased. The AISC reference
specimens, especially the specimen with fillet interface welds (HSS-01), retained stiffness until a
more clearly defined point of yielding occurred at approximately 1.30%. The TTGP specimen with
CJP welded beam-to-column connections.
Figure 7.3.2: TTGP Load vs. Drift (Negative Envelope)
301
In the negative direction, the point of brace buckling can be seen followed by the nonlinear
response of the system with the brace in compression. Both TTGP specimens exhibited similar
behavior post buckling, maintaining or slightly decreasing resistance at larger drift levels. The CJP
welded beam-to-column connection (HSS-17) exhibited both a greater resistance at buckling and
maintained a larger resistance until failure than the bolted shear plate connection (HSS-22). The
AISC reference specimens exhibited greater buckling capacity and compressive resistance over the
nonlinear response than either TTGP specimen, which is expected considering the larger gusset
plates and stiffer brace end supports.
7.3.2
TTGP Brace and Gusset Plate Comparison
The response of the brace and gusset plates for the two TTGP specimens (HSS-17 and HSS-22)
are compared in this section to evaluate the effect the beam-to-column connection between has on
brace and gusset plate behaviors. The two AISC reference specimens are including in some of the
comparisons to illustrate how the behavior of the thin tapered gusset plates differ and are more
beneficial than the gusset plates design to simulate current AISC procedures.
The brace forces and nonlinear brace response are compared in Section 7.3.2.1. Comparison of the
brace out-of-plane displacement and gusset plate rotations are included in Section 7.3.2.2. Brace
and gusset plate elongation in tension are compared in Section 7.3.2.3.
7.3.2.1
TTGP Brace Force Comparison
Comparisons of the brace force and nonlinear brace responses are evaluated in this sub-section.
First, the critical buckling capacity of the brace,
, was determined from strain gauge data directly
on the brace. Values obtained from the tests were compared to the design nominal buckling
capacity,
, in Table 7.3.2. Also included in this table is the ratio of the experimental critical
buckling load over the nominal design value and the experimental effective length factor, , and
slenderness ratio,
302
Table 7.3.2: TTGP Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison
Design Parameter
AISC w/ Fillet
AISC w/ CJP
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn
Experimental
Exp/AISC
Effective Length
Pcr/Pn
Factor, K
1.04
0.94
0.98
1.04
Experimental
Slenderness
Ratio (Kl/r)
67.4
74.5
Experimental
AISC
Pcr
209.5
195.7
Pn=FcrAg
200.7
200.7
208.8
176.7
1.18
0.81
67.7
176.3
176.7
1.00
1.00
84.3
The buckling capacity of the brace for the TTGP specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column
connections (HSS-17) was significantly larger than the nominal design value. The resulting
effective length factor, , equaled 0.81, which is surprising considering the increased flexibility of
the brace end connection because of the thin gusset plates and tapered geometry compared to the
effective length factors observed with the AISC reference specimens. The bolted shear plate
specimen exhibited an experimental buckling capacity equal to the design value and
equal to 1.0.
The nonlinear bracer response is plotted for the two TTGP specimens in Table 7.3.3. The
hysteretic plots were created using the brace strain gauge data and the elongation over the brace
diagonal, work-point to work-point, as described in Chapter 6, Section X 6.3.2.1.
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn.
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn.
Table 7.3.3: TTGP Brace Response
A comparison of the nonlinear response of the brace in compression was made to evaluate the
degradation for brace capacity post buckling. Figure 7.3.3 shows brace compression over total drift
range and illustrates the level of force degradation exhibited by the two TTGP specimens with
different beam-to-column connection types. The compressive force is normalized by the design
nominal buckling capacity. Again, the nonlinear brace force used for this comparison was
calculated by subtracting the columns shear described in Chapter 3, Section 6.4.2 from the applied
lateral load to the system. Table 7.3.4 is provided summarizing the compressive response, including
303
the ratio of minimum compressive capacity prior to failure,
, over the critical buckling
capacity.
Figure 7.3.3: TTGP Compressive Degradation Comparison
The ratio of capacity for the TTGP specimen with the bolted shear plate beam-to-column
connection (HSS-22) was significantly less than that observed for the CJP welded connection (HSS17), 0.10 compared to 0.26.
Table 7.3.4: TTGP Brace Compression Capacity Degradation Ratio

Design Parameter
Pcr*
CJP Welded Beam/Col

203.25
Conn
Shear Plate Beam/Col
160.57
Conn
Pmin
Pmin/*Pcr
53.3
0.26
15.9
0.10
* critical buckling load calculated by subtracting column shears

from applied lateral load for horizontal componet resisted by
brace
7.3.2.2
TTGP Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparisons
The thin tapered gusset plates provide a more flexible end support for the brace and typically result
in brace behavior more closely resembling a pinned-pinned compressive member. This section
evaluates the behaviors of the brace and gusset plates in compression by comparing the brace
304
center displacement and gusset plate rotations for the two TTGP specimens. Also included in the
comparison is the AISC reference specimen with CJP interface welds (HSS-12) to illustrate
behavioral differences between rectangular gusset plates design to simulate current AISC
procedures and thin tapered plates designed following the BDP. Brace out-of-plane displacement
as a percent of the total brace length are compared in Figure 7.3.4.
Figure 7.3.4: TTGP Brace Out-of-Plane Displacement Comparison
Both TTGP specimens exhibited similar out-of-plane behavior at a given drift range compared to
the AISC reference specimen regardless of gusset plate detail. The displacement of the brace for
the AISC reference specimen does jump at approximately 2.5% total drift, where as the TTGP
continue to increase steadily until failure. The specimen with bolted shear plate connections (HSS22) did exhibited slightly larger displacements than the CJP welded connections (HSS-17) for a
given drift range, which achieved a larger maximum out-of-plane displacement prior to brace
fracture at a greater maximum drift range. The gusset plate rotations at the NE connection are
compared in Figure 7.3.5.
305
Figure 7.3.5: TTGP NE Gusset Rotation Comparison
As expected, the gusset plate rotations for both TTGP were greater than those achieved the AISC
reference specimen at a given drift range. The specimen with bolted shear plate connections
achieved larger rotations at smaller drift ranges than the CJP welded connection but the response of
the specimens with thin tapered gusset plates was similar at drift levels greater than1.5%. It should
be noted that interface welds at both gusset plates of the specimen with CJP welded beam-tocolumn connection exhibited severe tearing of the base material prior to failure, which would have
reduced the rotational stiffness of the connection. The bolted shear plate connection only
experience moderate tearing of the interface welds. The residual brace out-of-plane displacement
and NE gusset plate rotations are compared in Figure 7.3.6 and Figure 7.3.7.
306
Figure 7.3.6: TTGP Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison
Figure 7.3.7: TTGP Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison
Similar to the behavior of the brace with thin rectangular gusset plates, the specimen with bolted
shear plate connections exhibited larger out-of-plane displacement at the brace center and larger
gusset plate rotations. Greater residual out-of-plane displacements and gusset plate rotations
suggest increased the strain demands over the brace diagonal to straighten in tension, causing local
deformation of the brace plastic hinge to occur at smaller drift ranges, shortening the life of the
brace.
307
7.3.2.3
TTGP Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparisons
Thicker gusset plates increase yielding in the brace section by concentrating all the elongation to the
brace section. Thin gusset plates connections designed using the Balanced Design Procedure and
a factor of 1.0, regardless of geometry, have typically exhibited yielding in both the brace and the
gusset plates. Brace elongations for the two TTGP specimens (HSS-17 and HSS-22) and the AISC
reference specimen with CJP interface welds (HSS-12) are compared in Figure 7.3.8.
Figure 7.3.8: TTGP Brace Elongation vs. Total Drift Range
The two TTGP specimens show similar elongation behavior but CJP welded beam-to-column
connection achieved a greater maximum value by reaching a larger total drift range. The AISC
reference specimen exhibited the greatest brace elongation for a given drift range beyond 1.5% in
this comparison because of the increased axial stiffness of the thicker gusset plates.
Gusset plate elongations for TTGP specimens and AISC reference specimen HSS-12 are compared
in Figure 7.3.9. At smaller total drift ranges, the gusset plates for bolted shear plate beam-tocolumn showed larger gusset plate elongation but at approximately 2.5% drift range, gusset plate
yielding was capped. The gusset plates for the CJP welded beam-to-column connections, however,
continued to yield as total drift range increased. Both TTGP specimens experienced greater gusset
plate elongation for a given drift range than the AISC designed gusset plate from HSS-12.
308
Figure 7.3.9: TTGP Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison
The behavior of the brace diagonal in tension was evaluated by comparing the brace elongations
verses the gusset plate elongations. A response with yielding concentrated in the gusset plates
rather than brace is essentially placing greater inelastic demand over a shorter length and not
utilizing the ductility of the brace. This limits the ductility of the system and typically, specimens
with a balance between brace and gusset plate yielding achieved greater drift ranges. The
comparison of tensile elongation between the brace and the gusset plates for the two TTGP
specimens and the AISC reference specimen with CJP interface welds is shown in Figure 7.3.10.
Figure 7.3.10: TTGP Brace Strain vs. Gusset Plate Strain Comparison
309
The response of the specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS-17) was well
balanced following closely along the One-to-One line. Elongation over the diagonal was well
distribution and continued to increase in both the brace and gusset until failure occurred.
However, the specimen with bolted shear plate connections (HSS-22) exhibited similar behavior to
HSS-17 before limiting gusset plate yielding and relying completely on brace yielding to reach the
ultimate drift range. HSS-12 exhibited a response concentrating elongation to the brace and
achieved only a moderate drift range.
7.3.3
TTGP Frame Response Comparison
The response of the frame is evaluated for the thin tapered gusset plate specimens with this section.
Comparison of the frame resistance over drift ratio is provided in the positive and negative
directions in Figure 7.3.11 and Figure 7.3.12, respectively. The lateral force resisted by the frame
was calculated using strain gauge data from the columns as describe in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.
The frame resistance, or total column shear, is normalized by
achieve the plastic moment of the column,
, the theoretical shear force to
, at the beam-to-column intersection.
Figure 7.3.11: TTGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (+ Direction)
310
Figure 7.3.12: TTGP Frame Resistance vs. Drift Comparison (- Direction)
The AISC reference specimen exhibited the largest frame resistance in both directions which is
expected considering the thickness and geometry of the gusset plate attributes to the in-plane
stiffness of the frame. The bolted shear plate connection of specimen HSS-22 exhibited lower
resistance at a given positive drift level but achieve larger resistance than the CJP welded
connection in the negative direction. This is somewhat surprising considering the bolted shear
plate connection is inherently less stiff.
The distribution of resistance was compared between the lateral loads resisted by the brace and by
the frame for the two TTGP specimens in Table 7.3.5. The percentages of total shear resisted by
the brace and frame are summarized at brace yielding and at the ultimate drift levels in Table 7.3.6.
HSS-22
Table 7.3.5: TTGP Distribution of Resistance
311
Table 7.3.6: Summary of TTGP Resistance Distribution
Specimen
AISC w/ Fillet
CJP Welded
Beam/Col
Conn
Shear Plate
Beam/Col
Conn

