Interim Guidelines

INTERIM GUIDELINES:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and

Design of Steel Moment Frames
Report No. SAC-95-02
SAC Joint Venture
a partnership of:
Structural Engineers Association of California
Applied Technology Council
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
Guidelines Development Committee
Ronald O. Hamburger, EQE International, Inc., Chair
Edward Beck, Law-Crandall, Inc.
David Houghton, Myers, Nelson, Houghton, Inc.
C. W. Pinkham, S. B. Barnes, Inc.
Allan Porush, Dames & Moore
Thomas Sabol, Englekirk and Sabol, Inc.
C. Mark Saunders, Rutherford & Chekene, Inc.
Barry Schindler, John A. Martin & Associates
Robert Schwein, Schwein-Christensen Laboratories
Charles Thiel Jr., Telesis Consultants
SAC Management Committee
Chairman - Arthur E. Ross
Structural Engineers Association
of California
Maryann Phipps
Arthur E. Ross
Applied Technology Council
John Coil
Christopher Rojahn
California Universities for
Research in Earthquake
Engineering
Robin Shepherd
Charles Thiel Jr.
SAC Technical Committee
Stephen A. Mahin
Program Manager
James O. Malley
Project Director for Topical Research
Ronald O. Hamburger
Project Director for Product Development
SAC Joint Venture
555 University Avenue, Suite 126
Sacramento, California 95825
916-427-3647
ii
INTERIM GUIDELINES:
Design of Steel Moment Frames
SAC Program to Reduce Earthquake
Hazards in Steel Moment Resisting Frame
Structures
SAC Project Oversight Committee
Dr. William Hall, University of Illinois, Chair
Susan Dowty, International Conference of Building Officials
Roger Ferch, Herrick Corporation
John Gross, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Fred Herman, City of Palo Alto
Richard Holguin, City of Los Angeles
Nestor Iwankiw, American Institute of Steel Construction
Roy Johnston, Brandow & Johnston
William Mosseker, WHM Consultants
Joseph Nicoletti, URS/Blume
Richard Ranous, California Office of Emergency Services
M. P. Singh, National Science Foundation
John Theiss, EQE International, Inc.
SAC Technical Advisory Board
Robert Bachman, Fluor-Daniel Corp.
Vitelmo Bertero, University of California at Berkeley
John Fisher, Lehigh University
Subash Goel, University of Michigan
Thomas Heaton, United States Geologic Survey
Thomas Henyey, Southern California Earthquake Consortium
William Holmes, Rutherford & Chekene, Inc.
William Honeck, Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.
Stanley Lindsey, Stanley V. Lindsey Associates
Harry Martin, American Iron and Steel Institute
John Martin, Jr., John A Martin & Associates
Duane Miller, Lincoln Electric Company
Charles Thornton, Thornton-Tomasetti
Task Advisory Panel - Guidelines Development
Robert Bachman, Fluor-Daniel Corp.
Vitelmo Bertero, Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley
David Bonneville, Degenkolb Engineers, Inc.
Susan Dowty, International Conference of Building Officials
Douglas Foutch, University of Illinois at Urbana
Nancy Hamilton, Ove Arup & Partners
Richard Holguin, City of Los Angeles
William Holmes, Rutherford & Chekene, Inc.
John Hooper, RSP/EQE
Henry Huang, County of Los Angeles
Harry Martin, American Iron and Steel Institute
John Nissen, John A. Martin & Associates
Robert Pyle, American Institute of Steel Construction
Jack Skiles, Omaha Public Power Corp.
Charles Thornton, Thornton-Tomasetti
Raymond Tide, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
iii
Foreword and Disclaimer
The purpose of this document is to provide engineers and building officials with guidance on engineering
procedures for evaluation, repair, modification and design of welded steel moment frame structures, to reduce the
risks associated with earthquake-induced damage. The recommendations were developed by practicing engineers
based on professional judgment and experience and a preliminary program of laboratory, field and analytical
research. This preliminary research, known as the SAC Phase 1 program, commenced in November, 1994 and
continued through the publication of these Interim Guidelines. Independent review and guidance was provided by
an advisory panel comprised of experts from industry, practice and academia. Every reasonable effort has been
made to assure the efficacy of the Interim Guidelines contained herein. However, users are cautioned that
research into the behavior of these structures is continuing. The results of this research may invalidate or suggest
the need for modification of recommendations contained herein. No warranty is offered with regard to the
recommendations contained herein, either by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the SAC Joint
Venture, the individual joint venture partners, their directors, members or employees. These
organizations and their employees do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any of the information, products or processes included in this publication.
The reader is cautioned to carefully review the material presented herein. Such information must be used
together with sound engineering judgment when applied to specific engineering projects. These Interim
Guidelines have been developed by the SAC Joint Venture with funding provided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, under contract number EMW-95-K-4672.
Acknowledgment
The SAC Joint Venture wishes to offer grateful acknowledgment to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA); FEMAs project officer, Mr. Michael Mahoney; and technical advisor, Dr. Robert D. Hanson.
Following the discovery of severe damage to steel moment-resisting frame buildings in the Northridge
Earthquake, this agency recognized the significance of this issue to the engineering community as well as the
public at large, and acted rapidly to provide the necessary funding to allow these Interim Guidelines to be
developed, published and distributed. Without the support of this agency, the important information and material
presented herein could not have been made available.
SAC also wishes to recognize the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Iron and Steel Institute,
the American Welding Society, the California Office of Emergency Services, the Lincoln Electric Company, the
Structural Shape Producers Council, and the many engineers, fabricators, inspectors and researchers who
contributed services, materials, data and invaluable advice and assistance in the production of this document.
The SAC Joint Venture
Sacramento, CA 95825
phone 916-427-3647; facsimile 916-568-0677
iv
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
v
OVERVIEW
The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, dramatically demonstrated that the
prequalified, welded beam-to-column moment connection used for Special Moment Resisting
Frames is much more susceptible to damage than was previously thought. The stability of
moment frame structures in earthquakes is dependent on the capacity of the beam-column
connection to remain intact and to resist tendencies to rotate, induced by the swaying of the
building. These connections were believed to be ductile and capable of withstanding repeated
cycles of large inelastic deformation. Although many affected connections were not damaged, a
wide spectrum of unexpected brittle connection damage did occur, ranging from minor cracking
observable only by detailed nondestructive testing (NDT) to completely severed columns. The
most commonly observed damage occurred at the welds of girder bottom flanges to columns.
Complete brittle fractures of the girder flange to column connections occurred in some cases.
While no casualties or collapses occurred as a result of these connection failures, and some
welded steel moment frame (WSMF) buildings were not damaged, the incidence of damage was
sufficiently high in regions of strong motion to cause wide-spread concern by structural engineers
and building officials.
No comprehensive tabulation is yet available to determine how many steel buildings were
damaged in the Northridge Earthquake. More than 100 damaged buildings have been identified
so far, including hospitals and other health care facilities, government, civic and private offices,
cultural facilities, residential structures, and commercial and industrial buildings. The effect of
these observations has been a loss of confidence in the procedures used in the past to design and
construct welded connections in steel moment frames, and a concern that structures incorporating
these connections may not be adequately safe.
It must be understood that the structural engineering community was surprised by the
performance of these modern, code conforming structures. Prior to the discovery of this damage,
many thought that WSMF structures were nearly invulnerable to earthquake damage. The
unexpected brittle fracturing and attendant loss of connection strength resulted in serious
degradation of the overall lateral-load-resisting capability of some affected buildings. Further, the
ability of existing WSMF buildings to withstand earthquake-induced ground motion is now
understood to be significantly less than that previously assumed. Research conducted to date has
identified some, but probably not all, of the factors leading to this observed unsatisfactory
behavior. At the same time, this research has indicated methods that can be used to improve the
ability of these critical connections to more reliably withstand multiple, large, inelastic cycles.
These include alterations in the basic design approach as well as improved practices for
specification and control of materials and workmanship.
While the work is not yet complete, and future research is likely to provide both more reliable
and more economical methods of improving the performance of these structures, the current
investigations have led to many design and retrofit measures that can be used today to provide
more reliable and consistent performance of these buildings than occurred in the Northridge
vi
Earthquake. These are presented in these Interim Guidelines. They should not, however, be
viewed as the only way of achieving these results, and the exercise of independent engineering
judgment and alternative rational analytical approaches should be considered. It is anticipated
that additional studies, planned by SAC and others, will lead to further improvements in our
understanding of the problems, ability to predict probable earthquake performance and methods
to design and construct more reliable structures.
There are many complex issues involved in the evaluation, repair, modification and design of
WSMF buildings for reliable earthquake performance. These include considerations of
metallurgy, welding, fracture mechanics, systems behavior, and basic issues related to fabrication
and erection practice. Much remains to be learned in each of these areas. Engineers not familiar
with the issues involved are cautioned to obtain qualified advice and third party review when
contemplating design decisions that represent significant departures from these Interim
Guidelines.
The current judgment given in these Interim Guidelines is that the historic practices used for
the design and construction of WSMF connections do not provide adequate levels of building
reliability and safety and should not continue to be used in the construction of new buildings
intended to resist earthquake ground shaking through inelastic behavior. The risk to public safety
associated with the continued use of existing WSMF buildings is probably no greater than that
associated with many other types of existing buildings with known seismic vulnerabilities, which
are not currently the subject of mandatory seismic rehabilitation programs. The earthquake risk of
WSMF buildings, in general, may be evaluated in accordance with the following general
principles:
1. The historic practices and designs used for WSMF connections are no longer appropriate
for design and construction of new steel buildings likely to experience large inelastic
demands from earthquakes. Until research is completed, and better information becomes
available, the procedures contained in these Interim Guidelines for the design of new
buildings should be used in their place. The use of alternative systems, including bolted
construction, braced construction, and moment-resisting frames incorporating partially
restrained (PR) joints could also be considered, but are not directly addressed by these
Interim Guidelines.
2. As a class, existing undamaged WSMF buildings appear to have a lower risk of collapse
than many other types of buildings with known seismic vulnerabilities, the performance of
which is currently implicitly accepted. Consequently, mandated or emergency programs to
upgrade the performance of these buildings does not appear necessary to achieve levels of
life safety protection currently tolerated by society. However, the risk of collapse is
definitely greater than previously thought. Individual owners should be made aware of the
increased level of seismic risk and encouraged to perform modifications to provide more
reliable seismic performance, particularly in building housing many persons, or in critical
occupancies.
vii
3. Following strong earthquake-induced ground shaking, WSMF buildings incorporating the
vulnerable welded moment-resisting connections should be subjected to rigorous
evaluations to determine the extent and implications of any damage sustained. These
Interim Guidelines may be used to determine which buildings should be evaluated, and for
developing an appropriate program to perform such evaluations.
4. Structural repair and modification programs for damaged WSMF buildings should
consider the seismic risk inherent in the building including the local seismicity, site
geologic conditions, the buildings individual construction characteristics, intended
occupancy and the costs associated with alternative actions. The Interim Guidelines
provided in this document for repair can restore a buildings pre-earthquake seismic
resistance, but not significantly improve its original levels of safety or reduce the inherent
seismic risk. The Interim Guidelines provided in this document for structural modification
(upgrading) can be used both to improve building safety and reduce seismic risk. Except
in those cases where regulation sets minimum acceptable standards for repair, the ultimate
responsibility for deciding whether a building should be modified for improved
performance lies with the building owner. It is the structural engineers responsibility to
provide the owner with sufficient information upon which to base a decision. The
following may be considered by engineers to provide such information:
a) When a WSMF has experienced damage to only a few of its moment-resisting
connections this damage should be repaired in an expeditious manner. Repair to
the original configuration, with proper materials and workmanship, will essentially
restore the structures original earthquake-resisting capacity. However, it will not
result in any significant improvement in the buildings future performance. The
fact that the building experienced only light damage should not be considered a
demonstration that the building has a high degree of earthquake resistance and in
future earthquakes either more or less damage may be experienced, depending on
the particular characteristics of the event.
Connections which have been damaged can be economically modified at the same
time that repairs are made. However, in buildings where damage is limited,
modification of the few damaged connections will not result in any significant
improvement in the future earthquake performance of the building. Modification
of connections throughout the structure, or provision of an alternative lateral force
resisting system should be considered as a method of substantially improving
probable building performance; however, this will entail a significant cost premium
over the basic repair project.
b) When a WSMF has experienced damage to a significant percentage of its moment-
resisting connections (on the order of 25% in any direction of resistance), in
addition to repair, consideration should be given to modifying the configuration of
the individual damaged connections and possibly some or all of the undamaged
connections to provide improved performance in the future. Modification of only
viii
some connections, and not others, may cause an increase in vulnerability, due to
unbalanced concentrations of stiffness and strength. Therefore, such partial
modifications should be made with due consideration of the effect on overall
system behavior. Repair and/or modification should be completed expeditiously by
structural engineers who are experienced in the design of WSMF buildings and
understand the features which caused the observed damage.
c) When a WSMF building has had many seriously damaged connections (on the
order of 50% in direction of resistance), owners should be informed that this
damage may have highlighted basic deficiencies in the existing structural system, or
a geologic feature which unusually amplifies site motion. In such cases the existing
system should be both repaired and modified to provide an acceptably reliable
structural system. Modifications may consist either of local reinforcement of
individual connections and/or alteration of the structures basic lateral-force-
resisting system. Such modifications could include addition of braced frames,
shear walls, energy dissipation devices, base isolation and similar measures.
These principles are for regular buildings that have good characteristics of design, materials,
and construction workmanship. Buildings with clear and apparent seismic deficiencies pose
substantial life safety hazards regardless of the type of structural system employed, or material
type. Such deficiencies include incomplete load paths, incompatible structural systems, irregular
configurations such as soft or weak stories or torsional irregularity, and improper construction
practices. Any such deficiencies found in a WSMF should be corrected.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD AND DISCLAIMER iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
OVERVIEW v
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Scope 1-2
1.3 Background 1-3
1.4 The SAC Joint Venture 1-10
1.5 Sponsors 1-11
1.6 Summary of Phase 1 Research 1-11
1.7 Intent 1-14
1.8 Limitations 1-14
1.9 Use of the Guidelines 1-15

2 DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS & NOTATION
2.1 Definitions 2-1
2.1.1 Administrative 2-1
2.1.2 Technical 2-3
2.2 Abbreviations 2-9
2.3 Notations 2-11

3 CLASSIFICATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE
3.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 3-1
3.2 Damage Types 3-2
3.2.1 Girder Damage 3-3
3.2.2 Column Flange Damage 3-5
3.2.3 Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities 3-7
3.2.4 Shear Tab Damage 3-9
3.2.5 Panel Zone Damage 3-10
3.2.6 Other Damage 3-11
3.3 Safety Implications 3-12
3.4 Economic Implications 3-14

4 POST-EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
4.1 Scope 4-1
4.2 Preliminary Evaluation 4-2
4.2.1 Evaluation Process 4-3
4.2.1.1 Ground Motion 4-3
4.2.1.2 Additional Indicators 4-4
4.2.2 Evaluation Schedule 4-5
x
4.2.3 Connection Inspections 4-6
4.2.3.1 Analytical Evaluation 4-7
4.2.3.2 Buildings with Enhanced Connections 4-7
4.2.4 Previous Evaluations and Inspections 4-8
4.3 Detailed Evaluation Procedure 4-10
4.3.1 Eight Step Inspection and Evaluation Procedure 4-11
4.3.2 Step 1 - Categorize Connections By Group 4-12
4.3.3 Step 2 - Select Samples of Connections for Inspection 4-13
4.3.3.1 Method A - Random Selection 4-14
4.3.3.2 Method B - Deterministic Selection 4-16
4.3.3.3 Method C - Analytical Selection 4-17
4.3.4 Step 3- Inspect the Selected Samples of Connections 4-18
4.3.4.1 Characterization of Damage 4-18
4.3.5 Step 4 - Inspect Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connections 4-21
4.3.6 Step 5 - Determine Average Damage Index for the Group 4-23
4.3.7 Step 6 - Determine the Probability that the Connections in a
Group at a Floor Level Sustained Excessive Damage 4-23
4.3.7.1 Some Connections In Group Not Inspected 4-23
4.3.7.2 All Connections in Group Inspected 4-25
4.3.8 Step 7 - Determine Recommended Recovery
Strategies for the Building 4-26
4.3.9 Step 8 - Evaluation Report 4-28
4.4 Alternative Group Selection for Torsional Response 4-30
4.5 Qualified Independent Engineering Review 4-32
4.5.1 Timing of Independent Review 4-33
4.5.2 Qualifications and Terms of Employment 4-33
4.5.3 Scope of Review 4-33
4.5.4 Reports 4-34
4.5.5 Responses and Corrective Actions 4-34
4.5.6 Distribution of Reports 4-34
4.5.7 Engineer of Record 4-34
4.5.8 Resolution of Differences 4-35

5 POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION
5.1 Connection Types Requiring Inspection 5-1
5.1.1 Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Connections 5-1
5.1.2 Gravity Connections 5-3
5.1.3 Other Connection Types 5-3
5.2 Preparation 5-4
5.2.1 Preliminary Document Review and Evaluation 5-4
5.2.1.1 Document Collection and Review 5-4
5.2.1.2 Preliminary Building Walk-Through 5-4
5.2.1.3 Structural Analysis 5-4
5.2.1.4 Vertical Plumbness Check 5-5
xi
5.2.2 Connection Exposure 5-6
5.3 Inspection Program 5-7
5.3.1 Visual Inspection (VI) 5-7
5.3.1.1 Top Flange 5-8
5.3.1.2 Bottom Flange 5-9
5.3.1.3 Column and Continuity Plates 5-9
5.3.1.4 Beam Web Shear Connection 5-9
5.3.2 Nondestructive Testing (NDT) 5-9
5.3.3 Inspector Qualification 5-11
5.3.4 Post-Earthquake Field Inspection Report 5-12
5.3.5 Written Report 5-13

6 POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION
6.1 Scope 6-1
6.2 Shoring 6-2
6.2.1 Investigation 6-2
6.2.2 Special Requirements 6-2
6.3 Repair Details 6-2
6.3.1 Approach 6-3
6.3.2 Weld Fractures - Type W Damage 6-3
6.3.3 Column Fractures - Type C1 - C5 and P1 - P6 6-6
6.3.4 Column Splice Fractures - Type C7 6-9
6.3.5 Girder Flange Fractures - Type G3-G5 6-10
6.3.6 Buckled Girder Flanges - Type G1 6-11
6.3.7 Buckled Column Flanges - Type C6 6-12
6.3.9 Reuse of Bolts 6-13
6.3.10 Welding Specification 6-14
6.4 Preparation 6-14
6.4.1 Welding Procedure Specifications 6-13
6.4.2 Welder Training 6-15
6.4.3 Welder Qualifications 6-15
6.4.4 Joint Mock-ups 6-15
6.4.5 Repair Sequence 6-15
6.4.6 Concurrent Work 6-16
6.4.7 Quality Control/Quality Assurance 6-16
6.5 Execution 6-16
6.5.1 Introduction 6-16
6.5.2 Girder Repair 6-20
6.5.3 Weld Repair (Types W1, W2, or W3) 6-21
6.5.4 Column Flange Repairs - Type C2 6-22
6.6 Structural Modification 6-22
6.6.1 Definition of Modification 6-22
6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections 6-24
xii
6.6.3 Criteria 6-25
6.6.4 Strength 6-27
6.6.5 Plastic Rotation Capacity 6-28
6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design 6-30
6.6.6.1 Qualification Test Protocol 6-30
6.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 6-32
6.6.6.3 Calculations 6-32
6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties 6-33
6.6.6.3.2 Determine Plastic Hinge Location 6-35
6.6.6.3.3 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges 6-35
6.6.6.3.4 Determine Beam Shear 6-36
6.6.6.3.5 Determine Strength Demands on Connection 6-37
6.6.6.3.6 Check Strong Column - Weak Beam Conditions 6-38
6.6.6.3.7 Check Column Panel Zone 6-38
6.6.7 Modification Details 6-39
6.6.7.1 Haunch at Bottom Flange 6-39
6.6.7.2 Top and Bottom Haunch 6-41
6.6.7.3 Cover Plate Sections 6-42
6.6.7.4 Upstanding Ribs 6-44
6.6.7.5 Side-Plate Connections 6-45

7 NEW CONSTRUCTION
7.1 Scope 7-1
7.2 General - Welded Steel Frame Design Criteria 7-3
7.2.1 Criteria 7-3
7.2.2 Strength 7-4
7.2.3 Configuration 7-4
7.2.5 Redundancy 7-9
7.2.6 System Performance 7-10
7.2.7 Special Systems 7-10
7.3 Connection Design and Qualification Procedures - General 7-11
7.3.1 Connection Performance Intent 7-11
7.3.2 Qualification by Testing 7-11
7.3.3 Design by Calculation 7-11
7.4 Guidelines for Connection Qualification by Testing 7-13
7.4.1 Testing Protocol 7-13
7.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 7-14
7.5 Guidelines for Connection Design by Calculation 7-15
7.5.1 Material Strength Properties 7-15
7.5.2 Design Procedure 7-17
7.5.2.1 Determine Plastic Hinge Locations 7-17
7.5.2.2 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinge 7-18
7.5.2.3 Determine Shear at Plastic Hinge 7-20
xiii
7.5.2.4 Determine Strength Demands at Critical Sections 7-20
7.5.2.5 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition 7-21
7.5.2.6 Check Column Panel Zone 7-22
7.6 Metallurgy & Welding 7-22
7.7 Quality Control / Quality Assurance 7-23
7.8 Guidelines on Other Connection Design Issues 7-23
7.8.1 Design of Panel Zones 7-23
7.8.2 Design of Web Connections to Column Flanges 7-24
7.8.3 Design of Continuity Plates 7-24
7.8.4 Design of Weak Column and Weak Way Connections 7-25
7.9 Moment Frame Connections for Consideration in New Construction 7-26
7.9.1 Cover Plate Connections 7-27
7.9.2 Flange Rib Connections 7-29
7.9.3 Bottom Haunch Connections 7-30
7.9.4 Top and Bottom Haunch Connections 7-31
7.9.5 Side-Plate Connections 7-32
7.9.6 Reduced Beam Section Connections 7-35
7.9.7 Slip-Friction Energy Dissipating Connections 7-36
7.9.8 Column Tree Connections 7-37
7.9.9 Slotted Web Connections 7-38
7.10 Other Types of Welded Connection Structures 7-39
7.10.1 Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF) 7-40
7.10.2 Dual Systems 7-40
7.10.3 Welded Base Plate Details 7-41
7.10.4 Vierendeel Truss Systems 7-41
7.10.5 Moment Frame Tubular Systems 7-42
7.10.6 Welded Connections of Collectors, Ties and Diaphragm Chords 7-42
7.10.7 Welded Column Splices 7-43
7.10.8 Built-up Moment Frame Members 7-43

8 METALLURGY & WELDING
8.1 Parent Materials 8-1
8.1.1 Steels 8-1
8.1.2 Chemistry 8-3
8.1.3 Tensile/Elongation Properties 8-4
8.1.4 Toughness Properties 8-6
8.1.5 Lamellar Discontinuities 8-9
8.2 Welding 8-10
8.2.1 Welding Process 8-10
8.2.2 Welding Procedures 8-10
8.2.3 Welding Filler Metals 8-11
8.2.4 Preheat and Interpass Temperatures 8-14
8.2.5 Postheat 8-16
8.2.6 Controlled Cooling 8-17
xiv
8.2.7 Metallurgical Stress Risers 8-17
8.2.8 Welding Preparation & Fit-up 8-17

9 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE
9.1 Quality Control 9-1
9.1.1 General 9-1
9.1.3 Duties 9-1
9.1.4 Records 9-1
9.1.5 Engineer Obligations 9-2
9.1.6 Contractor Obligations 9-2
9.1.7 Extent of Testing 9-3
9.2 Quality Assurance & Special Inspection 9-4
9.2.1 General 9-4
9.2.2 Inspector Qualifications 9-4
9.2.3 Duties 9-4
9.2.4 Records 9-4
9.2.5 Engineer Obligations 9-5
9.2.6 Contractor Obligations 9-5
9.2.7 Extent of QA Testing 9-5

10 VISUAL INSPECTION
10.1 Personnel Qualification 10-1
10.2 Written Practice 10-1
10.3 Duties 10-2

11 NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
11.1 Personnel 11-1
11.1.1 Qualification 11-1
11.1.2 Written Practice 11-2
11.1.3 Certification 11-2
11.1.4 Recertification 11-2
11.2 Execution 11-2
11.2.1 General 11-2
11.2.2 Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) 11-3
11.2.3 Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT) 11-4
11.2.4 Radiographic Testing (RT) 11-4
11.2.5 Ultrasonic Testing (UT) 11-4