-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
78.0
22.1
80.3
19.7
-Drift%
+Drift%
Brace
Frame
Brace
Frame
36.0
64.0
73.2
26.8
90.6
9.5
84.2
15.8
29.0
71.0
67.2
32.8
86.5
13.5
87.0
13.0
9.4
90.6
79.2
20.8
When looking at the distribution of resistance for TTGP specimen with the bolted shear plate
beam-to-column connection (HSS-22) in Table 7.3.5, it can be seen that once the brace buckled in
compression, the contribution of brace resistance decreased sharply as the negative drift level
increased. The specimen with CJP welded connections shows a more balanced response with 29%
of the total story shear resisted by the brace and 71% by the frame, compared to HSS-22 which
retained only 9.4% of the total resistance through brace compression prior to fracture. Again, this
suggests that the frame connection had a significant influence on not only the critical buckling force
of the brace, but also the nonlinear response in compression after buckling.
7.3.4
TTGP Energy Dissipation
The total energy dissipated by the system, brace diagonal and by the frame are presented for the
two TTGP specimens in Table 7.3.7. Energy dissipated by the components and the percent
dissipated by the brace diagonal and by the frame are summarized in Table 7.3.8. The specimen
with bolted shear plate beam-to-column connections (HSS-22) dissipated 4.5% less total energy by
reducing the in-plane stiffness of the frame compare to the CJP welded connection for HSS-17.
This is a relatively small reduction considering HSS-17 achieved significantly larger drift levels and
exhibited greater resistance in both directions. The specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column
connections dissipated 85% of its energy through the response over the brace and gusset plates
while the specimen with bolted shear plate connections saw a larger contribution of energy
dissipation from the frame, 27%. As seen above in Figure 7.3.12, the frame resistance in the
positive direction was reduced with the more flexible connection but the total frame response was
capable of dissipation 73.1% more energy than that of the frame having CJP welded connections.
312
HSS-17
HSS-22
Table 7.3.7: TTGP Energy Dissipation Comparison
Table 7.3.8: Summary of Energy Dissipation for TTGP
Specimen
AISC w/ Fillet
AISC w/ CJP
CJP Welded
Beam/Col Conn
Shear Plate
Beam/Col Conn

Dissipation
Dissipated,
kip-in
kip-in
%
3334
3181
95
3219
N/A
N/A
Frame Diagonal
Energy Dissipation
kip-in
153
N/A
%
5
N/A
4807
4086
85
721
15
4589
3341
73
1248
27
Total Drift
Range, %
2.65
3.49
4.94
3.98
During the testing of the TTGP specimen with CJP welded beam-to-column connections (HSS17), the LVDT calibration factor used in controlling the induce displacement was incorrect. This
was not corrected until after the completion of the test when it was realized that the displacements
induced were 1.45 times larger than intended through the loading protocol (Kotulka 2007). As a
result, specimen HSS-17 only completed 31 cycles, whereas HSS-22 achieved 34 complete cycles
prior to brace fracture. Energy dissipation is related to the number of cycles completed. It is
suspected that the more rapidly escalating amplitude from the unintentionally modified loading
protocol for HSS-17 could result in less energy dissipated while still achieving a greater ultimate
drift capacity.
7.3.5
TTGP Summary
The reduction in ultimate drift range and total resistance for TTGP specimen was significant by
utilizing bolted shear plate beam-to-column connection rather than CJP welded moment
connection adjacent to the gusset plates. Reducing the in-plane stiffness of the frame appears to
limit the buckling capacity of the brace and increases the degradation of brace resistance post
buckling. The increase in residual brace displacement and gusset plate rotations seems to attribute
313
to early plastic deformation at the brace center and early fracture at smaller drift ranges. For both
specimen, large out-of-plane rotations were exhibited by the gusset plates in compression and
severe yielding was observed in the gusset plates in tension. Severe cracking was observed in the
based material along the interface welds for HSS-17, while moderate cracking was observed in
HSS-22. In both cases, the increase deformation demands and shorter interface weld length
increase the potential for weld fracture.
Both specimens achieved similar total energy dissipation but HSS-17 with CJP welded connections
dissipated most of the energy through the brace while HSS-22 with bolted shear plate connections
relied heavily on the inelastic response of the less stiff frame to dissipate energy. The component
behaviors in compression and tension were similar with both connections.
7.4
Wide-Flange Verses HSS Tubular Brace Sections
Prior to specimen WF-23, all of the specimens had been designed and tested with HSS tubular
brace sections. The behavior of A500 B/C HSS sections under large cyclic loading has shown that
once local deformation associated with the formation of the hinge is observed, tensile strain is
concentrated within the hinge region. This strain accumulation leads to the initiation of cracking
and eventual fracture of the brace section and moderate drift levels. It is thought that A992 wideflange brace sections could increase the ultimate drift capacity of the system by exhibiting a more
ductile response from the brace.
This section discusses and compares the performance of WF-23 which utilized a W6x25 brace
section with the performance of HSS-05, best performing HSS tubular specimen, and the AISC
reference specimens, HSS-01 and HSS-12. The global system responses are compared in
Section7.4.1 followed by discussion and comparison of the brace and gusset plate behaviors in
Section Error! Reference source not found..
7.4.1
Wide-Flange vs. HSS System Response Comparison
Both HSS-05 and WF-23 utilized 3/8 gusset plate connections designed following the Balance
Design Procedure with similar elliptical clearance method using an 8t offset. The frames consisted
of the same beam and column sizes and CJP welded beam-to-column connections were used
adjacent to the gusset plates. The ultimate drift capacity and maximum resistance are summarized
in Table 7.3.8. Backbone curves using the peak resistance and drifts for the system response are
compared in Figure 7.4.1. The lateral resistances of the specimens were normalized by the lateral
load associated with brace yielding from Equation (1.2.1).
314
Table 7.4.1: Peak Performance Summary for WF Comparison

Specimen
Range
Drift Ratio, %
Min
Max
Resistance
P/Py
Failure
Mechanism
Interface
Weld
Fracture
Discription
with Fillet Welds
HSS-01
2.65
-1.64
1.01
-0.95
1.64
HSS-12
3.49
-2.10
1.39
-0.90
1.86
Brace
Fracture

with CJP Interface
Welds
HSS-05
4.96
-3.09
1.87
-0.80
1.76
Brace
Fracture
"Best" HSS Tubular

Brace Section
WF-23
5.56
-3.21
2.35
-0.58
1.30
Interface
Weld
Fracture
WF Brace Section
Figure 7.4.1: WF Backbone Curve Comparison
The W6x25 brace section was selected because the maximum expected brace force in tension,
, was similar to that of the typical HSS5x5x3/8 tubular section, 403.7 kip compared to
398.0 kip. The calculated nominal buckling capacity of the wide-flange section was slightly lower
than that of the HSS brace based on AISC Specification Equation E3-2, 168.0 kips verses 176.2
kip. However, the system response for WF-23 showed that buckling of the brace in compression
and tensile yielding of the brace occurred and considerably lower lateral loads than previous
specimens with HSS tubes including the AISC reference specimens. Also a response characteristic
observed that was unique to the wide-flange brace section was the reduction of system resistance
immediately following brace buckling. The specimen with HSS tubular brace section typically
leveled but maintain system resistance after buckling of the brace occurred.
315
WF-23 did achieve a 12.1% larger total drift range than HSS-05 and 59.3% larger than AISC
reference specimen with CJP interface welds (HSS-12). The wide-flange specimen ultimately failed
due to interface weld fracture at the NE gusset plate connection where as HSS-05 was able to
achieve the desired failure mechanisms of brace fracture at the plastic hinge.
7.4.2
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace and Gusset Plate Response Comparison
The response of the brace and gusset plate are compared in this section for the wide-flange brace
specimen (WF-23) and the best performing HSS brace specimen (HSS-05). The brace buckling
capacity and nonlinear response, forces verses elongation over the brace diagonal work-point to
work-point, are compared in Section 7.4.2.1. The behavior of the brace and gusset plates in
compression are compared in Sections 7.4.2.2 and in tension in Section 7.4.2.3. Evaluation of the
energy dissipation by the wide-flange brace specimen is provided in Section 7.4.3.
7.4.2.1
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Force Comparison
The experimental buckling capacities of the specimens are compared in Table 7.4.2. The critical
buckling load,
, was calculated using strain gauge data described in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1.1 for
the wide-flange brace (WF-23), and compared to the nominal buckling capacity of the brace per
AISC Design Specifications. The experimental effective length factor, , and slenderness ratio,
, were calculated and included in the table.
Table 7.4.2: Wide-Flange vs. HSS Experimental Buckling Capacity Comparison
Design Parameter
AISC w/ Fillet
AISC w/ CJP
HSS Brace
Section (HSS-05)
Wide-Flange
Brace Section
Experimental
AISC
Pcr
209.5
195.7
Pn=FcrAg
200.7
200.7
174.8
176.2
167.0
165.4
Experimental
Exp/AISC
Effective Length
Pcr/Pn
Factor, K
1.04
0.94
0.98
1.04
0.99
1.01
Experimental
Slenderness
Ratio (Kl/r)
67.4
74.5
1.01
85.0
0.99
103.8
The W6x25 brace section buckled at a compressive load slightly above the design value, 167.0 kip
compared to 165.4 kip. This resulted in an effective length factor of 0.99 and slenderness ratio of
103.8. The full nonlinear responses of the braces, brace force verses diagonal elongation, are
compared in Table 7.4.3. Brace force was normalized by the nominal tensile yield force calculated
in Equation (7.2.2). The wide-flange brace force was calculated from the brace strain gauge data as
describe in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1.2. This method determined the brace stresses from the
316
nonlinear strain response recorded in the brace. The brace force used for the HSS-05 response was
calculated by subtracting total column shears from the applied lateral load to obtain the horizontal
components of the brace force. The method for determining column shears is described in
Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.
HSS Brace Section

(HSS-05)
Wide-Flange Brace
Section
Table 7.4.3: Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Response
Although the W6x25 wide-flange brace section showed greater ductility than the HSS5x5x3/8
brace from HSS-05, both the compressive and tensile resistances of the wide-flange section were
less than that of the HSS tube. The brace yielded at a tension force lower than the calculated
nominal yield strength,
. The wide-flange brace also exhibited severe compression capacity
degradation post buckling and retained little capacity at maximum negative drift levels.
7.4.2.2
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace Displacement and Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison
The brace displacement and gusset plate rotations are evaluated for the wide-flange brace specimen
by comparing the behavior to those of HSS-05 and the AISC reference specimen with CJP
interface welds (HSS-12). The observed behavior of the W6x25 wide-flange brace sections was
inherently different in compression than the typical HSS5x5x3/8 tube. As typically seen in
previous test with HSS tubular section with flexible gusset plate connection, initial buckling
occurred and the brace shape resembled a half sinusoidal wave. As horizontal displacement
increased, the brace began to buckle in a more triangular shape with the majority of inelastic
deformation near the brace midpoint. Once the formation of the plastic hinge occurred at the
brace midpoint, the concentration of local deformation was over a relatively short length of brace,
approximately twice the depth of the member.
The wide-flange brace section exhibited similar half sine wave shape after initial buckling, but
maintained a more gradually curving shape as horizontal displacement increased. The
concentration of yielding as the plastic hinge formed was over a much great length of brace,
approximately three times the depth of the section as shown in Figure 7.4.2. Also, WF-23 failure
317
due to interface weld fracture before developing the local deformation associated with the brace
plastic hinge.
3d
Figure 7.4.2: WF Brace Yielding at Plastic Hinge (-3.21%)
Out-of-plane displacement response of the WF brace midpoint is compared in Figure 7.4.3 with
the brace displacement of HSS-05 and AISC reference specimen HSS-12. From the onset of
buckling, the wide-flange brace achieved larger out-of-plane displacements than the specimens with
HSS brace sections. This is partly because the larger area of the W6x25 and resulting increase in
axial stiffness,
. The force in the brace after buckling was smaller or comparable to
the HSS brace at similar negative drift levels, and there for, resulted in less axial shortening of the
brace. This requires a larger out-of-plane displacement to accommodate the change in the diagonal
length associated with a given horizontal drift level. The displacement of the wide-flange brace
increased less at a given drift range than either HSS-05 with the HSS tubular brace or AISC
reference specimen HSS-12 beyond approximately 1.5%. However WF-23 achieved a maximum
displacement prior to system failure by reaching a greater total drift range.
318
Figure 7.4.3: WF Brace OOP Displacement Comparison
Specimen WF-23 exhibited large gusset plate rotations and severe damage to the interface welds,
ultimately leading to fracture. Figure 7.4.4 compares the NE gusset plate rotations of WF-23 to
those of HSS-05 and AISC reference specimen HSS-12. It can be seen that significantly larger
rotations occurred to accommodate the out of plane displacement of the brace section of WF-23.
In this case, the rotations lead to fracture of the interface weld prior to the development of local
deformation at the brace plastic hinge, which could be an issue of concern when designing SCBFs
with thin flexible gusset plates and wide-flange sections.
Figure 7.4.4: NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison for WF
319
The residual out-of-plane displacement at the brace midpoint and residual gusset plate rotations
from the NE connection are compared with the residual displacement and rotations of HSS-05 and
AISC reference specimen (HSS-12) in Figure 7.4.5 and Figure 7.4.6, respectively. The residual
behavior for the displacement at the brace midpoint was similar to the maximum displacement.
The W6x25 brace section exhibited larger residual displacements than HSS-05 and the AISC
reference specimen for a given drift range below 4.30%, when the residual displacement of the HSS
brace section from HSS-05 equaled that of the wide-flange brace.
Figure 7.4.5: WF Residual Brace OOP Displacement Comparison
The NE gusset plate in WF-23 experienced larger residual rotation at a given drift range compared
to the gusset plates from HSS-05 or the AISC reference specimen (HSS-12). The larger out-ofplane brace displacement and gusset plate rotations increased inelastic demand on the gusset plates.
This also puts larger stress demands on the interface welds and increases the potential for weld
tearing.
320
Figure 7.4.6: WF Residual NE Gusset Plate Rotation Comparison
7.4.2.3
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Brace and Gusset Plate Elongation Comparison
The behavior of the W6x25 brace section and gusset plates in tension are compared in this section
by comparing brace and gusset plate elongation to the HSS brace of HSS-05 and the HSS brace of
AISC reference specimen HSS-12. The brace elongation verses total drift range is compared in
Figure 7.4.7. Elongation is given as a percent of the original brace length from edge of gusset plate
to edge of gusset plate.
Figure 7.4.7: Brace Elongation Comparison for WF
321
The WF-23 wide-flange brace section exhibited significantly greater tensile elongation than HSS-05.
The W6x25 achieved more elongation at a given drift range and continue to elongation linearly as
drift range increased. Comparing the elongation between HSS-05 and WF-23 at 4.30% total drift
(the maximum recorded elongation level for HSS-05) the wide-flange brace achieved 28.9% more
elongation than the HSS tubular brace.
The majority of tensile elongation for WF-23 over the brace diagonal, work-point to work-point,
occurred in the brace. The WF specimen gusset plates exhibited minor yielding and elongation in
tension, which could be expected after observing the lower maximum brace force in tension, 351.5
kip, as calculated in Section 6.3.1 of the previous chapter. The maximum brace from HSS-05 was
taken from the previous thesis as 400.9 kip (Johnson 2005). Gusset plate elongation is compared in
Figure 7.4.8.
Figure 7.4.8: Gusset Plate Elongation for WF
The distribution of tensile yielding between the brace and the gusset plates is compared in Figure
7.4.9 by plotting the brace strain verses the gusset plate strain. The wide-flange brace shows a
response dominated by tensile elongation. It could possible to further increase the ultimate drift
capacity of the system by increasing gusset plate elongation.
322
Figure 7.4.9: WF Brace Strain vs. Gusset Plate Strain Comparison
7.4.3
Wide-Flange vs. HSS Energy Dissipation Comparison
The energy dissipation of WF-23 with the wide-flange brace section, HSS-05 with the HSS brace
section and thin rectangular gusset plate, and the two AISC reference specimens (HSS-01 and HSS12) were compared in Table 7.4.4 including total energy dissipated by the brace diagonal and by the
framing elements. WF-23 dissipated 19.6% more total energy than HSS-05 and 149% more energy
than AISC reference specimen HSS-01. The energy dissipations of the total system, and
individually by the brace diagonal and frame, are shown in Figure 7.4.10 for WF-23. At the
completion of the test, the wide-flange specimen saw 63% of total energy dissipated by the brace
and 36% by the frame, which varies greatly compared to that of the HSS-05.
Table 7.4.4: WF Energy Dissipation Comparison
Dissipated,
Dissipation
kip-in
%
kip-in
AISC w/ Fillet
3334
3181
95
AISC w/ CJP
3219
N/A
N/A
HSS Brace
6941
5451
79
(HSS-05)
WF Brace
8300
5259
63
(WF-23)
Specimen
Frame Diagonal
Energy Dissipation
kip-in
%
153
5
N/A
N/A
Total Drift
Range, %
2.65
3.49
1490
21
4.96
2963
36
5.56
323
Figure 7.4.10: WF-23 Energy Dissipation
It can be seen that the rate of dissipation for the frame increased considerably at severe drift ranges,
greater than approximately 4.5%, but the energy dissipated through the brace diagonal continued to
increase linearly with drift range. It is likely that any specimen regardless of brace section type
would see significantly larger contribution of energy dissipated through frame action by achieving
drift ranges greater than 5.0% within this test setup.
7.4.4
Wide-Flange Brace Summary
Specimen WF-23 achieved a larger total drift range than any specimen with HSS brace sections and
similar gusset plate designs. The ductile behavior of the brace resulted in delayed formation of
local deformation at the brace plastic hinge in compression and extreme extremely large tensile
elongation. However, the large rotational demand on the gusset plates resulted in interface weld
damage and an undesirable failure mode to control for the system.
Another consideration when designing SCBFs with wide-flange brace sections is the increased cost
due to additional material, fabrication and construction time. Steel is typically purchased by the ton
which means that in our case, the W6x25 wide-flange weighs 12.1% more than the HSS5x5x3/8
tube and resulted in lower resistance. The brace to gusset plate connection are typically more
complicated and require fabrication time to prepare the ends, as well as more welding to connect
both flange and the web to the gusset plate. For the connection implemented in WF-23 shown in
Figure 7.4.11, an additional web plate was also required to connect the web. Tubular section
connected to gusset plates only required two slots and 4 fillet welds to connect.
324
Typ
All Sides
Figure 7.4.11: WF Brace to Gusset Plate Connection
7.5
Bolted Connections for SCBFs
The designs of HSS-19, HSS-20, HSS-21 and HSS-24 had considerable input from representative
with AISC to evaluate SCBF connections that utilize bolted connections. Bolted connections in
lieu of welding are more economical and provide ease of installation during erection. This section
discusses each of these specimens and evaluates the benefit and detriment of each in terms of
seismic performance and constructability.
7.5.1
HSS-19: Bolted WT Brace to Gusset Plate Connection
Specimen HSS-19 was the only test within this test series that utilized a bolted brace to gusset plate
connection. The brace did not behave as intended by design and buckling of the extension plate
occurred and ultimately fractured before fully developing buckling over the brace length. This was
due to the length between the ends of HSS tubular brace and the start of the WTs being too large,
creating a reduction in stiffness and instability in compression. However, the idea of a bolted brace
to gusset plate does show some promise with regards to constructability and should not be
abandoned without further research. Specimen HSS-19 showed the importance of assuring
325
consistent buckling resistance over the entire brace length if intending to achieve buckling and
eventual hinge formation at the two gusset plates and the brace midpoint.
Benefits
Ease of installation during construction
Draw-backs
Undesirable failure mechanism controlled
Reached only moderate drift levels prior to fracture
Minimal energy dissipated
Additional material needed for connection: HSS tube, extension plate and 2-WT4x17.5
The bolted connection between the brace and gusset plates used 1-1/8 A490 slip-critical bolts.
Under the AISC Seismic Provision, bolted connections used to resist seismic loading are required
to be slip-critical. This is intended to avoid racking of the bolted connections during moderate
level earthquakes. However, during a severe event, the initial frictional force within the slip-critical
bolts would mostly likely be exceeded and bolt slip would occur, as seen in HSS-19. The shear
force in the connection was then transferred through bolt bearing. This behavior of bolt slip
through the brace should be investigated further to determine what affect it has on brace resistance
and ductility.
7.5.2
HSS-20 and HSS-21: Bolted Beam End-plate Connection
This section discusses the performance of the two specimens with bolted beam end-plate to
column connections adjacent to the gusset plate connections. HSS-20 was tested first and utilized
an 18 bolt configuration while HSS-21 used a reduced configuration of 14 bolts. The concept of a
bolted beam-to-column connection for SCBFs that eliminates the requirement of field welding the
gusset plate to either framing element is very attractive to designers and erectors. This connection
also provides moment resistance similar to a CJP welded beam-to-column connection.
For both specimens, the gusset plates exhibited significant yielding in tension but lower gusset plate
rotations without the occurrence of weld damage. At the end of HSS-21, severe yielding covered
the entire area of the gusset plate as shown in Figure 7.5.1. The brace behavior and buckled shape
showed larger curvature toward the brace midpoint at lower drifts, which inherently lead to earlier
local deformation at the plastic hinge and short brace life. The thickness of the beam end-plate
being 1, essentially increased the calculated in-plane frame stiffness as shown in Section 6.4.2 and
326
the behavior of the gusset plate rotations suggest larger rotational stiffness out-of-plane. Previous
research within this test program have shown that having increasing the in-plane stiffness of the
framing elements and rotational out-of-plane stiffness of the gusset plates results in smaller ultimate
drift capacity and short brace life (Herman 2007).
Figure 7.5.1: HSS-21 NE Gusset Plate at End of Test
HSS-20 (18 Bolt Configuration) Benefits