12 REFERENCES
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
These Interim Guidelines apply to welded steel moment frame (WSMF) structures subject to large
inelastic demands from earthquakes. They provide recommended methods for: determining which
buildings should be subjected to detailed post-earthquake evaluations; developing a program for
post-earthquake visual and non-destructive inspections of buildings suspected to have damage;
evaluating the effect of discovered damage on residual building safety; identifying appropriate
strategies for continued occupancy, structural repair and/or modification of damaged buildings;
and designing and constructing new buildings. These recommendations are based on an initial,
Phase 1, program of research that included collection and analysis of data on buildings damaged
by the Northridge Earthquake; detailed structural analyses of damaged and undamaged buildings;
review of past literature on relevant research; and laboratory testing of large-scale connection
assemblies. They were developed by a group of researchers and practicing engineers, with
assistance and consultation from experts in metallurgy, fracture mechanics, welding, design,
structural steel production, fabrication erection and inspection.
A significant body of valuable information is presented in these Interim Guidelines, which can be
used today to provide improved reliability in welded steel moment frame structures. However,
much additional research remains to be performed. The parameters controlling the performance
of welded moment resisting connections are not yet fully understood, nor has consensus been
obtained on all recommendations contained herein. Engineers engaged in the design of WSMF
structures are advised to be watchful for new developments in the future.
Although portions of this document are written in code-like language, it is not a building code,
nor is it intended to be used as such. Rather, it is intended to provide engineers and building
officials with information on what is known at the present time with regard to these structures,
and to provide a series of recommendations that can be used on an interim basis to assist in
practice. The use of these Interim Guidelines is not intended to serve as a substitute for the
application of informed engineering judgment, nor should they be used to prevent the application
of such judgment in particular engineering applications.
1.1 Purpose
These Interim Guidelines have been prepared by the SAC Joint Venture to provide practicing
engineers and building officials with:
understanding of the types of damage buildings incorporating fully restrained (FR) welded
steel moment frame (WSMF) connections may experience in strong earthquakes, and the
potential implications of such damage;
a methodology for post-earthquake inspection of existing WSMF buildings, to determine if
significant structural damage has occurred;
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
1-2
an approach for characterizing the relative severity of damage to a WSMF and to
determine appropriate occupancy and repair strategies;
methods of repair for fractured, yielded and buckled elements in WSMF buildings and
structures;
design approaches for modifications to existing WSMF buildings and structures with FR
connections to improve performance in future earthquakes; and
design approaches for connections in new WSMF buildings and structures for improved
performance in future strong earthquakes.
Earlier publications by the SAC Joint Venture on this topic include a series of three Design
Advisories and the proceedings of an International Workshop (SAC-1994-1). The International
Workshop, held in October, 1994 was attended by more than 100 invited researchers, practicing
engineers, representatives of industry, and government agencies, and provided an initial focus to the
investigations of fractures sustained by welded steel moment-resisting buildings in the Northridge
Earthquake. Design Advisory No. 1 (SAC-1994-2) and Design Advisory No. 2 (SAC-1994-3)
contained collections of papers and topical reports prepared by practicing engineers, building officials,
industry groups and researchers, suggesting factors which contributed to the observed damage,
methods of repairing damage and designing new structures to avoid such damage in the future. Design
Advisory No. 3 (SAC-1995) categorized the information presented in the previous advisories into a
series of discrete engineering issues and presented the consensus opinions of a panel of practicing
engineers, researchers and industry representatives with regard to appropriate response to these issues.
Dissenting opinions and commentary were also provided as were specific recommendations for
directed research required to provide resolution to a number of these issues.
These Interim Guidelines provide specific engineering recommendations based on the results of an
initial limited program of research. This research included evaluation of the characteristics of ground
motion experienced throughout the Los Angeles area during the Northridge Earthquake, projection of
potential ground motions resulting from future earthquakes in this region, analytical investigation of
both damaged and undamaged structures affected by the Northridge Earthquake for their response to a
range of ground motions, laboratory testing of representative beam-column connections in undamaged,
damaged, repaired, and reinforced states, parametric studies on the effects of strain rate and toughness
on connection performance, surveys of engineers and building owners to collect data on the extent of
damage sustained in the Northridge Earthquake, and statistical evaluation of the data collected and
engineering analysis of all of the above.
1.2 Scope
These Interim Guidelines are applicable to steel moment-resisting frame structures
incorporating fully restrained connections in which the girder flanges are welded to the columns
and which are subject to significant inelastic demands from strong earthquake ground shaking.
Recommendations are provided with regard to:
Interim Guidelines:
1-3
Designation of buildings to be inspected following an earthquake producing strong
ground motion;
Scope of inspection for buildings so designated;
Appropriate types of repairs for damaged buildings;
Methods to modify buildings to reduce the probability of connection fracture damage
in future earthquake events;
Design of new Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) buildings for seismic
resistance;
Design of new Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) buildings located in
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zones 3 and 4 {National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Map Areas 6 and 7}; and
Quality Assurance and Control in the repair, modification and construction of WSMF
buildings.
Commentary: The design recommendations contained in these Interim
Guidelines are generally applicable to SMRF structures designed for earthquake
resistance and to those OMRF structures located within UBC Seismic Zones 3
and 4 {NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7}. The recommendations should be considered
for the design of any welded steel moment frame structure that is desired to have
a high degree of reliability for resisting earthquake induced forces. In particular,
they should be considered for buildings occupied by a large number of people.
Chapter 7 provides further guidelines on this applicability.
1.3 Background
Following the January 17, 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake, more than 100 steel buildings
with welded moment-resisting frames were found to have experienced beam-to-column connection
fractures. The damaged structures cover a wide range of heights ranging from one story to 26 stories;
and a wide range of ages spanning from buildings as old as 30 years of age to structures just being
erected at the time of the earthquake. The damaged structures are spread over a large geographical
area, including sites that experienced only moderate levels of ground shaking. Although relatively few
such buildings were located on sites that experienced the strongest ground shaking, damage to these
buildings was quite severe. Discovery of these extensive connection fractures, often with little
associated architectural damage to the buildings, has been alarming. The discovery has also caused
some concern that similar, but undiscovered damage may have occurred in other buildings affected by
past earthquakes. Indeed, there are isolated reports of such damage. In particular, a publicly owned
building at Big Bear Lake is known to have been damaged by the Landers-Big Bear, California
sequence of earthquakes, and at least one building, under construction in Oakland, California at the
time of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, was reported to have experienced such damage.
Interim Guidelines:
1-4
WSMF construction is used commonly throughout the United States and the world, particularly
for mid- and high-rise construction. Prior to the Northridge Earthquake, this type of construction was
considered one of the most seismic-resistant structural systems, due to the fact that severe damage to
such structures had rarely been reported in past earthquakes and there was no record of earthquake-
induced collapse of such buildings, constructed in accordance with contemporary US practice.
However, the widespread severe structural damage which occurred to such structures in the
Northridge Earthquake calls for re-examination of this premise.
The basic intent of the earthquake resistive design provisions contained in the building codes is to
protect the public safety, however, there is also an intent to control damage. The developers of the
building code provisions have explicitly set forth three specific performance goals for buildings
designed and constructed to the code provisions (SEAOC - 1990). These are to provide buildings with
the capacity to
resist minor earthquake ground motion without damage;
resist moderate earthquake ground motion without structural damage but possibly some
nonstructural damage; and
resist major levels of earthquake ground motion, having an intensity equal to the strongest
either experienced or forecast for the building site, without collapse, but possibly with some
structural as well as nonstructural damage.
In general, WSMF buildings in the Northridge Earthquake met the basic intent of the building
codes, to protect life safety. However, many of these buildings experienced significant damage that
could be viewed as failing to meet the intended performance goals with respect to damage control.
Further, some members of the engineering profession (SEAOC - 1995b) and government agencies
(Seismic Safety Commission - 1995) have stated that even these performance goals, are inadequate for
societys current needs.
WSMF buildings are designed to resist earthquake ground shaking, based on the assumption that
they are capable of extensive yielding and plastic deformation, without loss of strength. The intended
plastic deformation consists of plastic rotations developing within the beams, at their connections to the
columns, and is theoretically capable of resulting in benign dissipation of the earthquake energy
delivered to the building. Damage is expected to consist of moderate yielding and localized buckling of
the steel elements, not brittle fractures. Based on this presumed behavior, building codes require a
minimum lateral design strength for WSMF structures that is approximately 1/8 that which would be
required for the structure to remain fully elastic. Supplemental provisions within the building code,
intended to control the amount of interstory drift sustained by these flexible frame buildings, typically
result in structures which are substantially stronger than this minimum requirement and in zones of
moderate seismicity, substantial overstrength may be present to accommodate wind and gravity load
design conditions. In zones of high seismicity, most such structures designed to minimum code criteria
will not start to exhibit plastic behavior until ground motions are experienced that are 1/3 to 1/2 the
severity anticipated as a design basis. This design approach has been developed based on historical
precedent, the observation of steel building performance in past earthquakes, and limited research that
Interim Guidelines:
1-5
has included laboratory testing of beam-column models, albeit with mixed results, and non-linear
analytical studies.
Observation of damage sustained by buildings in the Northridge Earthquake indicates that contrary
to the intended behavior, in many cases brittle fractures initiated within the connections at very low
levels of plastic demand, and in some cases, while the structures remained elastic. Typically, but not
always, fractures initiated at, or near, the complete joint penetration (CJP) weld between the beam
bottom flange and column flange (Figure 1-1). Once initiated, these fractures progressed along a
number of different paths, depending on the individual joint conditions. Figure 1-1 indicates just one of
these potential fracture growth patterns. Investigators initially identified a number of factors which
may have contributed to the initiation of fractures at the weld root including: notch effects created by
the backing bar which was commonly left in place following joint completion; sub-standard welding
that included excessive porosity and slag inclusions as well as incomplete fusion; and potentially, pre-
earthquake fractures resulting from initial shrinkage of the highly restrained weld during cool-down.
Such problems could be minimized in future construction, with the application of appropriate welding
procedures and more careful exercise of quality control during the construction process. However, it is
now known that these were not the only causes of the fractures which occurred.
Backing bar
Column flange
Beam flange
Fused zone
Fracture
Figure 1-1 - Common Zone of Fracture Initiation in Beam -Column Connection
Current production processes for structural steel shapes result in inconsistent strength and
deformation capacities for the material in the through-thickness direction. Non-metallic inclusions in
the material, together with anisotropic properties introduced by the rolling process can lead to lamellar
weakness in the material. Further, the distribution of stress across the girder flange, at the connection
to the column is not uniform. Even in connections stiffened by continuity plates across the panel zone,
significantly higher stresses tend to occur at the center of the flange, where the column web produces a
local stiffness concentration. Large secondary stresses are also induced into the girder flange to
column flange joint by kinking of the column flanges resulting from shear deformation of the column
panel zone.
The dynamic loading experienced by the moment-resisting connections in earthquakes is
characterized by high strain tension-compression cycling. Bridge engineers have long recognized that
the dynamic loading associated with bridges necessitates different connection details in order to provide
improved fatigue resistance, as compared to traditional building design that is subject to static
Interim Guidelines:
1-6
loading due to gravity and wind loads. While the nature of the dynamic loads resulting from
earthquakes is somewhat different than the high cycle dynamic loads for which fatigue-prone structures
are designed, similar detailing may be desirable for buildings subject to seismic loading.
In design and construction practice for welded steel bridges, mechanical and metallurgical notches
should be avoided because they may be the initiators of fatigue cracking. As fatigue cracks grow under
repetitive loading, a critical crack size may be reached whereupon the material toughness (which is a
function of temperature) may be unable to resist the onset of brittle (unstable) crack growth. The
beam-to-column connections in WSMF buildings are comparable to category C or D bridge details that
have a reduced allowable stress range as opposed to category B details for which special metallurgical,
inspection and testing requirements are applied. The rapid rate of loading imposed by seismic events,
and the complete inelastic range of tension-compression-tension loading applied to these connections is
much more severe than typical bridge loading applications. The mechanical and metallurgical notches
or stress risers created by the beam-column weld joints are a logical point for fracture problems to
initiate. This, coupled with the tri-axial restraint provided by the beam web and the column flange, is a
recipe for brittle fracture.
During the Northridge Earthquake, once fractures initiated in beam-column joints, they progressed
in a number of different ways. In some cases, the fractures initiated but did not grow, and could not be
detected by visual observation. In other cases, the fractures progressed completely through the
thickness of the weld, and if fireproofing was removed, the fractures were evident as a crack through
exposed faces of the weld, or the metal just behind the weld (Figure 1-2a). Other fracture patterns also
developed. In some cases, the fracture developed into a through-thickness failure of the column flange
material behind the CJP weld (Figure 1-2b). In these cases, a portion of the column flange remained
bonded to the beam flange, but pulled free from the remainder of the column. This fracture pattern has
sometimes been termed a divot or nugget failure.
A number of fractures progressed completely through the column flange, along a near horizontal
plane that aligns approximately with the beam lower flange (Figure 1-3a). In some cases, these
fractures extended into the column web and progressed across the panel zone Figure (1-3b).
Investigators have reported some instances where columns fractured entirely across the section.
a. Fracture at Fused Zone
b. Column Flange Divot Fracture
Figure 1-2 - Fractures of Beam to Column Joints
Interim Guidelines:
7
a. Fractures through Column Flange b. Fracture Progresses into Column Web
Figure 1-3 - Column Fractures
Once these fractures have occurred, the beam - column connection has experienced a significant
loss of flexural rigidity and capacity. Residual flexural strength and rigidity must be developed through
a couple consisting of forces transmitted through the remaining top flange connection and the web
bolts. Initial research suggests that residual stiffness is approximately 20% of that of the undamaged
connection and that residual strength varies from 10% to 40% of the undamaged capacity, when
loading results in tensile stress normal to the fracture plane. When loading produces compression
across the fracture plane, much of the original strength and stiffness remain. However, in providing
this residual strength and stiffness, the beam shear connections can themselves be subject to failures,
consisting of fracturing of the welds of the shear plate to the column, fracturing of supplemental welds
to the beam web or fracturing through the weak section of shear plate aligning with the bolt holes
(Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-4 - Vertical Fracture through Beam Shear Plate Connection
Despite the obvious local strength impairment resulting from these fractures, many damaged
buildings did not display overt signs of structural damage, such as permanent drifts, or extreme damage
to architectural elements. Until news of the discovery of connection fractures in some buildings began
Interim Guidelines:
1-8
to spread through the engineering community, it was relatively common for engineers to perform
cursory post-earthquake evaluations of WSMF buildings and declare that they were undamaged. In
order to reliably determine if a building has sustained connection damage it is necessary to remove
architectural finishes and fireproofing and perform nondestructive examination including visual
inspection and ultrasonic testing. Even if no damage is found, this is a costly process. Repair of
damaged connections is even more costly. A few WSMF buildings have sustained so much connection
damage that it has been deemed more practical to demolish the structures rather than to repair them.
Immediately following the Northridge Earthquake, a series of tests of beam-column subassemblies
were performed at the University of Texas at Austin, under funding provided by the AISC as well as
private sources. The test specimens used heavy W14 column sections and deep (W36) beam sections
commonly employed in some California construction. Initial specimens were fabricated using the
standard prequalified connection specified by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Section 2211.7.1.2
of UBC-94 {NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.2.3} specified this prequalified connection as follows:
2211.7.1.2 Connection strength. The girder top column connection may be considered to be adequate
to develop the flexural strength of the girder if it conforms to the following:
1. the flanges have full penetration butt welds to the columns.
2. the girder web to column connection shall be capable of resisting the girder shear determined for the
combination of gravity loads and the seismic shear forces which result from compliance with Section
2211.7.2.1. This connection strength need not exceed that required to develop gravity loads plus
3(R
w
/8) times the girder shear resulting from the prescribed seismic forces.
Where the flexural strength of the girder flanges is greater than 70 percent of the flexural strength of
the entire section, (i.e. bt
f
/(d-t
f
)F
y
>0.7Z
x
F
y
) the web connection may be made by means of welding or
high-strength bolting.
For girders not meeting the criteria in the paragraph above, the girder web-to-column connection shall
be made by means of welding the web directly or through shear tabs to the column. That welding shall
have a strength capable of developing at least 20 percent of the flexural strength of the girder web. The
girder shear shall be resisted by means of additional welds or friction-type slip-critical high strength bolts
or both.
and:
2211.7.2.1 Strength. The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the shear induced by beam
bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces, but the shear
strength need not exceed that required to develop 0.8M
s
of the girders framing into the column flanges
at the joint...
In order to investigate the effects that backing bars and weld tabs had on connection performance,
these were removed from the specimens prior to testing. Despite these precautions, the test specimens
failed at very low levels of plastic loading. Following these tests at the University of Texas at Austin,
reviews of literature on historic tests of these connection types indicated a significant failure rate in past
Interim Guidelines:
1-9
tests as well, although these had often been ascribed to poor quality in the specimen fabrication. It was
concluded that the prequalified connection, specified by the building code, was fundamentally flawed
and should not be used for new construction in the future.
In retrospect, this conclusion may have been premature. When the first test specimens for that
series were fabricated, the welder failed to follow the intended welding procedures. Further, no special
precautions were taken to assure that the materials incorporated in the work had specified toughness.
Some engineers, with knowledge of fracture mechanics, have suggested that if materials with adequate
toughness are used, and welding procedures are carefully specified and followed, adequate reliability
can be obtained from the traditional connection details. Others believe that the conditions of high tri-
axial restraint present in the beam flange to column flange joint (Blodgett - 1995) would prevent ductile
behavior of these joints regardless of the procedure used to make the welds. Further they point to the
important influence of the relative yield and tensile strengths of beam and column materials, and other
variables, that can affect connection behavior. To date, there has not been sufficient research
conducted to resolve this issue.
In reaction to the University of Texas tests as well as the widespread damage discovered following
the Northridge Earthquake, and the urging of the California Seismic Safety Commission, in September,
1994 the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) adopted an emergency code change to
the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC-94) {1994 NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Section 5.2}. This code change, jointly developed by the Structural Engineers Association of
California, AISI and ICBO staff, deleted the prequalified connection and substituted the following in its
place:
2211.7.1.2 Connection Strength. Connection configurations utilizing welds or high-strength
bolts shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or calculation, the ability to sustain
inelastic rotation and develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1 considering the effect of
steel overstrength and strain hardening.
2211.7.1.1 Required strength. The girder-to-column connection shall be adequate to develop the
lesser of the following:
1. The strength of the girder in flexure.
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined from
formula 11-1.
Unfortunately, neither the required inelastic rotation, or calculation and test procedures are well
defined by these code provisions. Design Advisory No. 3 (SAC-1995) included an Interim
Recommendation (SEAOC-1995) that attempted to clarify the intent of this code change, and the
preferred methods of design in the interim period until additional research could be performed and
reliable acceptance criteria for designs re-established. The State of California similarly published a joint
Interpretation of Regulations (DSA-OSHPD - 1994) indicating the interpretation of the current code
requirements which would be enforced by the state for construction under its control. This applied
only to the construction of schools and hospitals in the State of California. The intent of these Interim
Interim Guidelines:
1-10
Guidelines is to supplement these previously published documents and to provide updated
recommendations based on the results of the limited directed research performed to date.
1.4 The SAC Joint Venture
SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the
Applied Technology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake
Engineering (CUREe), formed specifically to address both immediate and long-term needs related
to solving the problem of the WSMF connection. SEAOC is a professional organization
comprised of more than 3,000 practicing structural engineers in California. The volunteer efforts
of SEAOCs members on various technical committees have been instrumental in the development
of the earthquake design provisions contained in the Uniform Building Code as well as the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. The Applied Technology Council is a non-profit
organization founded specifically to perform problem-focused research related to structural
engineering and to bridge the gap between civil engineering research and engineering practice. It
has developed a number of publications of national significance including ATC 3-06, which served
as the basis for the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. CUREes eight institutional members are:
the University of California at Berkeley, the California Institute of Technology, the University of
California at Davis, the University of California at Irvine, the University of California at Los
Angeles, the University of California at San Diego, the University of Southern California, and
Stanford University. this collection of university earthquake research laboratory, library,
computer and faculty resources is the most extensive in the United States. The SAC Joint
Venture allows these three organizations to combine their extensive and unique resources,
augmented by subcontractor universities and organizations from around the nation, into an
integrated team of practitioners and researchers, uniquely qualified to solve problems in
earthquake engineering.
The SAC Joint Venture developed a two phase program to solve the problem posed by the
discovery of fractured steel moment connections following the Northridge Earthquake. Phase 1
of this program was intended to provide guidelines for the immediate post-Northridge problems
of identifying damage in affected buildings and repairing this damage. In addition, Phase 1
included dissemination of the available design information to the professional community. It
included convocation of a series of workshops and symposiums to define the problem;
development and publication of a series of Design Advisories (SAC-1994-1, SAC-1994-2, SAC-
1995); limited statistical data collection, analytical evaluation of buildings and laboratory research;
and the preparation of these Interim Guidelines. Phase 2 will consist of a longer term program of
research and investigation to more carefully define the conditions which lead to the premature
connection fractures and to develop sound guidelines for seismic design and detailing of improved
or alternative WSMF connections for new buildings, as well as reliable retrofitting concepts for
existing undamaged WSMF structures.
The SAC Joint Ventures unique capability to combine the efforts of researchers, industry
representatives, code writers and practicing structural engineers is being applied to all major tasks.
Interim Guidelines:
1-11
In addition, a Technical Oversight Committee and Technical Advisory Board with nationwide
membership from the engineering, research and steel construction communities has been established to
oversee the input of information, quality of technical investigations, and development of
recommendations, and to assist in disseminating the information obtained.
1.5 Sponsors
Funding for the Phase 1 SAC Steel Program was provided by the California Office of Emergency
Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Special efforts have been made to maintain
a liaison with the engineering profession, researchers, the steel industry, fabricators, code writing
organizations and model code groups, building officials, insurance and risk-management groups and
federal and state agencies active in earthquake hazard mitigation efforts. SAC wishes to acknowledge
the support and participation of each of the above groups as well as the American Iron and Steel
Institute, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Structural Shape Producers Council, the
American Welding Society and the Lincoln Electric Company for the contribution of technical advice
and assistance as well as material directly used in the research program. Acknowledgment is also made
of the many engineers, fabricators, inspectors and researchers who contributed services and data for
use in the development of these Guidelines.
1.6 Summary of Phase 1 Research
These Interim Guidelines are based on the material presented in Design Advisory No. 3 (SAC-
1995), professional judgment and experience, a review of past relevant research, concurrent research
being performed under grants provided by the National Science Foundation and supplemental
information obtained in the SAC Phase 1 research program. This research included:
Collection of data on buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake. This consisted of
the collection of detailed information on the configuration and detailing of WSMF buildings
damaged by the Northridge Earthquake, together with data on the distribution, type and
severity of damage within each structure. This work was conducted as an extension of an
earlier survey, performed under funding from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (Youssef, et. al. - 1994). Data on a total of 89 buildings is available from these
combined studies (Bonowitz & Youssef - 1995)
A telephone survey was conducted on a random sample of 200 steel framed buildings
located within the zone which experienced estimated ground motion with a peak horizontal
acceleration of 0.2g or greater during the Northridge Earthquake. The intent of this survey
was to determine the geographic distribution of inspected, damaged and repaired structures
in order to correlate damage with ground motion parameters and other factors. (Michael
Durkin & Associates - 1995)
A series of interviews were conducted with engineers, inspectors, building officials and
others engaged in the investigation and repair of a number of damaged WSMF buildings.
The purpose of these interviews was to collect data on pertinent interpretations or trends
noted by engineers and others engaged in this work. (Gates & Morden - 1995)
Interim Guidelines:
1-12
Maps of ground motion parameters(peak ground acceleration and pseudo spectral velocity
at various periods) were developed for the San Fernando Valley and surrounding areas
affected by strong ground motion in the Northridge Earthquake, based on fault rupture and
ground motion propagation modeling techniques. Time histories of ground motion were
developed for various discrete sites, using these same modeling techniques. These
estimated ground motions were developed for use in comparing geographic distributions of
damage with ground motion parameters, and as a basis for performing structural analyses
of selected buildings. (Sommerville- 1995)
A fracture model element was developed for use with the DRAIN-2D, non-linear analysis
software, to permit analytical simulation of the effect of beam-column connection fractures
on overall structural behavior. (Campbell - 1995)
A series of linear and non-linear structural analyses were performed on eight WSMF
buildings which were damaged by the Northridge Earthquake and on two WSMF buildings
adjacent to two of these structures, which were not damaged. The purpose of these
analyses was to explore the ability of analytical methods to predict the presence of damage
within buildings as well as to predict specific locations within buildings where damage is
likely to have occurred. In addition, these analyses were intended to indicate threshold
demand levels at which damage is likely to have occurred, to provide information on the
total demands developed in structures during response to various earthquake ground
motions, and to explore the potential for earthquake induced collapse. (Krawinkler, et. al.
1995), (Engelhardt, et. al. - 1995a), (Hart, et. al. - 1995), (Kariotis & Eimani - 1995),
(Anderson & Fillippou - 1995), (Naeim, et. al. - 1995), (Uang, et. al. - 1995), (Paret &
Sasaki - 1995)
A series of parametric analytical investigations were performed to assess the influence of
various ground motions and structural characteristics on seismic response of WSMF
buildings. These included investigations involving hypothesized fractures of beam-column
connections for various real and idealized frame structures subject to various intense
ground motion records. The consequences of these ground motions were assessed as was
the sensitivity of response to vertical ground motion and to various analytical modeling
assumptions. (Iwan - 1995), (Hall - 1995), (Hart et. al. - 1995b), (Englehardt, et. al.
1995b), (Krawinkler, et. al. - 1995)
Four damaged beam-column connections were removed from a WSMF building which
was affected by the Northridge Earthquake and subsequently demolished. These
specimens were moved to a laboratory and subjected to testing to determine their residual
strength and stiffness, for use in making assessments as to the consequences of fracture
damage to overall building stability. Following this testing, the specimens were repaired
and re-tested, to judge the effectiveness of the repair techniques. In addition, detailed
building analyses were performed. (Anderson - 1995)
A total of 12 large scale beam-column assemblages were fabricated using typical pre-
Northridge detailing practice and following correct welding procedures. These were
cycled inelastically, using a testing protocol similar to that indicated in ATC-24 (Applied
Interim Guidelines:
1-13
Technology Council - 1988) and experienced failure at low levels of plastic demand.
Following initial testing and failure, the specimens were repaired using specifications
followed by engineers in the Los Angeles area, or repaired and reinforced using details
proposed by Los Angeles area engineers. The purpose of these tests was to explore
whether initial structural capacity could be re-established in damaged structures by
common repair techniques, and to determine the efficacy of proposed structural
reinforcement techniques. (Popov et. al. - 1995), (Bertero and Whitaker- 1995), (Uang -
1995b), (Engelhardt - 1995c)
Four large scale beam-column subassemblies were fabricated using selected details
recommended in these guidelines for new construction and subjected to cyclic testing to
failure.
A series of acoustic emission recordings were made on the large scale structural
assemblages tested in the laboratory to assist in interpretation of the fracture sequence and
to explore the ability of acoustic instrumentation techniques to identify damage in WSMF
buildings affected by strong ground motion. (Thewalt - 1995), (Engelhardt, et. al. - 1995d)
A series of ambient vibration tests were performed on damaged buildings in order to
determine the ability of low level vibration testing to be used as a method of detecting
damage in WSMF buildings affected by strong ground motion, and to calibrate analytical
models. (Beck - 1995)
Specimens from damaged connections in buildings affected by the Northridge Earthquake
were removed from the buildings and subjected to metallurgic and fractographic analyses
to determine the fracture mechanisms and effect of metallurgy on fracture behavior.
(ATLSS - 1995a)
A series of moderate-scale T specimens were fabricated to simulate the connection of a
beam bottom flange to a column flange in a major axis WSMF connection. These tests
were performed to explore the ability to economically use moderate scale models to
explore the behavior of large scale beam-column assemblages and also to perform
parametric experimental studies on the effects of strain-rate on specimen behavior and the
effects of weld metal notch-toughness and weld procedure on connection behavior.
(ATLSS - 1995b)
Additional information was collected from various other sources, including research
performed under funding provided by the American Institute of Steel Construction, the National
Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as testing
performed as part of privately sponsored research (Allen, et. al. -1995, Jokerst - 1995) and
lessons learned in the inspection, evaluation and repair of buildings which has taken place to date.
Interim Guidelines:
1-14
1.7 Intent
These Interim Guidelines are primarily intended for two different groups of potential users:
a) Engineers engaged in evaluation, repair, and upgrade of existing WSMF buildings and in
the design of new WSMF buildings incorporating either Special Moment-Resisting Frames
or Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames utilizing welded beam-column connections. The
recommendations for new construction are applicable to all WSMF construction expected
to resist earthquake demands through plastic behavior.
b) Regulators and building departments responsible for control of the evaluation, repair, and
occupancy of WSMF buildings that have been subjected to strong ground motion and for
regulation of the design, construction, and inspection of new WSMF buildings.
The fundamental goal of the information presented in these Interim Guidelines is to help identify
and reduce the risks associated with earthquake-induced fractures in WSMF buildings through
provision of timely information on how to inspect existing buildings for damage, repair damage if
found, upgrade existing buildings and design new buildings. The information presented here primarily
addresses the issue of beam-to-column connection integrity under the severe plastic demands that can
be produced by building response to strong ground motion. Users are referred to the applicable
provisions of the locally prevailing building code for information with regard to other aspects of
building construction and earthquake damage control.
1.8 Limitations
The information presented in these Interim Guidelines is based on limited research conducted since
the Northridge Earthquake, review of past research and the considerable experience and judgment of
the professionals engaged by SAC to prepare and review this document. Additional research on such
topics as the effect of floor slabs on frame behavior, the effect of weld metal and base metal toughness,
the efficacy of various beam-column connection details and the validity of current standard testing
protocols for prediction of earthquake performance of structures are planned as part of the Phase 2
program and will likely provide important information not available at the time these Guidelines were
formulated. Therefore, some recommendations cited herein may change as a result of forthcoming
research results.
Although the information presented is limited almost exclusively to technical engineering issues, it
is well recognized that acceptable solutions to the steel WSMF problems must eventually address the
non-technical concerns of building officials, owners, tenants, contractors, lenders, insurers, and
legislators. It is hoped that by limiting the scope of this document to technical matters, this material
can provide an objective basis for further discussion and debate.
The information presented here is based on consideration of the typical building and WSMF frame
configurations found in buildings today. Non-building structures (e.g. bridges, towers, or open
frameworks) are not specifically addressed; however, to the extent that construction of these structures
Interim Guidelines:
1-15
is similar to that for buildings, the information presented may be applicable. Beams and columns are
assumed to be constructed of hot-rolled or built-up wide flange sections with beams framing into the
column flange, although some recommendations should also apply to box columns and beams framing
to column webs.
The recommendations presented herein represent the group consensus of the committee of
Guideline Writers employed by SAC following independent review by a technical advisory panel,
Project Oversight Committee and Technical Advisory Board. They may not reflect the individual
opinions of any single participant. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the SAC
Joint Venture, the Joint Venture partners, or the sponsoring agencies. Users are cautioned that
available information on the nature of the WSMF problem is in a rapid stage of development and
any information presented herein must be used with caution and sound engineering judgment.
1.9 Use of the Guidelines
It is anticipated that the users of these Interim Guidelines will generally desire information in
one or more of the following specific areas:
1. a general understanding of the performance of WSMF buildings in the Northridge
Earthquake and the probable performance of such buildings in future earthquakes;
2. inspection, evaluation and repair of buildings which have been affected by the
Northridge Earthquake or other earthquakes;
3. seismic upgrade of existing WSMF buildings to provide more reliable performance in
future earthquakes; and
4. design of new WSMF buildings to provide more reliable performance in future
earthquakes.
In order to provide information useful to all such users, this document has been made quite
broad. Table 1-1 provides a quick reference to the contents of this document.
Interim Guidelines:
1-16
Table 1-1 - Quick Reference Guide
User Need Section Contents
General Information Chapter 1 Introductory material
Chapter 2 Abbreviations, Notation & Terminology
Chapter 3 Damage Classification, Safety Issues, Economic
Loss Data
Post-Earthquake Inspection, Chapters 1-3 Background Information
Evaluation, and Repair Chapters 4 and 5 Inspection
Chapter 6 Repair
Chapter 8 Metallurgy and Welding
Chapter 9, 10, 11 Inspection & Quality Control
New Building Design Chapters 1-3 Background Information
Chapter 7 Design Criteria
Chapter 8 Metallurgy & Welding
Chapter 9, 10, 11 Inspection & Quality Control
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
2-1
2. DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS & NOTATIONS
This Chapter provides the definition of terms used throughout these Interim Guidelines. In
addition, abbreviations and symbols, used in other sections of the Interim Guidelines are listed
here, together with their typical usage.
2.1 Definitions
As used in this document, the terms defined below shall be interpreted to have the meaning
indicated, unless specifically indicated elsewhere in this document to have other meaning in a specific
context.
2.1.1 Administrative
The definitions of this section apply to the titles of persons involved in the design, construction,
regulation, or use of buildings and to the standards, codes and ordinances by which such use is
regulated.
Building Code The locally enforced set of regulations governing the design, construction, alteration,
occupancy and repair of building structures.
Commentary: Although some municipalities and government agencies develop and
maintain independent building codes, most building construction in the United States
is regulated under locally adopted editions of one of three model building codes: the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), the National Building Code (NBC) and the Standard
Building Code (SBC). The UBC has been used as a model in this advisory because
most buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake were designed under earlier
editions of that code, and because the seismic design regulations contained in the
other two codes, were until 1993, based on those contained in the UBC. In 1993,
both the NBC and SBC adopted seismic design regulations based on the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings (Building Seismic Safety Council - 1991). Where references to the
UBC provisions are contained in these Interim Guidelines, they are generally to
the 1994 edition of that document, unless another edition is specifically
identified. Where these Interim Guidelines make reference to specific provisions
in the UBC, parallel provisions in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions are
generally identified in {parentheses}, where parallel provisions exist. Note that
the formulae and requirements contained in these parallel provisions are not
always identical, and caution should be exercised when referencing the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions from these Interim Guidelines.
Building Official That officer or authorized representative who has been appointed with legal authority
to regulate the construction, alteration, occupancy and use of building structures within
a recognized state, county, or municipality.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
2-2
Building Owner That person, corporation or agency holding legal title to the property being constructed,
inspected, or repaired, or persons designated with authority to act on their behalf with
regard to the building.
Contract Documents The drawings, specifications and contractual terms under which the responsibilities of
the various parties in a project to construct or modify a building are defined.
Contractor That corporation, partnership, or person retained by the Building Owner to manage
and/or perform construction work on a building.
Engineer of Record The structural engineer in responsible charge of the preparation of drawings and
specifications for the inspection, repair, modification or construction of a structure.
Erector A contractor performing the erection, repair and/or modification of structural steel
frames.
Evaluation The process, including preliminary screening, on-site inspection, and structural
analysis, of determining if a building has been structurally damaged, the effect of
damage on the buildings integrity, and development of strategies for the occupancy,
structural repair and/or modification of the building.
Fabricator A contractor performing fabrication of structural steel elements to be incorporated in a
structural steel frame.
Inspection On-site investigation of the condition of a structure (or components of a structure)
through direct visual observation, aided as necessary by special non-destructive testing
techniques.
Owners Inspector A welding inspector retained by the Building Owner to perform quality assurance
inspections of weldments. The AWS D1.1 Code defines this individual as the
Verification Inspector.
Peer Review An independent technical review of project construction documents as well as
supporting data, calculations and assumptions, conducted by structural engineers and
intended to provide the Owner and Engineer of Record with an opinion as to the extent
that the design complies with applicable standards of care and is likely to achieve its
intended objectives.
Special Inspector An Inspector employed by the Building Owner under the requirements of Section 1701
of the Building Code. When such person performs special inspections related to
weldments, he/she shall possess the qualifications noted for a Welding Inspector.
Structural Engineer A person holding professional engineering registration with the state having
jurisdiction, for the practice of structural engineering. The person should have
particular training, knowledge and expertise in the structural design of buildings and
structures. In some states such a person may hold registration as a Civil Engineer or
Professional Engineer.
Interim Guidelines:
2-3
Welding Code American Welding Society publication ANSI/AWS D1.1-94, Structural Welding
Code - Steel, 1994 Edition.
Welding Engineer A person with particular training, knowledge and expertise in metallurgy, the joining of
metal elements to each other by the process of welding, and non-destructive testing
techniques.
Welding Inspector A person meeting the requirements of AWS D1.1, Section 6.1.3.1 (and certified by
ICBO where applicable) to perform inspections of structural steel weldments. In AWS
D1.1, this person is known as Inspector.
Welder A person qualified to perform welding in accordance with the provisions of AWS
D1.1.
2.1.2 Technical
The definitions of this section indicate the terms by which specific structural components and
elements are indicated in this document.
Assembly The substructure of a steel frame that occurs at a floor level and consists of a single
column and one or more floor girders and/or beams that attach directly to it.
Backing A material or device placed against the back side of the joint, or at both sides of a weld
in electroslag welding, to support and retain molten weld metal. The material may be
partially fused or remain unfused during welding, and may be either metal or nonmetal.
Backup Bar A non-preferred term, in common use, for a steel bar used as backing in a complete
joint penetration weld. More appropriate terminology is steel backing.
Chord A direct tension or compression element placed at diaphragm edges to resist flexural
demands on the diaphragm.
Collector A structural element used to accumulate shear forces from a diaphragm and distribute
them to vertical elements such as frames or walls located along a common line. Also
see Strut and Tie.
Connection The attachment of one structural element, for example a beam, to another, for example
a column. As typically used in this document, connection means the attachment of a
beam to a column for moment resistance. Important components of this connection
include the beam itself, the beam shear tab, the column and its associated panel zone,
continuity and doubler plates, and any additional plates used to join these elements
together. Other types of connections include bracing connections, gravity connections,
base plate connections and column splice connections.
Damage Degradation in the strength or stiffness of a structural element or alteration of the
configuration of the structure or its elements resulting from structural loading, such as
induced by an earthquake.
Interim Guidelines:
2-4
Damage Index A numerical index used to quantify the amount of degradation a moment resisting
connection (or a group of moment resisting connections) has experienced. A value of 0
indicates no damage and a value of 10, total damage.
Design Basis Earthquake Earthquake ground motion with a probability of exceedance at a site of 10% in 50
years. Such ground motions has an average return period of 475 years.
Diaphragm A horizontal (or nearly horizontal) element of the lateral force resisting system used to
distribute lateral loads to the vertical elements of the lateral force resisting system.
Drift The total lateral deformation of a structure over its height.
Drift Index Dimensionless quantity indicating the ratio of a structures lateral deformation to its
height.
Dual System A structural system in which lateral load resistance is provided by a moment resisting
frame in parallel with one or more braced frames and/or shear walls, and meeting the
criteria of UBC-94 Section 1627.6.5.
Ductility The ability of a material, component, element or structure to deform inelastically
beyond its yield strength without significant loss in load carrying ability.
Electrode A component of the electrical circuit that terminates at the arc, molten conductive slag,
or base metal.
End Dam A small plate located at the edge of a beam flange to column flange joint, oriented
perpendicular to the joint and intended to serve as a boundary for weld deposition.
Commentary: End dams are a mis-application of the requirement for weld tabs that
was adopted by some erectors in Southern California. End dams as such are not
mentioned in the AWS D1.1 code and they do not constitute weld tabs as required
and defined in the code.
Expected Yield Stress The average stress at which material conforming to an ASTM specification will exhibit
yield behavior, as determined by statistical evaluation of production samples.
Flux A material used to hinder or prevent the formation of oxides and other undesirable
substances in molten metal and on solid metal surfaces, and to dissolve or otherwise
facilitate the removal of such substances.
Flux-Cored Arc An arc welding process that produces coalescence of metals by heating them with an
Welding arc between a continuous filler metal electrode and the work. Shielding is provided by
a flux contained within the tubular electrode. Additional shielding may or may not be
obtained from an externally supplied gas or gas mixture.
Fully Restrained A beam to column connection with sufficient rigidity to hold the original
Connection angles between the intersecting members virtually unchanged at loads approaching the
strength of the weakest member.
Interim Guidelines:
2-5
Gas Shielded FCAW A flux-cored arc welding process variation in which additional shielding is obtained
from an externally supplied gas or gas mixture.
Group A set consisting of those moment resisting connections in a building primarily intended
to resist lateral forces in a given direction of building response, and selected as having
similar seismic response characteristics, and therefore, similar probability of being
damaged in an earthquake
Gravity Connection A connection designed to transmit gravity loads from one structural element to another,
but not intended to participate in the lateral force resisting system for the structure.
Heat Affected Zone The portion of the base metal whose mechanical properties or microstructure have been
altered by the heat of welding, brazing, soldering, or thermal cutting.
Heat Treatment A controlled heating and cooling of a metal, usually involving re-crystallization.
Incipient Root Crack A small planar discontinuity or cracking at the root of a weld.
Interpass Temperature In a multipass weld, the temperature of the weld area between weld passes.
Interstory Drift The lateral deformation of a structure within a given story.
Interstory Drift Index The drift index for a particular story of a structure.
Joint The juncture of one piece of base metal (for example a beam flange) to another (for
example a column flange).
Lamellar Discontinuities Defects in rolled structural shapes or plate, typically consisting of non-metallic sulfide
and oxide inclusions which have been flattened by the rolling process and aligned
parallel to the direction of rolling.
Lamellar Tear A subsurface terrace and step-like crack in the base metal with a basic orientation
parallel to the wrought surface caused by tensile stresses in the through-thickness
direction of the base metal weakened by the presence of small dispersed, planar
shaped, nonmetallic inclusions parallel to the metal surface.
Lateral Force Those elements of a structure which are intended to provide lateral strength
Resisting System and stiffness for the resistance of lateral forces due to wind or earthquake.
Liquid Dye A method of NDT in which a highly fluid, red dye penetrant is sprayed on the
Penetrant Testing surface of a joint to detect open surface defects. (PT)
Magnetic Particle A method of NDT which uses a flux field and iron powder to detect surface
Testing and sub-surface discontinuities. (MT)
Magnitude A scale indicating the energy released by an earthquake.
Maximum Capable The most severe ground motion likely to be experienced at a site, given the
Interim Guidelines:
2-6
Earthquake known seismologic and geotectonic environment. This may be determined by
deterministic methods in regions with well defined seismic sources, or by probabilistic
methods. If probabilistic methods are used, it may be taken as that level of ground
motion with a 10% probability of exceedance in 100 years. Such ground motion has
an average return period of approximately 1,000 years.
Metallurgical Stress A significant deviation in the mechanical properties (usually hardness and
Riser micro-structure) between two adjacent regions in a weldment. These may result from
arc strikes, improperly made tack welds, and improperly prepared thermally cut
surfaces.
Minimum Specified The lower bound of acceptable yield strength permitted by ASTM
Yield Strength specifications, as measured by simple tensile test in accordance to ASTM
requirements.
Modification A structural alteration intended to improve the strength, stiffness, or energy dissipation
capacity of a structure and/or its elements.
Moment Frame A continuous plane of framing in which the beams are joined to the columns with
moment resisting connections.
Moment Magnitude A scale indicating the energy released by an earthquake. Moment magnitude can be
calculated based on the surface area of fault rupture amount of slip across the surface,
and the stress drop during the event. For moderate magnitude events (<7) moment
magnitude and Richter or local magnitude are approximately the same. Above that
level, moment magnitude is a more accurate representation.
Notch Toughness The ability of a material to absorb energy (usually when loaded dynamically) in the
presence of a flaw.
Ordinary Moment A moment-resisting frame not meeting the requirements of UBC-94 Section 2211.7
Resisting Frame
Panel Zone In a moment-resisting beam-column connection, that portion of the column web (or
webs) effective in developing the flexural stresses from the girder(s) through shear
behavior.
Partially Restrained A connection between beams and columns that does not possess sufficient
Connection rigidity to hold virtually unchanged the original angles between the members at load
levels approaching the strength of the weaker member.
Peening The mechanical working of metals using impact blows.
Plastic Hinge In a flexural element, that region along a beams span at which flexural yielding
occurs.
Plastic Moment The moment that causes a plastic hinge to form in a flexural member.
Interim Guidelines:
2-7
Plastic Rotation The angular deformation which occurs in a plastic hinge, once yielding has initiated.
Expressed in radians.
Potentially Hazardous A building declared by the building official to be considered hazardous but not yet
evaluated by a structural engineer in accordance with these Interim Guidelines.
Postheating The application of heat to an assembly after welding, brazing, soldering, thermal
spraying, or thermal cutting.
Preheat The heat applied to the base metal or substrate to attain and maintain preheat
temperature.
Preheat Temperature A specified temperature that the base metal must attain in the welding, brazing,
soldering, thermal-strain, or cutting area immediately before these operations are
performed.
Quality Assurance The auditing of the Contractor/Fabricator/Erectors quality control system and
procedures, usually performed by the Owners Inspector or Special Inspector.
Quality Control The Contractor/Fabricator/Erectors quality program.
Radiographic Testing An NDT process in which X-rays or gamma rays are passed through a weldment to
expose a film, which when developed can indicate the presence of discontinuities and
defects. (RT)
Repair Construction work intended to restore a damaged structure or structural element to
approximately the same configuration, stiffness, and strength that existed prior to the
onset of damage.
Rigid Connection See Fully Restrained Connection
Runoff Tab A non-preferred usage for weld tab.
Self Shielded FCAW A flux-cored arc welding process variation in where shielding is exclusively provided
by a flux contained within the tubular electrode.
Semi-Rigid Connection Same as Partially Restrained Connection
Shielded Metal Arc An arc welding process that produces coalescence of metals by heating them
Welding with an arc supplied between a covered metal electrode and the work. Shielding is
obtained from decomposition of the electrode coating.
Special Moment- A welded moment-resisting frame meeting the requirements of UBC-94 Section 2211.7
Resisting Frame
Steel Backing Backing comprised of steel.
Interim Guidelines:
2-8
Strength The capacity of a section to resist applied axial loads, shears and/or moments, as
indicated in UBC-94 section 2211.4.2
Stress Relief Uniform heating of a structure or a portion thereof to a sufficient temperature to relieve
the major portion of the residual stresses, followed by uniform cooling.
Stop Drill Drilling a hole at the end of a crack to stop it from running.
Strut A compressive element, provided to control differential displacements between two
elements of a structural system.
Through Thickness For elements of hot rolled steel shapes and plates, a term referring to stresses or strains
imposed on the element perpendicular to a plane aligned with the direction of rolling.
Tie A tensile element, typically placed in a diaphragm, to provide continuity, but also
provided at foundation level to control differential lateral displacements of individual
foundations.
Toughness The ability of a smooth member (unnotched) to absorb energy, usually when loaded
slowly.
Ultimate Tensile The maximum load divided by the original cross-sectional area of the specimen.
Strength
Ultrasonic Testing An NDT process in which high frequency sound waves are reflected through a material
and recorded by an instrument to indicate the presence of discontinuities (UT).
Welding Specification A specification which sets the general requirements for welding work performed on a
project, including the responsibilities of individuals and the processes which may be
used. This specification is part of the contract documents.
Welding Procedure A rigorous written specification of all important welding parameters for a
Specification given welded connection including welding process, material thickness and fit-up of
parts, welding position, electrode type and stick out, voltage, amperage, polarity,
preheat and interpass temperatures, etc.
Welded Steel Moment- A plane (or nearly so) frame structure deriving lateral load stability from rigid
Resisting Frame, interconnection of the beams and columns (WSMF). Rigid connections may consist
Welded Steel Moment either of fully welded connections or connections
Frame which are partially welded and partially bolted. This includes both ordinary moment-
resisting frames (OMRFs) and special moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) as defined in
the Uniform Building Code.
Weld Tab Additional material, upon which a weld may be initiated or terminated.
Yield Stress The average tensile stress during yielding in the plastic range, and/or the stress
determined in a tension test when the strain reaches 0.005 in. per in.
Interim Guidelines:
2-9
Yield Strength The uniaxial tensile stress at which a material exhibits a specified limiting deviation
from the proportionality of stress to strain. Deviation expressed in terms of strain.
2.2 Abbreviations
When used in this document, abbreviations shall refer to the following terms:
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AASHTO FCP A document published by AASHTO for the fabrication of fracture-critical,
non-redundant steel bridges, often called the Fracture Control Plan.
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ANSI/AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code - Steel, published by the American Welding Society
ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATC Applied Technology Council
ATLSS NSF Center on Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems at Lehigh
University
AWS American Welding Society
CJP Complete Joint Penetration
CUREe California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
EBF Eccentric Braced Frame
EGW Electro Gas Welding
ESW Electro Slag Welding
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FCAW Flux Cored Arc Welding
FCAW-g Flux Cored Arc Welding - Gas Shielded
FCAW-ss Flux Cored Arc Welding - Self Shielded
GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding
Interim Guidelines:
2-10
HAZ Heat Affected Zone
ICBO International Conference of Building Officials
LAST Lowest Anticipated Service Temperature
MT Magnetic Particle Testing
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NDE Nondestructive Examination.
NDT Nondestructive Testing
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF National Science Foundation
OMRF Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration, horizontal unless otherwise specified.
PT Liquid Dye Penetrant Testing
RT Radiographic Testing
SAC A joint venture of SEAOC, ATC and CUREe
SAW Submerged Arc Welding
SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California
SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding
SMRF Special Moment-Resisting Frame
SSPC Structural Shape Producers Council
UBC Uniform Building Code
UT Ultrasonic testing
VI Visual Inspection
WPS Welding Procedure Specification
WSMF Welded Steel Moment Frame
Interim Guidelines:
2-11
W Designation for a wide flange structural shape
WT Designation for a structural T section cut from a wide flange cross section
2.3 Notations
In the design of modifications to existing WSMF structures, a coefficient that
accounts for strain hardening and modeling uncertainty.
In the design of new WSMF structures, a coefficient to adjust specified yield
stress to an expected mean value for the material grade, and to account for
strain hardening and modeling uncertainty.
The standard deviation for the defect indices in a group of inspected
connections.
b A factor which represents the number of multiples of the standard deviation for
a normal distribution above the mean that would be required to exceed a
damage index D of 33%.
b
f
Width of a beam flange - inches
d Damage repair cost for a building, expressed as a % of building replacement
cost.
d
j
A damage index, assigned to connection j, and used to determine the overall
damage index D within a structure as well as to determine if repair and or
modification is warranted.
d
avg
The mean value of the damage index for a group, considering all connections
inspected in the group
f
a
The axial stress in a column
k The total number of connections in a group of connections, at a typical floor in
the group
k
i
The total number of connections in a group at floor i
m
i
The number of inspected connections in a group at floor i including
additional connections inspected due to their proximity to damaged
connections
p The number of floors in a building
n The number of connections in a group, inspected as part of an initial sample
Interim Guidelines:
2-12
s Standard deviation for material strength parameters, based on industry study
t
f
Thickness of the flange of a beam section - inches.
A
a
Effective peak ground acceleration coefficient, contained in building codes
based on the NEHRP Provisions.
D The average damage index for a group of connections at a typical floor.
D
i
A damage index representing the proportional damage to the connections in
the lateral force resisting system in one group of connections (or in one
horizontal direction) at a floor, based on combining the damage to inspected
connections at that floor and the average observed damage at other floors, to
all uninspected connections in the group at the floor.
D
max
The maximum damage index for a group of connections at any floor.
F
y
Specified minimum uniaxial tensile yield stress.
F
ya
Actual yield stress of component in an existing building
F
ye
Expected yield stress of component in a new building
F
ym
Mean yield strength for specified material, based on industry published data
L Width of a frame bay - ft (meters)
L Distance between plastic hinges along a beam - ft (meters)
M The magnitude of an earthquake.
M
c
The moment demand at the center of the column when a beam mechanism is
formed
M
e
The design moment for a connection.
M
p
That bending moment which causes a plastic hinge to form in a flexural element
of a frame, at minimum specified yield stress.
M
pr
The bending moment expected to cause a plastic hinge to form in a flexural
element of a frame, considering the expected yield stress.
M
w
The moment magnitude of an earthquake.
P The probability that damage to connections on at least one floor has
resulted in a damage index D
i
of 1/3 or more.
Interim Guidelines:
2-13
P
f
The probability that the damage to connections at any floor have resulted in
a damage index D
i
of 1/3 or more.
S The standard deviation for the damage indices of a the set of inspected
connections belonging to a group, at one floor level.
T Fundamental period of vibration - seconds
T
I
Fundamental period of vibration of a base isolated structural system -
seconds
Z Seismic zone coefficient defined in the UBC, and representative of the
effective peak ground acceleration produced by a design earthquake.
Z
b
Plastic section modulus of the beam
Z
c
Plastic section modulus of the column
Interim Guidelines:
2-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
3-1
3. CLASSIFICATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE
A broad range of damage and defects were found in steel moment resisting connections, following
the Northridge Earthquake. Communication between engineers and technicians was often
confused, due to the use of different terminology for reporting these conditions. To avoid such
confusion, a uniform system for damage classification is presented in this Chapter, and referenced
throughout these Interim Guidelines. The implication of each damage type is also discussed.
Some reported damage in WSMF buildings; i.e. local buckling and yielding, was consistent with
the expected behavior of these structures. However, the widespread brittle fractures which
occurred were inconsistent with previous expectations. This calls into question the ability of
existing WSMF structures to provide adequate protection of life safety in major earthquakes.
There has never been an earthquake-induced collapse of a WSMF building in the United States.
However, the severe damage experienced by some WSMF buildings in the Northridge Earthquake
suggests that collapse is credible given the right combination of building characteristics and
ground motion. Based on historic evidence, it seems unlikely that earthquakes with magnitudes
less than approximately 7 would produce such ground motion, except in the very near field.
However, larger events could produce such ground motions over large regions. Therefore, new
moment frame buildings should not continue to be designed and constructed using traditional
methods.
The risk associated with existing WSMF structures should be assessed in comparison with other
construction types. Many other types of buildings have occasionally experienced collapse in past
moderate earthquakes. Therefore, it seems unwarranted to mandate upgrades of existing WSMF
structures prior to addressing these other building types. However, some building owners may
wish to perform such upgrades in order to reduce the risks associated with individual buildings.
The repair costs associated with some WSMF structures, following the Northridge Earthquake,
were substantially higher than would previously have been projected. Statistical analysis of data
collected on damaged buildings has been used to project, with varying levels of confidence, the
likely repair costs for such structures, when subjected to ground motion of different severities. A
summary of these statistics is presented to permit estimation of the probable repair costs for
WSMF buildings that have experienced different levels of ground motion.
3.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage
Following the Northridge Earthquake, structural damage observed in Los Angeles area
WSMF buildings included yielding, buckling and excessive fracturing of the steel framing
elements (beams and columns) and their connections, as well as permanent lateral drift in some
structures. Damaged elements included girders, columns, column panel zones (including girder
flange continuity plates and column web doubler plates), the welds of the beam to column flanges
and the shear tabs which connect the girder webs to column flanges. There has been speculation
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
3-2
that column splices and base plates would also be subject to fracture damage, however no
instance of such damage has been reported in WSMF buildings damaged by the Northridge
Earthquake. There have been reports of such damage in buildings affected by the 1995 Kobe
(Great Hanshin), Japan earthquake. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of these elements.
Frame Elevation
Column splice
Girder
Base Plate
Column
Doubler Plate
Continuity Plate
Weld
Panel Zone
Shear Tab
Figure 3-1 - Elements of Welded Steel Moment Frame
3.2 Damage Types
Damage to framing elements of WSMFs may be categorized as belonging to the weld (W),
girder (G), column (C), panel zone (P) or shear tab (S) categories. This section defines a uniform
system for classification and reporting of damage to elements of WSMF structures, that is utilized
throughout these Interim Guidelines. The damage types indicated below are not mutually
exclusive. A given girder-column connection may experience several types of damage
simultaneously. In addition to the individual element damage types, a damaged WSMF may also
exhibit global effects, such as permanent interstory drifts.
Following a post-earthquake inspection, classification of the damage found, as to its type and
degree of severity is the first step in performing an assessment of the condition and safety of a
damaged WSMF structure. In Section 4 these classifications are used for the assignment of
damage indices. These damage indices are statistically combined and extrapolated to provide an
indication of the severity of damage to a structures lateral force resisting system and are used as a
basis for selecting building repair strategies. Section 6 addresses specific techniques and design
criteria recommended for the repair and modification of the different types of damage.
Interim Guidelines:
3-3
Commentary: The damage types contained in this Chapter are based on a system
first defined in a statistical study of damage reported in NISTR-5625 (Youssef et.
al.- 1994). The original classes contained in that study have been expanded
somewhat to include some conditions not previously identified. Damage classes
have not been standardized within the profession, and many individual engineers
and inspection agencies engaged in the inspection and repair of structures
damaged by the Northridge Earthquake have used other terminologies. It is
recommended that the definitions given below be adopted as the uniform standard
for reporting and classifying damage in the future. This will provide a common
basis for communication as well as enhance the ability to develop an
understanding of the performance of WSMF structures in earthquakes.
3.2.1 Girder Damage
Girder damage may consist of yielding, buckling or fracturing of the flanges of girders at or
near the girder-column connection. Eight separate types are defined in Table 3-1. Figure 3-2
illustrates these various types of damage. See section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 for damage to adjacent
welds and shear tabs, respectively.
G1
G2
G3
G4
G7
G6
G8
Note: condition G5 consists of types G3 and/or G4 damage occurring at both the top and bottom flanges.
Figure 3-2 - Types of Girder Damage
Table 3-1 - Types of Girder Damage
Type Description
G1 Buckled flange (top or bottom)
G2 Yielded flange (top or bottom)
G3 Flange fracture in HAZ (top or bottom)
G4 Flange fracture outside HAZ (top or bottom)
G5 Flange fracture top and bottom
G6 Yielding or buckling of web
G7 Fracture of web
G8 Lateral torsional buckling of section
Interim Guidelines:
3-4
Commentary: Minor yielding of girder flanges (type G2) is the least significant
type of girder damage. It is often difficult to detect and may be exhibited only by
local flaking of mill scale and the formation of characteristic visible lines in the
material, running across the flange. Removal of finishes, by scraping, may often
obscure the detection of this type of damage. Girder flange yielding, without
local buckling or fracture, results in negligible degradation of structural strength
and typically need not be repaired.
Girder flange buckling (type G1) can result in a significant loss of girder
plastic strength. For compact sections, this strength loss occurs gradually, and
increases with the number of inelastic cycles and the extent of the inelastic
excursion. Following the initial onset of buckling, additional buckling will often
occur at lower load levels and result in further reductions in strength, compared
to previous cycles. The localized secondary stresses which occur in the girder
flanges due to the buckling can result in initiation of flange fracture damage
(G4). Once this type of damage occurs, the girder flange may rapidly loose all
tensile capacity under continued or reversed loading, however, it may retain some
capacity in compression. Visually evident girder flange buckling should be
repaired.
With the conventional structural steels used in WSMF buildings, girder flange
cracking within the HAZ (type G3) is most likely to occur at connections in which
improper welding procedures were followed, resulting in local embrittlement of
the HAZ. Like the visually similar type G4 damage, it results in a complete loss
of flange tensile capacity, and consequently, significant reduction in the
contribution to frame lateral strength and stiffness from the connection. Little G4
or G5 damage was actually seen in buildings following the Northridge
Earthquake. In some cases, this damage was found to extend from the weld
access hole in the web of the girder, a metallurgically complex area, into the
flange. As shown in Figure 3-2, this damage occurs at a location of local flange
buckling, which is where it has been observed in some testing of large-scale
assemblies, after many cycles of load.
In the Northridge Earthquake girder damage has most commonly been
detected at the bottom flanges, although some instances of top flange failure have
also been reported. There are several apparent reasons for this. First the
composite action induced by the presence of a floor slab at the girder top flange,
tends to shift the neutral axis of the beam towards the top flange. This results in
larger tensile deformation demands on the bottom flange than on the top. In
addition, the presence of the slab tends to greatly reduce the chance of local
buckling of the top flange. The bottom flange, however, being less restrained can
experience buckling relatively easily. Preliminary large-scale testing conducted
by SAC included specimens without a slab present. Flange fractures in these
specimens tended to occur randomly, sometimes at the top and sometimes at the
Interim Guidelines:
3-5
bottom flange, somewhat confirming that the slab may have significant influence
on connection behavior.
There are a number of other factors that could lead to the greater incidence
of bottom flange fractures observed in the field. The location of the weld backing
is one of the most important of these. At the bottom flange joint, the backing is
located at the extreme tension fiber, while at the top flange, it is located at a point
of lesser stress and strain demand, both due to the fact that it is located on the
inside face of the flange and because the floor slab tends to alter the section
properties. Therefore, any notch effects created by the backing are more severe
at the bottom flange. Another important factor is that welders can typically make
the CJP weld at the girder top flange without obstruction, while the bottom flange
weld must be made with the restriction induced by the girder web. Also the
welder typically has better and more comfortable access to the top flange joint.
Thus, top flange welds tend to be of higher quality, and have fewer stress risers,
which can initiate fracture. Finally, studies have shown that UT inspection of the
top flange weld is more easily achieved than at the bottom flange, contributing to
the better quality likely to occur in top flange welds.
3.2.2 Column Flange Damage
Seven types of column flange damage are defined in Table 3-2 and illustrated in Figure 3-3.
Column damage typically results in degradation of a structures gravity load carrying strength as
well as lateral load resistance.. For related damage to column panel zones, refer to Section 3.2.5.
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Figure 3-3 - Types of Column Damage
Interim Guidelines:
3-6
Table 3-2 - Types of Column Damage
Type Description
C1 Incipient flange crack
C2 Flange tear-out or divot
C3 Full or partial flange crack outside HAZ
C4 Full or partial flange crack in HAZ
C5 Lamellar flange tearing
C6 Buckled flange
C7 Column Splice Failure
Commentary: Column flange damage includes types C1 through C7. Type C1
damage consists of a small crack within the column flange thickness, typically at
the location of adjoining girder flange. C1 damage does not go through the
thickness of the column flange and can be detected only by NDT, such as UT.
Type C2 damage is an extension of type C1, in which a curved failure surface
extends from an initiation point, usually at the root of the girder to column flange
weld, and extends longitudinally into the column flange. In some cases this
failure surface may emerge on the same face of the column flange where it
initiated. When this occurs, a characteristic nugget or divot can be
withdrawn from the flange. Types C3 and C4 fractures extend through the
thickness of the column flange and may extend into the panel zone. Type C5
damage is characterized by a stepped shape failure surface within the thickness of
the column flange and aligned parallel to it. This damage is often detectable only
with the use of NDT.
Type C1 damage does not result in an immediate large strength loss to the
column; however, such small fractures can easily progress into more serious
types of damage if subjected to additional large tensile loading by aftershocks or
future earthquakes. Type C2 damage results in both a loss of effective attachment
of the girder flange to the column for tensile demands and a significant reduction
in available column flange area for resistance of axial and flexural demands.
Type C3 and C4 damage result in a loss of column flange tensile capacity and
under additional loading can progress into other types of damage.
Type C5 damage may occur as a result of non-metallic inclusions within the
column flange. The potential for this type of fracture under conditions of high
restraint and large through-thickness tensile demands has been known for a
number of years and has sometimes been identified as a contributing mechanism
for type C2 column flange through-thickness failures. Many engineers have
adopted a practice of specifying mandatory NDT investigation of column sections
in the vicinity of girder-column connections, in accordance with ASTM A898,
both before and after welding to detect type C5 discontinuities.
Interim Guidelines:
3-7
As a result of the potential safety consequences of complete column failure,
all column damage should be considered as significant, and repaired
accordingly.
3.2.3 Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities
Six types of weld discontinuities, defects and damage are defined in Table 3-3 and illustrated
in Figure 3-4. All apply to the CJP welds between the girder flanges and the column flanges.
This category of damage was the most commonly reported type following the Northridge
Earthquake.
Table 3-3 - Types of Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities
Type Description
W1 Weld root indications
W1a Incipient indications - depth <3/16 or t
f
/4;
width < b
f
/4
W1b Root indications larger than that for W1a
W2 Crack through weld metal thickness
W3 Fracture at column interface
W4 Fracture at girder flange interface
W5 UT detectable indication - non-rejectable
W1, W5 W2
W3
W4
Note: See Figure 3-2 for related column damage and Figure 3-3 for girder damage
Figure 3-4 - Types of Weld Damage
Commentary: Type W1 damage, discontinuities and defects and type W5
discontinuities are detectable only by NDT, unless the backing bar is removed,
allowing direct detection by visual inspection or magnetic particle testing. Type
W5 consists of small discontinuities and may or may not actually be earthquake
damage. AWS D1.1 permits small discontinuities in welds. Larger discontinuities
are termed defects, and are rejectable per criteria given in the Welding Code. It
Interim Guidelines:
3-8
is likely therefore that some weld indications detected by NDT in a post-
earthquake inspection may be discontinuities which pre-existed the earthquake
and do not constitute a rejectable condition, per the AWS standards. Repair of
these discontinuities, designated as type W5 is not generally recommended. Some
type W1 indications are small planar defects, which are rejectable per the AWS
D1.1 criteria, but are not large enough to be classified as one of the types W2
through W4. Type W1 is the single most commonly reported non-conforming
condition reported in the post-Northridge statistical data survey, and in some
structures, represents more than 80 per cent of the total damage reported. The
W1 classification is split into two types, W1a and W1b, based on their severity.
Type W1a incipient root indications are defined as being nominal in extent,
less than 3/16 deep or 1/4 of the flange thickness, whichever is less, and having
a length less than 1/4 of the flange width. Some engineers believe that type W1a
indications are not earthquake damage at all, but rather, previously undetected
defects from the original construction process. A W1b indication is one that
exceeds these limits but is not clearly characterized by one of the other types. It
is more likely that W1b indications are a result of the earthquake than the
construction process.
As previously stated, some engineers believe that both type W1a and some
type W1b conditions are not earthquake related damage at all, but instead, are
rejectable conditions not detected by the quality control and assurance programs
in effect during the original construction. However, in recent large-scale sub-
assembly testing of the inelastic rotation capacity of girder-column connections
conducted in SAC Phase 1 at the University of Texas at Austin and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the University of California at
Berkeley, it was reported that significantly more indications were detectable in
unfailed CJP welds following the testing than were detectable prior to the test.
This tends to indicate that type W1 damage may be related to stresses induced in
the structures by their response to the earthquake ground motions. Regardless of
whether or not type W1 conditions are directly attributable to earthquake
response, it is clear that these conditions result in a reduced capacity for the CJP
welds and can act as stress risers, or notches, to initiate fracture in the event of
future strong demands.
Type W2 fractures extend completely through the thickness of the weld metal
and can be detected by either MT or VI techniques. Type W3 and W4 fractures
occur at the zone of fusion between the weld filler metal and base material of the
girder and column flanges, respectively. All three types of damage result in a
loss of tensile capacity of the girder flange to column flange joint and should be
repaired.
As with girder damage, damage to welds has most commonly been reported at
the bottom girder to column connection, with fewer instances of reported damage
Interim Guidelines:
3-9
at the top flange. Available data indicates that approximately 25 per cent of the
total damage in this category occurs at the top flange, and most often, top flange
damage occurs in connections which also have bottom flange damage. For the
same reasons previously described for girder damage, less weld damage may be
expected at the top flange. However, it is likely that there is a significant amount
of damage to welds at the top girder flange which have never been discovered due
to the difficulty of accessing this joint. Later sections of these Interim Guidelines
provide recommendations for situations when such inspection should be
performed.
3.2.4 Shear Tab Damage
Eight types of damage to girder web to column flange shear tabs are defined in Table 3-4 and
illustrated in Figure 3-5. Severe damage to shear tabs is often an indication that other damage has
occurred to the connection including column, girder, panel zone, or weld damage.
Table 3-4 - Types of Shear Tab Damage
Type Description
S1 Partial crack at weld to column
S1a girder flanges sound
S1b girder flange cracked
S2 Fracture of supplemental weld
S2a girder flanges sound
S2b girder flange cracked
S3 Fracture through tab at bolts or severe distortion
S4 Yielding or buckling of tab
S5 Loose, damaged or missing bolts
S6 Full length fracture of weld to column
S1
S2 S3
S4
S6
S5
Figure 3-5 - Types of Shear Tab Damage
Interim Guidelines:
3-10
Commentary: Shear tab damage should always be considered significant, as
failure of a shear tab connection can lead to loss of gravity load carrying
capacity for the girder, and potentially partial collapse of the supported floor.
Severe shear tab damage typically does not occur unless other significant damage
has occurred at the connection. If the girder flange joints and adjacent base
metal are sound, than they prevent significant differential rotations from
occurring between the column and girder. This protects the shear tab from
damage, unless excessively large shear demands are experienced. If excessive
shear demands do occur, than failure of the shear tab is likely to trigger distress
in the welded joints of the girder flanges.
3.2.5 Panel Zone Damage
Nine types of damage to the column web panel zone and adjacent elements are defined in
Table 3-5 and illustrated in Figure 3-6. This class of damage can be among the most difficult to
detect since elements of the panel zone may be obscured by beams framing into the weak axis of
the column. In addition, the difficult access to the column panel zone and the difficulty of
removing sections of the column for repair, without jeopardizing gravity load support, make this
damage among the most costly to repair.
Table 3-5 - Types of Panel Zone Damage
Type Description
P1 Fracture, buckle or yield of continuity plate
P2 Fracture in continuity plate welds
P3 Yielding or ductile deformation of web
P4 Fracture of doubler plate welds
P5 Partial depth fracture in doubler plate
P6 Partial depth fracture in web
P7 Full or near full depth fracture in web or doubler
P8 Web buckling
P9 Severed column
P1
P2
P4
P7
P3
P5, P6
P8
P9
Figure 3-6 - Types of Panel Zone Damage
Interim Guidelines:
3-11
Commentary: Fractures in the welds of continuity plates to columns (type P2), or
damage consisting of fracturing, yielding, or buckling of the continuity plates
themselves (type P1) may be of relatively little consequence to the structure, so
long as the fracture does not extend into the column material itself. Fracture of
doubler plate welds (type P4) is more significant in that this results in a loss of
effectiveness of the doubler plate and the fractures may propagate into the
column material.
Although shear yielding of the panel zone (type P3) is not by itself
undesirable, under large deformations such shear yielding can result in kinking of
the column flanges and can induce large secondary stresses into the girder flange
to column flange connection. In recent SAC Phase 1 testing at the University of
California at Berkeley, excessive deformation of the column panel zone was
identified as a contributing cause to the initiation of type W2 fractures at the top
girder flange. It is reasonable to expect that such damage could also be initiated
in real buildings, under certain circumstances.
Fractures extending into the column web panel zone (types P5, P6 and P7)
have the potential under additional loading to grow and become type P9
resulting in a complete disconnection of the upper half of a column from the
lower half, and are therefore potentially as severe as column splice failures.
When such damage has occurred, the column has lost all tensile capacity and its
ability to transfer shear is severely limited. Such damage results in a total loss of
reliable seismic capacity. It appears that such damage is most likely to occur in
connections that are subject to column tensile loads, and/or in which beam yield
strength exceeds the yield strength of the column material.
Panel zone web buckling (type P8) may result in rapid loss of shear stiffness
of the panel zone with potential negative effects as described above. Such
buckling is unlikely to occur in connections which are stiffened by the presence of
a vertical shear tab for support of a beam framing into the columns minor axis.
3.2.6 Other Damage
In addition to the types of damage discussed in the previous sections, other types of structural
damage may also be found in WSMF buildings. Other framing elements which may experience
damage include column base plates, beams, columns, and their connections that were not intended
in the original design to participate in lateral force resistance, and floor and roof diaphragms. In
addition, large permanent interstory drifts may develop in the structures. Based on observations
of structures affected by the Northridge Earthquake, such damage is unlikely unless extensive
damage has also occurred to the lateral force resisting system. When such damage is discovered
in a building, it should be reported and repaired, as suggested by later sections of these Interim
Guidelines.
Interim Guidelines:
3-12
3.3 Safety Implications
The implications of the damage described above with regard to building safety are discussed in
this section. There is insufficient knowledge at this time to permit determination of the degree of
risk with any real confidence. However, based on the historic performance of modern WSMF
buildings, typical of those constructed in the United States, it appears that the risk of collapse in
moderate magnitude earthquakes, ranging up to perhaps M7, is low for buildings which have been
properly designed and constructed according to prevailing standards. A possible exception to this
may be buildings located in the near field (< 10 km from the surface projection of the fault
rupture) of such earthquakes (Heaton, et. al. - 1995), however, this is not uniquely a problem
associated with steel buildings. Our current building codes in general, may not be adequate to
provide for reliable performance of buildings within the near field of large earthquakes. As is also
the case with all other types of construction, buildings with incomplete lateral force resisting
systems, severe configuration irregularities, inadequate strength or stiffness, poor construction
quality, or deteriorated condition are at higher risk than buildings not possessing these
characteristics.
No modern WSMF buildings have been sited within the areas of very strong ground motion
from earthquakes larger than M7, or for that matter, within the very near field for events
exceeding M6.5. This style of construction has been in wide use only in the past few decades.
Consequently, it is not possible to state what level of risk may exist with regard to building
response to such events. This same lack of performance data for large magnitude, long duration
events exists for virtually all forms of contemporary construction. Consequently, there is
considerable uncertainty in assigning levels of risk to any building designed to minimum code
requirements for these larger events.
Commentary: Research conducted to date has not been conclusive with regard to
the risk of collapse of WSMF buildings. Some testing of damaged connections
from a building in Santa Clarita, California have been conducted at the
University of Southern California (Anderson - 1995). In these tests, connection
assemblies which had experienced type P6 damage were subjected to repeated
cycles of flexural loading, while the column was maintained under axial
compression. Under these conditions, the specimens were capable of resisting as
much as 40 per cent of the nominal plastic strength of the girder for several
cycles of slowly applied loading, at plastic deformation levels as large as 0.025
radians. However, damage did progress in the specimen, as this testing was
performed. It is not known how these assemblies would have performed if the
columns were permitted to experience tensile loading. Data from other tests
suggests that the residual strength of connections which have experienced types
G1, G4, W2, W3, and W4 damage is on the order of 15 per cent of the
undamaged strength. Some analytical research (Hall - 1995) in which nonlinear
time history analyses simulating the effects of connection degradation due to
fractures were included, indicates that typical ground motions resulting in the
near field of large earthquakes can cause sufficient drift in these structures to
Interim Guidelines:
3-13
induce instability and collapse. Other researchers (Astaneh - 1995) suggest that
damaged structures, even if unrepaired, have the ability to survive additional
ground motion similar to that of the Northridge Earthquake.
Even though there were no collapses of WSMF buildings in the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, it should not be assumed that no risk of such collapse
exists. Indeed, a number of WSMF buildings did experience collapse in the 1995
Kobe Earthquake. The detailing of these collapsed Japanese buildings was
somewhat different than that found in typical US practice, however, much of the
fracture damage that occurred was similar to that discovered following the
Northridge event.
Because of a lack of data and experience with the effects of larger, longer
duration earthquakes, there is considerable uncertainty about the performance of
all types of buildings in large magnitude seismic events. It is believed that
seismic risks in such large events are highly dependent on the individual ground
motion at a specific site and the characteristics of the individual buildings.
Therefore, generalizations with regard to the probable performance of individual
types of construction may not be particularly meaningful.
The risks to occupants of WSMF buildings is regarded as less, in most cases,
than to occupants of the types of buildings listed below. However, because of the
uncertainties involved, the degree of risk in large events cannot be definitively
quantified, nor can it categorically be stated that properly constructed WSMF
buildings sited in the near field of large events are either more or less at risk than
many other code designed building systems which do not appear on the following
list:
Concentric braced steel frames with bracing connections that are weaker than the
braces
Knee braced steel frames
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings
Non-ductile reinforced concrete moment frames (infilled or otherwise)
Reinforced concrete moment frames with gravity load bearing elements that were
not designed to participate in the lateral force resisting system and that do not
have capacity to withstand earthquake-induced deformations
Tilt-up and reinforced masonry buildings with inadequate anchorage of their
heavy walls to their horizontal wood diaphragms
Precast concrete structures without adequate interconnection of their structural
elements.
Interim Guidelines:
3-14
In addition, WSMF structures would appear to have lower inherent seismic
risk than structures of any construction type that:
do not having complete, definable load paths
have significant weak and/or soft stories
have major torsional irregularity and insufficient stiffness and strength to resist
the resulting seismic demands
minimal redundancy and concentrations of lateral stiffness
These are general statements that represent a global view of system
performance. As with all seismic performance generalizations, there are many
steel moment frame buildings that are more vulnerable to damage than some
individual buildings of the general categories listed, just as there are many that
will perform better.
3.4 Economic Implications
This section provides data which may be used to estimate probable repair costs for WSMF
buildings conforming to typical pre-Northridge Earthquake design and construction practices, in
the event that they are affected by future strong earthquake ground motion. This information may
be considered, together with other data, when making investment decisions relative to such
buildings, or when conducting cost-benefit studies to determine if structural upgrade of existing
buildings is economically justified.
Economic losses resulting from earthquake induced building damage include directs costs
resulting from inspection to determine the extent of damage, engineering design fees, actual costs
related to the structural repairs, demolition and replacement costs for architectural finishes and
utilities (that must be removed to allow access for inspection and repair), and repair of damaged
non-structural components, as well as indirect costs resulting from loss of use, lost income from
rents that are not collected on spaces vacated during the repair period, and project financing
costs. The loss estimation data provided in this section only includes consideration of the direct
damage repair costs. It does not include consideration of indirect costs related to lost rents,
interruption of business and similar issues. These indirect costs often result in a greater economic
impact than do the actual costs of repair, but are difficult to estimate on a general basis.
Allowance for such indirect costs should be made in any economic analysis conducted for
individual buildings.
The loss estimation data presented in this section is compatible with that presented in ATC-13
(Applied Technology Council -1985), a document frequently used as the basis for loss estimation
studies. In that document, vulnerability functions are presented for broad classes of buildings,
based on the expert opinion of groups of individuals familiar with the performance of those
structures. The vulnerability functions relate the expected repair costs, expressed as a percentage
of building replacement value, to a ground motion parameter (Modified Mercalli Intensity), and a
level of confidence.
Interim Guidelines:
3-15
Table 3-6 presents a proposed vulnerability function for WSMF buildings typical of California
construction prior to the Northridge Earthquake. Each column of the table provides an estimate
of the percentage of the total population of these buildings within a region affected by ground
motion of defined intensity, expected to have repair costs d, expressed as a percentage of
building replacement value, within the indicated ranges. Figure 3-7 provides a plot of this data in
a format which may be more useful for application to loss estimation estimates. The statistics
contained in the table were calculated using a loss estimation model developed by Thiel and
Zsutty (Thiel and Zsutty - 1987), and data obtained on the performance of 89 buildings affected
by the Northridge Earthquake (Bonowitz and Youssef - 1995).
Table 3-6 - Estimated Distribution of WSMF Buildings
1
by Severity of Damage in Regions of Varying Ground Motion Intensity
Modified Mercalli Intensity
Damage d
2
VII VIII IX X
d<5% 71% 57% 40% 30%
5%<d<25% 21% 29% 34% 35%
25%<d<50% 7% 12% 20% 26%
50%<d<75% 1% 2% 5% 8%
75%<d<100% 0% 0% 1% 1%
1. WSMF buildings conforming to pre-Northridge Earthquake design and
construction practice for regions of high seismicity (UBC seismic zones 3
and 4) {NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7}.
2. d is the direct damage repair cost, expressed as a percentage of building
replacement cost
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