Improved ultimate drift capacity by 13.8% compared to AISC reference specimen HSS-12
50.5% increase in energy dissipation over AISC reference specimen HSS-01
Similar total resistance of system compared to HSS-05
Achieved significant yielding of both brace and gusset plates in tension
Bolting beam and gusset plate to column reduces installation time
More shop welding required rather than field welding improves weld quality
HSS-20 (18 Bolt Configuration) Draw-backs

19.8% less drift capacity than achieved by HSS-05
27.7% less energy dissipated than by HSS-05
Early onset of local deformation at plastic hinge
Early brace fracture
HSS-21 (14 Bolt Configuration) Benefits

327
Improved ultimate drift capacity by 18.6% over AISC reference specimen HSS-12
44.7% increase in energy dissipation compared to AISC reference specimen HSS-01
Similar system resistance to HSS-05
Significant yielding extending beyond brace into gusset plates
14 bolt connection further reduces installation time during erection
Higher quality assurance by welding interface welds in shop rather than in the field
HSS-21 (14 Bolt Configuration) Draw-backs

16.5% less drift capacity than achieved by HSS-05
30.5% less drift energy dissipated than by HSS-05
Increased potential for tensile bolt fracture as seen at NE connection
The performances of HSS-20 and HSS-21 showed that improved ductility was possible with the
bolted beam end-plate connection and gusset plates designed following the Balanced Design
Procedure and the 8t elliptical clearance. The increased ease of installation and shop and
elimination of field welding make this type of connection attractive with regards to constructability.
Nevertheless, the specimen did not perform as well as HSS-05 and the 1 thick endplate appeared
the modify the brace behavior, resulting in formation of the plastic hinge at an earlier drift range
and fracture at lower drift than what was achieved with a CJP welded beam-to-column connection.
7.5.3
HSS-24: Welded Flanges, Bolted Web Beam-to-Column Connection
Specimen HSS-24 implemented a modified beam-to-column connection that reduced the total
amount of CJP welds required by connecting the beam web to the column with a bolted shear plate
but CJP welding the flanges. It is recognized in the AISC Seismic Provisions that the combinations
of welds and bolts should not be used to resist seismic loads because of the differential stiffness
behavior between bolts and welds. Welds is a more rigid connection method while bolts can slip or
move within the bolt holes. This could cause force to be concentrated on the more rigid connector
rather than a distribution as intended by design.
The ultimate drift capacity of HSS-24, which achieved a 4.44% total drift range, was the largest of
any specimen tested within this series with HSS5x5x3/8 brace sections. The specimen exhibited
large out-of-plane displacements of the brace midpoint and large gusset plate rotations with the
brace in compression. Only minor tearing of the interface welds was observed at large negative
drift levels. In tension, the brace and the gusset plates displayed an even distribution of yielding to
increase elongation over the entire diagonal length. The pattern of yielding for the gusset plates
328
suggests an innately different stress distribution compared to those observed in previous tests. The
typical gusset plate design by the Balance Design Procedure and with elliptical clearances showed
the arching elliptical shape of yielding as the plate rotated out-of-plane and a fairly even distribution
of tensile yielding along the brace to gusset welds and at the brace end. A photo of the SW gusset
plate for HSS-24 in Figure 7.5.2 shows that concentration of yielding occurred between the brace
and the gusset to column interface weld. This could be because of the reduce shear stiffness of the
web at the beam-to-column connection caused more of the vertical component of the brace force
to be transferred through the gusset plate to column interface weld.
Figure 7.5.2: HSS-24 SW Gusset Plate Yielding at End of Test
Overall, the specimen performed well, but still was unable to achieve the ultimate drift capacity
shown possible through HSS-05. It appears that even with a minor adjustment to the in-plane
stiffness of the frame, some loss in ductility is evident. Also, the observed level of damage to the
column webs, especially near the frame connection was significantly more than what had been
observed in previous test. Figure 7.5.3 shows the level of yielding observed in the column webs at
the end of the test.
329
Figure 7.5.3: HSS-24 Column Damage at Beam-to-Column Intersection (End of Test)
Benefits
Achieved 27.2% greater total drift range than AISC reference specimen HSS-12 and only
10.4% less than HSS-05
Dissipated 57.1% more total energy than AISC reference specimen HSS-01
Desired brace behavior in compression and tension with yielding occurring over brace and
gusset plates
Less field welding required by bolting web to column
Draw-backs
Combination of bolted and welded connections not currently permitted under AISC
Dissipated 24.5% less energy than HSS-05
Increased demand to columns
Specimen HSS-24 showed the most similarity in performance to HSS-05 but also utilized a
modified connection that only provides minimal gains in economy and constructability. Also,
increasing demands and inelastic deformation to the columns is less desirable because of increased
risk to the gravity load carrying capacity of the system.
330
7.6
Net Section Reinforcing Requirement
This section discusses the requirement of net section reinforcing by evaluating the behaviors of
HSS-11, HSS-25 and HSS-26. Nine of the 24 specimens tested with HSS within this research
program prior to HSS-25 did not include net section reinforcing. The necessity of additional plates
at the brace to gusset connection based on AISC Specifications (Equation D2-2) and Table D3.1 to
account for shear lag had come into question considering no damage, yielding or tearing, was
observed at the brace net section (Kotulka 2007). Nonlinear finite element analysis had shown that
the resulting stress levels at the brace net section increased with frame and gusset plate stiffness
(Yoo 2006). The increased in-plane stiffness of the heavier beam and larger gusset plate increased
the in-plane moment of the brace in tension, which results in the reduced brace area experiencing
the highest stress and strain demands. Therefore, HSS-25 was proposed to evaluate the potential
for net section fracture with a heavier W16x89 beam section, 7/8 thick gusset plates and no net
section reinforcement.
Specimen HSS-25 was tested using the same cyclic loading protocol with increasing amplitude as
used in HSS-11. Initial tearing of the brace material at the northeast brace end occurred at initial
drift range of 0.59%. At the end of the test, the cracking had propagated to approximately 5/8
above and 9/16 below the slot in the gusset plate but did not result in fracture. The damage to
the net section for HSS-25 is shown in Figure 7.5.3.
Figure 7.6.1: HSS-25 Net Section Tearing (0.88% Drift Level)
331
HSS-25 ultimately failed due to brace fracture at the plastic hinge but the results from the test
demonstrated the potential for net section fracture as the controlling failure mode. A study
conducted at UC Berkeley and included in the Steel Tips publication (April 2005) Limiting Net
Section Fracture in Slotted Tube Braces experimentally evaluated the affect of different drift histories and
effective net section area on the potential for net section fracture. The results showed that the
requirement for net section reinforcing is more critical for tension near-fault drift histories (Yang
and Mahin, 2005). HSS-26 tested an identical test specimen, also without net section
reinforcement with a tension dominated near-fault loading protocol and resulted in brace net
fracture at a drift level of 0.99%.
The performance HSS-25 did not appear limited when subjected to the typical loading protocol and
the brace was able to develop its full capacity in tension and yield over the length. However,
damage was observed at the net section of HSS-25 and net section fracture controlled in HSS-26 by
applying the alternate loading protocol. The design of SCBFs must address the demands from any
expected seismic ground excitation in order to assure the desired response and meet the
expectations of Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance levels. These results show that it
would be negligible to eliminated net section reinforcing for SCBFs with HSS tubular braces and
that further research is required to determine if lessening the requirement is feasible.
332
Chapter 8: Conclusions
8.1
Introduction
A summary of the nine tests specimen within this test series is provided in Section 8.2.
Conclusions based on the results from the analysis and performance comparisons in Chapter 6 and
Chapter 7 are presented in Section 0. Finally, recommendations to future work on SCBFs are
discussed in Section .
8.2
Research Summary
Specimens HSS-18 through HSS-26 were selected to evaluate both new directions in connection
methods using the Balance Design Procedure and to further investigation potential failure modes
currently address by AISC strength design specification and factors. All of the test specimens
were successfully tested within the designed test setup. The test observations and recorded data
were effective in capturing global and local behavior for comparison between the nine tests and
with results from previous test series.
HSS-18: Specimen HSS-18 reduced the required welding at the beam-to-column connection by
utilizing a web shear plate rather than the CJP welded moment connection. Gusset plate design
was identical to what was consider the best performing specimen, HSS-05, with rectangular
gusset plates design with the BDP and 8t elliptical clearance. The 3/8 thin gusset plate was
designed for the full plastic capacity of the plate and connected to the beam and column with 3/8
fillet welds each side. The specimen performed well in that it achieved the desired behavior of
yielding in the brace, gusset plates and framing elements and eventually failed due to fracture of the
HSS5x5x3/8 brace section at the plastic hinge.
The total drift range achieved was 4.19% and resistance was slightly less but comparable to
specimens with similar gusset plate design. The effect of the unwelded shear plate beam-to-column
connection on performance was the reduction in ultimate total drift capacity and loss in resistance
with the brace in both tension and compression. Damage to the gusset plates was also noticeably
more severe by comparison with similar tests and included severe edge deformations from in-plane
rotation at the beam/column joint. Also, the more flexible beam-to-column connection placed less
rotational demand on the framing elements and more on the gusset plates, resulting in only minor
damage to the beams and columns at larger drift levels.
333
HSS-19: The brace configuration implemented for Specimen HSS-19 was intended create a more
constructible brace to gusset connections for SCBFs requiring less installation time than welded
connections. The brace was bolted to the gusset plates using 2-WT section which were spliced to
the HSS5x5x3/8 tubular brace with 3/4 extension plates. The large number of connection points,
elements to element, along the brace created instability over the full brace length and hinging
occurred in the southwest extension plate at initial drift levels and lower resistance than anticipated.
Inelastic buckling damage was concentration to the extension place with very little yielding
occurring beyond the brace. The extension plate fractured at a total drift range of 1.31%.
HSS-20: Specimen HSS-20 was the first of two specimens designed using bolted beam end plate
connections to the columns adjacent to the gusset plates. This specimen utilized an 18 bolt
configuration at the end plate and 3/8 gusset plates designed using the BDP and 8t elliptical
clearance. The specimen exhibited a total drift range of 3.97% and resistances similar to specimen
with similar gusset plate design and the CJP welded beam-to-column moment connection. The
response of the specimen exhibited the desired brace behavior of inelastic buckling and tensile
yielding, and achieved the desired failure mechanism of brace fracture. Inelastic damage was
observed beyond the brace and into the gusset plates and framing elements. Notably, initial
yielding of the gusset plates occurred at very small initial drift levels and the severity of tensile
yielding observed over the gusset plates was more than what was typically seen for similar designs.
HSS-21: The design of specimen HSS-21 was identical to HSS-20 with the exception of a reduced
number of bolts at the beam end plate connection. A more economical 14 bolt configuration was
implemented increasing the in-plane flexibility of the beam-to-column connection. The specimen
achieved a total drift range of 4.14% and showed similar resistance. The desired inelastic brace
behavior was achieved and fracture occurred at the brace plastic hinge. Tensile yielding and out-ofplane deformation of the gusset plates was observed as well as yielding and deformation of the
framing elements. Again, with the bolted end plate connection, initial gusset plate yielding was
observed at early drift levels and severe yielding over the entire gusset plate areas was seen at the
end of the test. The bolted end plate connections decreased the gusset plate rotational capacity,
essentially decreasing the life of the brace and resulted in a lower ultimate drift capacity than what
was achieved with the CJP welded beam-to-column moment connection.
HSS-22: Similar to HSS-18, Specimen HSS-22 investigated the effects of eliminating the CJP
welded beam-to-column moment connection in lieu of the bolted web shear plate. The gusset
plates of this specimen utilized an identical tapered geometry and BDP design as HSS-17, which
334
achieved very large drift ranges, 4.94% total, and is considered the best performing specimen
with tapered gusset plates design following the BDP.
Specimen HSS-22 exhibited the desired inelastic brace behavior and ultimate controlling failure
mode, but reached only 3.96% total drift range and saw a significant reduction in compressive
resistance. Severe damage to the gusset plate including moderate damage to the interface welds at
the completion of the tests. The beams and columns exhibited minimal inelastic behavior and
lower resistance than seen in any other specimen. The in-plane flexibility of the beam-to-column
connection and tapered geometry resulted in very large rotations in the gusset plates. More flexible
gusset plates also increased the effective slenderness of the brace, degrading resistance postbuckling more rapidly. The formation of local deformations at the plastic hinge and brace fracture
occurred at a smaller total drift range than what was observed for HSS-17.
HSS-23: Specimen HSS-23 investigated the performance of BDP gusset plates with an A992
W6x25 wide-flange section. The specimen reached very large total drift ranges, 5.56%, but failed
due to interface weld fracture prior to fully developing the plastic hinge at the brace midpoint. The
response of the brace section showed considerably more ductility than what was typically seen of
A500 B/C HSS sections. Inelastic damage was also observed throughout the gusset plates and into
the framing elements at the completion of test. The behavior of the brace resulted in larger out-ofplane displacements at the midpoint and therefore larger rotations at the gusset plates. These
rotations induced severe damage to the interface welds which eventually propagated to fracture.
HSS-24: Specimen HSS-24 was chosen to further evaluate the potential for reducing the required
welding at the beam-to-column connection while maintaining improved seismic performance. The
connection consisted of CJP welded beam flanges to the column but a bolted shear plate
connection for the web. Again, the 3/8 rectangular gusset plate with 8t elliptical clearance
following the BDP was implemented. The specimen reached a large total drift range, 4.44%, and
achieved the desired inelastic response of the brace and of the gusset plates. The connection
resulted in more damage to the columns that what was seen in previous tests. Connecting the
beam web with bolts rather than CJP welds showed minor difference in system stiffness and
resistance, but did reduce the ultimate drift capacity.
HSS-25: The influence of the heavier beam sections and thick gusset plates on the brace behavior
and the potential for net section fracture were evaluated with this specimen. The specimen design
was identical to HSS-11 with heavier W16x89 beam sections and 7/8 gusset plates but eliminated
net section reinforcement of the brace at the brace to gusset connection. The specimen achieved a
total drift range of 3.30% and exhibited greater resistance by increasing the brace buckling capacity
335
and frame resistance. Minimal tensile yielding occurred in the gusset plates but significant
deformation of the gussets was observed from out-of-plane rotation as the brace buckled. Inelastic
damage to the columns was significant at larger drift ranges and the specimen ultimately failed due
to fracture of the brace at the plastic hinge. However, tearing of the brace net section was observed
and, as expected, the life of the brace was diminished because of the increased demands from the
stiffer connections. This test showed that net section fracture was a possibility and set the ground
for further investigation into the failure mode.
HSS26: Specimen HSS-26 was identical to HSS-25 by design, but was subjected to an alternate
near-fault loading protocol. Research had shown that potential for net section fracture of the brace
in SCBFs was more severe when a large tension story drift was induced prior to the cyclic loading
of the system because inelastic buckling of the brace in compression concentrates strain at the
brace midpoint rather than over the full length. The specimen fractured the brace at the net section
at a positive drift ratio of 0.99%.
8.3
8.3.1
Conclusions
Balance Design Procedure and Elliptical Clearance
Gusset plate connections designed following the BDP developed the full tensile capacity of
the brace and induced yielding over both the brace and the gusset plates as intended
The severity of the gusset plate yielding for specimen with BDP tapered designs limited
brace yielding resulting in less total ductility
The 8t elliptical clearance effectively allowed inelastic deformation for gusset plates to
rotate out-of-plane for specimen with varying plate thicknesses and the HSS5x5x3/8 brace
section
The 8t elliptical clearance used with the W6x25 wide-flange brace section resulted in severe
interface weld damage and fracture as the controlling failure mode
8.3.2
Beam-to-Column Connection
The specimen with CJP welded moment connection achieved a larger ultimate drift
capacity than any of the alternate connection methods
Connections with greater in-plane flexibility of the beam-to-column connections increased
inelastic deformation demands on the gusset plates
336
Bolted shear plate connections resulted in increased residual out-of-plane deformation of