5
0

6
0

7
0

8
0

9
0

1
0
0
% of Buildings In Population Reaching or Exceeding Repair Cost Percentage
R
e
p
a
i
r

C
o
s
t

a
s

a

%

o
f

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
s
t
Legend
MMI VII
MMI VIII
MMI IX
MMI X
Figure 3-7 - Vulnerability Estimates for WSMF Buildings
Conforming to Typical California Practice Prior to the Northridge Earthquake
Interim Guidelines:
3-16
These loss estimation statistics should be used with caution, when applied to individual
buildings. The unique characteristics of any individual building, including the strength and
stiffness of its lateral force resisting system, its inherent redundancy, its condition, and the quality
of its construction, will affect the relative vulnerability of the building. The statistics presented
may be considered as representative of average buildings, in general conformance with the
applicable building code provisions. Buildings that have substantial deficiencies relative to those
provisions would be expected to be significantly more vulnerable. Similarly, buildings that have
superior earthquake resisting characteristics, relative to the requirements of the building code,
would be expected to be less vulnerable.
The statistics contained in Table 3-6 were established based on case studies conducted by
SAC of the damage experienced by selected buildings affected by the Northridge Earthquake. It
appears that typical repair costs for structural damage to connections can range from about
$7,000 per connection to approximately $20,000. These costs are dominated not by the structural
work, but rather by costs related to mobilizing into discrete areas of the building, performing local
demolition of finishes and utilities as required to gain access and to create a safe working
environment, and reconstruction of these finishes and utilities upon completion of the structural
work. The cost of the structural work itself tends to vary from about $2,000 for the simplest
repairs of damage (type W1 and W2) to perhaps $5,000 or more for repairs of the most complex
types. These cost estimates do not include allowances for hazardous materials abatement, which
will be required if either asbestos containing materials or lead based paint are present in the
original construction. Such materials are likely to be present in buildings constructed prior to
about 1980. The above costs relate only to the restoration of connections. They do not include
costs related to re-establishing vertical plumbness of the building, which may be impractical to
accomplish, or costs related to repair of architectural, mechanical, and electrical components
which are directly damaged by the buildings response to the ground motion. These statistics
assume that the building is repaired, rather than demolished and reconstructed. It should be noted
that at least one building, in Santa Clarita, was demolished and reconstructed rather than repaired.
A number of factors may have contributed to the owners decision to take such action, however,
it is clear that the cost associated with this decision was much greater than would be indicated by
the statistics presented in this Section.
Commentary: The damageabilities indicated in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-7 were
estimated based on statistics available on a data set of 89 buildings (Bonowitz
and Youssef - 1995). From this data set, it was possible to establish the
probability of a building incurring damage to a given percentage of its total
connections. This data set also allowed estimation of the number of connections
per square foot of floor space provided by a building. From these statistics, an
estimated average repair cost per connection of $12,500 was applied against the
probable number of damaged connections per square foot of floor space.
Building value was taken as $125/square foot of floor space. This computation
permitted calculation of the expected loss percentage to a typical building. This
data was then entered into a loss estimation model developed by Thiel and Zsutty
(Thiel and Zsutty - 1987). The model was developed to replicate damage statistics
Interim Guidelines:
3-17
observed in historic earthquakes and extended to current construction types
using, in part, the expert opinion results of ATC-13.
Ground motion is characterized in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-7 using Modified
Mercalli Intensity (MMI). Although MMI has been the most common ground
motion parameter used for loss estimation studies in the past, it is subjective and
interpretation can be varied. MMI can only be assigned after an earthquake has
occurred and is based on observation of damage and other effects that have
actually occurred. It is dependent, to a very great extent, on the types of
construction which are present in the affected region. The distributions of
damage indicated in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-7 are considered appropriate for
California, and other regions with similar seismic design and construction
practices. However, these data may not be appropriate for other regions.
It should be noted that when the repair cost for a building approaches 60 per
cent or more of its replacement value (d>60%) many owners will determine,
based on a number of factors, that complete building replacement, rather than
repair is warranted. Therefore, it is probable that the actual costs for repair of
some buildings will be 100per cent of the replacement value. This possibility has
not been reflected in the development of the damage repair cost distributions
presented in Table 3-6.
It should also be noted that the statistics used to develop the above
vulnerability estimates were taken from an incomplete data set of buildings. The
data set may or may not have been representative of the distribution of damage in
the total set of buildings affected by the Northridge Earthquake. If the data set is
biased, this is likely to be a bias towards buildings that are more heavily
damaged, since the data was collected soon after the earthquake, when only those
buildings most likely to have been damaged had been inspected. A review of the
applicability of the statistics used for generating the vulnerability estimates
should be conducted, when more complete data on the distribution of damage
becomes available.
Interim Guidelines:
3-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
4-1
4. POST-EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
Post-earthquake evaluation is the multi-step process conducted following an earthquake to:
determine the extent and severity of damage experienced by a building; assess the implications of
damage with regard to building safety; and determine appropriate occupancy, structural repair and
modification strategies.
Detailed post-earthquake evaluations of buildings are costly. An initial screening (preliminary
evaluation) process is recommended to identify those buildings most likely to have been damaged.
Screening criteria include ground shaking severity estimates, proximity to other structures known
to be damaged and significant observable damage to the building itself. Buildings identified by
screening as likely to have been damaged should be subjected to detailed evaluation.
Analyses of damaged buildings show that although damage occurred at slightly higher frequency
in locations predicted to have high strength and deformation demands, damaged connections tend
to be widely distributed throughout the building frames, often at locations analyses would not
predict. This approximates a random distribution. To detect all such damage, it would be
necessary to subject each connection to detailed inspections. In order to reduce inspection costs,
but still reliably detect damage, these Interim Guidelines recommend inspection of representative
samples of connections and the use of statistical techniques to project damage observed in the
samples to that likely experienced by the entire building.
In order to obtain valid projections of a buildings condition, samples should be broadly
representative of the varying conditions (location, member sizes, structural demand) present
throughout the building and should be sufficiently large to permit confidence in the projection of
overall building damage. Three alternative methods for sample selection are provided. When
substantial damage is found within the sample of connections, additional connections are
inspected to provide better, and more reliable information on building condition.
Once the extent of building damage is determined, the structural engineer should assess the
residual structural integrity and safety, and determine appropriate repair and/or modification
actions. General recommendations are provided, based on calculated damage indices. Direct
application of engineering analysis may also be used. For individual structures, the structural
engineer should confirm that the general recommendations are appropriate, based on evaluation of
the specific structural characteristics of the damaged building and on engineering judgment.
4.1 Scope
This Chapter presents guidelines for:
1) identifying those WSMF structures likely to have been damaged in an earthquake;
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
4-2
2) development of a program of inspection for structures suspected of having been
damaged;
3) assessing the implications of discovered damage; and
4) determining appropriate occupancy, repair, and/or structural modification actions to
protect life safety.
Nothing in these Interim Guidelines should be deemed to preempt the judgment of the
building official or to prevent individual structural engineers from adopting alternative approaches
based on accepted engineering principles, rational criteria and sound reasoning. However,
independent qualified third party review should be considered when such alternative approaches
are adopted. Section 4.5 provides recommended criteria for such independent third party
reviews.
Commentary: This Chapter provides a basic approach and suggested criteria for
post-earthquake evaluation. This includes preliminary evaluation to determine if
a building is likely to have been damaged and detailed evaluation to determine
the actual damage experienced and the extent to which the buildings lateral-
force-resisting system has been compromised. In the detailed evaluation
methodology, procedures are given for selecting a representative sample of
building connections for inspection, and for interpreting the results of these
inspections. Chapter 5 provides detailed recommendations on how to perform
inspections. Chapter 6 provides guidance on damage repair as well as structural
modification to improve future seismic performance.
4.2 Preliminary Evaluation
This section provides recommended criteria for determining which WSMF structures should
be subjected to detailed post-earthquake evaluations and suggestions for the scheduling of such
evaluations. It also provides recommendations (Section 4.2.4) for the acceptance of inspection
and evaluation programs performed prior to the publication of these Interim Guidelines.
Following an earthquake, all WSMF structures that experienced ground motion having the
potential to cause structural damage in these buildings, as indicated in Section 4.2.1, should be
subjected to a detailed evaluation. Given that a detailed evaluation should be performed for a
building, this evaluation should be completed prior to:
1) permanent occupancy of a building under construction at the time of the earthquake;
2) reoccupancy of a building closed for post-earthquake repairs that require a building
permit; or
3) reoccupancy of a building where occupancy was limited by the building official as a
result of apparent structural damage.
Interim Guidelines:
4-3
The results of all building evaluations should be transmitted to the building owner and filed
with the building official as described in Section 4.3.9.
Commentary: This section provides guidelines for building officials and
structural engineers to determine if a WSMF building should be subjected to
detailed evaluations. An evaluation includes, as a minimum, assessment as to
whether the building has experienced sufficient earthquake-induced structural
demands to cause damage, and unless this is judged not to be the case, detailed
structural evaluations should be performed. Given the high levels of uncertainty
associated with the many issues involved in making such judgments, inspections
should be performed for any building suspected of having damage, even when the
provisions of these Interim Guidelines or the building official do not so require.
It is particularly recommended that all buildings indicated by the preliminary
evaluation of Section 4.2.1 as likely to have been damaged be subjected to
detailed evaluations, regardless of whether or not the building official so directs.
4.2.1 Evaluation Process
Preliminary evaluation is the process of determining if a building should be subjected to
detailed post-earthquake evaluations. Detailed evaluations should be performed for all buildings
thought to have experienced strong ground motion, as indicated in Section 4.2.1.1 or for which
the other indicators of Section 4.2.1.2 apply. Detailed post-earthquake evaluations include the
entire process of determining if a building has experienced significant damage and if damage is
found, determining appropriate strategies for occupancy, structural repair and/or modification.
Except as indicated in Section 4.2.3, detailed evaluation should include inspections of a
representative sample of moment-resisting (and other type) connections within the building.
4.2.1.1 Ground Motion
Within UBC Seismic Zone 4 {NEHRP Map Area 7}, detailed evaluation is recommended for
all WSMF buildings when an earthquake of Magnitude greater than or equal to 6.5 has produced
ground motion at the building site in excess of 0.20g, or when any earthquake has produced
ground motion at the building site in excess of 0.30g. For buildings located in zones of lower
seismicity, refer to Table 4-1, Section 4.2.2 for appropriate ground motion thresholds. Whenever
feasible, ground motion estimates should be based on actual instrumental recordings in the vicinity
of the building. When such instrumental recordings are not available, ground motion estimates
may be based on empirical or analytical techniques. In all cases, ground motion estimates should
reflect the site-specific soil conditions.
Commentary: A number of techniques are available for estimating the
distribution of ground motion in an area, following an earthquake. In regions
with a large number of strong motion accelerographs present, actual ground
motion recordings produce the best method of mapping contours of ground
motion. In other regions, empirical techniques, such as the use of standard
Interim Guidelines:
4-4
ground motion attenuation relationships (e.g. Joyner and Boore - 1994, Campbell
and Bazorgnia - 1994) may be required. These can be supplemented with
analytically derived estimates such as those obtained by direct simulation of the
fault rupture and ground wave propagation. It should be noted, however, that
lacking direct instrumental evidence, site-specific ground motion estimates are at
best, uncertain, and subject to wide variations depending on the assumptions
made. Therefore, the best indicator of the severity of ground motion at a site is
often the performance of adjacent construction. The criteria of Section 4.2.1.2
are provided to help assure that sites which experienced strong ground motion
are not overlooked as a result of inaccurate estimates of the ground motion
severity.
4.2.1.2 Additional Indicators
Regardless of the magnitude of the earthquake event, detailed evaluation should be considered
for a building if any of the following apply:
1) significant structural damage is observed in one or more WSMF structures located
within 1 kilometer of the building, on sites with similar, or more firm soil profiles;
2) significant structural damage is observed to one or more modern, apparently well-
designed structures (of any material) within 1 kilometer of the building and on sites
with similar, or more firm soil profiles;
3) for an earthquake having a magnitude of 6.5 or greater, the structure is either within 5
kilometers of the trace of a surface rupture or within the vertical projection of the
rupture area when no surface rupture has occurred.
4) significant architectural or structural damage is observed in the building;
5) permanent interstory drift greater than 0.5% of story height is observed;
6) unexpected damage, or significant period lengthening of the building are observed in
aftershocks; or
7) entry to the building has been limited by the building official because of earthquake
damage, regardless of the type or nature of the damage.
Commentary: In the above, the term significant has been used without
definition or quantification. The intent is to use known damage as an indicator of
the severity of ground motion experienced. Damage is dependent not only on the
strength of ground motion, but also on the quality and condition of the affected
construction. Relatively moderate damage to buildings having regular
configuration and adequate lateral-force-resisting systems may be a more
significant indicator of strong ground motion than heavy damage to construction
Interim Guidelines:
4-5
in poor condition or having other poor earthquake resisting characteristics. The
building official and/or structural engineer should use their own judgment in
determining the significance of such damage.
The absence of significant observable damage to WSMF structures on sites
believed to have experienced strong ground motion, per Section 4.2.1, should not
be used as an indication that detailed evaluations are not required. Many WSMF
buildings that were structurally damaged by the Northridge Earthquake had little
apparent damage based on casual observation.
The observed behavior of a building in repeated aftershocks may provide
some clues as to whether it has experienced significant structural damage. In
instrumented buildings it may be possible to observe a period shift in the
instrumented response, as successive damage occurs. In buildings without
instruments, the observation of unexpectedly large amounts of architectural
damage could indicate the presence of structural damage.
In many cases in the past, buildings have initially been posted as unsafe
without adequate investigation of their condition. Upon reconsideration and
technical evaluation such buildings have subsequently been re-posted to allow
occupancy. In such cases and for the purposes of item 7 above, the building need
not be considered to have been posted.
4.2.2 Evaluation Schedule
When a detailed evaluation of a building is recommended, under Section 4.2.1, such
evaluation should be completed as soon as practical and in any event, within a 12-month period
from the date of the earthquake main shock, unless a shorter period is indicated in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 - Suggested Time Limits for Post-Earthquake Evaluation
1
Estimated
PGA Range at Site
3
6.0<M<6.5 6.5<M<7.2 7.2<M
PGA>0.40g
3
6 months 6 months
2
6 months
2
0.3
3
<PGA<0.4
3
12 months 6 months 6 months
2
0.2
3
<PGA<0.3
3
(1) 12 months 12 months
Notes:
1. Evaluation not required unless one or more of the conditions of Section 4.2.1.2 apply.
2. Buildings meeting this criteria are likely to have experienced significant damage and evaluations should be
performed rapidly. If NDT technicians are not readily available, visual inspection, in accordance with Section
5.2.2 should proceed expeditiously. If in the course of such visual inspection, serious damage to connections is
observed, then consideration should be given to the safety of the occupants in possible aftershocks.
3. The indicated PGAs are for modern buildings designed to UBC Zone 4 {NEHRP Map Area 7} criteria. For
buildings designed to other criteria or for other seismic zones, the indicated PGA values should be reduced by
the factor Z/0.4 (for localities that have adopted the UBC) {by the factor A
a
/0.4 for localities that have adopted
codes based on the NEHRP Provisions}. The indicated PGAs need not be reduced lower than 0.15g.
Interim Guidelines:
4-6
Commentary: It is important to conduct post-earthquake evaluations as soon
following the earthquake as is practical. Aftershock activity in the months
immediately following an earthquake is likely to produce additional strong
ground motion at the site of a damaged building. If there is adequate reason to
assume that damage has occurred, then such damage should be expeditiously
uncovered and repaired. However, since adequate resources for post-earthquake
evaluation may be limited, a staggered schedule is presented, with those buildings
having a greater likelihood of damage recommended for evaluation first.
Large magnitude earthquakes are often followed by large magnitude
aftershocks. Therefore, it is particularly urgent that post-earthquake evaluations
be performed expeditiously following such events. If insufficient resources are
available in the affected region to perform the NDT tests recommended by the
Guidelines of Chapter 5, it is recommended that visual inspection, in accordance
with Section 5.2.2, proceed as soon as possible. If visual inspection reveals
substantial damage, consideration should be given to vacating the building until
either an adequate period of time has passed so as to make the likelihood of very
large aftershocks relatively low (e.g. 4 weeks for magnitude 7 and lower, and 8
weeks for magnitudes above this), complete inspections and repairs are made, or
a detailed evaluation indicates that the structure retains adequate structural
stiffness and strength to resist additional strong ground shaking. Preliminary
visual inspections should not be used as an alternative to complete evaluation.
The table relates the urgency for post-earthquake building evaluation to both
the magnitude of the earthquake and the estimated peak ground acceleration
experienced by the building site. This is because large magnitude events are
more likely to have large magnitude aftershocks and because buildings that
experienced stronger ground accelerations are more likely to have been damaged.
Except in regions with extensive strong motion instrumentation, estimates of
ground motion are quite subjective. Following major damaging earthquakes,
government agencies usually produce ground motion maps showing projected
acceleration contours. These maps should be used when available. When such
maps are not available, ground motions can be estimated using any of several
attenuation relationships that have been published.
4.2.3 Connection Inspections
Detailed evaluations should include inspections of a representative sample of WSMF (and
other) connections, except as indicated in Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2, below. Section 4.3.3
provides three alternative approaches to selecting an appropriate sample of connections for
inspection.
Interim Guidelines:
4-7
4.2.3.1 Analytical Evaluation
Connection inspections need not be performed for buildings on sites meeting the criteria of
Section 4.2.1.1, if conditions 4,5,6, and 7 of Section 4.2.1.2 are observed not to be present and a
structural analysis indicates that estimated stresses in welded moment-resisting connections during
the earthquake were all below the beam flexural design strength. For calculation of this strength,
F
y
should be taken as the minimum specified yield strength for the framing members. Such
analysis should be performed using an estimated ground motion representation (response
spectrum or acceleration time history) similar to that believed to have occurred at the site during
the earthquake. For the purpose of this analysis, the ground motion and resulting stresses
computed in the various framing elements should not be reduced by the lateral force reduction
coefficients (R
w
or R) contained in the building code.
Commentary: This section suggests that unless there is visible evidence that a
building has been damaged, detailed connection inspections need not be
performed for buildings which can be demonstrated by analysis to have
experienced very low levels of stress. It will be possible to demonstrate this when
ground motions at a site are low, or when the ground motion spectrum at a site
was such that little excitation would have occurred at predominant modes for the
building. A dynamic analysis, using site-specific estimates of the ground motion
actually experienced by the building during the earthquake, is required to make
such a determination. It should be noted that unless a building has been
instrumented, it is very difficult to estimate the precise ground motions it
experienced, with any accuracy. Since analyses do not provide any conclusive
evidence as to whether a building has actually experienced damage, when the cost
of such analyses approaches that of inspections, inspections should be performed.
4.2.3.2 Buildings with Enhanced Connections
For buildings designed in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter 7 of these Interim
Guidelines, and not displaying any of the conditions 4, 5, 6, or 7 of Section 4.2.1.2, the scope of
inspection may be reduced to 1/2 the number of connections recommended in Section 4.3.3. If in
the course of this reduced scope of inspection, significant structural damage is found (damage to
any connection with a damage index per Table 4-3(a or b) that is greater than 5), then full
inspections in accordance with Section 4.3 should be performed.
Commentary: Structures designed in accordance with Chapter 7 of these Interim
Guidelines are expected to be less susceptible to connection fractures than WSMF
structures designed with the former prescriptive connection. However, the
effectiveness of these Interim Guidelines in preventing such fractures, during real
earthquakes, is not yet known. Therefore, inspection of some connections in
buildings conforming to these Interim Guidelines is recommended, even if there is
no obvious evidence of damage.
Interim Guidelines:
4-8
4.2.4 Previous Evaluations and Inspections
Many WSMF buildings have been evaluated prior to the publication of these Interim
Guidelines. The following approach is recommended for these buildings:
1. The previous evaluation may be considered adequate if any of the following conditions
is met:
a. a building permit has been issued for repair of damaged connections; or
b. the evaluation was performed following procedures contained in SAC
Advisory No. 3 (SAC - 1995) and/or City Guidelines in force at the time of the
inspection; or
c. the number and distribution of connections inspected substantially complies
with the recommendations of Section 4.3.3, and no connections with damage
indices d
j
(per Table 4-3a or b) greater than 3 were discovered.
2. Previous inspections may be considered adequate and their results interpreted using
these Interim Guidelines if either of the following conditions is met:
a. the number of connections inspected substantially meets the recommendations
of Section 4.3.3 and the distribution of the inspected connections, as certified
by the responsible structural engineer, is acceptable to the building official as
meeting the intent of these Interim Guidelines.
b. one and one half times the number of inspections recommended in Section
4.3.3 have been performed for each group of connections, regardless of the
distribution of connections within the groups.
When a previous evaluation has been performed that does not meet the conditions of 1 or 2
above, the owner should be advised that the previous work does not comply with current
recommendations and that additional connections should be inspected to provide adequate
understanding of the buildings condition. The additional connections should be selected so as to
bring the total inspection program, including those inspections previously conducted, into
substantial compliance with the recommendations of Section 4.3.3. Such additional inspections
should be performed in a manner that minimizes disruption to building occupancy, but in
accordance with a schedule acceptable to the building official.
Commentary: This section applies to buildings affected by the Northridge
Earthquake that were evaluated, inspected, and/or repaired, prior to the
publication of these Interim Guidelines. Two different cases are addressed: 1)
buildings for which the post-earthquake evaluation/repair process has been
completed, and 2) buildings which were inspected, but for which evaluation
reports and repair actions have not been submitted to and accepted by the
building official. If a building was evaluated and subsequently repaired under a
permit issued by the building official, or evaluated according to procedures
acceptable to the building official and found not to require repair, then no further
Interim Guidelines:
4-9
work is recommended. If a building was inspected, but no report was submitted to
or accepted by the building official, then additional work may be appropriate if
the inspections did not adequately address the condition of the building.
In the months immediately following the Northridge earthquake, divergent
opinions were held as to how building inspections should be performed. Some
structural engineers required inspections of every connection in buildings while
others selected a relatively small sample of connections upon which to perform
preliminary inspections, proceeding to more inspections only if significant
damage was found in the initial sample. This latter approach is essentially the
same basic approach adopted by these Interim Guidelines, although these
Guidelines may recommend a larger sample than was commonly used prior to
their publication. By the fall of 1994, many structural engineering offices in the
Los Angeles area had adopted the inspection procedure recommendations of a
City of Los Angeles task group. Those suggested that for buildings with 7 stories
or less, 15% of the connections should be included in the initial sample and for
taller structures, 10% of the connections. It was suggested in those
recommendations that connections be selected on a widely distributed basis, but
biased towards those most likely to have been damaged, as indicated by rational
analysis. Evaluations of building condition, based on inspections performed in
accordance with those procedures should be deemed to comply with item 1b of
this section and need not be supplemented by additional work.
If a building has been subjected to minimal inspection, meaning substantially
less than both the criteria contained in these Interim Guidelines and the
recommendations of the City of Los Angeles task group, and the building official
requires submittal of an evaluation report, it is recommended that additional
inspections be performed to meet the intent of these Interim Guidelines, prior to
submission of the evaluation report.
If a building is not required to be inspected by the building official, but
previous inspection has been performed at the request of the owner, the structural
engineer should notify the owner if the program of inspection was not in
substantial compliance with these recommendations. Note that under Section
4.3.4 of these Interim Guidelines, inspections conducted in a random manner may
be terminated following inspection of 50% of the total number of connections
recommended for inspection, if only minimal damage is found. It is anticipated
that most previously conducted inspection programs, in which minimal damage
was found, would surpass this minimum recommended amount. For those cases
where this is not so, additional inspection should be performed if the owner and
structural engineer desire reasonable confidence in their knowledge of the
condition of the building. When the inspections were voluntary, and no current
requirement from the building official exists, any additional inspections desired
Interim Guidelines:
4-10
could be performed over a long schedule, so as to result in minimal disruption of
tenants.
4.3 Detailed Evaluation Procedure
Where detailed evaluation is recommended by Section 4.2, assessment of the post earthquake
condition of a building, its ability to resist additional strong ground motion and other loads, and
determination of appropriate occupancy, structural repair and/or modification strategies should be
based on the results of a detailed inspection and assessment of the extent to which structural
systems have been damaged.
This Section presents one approach for making such assessments. In this approach, the results
of the inspections are used to calculate a cumulative damage index, D, for the structure as well as
the probability that the damage index at any floor of the structure has exceeded 1/3. General
occupancy, structural repair and modification recommendations are made based upon the values
calculated for these damage indices. In particular, a calculated damage index of 1/3 is used to
indicate, in the absence of more detailed analyses, that a potentially hazardous condition may
exist.
The structural engineer may use other procedures consistent with the principles of statistics
and structural mechanics to determine the residual strength and stiffness of the structure in the as-
damaged state and the acceptability of such characteristics relative to the criteria contained in the
building code, or other rational criteria acceptable to the building official.
Commentary: The most reliable approach to determining the post-earthquake
condition of a building and whether unacceptable damage has occurred would be
to inspect and determine the condition of each of the moment-resisting
connections in the structure. This is an expensive process, and is not warranted
unless a structure is heavily damaged. Therefore, these Interim Guidelines
recommend a process that includes initial inspections of a representative sample
of the welded moment-resisting connections in the building. If the initial
inspections indicate a significant amount of damage, then additional inspections
are recommended. Based upon the observed condition of the total inspected
sample of connections, the probable levels of damage throughout the structure
are projected.
In this procedure, each inspected connection is assigned an individual
connection damage index d
j
ranging from 0 to 10. Judgmentally derived
guidelines are provided for the assignment of these damage indices, based on the
types of damage observed, with 10 indicating very severe damage and loss of
ability to reliably participate in the lateral load resisting system, and 0 indicating
no damage. An overall building damage index D is calculated by extrapolating
the individual connection damage indices d
j
for the connections actually
inspected to the total number of connections in the structure. In this way, the
Interim Guidelines:
4-11
damage index D represents in a very approximate and rough manner, an
indication of the loss of reliable capacity of the structure to resist future strong
ground motion. A structural damage index of 1/3 has arbitrarily been taken as an
indication, in the absence of more detailed analyses, that a potentially hazardous
condition may exist.
The procedure presented in these Interim Guidelines to estimate the level of
damage does not include direct calculation of the remaining lateral strength and
stiffness of the damaged building, or its residual displacement capacity, nor does
it attempt to compare these characteristics to the requirements of the building
code for new construction. Such an approach, if properly performed, should be
very useful in assisting the structural engineer to understand the probable future
performance of the building. However, it is important to note that no consensus
has been reached yet with regard to appropriate modeling assumptions for the
residual strength and stiffness of damaged connections. Also, unless all
connections within a building have been inspected, the true condition of the
building is subject to considerable uncertainty. Consequently, when such an
approach is taken, qualified independent third party review, in accordance with
Section 4.5, is strongly recommended.
It is recognized that many WSMF buildings have lateral strength and stiffness
considerably in excess of that required by the building code. When analyses
indicate that connection damage results in a building that still has more strength
and stiffness than is required by the code, structural engineers should be cautious
in making judgments that there is no requirement for structural repair or further
modifications Such an approach could be permitted by these Interim Guidelines
if such an engineering analysis is performed, and the building official approves.
However, if a large number of building connections have been damaged, this may
indicate the presence of conditions likely to result in excessive damage in future
earthquakes, such as poor quality construction or an unfavorable configuration.
Therefore, buildings which have experienced substantial damage should be
carefully considered for repair and upgrade, regardless of their pre-earthquake
design lateral strength and stiffness.
4.3.1 Eight Step Evaluation Procedure
Post-earthquake evaluation should be carried out under the direct supervision of a structural
engineer. The following eight-step procedure may be used to determine the condition of the
structure and to develop occupancy, repair and modification strategies:
Step 1: The moment-resisting connections in the building are categorized into two or more
groups (Section 4.3.2 and 4.4) comprised of connections expected to have similar
probabilities of being damaged.
Interim Guidelines:
4-12
Complete steps 2 through 7 below, for each group of connections.
Step 2: Determine the minimum number of connections in each group that should be inspected
and select the specific sample of connections to be inspected. (Section 4.3.3)
Step 3: Inspect the selected set of connections using the technical guidelines of Section 5.2.
and determine connection damage indices, d
j
, for each inspected connection (Section
4.3.4)
Step 4: If inspected connections are found to be seriously damaged, perform additional
inspections of connections adjacent to the damaged connections. (Section 4.3.5)
Step 5: Determine the average damage index (d
avg
) for connections in each group, and then the
average damage index at a typical floor. (Section 4.3.6)
Step 6: Given the average damage index for connections in the group, determine the
probability, P, that the connection damage index for any group, at a floor level,
exceeds 1/3, and determine the maximum estimated damage index for any floor, D
max
.
(Section 4.3.7)
Step 7: Based on the calculated damage indices and statistics, determine appropriate
occupancy, structural repair and modification strategies (Section 4.3.8). If deemed
appropriate, the structural engineer may conduct detailed structural analyses of the
building in the as-damaged state, to obtain improved understanding of its residual
condition and to confirm that the recommended strategies are appropriate or to
suggest alternative strategies.
Step 8: Report the results of the inspection and evaluation process to the building official and
building owner. (Section 4.3.9)
Sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.9 indicate how these steps should be performed.
Commentary: Following an earthquake structural engineers and technicians
qualified to perform these evaluations may be at a premium. Prudent owners may
want to consider having an investigation plan already developed (Steps 1 and 2)
before an earthquake occurs, and to have an agreement with appropriate
structural engineering and inspection professionals and organizations to give
priority to inspecting their buildings rapidly following the occurrence of an
earthquake.
4.3.2 Step 1Categorize Connections by Groups
The welded moment-resisting connections participating in the lateral-force-resisting system
for the building are categorized into a series of connection groups. Each group consists of
connections expected to behave in a similar manner (as an example, a group may consist of all
Interim Guidelines:
4-13
those connections that are highly stressed by lateral forces applied in a given direction). As a
minimum, two groups of connections should be defined - each group consisting of connections
that primarily resist lateral movement in one of two orthogonal directions. Additional groups
should be defined to account for unique conditions including building configuration, construction
quality, member size, grade of steel, etc., that are likely to result in substantially different
connection behavior, as compared to other connections in the building. Each connection in the
building should be uniquely assigned to one of the groups, and the total number of connections in
each group determined.
In buildings that have significant torsional irregularity, it may be advisable to define at least
four groupsone group in each orthogonal direction on each side of an assumed center of
resistance. Section 4.4 gives a procedure for defining groups where damage may accentuate
torsional response, or where the structural engineer desires a more reliable characterization of the
buildings degree of damage. Such procedures should be considered when a building has
significant torsional irregularity or when there is so little redundancy that failure of one connection
at a floor level would exacerbate a torsional response.
For buildings of two or more stories, the roof connections may be excluded from the initial
inspection process. However, when Table 4-5 recommends inspection of all connections within a
group or building, they should be inspected.
Commentary: Many base plates of columns in moment frames use the same basic
connection detail as do the beam/column connections. When such base plates are
not within the cast-in-place concrete floor and grade-beam system, then
consideration should be given to their inspection. There is evidence from the
1995 Kobe earthquake that column splice damage can occur, with resulting
severe impacts on the buildings stability. Consideration should be given by the
structural engineer to their inspection as well. Although these connections should
also be inspected, they should not be included within the statistical calculations
contained in this eight-step procedure. Any damage to such connections, should
be repaired.
4.3.3 Step 2Select Samples of Connections for Inspection
Assign a unique identifier to each connection within each group. Consecutive integer
identifiers are convenient to some of the methods employed in this Section.
For each group of connections, select a representative sample for inspection in accordance
with any of Methods A, B, or C, below. A letter indicating the composition of the groups, and
the specific connections to be inspected should be submitted to the building official prior to the
initiation of inspection. The owner or structural engineer may at any time in the investigation
process elect to investigate more connections than required by the selected method. However,
the additional connections inspected may not be included in the calculation of damage statistics
Interim Guidelines:
4-14
under Step 5 (Section 4.3.6) unless they are selected in adherence to the rules laid out for the
original sample selection, given below.
Commentary: The purpose of inspection plan submittal prior to the performance
of inspections is to prevent a structural engineer, or owner, from performing a
greater number of inspections and reporting data only on those which provide a
favorable economic result with regard to building disposition. The building
official need not perform any action with regard to this submittal other than to
file it for later reference at the time the structural engineers evaluation report is
filed. During the inspection process, it may be decided to inspect additional
connections to those originally selected as part of the sample. While additional
inspections can be made at any time, the results of these additional inspections
should not be included in the calculation of the damage statistics, in Step 5, as
their distribution may upset the random nature of the original sample selection.
If the additional connections are selected in a manner which preserves the
distribution character of the original sample, they may be included in the
calculation of the damage statistics in Step 5.
4.3.3.1 Method A - Random Selection
Connections are selected for inspection such that a statistically adequate random sample is
obtained. The minimum number of connections to be inspected for each group is determined in
accordance with Table 4-2. The following limitations apply to the selection of specific
connections:
1. Up to a maximum of 20% of the total connections in any sample may be pre-selected
as those expected by rational assessment to be the most prone to damage. Acceptable
criteria to select these connections could include:
Connections shown by a rational analysis to have the highest demand-capacity
ratios or at locations experiencing the largest drift ratios.
Connections which adjoin significant structural irregularities and which therefore
might be subjected to high localized demands. These include the following
irregularities:
- re-entrant corners
- set-backs
- soft or weak stories
- torsional irregularities (connections at perimeter columns)
- diaphragm discontinuities
Connections incorporating the largest size framing elements.
Interim Guidelines:
4-15
2. The balance of the sample should be selected randomly from the remaining
connections in the group.
Up to 10% of the connections in the sample may be replaced by other connections in the
group to which access may more conveniently be made.
Table 4-2 - Minimum Sample Size for Connection Groups
Number of connections
in Group
1
Minimum number of
connections to be
inspected
Number of Connections
in Group
1
Minimum number of
connections to be
inspected
6 2 200 27
10 3 300 37
15 4 400 45
20 5 500 53
30 7 750 72
40 8 1000 99
50 10 1250 104
75 13 1500 120
100 17 2000 147
Note: 1. For other connection numbers use linear interpolation between values
given, rounding up to the next highest integer.
Commentary: The number of connections needed to provide a statistically
adequate sample depends on the total number of connections in the group. The
sample sizes contained in Table 4-2 were developed from MIL-STD-105D, a well
established quality control approach that has been widely adopted by industry.
If relatively few connections within a group are expected, the standard
deviation for the computed damage index will be large. This may result in
prediction of excessive damage when such damage does not actually exist. The
structural engineer may elect to investigate more connections than the minimum
indicated in order to reduce the standard deviation of the sample and more
accurately estimate the total damage to the structure. These additional
inspections may be performed at any time in the investigative process. However,
care should be taken to preserve the random characteristics of the sample, so that
results are not biased either by selection of connections in unusually heavy (or
lightly) damaged areas of the structure.
It is recognized that in many cases the structural engineer may wish to pre-
select those connections believed to be particularly vulnerable. However, unless
these pre-selected connections are fairly well geometrically distributed, a number
that is more than about 20% of the total sample size will begin to erode the
validity of the assumption of random selection of the sample. If the structural
engineer has a compelling reason for believing that certain connections are most
Interim Guidelines:
4-16
likely to be damaged, and that more than 20% should be pre-selected on this
basis, the alternative approach of Method C should be used.
It is recognized that there is often a practical incentive to select connections
that are in specific unoccupied or more accessible areas. It is suggested that no
more than 10% of the total sample be composed of connections pre-selected for
this reason. These connections, rather than having a higher disposition for
damage, might well have a lower than average tendency to be damaged. An
excessive number of this type of pre-selected connection would quickly invalidate
the basic assumption of random selection. It is also recognized that during the
inspection process conditions will be discovered that make it impractical to
inspect a particular connection, e.g., the architectural finishes are more
expensive to remove and replace than in other areas, or a particular tenant is
unwilling to have their space disturbed. However, as discussed above, not more
than 10% of the total connections inspected should be selected based on
convenience.
There are a number of methods available for determining the randomly
selected portion of the sample. To do this, each connection in the group
(excluding pre-selected connections) should be assigned a consecutive integer
identifier. The sample may then be selected with the use of computer spread sheet
programs - many of which have a routine for generation of random integers
between specified limits, published lists of random numbers, or by drawing of
lots.
4.3.3.2 Method B - Deterministic Selection
Connections are selected to satisfy the following criteria:
1. At least one connection is selected on every column face of every line of moment-
resisting framing in the group;
2. At least one connection is selected on every floor from every frame;
3. No more than 50% of the connections in a sample may be selected from any floor or
column face than would be done if the number of inspected connections was equally
apportioned among either the column faces or floors; and
Up to 10% of the connections in the sample may be replaced by other connections in the same
frame and group to which access may more conveniently be made.
Commentary: It is recognized that in many cases the structural engineer may be
reluctant to select connections in a random manner, as provided by Method A.
For those cases, Method B is acceptable since it assures that every floor and
every column is inspected at least once. The structural engineer may select any
Interim Guidelines:
4-17
combination of connections to be inspected that meets these criteria;
notwithstanding, care should be exercised to assure that these allowances are not
used to subvert the intent of the inspection process to determine the degree of
damage to the building, if any.
4.3.3.3 Method C - Analytical Selection
Connections are selected for inspection in accordance with the following criteria:
1. The minimum number of connections within the group to be inspected is as indicated
in Table 4-2.
2. Up to 60% of the connections may be selected based on the results of rational analysis
indicating those connections most likely to be damaged.
3. The remaining connections in the group to be inspected are selected such that the
sample contains connections distributed throughout the building, including upper,
middle and lower stories.
Prior to initiation of the inspections, the rational analysis and list of connections to be
inspected should be subjected to a qualified independent third party review in accordance with
Section 4.5. The peer review should consider the basis for the analysis, consistency of the
assumptions employed, and to assure that overall, the resulting list of connections to be inspected
provides an appropriate sampling of the buildings connections.
During the inspection process, up to 10% of the connections in the sample may be replaced by
other connections to which access may more conveniently be made. Substitution for more than
10% of the connection sample may be made provided that the independent third party reviewer
concurs with the adequacy of the resulting revised sample.
Commentary: In analyses conducted of damaged buildings, there has been a
generally poor correlation of the locations of damage and the locations of highest
demand predicted by the analysis. However, there has been some correlation.
Analysis is a powerful tool to assist the structural engineer in understanding the
expected behavior of a structure. The specific analysis procedure used should be
tailored to the individual characteristics of the building. It should include
consideration of all building elements that are expected to participate in the
buildings seismic response, including, if appropriate, elements not considered to
be part of the lateral-force-resisting system. The ground motion characteristics
used for the analysis should not be less than that required by the building code
for new construction, and to the extent practical, should contain the spectral
characteristics of the actual ground motion experienced at the site. Qualified
independent review is recommended to assure that there is careful consideration
of the basis for the selection of the connections to be inspected and that a
representative sample is obtained.
Interim Guidelines:
4-18
4.3.4 Step 3Inspect the Selected Samples of Connections
Inspect the selected samples of connections in each group as indicated in Chapter 5.
Characterize the damage at each inspected connection as described in Section 4.3.4.1
Inspections may be terminated when at least 50% of the connections selected for each sample
have been inspected if:
1) the inspections have progressed in a manner that retains an adequately random nature
and distributed geometry for those connections that are inspected (a distribution
throughout the building that is acceptable to the building official); and
2) no connections with damage indices d
j
> 5 (Table 4-3a or b) are discovered; and,
3) not more than 10% of the total connections inspected are discovered to have d
j
> 2.
If all of these conditions are not met, then inspections should be completed for all connections
contained in all samples.
Commentary: The sample size suggested for inspection in the methods of Section
4.3.3 are based on full inspection using both visual (Section 5.3.1) and NDT
techniques (Section 5.3.2) at all connections in the sample. Other methods of
selection and inspection may be used as provided in Section 4.3, with the
approval of the building official. One such approach might be the visual-only
inspection of the bottom girder flange to column connection, but with the
inspection of a large fraction of the total connections in the group, possibly
including all of them. If properly performed, such an inspection procedure would
detect almost all instances of the most severe damage but would not detect weld
defects (W1a), or root cracking (W1b), nor lamellar damage in columns (C5).
The occurrence of a few of these conditions, randomly scattered through the
building would not greatly affect the assessment of the buildings post-earthquake
condition, or the calculation of the damage index. However, if a large number of
such defects were present in the building, this would be significant to the overall
assessment. Therefore, such an inspection approach should probably include
confirming NDT investigations of at least a representative sample of the total
connections investigated. If within that sample, significant incidence of visually
hidden damage is found, then full NDT investigations should be performed, as
suggested by these Interim Guidelines. Similarly, if visual damage is found at the
bottom flange, then complete connection inspection should be performed to
determine if other types of damage are also present.
4.3.4.1 Damage Characterization
Characterize the observed damage at each of the inspected connections by assigning a
connection damage index, d
j
, obtained either from Table 4-3a or Table 4-3b. Table 4-3a presents
Interim Guidelines:
4-19
damage indices for individual classes of damage and a rule for combining indices where a
connection has more than one type of damage. Table 4-3b provides combined indices for the
more common combinations of damage.
Table 4-3a - Connection Damage Indices
Type Location Description
1
Index
2
d
j
G1 Girder Buckled Flange 4
G2 Girder Yielded Flange 1
G3 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture in HAZ 8
G4 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture outside HAZ 8
G5 Girder Top and Bottom Flange fracture 10
G6 Girder Yielding or Buckling of Web 4
G7 Girder Fracture of Web 10
G8 Girder Lateral-torsional Buckling 8
C1 Column Incipient flange crack (detectable by UT) 4
C2 Column Flange tear-out or divot 8
C3 Column Full or partial flange crack outside HAZ 8
C4 Column Full or partial flange crack in HAZ 8
C5 Column Lamellar flange tearing 6
C6 Column Buckled Flange 8
C7 Column Fractured column splice 8
W1a CJP weld Minor root indication - thickness <3/16 or t
f
/4; width < b
f
/4 1
W1b CJP weld Root indication - thickness > 3/16 or t
f
/4 or width > b
f
/4 4
W2 CJP weld Crack through weld metal thickness 8
W3 CJP weld Fracture at girder interface 8
W4 CJP weld Fracture at column interface 8
W5 CJP weld Root indicationnon-rejectable 0
S1a Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flanges sound) 4
S1b Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flange cracked) 8
S2a Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flanges sound) 1
S2b Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flange cracked) 8
S3 Shear tab Fracture through tab at bolt holes 10
S4 Shear tab Yielding or buckling of tab 6
S5 Shear tab Damaged, or missing bolts
4
6
S6 Shear tab Full length fracture of weld to column 10
P1 Panel Zone Fracture, buckle, or yield of continuity plate
3
4
P2 Panel Zone Fracture of continuity plate welds
3
4
P3 Panel Zone Yielding or ductile deformation of web
3
1
P4 Panel Zone Fracture of doubler plate welds
3
4
P5 Panel Zone Partial depth fracture in doubler plate
3
4
P6 Panel Zone Partial depth fracture in web
3
8
P7 Panel Zone Full (or near full) depth fracture in web or doubler plate
3
8
P8 Panel Zone Web buckling
3
6
P9 Panel Zone Fully severed column 10
Interim Guidelines:
4-20
Notes To Table 4-3a:
1. See Figures 3-2 through 3-6 for illustrations of these types of damage.
2. Where multiple damage types have occurred in a single connection, then:
a. Sum the damage indices for all types of damage with d=1 and treat as one type. If multiple types still
exist; then:
b. For two types of damage refer to Table 4-3b. If the combination is not present in Table 4-3b and the
damage indices for both types are greater than or equal to 4, use 10 as the damage index for the
connection. If one is less than 4, use the greater value as the damage index for the connection.
c. If three or more types of damage apply and at least one is greater than 4, use an index value of 10,
otherwise use the greatest of the applicable individual indices.
3. Panel zone damage should be reflected in the damage index for all moment connections attached to the
damaged panel zone within the assembly.
4. Missing or loose bolts may be a result of construction error rather than damage. The condition of the metal
around the bolt holes, and the presence of fireproofing or other material in the holes can provide clues to this.
Where it is determined that construction error is the cause, the condition should be corrected and a damage
index of 0 assigned.
Table 4-3b - Connection Damage Indices for Common Damage Combinations
1
Girder, Column
or Weld Damage
Shear Tab
Damage
Damage
Index
Girder, Column
or Weld Damage
Shear Tab
Damage
Damage
Index
G3 or G4 S1a 8 C5 S1a 6
S1b 10 S1b 10
S2a 8 S2a 6
S2b 10 S2b 10
S3 10 S3 10
S4 10 S4 10
S5 10 S5 10
S6 10 S6 10
C2 S1a 8 W2, W3, or W4 S1a 8
S1b 10 S1b 10
S2a 8 S2a 8
S2b 10 S2b 10
S3 10 S3 10
S4 10 S4 10
S5 10 S5 10
S6 10 S6 10
C3 or C4 S1a 8
S1b 10
S2a 8
S2b 10
S3 10
S4 10
S5 10
S6 10
1. See Table 4-3a, footnote 2 for combinations other than those contained in this table.
Interim Guidelines:
4-21
More complete descriptions (including sketches) of the various types of damage are provided
in Section 3.1. When the engineer can show by rational analysis that other values for the relative
severities of damage are appropriate, these may be substituted for the damage indices provided in
the tables. A full reporting of the basis for these different values should be provided to the
building official, upon request.
Commentary: The connection damage indices provided in Table 4-3 (ranging
from 0 to 10) represent judgmental estimates of the relative severities of this
damage. An index of 0 indicates no damage and an index of 10 indicates very
severe damage.
When initially developed, these connection damage indices were
conceptualized as estimates of the connections lost capacity to reliably
participate in the buildings lateral-force-resisting system in future earthquakes
(with 0 indicating no loss of capacity and 10 indicating complete loss of
capacity). However, due to the limited data available, no direct correlation
between these damage indices and the actual residual strength and stiffness of a
damaged connection was ever made. They do provide a convenient measure,
however, of the extent of damage that various connections in a building have
experienced.
4.3.5 Step 4Inspect Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connections
Perform additional inspections of moment-resisting connections near connections with
significant damage as follows:
1) when a connection is determined to have a damage index dj > 5, inspect all moment-
resisting connections immediately adjacent (above and below, to the left and right) to
the damaged connection in the same moment frame (See Figure 4-1). Also inspect any
connections for beams framing into the column in the transverse direction at that floor
level, at the damaged connection.
2) when a connection is determined to have a damage index dj > 9, inspect the two
moment-resisting connections immediately adjacent (above and below, to the left and
right) to the damaged connection in the same moment frame (See Figure 4-2). Also
inspect any connections for beams framing into the column in the transverse direction
at that floor level at the damaged connection.
Interim Guidelines:
4-22
Frame Elevation
Floor Plan
Damaged moment - resisting connection with d
j
> 5
Adjacent moment - resisting connection - to be inspected
Transverse connection - to be inspected
Figure 4-1 - Inspection of Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connection (d
j
> 5)
Frame Elevation
Floor Plan
Damaged moment - resisting connection with d
j
> 9
Adjacent moment - resisting connection - to be inspected
Transverse connection - to be inspected
Figure 4-2 - Inspection of Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connection (d
j
> 9)
Assign damage indices, d
j
, per Section 4.3.3, to each additional connection inspected. If
significant damage is found in these additional connections (dj > 5), then inspect the connections
near these additional connections, as indicated in 1) and 2) above. Continue this process, until
one of the following conditions occurs:
a) The additional connection inspections do not themselves trigger more inspections, or
b) All connections in the group have been inspected.
The results of these added connection inspections, performed in this step are not included in
the calculation of average damage index d
avg
per Section 4.3.6 but are included in the calculation
Interim Guidelines:
4-23
of the maximum likely damage index D
max
and probability of excessive damage, P, per Section
4.3.7.
4.3.6 Step 5Determine Average Damage Index for Each Group
For each group of connections, determine the estimated average value of the damage index
for the group (d
avg
) and its standard deviation () from the equations:
d
1
n
d
10
avg
j
j 1
n
=
=
2
=
1
n 1
d
10
d
j
avg
j 1
n
2
(4-1)
(4-2)
where: n is the number of connections in the sample selected for inspection under step 2
(Section 4.3.3), and
d
j
is the damage index, per Table 4-3 for the jth inspected connection in the sample
The additional connections selected using the procedure of Section 4.3.5 (Step 4) are not
included in the above calculation.
4.3.7 Step 6Determine the Probability that the Connections in a Group at a Floor Level
Sustained Excessive Damage
Two procedures are provided. The first procedure (Section 4.3.7.1) is used in the typical
case, when some connections in the group have not been inspected. In this case, the maximum
damage index at a floor D
max
is estimated based on the damage indices determined for the
connections actually inspected, and the probability P that D
max
exceeds a value of 1/3 is
determined. The second procedure (Section 4.3.7.2) is used when all connections in the group
have been inspected. In this case, the maximum damage index at any floor D
max
can be
calculated directly from the known values of the damage indices of the inspected connections.
4.3.7.1 Some Connections in Group Not Inspected
If some connections in the group have not been inspected, determine the expected maximum
damage index at a floor D
max
and the probability that at least one floor has a damage index
exceeding 1/3.
First determine the average damage index at a typical floor D and its standard deviation S
from the equations:
D d
avg
=
S
k
=