the brace and increased plastic strain at brace hinge resulting in earlier fracture
Specimens with bolted shear plate connections resulted in less contribution of frame
resistance to the total system resistance post brace buckling
Bolted shear plate connections with thin tapered gussets increased post buckling brace
degradation, increased potential for interface weld damage and resulted in earlier brace
fracture
8.3.3
Bolted SCBF Connections

Bolted end plate connections for SCBFs provided the greatest benefits for constructability
while maintaining improved performance for SCBFs
Multiple elements over the brace length for bolted brace to gusset plate connections where
not able to develop the desired buckling capacity or the desired behavior in compression
8.3.4
Net Section Reinforcement Requirement

Relative frame and gusset plate stiffness increased stress demands at brace net section and
increase the potential for net section fracture
Elimination of net section reinforcement would be inadvisable but the AISC design
requirement could be lessened with further study resulting in more economical
connections
8.3.5
Wide-flange Brace Sections

A992 wide-flange sections exhibit increased ductility compared to A500 B/C tubular
sections as brace member in SCBFs
Larger out-of-plane displacements achieved by WF brace result in increased deformation
demands on gusset plate and interface welds
Wide-flange brace section exhibited increased degradation in resistance post-buckling
compared to HSS brace with similar gusset plate connections
8.4
Future Recommendation
Continuation of experimental work would be beneficial for creating the statistical data necessary for
further developing the Balance Design Procedure. The recommended balance factors for yield
mechanism, such as whitmore yielding, are well supported with result showing increased inelastic
337
deformation and strength in SCBFs. However, factors for failure modes, such as block shear and
whitmore fracture, need further investigation to determine at what design value the failure mode
controls. Tests design to induce a specific failure mode would help finalize the recommendation
for the BDP as a comprehensive design guide for SCBF gusset plate connections.
With regards to net section fracture, multiple test specimens with gusset plates design following the
BDP exhibited no evidence of net section yielding or fracture. HSS-25 and HSS-26 have shown
that completely eliminating reinforcement opens the potential for occurrence of fracture during a
very specific and rare induced ground motion. However, the current AISC specifications for
designing net section reinforcement, including the 0.75 factor for rupture and the shear lag
factor , should be further investigated for relevance in SCBF design. Economically, reducing the
amount of time and material required for welding net section reinforcement would result in
substantial reduction in the fabrication of SCBF braces. Experimentally, system or components
test could be conducted investigating brace sections with varying designs for net section reinforcing
to determine an appropriate for a more economical design.
The bolted end plate connection showed significant promise with regards to both constructability
and performance. This connection is especially beneficial in that considerably less field welding is
required to provide a beam-to-column connection with larger in-plane stiffness and similar
performance as the CJP welded moment connection. Variations of this type of connection
including thinner end plates and different bolt configurations would make valuable test specimens.
338
Appendix A: Specimen Design Calculations

A.1 General
This appendix provides design calculations and commentary for specimens tested within this
sequence. The gusset plate designs were similar for the all of the specimens, however, variations
in the beam-to-gusset connections presented additional design requirements that are also include
within this appendix.
Section 1.2 presents the design calculations for specimen HSS-18 including the bolted shear plate
beam-to-column connection. The design of WF-23 is presented in Section 1.3 to illustrate the
procedure used for the wide-flange brace to gusset plate connection.
A.2 Specimen HSS-18 Design Calculation

The gusset plate design of specimen HSS-18 was identical to HSS-05 with the exception of
interface welds designed for the full capacity of the plate. The calculations presented here reflect
the design process discussed in Chapter 3.
A.2.1 Member Selection