(4-3)
(4-4)
Interim Guidelines:
4-24
where k is the total number of connections (both inspected and not inspected) in the group at a
typical floor.
Then, determine the probability P that the set of connections within the group at any floor has
had a cumulative damage index that is greater than or equal to 1/3. This may be done by using
the parameters D and S to calculate a factor b, which represents the number of multiples of the
standard deviation of a Normal distribution above the mean that would be required to exceed 1/3.
The factor b is calculated from the equation:
( ) b 1 / 3 D S = (4-5)
Using the value of b calculated from equation 4-5, determine P
f
, from Table 4-4. P
f
is the
probability that if all connections had been inspected, the cumulative damage index at any floor
would have been found to exceed 1/3. This strongly suggests the possibility that there has been a
reduction in seismic resisting capacity of a similar amount.
Then determine the probability P that if all connections within the group had been inspected,
the connections within the group on at least one floor (out of q total floors in the group) would
have been found to have a cumulative damage index of 1/3 or more from the equation:
( ) P 1 1 P
f
q
= (4-6)
Table 4-4 - P
f
as a function of b
b P
f
- (%) b P
f
- (%)
-1.2816 90 1.2265 11
-0.8416 80 1.2816 10
-0.5244 70 1.3408 9
-0.2533 60 1.4051 8
0.0000 50 1.4395 7.5
0.2533 40 1.4758 7
0.5244 30 1.5548 6
0.8416 20 1.6449 5
0.8779 19 1.7507 4
0.9154 18 1.8808 3
0.9542 17 1.9600 2.5
0.9945 16 2.0537 2
1.0364 15 2.1701 1.5
1.0803 14 2.3263 1
1.1264 13 3.0962 .1
1.1750 12 3.7190 .01
* Note - Intermediate values of P
f
may be determined by linear interpolation
Finally, for each floor i in the group for which an inspection has been performed, determine
the cumulative damage index, D
i
, from the equation:
Interim Guidelines:
4-25
( )
D
k m d
k
1
k
d
10
i
i i avg
i i
j
j 1
m
i
=

+

(4-7)
where: k
i
is the total number of connections in the group at floor i
m
i
is the number of inspected connections in the group at floor i including
the additional connections inspected under step 4
Take D
max
as the largest of the D
i
values calculated for each floor of the group.
4.3.7.2 All Connections in Group Inspected
If all connections in a group have been inspected, determine the damage index for each floor
i in the group from the equation:
D
1
k
d
10
i
i
j
j 1
k
i
=
=
(4-8)
where: k
i
is the total number of connections in the group at floor i
Take D
max
as the maximum of the D
i
values calculated for each floor of the group.
Commentary: The criterion for damage evaluation used in this Guideline is to
assume that a cumulative damage index of 1/3 marks the threshold at which a
structure may become dangerous. Such a damage index could correspond to
cases where 1/3 of the connections in a building have been severely damaged;
cases where all of the connections have experienced moderate damage; or some
combination of these, and therefore represents a reasonable point at which to
begin serious consideration of a buildings residual ability to withstand
additional loads.
Given the current limited understanding of steel moment frame damage, the
probability distribution for connection damage is not known. However, since the
damage index for a floor is the sum of the damage indices for each connection at
the floor, then, by the Central Limit Theorem, as the number of connections
increases, the distribution tends to a normal distribution, regardless of the form
of the distribution for individual connections. Therefore, the probability that a
damage index of 1/3 has been exceeded at a floor, in a group with k connections
may be approximated by determining how many multiples (b) times the
standard deviation (S), when added to the mean damage index (D) equals 1/3.
Or, in equation form :
D + bS = 1/3 (4-9)
Solution of this equation for the multiplier b results in the required
relationship of equation 4-5.
Interim Guidelines:
4-26
Damage Indices (from Table 4-3) that are largely judgmental are used to
characterize the loss of reliable seismic performance capability of individual
connections. These indices are added, averaged and otherwise statistically
manipulated for use as an indication of the average damage index for groups of
connections, entire frames and ultimately of the lateral system itself. It should be
clear that use of such an approximate, judgmentally defined characterization of
strength cannot rigorously calibrate the loss of lateral resistance, or the residual
strength and stiffness of the building.
In spite of the somewhat arbitrary nature of the 1/3 damage index criterion
and the judgmental nature of the suggested way of testing whether that criteria
has been exceeded, it is believed that the results of these procedures will lead to
reasonable conclusions in most cases. However, it is always the prerogative of
the responsible structural engineer to apply other rational techniques, such as
direct analyses of the remaining structural strength, stiffness, and deformation
capacity as a verification of the conclusions provided by these procedures.
Particularly in anomalous or marginal cases, such additional checks based on
engineering judgment are strongly encouraged .
4.3.8 Step 7Determine Recommended Recovery Strategies for the Building
Recommended post-earthquake recovery strategies are as indicated in Table 4-5, based on the
calculated damage indices and statistics determined in the previous steps. For those groups in
which all connections have been inspected, the statistic P in the table is neglected.
Table 4-5 - Recommended Repair and Modification Strategies
Observation
6 Recommended Strategy (Cumulative) Note
P>0 or D
max
>0 Repair all connections discovered to have d
j
> 5 1,2
P > 5% or D
max
> 0.1 Repair all connections discovered to have d
j
> 2 1,2
P > 10 % or
D
max
> 0.2
Inspect all connections in the group. Repair all connections with
d
j
> 2
2
P > 25 % or
D
max
> 0.33
A potentially unsafe condition may exist. Carefully evaluate the
earthquake resistance of the building and the safety of its
occupants and if not satisfied that adequate vertical stability,
lateral strength and stiffness exists, notify the building owner of
the potentially unsafe condition. Inspect all connections in the
building. Repair all connections with d
j
> 1. Consider
modification of all repaired connections and others as appropriate.
3
D
max
> 0.50 An unsafe condition probably exists. Notify the building owner of
this unless more detailed evaluations indicate otherwise. Inspect
all connections in the building. Repair all damaged connections
and modify all connections for better performance, or modify the
buildings lateral-force-resisting system for improved
performance.
4,5
Interim Guidelines:
4-27
Notes to Table 4-5:
1. Includes damage discovered either as part of Step 2 or Step 3.
2. Although repair is recommended only for the more seriously damaged connections, the repair of all
connections that are damaged or otherwise deficient should be considered.
3. The determination that an unsafe condition may exist should continue until either:
a. full inspection reveals that the gravity system is not compromised, and that the damage index at
any floor does not exceed 1/3, or
b. detailed structural analyses indicate that a dangerous condition does not exist, or
c. recommended repairs are completed for all connections having d
j
> 3.
4. An unsafe condition probably exists. The building is almost certainly too severely damaged to
provide adequate occupant safety in a strong earthquake. The structural engineer should either
recommend that the building be vacated, or, alternatively, demonstrate by analysis that the risks to
occupant safety, while repairs are conducted, are acceptable. If a decision is made to accept the short-
term risks of continued occupancy, an independent third party review of the basis of this decision is
recommended.
5. Repairs required to the building are extensive. In addition to repair, strong consideration should be
given to performing systematic modifications of the buildings lateral-force-resisting system to
provide more reliable performance in the future.
6. The more restrictive observation governs the recommendation. If all connections in the group were
inspected, than do not apply the criteria pertaining to P.
Commentary: The value of P (the probability that the connections on at least one
floor have a cumulative damage index of 1/3 or more) and D
max
(the maximum
damage index at a floor level within a group) were determined in Method A by
using a random selection process, and thus represent a statistically valid basis for
the characterization of the damage index for the group of connections, and thus
for the building. Method B selects the connections by using a specified
distribution throughout the building based on forcing selection of connections in
every column line and floor. Method C selects the connections, based on
engineering characterization of those most likely to have been damaged, modified
to reflect a distribution throughout the structure. While the connections selected
by Methods B and C are not truly random, they are widely distributed and have
some characteristics of a random distribution. Such selections are judged to be
sufficiently random-like to warrant processing as if the connections were
selected randomly. Thus regardless of whether method A, B, or C was used,
decisions on disposition of the building, and the need for repair measures can
defensibly be based on the values of these two key parameters, as determined for
each group of connections.
For buildings that have experienced relatively limited levels of damage, Table
4-5 recommends repair of damaged connections, without further modification.
This is not intended to indicate that buildings that experienced only slight damage
have been demonstrated to be seismically rugged. In fact, if a building
experienced light damage as a result of being subjected to relatively low levels of
ground motion, it may have substantial vulnerability. This recommendation is
made based on economic considerations and the fact that modification of
buildings which are only slightly damaged entails a significant increase in the
Interim Guidelines:
4-28
required investment. It should be made clear to the owner of such buildings that
even an undamaged or fully repaired welded steel moment frame building still
carries risk of damage, and to an uncertain extent, risk to life safety in subsequent
large earthquakes.
When damage is moderate (D
max
< 33%) consideration should be given to
modification of those connections which are being repaired, to provide improved
reliability in the future. However, the structural engineer is cautioned that
modification of only those connections which have been damaged could
unintentionally create an undesirable condition such as a weak story or torsional
irregularity. Therefore, care should be taken that such conditions are not created
by connection modifications. Modification of the entire structural lateral force-
resisting system is strongly recommended when D
max
>0.50. This is not because
the extent of damage indicates that the building is particularly vulnerable,
although this may be the case, but because the work required to repair the
building is extensive enough that a relatively small incremental investment will
allow substantial improvement in the buildings future potential performance.
If a decision to structurally modify a building is made, and it can be
demonstrated that the structural modifications will reduce the earthquake
demands on the existing WSMF connections from the original design levels, it
may be acceptable not to repair some conditions. In such cases, analyses should
be performed to demonstrate the adequacy of the modified structure assuming
either that the affected connections have no moment-resisting capacity, or by
including an estimate of their reliable post-elastic behavior in the damaged state.
In no case should conditions that affect the gravity load-carrying capacity of the
structure be left unrepaired.
Recommendations to close a damaged building to occupancy should not be
made lightly, as such decisions will have substantial economic impact, both on
the building owner and tenants. A building should be closed to occupancy
whenever, in the judgment of the structural engineer, damage is such that the
building no longer has adequate lateral-force-resisting capacity to withstand
additional strong ground shaking, or if gravity load carrying elements of the
structure appear to be unstable.
4.3.9 Step 8 - Evaluation Report
When an evaluation of a WSMF building has been performed, the responsible structural
engineer should prepare a written evaluation report and submit it to the owner, upon completion
of the evaluation. When the building official has required evaluation of a WSMF building, this
report should also be submitted to the building official. This report should directly or by attached
references, document the inspection program that was performed, provide an interpretation of the
Interim Guidelines:
4-29
results of the inspection program, and a recommendation as to appropriate repair and occupancy
strategies. The report should include but not be limited to the following material:
1) Building Address
2) A narrative description of the building indicating plan dimensions, number of stories,
total square feet, occupancy, the type and location of lateral-force-resisting elements.
Include a description of the grade of steel specified for beams and columns, and if
known, the type of welding (SMAW, FCAW, etc.) present. Indicate if moment
connections are provided with continuity plates. The narrative description should be
supplemented with sketches (plans and elevations) as necessary to provide a clear
understanding of pertinent details of the buildings construction. The description
should include an indication of any structural irregularities, as defined in the Building
Code.
3) A description of nonstructural damage observed in the building, especially as relates to
evidence of the drift or shaking severity experienced by the structure.
4) If a letter was submitted to the building official before the inspection process was
initiated, indicating how the connections were divided into groups and the specific
connections to be inspected; a copy of this letter should be included.
5) A description of the inspection and evaluation procedures used, including
documentation of all instructions the inspectors, and of the signed inspection forms for
each individual inspected connection.
6) A description, including engineering sketches, of the observed damage to the structure
as a whole (e.g. - permanent drift) as well as at each connection, keyed to the damage
types in Table 4-3; photographs should be included for all connections with damage
index d
j
>5. (Refer to Section 5.3.5)
7) Calculations of d
avg
, D
i
, and D
max
for each group, and if all connections in a group
were not inspected, P
f
and P.
8) Calculations demonstrating the safety of the building where D
max
> 33% and the
structural engineer has determined that an unsafe condition does not exist.
9) A summary of the recommended actions (repair and modification measures and
occupancy restrictions). Any recommendations which represent significant departures
from the requirements of Section 4.3.8 should be carefully and completely explained.
The report should include identification of any potentially hazardous conditions which were
observed, including corrosion, deterioration, earthquake damage, pre-existing rejectable
conditions, and evidence of poor workmanship or deviations from the approved drawings. In
addition, the report should include an assessment of the potential impacts of observed conditions
Interim Guidelines:
4-30
on future structural performance. The report should include the Field Inspection Reports of
damaged connections, as an attachment and should bear the seal of the structural engineer in
responsible charge of the evaluation.
Commentary: Following completion of the detailed damage assessments, the
structural engineer should prepare a written report. The report should include
identification of any potentially hazardous conditions which were observed,
including earthquake damage, pre-existing rejectable conditions, and evidence of
poor workmanship or deviations from the approved drawings. In addition, the
report should include an assessment of the potential impacts of observed
conditions on future structural performance. The report should include the field
inspection, visual inspection and NDT records, data sheets, and reports as
attachments.
The nature and scope of the evaluations performed should be clearly stated.
If the scope of evaluation does not permit an informed judgment to be made as to
the extent with which the building complies with the applicable building codes, or
as to a statistical level of confidence that the damage has not exceeded an
acceptable damage threshold, this should be stated.
4.4 Alternative Group Selection for Torsional Response
This Section provides an optional procedure to that of Section 4.3.2, Step 1, that may be
appropriate in selected situations where the structural engineer wants more reliable determination
of the buildings susceptibility to excessive torsional response. If a building responds in a
torsionally dominated manner, one side of the structure may experience substantially more
damage than the other side. Such a situation would result in a building that is even more
susceptible to torsional response in future strong ground shaking. In the group selection
procedure of Section 4.3.2, the connections on opposite sides of a building are included in the
same group. If the building responds torsionally, connections on one side will experience more
damage and connections on the other side less damage, but the average damage statistics
calculated for the group will mask this behavior. In this optional procedure a connection group is
established on each side of the buildings center of lateral resistance so that if one side of the
building has experienced greater damage, due to torsional response, this will be detected by the
damage statistics calculated for the different groups. Typically, under this procedure, at least 4
groups of moment-resisting connections will be designated for the building, one on each of the
north, south, east and west sides of the center of rigidity. Buildings with unusual plan shapes
(triangular, hexagonal, etc.) may require more (or possibly fewer) groups of connections to
adequately capture torsionally induced damage.
For each group of connections, the following assumptions are made:
1. All of the connections in a group are expected to perform in the same statistical
manner;
Interim Guidelines:
4-31
2. The probability of damage to each connection is uniform over the group, that is, all
connections have the same probability of failure; and,
3. Prior to inspection, whether an individual connection in the group is damaged or not is
independent of the damage state of any other connection in the group.
The number of groups should be increased as is required to meet these objectives.
To reflect torsional response, resulting either from the structural response characteristics of
the undamaged building or a chance concentration of damage that creates such an imbalance, each
moment-resisting frame connection is assigned to a group according to the following procedure:
a. Determine the approximate center of rigidity for torsional response of the first floor
(assuming the building is in its pre-earthquake, original condition). Draw two
orthogonal lines in the plan principal directions of the moment frames and extend these
vertically as planes. These planes should be adjusted so that all of the connections
along a given structural frame are assigned to the same group and that all frames on
higher floors are unambiguously assigned to a group. Where the seismic system does
not have an orthogonal system, the principal axes can be drawn skewed, or as
appropriate to give approximately equal classes of connections assigned to one or the
other directions. The following discussion assumes a building with principal
orthogonal axes aligned with the north-south and east-west directions.
b. All of the connections providing north-south lateral force resistance and located to the
west of the center of resistance on all floors (and expected to perform in a similar
manner) are assigned to the same group (No. 1). Both weak and strong axis
connection connections are included. Similarly all of the connections providing north-
south lateral force resistance and located to the east of the center of resistance are
assigned to a second group. A similar procedure is followed to assign connections
providing east-west lateral force resistance to one of two additional groups.
c. Sample selection from these groups may be made by any of Methods A, B, or C. In
keeping with the suggestion in Section 4.3.3.1 paragraph 1, several of the connections
in each group having the greatest distance from the assumed center of rotation should
be included in each sample.
Commentary: It is well known that torsion can play an important role in the
distribution of loads on a buildings frame. The eccentricity of the damaged
building, either by its design or the chance occurrence of damage to individual
connections, has major implications for its response in future earthquakes. It is
also clear that the buildings response in orthogonal directions is important.
Therefore, for buildings with moment frames in both principal directions, it is
recommended that the investigation procedure include at least four distinct
groups of connections to reflect the torsional and orthogonal loading conditions.
Interim Guidelines:
4-32
For buildings with moment frames in only one direction, it is recommended that
the investigation procedure have at least two distinct groupings of connections.
4.5 Qualified Independent Engineering Review
Independent third party review, by qualified professionals, is recommended throughout these
Interim Guidelines when alternative approaches to evaluation or design are taken, or where
approaches requiring high degrees of structural engineering knowledge and judgment are taken.
Specifically, it is recommended that qualified engineering review be provided in any of the
following cases:
1. Where an engineer elects to select connections for inspection by a method other than
Methods A or B of Section 4.3 of these Interim Guidelines.
2. Where the calculated damage index D
max
exceeds 33% and the engineer has
determined that an unsafe condition does not exist.
3. Where an engineer has decided not to repair damage otherwise recommended to be
repaired by these Interim Guidelines.
4. When any story of the building has experienced a permanent lateral drift exceeding 1%
of the story height and proposed repairs do not correct this condition.
5. When an engineer elects to design connections for plastic rotation capacities
determined by analysis.
6. When an engineer elects to design connection configurations by calculations only,
without the use of, or reference to, qualification tests for a connection prototype.
Where independent review is recommended, the analysis and/or design should be subjected to
an independent and objective technical review by a knowledgeable reviewer experienced in the
design, analysis, and structural performance issues involved. The reviewer should examine the
available information on the condition of the building, the basic engineering concepts, and the
recommendations for proposed action.
Commentary: The independent reviewer may be one or more persons whose
collective experience spans the technical issues anticipated in the work. When
more than one person is collectively performing the independent review, one of
these should be designated the review chair, and should act on behalf of the team
in presenting conclusions or recommendations.
Independent third party review is not a substitute for plan checking. It is
intended to provide the structural engineer of record with an independent
opinion, by a qualified expert, on the adequacy of structural engineering
decisions and approaches. The seismic behavior of WSMF structures is now
Interim Guidelines:
4-33
understood to be an extremely complex issue. Proper understanding of the
problem requires knowledge of structural mechanics, metallurgy, welding,
fracture mechanics, earthquake engineering and statistics. Due to our limited
current state of knowledge, even professionals who possess such knowledge face
considerable uncertainty in making design judgments. Third party review should
not be performed by unqualified individuals.
4.5.1 Timing of Independent Review
The independent reviewer(s) should be selected prior to the initiation of substantial portions of
the design and/or analysis work that is to be reviewed, and review should start as soon as
sufficient information to define the project is available.
4.5.2 Qualifications and Terms of Employment
The reviewer should be independent from the design and construction team. The reviewer
should have no interest of any kind with the work being reviewed other than the performance of
tasks required by this section.
a. The reviewer should have no other involvement in the project before, during, or after
the review.
b. The reviewer should be selected and paid by the owner and should have an equal or
higher level of technical expertise in the issues involved than the structural engineer of
record.
c. The reviewer (or in the case of peer review teams, the review chair) should be a
structural engineer who is familiar with governing regulations for the work being
reviewed.
d. The reviewer should serve through completion of the project and should not be
terminated except for failure to perform the duties specified herein. Such termination
should be in writing with copies to the building official, owner, and the structural
engineer-of-record.
4.5.3 Scope of Review
Review activities related to evaluation of the safety condition of a building should include a
review of available construction documents for the building, all inspection and testing reports, any
analyses prepared by the structural engineer of record, the method of connection sample selection
and visual observation of the condition of the structure. Review should include consideration of
the proposed design approach, methods, materials and details.
Interim Guidelines:
4-34
4.5.4 Reports
The reviewer should prepare a written report to the owner and building official that covers all
aspects of the structural engineering review performed including conclusions reached by the
reviewer. Such reports should include statements on the following:
a. Scope of engineering review performed with limitations defined.
b. The status of the project documents at each review stage.
c. Ability of selected materials and framing systems to meet performance criteria with
given loads and configuration.
d. Degree of structural system redundancy, ductility and compatibility, particularly in
relation to lateral forces.
e. Basic constructability of structural members and connections (or repairs and
modifications of these elements).
f. Other recommendations that would be appropriate to the specific project.
g. Presentation of the conclusions of the reviewer identifying any areas which need
further review, investigation and/or clarifications.
h. Recommendations, if any.
4.5.5 Responses and Corrective Actions
The structural engineer-of-record should review the report from the reviewer and develop
corrective actions and other responses as appropriate. Changes during the construction/field
phases that affect the seismic resistance system should be reported to the reviewer in writing for
action and recommendations.
4.5.6 Distribution of Reports
All reports, responses and corrective actions prepared pursuant to this section should be
submitted to the building official and the owner along with other plans, specifications and
calculations required. If the reviewer is terminated by the owner prior to completion of the
project, then all reports prepared by the reviewer, prior to such termination, should be submitted
to the building official, the owner, and the structural engineer-of-record within (10 ) ten working
days of such termination.
4.5.7 Engineer of Record
The structural engineer-of-record should retain the full responsibility for the structural design
as outlined in professional practice laws and regulations.
Interim Guidelines:
4-35
4.5.8 Resolution of Differences
If the structural engineer-of-record does not agree with the recommendations of the reviewer,
then such differences should be resolved by the building official in the manner specified in the
applicable Building Code.
Interim Guidelines:
4-36
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
5-1
5. POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION
Post-earthquake inspection is that part of the post-earthquake evaluation process that is
conducted at the building. It includes detailed visual observation of the condition of the entire
structure as well as selected individual connections and elements. Visual observation is the
primary tool for determining the damage sustained by the structure. It should be supplemented by
non-destructive testing techniques as required to detect damage that is not directly observable.
The moment-resisting connections to be inspected should be determined in accordance with
Chapter 4. In addition, other potentially vulnerable connections should also be inspected,
particularly when evidence of damage is found in the observation of overall building condition, or
in the inspection of moment-resisting connections.
Inspection should be conducted under the supervision of a structural engineer familiar with the
issues involved. When lower tier personnel are used to perform the inspections, the structural
engineer should ascertain that they have adequate knowledge of the types of damage likely to be
encountered, and the indicators as to its existence.
Careful recording and reporting of the results of inspections is critical to the process. Damage
should be reported using the standard classification system of Section 3.1. Care must be taken to
accurately report the location as well as the type and degree of damage, and since damage can
increase as the building is subjected to additional loads, the date at which observations were
made.
When required by the building official, or recommended by the Interim Guidelines in Chapter
4, post-earthquake inspections of buildings may be conducted in accordance with the Interim
Guidelines of this Chapter. An appropriate sample (or samples) of WSMF connections should be
selected for inspection in accordance with the Chapter 4 Guidelines. These connections, and
others deemed appropriate by the engineer, should be subjected to visual inspection (VI) and non-
destructive testing (NDT) as required by this Chapter.
5.1 Connection Types Requiring Inspection
5.1.1 Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Connections
The inspection of a WSMF connection should include the complete joint penetration (CJP)
groove welds connecting both top and bottom beam flanges to the column flange, including the
backing bar and the weld access holes in the beam web; the shear tab connection, including the
bolts, supplemental welds and beam web; the column's web panel zone, including doubler plates;
and the continuity plates and continuity plate welds (See Figure 3-1).
Commentary: The largest concentration of reported damage following the
Northridge Earthquake occurred at the welded joint between the bottom girder
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
5-2
flange and column, or in the immediate vicinity of this joint. To a much lesser
extent, damage was also observed in some buildings at the joint between the top
girder flange and column. If damage at either of these locations is substantial (d
j
per Chapter 4 greater than 5) then damage is also commonly found in the panel
zone or shear tab areas.
These Interim Guidelines recommend complete inspection, by visual and NDT
assisted means, of all of these potential damage areas for a small representative
sample of connections. This practice is consistent with that followed by most
engineers in the Los Angeles area, following the Northridge Earthquake. It
requires removal of fireproofing from a relatively large surface of the steel
framing, which at most connections will be undamaged.
Some engineers have suggested an alternative approach consisting of visual -
only inspections, limited to the girder bottom flange to column joint, but for a
very large percentage of the total connections in the building. These bottom
flange joint connections can be visually inspected with much less fireproofing
removed from the framing surfaces. When significant damage is found at the
exposed bottom connection, then additional fireproofing is removed to allow full
exposure of the connection and inspection of the remaining surfaces. These
engineers feel that by inspecting more connections, albeit to a lesser scope than
recommended in these Interim Guidelines, their ability to locate the most severe
occurrences of damage in a building is enhanced. These engineers use NDT
assisted inspection on a very small sample of the total connections exposed to
obtain an indication of the likelihood of hidden problems including damage types.
If properly executed, such an approach can provide sufficient information to
evaluate the post-earthquake condition of a building and to make appropriate
occupancy, structural repair and/or modification decisions. It is important that
the visual inspector be highly trained and that visual inspections be carefully
performed, preferably by a structural engineer. Casual observation may miss
clues that hidden damage exists. If, as a result of the partial visual inspection,
there is any reason to believe that damage exists at a connection (such as small
gaps between the CJP weld backing and column face), then complete inspection
of the suspected connection, in accordance with the recommendations of these
Interim Guidelines should be performed. If this approach is followed, it is
recommended that a significantly larger sample of connections than otherwise
recommended by these Interim Guidelines, perhaps nearly all of the connections,
be inspected.
Interim Guidelines:
5-3
5.1.2 Gravity Connections
In addition to the sample of moment-resisting connections recommended for inspection in
Chapter 4, it may be appropriate to inspect selected gravity connections. These include gravity
connections for:
1. beams framing orthogonally into a WSMF within the zone of influence of particular
WSMF connections with significant damage, and
2. beams framing parallel to a WSMF where significant permanent drift has occurred.
Inspection should include any shear tabs, clip angles, or similar elements and the welds and/or
bolts attaching these elements to the beam and supporting framing member.
Commentary: If little or no damage is found to the moment-resisting connections
in a building, it is probable that the gravity connections have not sustained any
significant damage. However, if substantial damage is found to moment-resisting
connections, some inspection of the gravity connections in the zone of influence of
the more heavily damaged moment-resisting connections is probably warranted.
For beams framing orthogonally into a WSMF, the zone of influence includes
those beams framing directly into columns with damaged connections, as shown
in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. It also includes any other beams that could have
experienced large torsional rotations as a result of flexural rotations experienced
by the WSMF members they frame to. For beams aligned parallel with the
WSMF, this zone of influence includes any portion of the structure likely to have
experienced excessive drift, as indicated by the damaged moment connection.
5.1.3 Other Connection Types
The structural engineer should review the need to inspect a representative sample of other
connection types that exhibit negative attributes similar to the CJP beam-to-column weld
configuration.
Commentary: These negative attributes include: the inherent residual stress
concentrations caused by the welding sequence of highly restrained CJP groove
welds used to connect WSMF beams and columns, and the particular care
required during their execution to ensure that the welds have no material defects;
the post-yield straining in the through-thickness direction of CJP welds used to
join WSMF beams and columns; the post-yield straining in the through-thickness
direction of WSMF column flanges in a tri-axial state of stress; the difficulty of
executing the WSMF beam's bottom flange CJP weld through the restriction
created by the web access hole; and the potential for creating a stress riser by
leaving the steel backing (backing bar) in place after completing the CJP weld.
Connections that are potential high priority candidates for inspection because of
their similar connection and stiffness configuration, and because of their use of
Interim Guidelines:
5-4
highly restrained CJP welds include certain eccentric braced frame (EBF)
configurations, column-to-base plate connections, and certain drag and collector
elements.
In addition, selected column splices located such that stresses on the weld
during the earthquake response likely approached the minimum specified yield
strength should be inspected, including complete joint penetration welded splices
in Group 4 and 5 shapes and partial penetration groove welded joints for all
shape groups. Complete joint penetration flange welds in Group 4 and 5 Sections
have demonstrated a vulnerability to brittle fracture under gravity load
conditions. Partial joint penetration groove welds have an inherent notch or
stress-riser condition which can serve as the initiation point for fracture under
conditions of high tensile stress demands.
5.2 Preparation
5.2.1 Preliminary Document Review and Evaluation
5.2.1.1 Document Collection and Review
Prior to performing an inspection, the original construction drawings should be reviewed (if
available) to identify the primary lateral and gravity load-resisting systems, typical detailing,
presence of irregularities, etc. Pertinent available engineering and geotechnical reports, including
previous damage survey reports and current ground motion estimates should also be reviewed.
Specifications (including the original Welding Procedure Specifications), shop drawings, erection
drawings, and construction records need not be reviewed.
5.2.1.2 Preliminary Building Walk-Through.
A walk-through should be conducted to note visible structural and nonstructural damage,
deviations from the plans, and other conditions not evident from the document review.
Commentary: If a preliminary post-earthquake evaluation has not previously
been conducted, one should be performed at this time. A preliminary
post-earthquake evaluation based on ATC-20 (Applied Technology Council -
1989), or a similar standard, will not necessarily indicate that damage has been
sustained.
5.2.1.3 Structural Analysis
A detailed structural analysis of the building need not be performed prior to performing
building inspections. At the engineers discretion, such analyses may be performed, in order to
develop an understanding as to which connections in the building are most critical and to the
extent possible, an understanding of where damage may have concentrated. Analyses used for
Interim Guidelines:
5-5
this purpose should be based on rational principles of engineering mechanics and to the extent
possible, should use an actual representation of the ground motion experienced by the building.
Commentary: Detailed analytical studies of buildings damaged by the
Northridge Earthquake indicated some correlation between the actual occurrence
of damage and predicted connections with high demands. However, this
correlation was not large enough to warrant strong recommendations that
analyses be performed prior to performing inspections. In fact, these analyses
showed that it is important to inspect connections throughout the structure,
regardless of the demands predicted by analysis. The Interim Guidelines for
selecting a representative sample of connections for inspection, presented in
Chapter 4, contain two methods, A and B, which do not require any prior analysis
of the structure, other than to identify its structural system and the location of
moment-resisting connections. Some engineers may feel that structural analyses
are beneficial in developing a program of inspection, and will prefer to select a
sample of connections for inspection based on such analyses. Sample selection
Method C, in Chapter 4, is provided for engineers who prefer such an approach.
Any rational method of analysis, including linear static, linear dynamic and
nonlinear methods may be utilized. When performing dynamic analyses, it is
important to use a representation of the ground motion that reasonably resembles
that likely to have been experienced by the building, as opposed to a general
smoothed response spectrum. The sharp peaks of response which occur over
narrow bands of frequencies in actual ground motion recordings can accentuate
higher mode response in some buildings, which may not be adequately detected
using generic smoothed spectra. Analyses of the response of taller buildings
affected by the Northridge Earthquake, as well as their damage patterns, suggest
that higher mode effects had a significant impact on the locations of severe
strength and deformation demands, as well as damage.
The most reliable method of obtaining a representative ground motion is to
use data directly recorded by instrumentation at the building site or a nearby site.
Instruments located more than 1 km from the building site, or on sites with
significantly different subsoil conditions should not be considered particularly
representative. Seismologists have the capability to generate estimates of ground
motion using fault rupture simulation and wave propagation modeling techniques
that may be useful for these purposes as well. However, the engineer should be
advised that great uncertainty is associated with such techniques and ground
motion representations generated in this manner are only estimates.
5.2.1.4 Vertical Plumbness Check
A rigorous vertical plumbness check is not necessary unless signs of a permanent lateral drift
(e.g., elevators are not functioning, door jambs are distorted, or the building is visibly tilted) are
Interim Guidelines:
5-6
observed at one or more floors. In such cases, a vertical plumbness check should be conducted by
a licensed Surveyor to determine the extent that the post-earthquake out-of-plumbness exceeds
AISC Frame Tolerances as defined in the AISC Code of Standard Practice Section 7.11. If
significant permanent lateral drift is determined to exist, the structural engineer should determine
whether or not this drift, when superimposed with the postulated drift from a future earthquake,
presents unacceptable P- stress effects.
Commentary: When the plumbness check is deemed advisable, preliminary
checks can conveniently be made by the engineer from the interior of the
building, through the elevator shaft with the use of a plumb bob as elevator
appurtenances, such as sill plates on doors are typically constructed in close
vertical alignment. When a more accurate evaluation of plumbness is required,
surveying measurements should be made at each exterior principal corner of the
building..
5.2.2 Connection Exposure
Pre-inspection activities to expose and prepare a connection for inspection should include the
local removal of suspended ceiling panels or (as applicable) local demolition of permanent ceiling
finish to access the connection; and cleaning of the column panel zone, the column flange,
continuity plates, beam web and flanges. The extent of the removal of fireproofing should be
sufficient to allow adequate inspection of the surfaces to be inspected. Figure 5-1 suggests a
pattern that will allow both visual and NDT inspection of the top and bottom beam flange to
column joints, the beam web and shear connection, column panel zone and continuity plates, and
column flanges in the areas of highest expected demands. The maximum extent of the removal of
fireproofing need not be greater than a distance equal to the beam depth "d" into the beam span to
expose evidence of any yielding.
6
6
12
Figure 5-1 Recommended Zone for Removal of Fireproofing
Interim Guidelines:
5-7
Commentary: Cleaning of weld areas and removal of mill scale and weld spatter
should be done with care, preferably using a power wire brush, to ensure a clean
surface that does not affect the accuracy of ultrasonic testing. The resulting
surface finish should be clean, free of mill scale, rust and foreign matter. The use
of a chisel should be avoided to preclude scratching the steel surfaces which
could be mistaken for yield lines. Sprayed-on fireproofing on WSMFs erected
prior to about 1980 is likely to contain asbestos and should be handled according
to applicable standards for the removal of hazardous materials. To preclude
physical exposure to hazardous materials and working conditions, the structural
engineer should require by contractual agreement with the building owner, prior
to the start of the inspection program, that the building owner deliver to the
structural engineer for his/her review and files a laboratory certificate that
confirms the absence of asbestos in structural steel fireproofing, local pipe
insulation, ceiling tiles, and drywall joint compound.
The pattern of fireproofing removal indicated in Figure 5-1 is adequate to
allow visual and UT inspection of the top and bottom girder flange to column
joints, the beam web and shear connection and the column panel zone. As
discussed in the commentary to Section 5.1.1, some engineers prefer to initially
inspect only the bottom beam flange to column joint. In such cases, the initial
removal of fireproofing can be more limited than indicated in the figure. If after
initial inspection, damage at a connection is suspected, then full removal, as
indicated in the figure, should be performed to allow inspection of all areas of the
connection.
5.3 Inspection Program
5.3.1 Visual Inspection (VI)
Visual Inspection is the primary means of determining the condition of the structure. It should
be performed by, or under the direction of, a structural engineer, and in as many locations as is
practical. As a minimum, it should be performed in those locations selected in accordance with
one of the methods of Chapter 4. It may be performed and documented by other competent
persons, but should be performed with a structural engineer's written instructions and guidance.
When VI is performed by a testing agency, the agency and personnel performing the work should
conform to the Interim Guidelines of Chapter 10. As a minimum, the structural engineer in
charge should visit the site as needed during the performance of visual inspection to confirm that
his/her instructions are understood and followed, and to provide a spot check of the adequacy of
surface preparation of the connection for VI and NDT, that the recorded locations of damage are
correct, and that damage is accurately reported.
The presence or absence of damage should be recorded in a consistent and objective manner
on a uniform data sheet that will allow later interpretation of the conditions and assessment of its
severity and the types of repair which may be warranted. Severe damage should be documented
Interim Guidelines:
5-8
with photographs. Data sheets should include a sketch of the connection and locations of any
significant non-conforming or damage conditions noted. Damage should be classified in
accordance with the system indicated in Section 3.1.
Commentary: The presence or absence of the following conditions should be
recorded for each inspected connection:
a) Deviations from Construction Documents or Specifications.
b) Continuity plates.
c) Doubler plates (on one or both sides of the web).
d) Supplemental web welds (from beam-web-to-shear-tab).
e) Flange weld backing bar and runoff tabs.
f) Flange weld end dams.
g) Poor Fit-up of backing bar.
h) Evidence of weld spatter (must be removed prior to performing Ultrasonic Testing).
i) Smooth (or rough) beam web cope for weld access holes.
j) Evidence of poor quality welding workmanship per AWS D1.1 Section 6.5.1 and 8.15.1.
k) Undercut, underfill or excessive concavity/convexity of welds.
l) Undersized fillet welds.
The presence or absence of damage should be recorded. For purposes of
visual inspection, backing bars need not be removed. If damage is discovered, it
should be recorded by type, per the classification system of Chapter 3.
When full inspection of a connection is conducted, both sides of the beam,
column, and panel zone should be inspected. If one side of the connection is
obstructed (e.g., by exterior walls), such obstructions need not be removed if the
accessible side of the connection appears undamaged. Beam top flange
connection welds may be inspected without local removal of the floor diaphragm
finish if there is no apparent significant damage at the bottom beam flange,
adjacent column flange, column web, or shear connection. If severe beam bottom
flange damage is observed, removal of diaphragm materials to allow direct
observation of the beam top flange is recommended. More information on VI
may be found in AWS B1.11.
5.3.1.1 Top Flange
The exposed root of this "T" joint should be inspected to note any possible separation of the
edge of the backup bar from the face of the column flange. The exposed surface of the beam
flange and column flange should be observed to note any cracks which may have occurred. Beam
Interim Guidelines:
5-9
flange base metal at the intersection of the weld access hole in the web to the beam flange should
be inspected to note any visible cracks.
5.3.1.2 Bottom Flange
The possible separation of the backup bar to column flange should be inspected as above. The
face of the weld should be inspected to note any possible cracks in the weld, the toe of the weld
or in the adjacent base metal. The base metal of the column flange above, below and each side of
the intersecting beam flange should be inspected to note any possible visible cracks as should the
beam flange in the vicinity of the web access hole, as above.
5.3.1.3 Column and Continuity Plates
Column base metal and the continuity plates and their welds to the inside face of the column
flanges should be visually inspected. The column web above and below the continuity plate
should be inspected to note any visible cracks.
5.3.1.4 Beam Web Shear Connection
The shear connection plate, beam web, and corresponding bolts should be inspected to note
any possible rotation. The base metal around the bolt head and nut including washers if used, may
show signs of bright metal if rotation has occurred. Observation should include examination for
bolts which may have loosened as well as any welds used in combination with the bolted
connection. The exposed surface of the shear plate to column flange weld should be visually
inspected with primary attention being paid to the termination of this weld near the beam's bottom
flange.
5.3.2 Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
NDT should be used to supplement the visual inspection of connections selected in
accordance with the Interim Guidelines of Chapter 4. The testing agency and NDT personnel
performing this work should conform to the qualifications indicated in Chapter 11 of these Interim
Guidelines. The following NDT techniques should be used at the top and bottom of each
connection, where accessible, to supplement visual inspection:
a) Magnetic particle testing (MT) of the beam flange - to column flange weld surfaces. All
surfaces which were visually inspected should be tested using the magnetic particle
technique.
Commentary: The color of powder should be selected to achieve maximum
contrast to the base and weld metal under examination. The test may be further
enhanced by applying a white coating made specifically for MT or by applying
penetrant developer prior to the MT examination. This background coating
should be allowed to thoroughly dry before performing the MT.
Interim Guidelines:
5-10
b) Ultrasonic testing (UT) of all faces at the beam flange welds and adjacent column flanges
(extending at least 3 inches above and below the location of the CJP weld, along the face
of the column, but not less than 1-1/2 times the column flange thickness).
Commentary: The purpose of UT is to 1) locate and describe the extent of
internal defects not visible on the surface and 2) to determine the extent of cracks
observed visually and by MT.
Requirements and acceptance criteria for NDT should be as given in AWS D1.1 Sections 6
and 8. Acceptance or rejection of planar weld discontinuity (cracks, slag inclusion, or lack of
fusion), including root indications, should, as a minimum, be consistent with AWS Discontinuities
Severity Class designations of cracks and defects per Table 8.2 of AWS D1.1 for Static
Structures. Beam flange welds should be tested as "tension welds" per AWS D1.1 Table 8.15.3,
Note 3. Backing bars need not be removed prior to performing UT.
Commentary: The value of UT for locating small discontinuities at the root of
beam flange to column flange welds when the backing is left in place is not
universally accepted. The reliability of this technique is particularly questionable
at the center of the joint, where the beam web obscures the signal. There have
been a number of reported instances of UT detected indications which were not
found upon removal of the backing, and similarly, there have been reported
instances of defects which were missed by UT examination but were evident upon
removal of the backing. The smaller the defect, the less likely it is that UT alone
will reliably detect its presence.
Despite the potential inaccuracies of this technique, it is the only method
currently available, short of removal of the backing, to find subsurface damage in
the welds. It is also the most reliable method for finding lamellar problems in the
column flange (type C4 and C5 damage) opposite the girder flange. Removal of
weld backing at these connections results in a significant cost increase that is
probably not warranted unless UT indicates widespread, significant defects
and/or damage in the building.
The proper scanning techniques, beam angle(s) and transducer sizes should be used as
specified in the written UT procedure contained in the Written Practice, prepared in accordance
with Section 5.3.3 of these Interim Guidelines. The acceptance standard should be that specified
in the original contract documents, but in no case should it be less than the acceptance criteria of
AWS D1.1, Chapter 8, for Statically Loaded Structures.
The base metal should be scanned with UT for cracks. Cracks which have propagated to the
surface of the weld or beam and column base metal will probably have been detected by visual
inspection and magnetic particle tests performed earlier. The purpose of ultrasonic testing of the
base metal is to:
1. Locate and describe the extent of internal indications not apparent on the surface and,
Interim Guidelines:
5-11
2. Determine the extent of cracks found visually and by magnetic particle test.
Commentary: Liquid dye penetrant testing (PT) may be used where MT is
precluded due to geometrical conditions or restricted access. Note that more
stringent requirements for surface preparation are required for PT than MT, per
AWS D1.1.
If practical, NDT should be performed across the full width of the bottom
beam flange joint. However, if there are no discontinuity signals from UT of
accessible faces on one side of the bottom flange weld, obstructions on the other
side of the connection need not be removed for testing of the bottom flange weld.
Slabs, flooring and roofing need not be removed to permit NDT of the top
flange joint unless there is significant visible damage at the bottom beam flange,
adjacent column flange, column web, or shear connection. Unless such damage
is present, NDT of the top flange should be performed as permitted, without local
removal of the diaphragms or perimeter wall obstructions.
It should be noted that UT is not 100% effective in locating discontinuities
and defects in CJP beam flange to column flange welds. The ability of UT to
reliably detect such defects is very dependent on the skill of the operator and the
care taken in the inspection. Even under perfect conditions, it is difficult to
obtain reliable readings of conditions at the center of the beam flange to column
flange connection as return signals are obscured by the presence of the beam
web. If backing is left in place on the welds, UT becomes even less reliable.
There have been a number of reported instances in which UT indicated apparent
defects, that were found not to exist upon removal of the backing. Similarly, UT
has failed in some cases to locate defects that were later discovered upon removal
of the backing. Additional information on UT may be found in AWS B1.10.
5.3.3 Inspector Qualification
Testing shall be performed and supervised by qualified and properly certified technicians. It is
recommended that the structural engineer (or his/her agent) observe the inspection procedures
directly until such a time that confidence is developed that the inspections are being made in
accordance with the given instructions. It is the responsibility of the structural engineer in charge
to confirm that only certified Level II technicians, certified in accordance with AWS D1.1-1994
Section 6.1.3.1 and 6.7.8 and SNT-TC-1A, are allowed to execute VI and NDT, under the
supervision of a Level III technician with current certification by examination. All Level II
certifications should be current, having been issued within 3 years prior to the start of the
inspection program. The structural engineer should require that the inspector provide a Written
Practice for his/her review and approval, and the building owner's file, in accordance with the
requirements of SNT-TC-1A. The Written Practice should as a minimum provide 1) all
certification records for all technicians executing VI and NDT on the project and 2) the detailed
Interim Guidelines:
5-12
UT, MT and PT procedures used to perform NDT of WSMF connections, as well as other types
of connections, in accordance with the instructions of the structural engineer.
Commentary: Special care is recommended in the selection of inspectors because
VI and NDT methods are highly dependent on the skill and integrity of the
operator for proper interpretation of the results.
5.3.4 Post-Earthquake Field Inspection Report
A Field Inspection Report for both VI and NDT should be completed for each connection
inspected and/or tested, regardless of whether damage or rejectable defects are detected. There
are two (2) CJP welds for each WSMF beam-to-column connection. A standard form should be
used to ensure complete documentation. Sample Field Inspection Report forms are provided in
Figure 5-2 through 5-5. The technician should record the depth, length and location of observed
indications, should characterize the discontinuities as planar (cracks or lack of fusion) or
volumetric (porosity, slag, etc.), should classify the weld as acceptable or rejectable according to
predetermined criteria, and should note any uncertainties. In addition, the form should record the
date of testing, the person responsible, connection location and orientation, and descriptions of
items not tested due to limited access. The Field Inspection Report form should, as a minimum,
objectively identify for each CJP weld and shear tab tested the following information, as
applicable:
a) Damage/Defect type classification/description (per Section 3-1, and summarized for
convenience at the rear of this Chapter as Table 5-1).
b) AWS Discontinuity Severity Class of crack/defect per Table 8.2 of AWS D1.1-94.
c) Depth of crack/defect.
d) Length of crack/defect/damaged material.
e) Location of crack/defect/damaged material.
f) Identification of NDT procedure used.
g) Possible inclusion of photographs.
Commentary: To ensure a correct understanding and identification of reported
connection damage, the format of the Field Inspection Report form should
include an easy to understand graphic description of what face of the connection
is being inspected (e.g., north face, south face, east or west) and at what framing
elevation the connection is located (e.g., inspector is standing on the 4th floor
and looking at a connection located at the 5th floor framing). In addition, any
identified significant damage should be recorded on a generic sketch of the
WSMF standard joint detail to facilitate consistent reporting and correct
interpretation and assessment by the structural engineer.
Interim Guidelines:
5-13
5.3.5 Written Report
Following completion of the detailed damage assessments, the structural engineer should
prepare a written report, in accordance with Section 4.3.9.
Interim Guidelines:
5-14
Table 5-1 - Connection Damage Classification
G1 Girder Buckled Flange
G2 Girder Yielded Flange
G3 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture in HAZ
G4 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture outside HAZ
G5 Girder Top and Bottom Flange fracture
G6 Girder Yielding or Buckling of Web
G7 Girder Fracture of Web
G8 Girder Lateral-torsional Buckling
C1 Column Incipient flange crack (detectable by UT)
C2 Column Flange tear-out or divot
C3 Column Full or partial flange crack outside HAZ
C4 Column Full or partial flange crack in HAZ
C5 Column Lamellar flange tearing
C6 Column Buckled Flange
C7 Column Fractured column splice
W1a CJP weld Minor root indication, thickness < 3/16 or t
f
/4;
width < b
f
/4
W1b CJP weld Root indication, thickness > 3/16 or t
f
/4;
width > b
f
/4
W2 CJP weld Crack through weld metal thickness
W3 CJP weld Fracture at girder interface
W4 CJP weld Fracture at column interface
W5 CJP weld UT detectable indicationnon-rejectable
S1a Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flanges sound)
S1b Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flange cracked)
S2a Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flanges sound)
S2b Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flange cracked)
S3 Shear tab Fracture through tab at bolt holes
S4 Shear tab Yielding or buckling of tab
S6 Shear tab Full length fracture of weld to column
P7 Panel Zone Full (or near full) depth fracture in web or doubler
plate
P9 Panel Zone Fully severed column
Interim Guidelines:
5-15
Figure 5-2 Inspection Form - Major Axis Column Connection
Interim Guidelines:
5-16
Figure 5-3 Inspection Form - Large Discontinuities - Major Axis
Interim Guidelines:
5-17
Figure 5-4 Inspection Form - Major Axis Column Connection
Interim Guidelines:
5-18
Figure 5-5 Inspection Form - Large Discontinuities - Minor Axis
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
6-1
6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION
As used in these Interim Guidelines, repair means restoration of the strength, stiffness and
deformation capacity of structural elements that have been damaged or have construction
defects. Modification means actions taken to enhance the strength, stiffness or deformation
capacity of either damaged or undamaged elements, or of the structure as a whole.
Based on the observed behavior of actual buildings in the Northridge Earthquake, as well as
recent test data, WSMF structures constructed with the typical pre-Northridge detailing and
construction practice prevalent prior to the Northridge Earthquake do not have the same
deformation capacity they were presumed to possess at the time of their design. The seismic risk
associated with these structures is higher than typically judged as acceptable for buildings of new
construction. When these buildings are damaged or have excessive construction defects, the risk
is higher.
Based on limited testing, it appears that the repair recommendations contained in this Chapter
can be effective in restoring a buildings pre-earthquake condition. This does not imply,
however, that the repaired building will be an acceptable seismic risk. As a minimum, it should
be assumed that buildings that are repaired, but not modified, can sustain similar and possibly
more severe damage in future earthquakes than they did in the present event. If this is
unacceptable, either to the owner or the building official, then the building should be modified to
provide improved future performance. Modification can consist of local reinforcement of
individual moment connections as well as alteration of the basic lateral-force-resisting
characteristics of the structure through addition of braced frames, shear walls, base isolation,
energy dissipation devices, etc.
6.1 Scope
This section provides interim guidelines for structural repair of earthquake damage and
modification of structures to improve future earthquake performance. Repair constitutes any
measure(s) taken to restore earthquake damaged joints, connections, elements of the building, or
the building as whole, to their original strength, stiffness and deformation capacity. It does not
include routine correction of non-conforming conditions during original fabrication. Interim
Guidelines for acceptable methods of repair are provided in Sections 6.2 through 6.5 below.
These Interim Guidelines are not intended to be used for the routine repairs of non-conformance
commonly encountered in fabrication and erection work. Industry standard practices are
acceptable for such repairs.
Work that increases structural stiffness or strength of an element or the structure as a whole
by more than 5% is classified as modification. Guidelines for some methods of modification are
contained in Section 6.6.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
6-2
6.2 Shoring
6.2.1 Investigation
The structural engineer responsible for designing any damage repair should investigate the
entire building for imminent collapse or life safety hazard conditions, regardless of joint
considerations. Such conditions should be shored prior to commencement of any repairs.
Commentary: In projects relating to construction of new buildings, it is common
practice to delegate all responsibility for temporary shoring and bracing of the
structure to the contractor. Such practice may not be appropriate for severely
damaged buildings. The structural engineer should work closely with the
contractor to define shoring and bracing requirements. Some structural
engineers may wish to perform the design of temporary bracing systems. If the
contractor performs such design, the structural engineer should review the
designs for adequacy and potential effects on the structure prior to
implementation.
6.2.2 Special Requirements.
Conditions which may become collapse or life safety hazards during the repair operations
should be considered in the development of repair details and specifications, whether they
involve the connection area directly or indirectly. These conditions should be brought to the
attention of the contractor by the structural engineer, and adequate means of shoring these
conditions should be provided. Consideration should be given to sequencing of repair
procedures for proper design of any required shoring. For column repair details that require
removal of 20% or more of the damaged cross section, consideration should be given to the need
for shoring to prevent overstress of elements due to redistribution of loads.
Commentary: In general, contractors will not have adequate resources to define
when such shoring is necessary. Therefore, the Contract Documents should
clearly indicate when and where shoring is required. Design of this shoring may
be provided by the structural engineer, or the contractor may submit a shoring
design to the structural engineer for review.
6.3 Repair Details
The scope of repair work should be shown on drawings and specifications prepared by a
structural engineer. The drawings should clearly indicate the areas requiring repair, as well as all
repair procedures, details, and specifications necessary to properly implement the proposed
repair. Sample repair details for various types of damage are included in these Interim
Guidelines, for reference, only.
Commentary: Examples of repair details are provided for some classes of
damage, based on previous repairs performed in the field for specific projects.
Limited testing indicates these repair methods can be effective. Details are not
Interim Guidelines:
6-3
complete in all respects and should not be used verbatim, as construction
documents. Many repairs will require the application of more than one
operation, as represented by a given detail. The sample details indicated may not
be directly applicable to specific repair conditions. The structural engineer is
cautioned to thoroughly review the conditions at each damaged element,
connection or joint, and to determine the applicability and suitability of these
details based on sound structural engineering judgment, prior to employing them
on projects.
6.3.1 Approach
Based on the nature and extent of damage several alternative approaches to repair should be
considered. Repair approaches may include, but should not be limited to:
a) replacement of portions of base metal (i.e. column and beam section),
b) replacement of connection elements,
c) replacement of connection weld, or
d) repairs to portions of any of the aforementioned components.
Any or all of these techniques may be appropriate. The approach(s) used should consider
adjacent structural components which may be affected by the repair or the effects of the repair.
Where base material is to be removed and replaced with plates, clear direction should be
given to orient the plates with the direction of rolling of the plate parallel to the direction of
application of major axial loads to be resisted by the plate.
6.3.2 Weld Fractures - Type W Damage
All fractures and rejectable defects found in weld material, either between girder and column
or between connection element and structural member, should have sufficient material removed
to completely eliminate any discontinuity or defect. NDT should be used to determine the extent
of fracture or defect and sufficient material should be removed to encompass the damaged area.
It is suggested that material removal extend 2 inches beyond the apparent end of the fracture or
defect. Simple fillet welds may be repaired by backgouging to eliminate unsound weld material
and replacing the damaged weld with sound material. Complete joint penetration (CJP) welds
fractured through the full thickness should be replaced with sound material deposited in strict
accordance with the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) and project specifications. The use
of weld dams on new welds is prohibited. Weld backing (backup bars), existing dams, and weld
tabs should be removed from all welds that are being repaired. After backing is removed, the
root should be backgouged to sound material, rewelded and a reinforcing fillet added.
The structural engineer is cautioned to observe the provisions of AISC regarding intermixing
of weld metals deposited by different weld processes (see AISC LRFD Manual of Steel
Interim Guidelines:
6-4
Construction, second edition, page 6-77, and AISC ASD Steel Construction Manual, ninth
edition, page 5-69). As an example, E7018 stick electrodes should not be used to weld over self-
shielded flux cored arc welding deposits. Removed weld material from fractures not penetrating
the full weld thickness should be replaced in the same manner as full thickness fractures. For
other types of W damage, existing backing, end dams, and weld tabs should also be removed in a
like manner to CJP weld replacement. Table 6-1 provides an index to suggested repair details
for type W damage.
Table 6-1 - Reference Details for Type W Damage
Damage Class Figure
W1a, W1b Figure 6-1, Figure 6-
2
W2 Figure 6-3
W3 Figure 6-3
W4 Figure 6-3
W5 Figure 6-3
Commentary: FCAW-ss utilizes approximately 1-2% aluminum in the electrode to
protect the weld from mixing with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen. By itself,
aluminum can reduce the toughness and ductility of weld metal. The design of
FCAW-ss electrodes requires the balance of other alloys in the deposit to
compensate for the effects of aluminum. Other welding processes rely on fluxes
and/or gasses to protect the weld metal from the atmosphere, relieving them of
any requirement to contain aluminum or other elements that offset the effects of
aluminum. If the original weld that is being repaired consists of FCAW-ss and
subsequent repair welds are made with SMAW (stick) using E7018, for example,
the SMA arc will penetrate into the FCAW-ss deposit, resulting in the addition of
some aluminum into the SMAW deposit. The notch toughness and/or ductility of
the resultant weld metal may be substantially reduced as compared to pure E7018
weld metal, based on the depth of penetration into the FCAW-ss material.
Various types of FCAW-ss electrodes may be mixed one with the other without
potentially harmful effect. Further, FCAW-ss may be used to weld over other
types of weld deposits without potentially harmful interaction. The structural
engineer could specify all repairs on FCAW-ss deposits be made with FCAW-ss.
Alternately, intermixing of FCAW-ss and other processes could be permitted
provided the subsequent composition is demonstrated to meet material
specification requirements.
Interim Guidelines:
6-5
20
o
Min.
Arc - Gouge
1/4 radius min.
Existing column flange
Removed backing
Existing beam flange
Reweld & reinforce
w/ fillet
Notes:
1 Remove existing backing.
2 Taper the depth of grinding or air arc gouging at each end to the face of flange with a minimum 2:1
(horizontal/vertical) taper. Provide a minimum root radius of 1/4.
3 Grind all surfaces on which weld metal will be deposited. Surfaces should be smooth, uniform and free
from fins, tears, fractures and other discontinuities which would adversely affect weld strength.
4 A fillet weld should be applied to reinforce the joint. The size of the reinforcing fillet should be equal to
1/4 of the beam flange thickness, but not less than 1/4. It need nor be more than 3/8.
5 On joints to be repaired, remove all remaining weld tabs and excess weld metal beyond the length of the
joint and grind smooth. Imperfection less than 1/16" should be removed by grinding. Repair as necessary.
Figure 6-1 - Gouge & Re-weld of Root Defect or Damage - W1
Removed backing
Backgouge , repair and
reinforce per Figure 6-1.
Air-arc gouge
Reweld
Notes:
1. Remove the entire fracture plus 2 of sound metal beyond each end.
2. For additional notes, refer to Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2 - Gouge & Re-weld of Fractured Weld - W1
Interim Guidelines:
6-6
Remove backing after
completing top welding,
Backgouge , repair and
reinforce, per Figure 6-1.
Air-arc gouge
Reweld
For notes see Figure 6-1 and 6-2.
Figure 6-3 - Backgouge and Reweld repair
6.3.3 Column fractures - Type C1 - C5 and P1 - P6
Any column fracture observable with the naked eye or found by NDT and classified as
rejectable in accordance with the AWS D1.1 criteria for Static Structures should be repaired.
Repairs should include removing the fracture such that no sign of rejectable discontinuity or
defect within a six (6) inch radius around the fracture remains. Removal should include
eliminating any zones of fracture propagation, with a minimum of heat used in the removal
process. Following removal of material, MT and PT should be used to confirm that all fractured
material has been removed. Repairs of removed material may consist of replacement of portions
of column section, build-up with weld material where small portions of column were removed,
or local replacement of removed base metal with weld material. Procedures of weld fracture
repair should be applied to limit the heat affected area and to provide adequate ductility to the
repaired joint. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 indicate representative details for these repairs. In many
cases, it may be necessary to remove a portion of the girder framing to a column, in order to
attain necessary access to perform repair work, per Figure 6-4. Refer to Section 6.3.5 for repair
of girders.
Shore Beam
Remove Shear Tab
Replace upon completion
Remove portion of existing beam.
Provide minimum 2 radius.
New web plate
thickness = tw +1/8
tw
Interim Guidelines:
6-7
Figure 6-4 - Temporary Removal of Beam Section for Access
When the size of divot (type C2) or transverse column fractures (types C1, C3, C4) dictate a
total cut-out of a portion of a column flange or web (types P6, P7), the replacement material should
be ultrasonically tested in accordance with ASTM A578-92, Straight-Beam Ultrasonic
Examination of Plane and Clad Steel Plates for Special Applications, in conjunction with AWS
K6.3 Shearwave Calibration. Acceptance criteria should be that of Level III. The replacement
material should be aligned with the rolling direction matching that of the column.
Table 6-2 - Reference Details for Type C and P Damage
Damage Class Figure
Beam Access Figure 6-4
C1 Figure 6-4, 6-5
C2 Figure 6-4, 6-6
C3 Figure 6-4, 6-5
C4 Figure 6-4, 6-5
C5 Figure 6-4, 6-6
P1 remove, prepare, replace
P2 arc-gouge and reweld
P4 arc-gouge and reweld
P5 Figure 6-7
P6 Figure 6-7
P7 Figure 6-7
P8 Figure 6-8
Portion of E beam
flange removed
Weld access hole
in column web
45
o
per AWS D1.1
section 3.2.5,
and Figure 3.2
Backgouge and reweld
10
o
1 Investigate extent of fracture by UT to confirm that fractures are contained with the 45 degree angle zone
of a standard pre-qualified CJP groove weld as defined by AWS D1.1, Figure 2.4, Joint Designation B-
U4a-G
2 Provide 10
o
bevel on lower flange plate, to channel slag out of joint.
3 Grind all surfaces upon which weld metal will be deposited to smooth, uniform surface.
Interim Guidelines:
6-8
Figure 6-5 - Backgouge and reweld of column flange
New flange
splice plate
Weld access
hole and
backing
10
o
6

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
Note: Provide new flange plate material of the same strength, and width as the existing column flange. Align
rolling direction of plate with that of column flange. New plate should be of the same thickness as the
existing flange with a tolerance of -0/+1/4. The welding should be sequenced to connect the column
flange to new flange plate welds prior to welding the column web to new flange plate. Bevel the lower
edge of the column flange, and upper edge of the splice plate down 10
o
, to channel slag out of joint.
Figure 6-6 - Replacement of Column Flange Repair
Doubler Plate Column web
Typical
Web with Doubler Plate Web without Doubler Plate
Notes:
1. Prepare fractured section of doubler by air-arc gouging, grind and reweld, using web as backing
2. Prepare fractured section of web by air-arc gouging, grind and reweld, using doubler as backing or
backgouge and reweld from reverse side, if no doubler present.
Interim Guidelines:
6-9
Figure 6-7 - Reweld Repair of Web plate and Doubler plate
Flange removal and replacment
per Figure6-6, if required
Weld access holes as required
for weld terminations
Notes:
1. Sequence removal of portions of column and provide shoring as required to safely support existing column
loads.
2. Thickness of new web plate to match existing column web (tolerance +1/8, -0).
Figure 6-8 - Alternate Column Web Repair - Columns without Doubler
Plates
Commentary: Special attention should be given to conditions where more than
20% of the column cross section will be removed at one time, as special
temporary shoring may be warranted. In addition, care should be taken when
applying heat to a flange or web containing a fracture, as fractures have been
observed to propagate with the application of heat. This can be prevented by
drilling a small diameter hole at the end of the fracture, to prevent it from
running.
6.3.4 Column splice fractures - Type C7
Any fractures detected in column splices should be repaired by removing the fractured
material and replacing it with sound weld material. For partial joint penetration groove welds,
remove up to one half of the material thickness from one side and replace with sound material.
Where complete joint penetration groove welds are required, it may be preferable to provide a
double bevel weld, repairing one half of the material thickness completely prior to preparing and
repairing the other half. Alternatively, if calculations indicate that column loads may safely be
resisted with the entire section of column flange removed, or if suitable shoring is provided, it
may be preferable to use a single bevel weld.
Commentary: Special attention should be given to these conditions, as the
removal of material may require special temporary shoring. Also, since partial
penetration groove welds can serve as fracture initiators in tension applications,
Interim Guidelines:
6-10
consideration should be given to replacing such damaged splice areas with
complete joint penetration welds.
6.3.5 Girder Flange Fractures - Type G3-G5
Repair of fractures in girder flanges may be performed by several methods. One method is to
remove the fracture by air arc gouging such that no sign of discontinuity or defect within a six
(6) inch radius around the fracture remains, preparing the surface by grinding and welding new
material back. Alternatively, damaged portions of the girder flange may be removed and
replaced with new plate as shown in Figure 6-9 or Figure 6-10.
Typ.
New beam flange plate
New web stiffeners,
near side and far side
Weld access
hole
Notes:
1. New plate thickness to match beam flange thickness + height of removed web fillet.
2. Weld sequence - a) weld of new flange plate to column; b)weld of flange plate stiffeners to web and flange
plate; c) weld of new flange plate to beam flange. d)weld of stiffener plate to beam flange and web
Figure 6-9 - Beam Flange Plate Replacement
Interim Guidelines:
6-11
New beam flange plate
Figure 6-10 - Alternative Beam Flange Plate Replacement
Commentary: Due to accessibility difficulties or excessive weld build-up
requirements, it may become necessary to remove a portion of the girder flange to
properly complete the joint repair. A minimum of six inches of girder flange may
be removed to facilitate the joint repair, with the optimum length being equal to
the flange width. After removal of the portion of flange, the face of column and
cut edge of girder flange may then be prepared to receive a splice plate matching
the flange in grade and width. Thickness should be adjusted as required to make-
up the depth of the girder web and fillet removed as part of the preparation
process.
It is recommended that a double bevel joint be utilized in replacing the
removed plate to eliminate the need for backup bars, consequently also
eliminating the removal of these backup bars. A suggested joint detail is a B-
U3/TC-U5, per AWS D1.1, with 1/3 t
flange
-2/3 t
flange
bevels on the plate. The web
of the girder should be prepared at the column and butt weld areas to allow
welding access. Weld tabs may be used at the column and butt weld. The weld
between the splice plate and the column flange should be completed first. If a
double bevel weld is selected, the welder may choose to weld the first few passes
from one face, then backgouge and weld from the second side. This may help to
keep the interpass temperature below the maximum without down time often
encountered in waiting for the weld to cool.
6.3.6 Buckled Girder Flanges - Type G1
Where the top or bottom flange of a girder has buckled, and the rotation between the flange
and web is less than or equal to the mill rolling tolerance given in the AISC Manual of Steel
Construction (AISC-1994 or AISC-1989) the flange need not be repaired. Where the angle is
greater than mill rolling tolerance, repair should be performed and may consist of adding full
Interim Guidelines:
6-12
height stiffener plates on the web over each portion of buckled flange, contacting the flange at
the center of the buckle, (Figure 6-11) or using heat straightening procedures. Another available
approach is to remove the buckled portion of flange and replace it with plate, similar to Figures
6-9 and 6-10.
New stiffener plates
each side,
t
plate
= t
web
Note: Provide stiffeners at beginning of buckle and at center of buckle
Figure 6-11 - Addition of Stiffeners at Buckled Girder Flange
Commentary: Should flange buckling occur on only one side of the web, and the
buckle repair consists of adding stiffener plates, only the side that has buckled
need be stiffened. In case of partial flange replacement, special shoring
requirements should be considered by the design engineer.
6.3.7 Buckled column flanges - Type C6
Any column flange or portion of a flange that has buckled to the point where it exceeds the
rolling tolerances given in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction should be repaired. Flange
repair may consist either of flame straightening or of removing the entire buckled portion of
flange and replacing it with material with yield properties similar to the actual yield properties of
the damaged material similar to Figure 6-6. If workers with the appropriate skill to perform
flame straightening are available, this is the preferred method.
Commentary: For flange replacement, shoring is normally required. This
shoring should be designed by the structural engineer, or may be designed by the
contractor provided the design is reviewed by the structural engineer.
Flame straightening can be an extremely effective method of repairing
buckled members. It is performed by applying heat to the member in a triangular
pattern, in order to induce thermal strains that straighten the member out. Very
large bends can be straightened by this technique. However, the practice of this
technique is not routine and there are no standard specifications available for
controlling the work. Consequently, the success of the technique is dependent on
the availability of workers who have the appropriate training and experience to
perform the work. During the heat application process, the damaged member is
locally heated to very high temperatures. Consequently, shoring may be required
for members being straightened in this manner.
Interim Guidelines:
6-13
A number of references are available that provide more information on this
process and its applications, published by AISC and others (Avent - 1992), (Avent
- 1995), (Shonafelt and Horn - 1984)
6.3.8 Gravity connections
Connections not part of the lateral load-resisting system may also be found to require repair
due to excessive rotation or demand caused by distress of the lateral load-resisting system in the
zone of influence. These connections should be repaired to a capacity at least equivalent to the
pre-damaged connection capacity. Shear connections that are part of the lateral load resisting
system should be repaired in a similar manner, with special consideration given to the nature and
significance of the overall structural damage. In buildings which are repaired, but not modified,
future earthquakes may cause moment connection failures with resulting large building
deflections and high rotation demands at gravity connections. When repairing gravity
connections, consideration should be given to providing connections with the ability to rotate
with little or no reduction in vertical load carrying capacity, possibly by dissipating energy
(through the use of slip critical bolts with horizontal short slotted holes).
Commentary: In many cases, shear connections which were not a part of the
lateral-force-resisting system provided an unanticipated redundancy after
damage occurred to the primary WSMF lateral system. While repair details
could provide for rotation to minimize damage, such details should not eliminate
the beneficial effect of the extra strength and stiffness these shear connections
provide. This is especially important in framing systems with low moment frame
redundancy.
The suggestion of providing gravity connections with slotted holes and slip
critical bolts may be a reasonable compromise. Such a connection would be
capable of providing some additional, unintended, strength and stiffness for the
building but would also be able to withstand relatively large rotations without
jeopardizing the gravity support the connection is actually intended to provide.
6.3.9 Reuse of Bolts
Bolts in a connection displaying bolt damage or plate slippage should not be re-used. As
indicated in the AISC Specification for Structural Joints using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts
(American Institute of Steel Construction - 1985), A490 bolts and galvanized A325 bolts should
not be retightened and re-used under any circumstances. Other A325 bolts may be reused if
determined to be in good condition. Touching up or retightening previously tightened bolts
which may have been loosened by the tightening of adjacent bolts need not be considered as
reuse provided the snugging up continues from the initial position and does not require greater
rotation, including the tolerance, than that required by Table 5 of the AISC Specification. Bolts
in connections displaying bolt or plate slippage should not be reused.
Commentary: Proper performance of high strength bolts used in slip critical
applications requires proper tensioning of the bolt. Although a number of
Interim Guidelines:
6-14
methods are available to ensure that bolts are correctly tensioned, the most
common methods relate to torquing of the nut on the bolt. When a bolt has been
damaged, the torquing characteristics will be altered. As a result, damaged bolts
may either be over-tightened or under-tightened, if reinstalled. The threads of
ASTM A-490 bolts and galvanized ASTM A-325 bolts become slightly damaged
when tightened, and consequently, should not be reused. To determine if an
ungalvanized ASTM A-325 bolt is suitable for re-use, a nut should be run up the
threads of the bolt. If this can be done smoothly, without binding, then the bolt
may be re-used.
6.3.10 Welding Specification
Welded repairs involving thick plates and conditions of high restraint should be specified
with caution. These conditions can lead to large residual stresses and in some cases, initiation of
cracking before the structure is loaded. The potential for problems can be reduced by specifying
appropriate joint configurations, welding processes, control of preheat, heat input during welding
and cooldown, as well as selecting electrodes appropriate to the application. Engineers who do
not have adequate knowledge to confidently specify these parameters should seek consultation
from a person with the required expertise.
6.4 Preparation
6.4.1 Welding Procedure Specifications
A separate Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) should be established for every different
weld configuration, welding position, and material specification. Two categories of qualified
welding procedures are given in AWS D1.1-94. The WPS should be reviewed by the structural
engineer responsible for the repairs. The WPS is a set of focused instructions to the welders and
inspectors stating how the welding is to be accomplished. Each type of weld should have its own
WPS solely for the purpose of that weld. The WPS should include instructions for joint
preparation based on material property and thickness, as well as welding parameters. Weld
process, electrode type, diameter, stick-out, voltage, current, and interpass temperature should be
clearly defined. In addition, joint preheat and postheat requirements should be specified as
appropriate, including insulation guidelines if applicable. The WPS should also list appropriate
interim specification requirements that are mandated by the project specification.
Commentary: Preparation of the WPS is normally the responsibility of the
fabricator/erector. Sample formats for WPS preparation and submission are
included in AWS D1.1. Some contractors fill out the WPS by inserting references
to the various AWS D1.1 tables rather than the actual data. This does not meet
the intent of the WPS which is to provide specific instructions to the welder and
inspector on how the weld is to be performed. The actual values of the
parameters to be used should be included in the WPS submittal.
Interim Guidelines:
6-15
6.4.2 Welder Training
Training of welders should take place at the outset of the repair operations. Welders and
inspectors should be familiar with the WPS, and should be capable of demonstrating familiarity
with each of its aspects. A copy of the WPS should be located on site, preferably at the
connection under repair, accessible to all parties involved in the repair.
6.4.3 Welder Qualifications
Welders must be qualified and capable of successfully making the repair welds required. All
welders should be qualified to the AWS D1.1 requirements for the particular welding process
and position in which the welding is to be performed. Successful qualification to these
requirements, however, does not automatically demonstrate a welders ability to make repair
welds for all the configurations that may be encountered. Specific additional training and/or
experience may be required for repair situations. Welders performing repairs should have a
minimum of two years of verifiable field experience for the welding process that is employed, as
well as experience in arc-gouging and thermal cutting of material. Inexperienced welders should
demonstrate their ability to make proper repair welds. This may be done by welding on a mock-
up assembly (see Section 6.4.4) that duplicates the types of conditions that would be encountered
on the actual project. Alternatively, the welder could demonstrate proficient performance on the
actual project, providing this performance is continuously monitored, start to finish, during the
construction of at least the first weld repair. This observation should be made by a qualified
welding inspector or Welding Engineer.
6.4.4 Joint Mock-ups
A joint mock-up should be considered as a training and qualification tool for each type of
repair the welder is to perform that is more challenging than work in which he/she has previously
demonstrated competence, or at the discretion of the structural engineer. This will allow the
welder to become familiar with atypical welds, and will give the inspector the opportunity to
clearly observe the performance of each welder. An entire mock-up is recommended for each
such case, rather than only a single pass or portion of the weld as all welding positions and types
of weld would be experienced, thus showing the welder capable of successfully completing the
weld in all required positions, and applying all heating requirements.
6.4.5 Repair Sequence
Repair sequence should be considered in the design of repairs, and any sequencing
requirements should be clearly indicated on the drawings and WPS. Structural instabilities or
high residual stresses could arise from improper sequencing. The order of repair of flanges,
shear plates, fractured columns, etc. should be indicated on the drawings to reduce possible
residual stresses.
Interim Guidelines:
6-16
6.4.6 Concurrent Work
The maximum number of connections permitted to be repaired concurrently should be
indicated on the drawings or in the project specifications.
Commentary: Although a connection is damaged, it may still posses significant
ability to participate in the structures lateral load resisting system.
Consideration should be given to limiting the total number of connections being
repaired at any one time, as the overall lateral load resistance of the structure
may be temporarily reduced by some repair operations. If many connections are
under repair simultaneously, the overall lateral resistance of the remaining frame
connections may not be adequate to protect the structures stability. Although
this appears to fall under the category of means and methods, the typical
contractor would have no way of determining the maximum number of
connections that can be repaired at any one time without requiring supplemental
lateral bracing of the building during construction. Therefore, the structural
engineer should take a pro-active role in determining this.
6.4.7 Quality Control/Quality Assurance:
Quality control and quality assurance should follow the guidelines set forth in Section 6.6
and Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of these Interim Guidelines.
6.5 Execution
6.5.1 Introduction
Recommended general requirements should include the following:
1. Strict enforcement of the welding requirements in AWS D1.1 as modified in 1994
UBC Chapter 22, Division VIII or IX.
Commentary: Following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the AWS established a
presidential task group to determine if deficiencies in the D1.1 code contributed
to the unexpected damage, and to determine if modifications to the code should be
made. That task group noted some areas of practice, related to steel moment
frames in seismic zones, that could be improved relative to D1.1. These included
the following recommendations:
a) the root pass of the complete joint penetration welds of beam to
column flanges should not exceed 1/4 inch in size, for prequalified
procedures.
b) where notch tough weld metal is desired, such as at the critical
complete joint penetration welds of beam flanges to columns, the
maximum interpass temperature should not exceed 550
o
.
Interim Guidelines:
6-17
c) when a FCAW process is used, the welding procedure specification
should conform to the electrode manufacturers recommendations.
d) the criteria for joints loaded in tension should apply to both top and
bottom flange connections in moment frames.
Future editions of the AWS D1.1 code may adopt some or all of these
recommendations. In the interim period, the structural engineer should consider
including these recommendations in the project welding specifications, to
supplement the standard AWS D1.1 requirements.
2. Implementation of the special inspection requirements in 1994 UBC section 1701
{NEHRP-91 Section 1.6.2.6} and AWS D1.1. Visual inspection means that the
inspector inspects the welding periodically for adherence to the approved Welding
Procedure Specification (WPS) and AWS D1.1 starting with preliminary tack
welding and fit-up and proceeding through the welding process. Reliance on the use
of nondestructive testing (NDT) at the end of the welding process alone should be
avoided. Use visual inspection in conjunction with NDT to improve the chances of
achieving a sound weld.
3. Require the fabricator to prepare and submit a WPS with at least the information
required by AWS D1.1 as discussed in Section 4.
4. Welding electrodes should be capable of depositing weld metal with a minimum
notch toughness as described in Chapter 8.
5. All welds for the frame girder-column joints should be started and ended on weld run-
off tabs where practical. All weld tabs should be removed, the affected area ground
smooth and tested for defects using the magnetic particle method. Acceptance
criteria should be AWS D1.1, section 8.15.1. Imperfections less than 1/16 should be
removed by grinding. Deeper gouges, areas of lack of fusion, slag inclusions, etc.,
should be removed by gouging or grinding and rewelding following the procedures
outlined above.
6. Weld dams do not meet the intent of weld tabs, are not permitted by AWS D1.1, and
should not be permitted in the work. Dams are not necessary when proper bead size
limitations are observed.
7. Steel backing (backing bars), if used, should be removed from new and/or repaired
welds at the girder bottom flange, the weld root back-gouged by air arcing and the
area tested for defects using the magnetic particle method, as described above. The
weld should be completed and reinforced with a fillet weld. Removal of the weld
backing at repairs of the top girder flange weld may be considered, at the discretion of
the structural engineer.
Interim Guidelines:
6-18
Prior to removing weld backing, the contractor should prepare and submit a written WPS for
review by the structural engineer. The WPS should conform to the requirements of AWS D1.1.
In addition, a WPS should be prepared for each welding process to be used on the project and
should include minimum preheat, maximum interpass temperatures, and the as-gouged cross
section which must simulate a prequalified joint design of D1.1. If for any reason the WPS does
not meet the prequalified limits of AWS it should be qualified by test, in accordance with
Section 5.2 of AWS D1.1 In addition the contractor should propose the method(s) which will be
used to remove the weld backing, back gouge to sound metal and when during this process he
will apply preheat.
Although project conditions may vary, the following general guidelines may be considered:
The steel backing may be removed by either grinding or by the use of air arc, or oxy-
fuel gouging. The zone just beyond the theoretical 90 degree intersection of the beam
to column flange should be removed by either air arc or oxy-fuel gouging followed by
a thin grinding disk, or by a grinding disk alone. This shallow gouged depth of weld
and base metal should then be tested by MT to determine if any linear indications
remain. If the area is free of indications the area may then be re-welded. The preheat
should be maintained and monitored throughout the process. If no further
modification is to be made or if the modification will not be affected by a reinforcing
fillet weld, the reinforcing fillet may be welded while the connection remains at or
above the minimum preheat temperature and below the maximum interpass
temperature.
If weld tabs were used and are to be removed in conjunction with the removal of the weld
backing, the tabs should be removed after the weld backing has been removed and fillet added.
If cover plates are to be added, the removal of the weld tabs may occur before or after the plate is
added depending on the width and configuration of the plate. This sequence should be submitted
to the structural engineer for his/her approval prior to the beginning of the work.
The weld tabs may be removed by air arc or oxy-fuel gouging followed by grinding or by
grinding alone. The resulting contour should blend smoothly with the face of the column flange
and the edge of the beam flange and should have a radius of 1/4-3/8 inch.
The finished surface should be visually inspected for contour and any visually apparent
indications. This should be followed by magnetic particle testing (MT). Linear indications
found in this location of the weld may be detrimental. They may be the result of the final residue
of defects commonly found in the weld tab area. Linear indications should be removed by
lightly grinding or using a cutting tool until the indication is removed. If after removal of the
defect the ground area can be tapered and is not beyond the theoretical 90 degree intersection of
the beam flange edge and column flange, weld repair may not be necessary and should be
avoided if possible.
If the defect removal has extended into the theoretical weld section, then weld repair may be
necessary. The weld repair should be performed in accordance with the contractors WPS, with
strict adherence to the preheat requirements.
Interim Guidelines:
6-19
The surface should receive a final visual inspection and MT after all repairs and surface
conditioning has been completed.
End dams, if present, should be removed if UT indicates rejectable flaws in the area of the
end dam. Prior to removal of end dams, the contractor should submit a removal / repair plan
which lists the method of dam removal, defect removal, welding procedure including, process,
preheat, and joint configuration. The tab may be removed by grinding, air arc or oxy-fuel torch.
Any weld defects should be removed by grinding or cutting tools, or by air arc gouging
followed by grinding. The individual performing defect removal should be furnished the UT
results which describe the location depth and extent of the defect(s).
When the individual removing the defects has completed this operation, and has visually
confirmed that no remnants remain, the surface should be tested by MT. Additional defect
removal and MT may occur until the MT tests reveal that the defects have been removed.
The contour of the surface at this point may be too irregular in profile to allow welding to
begin. The surface should be conditioned by grinding or using a cutting tool to develop a joint
profile which conforms to the WPS. Prior to welding MT should be performed to determine if
any additional defects have been exposed.
Based upon a satisfactory MT the joint may be prepared for welding. Weld tabs (and
backing if necessary) should be added. The welding may begin and proceed in accordance with
the WPS. The theoretical weld must be completed for its full height and length. Careful
attention should be paid to ensure that weld bead size does not exceed that permitted by the
WPS.
If specified, the weld tabs and backing should be removed in accordance with the guideline
section describing this technique. The final weld should be inspected by MT and UT.
Commentary: Removal of the weld backing from the top flange may be difficult,
particularly along perimeter frames where access to the outer side is restricted.
Since the potential stress riser produced by the unwelded portions of the weld
backing are not located on the extreme outer fiber of the frame girder, the
benefits of removal may be limited in repair situations. Nevertheless, there may
be benefits to providing a weld with a more favorable contour (i.e. that produced
by the reinforcing fillet). Tests conducted to date have not been conclusive with
regard to the benefit of top flange weld backing removal. At this time, there is no
direct evidence that removal of weld backing from continuity plates in the column
panel zone is required.
The decision to remove end dams should be based upon the results of UT.
Since numerous stop - starts have occurred in this section of the theoretical weld,
rejectable edge indications may reduce the integrity of the weld, especially during
dynamic or seismic loading. If, however the area is found acceptable by UT
removal is not necessary.
Interim Guidelines:
6-20
Excessive weaving of the weld bead, which can lead to unacceptable stresses
at the toe of each weave, should not be allowed. However, some oscillation of the
electrode may be required to obtain good fusion.
6.5.2 Girder Repair
If at bottom flange repairs back gouging removes sufficient material such that a weld backing
is required for the repair, after welding the backing should be removed from the girder.
Alternatively, a double-beveled joint may be used The weld root should be inspected and tested
for imperfections, which if found, should be removed by back-gouging to sound material. A
reinforcing fillet weld should be placed at T joints equal to one-quarter of the girder flange
thickness. It need not exceed 3/8 inch (see Note J, Figure 2.4 of AWS D1.1.)
If the bottom flange weld requires repair, the following procedure may be considered:
1. The root pass should not exceed a 1/4 inch bead size.
2. The first half-length root pass should be made with one of the following techniques,
at the option of the contractor:
a) The root pass may be initiated near the center of the joint. If this approach is
used, the welder should extend the electrode through the weld access hole,
approximately 1 beyond the opposite side of the girder web. This is to allow
adequate access for clearing and inspection of the initiation point of the weld
before the second half-length of the root pass is applied. It is not desirable to
initiate the arc in the exact center of the girder width since this will limit access to
the start of the weld during post-weld operations. After the arc is initiated, travel
should progress towards the end of the joint (outboard beam flange edge), and the
weld should be terminated on a weld tab.
b) The weld may be initiated on the weld tab, with travel progressing toward the
center of the girder flange width. When this approach is used, the welder should
stop the weld approximately 1 before the beam web. It is not advisable to leave
the weld crater directly in the center of the beam flange width since this will
hinder post-weld operations.
3. The half length root pass should be thoroughly slagged and cleaned.
4. The end of the half length root pass that is near the center of the beam flange should
be visually inspected to ensure fusion, soundness, freedom from slag inclusions and
excessive porosity. The resulting bead profile should be suitable for obtaining fusion
by the subsequent pass to be initiated on the opposite side of the girder web. If the
profile is not conducive to good fusion, the start of the first root pass should be
ground, gouged, chipped or otherwise prepared to ensure adequate fusion.
Interim Guidelines:
6-21
5. The second half of the weld joint should have the root pass applied before any other
weld passes are performed. The arc should be initiated at the end of the half length
root pass that is near the center of the beam flange, and travel should progress to the
outboard end of the joint, terminating on the weld tab.
6. Each weld layer should be completed on both sides of the joint before a new layer is
deposited.
7. Weld tabs should be removed and ground flush to the beam flange. Imperfections
less than 1/16 should be removed by grinding. Deeper gouges, areas of lack of
fusion, slag inclusions, etc. should be removed by gouging or grinding and rewelding
following the procedures outlined above.
6.5.3 Weld Repair (Types W1, W2, or W3)
When W1, W2, or W3 cracks are found, the column base metal should be evaluated using
UT to determine if fractures have progressed into the flange. This testing should be performed
both during the period of discovery and during repair.
When a linear planar-type defect such as a crack or lack of fusion can be determined to
extend beyond one-half the thickness of the beam flange, it is generally preferred to use a
double-sided weld for repair (even though the fracture may not extend all the way to the opposite
surface.) This is because the net volume of material that needs to be removed and restored is
generally less when a double-sided joint is utilized. It also results in a better distribution of
residual stresses since they are roughly balanced on either side of the center of the flange
thickness.
Repair of these cracks may warrant total removal of the original weld, particularly if multiple
cracks are present. If the entire weld plus some base metal is removed care must be taken not to
exceed the root opening and bevel limits of AWS D1.1 unless a qualified by test WPS is used. If
this cannot be avoided one of two options is available:
1. The beveled face of the beam and/or the column face may be built up (buttered) until
the desired root opening and angle is obtained.
2. A section of the flange may be removed and a splice plate inserted.
Commentary: Building up base metal with welding is a less intrusive technique
than removing large sections of the base metal and replacing with new plate.
However, this technique should not be used if the length of build-up exceeds the
thickness of the plate.
6.5.4 Column Flange Repairs - Type C2
Damage type C2 is a pullout type failure of the column flange material. The zone should be
conditioned to a concave surface by grinding and inspected for soundness using MT. The
Interim Guidelines:
6-22
concave area may then be built up by welding. The joint contour described in the WPS should
specify a "boat shaped" section with a "U" shaped cross section and tapered ends. The weld
passes should be horizontal stringers placed in accordance with the WPS. Since stop/starts will
occur in the finished weld, care must be taken to condition each stop/start to remove
discontinuities and provide an adequate contour for subsequent passes. The final surface should
be ground smooth and flush with the column face. This surface and immediate surrounding area
should be subjected to MT and UT.
6.6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION
6.6.1 Definition of Modification
Within the context of damage to WSMF connections, the term "structural modification"
refers to alteration of the connection to improve its earthquake performance and that of the
structure as a whole. This typically involves substantial changes to the connection's geometry,
capacity, or relevant limit states (e.g. flexural or shear strength or stiffness). Work that includes
removal of existing welds and replacement with welds of improved toughness and/or
workmanship is not considered modification under these Interim Guidelines.
Commentary: This term is contrasted with "repair," wherein the essential
behavior of the connection is unchanged as a result of the repair effort.
Geometrical or stiffness changes can involve spatial alterations to the elements of
the connection, such as adding column stiffeners or the addition of new
connection elements, such as cover plates, upstanding ribs, side plates or
haunches. Changes to the connection's capacity, either in flexure or shear, may
occur as a result of the addition of new connection components. Altering the
connection's relevant limit states may occur, for example, when the location of the
plastic hinge is shifted away from its original location or the shear capacity of the
connection or one of its elements determines the behavior of the connection.
Much of the damage that occurred in the Northridge Earthquake has been
attributed to the presence of crack like conditions at the root of the complete
joint penetration beam flange to column flange welds. These crack like
conditions included lack of fusion at the weld root as well as the presence of
partially fused weld backing. Some engineers believe that if these crack-like
conditions are removed, substantial improvement in connection performance can
be obtained. SAC conducted specific testing in the Phase 1 program in which
such dressing up of these welds was performed. The performance of the
connection in these tests was mixed, and often not substantially improved relative
to that of connections in which the backing was left in place. Based on these tests,
removal of weld backing, backgouging and repairing welds, and reinforcing with
a fillet is not recommended as a means of connection modification, although it is
an acceptable means of repair for joints with type W1 and W2 damage.
Interim Guidelines:
6-23
Several engineers and researchers knowledgeable in fracture mechanics have
suggested that the standard, unreinforced moment connection could perform
acceptably if weld metal and base metal with adequate toughness were
incorporated, and beam flange to column joints are executed in such a manner
that large crack-like discontinuities are not present (removal of backing and weld
tabs, backgouging, and reinforcing with a fillet). Other engineers knowledgeable
in mechanics of materials (Blodgett - 1994) believe that regardless of the
toughness of the weld metal employed, the connection configuration is such that
reliable performance is unlikely.
If joints with adequate weld metal toughness can provide substantially more
reliable performance, then, removal of existing low-toughness welds and
replacement with new tough material may be an acceptable means of
modification. To date, only limited testing of such assemblies have been
conducted. In one test (Popov - 1995) an assembly consisting of a W36 x 150
beam connected to a W14 x 257 column and originally fabricated using E70T4
electrodes (not having rated notch toughness) was repaired following initial
testing by completely removing the complete joint penetration welds of the beam
flanges to column flanges and replacing them with new welds made with
electrodes having specified notch toughness. Weld backing and weld tabs were
removed and the welds were reinforced with a fillet. The specimen was
successfully tested to a plastic rotation of 0.04 radians. However, until additional
research can be performed to quantify the reliability obtained through the use of
notch tough weld metal, this is not recommended by itself as a method of
modification in these Interim Guidelines.
Modification of the structure as a whole, as opposed to individual connection
modifications, can be an effective means of obtaining more reliable performance.
The addition of braced frames, shear walls, energy dissipation systems, base
isolation, etc., can be used to reduce the total deformation demand induced in the
structure by earthquakes, and consequently the need for the moment-resisting
connections to resist large plastic rotation demands. Interim Guidelines for these
types of modifications are not directly included in this document. However,
sections on connection qualification presented below provide information that
can be used to determine the plastic rotation capacity of existing connections in
the building. Once this is determined, the effectiveness of proposed global
modification measures can be assessed, as part of the design process.
6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections
Engineers should inform building owners that substantial improvements in the reliability of
future earthquake performance of a WSMF building can be obtained by structural modification.
Modification can be made at connections that have sustained damage as well as those that are
undamaged. On the basis of cost, some owners may elect to modify those connections which
have been damaged, and which will be repaired, but not other, undamaged connections. If a
Interim Guidelines:
6-24
building has had only a few scattered connections damaged, such an approach will not result in
any significant improvement in future building performance, and is not recommended. If a
substantial number of connections in a building have been damaged and will be repaired,
modification of these damaged connections may improve future building performance,
depending on the distribution of damaged connections, throughout the building. Therefore,
consideration of such an approach has been recommended in Chapter 4 of these Interim
Guidelines.
If possible, it is recommended that the modification of connections follow a rational spatial
distribution, so a to distribute the enhanced energy dissipation capacity (and ductility) throughout
the building. As a minimum, structural modification should consider the effect of those
modifications on the performance of the lateral system as well as on the performance of
individual components of the frames. An appropriate analysis should be performed of the
building, considering the modifications, to ensure that undesirable stiffness irregularities are not
introduced or made more severe, and that excessive demand is not concentrated in connections
unable to resist the applied loads or deformations. The effects of connection modifications on
inelastic demands in adjacent columns and panel zones should be considered.
Commentary: Structural modification of connections will normally be performed
as a means of enhancing the expected performance of the building in future
earthquakes, by minimizing the potential for fractures. The intent of modification
is to make the connection sufficiently strong that inelastic behavior of the frame
will be controlled by the formation of plastic hinges within the girder spans.
Evaluation of statistical data on the types and distribution of damage
experienced by 89 buildings affected by the Northridge Earthquake (Bonowitz &
Youssef - 1995) indicates that the spatial distribution of damage other than small
root indications (Type W1) has modest correlation with the distribution of high
seismic demands predicted by traditional analytical approaches. The distribution
of type W1 indications appear to be random. A modification scheme that selects
connections on the basis of existing damage could therefore result in a random
distribution of connections with improved performance characteristics. In such
an approach, connections that may undergo high plastic rotation demands or may
be part of a lateral system with limited redundancy might not be modified in favor
of connections damaged as a result of poor workmanship. The result of this could
be a modified system with only marginally improved behavior. Connections that
have not been modified can be expected to have a significant failure rate in
subsequent earthquakes, at near-elastic demand levels. Therefore, the amount of
improvement obtained by modifying only the damaged connections is not directly
quantifiable. Generally, as more connections in the building are modified, the
potential performance of the building should improve.
An alternative approach, and one that appears to represent a more reliable
method of ensuring that the earthquake performance of the lateral system is
equivalent to that assumed at the time the WSMF was designed, is to modify all of
Interim Guidelines:
6-25
the connections. Tests on girder-column connections similar to those found in
many buildings suggest that the traditional welded flange/bolted web connection
cannot develop the rotational demands implicit in building code designs.
Modified connections appear to represent one approach to achieve the required
level of deformation capacity.
Modification of only selected connections may be a cost-effective approach if
the analysis can accurately predict the demand on the connections as well as the
consequences of future connection failures in the modified and unmodified
connections. The structural engineer should inform the building owner of the
assumed benefits as well as the potential disadvantages of a scheme that modifies
only a selected number of the connections. The reliability of analyses used to
justify such a partial modification scheme is sensitive to the modeling
assumptions and the ground motion input.
6.6.3 Criteria
Connection modification intended to permit inelastic frame behavior should be proportioned
so that the required plastic deformation of the frame may be accommodated through the
development of plastic hinges at pre-determined locations within the girder spans, as indicated in
Figure 6-12. Beam-column connections should be designed with sufficient strength (through the
use of cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) to force development of the plastic hinge away
from the column face. This condition may also be attained through local weakening of the beam
section, at the desired location for plastic hinge formation. All elements of the connection
should have adequate strength to develop the forces resulting from the formation of the plastic
hinge at the predetermined location, together with forces resulting from gravity loads.
Plastic Hinges
Deformed frame shape
Undeformed
frame
L
L
h
drift angle -
Figure 6-12 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior
Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is accommodated
through the development of inelastic flexural or shear strains within discrete
regions of the structure. At large inelastic strains these regions can develop into
Interim Guidelines:
6-26
plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated rotations at
constant (or nearly constant) load through yielding at tensile fibers and buckling
at compressive fibers. If a sufficient number of plastic hinges develop in a frame,
a mechanism is formed and the frame can deform laterally in a plastic manner.
This behavior is accompanied by significant energy dissipation, particularly if a
number of members are involved in the plastic behavior, as well as substantial
local damage to the highly strained elements. The formation of hinges in
columns, as opposed to beams, is undesirable, as this results in the formation of
mechanisms with relatively few elements participating, and consequently little
energy dissipation occurring. In addition, such mechanisms also result in local
damage to critical gravity load bearing elements.
The prescriptive connection contained in the UBC and NEHRP Recommended
Provisions prior to the Northridge Earthquake was based on the development of
plastic hinges within the beams at the face of the column, or within the column
panel zone itself. If the plastic hinge develops in the column panel zone, the
resulting column deformation results in very large secondary stresses on the
beam flange to column flange joint, a condition which can contribute to brittle
failure. If the plastic hinge forms in the beam, at the face of the column, this can
result in very large through-thickness strain demands on the column flange
material and large inelastic strain demands on the weld metal and surrounding
heat affected zones. These conditions can also lead to brittle joint failure. In
order to achieve more reliable performance, it is recommended that the
connection of the beam to the column be modified to be sufficiently strong to force
the inelastic action (plastic hinge) away from the column face. Plastic hinges in
steel beams have finite length, typically on the order of half the beam depth.
Therefore, the location for the plastic hinge should be shifted at least that
distance away from the face of the column. When this is done, the flexural
demands on the columns are increased. Care must be taken to assure that weak
column conditions are not inadvertently created by local strengthening of the
connections.
It should be noted that connection modifications of the type described above,
while believed to be effective in preventing brittle connection fractures, will not
prevent structural damage from occurring. Brittle connection fractures are
undesirable because they result in a substantial reduction in the lateral-force-
resisting strength of the structure which, in extreme cases, can result in instability
and collapse. Connections modified as described in these Interim Guidelines
should experience many fewer such brittle fractures than unmodified connections.
However, the formation of a plastic hinge within the span of a beam is not a
completely benign event. Beams which have formed such hinges may exhibit
large buckling and yielding deformation, damage which typically must be
repaired. The cost of such repairs could be comparable to the costs incurred in
repairing fracture damage experienced in the Northridge Earthquake. The
primary difference is that life safety protection will be significantly enhanced and
Interim Guidelines:
6-27
most structures that have experienced such plastic deformation damage should
continue to be safe for occupancy, while repairs are made.
If the types of damage described above are unacceptable for a given building,
then alternative methods of structural modification should be considered, that will
reduce the plastic deformation demands on the structure during a strong
earthquake. Appropriate methods of achieving such goals include the installation
of supplemental braced frames, energy dissipation systems, and similar
systematic modifications of the buildings basic lateral force resisting system.
6.6.4 Strength
When these Interim Guidelines require determination of the strength of a framing element or
component, this shall be calculated in accordance with the criteria contained in UBC-94, Section
2211.4.2 {NEHRP-91 Section 10.2, except that the factor should be taken as 1.0}, restated as
follows:
2211.4.1 Member strength. Where this section requires that the strength of the member be
developed, the following shall be used:
Flexure M
s
= Z F
y
Shear V
s
= 0.55 F
y
d t
Axial compression P
sc
= 1.7 F
a
A
Axial tension P
st
= F
y
A
Connectors
Full Penetration welds F
y
A
Partial Penetration welds 1.7 allowable (see commentary)
Bolts and fillet welds 1.7 allowable
Commentary: Partial penetration welds are not recommended for tension
applications in critical connections resisting seismic induced stresses. The
geometry of partial penetration welds creates a notch-like condition that can
initiate brittle fracture under conditions of high tensile strain.
6.6.5 Plastic Rotation Capacity
The plastic rotation capacity of modified connections should reflect realistic estimates of the
required level of plastic rotation demand. In the absence of detailed calculations of rotation
demand, connections should be shown to be capable of developing a minimum plastic rotation
capacity on the order of 0.025 to 0.030 radian. The demand may be lower when braced frames,
supplemental damping, base isolation, or other elements are introduced into the moment frame
system, to control its lateral deformation; when the design ground motion is relatively low in the
range of predominant periods for the structure; and when the frame is sufficiently strong.
If calculations are performed to determine the required connection plastic rotation capacity,
the capacity should be taken somewhat greater than the calculated deformation demand, due to
the high variability and uncertainty inherent in predictions of inelastic seismic response. Until
Interim Guidelines:
6-28
better guidelines become available, a required plastic rotation capacity on the order of 0.005
radians greater than the demand calculated for the design basis earthquake (or if greater
conservatism is desired - the maximum capable earthquake) is recommended. Rotation demand
calculations should consider the effect of plastic hinge location within the beam span, as
indicated in Figure 6-12, on plastic rotation demand. Calculations should be performed to the
same level of detail specified for nonlinear dynamic analysis for base isolated structures in UBC-
94 Section 1655 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4}. Ground motion time histories utilized for these
nonlinear analyses should satisfy the scaling requirements of UBC-94 Section 1655.4.2
{NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4} except that instead of the base isolated period, T
I
, the structure
period, T, calculated in accordance with UBC-94 Section 1628 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.3.3.1}
should be used.
Commentary. Traditionally, structural engineers have calculated demand in
moment frames by sizing the members for strength and drift using code forces
(either equivalent static or reduced dynamic forces) and then "developing the
strength of the members." Since 1988, "developing the strength" has been
accomplished by prescriptive means. It was assumed that the prescribed
connections would be strong enough so that the girder would yield (in bending),
or the panel zone would yield (in shear) in a nearly perfectly plastic manner
producing the plastic rotations necessary to dissipate the energy of the
earthquake. It is now known that the prescriptive connection is often incapable of
behaving in this manner.
In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many moment-frame connections
fractured with little evidence of plastic hinging of the girders or yielding of the
column panel zones. Testing of moment frame connections both prior to and
subsequent to the earthquake suggests that the standard welded flange-bolted web
connection is unable to reliably provide plastic rotations beyond about 0.005
radian for all ranges of girder depths and often fails below that level. Thus, for
frames designed for code forces and for the code drift limits, new connection
configurations must be developed to reliably accommodate such rotation without
brittle fracture.
In order to develop reasonable estimates of the plastic rotation demands on a
frames connections, it is necessary to perform inelastic time history analyses.
For regular structures, approximations of the plastic rotation demands can be
obtained from linear elastic analyses. Analytical research (Newmark and Hall -
1982) suggests that for structures having the dynamic characteristics of most
WSMF buildings, and for the ground motions typical of western US earthquakes,
the total frame deflections obtained from an unreduced (no R or R
w
factor)
dynamic analysis provide an approximate estimate of those which would be
experienced by the inelastic structure. For the typical spectra contained in the
building code, this would indicate expected drift ratios on the order of 1%. The
drift demands in a real structure, responding inelastically tend to concentrate in a
few stories, rather than being uniformly distributed throughout the structures
Interim Guidelines:
6-29
height. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect typical drift demands in individual
stories on the order of 1.5% to 2% of the story height. As a rough approximation,
the drift demand may be equated to the joint rotation demand, yielding expected
rotation demands on the order of perhaps 2%. Since there is considerable
variation in ground motion intensity and spectra, as well as the inelastic response
of buildings to these ground motions, conservatism in selection of an appropriate
connection rotation demand is warranted.
In recent testing of large scale subassemblies incorporating modified
connection details, conducted by SAC and others, when the connection design
was able to achieve a plastic rotation demand of 0.025 radians or more for
several cycles, the ultimate failure of the subassembly generally did not occur in
the connection, but rather in the members themselves. Therefore, the stated
connection capacity criteria would appear to result in connections capable of
providing reliable performance.
It should be noted that the connection assembly capacity criteria for the
modification of existing buildings, recommended by these Interim Guidelines, is
somewhat reduced compared to that recommended for new buildings (Chapter 7).
This is typical of approaches normally taken for existing structures. For new
buildings, these Interim Guidelines discourage building-specific calculation of
required plastic rotation capacity for connections and instead, encourage the
development of highly ductile connection designs. For existing buildings, such an
approach may lead to modification designs that are excessively costly, as well as
the modification of structures which do not require such modification.
Consequently, an approach which permits the development of semi-ductile
connection designs, with sufficient plastic rotation capacity to withstand the
expected demands from a design earthquake is adopted. It should be understood
that buildings modified to this reduced criteria will not have the same reliability
as new buildings, designed in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter
7. The criteria of Chapter 7 could be applied to existing buildings, if superior
reliability is desired.
When performing inelastic frame analysis, in order to determine the required
connection plastic rotation capacity, it is important to accurately account for the
locations at which the plastic hinges will occur. Simplified models, which
represent the hinge as occurring at the face of the column, will underestimate the
plastic rotation demand. This problem becomes more severe as the column
spacing, L, becomes shorter and the distance between plastic hinges, L, a
greater portion of the total beam span. In extreme cases, the girder will not form
plastic hinges at all, but instead, will develop a shear yield, similar to an
eccentric braced frame.
Interim Guidelines:
6-30
6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design
Modified girder-column connections may be qualified by testing or designed using
calculations. Qualification by testing is the preferred approach. Preliminary designs of
connections to be qualified by test may be obtained using the calculation procedures of Section
6.6.6.3. The procedures of that section may also be used to calibrate previous tests of similar
connection configurations to slightly different applications, by extrapolation. Extrapolation of
test results should be limited to connections of elements having similar geometries and material
specifications as the tested connections. Designs based on calculation alone should be subject to
qualified independent third party review.
6.6.6.1 Qualification Test Protocol
Unless future testing programs reveal significant effects of dynamic loading rate or time
history loading, a testing protocol similar to ATC-24, Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of
Components of Steel Structures (Applied Technology Council - 1992), is recommended as the
basis for qualification tests.
The testing program should replicate as closely as practical the anticipated conditions in the
field, including such factors as:
a) Member sizes.
b) Material specifications.
c) Welding process, details and construction conditions.
d) Cover-plates, continuity plates, web tabs, bolts, and doubler plates.
e) Connection configuration (e.g., beams on both sides).
f) Induced stresses because of restraint conditions on the welds and connection
members.
g) Axial load, where pertinent.
h) Gravity load, where significant.
The testing program should be organized to provide as much information as possible about
the capability of the connections selected. The following minimum program is recommended:
a) Test two full size specimens of the largest representative beam/column assembly in
the project.
b) Test one additional full size specimen for each beam/column assembly with
significantly different interaction properties, such as beam flange width-thickness
(b/t) ratio, panel zone stress/distortion, etc.
If any of the specimens fails to meet the qualification criteria, the connection should be
redesigned and retested.
Interim Guidelines:
6-31
Where two-sided connections are used in the structure, and the type of connection being used
can be expected to perform differently in a two-sided use than in one-sided use, it should be
tested in the two-sided configuration as well as the one-sided. Two-sided connection assemblies
can be expected to behave differently than one-sided assemblies, for example, when panel zone
distortions will be significantly different, or when systems involve transfer of stress to the
column by plates, welds, or other elements which are connected to the beams on both sides of the
column.
Testing to include axial load should be considered when analysis indicates that significant
tension can be expected to occur in a significant number of the columns represented by the
specimen and where the connection type relies on the through-thickness strength of the column
flanges. If the presence of a floor slab is anticipated to have significant influence on either the
location or mechanism of the plastic hinge formed, than this should also be included in the test
specimen.
Commentary: The use of connection configurations that have been qualified by
test is the preferred approach. While the testing of all connection geometries and
member combinations in any given building is not practical, the number of tests
must be large enough to be meaningful yet small enough to not be unreasonably
costly. Testing, within the limitations of test specimen simplification, has the
advantage of being able to replicate fabrication and welding procedures, joint
geometry and member size, and potential modes of failure. If the testing is done
in a manner consistent with other testing programs, reasonable comparisons can
be made. On the other hand, testing is expensive and it is difficult to realistically
test the girder-column connection using actual restraint conditions and
earthquake loading rates. Calculations offer an economical alternative to testing
that can accommodate different girder and column sizes, altered connection
geometries, and member properties. Nevertheless, recent testing on girder-
column connections from WSMFs casts doubt on some fundamental assumptions
upon which the calculations are based and therefore, they should be used with
caution.
Since the level of confidence in connections developed strictly on the basis of
calculations may not be as high as those based on tests, the use of testing is
encouraged. Tests are, however, relatively expensive and a reasonable degree of
flexibility in interpreting the results of limited testing programs must be
acknowledged.
How much extrapolation should be accepted is a difficult decision. As
additional testing is done, more information may be available on what constitutes
"conservative" testing conditions, thereby allowing easier decisions relative to
extrapolating tests to actual conditions which are likely to be less demanding than
the tests. For example, it is hypothesized that connections of shallower, thinner
flanged members are likely to be more reliable than similar connections
consisting of deeper, thicker flanged members. Thus, it may be possible to test the
Interim Guidelines:
6-32
largest assemblages of similar details and extrapolate to the smaller member
sizes -- at least in comparable member group families.
6.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria
The minimum acceptance criteria for connection qualification for specimens tested in
accordance with these Interim Guidelines should be as follows:
a) The connection should develop beam plastic rotations as indicated in Section 6.6.5,
for at least one complete cycle.
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to 80% of the plastic
strength of the girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength F
y
,
throughout the loading history required to achieve the required plastic rotation
capacity, as indicated in a), above.
Commentary: Many connection configurations will be able to withstand plastic
rotations on the order of 0.025 radians or more, but will have sustained
significant damage and degradation of stiffness and strength in achieving this
deformation. The intent of the acceptance criteria presented in this Section is to
assure that when connections experience the required plastic rotation demand,
they will still have significant remaining ability to participate in the structures
lateral load resisting system.
6.6.6.3 Calculations
All connections designs should be based on test data and the use of connections based upon
calculations only is not recommended. An approved program of variations on the tested
proto-typical connections may use calculations to assist in extrapolation of results.
Calculations should be correlated to tested material properties for base metals and welds.
The properties should be those corresponding to the axes of loading of the base metal and weld
in the joints and to the welding processes and materials intended for use. The tested properties
may be specific to the materials and processes to be used in the project, or based on a
statistically-based testing program. Use of properties inferred from other testing programs must
be done with appropriate care and, where such inferred properties are used, designs should
reflect the uncertainty inherent in such an indirect approach.
Calculations should initiate with the selection of a connection configuration, such as one of
those indicated in Section 6.6.7, that will permit the formation of a plastic hinge within the beam
span, away from the face of the column, when the frame is subjected to gravity and lateral loads.
6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties
In the absence of project specific material property information (for example, mill test
reports), the values listed in Table 6-3 should be used to determine the strength of steel shape and
Interim Guidelines:
6-33
plate for purposes of calculation. The permissible strength for weld metal should be taken in
accordance with the building code.
Table 6-3 - Properties for Use in Connection Modification Design
Material F
y
(ksi) F
y m
(ksi) F
u
(ksi)
A36 Beam 36
1 1
Dual Certified Beam
Axial, Flexural
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Through-Thickness
50
-
55
2
58
2
57
2
54
2
-
65 min.
Note 3
A572 Column/Beam
Axial, Flexural
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Shape Group 5
Through-Thickness
50
-
58
2
58
2
57
2
57
2
55
2
-
65 min.
Note 3
,
Notes:
1. See Commentary
2. Based on coupons from web. For thick flanges,
the F
y flange
is approximately 0.95 F
y web
.
3. See Commentary
Commentary: Table 6-3, Note 1 - The material properties for steel nominally
designated on the construction documents as ASTM A36 can be highly variable
and in recent years, steel meeting the specified requirements for both ASTM A36
and A572 has routinely been incorporated in projects calling for A36 steel.
Consequently, unless project specific data is available to indicate the actual
strength of material incorporated into the project, the properties for ASTM A572
steel should be assumed when ASTM A36 is indicated on the drawings, and the
assumption of a higher yield stress results in a more severe design condition.
Table 6-3, Note 3 - The causes for through-thickness failures of column
flanges (types C2, C4, and C5), observed both in buildings damaged by the
Northridge Earthquake and in some test specimens, are not well understood.
They are thought to be a function of the metallurgy and purity of the steel;
conditions of loading including the presence of axial load and rate of loading
application; conditions of tri-axial restraint; conditions of local hardening and
embrittlement within the welds heat affected zone; and by the relationship of the
connection components as they may affect flange bending stresses and flange
curvature induced by panel zone yielding. Given the many complex factors which
can affect the through-thickness strength of the column flange, determination of a
reliable basis upon which to set permissible design stresses will require
significant research.
Interim Guidelines:
6-34
Interim Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) included a value of 40 ksi,
applied to the projected area of beam flange attachment, for the through-
thickness strength to be used in calculations. This value was selected because it
was consistent with the successful tests of cover plated assemblies conducted at
the University of Texas at Austin (Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994). However,
because of the probable influence of all the factors noted above, this value can
only be considered to reflect the specific conditions of those tests and specimens.
Although reduced stresses at the column face produced acceptable results in
the University of Texas tests, the key to that success was more likely the result of
forcing the plastic hinge away from the column than reduction of the through-
thickness stress by the cover plates. Reduction of through-thickness column
flange stress to ever lower levels by the use of thicker cover plates is not
recommended, since such cover plates will result in ever higher forces on the face
of the column flange.
Notwithstanding all of the above, successful tests using cover plates and other
measures of moving hinges (and coincidentally reducing through-thickness stress)
continue to be performed. In the interim, structural engineers choosing to utilize
connections relying on through-thickness strength should recognize that despite
the successful testing, connections relying on through-thickness strength can not
be considered to be fully reliable until the influence of the other parameters
discussed above can be fully understood. A high amount of structural redundancy
is recommended for frames employing connections which rely on through-
thickness strength of the column flange.
6.6.6.3.2 Determine Plastic Hinge Location
The desired location for the formation of plastic hinges should be determined as a basic
parameter for the calculations. For beams with gravity loads representing a small portion of the
total flexural demand, the plastic hinge may be assumed to occur at a distance equal to 1/3 of the
beam depth from the edge of the reinforced connection (or start of the weakened beam section),
unless specific test data for the connection indicates that a different value is appropriate. Refer
to Figure 6-13.
Interim Guidelines:
6-35
L
B
e
a
m