The HSS5x5x3/8 was the predetermined brace size based on the specimen prototype but was
checked to evaluate compactness and slenderness requirements based on the AISC Seismic
Design Manual.
The beam are used to deliver the actuator load into the specimen and required to transfer the
story shear in compression and tension. The compressive capacity was checked, as well as
compactness and slenderness requirements.
Beam compressive capacity using the unbraced length equal to half of the clear span, 66 in.,
because bracing of the weak-axis due to the out-of-plane supports:
339
This exceeds the 400 kip maximum capacity of the actuator. The check for seismic compactness
is as follows.
The W16x45 beam is acceptable. A similar check can be done for the columns. Each column is
to be loaded axial with approximately 400 kips of axial load from the gravity load system. The
unbraced length of the weak-axis is taken as half the span, work-point to work-point, 72 in.,
while the unbraced length of the strong-axis is the full length.
340
The check for seismic compactness is as follows.
The W12x72 column provides sufficient strength and meets the criteria for slenderness and
seismic compactness. These checks to not consider the demands on the framing elements from
the nonlinear response of the brace and the frame at severe drift levels.
A.2.2 Brace Forces

The required compressive and tensile strength of the gusset plates is determined from the
maximum expected brace forces in tension and compression.
The nominal buckling capacity of the brace is required to determine the maximum expected
force in compression. The effective length factor, , is taken as 1.0 and
is the actual brace
length.
341
With the brace forces determined above, the design of the gusset plates for specimen HSS-18
were completed using the Balance Design Procedure with balance factors, , described in
Chapter 3. The design calculations for the gusset plates follow the same step-wise procedure
also described Chapter 3.
A.2.3 Brace to Gusset Plate Design

The brace is connected to the gusset plates by slotting the brace end and sliding the brace over
the gusset plates. The resistance of the connection is to be greater than the maximum expected
brace force in tension. Four fillet welds secure the brace to the gusset. Calculations for sizing
the fillet welds and determining the splice length are described below.
The required length of the connection based on the resistance to shear rupture of the base
material is as follows:
The required length of the connection based on the resistance to shear rupture of the weld is
calculated below using an assumed weld thickness of 5/16.
The actual splice length,
, used in the design was 14.75 to allow for construction tolerances.
At this point, it is recognized that the reduced section of the brace should be checked for net
342
section fracture and reinforcement plates designed. However, the width of the slot depends of
the gusset plate thickness. Net section reinforcement with be design after the required thickness
of the gusset plates have been determined.
A.2.4 Gusset Plate Design

The preliminary thickness of the gusset plate is determined in order to provide resistance to the
tension limit states; whitmore yielding, whitmore rupture, and block shear rupture. The required
thickness for each is calculated below.
Required thickness for whitmore yielding:
Required thickness for whitmore rupture:
Required thickness for block shear rupture:
The preliminary gusset plate thickness was controlled by whitmore yielding and was taken as
3/8. This thickness is now used to determine the geometry of the gusset plate. Because
determining the geometry with the elliptical clearance is an iterative process, only the final
calculation is shown here. The variables for determining the gusset plate geometry are shown in
Figure A.2.1.
343
Figure A.2.1: Gusset Plate Geometry for Elliptical Clearance Requirement (Kotulka 2007)
The height of the gusset plate,
, is taken as 21 and an 7.5tp elliptical clearance is established.
The width of the gusset plate,
, is then calculated as:
The location of the brace end is determined as

gusset plate. The variable
coordinates relative to the free edges of the
is the width of the brace.
344
The corners of the brace end are then determined:
The variables
and
are then calculated:
Now checks are performed to verify the location of brace end in relation to the elliptical
clearance line. The correct gusset dimensions have been chosen when both of the first
verification equations and one of either of the second verification equations are satisfied.
First verification equations which both must be satisfied are as follows:
345
Also, either of the second verification equations below must be satisfied:
For simplification of fabrication, the actual dimensions used for the gusset plate design were 21
x 24 to be consistent with HSS-05. The next step was to check the resistance to gusset plate
buckling using the geometry established above and the preliminary gusset plate thickness. An
AutoCAD drawing of the gusset plate was used to determine the dimensions
, and
as
shown in Figure A.2.2. The compressive resistance is calculated using the Thornton Method
described in Chapter 3.
Gusset Plate
16 9"
11
16 9"
1'-9"
31
4"
Brace Location
2'-1"
Figure A.2.2: Buckling Lengths for HSS-18
The required plate thickness to provide sufficient resistance to gusset plate buckling is as follows:
346
The 3/8 preliminary plate thickness was acceptable for gusset plate buckling and will be used in
the final design.
A.2.5 Net Section Reinforcement

Now that the gusset plate thickness was determined, the width of the brace slot is known and the
brace to gusset plate connection can be designed for net section rupture resistance. The check to
determine if net section reinforcement is required is below.
By design, the maximum expected brace force is greater than the resistance to net section
fracture. However, net section reinforcement was not included in the fabrication of specimen
HSS-18. The design of reinforcement plate is shown below for demonstration purposes.
Two plates 3 wide are used to allow for room to weld the plates to the brace.
347
The cross section of each plate on each side of the brace at the reduced section would be 1/4 x
3. The length of the plates required to develop the full capacity of the plate is determined
below. The plates are connecting with a 3/16 fillet welds all around but only the longitudinal
welds are considered in the design. The material overstrength factor
of the plate is included
to account for the expected tensile stress of the plates.
The final dimensions for the next section plates are x 3 x 10. The plates are positioned
with 5 on each side of the reduced brace section and welded 3/16 fillet welds.
A.2.6 Interface Weld Design Calculation

The welds connecting the gusset plate to the framing elements are designed for the full plastic
capacity of the gusset plates as describe in Chapter 3. The calculations for sizing the interface
welds are as follows:
The size of the fillet welds required by design was 3/8 on each side.
A.3 Specimen WF-23 Design

This section documents the design of the wide-flange brace to gusset connection described in
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3. Also included are the section checks for the W6x25 brace section for
seismic compactness and slenderness based on the actual brace length.
A.3.1 W6x25 Brace Section Check

The wide-flange brace size was selected to have a similar maximum expected tensile force as the
HSS5x5x3/8. The expected brace forces for the W6x25 are shown below.
348
The value calculated for the expected brace force of the W6x25 was similar to that of the
HSS5x5x3/8, 398 kip.
NG!
The slenderness ratio of the W6x25 brace was greater than what is specified in the AISC Seismic
Provisions. However, this was noted and considered acceptable in the design of the specimen.
Seismic compactness of the W6x25 is shown below.
A.3.2 Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Plate Design

The required splice length for the flange to gusset plate connection is calculated below. First, the
length is determined based on the capacity of the flange base material.
349
The required length of the connection based on the resistance to shear rupture of the weld is
calculated below using an assumed weld thickness of 5/16.
A splice length of 1-1 was selected to achieve a similar gusset plate design and geometry to
previous test specimens with HSS5x5x3/8 brace sections.
The web plates were design using the following equation to account for the reduced net section
of the brace including shear lag effects.
The net section area of the brace was calculated.
The shear lag factor, U, was determine based on the geometry of the connection cross-section.
The distance from the gusset surface to the center of gravity of the half section, , was calculated
as 1.207 in. The induced eccentricity of the connection was also considered to determine the
most conservative value of .
Two plates, one on each side, 3/8 in. by 3 wide were used.
The length of the web plate and weld are determined to develop the plastic capacity of the plate.
A weld size of was assumed based on the plate thickness.
350
The total length of the plates,
, was calculated at twice the required length plus one
inch clear between the gusset plate end and the brace web.
351
Appendix B: Design Drawings

B.1 Specimen Drawings
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
H
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
2"x
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL
Material: Beams and Columns A992, HSS Tubes A500 Grade

B/C, Plates A572 Grade 50, Bolts A490, Welds E70XX
Notes: Beam to column connection adjacent to the gusset plates
consists of bolted shear plates.
See Shop Drawings for fabrication detials and dimensions
of beams and columns.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS18
Figure B.1.1: Specimen HSS-18
352
BOTH FLANGES
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
1
2"x
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
BEAM WEB TO
COLUM FLANGE
3
8"x
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
W12x72
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
4" SPLICE
PLATES
2-WT4x17.5
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL
END PLATE TO HSS
Material: Beams ,Columns and WTs A992, HSS Tubes A500

Grade B/C, Plates A572 Grade 50, Bolts A490, Welds
E70XX
consists of CJP welded web and flanges.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS19
353
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
2"x
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL

consists of beam endplates bolted with 18- 43 " A490
bolts. Only the beam web is welded to the endplate.
CONNECTION DETAIL
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS20
354
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
2"x
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL

consists of beam endplates bolted with 14- 43 " A490
bolts. Only the beam web is welded to the endplate.
CONNECTION DETAIL
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS21
355
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
SS
5
x5
x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
2"x
A
1
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL

consists of bolted shear plate connection..
CONNECTION DETAIL
A
1
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS22
356
BOTH FLANGES
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
3
8"x
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
W
6x
25
W12x72
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
W12x72
1
2"x
BEAM WEB TO
COLUM FLANGE
A
1
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL
SECTION
3
-

consists of CJP welded flange and web.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
A
1
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-WF23
Figure B.1.6: Specimen WF-23
357
BOTH FLANGES
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x45
412"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
2"x
A
1
W16x45
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL

consists of CJP welded flange and bolted web.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
A
1
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS24
358
BOTH FLANGES
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x89
4"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
H
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
4"x
BEAM WEB TO
COLUM FLANGE
A
1
W16x89
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL
5
16"

7
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
BACK
GOUGE
Notes: Specimen HSS26 interface welds can not be considered

CJP due to insufficient backgouging along entire weld
length. Full backgouge along first (approx.) 6" from
re-entrant corners. Partial penetration weld for remainder.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
A
1
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS25
359
BOTH FLANGES
3
4"
A490 BOLTS
W16x89
4"x 1'-112" PLATE
1'-2"x 1'-1112" WEB

DOUBLER PLATE
H
SS
5x
5x
3/
8
W12x72
3
8"x
W12x72
1
4"x
BEAM WEB TO
COLUM FLANGE
A
1
W16x89
11
16"
STIFFENER PLATE
EACH SIDE TYPICAL

5
16"
7
8"
GUSSET
PLATE
BACK
GOUGE
Notes: Specimen HSS26 interface welds can not be considered

CJP due to insufficient backgouging along entire weld
length. Full backgouge along first (approx.) 6" from
re-entrant corners. Partial penetration weld for remainder.
Specimen HSS26 loaded with alternate "Near-Fault"
Loading Protocol.
BRACE FRAME PROJECT

CONNECTION DETAIL
A
1
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: JAP
DRAWING
NUMBER
SK-HSS26
360
Appendix C: Analysis Plots

C.1 Brace and Gusset Plate Behavior
The appendix contains figures from the analysis not presented in Chapter 6 for the nine test
specimen in this series.
C.2 Brace and Gusset Plate Behavior