d
e
p
t
h

-

d
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge
Connection
reinforcement
Figure 6-13 - Location of Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The suggested location for the plastic hinge, at a distance d/3 away
from the end of the reinforced section is based on the observed behavior of test
specimens, with no significant gravity load present. If the significant gravity load
is present, this can shift the locations of the plastic hinges, and in the extreme
case, even change the form of the collapse mechanism. If flexural demand on the
girder due to gravity load is less than about 30% of the girder plastic capacity,
this effect can safely be neglected, and the plastic hinge locations taken as
indicated. If gravity demands significantly exceed this level then plastic analysis
of the girder should be performed to determine the appropriate hinge locations.
Note that in zones of high seismicity (UBC Zones 3 and 4, and NEHRP Map
Areas 6 and 7) gravity loading on the girders of earthquake resisting frames
typically has a very small effect.
6.6.6.3.3 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges
The probable value of the plastic moment, M
pr
, at the location of the plastic hinges should be
determined from the equation:
M 0.95 Z F
pr b ya
= (6-1)
where: is a coefficient that accounts for the effects of strain hardening and modeling
uncertainty, taken as:
1.1 when qualification testing is performed or calculations are
correlated with previous qualification testing
1.3 when design is based on calculations, alone.
Interim Guidelines:
6-36
F
ya
is the actual yield stress of the material, as identified from mill test reports. Where mill
test data for the project is not traceable to specific framing elements, the average
of mill test data for the project for the given shape may be used. When mill test
data for the project is not available, the value of F
ym
, from
table 6-3 may be used.
Z
b
is the plastic modulus of the section
Commentary: The 0.95 factor, in equation 6-1, is used to adjust the yield stress in
the beam web, where coupons for mill certification tests are normally extracted,
to the value in the beam flange. Beam flanges, being comprised of thicker
material, typically have somewhat lower yield strengths than do beam web
material.
The factor of 1.1 recommended to account for strain hardening, or other
sources of strength above yield, agrees fairly well with available test results. It
should be noted that the 1.1 factor could underestimate the over-strength where
significant flange buckling does not act as the gradual limit on the connection.
Nevertheless, the 1.1 factor seems a reasonable expectation of over-strength
considering the complexities involved.
Connection designs that result in excessive strength in the girder connection
relative to the column or excessive demands on the column panel zone are not
expected to produce superior performance. There is a careful balance that must
be maintained between developing connections that provide for an appropriate
allowance for girder overstrength and those that arbitrarily increase connection
demand in the quest for a conservative connection design. The factors
suggested above were chosen in an attempt to achieve this balance, and arbitrary
increases in these values are not recommended.
6.6.6.3.4 Determine Beam Shear
The shear in the beam, at the location of the plastic hinge should be determined. A free body
diagram of that portion of the beam located between plastic hinges is a useful tool for obtaining
the shear at each plastic hinge. Figure 6-14 provides an example of such a calculation.
Interim Guidelines:
6-37
L
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge P
L/2
P
Mpr
Mpr
L Vp
taking the sum of moments about A = 0
Vp ={Mpr + Mpr + P L/2 + wL
2
/2}/L
A
V
A
w
Note: if 2M
pr
/L is less
then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this
case P/2 + wL/2),
then the plastic hinge
location will shift and L
must be adjusted,
accordingly
Figure 6-14 - Sample Calculation of Shear at Plastic Hinge
6.6.6.3.5 Determine Strength Demands on Connection
In order to complete the design of the connection, including sizing the various plates and
joining welds which make up the connection, it is necessary to determine the shear and flexural
strength demands at each critical section. These demands may be calculated by taking a free
body of that portion of the connection assembly located between the critical section and the
plastic hinge. Figure 6-15 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the beam
shown in Figure 6-14.
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
x
M
f
x+dc/2
d
c
M
f
=M
pr
+V
p
x
M
c
M
f
=M
pr
+V
p
(x+d
c
/2)
Critical Section at Column Face Critical Section at Column Centerline
Figure 6-15 - Calculation of Demands at Critical Sections
Commentary: Each unique connection configuration may have different critical
sections. The vertical plane that passes through the joint between the beam
flanges and column (if such joining occurs) will typically define at least one such
Interim Guidelines:
6-38
critical section, used for designing the joint of the beam flanges to the column, as
well as evaluating shear demands on the column panel zone. A second critical
section occurs at the center line of the column. Moments calculated at this point
are used to check weak beam - strong column conditions. Other critical sections
should be selected as appropriate to the connection configuration.
6.6.6.3.6 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition
Buildings which form sidesway mechanisms through the formation of plastic hinges in the
beams can dissipate more energy than buildings that develop mechanisms consisting primarily of
plastic hinges in the columns. Therefore, if an existing buildings original design was such that
hinging would occur in the beams rather than the columns, care should be taken not to alter this
behavior with the addition of connection reinforcement. To determine if the desired strong
column - weak beam condition exists, the connection assembly should be checked to determine
if the following equation is satisfied:
Z (F f ) M 1.0
c yc a c
>

(6-2)
where: Z
c
is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection
F
yc
is the minimum specified yield stress for the column above and below
f
a
is the axial load in the column above and below
M
c
is the moment calculated at the center of the column in accordance with
Section 6.6.6.3.5
Commentary: Equation 6-2 is based on the building code provisions for strong
column - weak beam design. The building code provisions for evaluating strong
column - weak beam conditions presume that the flexural stiffness of the columns
above and below the beam are approximately equal. If non-symmetrical
connection configurations are used, such as a haunch on the bottom side of the
beam, this can result in an uneven distribution of stiffness between the two column
segments. In such cases, a plastic analysis should be considered to determine if
an undesirable story mechanism is likely to form in the building.
6.6.6.3.7 Check Column Panel Zone
The adequacy of the shear strength of the column panel zone should be checked. For this
purpose, the term 0.8M
f
should be substituted for the term 0.8Ms in UBC-94 Section
2211.7.2.1 {0.9
b
M
p
in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1} repeated below for convenience of
reference. M
f
is the calculated moment at the face of the column, when the beam mechanism
forms, calculated as indicated in Section 6.6.6.3.5, above.
2211.7.2.1 Strength. The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the shear induced by
beam bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces, but the
shear strength need not exceed that required to develop 0.8M
s
of the girders framing into the
column flanges at the joint. The joint panel zone shear strength may be obtained from the
following formula:
Interim Guidelines:
6-39
V 0.55F d t 1
3b t
d d t
y c
c c f
2
b c
= +
(11-1)
where: b
c
= width of column flange
d
b
= the depth of the beam (including haunches or cover plates)
d
c
= the depth of the column
t = the total thickness of the panel zone including doubler plates
t
cf
= the thickness of the column flange
6.6.7 Modification Details
There are many potential details that can be used to modify the performance of girder-
column joints in existing WSMF structures. Several of these have been tested as part of the SAC
Phase 1 effort. While these repair and modification configurations do not represent all potential
geometries and the number of replicates is very limited, these tests do provide important insight
into the behavior of the modified connection configurations. Figures shown below present
conceptual connection configurations that have been subjected to limited testing and have shown
an acceptable level of performance.
Reference to laboratory testing is provided for those connection configurations for which
research has been reported. However, it should be noted that none of these connections has been
tested sufficiently at this time to permit unqualified use of the connection.
The figures provided in the following sections are schematic, indicating the general type of
connection configuration being described. When designing connections patterned after the reported
test data, the test specimen details included in the references should be reviewed to determine
specific details not shown.
The SAC Joint Venture does not endorse or specifically recommend any of the connection
details shown in this Section. These are presented only to acquaint the reader with available
information on representative testing of different connection configurations that have been
performed by various parties.
6.6.7.1 Haunch at Bottom Flange
Figure 6-16 illustrates two alternative configurations of this detail that have been tested
(Uang - 1995). The basic concept is to reinforce the connection with the provision of a triangular
haunch at the bottom flange. The intended behavior of both configurations is to shift the plastic
hinge from the face of the column and to reduce the demand on the CJP weld by increasing the
effective depth of the section. In one test, shown on the left of Figure 6-16, the joint between the
girder bottom flange and column was cut free, to simulate a condition which might occur if the
bottom joint had been damaged, but not repaired. In a second tested configuration, the bottom
flange joint was repaired and the top flange was replaced with a locally thickened plate, similar
to the detail shown in Figure 6-9.
Interim Guidelines:
6-40
WT, trimmed
1
2
d
d
/
4
Thickened flange
Bottom Flange Not Attached
Top Flange Not Reinforced
Bottom Flange Attached
Top Flange Reinforced
or or
Figure 6-16 - Bottom Haunch Connection Modification
Design Issues: This approach developed acceptable levels of plastic rotation. Acceptable levels
of connection strength were also maintained during large inelastic deformations of the plastic
hinge. This approach does not require that the top flange be modified, or slab disturbed, unless
other conditions require repair of the top flange, as in the detail on the left of Figure 6-16. The
bottom flange is generally far more accessible than the top flange because a slab does not have
to be removed. In addition, the haunch can be installed at perimeter frames without removal of
the exterior building cladding. There did not appear to be any appreciable degradation in
performance when the bottom beam flange was not re-welded to the face of the column.
Eliminating this additional welding should help reduce the cost of the repair.
Performance is dependent on properly executed complete joint penetration welds at the column
face and at the attachment of the haunch to the girder bottom flange. The joint can be subject to
through-thickness flaws in the column flange; however, this connection may not be as sensitive
to this potential problem because of the significant increase in the effective depth of the beam
section which can be achieved. Welding of the bottom haunch requires overhead welding. The
skewed groove welds of the haunch flanges to the girder and column flanges may be difficult to
execute.
Experimental Results: This approach developed excellent levels of plastic rotation. In Specimen
1, the bottom flange CJP weld was damaged in a prior test but was not repaired: only the bottom
haunch was added. During the test of specimen 1, a slowly growing crack developed at the
underside of the top flange-web intersection, perhaps exacerbated by significant local buckling
of the top flange. Some of the buckling may be attributed to lateral torsional buckling that
occurred because the bottom flange was not restrained by a CJP weld. A significant portion of
the flexural strength was lost during the cycles of large plastic rotation. In the second specimen,
the bottom girder flange weld was intact during the haunch testing, and its performance was
significantly improved compared with the first specimen. The test was stopped when significant
local buckling led to a slowly growing crack at the beam flange and web intersection. At this
time, it appears that repairing damaged bottom flange welds in this configuration can produce
Interim Guidelines:
6-41
better performance. Acceptable levels of flexural strength were maintained during large
inelastic deformations of the plastic hinge for both specimens.
Quantitative Results: No. of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W30 x 99
Column Size: W14 x 176
Plastic Rotation achieved-
Specimen 1:0.04 radian (w/o bottom flange weld)
Specimen 2:0.05 radian (with bottom flange weld)
6.6.7.2 Top and Bottom Haunch
Figure 6-17 illustrates the basic geometry of the top and bottom haunch detail. The intended
behavior of this modification is to shift the plastic hinge from the face of the column and to
reduce the demand on the CJP weld to the column flange by increasing the effective depth of the
section. As opposed to the bottom-only haunch, of Section 6.6.7.1, this detail further reduces the
demand on all CJP welds and allows for the structural engineer to introduce filler metal with
better toughness properties into all critical joints, without necessarily having to remove the top
flange CJP weld.
WT
1
2
d
d
/
3
or
Figure 6-17 - Top and Bottom Haunch Modification Detail
Two specimens for this detail have been tested to date, with excellent results. Possible
variations that have not yet been tested include using a shallower haunch at the top flange,
substitution of a flat cover plate for the top haunch, and not rewelding either of the original
girder flanges to the column, if these have been damaged.
Design Issues: The haunches can be installed at perimeter frames without removal of the
exterior building cladding. Performance is dependent on the proper execution of the CJP welds
from the haunch to the girder and column flanges, which can be difficult. The joint at the
column flange is subject to through-thickness flaws in the column flange, however, due to the
additional depth of the section at this joint, and the resulting reduced stresses, this design may
not be particularly sensitive to this.
Interim Guidelines:
6-42
Experimental Results: This approach developed excellent levels of plastic rotation in two
specimens. The tests were terminated when fractures across the width of the column flanges
developed at the locations of severe buckling in these flanges. Acceptable levels of connection
strength were maintained throughout the test.
Specimen 1:0.07 radian
Specimen 2:0.07 radian
6.6.7.3 Cover Plate Sections
Figure 6-18 illustrates the basic configurations of cover plate connections. The assumption
behind the cover plate is that it reduces the demand on the weld at the column flange and shifts
the plastic hinge away from the column face. Only the connection with cover plates on the top
of the top flange has been tested. There are no quantitative results for cover plates on the bottom
side of the top flange, such as might be used in repair. It is likely that thicker plates would be
required where the plates are installed on the underside of the top flange. The implications of
this deviation from the tested configuration should be considered.
Top &Bottom
Near and Far Sides
Top &Bottom
d
d/2, typical
Figure 6-18 - Cover Plate Connection Modification
Design Issues: Approximately eight connections similar that shown in Figure 6-18 have been
tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and have demonstrated the ability to achieve acceptable
levels of plastic rotation provided that the beam flange to column flange welding is correctly
executed and through-thickness problems in the column flange are avoided. The option with the
top flange cover plate located on top of the flange can be used on perimeter frames where access
to the outer side of the beam is restricted by existing building cladding. The option with the
cover plate for the top flange located beneath the flange can be installed without requiring
modification of the slab. In the figures shown, the bottom cover plate is rectangular, and sized
Interim Guidelines:
6-43
slightly wider than the beam flange to allow downhand fillet welding of the joint between the two
plates. Some configurations using triangular plates at the bottom flange, similar to the top
flange have also been tested.
Designers using this detail are cautioned to be mindful of not making cover plates so thick
that excessively large welds of the beam flange combination to column flange result. As the
cover plates increase in size, the weld size must also increase. Larger welds invariably result in
greater shrinkage stresses and increased potential for cracking prior to actual loading. In
addition, larger welds will lead to larger heat affected zones in the column flange, a potentially
brittle area.
Performance is dependent on properly executed girder flange welds. The joint can be subject
to through-thickness failures in the column flange. Access to the top of the top flange requires
demolition of the existing slab. Access to the bottom of the top flange requires overhead welding
and may be problematic for perimeter frames. Costs are greater than those associated with
approaches that concentrate modifications on the bottom flange
Experimental Results: Six of eight connections tested by the University of Texas at Austin were
able to achieve plastic rotations of at least 0.025 radians, or better. These tests were performed
using heavy column sections which forced nearly all of the plastic deformation into the beam
plastic hinge; very little column panel zone deformation occurred. Strength loss at the extreme
levels of plastic rotation did not reduce the flexural capacity to less than the plastic moment
capacity of the section based on minimum specified yield strength. One specimen achieved
plastic rotations of 0.015 radians when a brittle fracture of the CJP weld (type W2 failure)
occurred. This may partially be the result of a weld that was not executed in conformance with
the specified welding procedure specification. The second unsuccessful test specimen achieved
plastic rotations of 0.005 radian when a section of the column flange pulled out (type C2
failure). The successful tests were terminated either when twisting of the specimen threatened to
damage the test setup or the maximum stroke of the loading ram was achieved.
Column Size: W14 x 455, and 426
6 Specimens : >.025 radian to 0.05 radian
1 Specimen: 0.015 radian (W2 failure)
1 Specimen: 0.005 radian (C2 failure)
6.6.7.4 Upstanding Ribs
Figures 6-19 illustrates the basic configuration of connections with upstanding ribs. The
assumption behind the rib plate is that it reduces the demand on the weld at the column flange
and shifts the plastic hinge from the column face. The figure indicates alternative configurations
using either one centered rib, or two spaced ribs on each flange. Test data is available only for
the case with two ribs.
Interim Guidelines:
6-44
2
1
Typical
Typical
tested configuration
alternate configuration
d
d/2
Figure 6-19 - Upstanding Rib Connection Modification
Design Issues: Two connections similar to Figure 6-19, with two spaced ribs at each flange
have been tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and demonstrated the ability to achieve
acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the girder flange welding is correctly
executed. This modification can be used on perimeter frames where access to the outer side of
the girder is restricted by existing building cladding.
Performance is dependent on properly executed girder flange welds. The joint can be subject to
through-thickness failures in the column flange. Access to the top of the top flange requires
and may be problematic for perimeter frames. The size of the specimens tested required the use
of two upstanding ribs per flange. This increased the costs significantly above those designs that
use only one rib per flange, located above the girder center line. However, limited testing of the
design with one rib at the girder centerline, performed as part of a program related to eccentric
braced frames, indicated the potential for premature failure of the weld of the rib to the girder at
the outstanding edge.
Experimental Results: Two connections have been tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994) using two
plates on the top and bottom flanges. The columns used in the test were very heavy and the
flanges were able to resist the applied loads from the ribs without distorting. Similar
performance might not occur with lighter column sections. In addition, the size of the columns
forced all of the plastic deformation into the beam plastic hinge; very little column panel zone
deformation occurred. Strength loss at the extreme levels of plastic rotation did not reduce the
flexural capacity to less than the plastic moment capacity of the section based on minimum
specified yield strength, however, strength loss occurred more quickly than with the cover plated
specimens. The tests were terminated when a slow tear of the beam bottom flange occurred at
the tips of the ribs.
Interim Guidelines:
6-45
2 Specimens : >.025 radian
6.6.7.5 Side-Plate Connections
This approach eliminates loading the column in the through-thickness direction by removing
the CJP welds at the girder flange and by shifting the plastic hinge from the column face. The
tension and compression forces are transferred from the girder flanges into the column through
fillet welds. A mechanism to provide a direct connection between the column panel zone and the
beam flanges is required; the difficulty appears to be equalizing the width of the beam and
column flanges.
Experimental Results: At least two configurations of side-plated connections have been tested.
One set, shown in Figure 6-20, utilized flat bars at the top and bottom girder flanges, to transfer
flange forces to the column (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994). The girder was widened to the width
of the column with the use of filler plates. The specimens achieved plastic rotations of 0.015
radians, however, fractures developed within the welds connecting the beam flange to the
transfer plates. Failure of the shear tab, and finally the side plates themselves followed the
initiation of these fractures. It is believed that the unsuccessful behavior of this particular
specimen was related to the method used to increase the width of the beam flange to equal that of
the column flange, using a combination of a filler bar and welding. Other approaches that rely
on a flat filler plate to transfer the forces may perform better.
Possible Alternative Tested Configuration
Figure 6-20 - Side Plate Connection Modification
Quantitative Results:
Separate Top & Bottom Side Plates
No. of specimens tested: 2
2 Specimens : >.015 radian
Interim Guidelines:
6-46
A second, proprietary configuration, is shown in Figure 6-21. Three specimens
representative of the new structure configuration have undergone full-scale testing to date and
achieved large plastic rotations. Loss of strength at large plastic rotation demands was
comparable to that of other successful connections. No tests have yet been conducted of the
repair configuration. The developer of this connection has applied for US and foreign patents.
Further information on technical data for this configuration, and license fees, may be obtained
from the developer.
New Building Configuration Repair Configuration
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US and Foreign Patents have
been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as authorized in writing by the
developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign Patent Intellectual Property
Laws.
Figure 6-21 - Proprietary Side Plate Connection Modification
Design Issues: Testing of three prototype specimens (Uang & Latham - 1995) indicates that this
connection has the ability to achieve very satisfactory levels of plastic rotation without relying
on sensitive CJP welds between the column and girder flanges, or requiring specification of
notch-tough weld material. The elimination of the through-thickness loading of the flange may
result in higher levels of connection reliability. Due to the exclusive use of fillet welds, special
inspection requirements for welding and bolting can be reduced significantly with this
connection.
This connection is proprietary (patent pending) and not in the public domain. It has not been
tested in a repair condition. Access to the top of the top flange of the girder might require
demolition of the existing slab. The cost of the connection may be greater than some of the other
modification methods discussed above; however, this cost differential may not be as great on
double-sided connections because much of the cost is associated with the side plates which are
similar for both single-sided and double-sided connections. Publicly bid projects may have to
develop performance specifications to permit other connections to be considered for use unless a
strong case for sole-sourcing the connection can be made.
Interim Guidelines:
6-47
3 Specimens : >.042 to 0.06 radian
Interim Guidelines:
6-48
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
7-1
7. NEW CONSTRUCTION
The building code provisions for earthquake resistive design of Special Moment-Resisting Frames
(SMRFs) assume that these structures are extremely ductile and therefore are capable of large
plastic rotations at, or near to, their beam-column connections. Based on limited research, and
observations of damage experienced in the Northridge Earthquake, it appears that conventionally
designed connection assemblies configured such that plastic deformation concentrates at the
beam-column connection are not capable of reliably withstanding large plastic rotation demands.
The reliability appears to decrease as the size of the connected members increases. Other factors
affecting this reliability appear to include the quality of workmanship, joint detailing, toughness of
the base and weld metals, relative strengths of the connection elements, and the combined stresses
present on these elements. Unfortunately, the quantitative relationship between these factors and
connection reliability is not well defined at this time.
In order to attain frames that can reliably perform in a ductile manner, these Interim Guidelines
recommend that SMRF connections be configured with sufficient strength so that plastic hinges
occur within the beam span and away from the face of the column. All elements of the frame, and
the connection itself, should be designed with adequate strength to develop these plastic hinges.
The resulting connection assemblies are somewhat complex and the factors limiting their behavior
not always evident. Therefore, qualification of connection designs through prototype testing, or
by reference to tests of similar connection configurations is recommended.
These procedures should also be applied to the design of Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames
(OMRFs) located in zones of higher seismicity, or for which highly reliable earthquake
performance is desired, unless it can be demonstrated that the connections can resist the actual
demands from a design earthquake and remain elastic. Interim Guidelines for determining if a
design meets this condition are provided. Light, single-story, frame structures, the design of
which is predominated by wind loads, have performed well in past earthquakes and may continue
to be designed using conventional approaches, regardless of the seismic zone they are located in.
Materials and workmanship are critical to frame behavior and careful specification and control of
these factors is essential. Interim Guidelines for the specification of materials and control of
workmanship are provided in this Chapter, as well as in Chapters 8, 9, 10 and 11.
7.1 Scope
This Chapter presents interim design guidelines for new welded steel moment frames
(WSMFs) intended to resist seismic demands through inelastic behavior. The criteria apply to all
SMRF structures designed for earthquake resistance and those OMRF structures located in
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zones 3 and 4 {National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) Map Areas 6 and 7}. Light, single-story buildings, the design of which is
governed by wind, need not consider these Interim Guidelines. Frames with bolted connections,
either fully restrained (type FR) or partially restrained (type PR), are beyond the scope of this
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
7-2
document. However, the acceptance criteria for connections may be applied to type FR bolted
connections as well.
Commentary: Observation of damage experienced by WSMF buildings in the
Northridge Earthquake and subsequent laboratory testing of large scale beam-
column assemblies has demonstrated that the standard details for WSMF
connections commonly used in the past are not capable of providing reliable
service in the post-elastic range. Therefore, structures which are expected to
experience significant post-elastic demands from design earthquakes, or for
which highly reliable seismic performance is desired, should be designed using
the Interim Guidelines presented herein.
In order to determine if a structure will experience significant inelastic
behavior in a design earthquake, it is necessary to perform strength checks of the
frame components for the combination of dead and live loads expected to be
present, together with the full earthquake load. Except for structures with special
performance goals, or structures located within the near field (within 10
kilometers) of known active earthquake faults, the full earthquake load may be
taken as the minimum design earthquake load specified in the building code, but
calculated using a lateral force reduction coefficient (R
w
or R) of unity. If all
components of the structure and its connections have adequate strength to resist
these loads, or nearly so, then the structure may be considered to be able to resist
the design earthquake, elastically.
Design of frames to remain elastic under unreduced (R
w
{R} taken as unity)
earthquake forces may not be an overly oppressive requirement, particularly in
more moderate seismic zones. Most frame designs are currently controlled by
drift considerations and have substantially more strength than the minimum
specified for design by the building code. As part of the SAC Phase 1 research, a
number of modern frame buildings designed with large lateral force reduction
coefficients (Rw = 12, {R = 8}) were evaluated for unreduced forces calculated
using the standard building code spectra. It was determined that despite the
nominally large lateral force reduction coefficients used in the original design,
the maximum computed demands from the dynamic analyses were only on the
order of 2 to 3 times those which would cause yielding of the real structures
(Krawinkler, et. al. - 1995; Uang, et. al. - 1995; Engelhardt, et. al. - 1995, Hart,
et. al. - 1995; Kariotis and Eimani - 1995). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to
expect that OMRF structures (nominally designed with a lateral force reduction
coefficient R
w
= 6 {R = 4.5}) could resist the design earthquakes with near elastic
behavior. Regardless of these considerations, better seismic performance can be
expected by designing structures with greater ductility rather than less and
engineers are not encouraged to design structures for elastic behavior using
brittle or unreliable details..
Interim Guidelines:
7-3
For structures designed to meet special performance goals, and buildings
located within the near field of major active faults, full earthquake loads
calculated in accordance with the above procedure may not be adequate. For
such structures, the full earthquake load should be determined using a site
specific ground motion characterization and a suitable analysis procedure.
Recent research (Heaton, et. al. - 1995) suggests that the elastic response
spectrum technique, typically used for determining seismic forces for structural
design, may not provide an adequate indication of the true earthquake demands
produced by the large impulsive ground motions common in the near field of
large earthquake events. Further, this research indicates that frame structures,
subjected to such impulsive ground motions can experience very large drifts, and
potential collapse. Direct nonlinear time history analysis, using an appropriate
ground motion representation would be one method of more accurately
determining the demands on structures located in the near field. Additional
research on these effects is required.
As an alternative to use of the criteria contained in these Interim Guidelines,
OMRF structures in zones of high seismicity (UBC seismic zones 3 and 4 and
NEHRP map areas 6 and 7) may be designed for the connections to remain
elastic (R
w
or R taken as 1.0) while the beams and columns are designed using the
standard lateral force reduction coefficients specified by the building code.
Although this is an acceptable approach, it may result in much larger connections
than would be obtained by following these Interim Guidelines.
The use of partially restrained connections may be an attractive and
economical alternative to the design of frames with fully restrained connections.
However, the design of frames with partially restrained connections is beyond the
scope of this document. The AISC is currently working on development of
practical design guidelines for frames with partially restrained connections.
7.2 General - Welded Steel Frame Design Criteria
7.2.1 Criteria
Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) systems should, as a minimum, be designed for the
provisions of the prevailing building code and these Interim Guidelines. Special Moment-
Resisting Frames (SMRF)s and Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames (OMRF)s with FR
connections, should additionally be designed in accordance with the emergency code change to
the 1994 UBC {NEHRP-1994}, restated as follows:
2211.7.1.1. Required Strength {NEHRP-1994 Section 5.2, revision to Ref. 8.2c of Ref. 5.3}
The girder-to-column connections shall be adequate to develop the lesser of the following:
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined by Formula (11-1).
Interim Guidelines:
7-4
2211.7.1.3-2 Connection Strength
Connection configurations utilizing welds and high strength bolts shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or
calculation, the ability to sustain inelastic rotations and to develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1
considering the effects of steel overstrength and strain hardening.
Commentary: At this time, no recommendations are made to change the
minimum lateral forces, drift limitations or strength calculations which determine
member sizing and overall performance of moment frame systems, except as
recommended in Sections 7.2.2, 7.2.3 and 7.2.4. The design of joints and
connections is discussed in Section 7.3. The UBC permits OMRF structures with
FR connections, designed for 3/8R
w
times the earthquake forces otherwise
required, to be designed without conforming to Section 2211.7.1. However, this
is not recommended.
7.2.2 Strength
follows:
Flexure M
s
= Z F
y
Shear V
s
= 0.55 F
y
d t
Axial compression P
sc
= 1.7 F
a
A
Axial tension P
st
= F
y
A
Connectors
y
A
applications in critical connections resisting seismic induced stresses. The
7.2.3 Configuration
Frames should be proportioned so that the required plastic deformation of the frame may be
accommodated through the development of plastic hinges at pre-determined locations within the
girder spans, as indicated in Figure 7-1. Beam-column connections should be designed with
sufficient strength (through the use of cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) to force
development of the plastic hinge away from the column face. This condition may also be attained
through local weakening of the beam section at the desired location for plastic hinge formation.
Interim Guidelines:
7-5
Plastic Hinges
Undeformed
frame
L
L
h
drift angle -
Figure 7-1 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior
Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is accommodated
through the development of inelastic flexural or shear strains within discrete
regions of the structure. At large inelastic strains these regions can develop into
plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated rotations at
constant (or nearly constant) load through yielding at tensile fibers and buckling
at compressive fibers. If a sufficient number of plastic hinges develop in a frame,
a mechanism is formed and the frame can deform laterally in a plastic manner.
This behavior is accompanied by significant energy dissipation, particularly if a
number of members are involved in the plastic behavior, as well as substantial
local damage to the highly strained elements. The formation of hinges in
columns, as opposed to beams, is undesirable, as this results in the formation of
mechanisms with relatively few elements participating, so called story
mechanisms and consequently little energy dissipation occurring. In addition,
such mechanisms also result in local damage to critical gravity load bearing
elements.
Provisions prior to the Northridge Earthquake was based on the development of
plastic hinges within the beams at the face of the column, or within the column
panel zone itself. If the plastic hinge develops in the column panel zone, the
resulting column deformation results in very large secondary stresses on the beam
flange to column flange joint, a condition which can contribute to brittle failure.
If the plastic hinge forms in the beam, at the face of the column, this can result in
very large through-thickness strain demands on the column flange material and
large inelastic strain demands on the weld metal and surrounding heat affected
zones. These conditions can also lead to brittle joint failure. In order to achieve
more reliable performance, it is recommended that the connection of the beam to
the column be configured to force the inelastic action (plastic hinge) away from
the column face. This can be done either by local reinforcement of the
Interim Guidelines:
7-6
connection, or locally reducing the cross section of the beam, at a distance away
from the connection. Plastic hinges in steel beams have finite length, typically on
the order of half the beam depth. Therefore, the location for the plastic hinge
should be shifted at least that distance away from the face of the column. When
this is done through reinforcement of the connection, the flexural demands on the
columns, for a given beam size, are increased. Care must be taken to assure that
weak column conditions are not inadvertently created by local strengthening of
the connections.
It should be noted that some professionals and researchers believe that
configurations which permit plastic hinging to occur adjacent to the column face
may still provide reliable service under some conditions. These conditions may
include limitations on the size of the connected sections, the use of base and weld
metals with adequate notch toughness, joint detailing that minimizes notch effects,
and appropriate control of the relative strength of the beam and column
materials. Sufficient research has not been performed to date either to confirm
these suggestions or define the conditions in which they are valid. Research
however does indicate that reliable performance can be attained if the plastic
hinge is shifted away from the column face, as suggested above. Consequently,
these Interim Guidelines make a general recommendation that this approach be
taken. Additional research should be performed to determine the acceptability of
other approaches.
It should also be noted that reinforced connection (or reduced beam section)
configurations of the type described above, while believed to be effective in
preventing brittle connection fractures, will not prevent structural damage from
occurring. Brittle connection fractures are undesirable because they result in a
substantial reduction in the lateral-force-resisting strength of the structure which,
in extreme cases, can result in instability and collapse. Connections configured
as described in these Interim Guidelines should experience many fewer such
brittle fractures than unmodified connections. However, the formation of a
plastic hinge within the span of a beam is not a completely benign event. Beams
which have formed such hinges may exhibit large buckling and yielding
deformation, damage which typically must be repaired. The cost of such repairs
could be comparable to the costs incurred in repairing fracture damage
experienced in the Northridge Earthquake. The primary difference is that life
safety protection will be significantly enhanced and most structures that have
experienced such plastic deformation damage should continue to be safe for
occupancy, while repairs are made.
then alternative structural systems should be considered, that will reduce the
plastic deformation demands on the structure during a strong earthquake.
Appropriate methods of achieving such goals include the installation of
supplemental braced frames, energy dissipation systems, base isolation systems
Interim Guidelines:
7-7
and similar structural systems. Framing systems incorporating partially
restrained connections may also be quite effective in resisting large earthquake
induced deformation with limited damage.
The plastic rotation capacity of connection assemblies should reflect realistic estimates of the
total (elastic and plastic) drift likely to be induced in the frame by earthquake ground shaking, and
the geometric configuration of the frame. For frames of typical configuration, and for ground
shaking of the levels anticipated by the building code, a minimum plastic rotation capacity of 0.03
radian is recommended.
When the configuration of a frame is such that the ratio L/L is greater than 1.25, the plastic
rotation demand should be taken as follows:
( ) ( ) = + 0.025 1 L L' L' (7-1)
where: L is the center to center spacing of columns, and
L is the center to center spacing of plastic hinges in the bay under consideration
The indicated rotation demands may be reduced when positive means, such as the use of base
isolation or energy dissipation devices, are introduced into the design, to control the buildings
response. When such measurers are taken, nonlinear dynamic analyses should be performed and
the connection demands taken as 0.005 radians greater than the rotations calculated in the
analyses. The nonlinear analyses should conform to the criteria specified in UBC-94 Section 1655
{NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.2} for nonlinear dynamic analysis of base isolated structures. Ground
motion time histories utilized for these nonlinear analyses should satisfy the scaling requirements
of UBC-94 Section 1655.4.2 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4}, except that if the building is not base
isolated, the structure period T, calculated in accordance with UBC-94 Section 1628 {NEHRP-94
Section 2.3.3.1} should be substituted for T
I
.
Commentary: Traditionally, engineers have calculated demand in moment
frames by sizing the members for strength and drift using code forces (either
equivalent static or reduced dynamic forces) and then "developing the strength of
the members." Since 1988, "developing the strength" has been accomplished by
prescriptive means based on a review of testing of moment frame connections to
that date. It was assumed that the prescribed connections would be strong
enough that the beam or girder would yield (in bending), or the panel zone would
yield (in shear) in a nearly perfectly plastic manner producing the plastic
rotations necessary to dissipate the energy of the earthquake.
A realistic estimate of the interstory drift demand for most structures and most
earthquakes is on the order of 0.015 to 0.025 times the story height for WSMF
structures designed to code allowable drift limits. In such frames, a portion of
the drift will be due to elastic deformations of the frame, while the balance must
Interim Guidelines:
7-8
be provided by inelastic rotations of the beam plastic hinges, by yielding of the
column panel zone, or by a combination of the two.
In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, many moment-frame connections
fractured with little evidence of plastic hinging of the beams or yielding of the
subsequent to the earthquake suggests that the standard, pre-Northridge, welded
flange-bolted web connection is unable to reliably provide plastic rotations
beyond about 0.005 radian for all ranges of beam depths and often fails below
that level. Since the elastic contribution to drift may approach 0.01 radian, the
necessary inelastic contributions will exceed the capability of the standard
connection in many cases. For frames designed for code forces and for the code
drift, the necessary plastic rotational demand may be expected to be on the order
of 0.02 radian or more and new connection configurations should be developed to
accommodate such rotation without brittle fracture.
The recommended connection demand of 0.03 radians was selected both to
provide a comfortable margin against the demands actually expected in most
cases and because in recent testing of connection assemblies, specimens capable
of achieving this demand behaved in a ductile manner through the formation of
plastic hinges.
For a given building design, and known earthquake hazard, it is possible to
more accurately estimate plastic rotation demands on frame connections. This
requires the use of nonlinear analysis techniques. Analysis software, capable of
performing such analyses is becoming more available and many design offices
will have the ability to perform such analyses and develop more accurate
estimates of inelastic demands for specific building designs. However, when
performing such analyses, care should be taken to evaluate building response for
multiple earthquake time histories, representative of realistic ground motions for
sites having similar geologic characteristics and proximity to faults, as the actual
building site. Relatively minor differences in the ground motion time history used
as input in such an analysis can significantly alter the results. Since there is
significant uncertainty involved in any ground motion estimate, it is
recommended that analysis not be used to justify the design of structures with
non-ductile connections, unless positive measures such as the use of base
isolation or energy dissipation devices are taken, to provide reliable behavior of
the structure.
It has been pointed out that it is not only the total plastic rotation demand that
is important to connection and frame performance, but also the connection
mechanism (for example - panel zone yielding, girder flange yielding/buckling,
etc.) and hysteretic loading history. These are matters for further study in the
continuing research on connection and joint performance.
Interim Guidelines:
7-9
7.2.5 Redundancy
The frame system should be designed and arranged to incorporate as many moment-resisting
connections as is reasonable into the moment frame.
Commentary: Early moment frame designs were highly redundant and nearly
every column was designed to participate in the lateral-force-resisting system. In
an attempt to produce economical designs, recent practice often produced designs
which utilized only a few large columns and beams in a small proportion of the
buildings frames for lateral resistance, with the balance of the building columns
designed not to participate in lateral resistance. This practice led to the need for
large welds at the connections and to reliance on only a few connections for the
lateral stability of the building. The resulting large framing elements and
connections are believed to have exacerbated the poor performance of the pre-
Northridge connection. Further, if only a few framing elements are available to
resist lateral demands, then failure of only a few connections has the potential to
result in a significant loss of earthquake resisting strength. Together, these
effects are not beneficial to building performance.
The importance of redundancy to building performance can not be over-
emphasized. Even connections designed and constructed according to the
improved procedures recommended by these Interim Guidelines will have some
potential, albeit greatly reduced, for brittle failures. As the number of individual
beams and columns incorporated into the lateral-force-resisting system is
increased, the consequences of isolated connection failures significantly reduces.
Further, as more framing elements are activated in the buildings response to
earthquake ground motion, the building develops greater potential for energy
absorption and dissipation, and ability to control earthquake induced
deformations to acceptable levels.
Incorporation of more of the building framing into the lateral-force-resisting
system will lead to smaller members and therefore an anticipated increase in the
reliability of individual connections. It will almost certainly lead to improved
overall system reliability. Further, recent studies conducted by designers indicate
that under some conditions, redundant framing systems can be constructed as
economically as non-redundant systems. In these studies, the additional costs
incurred in making a greater number of field-welded moment-resisting
connections in the more redundant frame were balanced by a reduced total
tonnage of steel in the lateral-force-resisting systems and sometimes, reduced
foundation costs as well.
The 1994 UBC requirements limit the relative number of weak column/strong
beam connections in the moment frame system. There is a divergence of opinion
among structural engineers on the desirability of frames in which all beam-
column connections are made moment-resisting, including those of beams
Interim Guidelines:
7-10
framing to the minor axis of columns. Use of such systems as a means of
satisfying these Interim Guidelines requires careful consideration by the
structural engineer. Limited testing in the past has indicated that moment
connections made to the minor axis of wide flange columns are subject to the
same types of fracture damage experienced by major axis connections. As of this
time, there has not been sufficient research to suggest methods of making reliable
connections to the column minor axis.
7.2.6 System Performance
WSMF design should consider all effects of connection modifications on the response and
performance of the frame.
Commentary: Methods developed thus far for improving performance of
beam/column connections involve shifting of the hinge point away from the
column face either by reinforcement of the connection (e.g. haunches, cover
plates, etc.), or reducing the relative strength of the beam locally. These
modifications affect the overall stiffness of the frame and, therefore, its seismic
response. In fact, it can be shown that the use of smaller beam sizes and
haunched connections will result in the same overall frame stiffness as the use of
larger beams and unstiffened connections. Additionally, haunching or
reinforcement results in magnified moments and shears at the column face which
should be included in the strong column/weak beam calculations, panel zone and
web connection calculations, and column axial demand calculations.
Unsymmetrical haunches, placed on only the bottom (or top) of the beam can also
change the relative stiffness of columns above and below the beam resulting in
unexpected formation of plastic hinges in one of the columns. In addition, if
plastic hinges are forced out into the beam span, away from the column face, the
local lateral stability of beams at plastic hinges away from the column should be
considered.
7.2.7 Special Systems
When WSMFs are used as components of "Tube" type buildings with beams yielding in shear
rather than bending, or in Dual System structures, appropriate consideration should be given to
the differences in plastic rotation demands expected (as compared to pure moment frame designs)
when applying these provisions. (See discussion in Section 7.10.)
Commentary: Moment frames which are employed in dual systems in low-rise
buildings or in the lower levels of taller buildings may have significantly lower
rotation demands than those in pure frame buildings. Engineers may consider it
appropriate to use less conservative connection designs or qualification
requirements for such frames, or for portions of such frames. Appropriate
analytical substantiation should be provided for any alternative criteria utilized.
Interim Guidelines:
7-11
For tube frames with shear-yielding beams, qualification by testing is
recommended, but designs and requirements may differ from those presented in
these Interim Guidelines. Again appropriate analytical substantiation should be
provided for the selected criteria.
7.3 Connection Design & Qualification Procedures - General
7.3.1 Connection Performance Intent
The intent of connection design should be to force the plastic hinge away from the face of the
column to a pre-determined location within the beam span. This may be accomplished by local
reinforcement of the connection itself (cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) or by local
reductions of the beam section (drilled holes, trimmed flanges, etc.). All elements of the
connection should have adequate strength to develop the forces resulting from the formation of
the plastic hinge at the predetermined location, together with forces resulting from gravity loads.
7.3.2 Qualification by Testing
Connection strength and plastic rotation capacity should be demonstrated by approved cyclic
testing as described in Section 7.4, except as indicated in paragraph 7.3.3. It is recommended that
preliminary design of specimens to be tested be developed using the Interim Guidelines of Section
7.5. Extrapolation and interpolation of test results using the calculation procedures of Section 7.5
is acceptable for connections of elements having similar geometries and material specifications as
tested connections.
Commentary: Cyclic testing of connections matching the essential features of
those to be used in the actual design is the most reliable method of assuring that
the expected connection performance can be attained. Section 7.4 describes
testing guidelines in detail. Guidelines for extrapolation by calculation are given
in Section 7.5.
7.3.3 Design by Calculation
Connection design by calculations alone may be acceptable under the following conditions:
a) Calculations are based on comparison with previously tested assemblies, or with
prototype connections tested for the project;
b) Conditions of the calculated detail, including member property relationships,
material properties, welding materials, processes and procedures, and construction
sequence, mirror those of the tested detail as closely as possible; or
c) Qualified third party review, in accordance with Section 4.5 is performed.
Interim Guidelines:
7-12
Commentary: Use of calculations based on engineering principles alone, or to
extrapolate data from tests performed on assemblies which do not precisely
mirror the conditions of the calculated assembly, requires caution and judgment.
Subjective factors affecting the acceptability of such an approach should include:
a) The importance of the structure: Greater caution in applying a calculation-only
approach should be exercised for more important facilities, particularly when the
facility is expected to remain functional after a major earthquake.
b) Confidence in the lateral forces used in design: Projects which carefully apply
seismic forces based on extensively researched, site-specific seismic hazard
studies, and having resulting designs with low calculated rotation demands, may
warrant more confidence in the application of connection designs using
calculations only, as opposed to those that do not use this type of information.
Most structures are designed to satisfy the minimum code seismic forces.
Structures that are designed assuming higher levels of seismic demand (both
strength and stiffness) than found in typical projects, could also possibly be
demonstrated to warrant greater latitude in applying a calculation-only
approach.
c) The degree of redundancy, regularity and potential over-strength in the structure:
Greater care in applying a calculation-only approach should be considered in
structures with a limited number of lateral-force-resisting elements in each
direction or those with unusual building geometries. Structures with a high
degree of redundancy may be demonstrated to be better able to tolerate limited
instances of marginal connection performance. Frames designed to limit the
rotational demand by relying on elastic or near-elastic behavior may also be
more amenable to a calculation-only approach than those that depend on high
levels of plastic rotation to dissipate anticipated seismic demands. However, it
has not been shown that superior seismic performance results when strength is
substituted for ductility, and overly strong, frames with non ductile connections
are not the intent of these guidelines.
d) Proximity to active faults: Ground motion records from recent earthquakes
clearly demonstrate that sites located close to a fault rupture experience
substantially more severe ground motion than is explicitly provided for in current
code design provisions. When a building is located within 5 km of an active fault,
the plastic rotation demands on connections may exceed those provided for in
these Guidelines, and additional caution in design procedures is warranted.
For structures that are essential, contain hazardous materials, are designed
with a low degree of conservatism or redundancy, connections qualification by
test (either through reference to tests from other projects or project-specific
Interim Guidelines:
7-13
testing of connections) is strongly recommended. This recommendation should be
considered until such time as SAC or other research develops sufficient data to
allow formulation of analytical design guidelines for general application.
For non-essential structures designed with a reasonable degree of redundancy
or overstrength and incorporating enhanced welding requirements and quality
control, calculations as described above, using proportioning and stress levels
compatible with previously completed test programs, may provide sufficient
assurance of reliability.
7.4 Guidelines for Connection Qualification by Testing
7.4.1 Testing Protocol
Unless future testing programs reveal significant effects of dynamic loading rate or time
history loading, and unless the effects of other factors (e.g., restraint conditions and composite
slab effects) are found to be compelling, a testing protocol similar to ATC-24, Guidelines for
Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures (Applied Technology Council - 1992),
is recommended as the basis for qualification tests.
The testing program should replicate as closely as practical the anticipated conditions in the
field, including such factors as:
a) Member sizes.
b) Material specifications.
c) Welding process, details and construction conditions.
d) Cover plates, continuity plates, web tabs, bolts, and doubler plates.
e) Connection configuration (e.g., beams on both sides).
f) Induced stresses because of restraint conditions on the welds and connection members.
g) Axial load, where pertinent.
h) Gravity load, where significant.
The testing program should be organized to provide as much information as possible about
the capability of the connections selected. The following program is recommended:
a) Test at least two full size specimens representative of the larger beam/column
assemblies in the project.
Interim Guidelines:
7-14
b) Test one additional full size specimen representative of other beam/column assemblies
with significantly different interaction properties, such as beam b/t, panel zone
stress/distortion, etc.
If any of the specimens fails to meet the qualification criteria, the connection should be
redesigned and retested.
Where two-sided connections are used in the structure, and the type of connection being used
can be expected to perform differently in a two-sided use than in one-sided use, it should be tested
in the two-sided configuration as well as the one-sided. Two-sided connection assemblies can be
expected to behave differently than one-sided assemblies, for example, when panel zone
distortions will be significantly different, or when systems involve transfer of stress to the column
by plates, welds, or other elements which are connected to the beams on both sides of the column.
The inclusion of axial load should be considered when analysis indicates that significant
tension can be expected to occur in a significant number of the columns represented by the
specimen and where the connection type relies on the through-thickness strength of the column
flanges. If the presence of a floor slab is anticipated to have significant influence on either the
location or mechanism of the plastic hinge formed, than this should also be included in the test
specimen.
7.4.2 Acceptance Criteria
a) The connection should develop beam plastic rotations as indicated in Section 7.2.4, for
at least one complete cycle.
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to the plastic strength of the
girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength F
y
, throughout the loading
history required to achieve the required plastic rotation capacity, as indicated in a),
above. If the load limiting mechanism in the test is buckling of the girder flanges, the
engineer, upon consideration of the effect of strength degradation on the structure,
may consider a minimum of 80% of the nominal strength as acceptable.
Commentary: While the testing of all connection geometries and member
combinations in any given building might be desirable, it would not be very
practical nor necessary. Test specimens should replicate, within the limitations
associated with test specimen simplification, the fabrication and welding
procedures, connection geometry and member size, and potential modes of
failure. If the testing is done in a manner consistent with other testing programs,
reasonable comparisons can be made. On the other hand, testing is expensive
and it is difficult to realistically test the beam-column connection using actual
boundary conditions and earthquake loading histories and rates.
Interim Guidelines:
7-15
It was suggested in Interim Recommendation No. 2 by the SEAOC Seismology
Committee that three tested specimens be the minimum for qualification of a
connection. Further consideration has led to the recognition that while three tests
may be desirable, the actual testing program selected should consider the
conditions of the project. Since the purpose of the testing program is to "qualify
the connection", and since it is not practical for a given project to do enough tests
to be statistically meaningful considering random factors such as material,
welder skills, and other variables, arguments can be made for fewer tests of
identical specimens, and concentration on testing specimens which represent the
range of different properties which may occur in the project. Once a connection
is qualified, that is, once it has been confirmed that the connection can work,
monitoring of actual materials and quality control to assure emulation of the
tested design becomes most important.
Because of the cost of testing, use of calculations for interpolation or
extrapolation of test results is desirable. How much extrapolation should be
accepted is a difficult decision. As additional testing is done, more information
may be available on what constitutes "conservative" testing conditions, thereby
allowing easier decisions relative to extrapolating tests to actual conditions which
are likely to be less demanding than the tests. For example, it is hypothesized
that connections of shallower, thinner flanged members are likely to be more
reliable than similar connections consisting of deeper, thicker flanged members.
Thus, it may be possible to test the largest assemblages of similar details and
extrapolate to the smaller member sizes - at least within comparable member
group families. Extrapolation or interpolation of results with differences in
welding procedures, details or material properties is more difficult.
7.5 Guidelines for Connection Design by Calculation
In conditions where it has been determined that design of connections by calculation is
sufficient, or when calculations are used for interpolation or extrapolation, the following
guidelines should be used.
7.5.1 Material Strength Properties
In the absence of project specific material property information, the values listed in Table 7-1
should be used to determine the strength of steel shape and plate for purposes of calculation. The
permissible strength for weld metal should be taken in accordance with the building code.
Additional information on material properties may be found in the Interim Guidelines of Chapter 8.
Interim Guidelines:
7-16
Table 7-1 - Properties for Use in Connection Design
Material F
y
(ksi) F
y m
(ksi) F
u
(ksi)
A36 36 use values for
Dual Certified
58
Dual Certified Beam
Axial, Flexural
3
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Through-Thickness
50
-
55
1
58
1
57
1
54
1
-
65 min.
Note 2
A572 Column/Beam
Axial, Flexural
3
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Shape Group 5
Through-Thickness
50
-
58
1
58
1
57
1
57
1
55
1
-
65 min.
Note 2
,
A913-50
Axial, Flexural
Through-thickness
50
-
58
1
-
65 min.
Note 2
,
A913--65
Axial, Flexural 65 75
1
80 min.
Notes:
the F
y flange
y web
.
2. See Commentary
3. Values based on (SSPC-1994)
Commentary: The causes for through-thickness failures of column flanges (types
C2, C4, and C5), observed both in buildings damaged by the Northridge
Earthquake and in some test specimens, are not well understood. They are
thought to be a function of the metallurgy and purity of the steel; conditions of
loading including the presence of axial load and rate of loading application;
conditions of tri-axial restraint; conditions of local hardening and embrittlement
within the welds heat affected zone; and by the relationship of the connection
components as they may affect flange bending stresses and flange curvature
induced by panel zone yielding. Given the many complex factors which can affect
the through-thickness strength of the column flange, determination of a reliable
basis upon which to set permissible design stresses will require significant
research.
was consistent with the successful tests of assemblies with cover plates conducted
Interim Guidelines:
7-17
at the University of Texas at Austin (Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994). However,
of the column flange.
continue to be performed. In the interim, engineers choosing to utilize
discussed above can be fully understood. A high amount of structural
redundancy is recommended for frames employing connections which rely on
through-thickness strength of the column flange.
7.5.2 Design Procedure
Select a connection configuration, such as one of those indicated in Section 7.9, that will
permit the formation of a plastic hinge within the beam span, away from the face of the column,
when the frame is subjected to gravity and lateral loads. The following procedure should be
followed to size the various elements of the connection assembly:
7.5.2.1 Determine Plastic Hinge Locations
For beams with gravity loads representing a small portion of the total flexural demand, the
plastic hinge may be assumed to occur at a distance equal to 1/3 of the beam depth from the edge
of the reinforced connection (or start of the reduced beam section), unless specific test data for
the connection indicates that a different value is appropriate. Refer to Figure 7-2.
Interim Guidelines:
7-18
L
B
e
a
m

d
e
p
t
h

-

d
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge
Figure 7-2 - Location of Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The suggested location for the plastic hinge, at a distance d/3
away from the end of the reinforced section (or beginning of reduced section) is
based on the observed behavior of test specimens, with no significant gravity load
present. If significant gravity load is present, this can shift the locations of the
plastic hinges, and in the extreme case, even change the form of the collapse
mechanism. If flexural demand on the girder due to gravity load is less than
about 30% of the girder plastic capacity, this effect can safely be neglected, and
the plastic hinge locations taken as indicated. If gravity demands significantly
exceed this level then plastic analysis of the girder should be performed to
determine the appropriate hinge locations. In zones of high seismicity (UBC
Zones 3 and 4, and NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7) gravity loading on the girders of
earthquake resisting frames typically has a very small effect.
7.5.2.2 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges
Determine the probable value of the plastic moment, M
pr
, at the location of the plastic hinges
as:
M M Z F
pr p b y
= = (7-2)
where: is a coefficient that adjusts the nominal plastic moment to the estimated hinge
moment based on the mean yield stress of the beam material and the estimated
strain hardening. When designs are based upon calculations alone, an additional
factor is recommended to account for uncertainty. In the absence of adequate
testing of the type described above, should be taken as 1.4 for ASTM A572 and
for A913, Grades 50 and 65 steels. Where adequate testing has been performed
should be permitted to be taken as 1.2 for these materials.
Interim Guidelines:
7-19
Z
b
Commentary: In order to compute , the expected yield strength, strain
hardening and an appropriate uncertainty factor need to be determined. The
following assumed strengths are recommended:
Expected Yield: The expected yield strength, for purposes of computing (M
pr
) may be
taken as:
F
ye
= 0.95 F
ym
(7-3)
The 0.95 factor is used to adjust the yield stress in the beam web, where coupons
for mill certification tests are normally extracted, to the value in the beam flange.
Beam flanges, being comprised of thicker material, typically have somewhat
lower yield strengths than do beam web material.
F
y m
for various steels are as shown in Table 7-1, based on a survey of web
coupon tensile tests (Steel Shape Producers Council - 1994). The engineer is
cautioned that there is no upper limit on the yield point for ASTM A36 steel and
consequently, dual-certification steel having properties consistent with ASTM
A572, Grade 50 is routinely supplied when ASTM A36 is specified.
Consequently, it is the recommendation here that the design of connections be
based on an assumption of Grade 50 properties, even when A36 steel is specified
for beams. It should be noted that at least one producer offers A36 steel with a
maximum yield point of 50 ksi in shape sizes ranging up to W 24x62.
Strain Hardening: A factor of 1.1 is recommended for use with the mean yield
stress in the foregoing table when calculating the probable plastic moment
capacity M
pr
.. The 1.1 factor for strain hardening, or other sources of strength
above yield, agrees fairly well with available test results. The 1.1 factor could
underestimate the over-strength where significant flange buckling does not act as
a gradual limit on the beam strength. Nevertheless, the 1.1 factor seems a
reasonable expectation of over-strength considering the complexities involved.
Modeling Uncertainty: Where a design is based on approved cyclic testing, the
modeling uncertainty may be taken as 1.0, otherwise the recommended value is
1.2.
In summary, for Grade 50 steel, we have:
= [0.95 (54 ksi to 58 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) 1.2) = 1.35 t0 1.45, say 1.4
7.5.2.3 Determine Shear at the Plastic Hinge
The shear at the plastic hinge should be determined by statics, considering gravity loads acting
on the beam. A free body diagram of that portion of the beam between plastic hinges, is a useful
Interim Guidelines:
7-20
tool for obtaining the shear at each plastic hinge. Figure 7-3 provides an example of such a
calculation. For the purposes of such calculations, gravity load should be based on the load
combinations required by the building code in use.
L
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge P
L/2
P
Mpr
Mpr
L Vp
2
/2}/L
A
V
A
w
Note: if 2M
pr
/L is less
case P/2 + wL/2),
must be adjusted,
accordingly
Figure 7-3 - Sample Calculation of Shear at Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The UBC gives no specific guidance on the load combinations to
use with strength level calculations while the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
do specify specific load factors for the various dead, live and earthquake
components of load. For designs performed in accordance with the UBC it is
customary to use unfactored gravity loads when checking the strength of
elements.
7.5.2.4 Determine Strength Demands at Each Critical Section
strength demands at each critical section. These demands may be calculated by taking a free body
of that portion of the connection assembly located between the critical section and the plastic
hinge. Figure 7-4 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the beam shown in
Figure 7-3.
Interim Guidelines:
7-21
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
x
M
f
x+dc/2
d
c
M
f
=M
pr
+V
p
x
M
c
M
c
=M
pr
+V
p
(x+d
c
/2)
Figure 7-4 - Calculation of Demands at Critical Sections
are used to check strong column - weak beam conditions. Other critical sections
should be selected as appropriate.
7.5.2.5 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition
When required by the building code, the connection assembly should be checked to determine
if strong column - weak beam conditions are satisfied. In lieu of UBC-94 equation 11-3.1
{NEHRP-91 equation 10-3}, the following equation should be used:
Z (F f ) M 1.0
c yc a c
>

(7-4)
where: Z
c
F
yc
f
a
M
c
Section 7.5.2.4
Commentary: The building code provisions for evaluating strong column - weak
beam conditions presume that the flexural stiffness of the columns above and
below the beam are approximately equal. If non-symmetrical connection
configurations are used, such as a haunch on the bottom side of the beam, this
can result in an uneven distribution of stiffness between the two column segments.
Interim Guidelines:
7-22
7.5.2.6 Check Column Panel Zone
f
2211.7.2.1 {0.9
b
M
p
in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1}, repeated below for convenience of
reference. M
f
forms, calculated as indicated in Section 7.5.2.4 above.
2211.7.2.1 Strength. The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the shear induced
by beam bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces, but
the shear strength need not exceed that required to develop 0.8M
s
of the girders framing into
the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel zone shear strength may be obtained from the
following formula:
V 0.55F d t
3b t
d d t
y c
c c f
2
b c
= +
1 (11-1)
where: b
c
d
b
= the depth of the beam (including any haunches or cover plates)
d
c
t
cf
7.6 Metallurgy and Welding
For Guidelines on Metallurgy and Welding for New Structures, see Chapter 8 of these Interim
Guidelines. The recommendation for welding electrodes capable of depositing weld metal with
specified notch toughness, as described therein, should apply to the critical beam flange to column
flange field welded joints. It need not apply to shop welds of continuity plates, etc.
Commentary: This is an area of continuing controversy in the community,
requiring additional research for resolution. Some professionals and researchers
knowledgeable in fracture mechanics believe it is essential that all weld metal in
the beam column connection, including both field and shop welds, welds of
continuity plates, doubler plates, etc., as well as the welds of beam to column
flanges, should have minimum specified notch toughness. Some of these same
professionals believe that the notch toughness requirement should apply to the
combined metal, consisting of deposited electrode metal and fused base metal.
The current recommendations, which are less restrictive than this position, are
based on recommendations of members of the AWS D1.1 committee. These
recommendations are consistent with the observation of damage in the Northridge
Earthquake, in which most fractures initiated at the root of the beam flange to
column flange weld. It is of course possible that if notch tough material is used at
this joint and not at others, fractures will initiate in future events at the next
critical section, which may be a welded joint using material with low toughness at
continuity plates, or other locations.
Interim Guidelines:
7-23
While there is a lack of agreement as to the extent to which notch toughness
specifications should apply to welded joints in the moment connection, there is
general agreement that previously acceptable electrodes that had no reported
notch toughness values should no longer be used for the critical beam flange to
column flange field welded joints. Most of the electrodes that are currently
commercially available and have specified notch toughness requirements will
meet the notch toughness recommendations contained in Chapter 8 of these
Interim Guidelines. Additional research may indicate that alternate criteria are
appropriate.
A similar level of disagreement exists with regard to the need for specifying
notch toughness in base metals. Most of the fractures which have been
investigated have initiated in the weld metal rather than in the base metal. Once
these fractures extend into the base metal, they have already reached significant
size and material toughness alone may not be able to arrest them. Additional
research into the benefits of tough material, both in welds and base metals is
clearly called for.
7.7 Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Refer to Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of these Interim Guidelines.
7.8 Guidelines on Other Connection Design Issues
The emphasis thus far in testing of connection assemblages has been on the beam
flange/column flange joint. The other components of the connection such as panel zones, web
connections and continuity plates have not been studied significantly as independent parameters in
the available testing programs to date. It is assumed that the variation of these components will
have effects on the performance of the connection and thus on the flange joints, and that an as yet
undetermined balance of the sizes and details of these significant components will result in the
optimum performance of a particular connection and its various joints. Interim Guidelines for
these other critical portions of the connection assembly are presented below.
7.8.1 Design of Panel Zones
No current recommendations are made to supplement or modify the UBC-1994 {NEHRP-91}
provisions for the design of panel zones, other than as indicated in Section 7.5.2.6, above. Panel
zone demands should be calculated in accordance with Section 7.5.2.6. As with other elements of
the connection, available panel zone strength should be computed using minimum specified yield
stress for the material, except when the panel zone strength is used as a limit on the required
connection strength, in which case F
ym
should be used.
Where connection design for two-sided connection assemblies is relying on test data for one-
sided connection assemblies, consideration should be given to maintaining the level of panel zone
Interim Guidelines:
7-24
deformation in the design to a level consistent with that of the test, or at least assume that the
panel zone must remain elastic, under the maximum expected shear demands.
Commentary: At present, no changes are recommended to the code requirements
governing the design of panel zones, other than in the calculation of the demand.
There is evidence that panel zone yielding may contribute to the plastic rotation
capability of a connection. However, there is also concern and some evidence
that if the deformation is excessive, a kink will develop in the column flange at the
joint with the beam flange and, if the local curvature induced in the beam and
column flanges is significant, can contribute to failure of the joint. This would
suggest that greater conservatism in column panel zone design may be warranted.
In addition to the influence of the deformation of the panel zone on the
connection performance, it should be recognized that the use of doubler plates
and especially the welding associated with them is likely to be detrimental to the
connection performance. It is recommended that the Engineer consider use of
column sizes which will not require addition of doubler plates, where practical.
7.8.2 Design of Web Connections to Column Flanges
Specific modifications to the code requirements for design of shear connections are not made
at this time. It should be noted that the emergency code change to the UBC-94 {NEHRP-94}
deleted the former requirements for supplemental web welds on shear connections. This is felt to
be appropriate since these welds can apparently contribute to the potential for shear tab failure at
large induced rotations.
When designing shear connections for moment-resisting assemblies, the designer should
calculate shear demands on the web connection in accordance with Section 7.5.2.4, above.
Commentary: Some engineers consider that it is desirable to develop as much
bending strength in the web as possible. Additionally, it has been observed in
some laboratory testing that pre-mature slip of the bolted web connection can
result in large secondary flexural stresses in the beam flanges and the welded
joints to the column flange. However, there is some evidence to suggest that if
flange connections should fail, welding of shear tabs to the beam web may
promote tearing of the tab weld to the column flange or the tab itself through the
bolt holes, and some have suggested that welding be avoided and that web
connections should incorporate horizontally slotted holes to limit the moment
which can be developed in the shear tab, thereby protecting its ability to resist
gravity loads on the beam in the event of flexural connection failure.
7.8.3 Design of Continuity Plates
Contrary to current code requirements, it is recommended that continuity plates be provided
in all cases and that the thickness be at least equal to the thickness of the beam flange (not
Interim Guidelines:
7-25
including cover plates) or one half the total effective flange thickness (flange plus cover plate).
Welds of the continuity plate to the column should develop the strength of the continuity plate.
Where two-sided connection assemblies are designed based on one-sided connection assembly
test data, consideration should be given to the effect of the greater distortion of the continuity
plates expected in the two sided case.
For reinforced connections using vertical ribs or other configurations of reinforcement,
continuity plate sizing should be based on engineering principles and consideration of stress
patterns which may occur due to column flange distortion.
For connections incorporating haunches, continuity plates should be provided opposite the
joint of the haunch flange with the column flange.
Commentary: The determination of continuity plate thickness requires, in
addition to code conformance requirements, engineering judgment based on
recognition of two competing factors:
a) Overly thick continuity plates and their welding will contribute to restraint and
consequent residual stresses in the column, as well as to the other usual
detrimental effects of large welds. Conditions of high restraint tend to be
conducive to the initiation of fracture.
b) Omission of continuity plates or the use of overly thin continuity plates will
permit column flange distortions which will, in turn, lead to higher stress
concentrations in the beam flange joint opposite the column web.
Testing to date has not firmly established an appropriate design criteria for
continuity plates, or even that these are definitely needed to obtain good
connection performance in all cases. However, tests of specimens reinforced with
cover plates to date, have been most successful when continuity plates were
present (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994). Tests using otherwise similar designs but
with different continuity plate thicknesses have not been performed. This is an
area where further research would be beneficial.
7.8.4 Design of Weak Column and Weak Way Connections
The code permits the use of strong beam/weak column designs under certain circumstances.
There is some question as to what should be required for the connections at such conditions.
While testing has demonstrated little capability of the pre-Northridge prescriptive connection to
develop significant beam yielding without failure, it should be recognized that if the beam is
stronger than the column, considering conservative estimates of the column strength including
strain hardening, then the beam and its connection can be expected to remain below even this low
failure threshold, and it would appear to be unnecessary to provide strengthened connections.
Interim Guidelines:
7-26
When beam connections are made to the web of columns (weak way) which are stronger than
the beams, then connection design should be treated similarly to that of strong direction
connections with additional consideration for the unique features of weak direction connections
(see Tsai and Popov - 1988). Note that the question of column flange through-thickness strength
is not a consideration for this type of connection, but that development of the strength of a cover
plated flange through welds in shear to the inside face of the column flange may be difficult.
Unless the members so connected represent a very small part of lateral resistance of the structure,
testing of such connections should be considered as mandatory. Extrapolation of results from
strong way connection testing should not be done. The effect of weak way connection action on
the strength and behavior of companion strong way connections, for columns participating in
orthogonal lateral-force-resisting frames, has not been tested.
Commentary: Since 1985, the strong column/weak beam principle has been
required, but exceptions have been provided which permit weak columns in some
instances. These exceptions have not been revoked, and, in fact, the interest in
redundancy generated by the Northridge failures has actually increased interest
in their use, to the extent permitted, in moment frame systems, where all beam-
column connections in the structure are connected for moment resistance and
made part of the lateral-force-resisting system. Considering the fact that columns
resisting flexural demands about their minor axes will not generally be capable of
developing the beam flexural yield strength should permit consideration of the
pre-Northridge connections for this use. On the other hand, where specific code
exceptions permit use of weak column systems for all or a large part of the lateral
resistance a more conservative approach is merited. Use of weak column systems
as the primary lateral resistance is strongly discouraged and should not be
considered as a desirable or acceptable method of avoiding beam flange
connection concerns and reinforcing requirements.
Further, although logic would indicate that the strength demand on connections
in weak column structures would be limited by column hinging, and that therefore
the beam-column connection should be protected, evidence suggests that this may
not be the case. It has been reported that a hospital structure affected by the
Northridge Earthquake experienced failure of almost all of its beam-column
connections, despite having all or many weak column conditions.
7.9 Moment Frame Connections for Consideration in New Construction
The moment frame connection formerly prescribed by the code was configured to require
development of a plastic hinge in the beam adjacent to the beam-to-column connection. The
Northridge experience and subsequent testing have shown that as the possible result of a number of
factors, it is not reasonable to expect reliable development of plastic hinges at this location, at least
within the range of design parameters explored to date. Therefore, connections should be configured
to encourage plastic hinging action to other locations.
Interim Guidelines:
7-27
The types of connections described in the following subsections are felt to offer some promise of
providing more reliable inelastic action in WSMFs, consistent with that assumed in the design of such
frames. It is of course assumed that the required joints, both welded and bolted, have been installed
with appropriate quality control as described previously.
Reference to laboratory testing is provided for those connection configurations for which research
has been reported. However, it should be noted that none of these connections has been tested
sufficiently at this time to permit unqualified use of the connection.
The figures provided in the following sections are schematic, indicating the general type of
connection configuration being described. When designing connections patterned after the reported
test data, the test specimen details included in the references should be reviewed to determine specific
details not shown.
The SAC Joint Venture does not endorse or specifically recommend any of the connection details
shown in this Section. These are presented only to acquaint the reader with available information on
representative testing of different connection configurations that have been performed by various
parties.
Commentary: With the large interest and availability of funding for research on
steel moment frame connections, any lists of connection concepts, such as the
above will necessarily become at least partially obsolete by the time they are
published. With this in mind, it is very important that there be a publicly
accessible center to accumulate testing results as they become available. It is the
recommendation of this guideline that as efforts in this area progress, SAC
become the repository and distribution group for such information. It is hoped
that all engineers, researchers, and contractors responsible for tested connections
will willingly share all information on the tests and designs with SAC, with the
structural engineering profession, and with the building construction industry.
The various connections suggested in this section were all nominally fully
restrained (FR) connections. It has been suggested that partially restrained (PR)
connections may be a cost-effective and reliable alternative to these connections.
AISC and NSF are currently conducting research into the use of this system and
it may become an attractive alternative in the future.
7.9.1 Cover Plate Connections
Figure 7-5 illustrates the basic configuration of cover plated connections. Short cover plates
are added to the top and bottom flanges of the beam with fillet welds adequate to transfer the cover
plate forces to the beam flanges. The bottom flange cover plate is shop welded to the column flange
and the beam bottom flange is field welded to the column flange and to the cover plate. The top flange
and the top flange cover plate are both field welded to the column flange with a common weld. The
web connection may be either welded or high strength (slip critical) bolted. Limited testing of these
connections (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), (Tsai & Popov -1988) has been performed.
Interim Guidelines:
7-28
A variation of this concept which has been tested successfully very recently (Forrel/Elsesser
Engineers -1995), uses cover plates sized to take the full flange force, without direct welding of the
beam flanges themselves to the column. In this version of the detail, the cover plate provides a cross
sectional area at the column face about 1.7 times that of the beam flange area. In the detail which has
been tested, a welded shear tab is used, and is designed to resist a significant portion of the plastic
bending strength of the beam web.
T&B
Figure 7-5 - Cover Plate Connection
Design Issues: Approximately eight connections similar to that shown in Figure 7-5 have been
recently tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and they have demonstrated the ability to achieve
acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the beam flange to column flange welding is
correctly executed and through-thickness problems in the column flange are avoided. This
configuration is relatively economical, compared to some other reinforced configurations, and
has limited architectural impact.
Six of eight connections tested by the University of Texas at Austin were able to achieve
plastic rotations of at least 0.025 radians, or better. Strength loss at the extreme levels of plastic
rotation did not reduce the flexural capacity to less than the plastic moment capacity of the
section based on minimum specified yield strength. One specimen achieved plastic rotations of
0.015 radians when a brittle fracture of the CJP weld (type W2 failure) occurred. This may
partially be the result of a weld that was not executed in conformance with the specified welding
procedure specification. The second unsuccessful test specimen achieved plastic rotations of
0.005 radian when a section of the column flange (type C2 failure) occurred. A similar failure
occurred in recent testing by Popov of a specimen with cover plates having a somewhat modified
plan shape.
Interim Guidelines:
7-29
6 Specimens : >0.025 radian
1 Specimen: 0.015 radian
1 Specimen: 0.005 radian
Although apparently more reliable than the former prescriptive connection, this
configuration is subject to some of the same flaws including dependence on properly executed
beam flange to column flange welds, and through-thickness behavior of the column flange.
Further these effects are somewhat exacerbated as the added effective thickness of the beam
flange results in a much larger groove weld at the joint, and therefore potentially more severe
problems with brittle heat affected zones and lamellar defects in the column. Indeed, a
significant percentage of connections of this configuration have failed to produce the desired
amount of plastic rotation.
7.9.2 Flange Rib Connections
Figure 7-6 demonstrates the basic configuration for connections with flange ribs. The intent
of the rib plates is to reduce the demand on the weld at the column flange and to shift the plastic
hinge from the column face.
2
1
Typ.
Typ.
Figure 7-6 - Flange Rib Connection
Design Issues: There is a limited body of testing of connections similar to these (Engelhardt &
Sabol - 1994), (Tsai & Popov - 1988), and they have demonstrated the ability to achieve
acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the girder flange welding is correctly
executed.
Interim Guidelines:
7-30
2 Specimens : >0.025 radian
to through-thickness failures in the column flange, although it should be somewhat more
resistant to such failures than connections reinforced with cover plates, as the weld size is
reduced. The size of the specimens tested required the use of two upstanding ribs per flange.
This increased the costs significantly above those designs that use only one rib per flange,
located above the girder center line. However, limited testing of the design with one rib at the
girder centerline (Tsai & Popov) indicated the potential for premature failure of the weld of the
rib to the girder at the outstanding edge. It should also be noted that the specimens tested by
Engelhardt & Sabol, and reported above, incorporated columns with particularly heavy flanges.
The ribs have the potential to cause high local stresses in the column flanges and this
configuration may not behave acceptably when used with lighter section. Preliminary reports
from fabricators and erectors indicate that the cost of this connection is quite high, relative to
other configurations.
7.9.3 Bottom Haunch Connections
Figure 7-7 indicates several potential configurations for single, haunched beam-column
connections. As with the cover plated and ribbed connections, the intent is to shift the plastic
hinge away from the column face and to reduce the demand on the CJP weld by increasing the
depth of the section. To date, the configuration incorporating the triangular haunch has been
subjected to limited testing. Testing of configurations incorporating the straight haunch are
currently planned, but have not yet been performed.
WT
WT
1
2
d
d
/
3
or
or
Two tests have been performed to date, both successfully. Both tests were conducted in a
repair/modification configuration. In one test, a portion of the girder top flange, adjacent to the
Interim Guidelines:
7-31
column, was replaced with a thicker plate. In addition, the bottom flange and haunch were both
welded to the column. This specimen developed a plastic hinge within the beam span, outside the
haunched area and behaved acceptably. A second specimen did not have a thickened top flange
and the bottom girder flange was not welded to the column. Plastic behavior in this specimen
occurred outside the haunch at the bottom flange and adjacent to the column face at the top
flange. Failure initiated in the girder at the juncture between the top flange and web, possibly
contributed to by buckling of the flange as well as lateral torsional buckling of the section.
Fracture progressed slowly along the top fillet of the girder and eventually, traveled into the
flange itself.
Design Issues: The haunch can be attached to the girder in the shop, reducing field erection
costs. Weld sizes are smaller than in cover plated connections. The top flange is free of
obstructions.
Specimen 1:0.04 radian (w/o bottom flange weld and reinforced
top flange)
Specimen 2:0.05 radian (with bottom flange weld and reinforced
top flange)
Performance is dependent on properly executed complete joint penetration welds at the
column face. The joint can be subject to through-thickness flaws in the column flange; however,
this connection may not be as sensitive to this potential problem because of the significant
increase in the effective depth of the beam section which can be achieved. Welding of the bottom
haunch requires overhead welding when relatively shallow haunches are used. The skewed
groove welds of the haunch flanges to the girder and column flanges may be difficult to execute.
The increased depth of the beam, resulting from the haunch may have undesirable impact on
architectural design. Unless the top flange is prevented from buckling at the face of the column,
performance may not be adequate. For configurations incorporating straight haunches, the
haunch must be long, in order to adequately develop stress into the haunch, through the web.
This tends to increase demands at the column face. Additional testing of all these configurations
is recommended.
7.9.4 Top and Bottom Haunch Connections
Figure 7-8 illustrates this connection configuration. Haunches are placed on both the top and
bottom flanges. Two tests have been performed on connections utilizing this configuration; both
were highly successful.
Interim Guidelines:
7-32
WT
1
2
d
d
/
3
or
Figure 7-8 - Top and Bottom Haunch Connection
Design Issues: In two tests of this connection configuration performed to date, it has exhibited
extremely ductile behavior. Plastic rotations as large as 0.07 radians were obtained. In
addition to having very good plastic capacity, the connection is highly redundant. If failure
should occur at one of the complete joint penetration welds of the haunch plate, significant
residual strength would be available from the remaining girder flange welds.
This is one of the more costly connection configurations. Some of this cost could be reduced by
eliminating the welds between the girder flanges and columns, however, the performance of the
connection in that configuration has not been tested. The presence of the haunch at the top of
the girder could be an architectural problem.
Quantitative Results: No. of Specimens Tested: 2
Column Size W14 x 176
Plastic Rotation achieved - 0.07 radians
7.9.5 Side-Plate Connections
This approach eliminates loading the column in the through-thickness direction by removing
the CJP welds at the girder flange and by shifting the plastic hinge from the column face. The
tension and compression forces are transferred from the girder flanges into the column through
fillet welds. A mechanism to provide a direct connection between the column panel zone and the
beam flanges is required; the difficulty appears to be equalizing the width of the beam and column
flanges.
At least two configurations of side-plated connections have been tested. One set, shown in
Figure 7-9, utilized flat bars at the top and bottom girder flanges, to transfer flange forces to the
column (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994). The girder was widened to the width of the column with
Interim Guidelines:
7-33
the use of filler plates. The specimens achieved plastic rotations of 0.015 radians, however,
fractures developed within the welds connecting the beam flange to the transfer plates. Failure of
the shear tab, and finally the side plates themselves followed the initiation of these fractures. It is
believed that the unsuccessful behavior of this particular specimen was related to the method used
to increase the width of the beam flange to equal that of the column flange, using a combination
of a filler bar and welding. Other approaches, such as providing a full width cover plate for the
girder flanges, may provide better performance.
Tested Configuration
Possible Alternative
Figure 7-9 Side Plate Connection
Design Issues: This connection avoids both the large complete joint penetration welds of the
beam flange to the column and the potential for through-thickness failure of the column flange.
Much of the additional fabrication can be performed in the shop.
This connection did not demonstrate adequate plastic rotation capacity in the configurations
tested to date. Additional testing is required to determine if modified configurations will
perform in a more acceptable manner.
Separate Top & Bottom Side Plates
2 Specimens :0.015 radian
A second, proprietary configuration, is shown in Figure 7-10. Three specimens have
undergone full-scale testing to date and achieved large plastic rotations. Loss of strength at large
plastic rotation demands was comparable to that of other successful connections. The developer
Interim Guidelines:
7-34
of this connection has applied for US and foreign patents. Further information on technical data
for this configuration, may be obtained from the developer.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US and Foreign Patents have
been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as authorized in writing by the
developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign Patent Intellectual Property
Laws.
Figure 7-10 - Proprietary Side Plate Connection
Design Issues: Testing of three prototype specimens (Uang & Latham - 1995) indicates that this
proprietary connection has the ability to achieve very satisfactory levels of plastic rotation
without relying on sensitive CJP welds between the column and girder flanges or specifying weld
material with notch toughness. The elimination of the through-thickness loading of the flange
may result in higher levels of connection reliability. Due to the exclusive use of fillet welds,
special inspection requirements for welding and bolting can be reduced significantly with this
connection.
This connection is proprietary and license fees are associated with its use. The cost of the
connection may be greater than some of the other modification methods discussed above;
however, this cost differential may not be as great on double-sided connections because much of
the cost is associated with the side plates which are similar for both single-sided and double-
sided connections. However, double sided connections will require doubling the sizes of the
welds which deliver the forces to the columns, and potentially increasing plate thickness as well.
The connection of beams framing into the minor axis of the column are made more difficult by
this connection, particularly if they must be connected for moment resistance. Publicly bid
projects will have to develop performance specifications to permit other connections to be
considered for use unless a strong case for sole-sourcing the connection can be made.
Interim Guidelines:
7-35
3 Specimens : >0.042 radian to 0.06 radian
7.9.6 Reduced Beam Section Connections
In this connection, the cross section of the beam is intentionally reduced within a segment, to
produce an intended plastic hinge zone or fuse, located within the beam span, away from the
column face. Several ways of performing this cross section reduction have been proposed. One
method includes removal of a portion of the flanges, symmetrical about the beam centerline, in a
so-called dog bone profile. Care should be taken with this approach to provide for smoothly
contoured transitions to avoid the creation of stress risers which could initiate fracture. It has also
been proposed to create the reduced section of beam by drilling a series of holes in the beam
flanges. Figure 7-11 illustrates both concepts. The most successful configurations taper the
reduced section, through the use of unsymmetrical cut-outs, or variable size holes, to balance the
cross section and the flexural demand.
Testing of this concept was first performed by a private party, and US patents were applied
for and granted. These patents have now been released. Limited testing of both dog-bone and
drilled hole configurations have been performed in Taiwan (Chen and Yeh - 1995). The American
Institute of Steel Construction is currently performing additional tests of this configuration
(Smith-Emery - 1995), however the full results of this testing are not yet available.
There is a concern that the presence of a concrete slab at the beam top flange would tend to
limit the effectiveness of the reduced section of that flange, particularly when loading places the
top flange into compression. It may be possible to mitigate this effect with proper detailing of the
slab.
Weakened
Segment
Symmetrical Unsymmetrical
Figure 7-11 - Reduced Beam Section Connection
Design Issues: This connection type is potentially the most economical of the several types which
have been suggested. The reliability of this connection type is dependent on the quality of the
complete joint penetration weld of the beam to column flange, and the through-thickness
Interim Guidelines:
7-36
behavior of the column flange. If the slab is not appropriately detailed, it may inhibit the
intended fuse behavior of the reduced section beam segment. It is not clear at this time
whether it would be necessary to use larger beams with this detail to attain the same overall
system strength and stiffness obtained with other configurations. In limited testing conducted to
date of the unsymmetrical dog-bone configuration (Smith-Emery - 1995), the plastic hinging
which occurred at the reduced section was less prone to buckling of the flanges than in some of
the other configurations which have been tested, due to the very compact nature of the flange in
the region of the plastic hinge.
Plastic Rotation achieved- 0.03 radian
7.9.7 Slip - Friction Energy Dissipating Connection
This connection uses high strength bolts and slotted holes to develop the flange forces into the
columns. A brass shim in the shear transfer plane provides for controlled friction force. In
concept, slip along this bolted connection limits the amount of force which can be transferred to
the column and allows plastic deformation to occur in a benign manner. Two alternative
configurations have been suggested for attachment of the flanges to the column. One
incorporates bolted T sections and the other welded plates. Figure 7-12 shows the bolted T
configuration.
To date, two tests have been performed on the bolted T configuration (Popov & Yang-
1995). Results were excellent with large inelastic displacements obtained without strength or
stiffness degradation.
Type X bolts
Steel
Shims
Tee Section
w/ slotted holes
Brass Shims
Figure 7-12 - Slip Friction Energy Dissipation Connection
Interim Guidelines:
7-37
Design Issues: In the limited testing performed, this connection was able to accommodate large
inelastic displacements without damage to the connection or beams. This connection can be
assembled in the field without welding and can accommodate large plastic rotations without
permanent damage to the structure.
The connection is sensitive to fit-up, cleanliness of the faying surfaces and tension in the high-
strength bolts, and therefore will require careful field quality control. As with the reduced
section beam connections, this connection may be sensitive to the presence of a slab and
careful detailing of the slab to permit the expected connection rotations to occur may be
required. The strength that can be developed by this connection is limited by the number of bolts
that can be practically placed. It may not be suitable for use with larger members with high
strength demands. The brass shims, used at the slip plane interface are quite costly. Metal
parts kept in contact under pressure over a period of years may tend to become partially welded
together, potentially reducing the effectiveness of the connection with time. Additional research
is required on this effect.
7.9.8 Column-Tree Connection
This concept has been widely used in Japan, with mixed success. Short stubs of girders are
fabricated and shop welded to the column. Field connection to the balance of the girder is made
with bolted connections. The girder stubs can be intentionally fabricated stronger than the
balance of the girder, to force yielding and formation of a plastic hinge away from the column.
Figure 7-13 demonstrates the basic concept.
Extensive testing of this connection has not been performed in the US Some variations of this
connection, in common use in Japan, performed very poorly in the recent Kobe Earthquake
(Watabe-1995). In at least one version of this connection, the beam stub ran continuously
through the connection and the columns were shop welded to the top and bottom of this stub. A
number of these connections experienced fracture of the shop weld of the column to the beam
stub. However, it is reasonable to expect that configurations for this concept can be developed
that would permit more favorable behavior.
Figure 7-13 - Column Tree Connection
Interim Guidelines:
7-38
Design Issues: The basic advantage to this connection is that critical welding can be performed
in the fabrication shop where it should be possible to attain better quality control. In addition,
field erection costs are reduced through the use of bolted field connections.
Testing of this connection in configurations similar to US construction practice has not been
performed. Some configurations utilized in Japan performed poorly in the Kobe Earthquake.
The connection is dependent on the quality of beam flange to column flange welding and the
through-thickness behavior of the column flange. Transportation and handling of tree columns
is probably somewhat more difficult and expensive than for standard columns.
7.9.9 Slotted Web Connections
In the former prescriptive connection, in which the beam flanges were welded directly to the
column flanges, beam flexural stress was transferred into the column web through the combined
action of direct tension across the column flange, opposite the column web, and through flexure
of the column flange. This stress transfer mechanism results in a large stress concentration at the
center of the beam flange, opposite the column web. Recent research (Allen, et. al. - 1995)
indicates that the provision of continuity plates within the column panel zone reduces this stress
concentration somewhat, but not completely. The intent of slotted web connections is to further
reduce this stress concentration and to achieve a uniform distribution of flexural stress across the
beam flange at the connection. Figure 7-14 indicates one configuration for this connection type
that has been successfully tested. In this configuration, vertical plates are placed between the
column flanges, opposite the edges of the top and bottom beam flanges to stiffen the outstanding
column flanges and draw flexural stress away from the center of the beam flange. Horizontal
plates are placed between these vertical plates and the column web to transfer shear stresses to the
panel zone. The web itself is softened with the cutting of a vertical slot in the column web,
opposite the beam flange. High fidelity finite element models were utilized to confirm that a
nearly uniform distribution of stress occurs across the beam flange.
Typical
PP
1/4 Slot
3/4 Hole
Figure 7-14 - Slotted Web Connection
Interim Guidelines:
7-39
Design Issues: This detail is potentially quite economical, entailing somewhat more shop
fabrication than the former prescriptive connection, but similar levels of field erection work.
Contrary to the recommendations contained in these Interim Guidelines, this connection does
not shift the location of plastic hinging away from the column face. However, two connections
similar to that shown in Figure 7-14 have recently been tested succesfully (Allen. - 1995). The
connection detail is sensitive to the quality of welding employed in the critical welds, including
those between the beam and column flanges, and between the vertical and horizontal plates and
the column elements. It has been reported that one specimen, with a known defect in the beam
flange to column flange weld was informally tested and failed at low levels of loading.
The detail is also sensitive to the balance in stiffness of the various plates and flanges. For
configurations other than those tested, detailed finite element analyses may be necessary to
confirm that the desired uniform stress distribution is achieved. The developer of this detail
indicates that for certain column profiles, it may be possible to omit the vertical slots in the
column web and still achieve the desired uniform beam flange stress distribution.
This detail may also be sensitive to the toughness of the column base metal at the region of
the fillet between the web and flanges. In heavy shapes produced by some rolling processes the
metal in this region may have substantially reduced toughness properties relative to the balance
of the section. This condition, coupled with local stress concentrations induced by the slot in the
web may have the potential to initiate premature fracture. The developer believes that it is
essential to perform detailed analyses of the connection configuration, in order to avoid such
problems. Popov tested one specimen incorporating a locally softened web, but without the
vertical and horizontal stiffener plates contained in the detail shown in Figure 7-14. That
specimen failed by brittle fracture through the column flange which progressed into the holes cut
into the web. The stress patterns induced in that specimen, however, were significantly different
than those which occur in the detail shown in the figure.
Quantitative Results: Number of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W 27x94
Column Size: W 14x176
Plastic Rotation Achieved:
Specimen 1: 0.025 radian
7.10 Other Types of Welded Connection Structures
These Interim Guidelines have focused on the design of the moment and shear resisting FR
connections in moment frame systems in which the lateral forces are resisted by bending in beams
and columns. In addition to moment frame systems, there are a number of other system types
which conceivably could exhibit connection or joint distress similar to that seen in moment frames
in Northridge when deformed under high intensity earthquake motions. Except for one detail of a
welded base plate at the base of a braced frame, there has been no reported damage to the
following systems from the Northridge earthquake. The response to earthquake motions,
however, presents similar potential conditions to those found in moment frame connections.
Interim Guidelines:
7-40
Therefore when designing new construction, close attention should be given to these structural
systems and details so that damage similar to that observed on WSMF systems can be avoided in
future earthquakes.
7.10.1 Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF)
EBF provisions in the code require the use of "link beam" elements. Link beams are usually
designed to yield in shear in the web, but can be designed to yield in flexure. In some
configurations, the link beam is connected to the column flange in a manner nearly identical to the
connection of the WSMF. The connection of the brace element to the beam also connects to the
beam flange, but the connection has additional design requirements which modify the type of
connection. In addition to connection concerns for EBFs, the currently recognized variability of
steel strengths should be considered in designing the components of the EBF. It is recommended
that connections in EBFs intended to resist plastic rotation demands be designed the same as
WSMF connections, as previously defined in these Interim Guidelines, with due consideration
given to the additional shear forces which may be induced in the link beams.
Commentary: Although the code provisions are intended to cause the link beams
connected to columns to yield in shear (length of link limited to 1.6M
S
/V
S
), the
link may be at or near its bending strength when shear yielding would occur.
Thus the connection to the column flanges may be vulnerable to the same or
similar problems as those exhibited by WSMF connections during the Northridge
earthquake.
Recognition of the probable strength of steel in the link beam could be critical
to the performance of these structures. The inelastic behavior of EBF structures
is intended to be controlled through yielding of these links. If link beams are
fabricated from excessively strong material, they may not yield before other parts
of the frame become damaged.
7.10.2 Dual Systems
The provisions for Dual Systems in the code require that the system include a Special
Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) designed according to the same provisions as if it were the
primary system but capable of resisting at least 25% of the required lateral forces. In addition, it
is required to have a primary system consisting of either concrete shear walls, Special
Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF), Concentrically Braced Frames (CBF), or Eccentrically
Braced Frames (EBFs). Connection design for moment frames used in Dual Systems should
conform to the recommendations of these Interim Guidelines for SMRF systems.
Commentary: Prior to the 1967 UBC, Dual Systems design required a primary
system (shear walls or CBFs) capable of resisting 100% of the required lateral
forces in conjunction with a "back-up" SMRF capable of resisting at least 25% of
the total forces. The assumption for this type of system was that the SMRF would
take over and prevent collapse of the structure in the event of failure of the stiffer,
Interim Guidelines:
7-41
but ostensibly less ductile, primary system. In this concept of design, the SMRF
was there solely for redundancy. In the 1967 UBC, an additional provision was
added in which the primary system and the SMRF were required to be designed to
share the total required lateral force according to their elastic stiffness. In the
1988 UBC, the requirement that the primary system (shear walls or braced
frames) be designed to resist 100% of the required total force was eliminated, but
the other two requirements remain. This potentially makes it even more important
that the SMRF portion of a dual system have adequate ductility to survive a major
event.
In general, dual systems have been a somewhat controversial system. Some
engineers believe that the added redundancy provided by the backup system is
quite beneficial while others do not believe that the relatively weak and often
flexible back-up system improves building performance significantly. Little
analytical research of these systems has been performed. Such research would be
beneficial, however, in providing guidance as to the amount of ductility required
of the backup frame system.
7.10.3 Welded Base Plate Details
The detail of concern is in any system of steel framing where a column, which is subject to
high axial tension or flexure, or both, is directly welded to its baseplate in a manner similar to that
used for beam-to-column moment connections. Additional concerns occur when anchor bolts are
fastened to the base plate in close proximity to the bottom of the column.
Commentary: When a column is welded directly to the base plate and has the
potential for being loaded with significant tension or tension in combination with
flexure, CJP welds and the through-thickness strength of the base plate are
required to resist the tensile forces. The combination of uncertainty of the
through-thickness strength and the uncertainty of the axial loading suggests that
another type of connection detail should be chosen. Frequently, the anchor bolts
are placed close to the face of the column flanges. If the anchor bolts are strong
enough so that the mechanism of failure is flexure in the base plate, the short
flexural span makes it impossible for flexural yielding to occur and may result in
a brittle fracture of the plate or of the CJP welds.
7.10.4 Vierendeel Truss Systems
A Vierendeel Truss (VT) is a type of truss without diagonals in which shear forces are resisted
by the vertical members and chords, acting together as moment-resisting frames. VT's may have
diagonals in some bays in some designs, but may also be designed to rely totally on the verticals.
Where both chords and verticals of VT's are wide flange shapes, the connections of the verticals
to the chords and the chords to the columns are often detailed in the same manner as the beam-to-
column flange connection of WSMFs. A variation on the conventional horizontal Vierendeel
Truss which deserves similar attention is a system where vertical loads in a discontinuous column
Interim Guidelines:
7-42
are supported by moment connected beams at several floors, rather than by a single transfer girder
above the location of the column discontinuity.
Commentary: Considering the brittle nature of the damage to steel structures due
to the Northridge earthquake, Engineers should have some concerns about VT
systems as described above even when they are designed to carry vertical loads
only, particularly if the loadings are variable and could significantly exceed
design loads in extreme cases. Where VT's are a part of the lateral system, either
serving simply as a moment frame girder or as a transfer girder, seismic
deformations potentially could lead to yielding at the connections of the truss
verticals to the chords. Such connections should be designed in the same manner
as the beam-to-column connections of WSMFs. If such yielding is possible, the
effect of such yielding on the vertical load capacity and deformation should be
investigated.
7.10.5 Moment Frame Tubular Systems
This type of lateral-force-resisting system is common in very tall buildings. The moment
frame is arranged with relatively short spacing of columns around the perimeter of the structure.
The system is actually a special type of WSMF which has very stiff beams so that the chord forces
at the end of a moment frame can be distributed to adjacent columns perpendicular to the plane or
around the corner of the moment frame. The system is defined as a three-dimensional space
frame structure composed of three or more frames connected at the corners (or intersections) to
form a vertical tube-like structure (or a structure composed of several adjacent tubes). Of
particular concern is the short beam span which renders some of the solutions for local
strengthening of beams difficult to achieve. On the other hand, plastic rotational demands due to
high seismic forces may be shown to be very low in some designs.
Commentary: Moment frame tube structures are normally very redundant
systems with many moment-resisting members and connections. A thorough
analysis of the structural system should be made to determine what potential
plastic rotation demand would be required on the connections. With very tall
buildings, seismic response becomes more heavily influenced by the higher modes
of vibration, and design of members and connections might be controlled by wind
forces.
7.10.6 Welded Connections of Collectors, Ties and Diaphragm Chords
These members are part of a buildings lateral-force-resisting system. They are usually
horizontal members which, in addition to supporting adjacent gravity load, are also required to
transmit large axial tensile and compressive forces. If development of the tensile and flexural
forces at the connections to the columns requires welding of the member flanges to the column,
all of the recommendations for WSMF connections should be followed.
Interim Guidelines:
7-43
Commentary: Where chord, collector and time members are nearly pure axial
members, such as would occur in a building with shear walls or braced frames
that is laterally very stiff, the former prescriptive connection may be found to be
sufficient, depending on the size of the member..
7.10.7 Welded Column Splices
Even though no column splice damage has been reported from the Northridge earthquake,
column splices incorporating partial penetration flange welds should be used cautiously,
particularly if the potential for large tensile and/or flexural forces are present. Partial penetration
welds result in a crack-like feature, which can initiate fracture under conditions of high stress. A
number of structures experienced failure of column splices in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, with
some such failures leading to structural collapse.
Commentary: Of particular concern would be the use of partial penetration butt
welds on the column flanges. The configuration of partial penetration welds
provides a notch on the inner edge of the weld. Thus other methods of effecting a
column splice should be used if significant or unpredictable tensile or flexural
forces are possible. When considering bending in column splices of moment
frames, it has been shown by inelastic time-history analyses that reliance should
not be placed on the inflection point occurring at the mid height of the column.
The studies show that the location of the hinge can change significantly as the
structure deforms, both due to higher mode effects and due to the inelastic
response of the members.
7.10.8 Built-up Moment Frame Members
Built-up beams and columns used in moment frame systems have the same concerns in the
design of connections as the rolled shape systems previously discussed. The welds connecting the
various component parts of the built-up members should be designed to be capable of resisting the
effects of potential plastic behavior and connections of built-up members should be designed to
preclude reliance on yielding of steel in areas of confined or restrained joints.
Commentary: In beams, the effect of the shape of the components, including the
relative thickness of flanges and web can be significant in determining the forces
required to be developed in the various joints in the connection of the beam to the
column. Also the joint between the web and flanges of the built-up beams,
particularly in the areas of potential plastic hinges, should be designed to be
capable of permitting flange buckling without weld failure.
In H shaped built-up columns, the welded joints between the web and flanges
should be designed to develop the panel zone shears based on the probable
location of the plastic hinges. In tubular or box shaped columns, the placing of
the plates and the selection of the type of weld connecting webs to flanges is
Interim Guidelines:
7-44
important in providing adequate joints to resist the forces in the beam-to-column
connection zone. Some testing has been performed Taiwan (Tsai - 1995).
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
8-1
8. METALLURGY & WELDING
Standard industry specifications for construction materials and processes permit wide variation in
strength, toughness and other properties that can be critical to structural performance. This
Chapter provides basic information on the variations in properties that occur, practical steps an
engineer can take to control critical properties to acceptable levels of tolerance, and the specific
instances when such measures may be appropriate.
8.1 Parent Materials
8.1.1 Steels
Designers should specify materials which are readily available for building construction and which
will provide suitable ductility and weldability for seismic applications. Structural steels which may be
used in the lateral-force-resisting systems for structures designed for seismic resistance without special
qualification include those contained in Table 8-1. Refer to the applicable ASTM reference standard
for detailed information.
Table 8-1 - Structural Steel Prequalified for Use in Seismic Lateral-Force-Resisting Systems
ASTM Specification Description
ASTM A36 Carbon Structural Steel
ASTM A283
Grade D
Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates
ASTM A500
(Grades B & C)
Cold-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds &
Shapes
ASTM A501 Hot-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing
ASTM A572
(Grades 42 & 50)
High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Steels of Structural Quality
ASTM A588 High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel (weathering steel)
Structural steels which may be used in the lateral-force-resisting systems of structures designed for
seismic resistance with special permission of the building official are those listed in Table 8-2. Steel
meeting these specifications has not been demonstrated to have adequate weldability or ductility for
general purpose application in seismic-force-resisting systems, although it may well possess such
characteristics. In order to demonstrate the acceptability of these materials for such use in WSMF
construction it is recommended that connections be qualified by test, in accordance with the guidelines
of Chapter 7. The test specimens should be fabricated out of the steel using those welding procedures
proposed for use in the actual work.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
8-2
Table 8-2 - Non-prequalified Structural Steel
ASTM A242 High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel
ASTM A709 Structural Steel for Bridges
ASTM A913 High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Shapes of Structural Quality, Produced by
Quenching & Self-Tempering Process
Commentary: Many WSMF structures designed in the last 10 years incorporated
ASTM A36 steel for the beams and ASTM A572 grade 50 steel for the columns.
This provided an economical way to design structures for the strong column -
weak beam provisions contained in the building code. Recent studies conducted
by the Structural Shape Producers Council (SSPC), however, indicate that
material produced to the A36 specification has wide variation in strength
properties with actual yield strengths that often exceed 50 ksi. This wide
variation makes prediction of connection and frame behavior difficult. Some
have postulated that one of the contributing causes to damage experienced in the
Northridge Earthquake was inadvertent pairing of overly strong beams with
average strength columns.
The AISC and SSPC have been working for several years to develop a new
specification for structural steel that would have both minimum and maximum
yield values defined and provide for a margin between maximum yield and
minimum ultimate tensile stress. AISC recently submitted such a specification,
for a material with 50 ksi specified yield strength, to ASTM for development into
a standard specification. It is anticipated that domestic mills will begin
producing structural shapes to this specification within a few years and that
eventually, this new material will replace A36 as the standard structural material
for incorporation into lateral-force-resisting systems.
Under certain circumstances it may be desirable to specify steels that are not
recognized under the UBC for use in lateral-force-resisting systems. For
instance, ASTM A709 might be specified if the designer wanted to place limits on
toughness for fracture-critical applications. In addition, designers may wish to
begin incorporating ASTM A913, Grade 65 steel, as well as other higher strength
materials, into projects, in order to again be able to economically design for
strong column - weak beam conditions. Designers should be aware, however, that
these alternative steel materials may not be readily available. It is also
important when using such non-prequalified steel materials, that precautions be
taken to ensure adequate weldability of the material and that it has sufficient
ductility to perform under the severe loadings produced by earthquakes. The
cyclic test program recommended by these Interim Guidelines for qualification of
connection designs, by test, is believed to be an adequate approach to qualify
alternative steel material for such use as well.
Interim Guidelines:
8-3
Note that ASTM A709 steel, although not listed in the building code as
prequalified for use in lateral-force-resisting systems, actually meets all of the
requirements for ASTM A36 and ASTM A572. Consequently, special
qualification of the use of this steel should not be required.
8.1.2 Chemistry
ASTM specifications define chemical requirements for each steel. A chemical analysis is performed
by the producer on each heat of steel. End product analyses can also be specified on certain products.
A certified mill test report is furnished to the customer with the material. The designer should specify
that copies of the mill test reports be submitted for his/her conformance review. In general, ASTM
specifications for structural steels include maximum limits on carbon, manganese, silicon, phosphorous
and sulfur. Ranges and minimums are also limited on other elements in certain steels. Chromium,
columbium, copper, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium may be added to enhance strength, toughness,
weldability and corrosion resistance. These chemical requirements may vary with the specific product
and shape within any given specification.
Commentary: Some concern has been expressed with respect to the movement in
the steel producing industry of utilizing more recycled steel in its processes. This
results in added trace elements not limited by current specifications. Although
these have not been shown quantitatively to be detrimental to the performance of
welding on the above steels, a new specification for structural steel proposed by
AISC does place more control on these trace elements. Mill test reports now
include elements not limited in some or all of the specifications. They include
copper, columbium, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, silicon and vanadium. The
analysis and reporting of an expanded set of elements should be possible, and
could be beneficial in the preparation of welding procedure specifications (WPSs)
by the welding engineer if critical welding parameters are required. Modern
spectrographs used by the mills are capable of automated analyses. When
required by the engineer, a request for special supplemental requests should be
noted in the contract documents.
8.1.3 Tensile/Elongation Properties
Mechanical property test specimens are taken from rolled shapes or plates at the rolling mill in the
manner and location prescribed by ASTM A6 and ASTM A370. Table 8-3 gives the basic mechanical
requirements for commonly used structural steels. Properties specified, and controlled by the mills, in
current practice include minimum yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and minimum elongation.
However, there can be considerable variability in the actual properties of steel meeting these
specifications.
SSPC, in cooperation with SEAOC, has collected statistical data on the strength characteristics of
two grades (ASTM A36 and ASTM A572 Grade 50) of structural steels, based on mill test reports
from selected domestic producers for the 1992 production year. Data were also collected for "Dual
Interim Guidelines:
8-4
Grade" material that was certified by the producers as complying with both ASTM A36 and ASTM
A572 Grade 50. Table 8-4 summarizes these results as well as data provided by a single producer for
ASTM A913 material.
Table 8-3 - Typical Tensile Requirements for Structural Shapes
ASTM
Minimum Yield
Strength, Ksi
Ultimate Tensile
Strength, Ksi
Minimum Elongation
%
in 2 inches
Minimum Elongation
%
in 8 inches
A36 36 58-80
1
21
2
20
A242 42
4
63 MIN. 21
3
18
A572, GR50 50 65 MIN. 21
2
18
A588 50 70 MIN. 21
3
18
A709, GR36 36 58-80 21
2
20
A709, GR50 50 65 MIN. 21 18
A913, GR50 50 65 MIN. 21 18
A913, GR65 65 80 MIN. 17 15
Notes: 1- No maximum for shapes greater than 426 lb./ft.
2- Minimum is 19% for shapes greater than 426 lb. /ft.
3- Minimum is 18% for shapes greater than 426 lb./ft.
4. Minimum is 50 ksi for Shape Groups 1 and 2, 46 ksi for Shape Group 3
Unless special precautions are taken to limit the actual strength of material incorporated into the
work to defined levels, new material specified as ASTM A36 should be assumed to be the dual grade
for connection demand calculations, whenever the assumption of a higher strength will result in a more
conservative design condition.
Commentary: The data given in Table 8-4 for A36 and A572 Grade 50 is
somewhat weighted by the lighter, Group 1 shapes that will not ordinarily be used
in WSMF applications. Excluding Group 1 shapes and combining the Dual
Grade and A572 Grade 50 data results in a mean yield strength of 48 ksi for A36
and 57 ksi for A572 Grade 50 steel. It should also be noted that 50% of the
material actually incorporated in a project will have yield strengths that exceed
these mean values. For the design of facilities with stringent requirements for
limiting post-earthquake damage, consideration of more conservative estimates of
the actual yield strength may be warranted.
In wide flange sections the tensile test coupons are currently taken from the
web. The amount of reduction rolling, finish rolling temperatures and cooling
conditions affect the tensile and impact properties in different areas of the
member. Typically, the web exhibits about five percent higher strength than the
flanges due to faster cooling.
Table 8-4 - Statistics for Structural Shapes
1
Statistic A 36 Dual
Grade
GRADE
A572
GR50
A913
GR65
Interim Guidelines:
8-5
Statistic A 36 Dual
Grade
GRADE
A572
GR50
A913
GR65
Yield Point (ksi)
Mean 49.2 55.2 57.6 75.3
Minimum 36.0 50.0 50.0 68.2
Maximum 72.4 71.1 79.5 84.1
Standard Deviation [ s ] 4.9 3.7 5.1 4.0
Mean + 1 s 54.1 58.9 62.7 79.3
Tensile Strength (ksi)
Mean 68.5 73.2 75.6 89.7
Minimum 58.0 65.0 65.0 83.4
Maximum 88.5 80.0 104.0 99.6
Mean + 1 s 73.1 76.5 81.8 93.2
Yield/Tensile Ratio
Mean 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.84
Minimum 0.51 0.65 0.62 0.75
Maximum 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.90
Mean + 1 s 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.87
Mean - 1 s 0.66 0.71 0.71 0.81
1: The data presented for ASTM A36, Dual Grade and ASTM A572 Grade 50 were included as
part of the SSPC study (SSPC-1994). The data for ASTM A913 were derived from a single
producer and may not be available from all producers.
Design professionals should be aware of the variation in actual properties
permitted by the ASTM specifications. This is especially important for yield
strength. Yield strengths for ASTM A36 material have consistently increased over
the last 15 years so that several grades of steel may have the same properties or
reversed properties, with respect to beams and columns, from those the designer
intended. Investigations of structures damaged by the Northridge earthquake
found some WSMF connections in which beam yield strength exceeded column
yield strength despite the opposite intent of the designer.
As an example of the variations which can be found, Table 8-5 presents the
variation in material properties found within a single building affected by the
Northridge earthquake. Properties shown include measured yield strength (F
ya
,),
measured tensile strength (F
ua
) and Charpy V-Notch energy rating (CVN).
Interim Guidelines:
8-6
Table 8-5 - Sample Steel Properties from a Building Affected by the Northridge Earthquake
Shape F
ya
1
ksi F
ua
, ksi CVN, ft-lb.
W36 X 182 38.0 69.3 18
W36 X 230 49.3 71.7 195
Note 1 - ASTM A36 material was specified for both structures.
The practice of dual certification of A36 and A572, Grade 50 can result in
mean yield strengths that are fifty percent higher than the specified yield of A36.
Since there is no practical way to discern whether dual grade steel will be
supplied, unless direct purchase of steel from specific suppliers is made, in the
absence of such procurement practices, the prudent action for determining
connection requirements, where higher strengths could be detrimental to the
design, would be to assume the dual grade material whenever A36 or A572 Grade
50 is specified.
8.1.4 Toughness Properties
For critical connections, non-redundant components and unusual or difficult geometries involving
Group 3 (with flanges 11/2 inches or thicker) 4 and 5 shapes and plates and built-up sections over two
inches thick with welded connections, the designer should consider specifying toughness requirements
on the parent materials. A Charpy V-Notch (CVN) value of 20 ft.-lb. at 70 degrees F. should be
specified when toughness is deemed necessary for an application. Refer to Figure 8-1 for typical CVN
test specimen locations. The impact test should be conducted in accordance with ASTM A673,
frequency H, with the following exceptions:
a) The center longitudinal axis of the specimens should be located as near as practicable to
midway between the inner flange surface and the center of the flange thickness at the
intersection of the web mid-thickness. Refer to AISC LRFD specification, Section A3-1c,
Heavy Shapes (American Institute of Steel Construction - 1993)
b) Tests should be conducted by the producer on material selected from a location
representing the top of each ingot or part of an ingot used to produce the product
represented by these tests. For the continuous casting process, the sample may be taken at
random.
Interim Guidelines:
8-7
Typical
CVN
Specimen
ASTM A673
t
f
/2
CL
b
f
/2
b
f
/3
CVN
Specimen
AISC- LRFD
A3-1c
Figure 8-1 - Standard Locations for Charpy V-Notch Specimen Extraction, Longitudinal Only
Commentary: Many variables are recognized in analyzing the metallurgy of
WSMF members. Until more research is available on the through-thickness
properties of members thicker than two inches, a conservative approach is
indicated. Specifying toughness properties in critical, unusual or non-redundant
connections should be considered.
As temperature decreases or strain rate increases, toughness properties
decrease. Charpy V-notch impact (CVN) tests, pre-cracked CVN tests and other
fracture toughness tests can identify the nil ductility temperature (NDT) - the
temperature below which a material loses all ductility and fractures in a brittle
manner. On a microscopic level, this equates to a change in the fracture
mechanism from shear to cleavage. Fracture that occurs by cleavage at a
nominal tensile stress below yield is referred to as a brittle fracture. A brittle
fracture can occur in structural steel when a particular combination of low
temperature, tensile stress, high strain rate and a metallurgical or mechanical
notch is present.
Plastic deformation can only occur through shear stress. Shear stress is
generated when uniaxial or bi-axial straining occurs. In tri-axial stress states,
the maximum shear stress approaches zero as the principal stresses increase.
When these stresses approach equality, a cleavage failure can occur. Welding
and other sources of residual stresses can set up a state of tri-axial stress leading
to brittle fractures.
The necessity for minimum toughness requirements is not agreed to by all.
There is also disagreement as to how much toughness should be required. The
Interim Guidelines:
8-8
AWS Presidential Task Group recommended toughness values of 15 ft-lb. at
different temperatures, depending on the anticipated service conditions. A
temperature of 70