In this section, plots from the analysis results that were not included in Chapter 6 are displaced for
reference. The following are included:
Out-of-Plane Displacement at Brace Center (Section C.2.1)
Gusset Plate Rotations (Section C.2.2)
Brace Elongation (C.2.3)
C.2.1 Out-of-Plane Displacement at Brace Center

Brace midpoint out-of-plane displacements are tabulated below. The method used to determine
the displacement at the brace midpoint is described in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.1. The displacement
verses drift ratio hysteretic responses are shown in Table C.2.1. Displacement is given in inches.
HSS-20
HSS-18
Table C.2.1: Brace OOP Displacement Hysteresis
361
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
The enveloped brace displacements are plotted over total drift range in Table C.2.2. The plotted
data for HSS-18 and HSS-21 are cut short of the absolute maximum displacement because the
string potentiometer was disconnected from the specimen due to large strains at the brace hinge
location. As a result, the attachment method was modified for later tests. HSS-18 is limited to the
out-of-plane displacement at 4.14%, but continued to a maximum total drift range of 4.18%. HSS21 is plotted only to 1.96% total drift range because of early loss of the instrumentation but the
specimen reached 4.14% before failure. The brace displacement for HSS-19 was not included in
this comparison because some of the data was erroneous and the brace did not buckle over the full
length as desired. HSS-26 was also left out because of the nature of the tension dominated
alternate loading protocol.
362
HSS-22
HSS-24
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-25
WF-23
HSS-18
Table C.2.2: Enveloped Brace OOP Displacements
C.2.2 Gusset Plate Rotation

The southwest gusset plate rotation and the northeast gusset plate rotation verses drift ratio
hysteretic responses are shown in Table C.2.3. The method of calculating gusset plate rotations are
discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.2. The gusset plate rotations for HSS-19 are not included in
363
this comparison. The recorded data from HSS-19 was not relevant considering the brace buckled
down towards the floor and hinges at the splice/extension plate.
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
HSS-18
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
HSS-18
Table C.2.3: NE and SW Gusset Plate Rotation Hysteresis
N/A
364
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
WF-23
HSS-24
HSS-25
N/A
N/A
The enveloped gusset plate rotations are shown in Table C.2.4 over total drift range. Erroneous
data from the instrumentation forced portions of the gusset plate rotations to be excluded.
Southwest gusset plate rotations for WF-23 are plotted to a total drift range of 1.84% but
continued to a maximum of 5.25%. HSS-25 is plotted to .64% but reached a maximum of 3.27%.
Southwest gusset plate rotation for HSS-21 is not included all together. Northeast gusset plate
rotation for WF-23 is plotted to 4.87% drift total.
365
HSS-18
HSS-20
HSS-21
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-20
HSS-22
WF-23
HSS-21
HSS-18
Table C.2.4: Enveloped NE and SW Gusset Plate Rotations
N/A
N/A
366
HSS-24
HSS-24
HSS-25
HSS-25
N/A
C.2.3 Brace Elongation

Plots for brace elongation are provided in Table C.2.5 by plotting enveloped elongation over the
total drift range. The brace elongation for specimen HSS-26 is plotted over the positive drift ratio
because information regarding range was not available due to the tension dominated near-fault
loading history. Elongation is given as in./in. and calculated as describe in Chapter 6, Section
6.3.4.1.
HSS-19
HSS-18
Table C.2.5: Enveloped Brace Elongation
367
HSS-21
HSS-20
HSS-25
WF-23
HSS-22
HSS-24
HSS-26*
C.3 Frame Response

Plots for the frame response that were not included in Chapter 6 are tabulated in this section. Plots
for the follow are available:
Column Moments (Section C.3.1)
Column Shears (Section C.3.2)
368
Beam Shear Tab Rotations (C.3.3)
C.3.1 Column Moments

Column moments calculated at the edge of the gusset plate are tabulated below. The method for
determining the moment from the strain gauge records is described in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1.
Table C.3.1 shown the column moment hysteresis for each column of each specimen. Enveloped
response is shown in Table C.3.2.
HSS-19 (SW)
HSS-20 (SW)
HSS-18 (SW)
HSS-19 (NE)
HSS-20 (NE)
HSS-18 (NE)
Table C.3.1: Column Moments Hysteresis at Edge of Gusset Plate
369
370
HSS-24 (NE)
HSS-24 (SW)
HSS-25 (NE)
HSS-25 (SW)
WF-23 (SW)
WF-23 (NE)
HSS-22 (SW)
HSS-22 (NE)
HSS-21 (SW)
HSS-21 (NE)
HSS-19 (NE)
HSS-19 (SW)
HSS-20 (NE)
HSS-20 (SW)
HSS-18 (SW)
HSS-18 (NE)
Table C.3.2: Enveloped Column Moments at Edge of Gusset Plate
371
HSS-26 (SW)
HSS-26 (NE)
372
HSS-24 (NE)
HSS-24 (SW)
HSS-25 (NE)
HSS-25 (SW)
WF-23 (SW)
WF-23 (NE)
HSS-22 (SW)
HSS-22 (NE)
HSS-21 (SW)
HSS-21 (NE)
HSS-26 (SW)
HSS-26 (NE)
C.3.2 Column Shears

The calculated shear responses for each column are presented in the tables below. Column shears
were calculated using the method described in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2. The hysteretic response of
the column shear over drift ratio is shown in Table C.3.3. Enveloped values of column shear are
shown in Table C.3.4. The shear value is normalized by
, as described in Equation 6.4.1.
HSS-18 (NE)
HSS-18 (SW)
HSS-19 (NE)
HSS-19 (SW)
Table C.3.3: Column Shear Hysteresis
373
374
WF-23 (NE)
WF-23 (SW)
HSS-24 (NE)
HSS-24 (SW)
HSS-22 (SW)
HSS-22 (NE)
HSS-21 (SW)
HSS-21 (NE)
HSS-20 (SW)
HSS-20 (NE)
HSS-18 (NE)
HSS-18 (SW)
HSS-19 (NE)
HSS-19 (SW)
Table C.3.4: Enveloped Column Shears
375
HSS-26 (SW)
HSS-26 (NE)
HSS-25 (SW)
HSS-25 (NE)
376
HSS-21 (NE)
HSS-21 (SW)
HSS-22 (NE)
HSS-22 (SW)
WF-23 (NE)
WF-23 (SW)
HSS-24 (NE)
HSS-24 (SW)
HSS-20 (SW)
HSS-20 (NE)
HSS-25 (SW)
HSS-25 (NE)
HSS-26 (SW)
HSS-26 (NE)
C.3.3 Beam Shear Tab Rotations

The rotation at the shear tab connection is calculated below. The method for calculating rotation is
described in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.4. Shear tab rotations for specimen HSS-19 were not included
because of errors in the instrumentation record. Hysteretic plots of rotation over drift ratio are
shown in Table C.3.5 and enveloped values are shown in Table C.3.6.
HSS-18 (SE)
HSS-18 (NW)
Table C.3.5: Beam-to-Column Shear Tab Rotations
377
378
WF-23 (NW)
WF-23 (SE)
HSS-24 (NW)
HSS-24 (SE)
HSS-22 (SE)
HSS-22 (NW)
HSS-21 (SE)
HSS-21 (NW)
HSS-20 (SE)
HSS-20 (NW)
HSS-18 (NW)
HSS-18 (SE)
HSS-20 (NW)
HSS-20 (SE)
Table C.3.6: Enveloped Shear Tab Rotations
379
HSS-26 (SE)
HSS-26 (NW)
HSS-25 (SE)
HSS-25 (NW)
380
HSS-24 (NW)
HSS-24 (SE)
HSS-25 (NW)
HSS-25 (SE)
WF-23 (SE)
WF-23 (NW)
HSS-22 (SE)
HSS-22 (NW)
HSS-21 (SE)
HSS-21 (NW)
381
HSS-26 (SE)
HSS-26 (NW)
References
1. Adel, E.T., Goel, S., Cyclic Behavior of Angle X-Bracing with Welded Connections, Report
UMCE 85-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
April 1985
2. AISC Steel Construction Manual, 13th Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, Illinois, 2005
3. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, 3rd Edition,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2001
4. AISC Seismic Design Manual, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois,
2005
5. Aslani, F., Goel, S., Experimental and Analytical Study of the Inelastic Behavior of Double
Angle Bracing Members Under Severe Cyclic Loading, Research Report UMCE 89-5,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, February,
1989
6. Aslani, F., Goel, S., Xu, P., Effect of Stitch Spacing on the Cyclic Behavior of Built-up
Bracing Members, Report UMCE 87-8, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
January, 1987
7. Astaneh-Asl, A., "Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates," Steel TIPS, Structural Steel
Educational Council, Moraga, California, December, 1998
8. Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D., Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle Bracing
Members with End Gusset Plates, Research Report UMEE 82R7, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August, 1982
9. ATC 24, "Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures," Applied
Technology Council, 1992
10. Becker, R., "Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Steel Frames," Steel TIPS,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, November, 1995
11. Beer, P.F., Johnston, E.R., DeWolf, J.T., Mechanics of Materials, Third Edition, McGraw
Hill Publishers, c2001
12. Brown, V.L.S., "Stability of Gusseted Connections in Steel Structures," A thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering, University of Delaware, 1988
13. Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., Whittaker, A., Ductile Design of Steel Structures, First Edition,
McGraw-Hill Publishing, c1998
14. Celik, O.C., Berman, J.W., Bruneau, M., Cyclic Testing of Braces Laterally Restrained by Steel
Studs, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engeering, July 2005
15. Chen, C.H., Lai, J.W., Mahin, S., Numerical Modelling and Performance Assessment of
Concentrically Brace Steel Frames, ASCE, Structures 2008: Crossing Borders, 2008
382
16. Cheng, J.J.R., Grondin, G.Y., Yam M.C.H, "Design and Behavior of Gusset Plate
Connections," Fourth International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, Roanoke,
VA, October 2000
17. Christopulos, A.S., "Improved Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames",
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, June, 2005
18. Clark. K.A., Experimental Performance of Multi-Story X-Brace Systems, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, December 2009
19. Cochran, M., Honeck, W.C., "Design of Special Concentric Braced Frames," Steel TIPS,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, May, 2004
20. Foutch, D.A., Goel, S.C., Roeder, C.W., Seismic Testing of Full-Scale Steel Building-Part I,
ASCE, Journal of Structural Engeering, p 2111-2129, October 1986
21. Fahnestock, L.A., Stoakes, C.D., Cyclic Behavior and Perofrmance of Beam-Column
Connections in Concentrically Braced Frames, ASCE, Structures 2008: Crossing Borders,
2008
22. Foutch, D.A., Goel, S.C., Roeder, C.W., Preliminary Report on Seismic Testing of a Full-Scale
Six Story Steel Building, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois,
November 1986
23. Grondin, G.Y., Nast, T.E., and Cheng, J.J.R., "Strength and Stability of Corner Gusset Plates
Under Cyclic Loading," Proceedings of Annual Technical Session and Meeting, Structural
Stability Research Council, 2000
24. Gugerli, H., Goel, S.C., Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Steel Bracing Frames, Report UMEE
82R1, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January, 1982
25. Gunnerson, I., "Numerical Performance Evaluation of Braced Frame Systems", Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, December, 2004
26. Haddad, M., Tremblay, R., Influence of connection design on the inelastic seismic response of
HSS steel bracing members, Tubular Structures XI, p639-646, 2006
27. Hardash, S, Bjorhovde, R., "New Design Criteria for Gusset Plates in Tension," Engineering
Journal, AISC, Vol. 22, No. 2, Second Quarter, 1985
28. Hu, S.Z., Cheng, J.J.R., Compressive Behavior of Gusset Plate Connections, University of
Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering Report, n153, July, 1987
29. Herman, D.J., Further Improvements on and Understanding of Special Concentrically Brace
Frame Systems, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, 2007
30. Hsiao, P.C., Simulation Methods for Special Concentrically Braced Frames, General
Examination, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, December 2009
383
31. Jain, A.K., Goel, S.C., Hanson, R.D, "Hysteresis Behavior of Bracing Members and Seismic
Response of Braced Frames with Different Proportions," Research Report UMEE 78R3,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, .July, 1978
32. Johnson, S.M., Improved Seismic Performance of Special Concentrically Brace Frames,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, June 2005
33. Kotulka, B.A., Analysis for a Design Guide on Gusset Plates used in Special Concentrically
Brace Frames, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, 2007
34. Lehman, D.E., Roeder, C.W., Herman, D., Johnson, S., Kotulka, B., Improved Seismic
Performance of Gusset Plate Connections, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engeering, p 890-901,
June 2008
35. Lehman, D., Roeder, C., Jung H. Y., Johnson, S., "Seismic Response of Braced Frame
Connections," 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
Paper No. 1459, August 2004
36. Lesik, D.F., Kennedy, D.J.L., "Ultimate Strength of Fillet Welded Connections Loaded in
Plane," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1990
37. Lin, M.E., Tsai, K.C., Hsiao, P.C., Tsai, C.Y., Compressive Behavior of Buckling Restrained
Brace Gusset Connections, The First International Conference on Advances in Experimental
Structural Engineering, Nagoya, Japan, July 2005
38. Liu, J., Astaneh-Asl, A., Moment-Rotation Parameters for Composite Shear Tab
Connections, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, p 1371-1380, September 2004
39. MacRae, G.A., Kimura, Y., Roeder, C.W., Effect of Column Stiffness on Braced Frame
Seismic Behavior, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, p 381-391, March 2004
40. Murphy, G., "Advanced Mechanics of Materials," New York and London, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., c1946
41. Nast, T., Grondin, G., Cheng, R., Cyclic Behavior of Stiffened Gusset Plate-Brace Member
Assemblies, University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
Report, n229, December, 1999
42. Powell, J.A., HSS-29: Test Summary, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
December 2009
43. Powell, J.A., Evaluation of Special Concentrically Braced Frames for Improved Seismic
Performance and Constructability, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, December
2009
44. Powell, J.A., Clark, K.A., Test of a Full Scale Concentrically Brace Frame with Multi-Story XBracing, ASCE, Structures 2008: Crossing Borders, 2008
45. Rabinovitch, J., Cheng, R., Cyclic behavior of steel gusset plate connections, University of
Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering Report, n 191, August, 1993
384
46. Richards, P.W., Seismic Column Demands in Ductile Brace Frames, ASCE, Journal of
Structural Engineering, p 33-41, January 2009
47. Roeder C.W., "Connection Performance for Seismic Design of Steel Moment Frames," ASCE,
Journal of Structural Engineering, p517-525, April, 2002
48. Roeder, C.W., MacRae, G., Leland, A., Rospo, A. "Extending the Fatigue Life of Riveted
Coped Stringer Connections." Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, v 10, n 1, p 69-76
January/February 2005.
49. Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E., Yoo, J.H., Improved Seismic Design of Steel Frame
Connections, Steel Structures, p 141-153, 2005
50. Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E. "Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concentrically Braced
Frames", National Science Foundation, Grant CMS-0301792
51. Roeder, C.W., Seismic Behavior of Concentrically Brace Frame, ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering, p1837-1856, August 1989
52. SAC Steel Project, "Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing and Documentation of
Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experiments," Report No. SAC/BD-97/02, SAC
Joint Venture, October 1997
53. Salmon, C.G., Johnson, J.E., "Steel Structures Design and Behavior," 4th edition,
HarperCollins College Publishers, c1996
54. Segui, W.T., Steel Design, 4th Edition, Thomson Publishers, c2007
55. Shaback, B., Brown, T., "Behaviour of square hollow structural steel braces with end
connections under reversed cyclic axial loading," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, v 30, n
4, p 745-753, August, 2003
56. Tam M.C.H., Cheng J.J.R., "Behavior and Design of Gusset Plate Connections in
Compression," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol 58, No. 5-8, Elsevier, pgs 1143-59, 2002
57. Tamboli, A.R., "Handbook of structural steel connection design and details," New York,
McGraw-Hill, c1999
58. Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J.M., "Theory of Elastic Stability," New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., c1961
59. Thornton, W.A., "Bracing Connections for Heavy Construction," Engineering Journal, AISC,
Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 139-148., 1984
60. Tremblay R., "Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members," Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 58, 665-701, 2002
61. Uriz, P., "Summary Of Test Results For UC Berkeley Special Concentric Braced Frame
Specimen No. 1 (Scbf-1)", Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~patxi/
385
62. Uriz, P., Towards Earthquake Resistant Design of Concentrically Brace Steel Structures,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, California, Fall 2005
63. Wakabayshi, M., Nakamura, T., Experimental Studies on the Elastic-Plastic Behavior of Brace
Frames under Repeated Horizontal Loading, Part 1 Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan,
September 1977
64. Wakabayshi, M., Nakamura, T., Yoshida, N., Experimental Studies on the Elastic-Plastic
Behavior of Brace Frames under Repeated Horizontal Loading, Part 2 Kyoto University,
Kyoto, Japan, March 1980
65. Walpole, W. R. Behaviour of cold-formed steel RHS members under cyclic loading. Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996
66. Whitmore, R.E., "Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates," Bulletin No. 16,
Engineering Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, 1952
67. Yam M.C.H., Compressive Behavior and Strength of Steel Gusset Plate Connections,
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Fall, 1987
68. Yang, F., Mahin, S., "Limiting Net Section Fracture in Slotted Tube Braces," Steel TIPS,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, April 2005
69. Yoo, J.H., "Analytical Investigation on the Seismic Performance of Special Concentrically
Braced Frames," Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, June 2006
70. Yoo, J.H., Lehman, D.E., Roeder, C.W., Influence of Connection Design Parameters on the
Seismic Performance of Braced Frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, p607-623, June
2008
71. Yoo, J.H., Simulated Behavior of Multi-Story X-Braced Frames, Engineering Structures, p182197, 2008
72. Zhiyuan, L., Goel, S.C., "Investigation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubes Under Cyclic Bending
and Buckling," Research Report UMEE 87-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April, 1987
386
387

Jake Powell Thesis (HSS18-HSS26)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jake Powell Thesis (HSS18-HSS26)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Special Concentrically Braced Frames for

Improved Seismic Performance and Constructability

Master of Science in Engineering

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a masters thesis by

and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,

Dr. Charles W. Roeder

Dr. Dawn E. Lehman

Dr. Greg Miller

Chair of Supervisory Committee:

SCBF Design Theory ............................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of Report .................................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 8

Gusset Plate Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 11

System Behavior ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Previous UW SCBF Research ............................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 3: Specimen Design ................................................................................................. 20

Balanced Design Procedure for Gusset Plates Connections ........................................................... 25

Brace Forces ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Brace to Gusset Plate Connection ................................................................................................... 28

Tension Limit States for Gusset Plates ........................................................................................... 29

Gusset Plate Geometry and Elliptical Clearance ........................................................................... 30

Gusset Plate Buckling ........................................................................................................................ 31

Net Section Reinforcement............................................................................................................... 33

Interface Weld Design ....................................................................................................................... 34

Design Parameters .................................................................................................................................. 35

Bolted Shear Plate Beam-to-Column Connection Design ...........................................................35

Bolted Beam End Plate Connection Design ..................................................................................38

Wide-Flange Brace to Gusset Connection Design ........................................................................39

Chapter 4: Test Setup ............................................................................................................ 42

Test Configuration Overview ................................................................................................................42

Test Setup Components .........................................................................................................................47

Strong Floor and Strong Wall ...........................................................................................................47

Reaction Block and Actuator ............................................................................................................47

Load Transfer Beam ...........................................................................................................................49

Channel Assembly for Reactions......................................................................................................49

Channel Assembly Modifications............................................................................................51

Out-of-Plane Supports .......................................................................................................................52

Axial Load System ..............................................................................................................................55

Data Acquisition System and Storage ..............................................................................................56

Strain Gauges .......................................................................................................................................57

Visual Observations ............................................................................................................................62

Loading Protocol .....................................................................................................................................62

Chapter 5: Experimental Results........................................................................................... 65

Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes .................................................................................................65

Plate and Frame Yielding ...................................................................................................................67

Brace Buckling and Brace Damage ..................................................................................................70

Local Buckling .....................................................................................................................................72

Weld Tearing and Fracture ................................................................................................................73

Bolted Connection Slip...................................................................................................................... 74

Specimen and Test Result Nomenclature ........................................................................................... 74

HSS-18: Thin Gusset Plate, Unwelded Frame Connection ............................................................. 76

Specimen Overview ........................................................................................................................... 76

Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25% ..................................................................................................... 79

Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75% ......................................................................................... 80

Severe Drift Range: > 2.75% ............................................................................................................ 82

Specimen Summary ............................................................................................................................ 87

HSS-19: Bolted WT Brace Connection ............................................................................................... 88

Specimen Overview ........................................................................................................................... 88

Initial Drift Range: 0% to 1.25% ..................................................................................................... 91

Moderate Drift Range: 1.25% to 2.75% ......................................................................................... 94

Specimen Summary ............................................................................................................................ 95

HSS-21: 14 Bolt Beam End Plate Connection ................................................................................... 97

Specimen Overview ........................................................................................................................... 97