degrees F was recommended for enclosed structures and 40
degrees F for exposed structures. The 1993 AISC LRFD Specification, Section
A3-1c, Heavy Shapes, requires toughness testing [Charpy V-Notch] under the
following conditions for Group 4 and 5 shapes and plates exceeding 2 inches in
thickness: a) When spliced using complete joint penetration welds; b) when
complete joint penetration welds through the thickness are used in connections
subjected to primary tensile stress due to tension or flexure of such members.
Where toughness is required, the minimum value should be 20 ft-lb. at 70F.
Plates thicker than two inches and sections with flanges thicker than two
inches can be expected to have significantly variable grain sizes across the
section. The slower cooling rate of the web-flange intersection in thick sections
produces a larger grain size which exhibits less ductility and notch toughness.
ANSI/ASTM A673 and A370 establish the procedure for longitudinal Charpy
V-notch testing. The impact properties of steel can vary within the same heat and
piece, be it as-rolled, controlled rolled, or heat treated. Normalizing or
quenching and tempering will reduce the degree of variation. Three specimens
are taken from a single test coupon or location. The average must exceed the
specified minimum, but one value may be less than the specified minimum but
must be greater than the larger of two thirds of the specified minimum or 5 ft-lb.
The longitudinal axis of the specimen is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
shape or final rolling direction for plate. For shapes, the specimen is taken from
the flange 1/3 the distance from the edge of the flange to the web. The frequency
of testing [heat or piece], the test temperature, and the absorbed energy are
specified by the user. [NOTE: heat testing (frequency H) for shapes, means one
CVN test set of samples from at least each 50 tons of the same shape size,
excluding length, from each heat in the as-rolled condition. Piece testing
(frequency P) for shapes, means one CVN test set of specimens from at least each
15 tons or each single length of 15 tons of the same shape size, excluding length,
from each heat in the as-rolled condition.] Heat testing is probably adequate in
most circumstances.
The specimen location required by ASTM A673 is not at the least tough part
of a W shape. For a W shape, the volume at the flange web intersection has the
lowest ratio of surface area to volume and hence cools the slowest. This slow
cooling causes grain growth and reduced toughness. The finer the grain, the
tougher the material. Also, ASTM A673 does not specify where in the product
run of an ingot to sample. Impurities tend to rise to the upper portion of the ingot
during cooling from molten metal. Impurities reduce the toughness of the
finished metal. Hence, shapes produced from the upper portions of an ingot can
be expected to have lower toughness, and samples should be taken from shapes
Interim Guidelines:
8-9
produced from this portion of the ingot. In the continuous casting process,
impurities tend to be more evenly distributed; hence, samples taken anywhere
should suffice. The AISC LRFD specification requires testing from the upper
portion of the ingot and near the web flange intersection. Even though the AISC
LRFD specification does not require toughness testing for the typical WSMF
connection, i.e., a Group 2 beam to a Group 4 column, it appears that there may
be inadequate through thickness toughness in the Group 4 and 5 column flanges.
In response to concerns raised following the Northridge Earthquake, the AISC
conducted a statistical survey of the toughness of material produced in structural
shapes, based on data provided by six producers for a production period of
approximately one year (American Institute of Steel Construction - 1995). This
survey showed a mean value of Charpy V notch toughness for all shape groups
that was well in excess of 20 ft-lb. at 70

degrees F. However, not all of the
samples upon which these data are based were taken from the core area,
recommended by these Interim Guidelines. Consequently, this survey does not
provide definitive information on the extent to which standard material produced
by the mills participating in this survey will meet the recommended values.
8.1.5 Lamellar Discontinuities
For critical joints (beam to column CJP welds or other tension applications where Z-axis or tri-axial
stress states exist), ultrasonic testing (UT) should be specified for the member loaded in the Z axis
direction, in the area of the connection. A distance 3 inches above and below the location to be welded
to the girder flange is recommended. The test procedure and acceptance criteria given in ASTM
A898-91, Standard Specification for Straight Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Rolled Steel Structural
Shapes, Level I, should be applied. This testing should be done in the mill or fabrication shop for new
construction. For repair welding, the same procedure should be applied in the field, as access permits.
Commentary: Very little test data exist on the through thickness properties of
structural shapes nor are there any standard test methods for determining these
properties. Nevertheless, the typical beam-column joints in WSMFs rely heavily
on the through-thickness properties of column flanges. Some of the proposed
strengthening and reinforcing solutions will transmit even more forces into the Z
axis of the column flanges. Laminations (pre-existing planes of weakness) and
lamellar tearing (cracks parallel to the surface) will impair the Z axis strength
and toughness properties. These defects are mainly caused by non-metallic
sulfides and oxides which begin as almost spherical in shape, and become
elongated in the rolling process. When Z axis loading occurs from weld
shrinkage strains or external loading, microscopic cracks may form between the
discrete, elongated nonmetallic inclusions. As they link up, lamellar tearing
occurs.
Interim Guidelines:
8-10
Longitudinal wave ultrasonic testing is very effective in mapping serious
lamellar discontinuities. Improved quality steel does not eliminate weld
shrinkage and, by itself, will not necessarily avoid lamellar tearing in highly
restrained joints. Ultrasonic testing should not be specified without due regard
for design and fabrication considerations.
In cases where lamellar defects or tearing are discovered in erection or on
existing buildings, the designer must consider the consequences of making repairs
to these areas. Gouging and repair welding will add additional cycles of weld
shrinkage to the connection and may promote crack extensions or new lamellar
tearing. When secondary cracking is discovered, a welding engineer should be
consulted to generate a special WPS for the repair.
8.2 Welding
8.2.1 Welding Process
The welding process to be used to execute the joint weld [e.g. shielded metal (SMAW), flux cored
(FCAW), submerged (SAW), gas metal arc weld (GMAW), or electroslag (requires qualification of the
welding procedure specification)] should be specified in the Contract Documents for weld repairs.
Contract documents for new construction should state any restrictions on weld parameters or
processes. Most pre-Northridge production welding was executed using FCAW using a self-shielding
process (FCAW-SS). Shielded metal arc welding (stick welding) is often used for damage repairs, in
tight conditions and in some shop applications.
Commentary: At this time there is no clear evidence that one method can produce
uniformly superior welds although poor welds can be produced with any of the
methods.
8.2.2 Welding Procedures
Welding should be performed within the parameters established by the electrode manufacturer and
the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), required under AWS D1.1.
Commentary: For example, the position (if applicable), electrode diameter,
amperage or wire feed speed range, voltage range, travel speed range and
electrode stickout (e.g. all passes, 0.072 in. diameter, 248 to 302 amps, 19 to 23
volts, 6 to 10 inches/minute travel speed, 170 to 245 inches/minute wire feed
speed, 1/2" to 1" electrode stickout) should be established. This information is
generally submitted by the fabricator as part of the Welding Procedure
Specification. Its importance in producing a high quality weld is essential. The
following information is presented to help the engineer understand some of the
issues surrounding these parameters.
Interim Guidelines:
8-11
The amperage, voltage, travel speed, electrical stickout and wire feed speed
are functions of each electrode. If prequalified WPSs are utilized, these
parameters must be in compliance with the AWS D1.1 requirements. For FCAW
and SMAW, the parameters required for an individual electrode vary from
manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, for these processes, it is essential that
the fabricator/erector utilize parameters that are within the range of
recommended operation published by the filler metal manufacturer. Alternately,
the fabricator/erector could qualify the welding procedure by test in accordance
with the provisions of AWS D1.1 and base the WPS parameters on the test results.
For submerged arc welding, the AWS D1.1 code provides specific amperage
limitations since the solid steel electrodes used by this process operate essentially
the same regardless of manufacture. The filler metal manufacturers guideline
should supply data on amperage or wire feed speed, voltage, polarity, and
electrical stickout. The guidelines will not, however, include information on
travel speed which is a function of the joint detail. The contractor should select a
balanced combination of parameters, including travel speed, that will ensure that
the code mandated weld-bead sizes (width and height) are not exceeded.
8.2.3 Welding Filler Metals
The current AWS D1.1 requirements should be incorporated as written in the Code. The welding
parameters should be clearly specified using a combination of the Project Specifications, the Project
Drawings, the Shop Drawings and the welding procedure specifications, as required by AWS D1.1.
For welding on ASTM A572 steel, the AWS D1.1 code requires the use of low-hydrogen electrodes.
With SMAW welding, a variety of non-low hydrogen electrodes are commercially available. These
electrodes are not appropriate for welding on the higher strength steels used in building construction
today, although they were popular in the past when lower strength steels were employed. All of the
electrodes that are employed for flux cored arc welding (both gas shielded and self-shielded), as well as
submerged arc welding, are considered low hydrogen.
For critical joints (beam to column CJP welds or other tension applications where Z-axis loading or
tri-axial stress states exist), toughness requirements for the filler metals should be specified. A
minimum CVN value of 20 ft.-lb. at a temperature of 0 degrees F. should be required, unless more
stringent requirements are indicated by the service conditions and/or the Contract Documents. The
filler metal should be tested in accordance with the AWS A5 filler metal specification to ensure it is
capable of achieving this level of notch toughness. The filler metal manufacturers Typical Certificate of
Conformance, or a suitably documented test performed by the contractor, should be used to document
the suitability of the electrode used. These tests should be performed for each filler metal by AWS
classification, filler metal manufacturer and filler metal manufacturers trade name. The sizes as
specified by the AWS A5 document should be tested, although the exact diameter used in production
need not be specifically tested. This requirement should not be construed to imply lot or heat testing of
filler metals.
Interim Guidelines:
8-12
Electrode specification sheets should be provided by the Fabricator/Erector prior to commencing
fabrication/erection.
Commentary: Currently, there are no notch toughness requirements for weld
metal used in welding ASTM A 36 or A 572, Grade 50, steel in AWS D1.1. This
topic has been extensively discussed by the Welding Group at the Joint
SAC/AISC/AISI/NIST Invitational Workshop on September 8 and 9, 1994, and by
all participants of the SAC Invitational Workshop on October 28 and 29, 1994.
The topic was also considered by the AWS Presidential Task Group, which
decided that additional research was required to determine the need for
toughness in weld metal. There is general agreement that adding a toughness
requirement for filler metal would be desirable and easily achievable. Most filler
metals are fairly tough, but some will not achieve even a modest requirement such
as 5 ft-lb. at + 70F. What is not in unanimous agreement is what level of
toughness should be required. The recommendation from the Joint Workshop was
20 ft-lb. at -20F per Charpy V-Notch [CVN] testing. The recommendation
from the SAC Workshop was 20 ft-lb. at 30F lower than the Lowest Ambient
Service Temperature (LAST) and not above 0F. The AWS Presidential Task
Group provided an interim recommendation for different toughness values
depending on the climatic zone, referenced to ASTM A709. Specifically, the
recommendation was for 20 ft-lb. at temperatures of 70

degrees F for Zone 1, 40
degrees F for Zone 2, and 10

degrees F for Zone 3. The AWS also suggested
toughness values for base metals used in these applications.
Some fractured surfaces in the Northridge and Kobe Earthquakes revealed
evidence of improper use of electrodes and welding procedures. Prominent
among the misuses were high production deposition rates. Pass widths of up to 1-
1/2 inches and pass heights of 1/2 inch were common. The kind of heat input
associated with such large passes promotes grain growth in the HAZ and
attendant low notch toughness. Root gap, access capability, electrode diameter,
stick-out, pass thickness, pass width, travel speed, wire feed rate, current and
voltage were found to be the significant problems in evaluation of welds in
buildings affected by the Northridge earthquake.
Welding electrodes for common welding processes include:
AWS A5.20: Carbon Steel Electrodes for FCAW
AWS A5.29: Low Alloy Steel Electrodes for FCAW
AWS A5.1: Carbon Steel Electrodes for SMAW
AWS A5.5: Low Alloy Steel Covered Arc Welding Electrodes (for SMAW)
AWS A5.17: Carbon Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for SAW
AWS A5.23: Low Alloy Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for SAW
AWS A5.25: Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for Electroslag
Welding
Interim Guidelines:
8-13
In flux cored arc welding, one would expect the use of electrodes that meet
either AWS A5.20 or AWS A5.29 provided they meet the toughness requirements
specified below.
Except to the extent that one requires Charpy V-Notch toughness and
minimum yield strength, the filler metal classification is typically selected by the
Fabricator. Compatibility between different filler metals must be confirmed by
the Fabricator, particularly when SMAW and FCAW-SS processes are mixed.
Generally speaking, SMAW-type filler metals may not be applied to FCAW-SS
type filler metals (e.g. when a weld has been partially removed) while FCAW-type
filler metals may be applied to SMAW-type filler metals. This recommendation
considers the use of aluminum as a killing agent in FCAW-SS electrodes that can
be incorporated into the SMAW filler metal with a reduction in impact toughness
properties.
As an aid to the engineer, the following interpretation of filler metal
classifications is provided below:
E
1
X
2
X
3
T
4
X
5
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.20
E
1
X
2
X
3
T
4
X
5
X
6
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.29
E
1
XX
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.1 or AWS A5.5.
NOTES:
1. Indicates an electrode.
2. Indicates minimum tensile strength of deposited weld metal (in tens of ksi, e.g., 7 = 70
ksi).
3. Indicates primary welding position for which the electrode is designed (0 = flat and
horizontal and 1 = all positions).
4. Indicates a flux cored electrode. Absence of a letter indicates a "stick" electrode for
SMAW.
5. Describes usability and performance capabilities. For our purposes, it conveys whether
or not Charpy V-Notch toughness is required (1, 5, 6 and 8 have impact strength
requirements while 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 do not). A "G" signifies that the properties are not
defined by AWS and are to be agreed upon between the manufacturer and the specifier.
Impact strength is specified in terms of the number of foot-pounds at a given temperature
(e.g., 20 ft-lb. at 0 degrees F). Note that for electrodes specified under AWS A5.20, the
format for usage is "T-X".
Interim Guidelines:
8-14
6. Designates the chemical composition of deposited metal for electrodes specified under
AWS A5.29. Note that there is no equivalent format for chemical composition for
electrodes specified under AWS A5.20.
7. The first two digits (or three digits in a five digit number) designate the minimum tensile
strength in ksi.
8. The third digit (or fourth digit in a five digit number) indicates the primary welding
position for which the electrode is designed (1 = all positions, 2 = flat position and fillet
welds in the horizontal position, 4 = vertical welding with downward progression and for
other positions.)
9. The last two digits, taken together, indicate the type of current with which the electrode
can be used and the type of covering on the electrode.
10. Indicates a suffix (e.g., A1, A2, B1, etc.) designating the chemical composition of the
deposited metal.
Electrode Diameter: (See AWS D1.1 Section 4.14.1.2) The issue of maximum
electrode diameter has not been studied sufficiently to determine whether or not
electrode diameter is a critical variable. Recent tests have produced modified
frame joints with acceptable test results using the previous standard-of-practice
0.120 in. diameter wire. The use of smaller diameter electrodes will slow the rate
of deposition (as measured by volume) but will not, in and of itself, produce an
acceptable weld. The following lists the maximum allowable electrode diameters
for prequalified FCAW WPSs according to D1.1:
Horizontal, complete or partial penetration welds: 1/8 inch (0.125")*
Vertical, complete or partial penetration welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
Horizontal, fillet welds: 1/8 inch (0.125")
Vertical, fillet welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
Overhead, reinforcing fillet welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
* This value is not part of D1.1-94, but will be part of D1.1-96.
For a given electrode diameter, there is an optimum range of weld bead sizes
that may be deposited. Weld bead sizes that are outside the acceptable size range
(either too large or too small) may result in unacceptable weld quality. The D1.1
code controls both maximum electrode diameters and maximum bead sizes (width
and thickness). Prequalified WPSs are required to meet these code
requirements. Further restrictions on suitable electrode diameters are not
recommended.
Interim Guidelines:
8-15
8.2.4 Preheat and Interpass Temperatures
The preheat temperatures and conditions given in AWS D1.1, Chapter 4 should be strictly
observed with special attention given to Section 4.2, for the thickness of metal to be welded. For
repair welding of earthquake damage, the AASHTO/AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code preheat
requirements for fracture-critical, non-redundant applications should be considered.
Cracking of welds and heat affected zones should be avoided. One type of weld cracking is
hydrogen induced cracking (HIC). For a given steel, variables that reduce HIC tendencies are
prioritized as follows:
1. Lower levels of hydrogen.
2. Higher preheat and interpass temperatures.
3. Postheat.
4. Retarded cooling (insulating blankets).
Only low hydrogen electrodes should be used for fabrication and/or repair of seismically loaded
structures. Proper preheat and interpass temperatures should be maintained. AWS D1.1 requirements
are generally adequate for new construction. Highly restrained repair welds may require higher preheat
levels.
Control of hydrogen and proper preheat and interpass temperature is much more powerful for
overcoming HIC than postheat or retarded cooling methods. Retarded cooling has limited benefit if
the entire piece is not preheated - obviously impractical for structural applications.
The engineer is encouraged to emphasize proper preheat and the use of low hydrogen electrodes
and practice. If these measures are insufficient to prevent cracking, a welding engineer should be
consulted to determine appropriate measures that should be incorporated to eliminate cracking. These
measures may or may not call for additional preheat, postheat, or retarded cooling.
While low hydrogen electrodes and proper preheat is essential, postheat and retarded cooing is not
generally required and should not be used for routine construction or repair.
Commentary: There are two primary purposes for preheating and interpass
temperature requirements:
(1) To drive off any surface moisture or condensation which may be present
on the steel so as to lessen the possibility of hydrogen being introduced into the
weld metal and HAZ, and
(2) To prevent the steel mass surrounding the weld from quenching the HAZ
as cooling occurs after welding.
Interim Guidelines:
8-16
Virtually all weld repairs are made under conditions of high restraint.
Consequently, higher preheat/interpass temperatures may be required for repair
applications. As steel is cooled from the austenitic range (above about 1330
degrees F), it goes through a critical transition temperature. If it goes through
that temperature range too fast, a hard, brittle phase called martensite forms
(quenching). If it passes through that temperature range at a slower rate, ductile,
tougher phases called bainite or ferrite/pearlite form. Preheating of the
surrounding mass provides a slower cooling rate for the weld metal and HAZ.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recognizes repair welding as more critical in its guidelines for the
repair of fracture-critical bridge members. The purpose, in part, is to allow more
plastic flow and yielding, at welding temperatures, in the area near the weld. The
requirements are given in Table 8-6:
Table 8-6 - AASHTO Preheat Requirements for Fracture Critical Repairs
1
Steel Thickness, in. Minimum Preheat/Interpass
Temp., F
A36/A572 to 1-1/2 325
A36/A572 >1-1/2 375
1- Reference AASHTO/AWS D1.5-95 Bridge Welding Code
Preheat temperatures should be measured at a distance from the weld equal
to the thickness of the part being welded, but not less than three inches, in any
direction including the through thickness of the piece. Where plates are of
different thicknesses, the pre-heat requirement for the thicker plate should
govern. Maintenance of these temperatures through the execution of the weld
(i.e. the interpass temperature) is essential. Maximum interpass temperatures
should be limited to 550 degrees F for prequalified WPSs, for fracture-critical
applications. Higher interpass temperatures could be employed if those higher
temperature limits are qualified by test.
8.2.5 Postheat
Postheat is the application of heat in the 400

degrees F to 600

degrees F range after completion of
welding. It may be helpful in mitigating some cracking tendencies.
Commentary: A postheat specification might require that complete joint
penetration groove welds in existing buildings be postheated at 450

degrees F for
two hours. The purpose of this postheat is to accelerate the removal of hydrogen
from the weld metal and HAZ and reduce the probability of cracking due to
hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen will migrate within the weld metal at
approximately 1 inch per hour at 450

degrees F, and at about 1 inch per month at
70 degrees F. To the extent that hydrogen embrittlement is of concern, postheat
Interim Guidelines:
8-17
is one method of mitigating cracking. The use of low hydrogen electrodes, proper
welding procedures, and uniformly applied and maintained preheat may
represent a cost-effective method of addressing the problem of hydrogen
embrittlement in lieu of postheat.
When postheat is required, AASHTO/AWS D1.5-95 specifications require this
to be done immediately upon completion of welding. The postheat is between 400
to 500 degrees F for one hour minimum, for each inch of the thickest member or
for two hours, whichever is less.
8.2.6 Controlled Cooling
Most of the weldment cooling is effected by conductance within the steel rather than radiation.
Retarded cooling should only be specified in cases where large weldments subject to significant residual
stresses due to restraint (e.g. multiple members framing into one connection with Z axis loading) or
ambient temperatures that would result in rapid cooling of large weldments. The length of time to cool
down the weld and the level of insulation required are a function of weldment temperature, thickness of
base metal and ambient temperature.
Commentary: Active systems of ramp-down cooling are generally not required;
however, in highly restrained conditions they may offer an added advantage.
8.2.7 Metallurgical Stress Risers
Metallurgical discontinuities such as tack welds, air-arc gouging and flame cutting without
preheating or incorporation into the final weld should not be permitted. Inadvertent damage of this
type should be repaired by methods approved by the engineer, following the AWS D1.1 criteria and a
specific WPS covering repairs of this type.
Commentary: Metallurgical stress risers may result from tack welds, air-arc
gouging and flame cutting performed without adequate preheat. However,
preheating is not necessarily required for air arc gouging or flame cutting used in
the preparation of a surface to receive later welding. The subsequent heat input
during the welding process should adequately anneal the affected area. The AWS
D1.1 code requires the same preheating for tack welding operations as normal
welding, with the exception of tack welds that are incorporated into subsequent
submerged arc weld deposits.
Arc strikes can also be a source of metallurgical stress risers and should not
be indiscriminately made. AWS D1.1 Section 3.10 indicates that arc strikes
outside the area of permanent welds should be avoided on any base metal.
Cracks or blemishes caused by arc strikes should be ground to a smooth contour
and checked to ensure soundness.
Interim Guidelines:
8-18
8.2.8 Welding Preparation & Fit-up
Any cracked columns, welds, or beam flanges should be prepared to receive the welding
contemplated by the engineer. AWS D1.1 provides guidance on the precise nature of the fit-up
requirements and tolerances.
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance
9-1
9. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality control is principally the responsibility of the contractor, while Quality Assurance is
performed at the prerogative of the owner and as mandated by the Building Code. Key parts of
the Quality Control program include assuring that all parties understand what is to be constructed,
and the standards that apply. All workers and inspectors should be adequately qualified to
perform the required work, and should have written procedures, approved by the engineer, for the
work that is to be performed.
9.1 Quality Control
Fabrication/erection inspection and testing should be the responsibility of the contractor,
unless otherwise provided for in the Contract Documents.
9.1.1 General
A pre-job meeting or series of meetings should be held with the owner's representatives, the
engineer, the Fabricator/Erector's production and QC personnel to plan and discuss the project
and fabrication procedures. Welders and welding operators should also be involved at some level,
either by a meeting or direct dissemination of the information. Fabrication/erection inspection and
testing should be performed prior to assembly, during assembly, fit-up, tacking, welding and after
welding to ensure that the materials and workmanship meet the requirements of the Contract
Documents. The fitters and welders should have the applicable WPS document and drawings for
each connection and joint at their assembly station.
Inspectors responsible for acceptance or rejection of materials and workmanship should be
qualified in accordance with Sections 10 and 11 of these Guidelines. The engineer should have
the authority and duty to verify the qualifications of the inspectors.
9.1.3 Duties
The inspector should ascertain that all materials comply with the Contract Documents, either
by mill certifications or testing. The inspector should verify that all fabrication and erection
welding is performed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Detailed duties are further
described in Section 10 of these Guidelines.
9.1.4 Records
The QC inspector should insure that each welder has a unique identification mark or die stamp
to identify his or her welds. The inspector should also mark the welds/parts/ joints that have been
inspected and accepted with a distinguishing mark or die stamp, or alternatively, maintain records
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance Design of Steel Moment Frames
9-2
indicating the specific welds inspected by each person. The NDT technician should use the weld
identification system given in AWS D1.1, Sections 6.19.1 and 6.19.2. The inspector should keep
a record of all welders, welding operators and tack welders; all procedure and operator
qualifications; all accepted parts; the status of all rejected joints; NDT test reports; and other such
information as may be required.
9.1.5 Engineer Obligations
The structural engineer or designated welding engineer should perform a review of the
Fabricator/Erectors Quality Control program, equipment condition, and availability of equipment
and qualified personnel. The review should include the following:
a) Interview with Fabricator/Erectors designated Quality Control personnel.
b) Review of Fabricator/Erectors written quality procedure manual.
c) Review of Fabricator/Erectors Procedure Qualification Records (PQRs) and WPS
applicable to the specific project.
d) Review of Welder Performance Records.
e) Review of the Fabricator/Erectors NDT procedures, equipment calibration records,
and personnel training records. Alternatively, the Fabricator/Erector may contract with
an outside Quality Control company for NDT services; however, this should not take
the place of the owners QA responsibility for NDT.
f) Designate any specific NDT requirements which apply to the project and which are
beyond those required by the Code.
g) A meeting with the owners representative, fabricator/erectors Quality Control
personnel and the welder, to review the WPS.
9.1.6 Contractor Obligations
The contractor should make available to the inspector and NDT Technician all drawings,
project specifications, mill certifications, welder qualifications, WPSs and PQRs applicable to the
project. The contractor should cooperate fully with requests from inspection and testing
personnel for access to the connections and joints to be inspected or tested. This includes beam
and column turning in the shop, weld backing removal and access platforms or scaffolding as
required to perform the work safely. The contractor should be responsible for all necessary
corrections of deficiencies in materials and workmanship. The contractor should comply with all
requests of the inspector to correct deficiencies. The NDT Technician should be apprised of any
repairs made by the contractor. Inspections should be performed in a timely manner. Disputes
should be resolved by the structural engineer of record, or by a welding engineer.
Interim Guidelines:
9-3
9.1.7 Extent of Testing
Information furnished to the bidding contractors should clearly identify the extent of
inspection and testing to be performed by the contractor. Weld joints requiring testing by
Contract Documents shall be tested for their full length, unless partial or spot testing is specified.
When partial or spot testing is specified, the location and lengths of welds or categories of weld to
be tested should be clearly designated in the Contract Documents. Each spot test should cover at
least 4 inches of the weld length. When spot testing reveals indications of rejectable
discontinuities that require repair, the extent of those discontinuities should be explored. Two
additional spots in the same segment of weld joint should be taken at locations away from the
original spot. When either of the two additional spots show defects that require repair, the entire
segment of weld represented by the original weld should be completely tested.
Where spot testing or percentage sampling is specified on certain welds, the contract drawings
and shop drawings should so state using NDT symbols in conjunction with the welding symbols.
On projects where a sliding sampling scale is specified, based on the UT reject level of individual
welders, the inspector should keep records on each welder or welding operator. These records
will be used as a basis for sampling rate reduction.
Commentary: AWS D1.1 uses the term "Fabrication/Erection Inspection"
synonymously with the classical "Quality Control" function of other industries. A
basic premise of Quality Control is to have the production, engineering and
Quality Control departments independent of one another.
The contractor should be responsible for establishing the Quality Control
program and for in-progress Quality Control of work. Part of this effort is to
require that welders meet established minimum requirements. Execution of
critical welds requires skilled welders who will follow the project welding
requirements. An important part of any Quality Control program is assuring
that the workers have the appropriate qualifications to perform the work. Welds
executed by welders who do not satisfy the welder performance qualifications
should be considered rejectable. Important aspects of a QC program should
include as a minimum:
1. Welders shall be qualified for the work they will be doing per AWS D1.1, Section 5,
Part C.
2. The qualifications of each welder should be certified by an appropriate authority and
verified by the contractor and Special Inspector. The engineer should establish
whether there are certifications from selected jurisdictions that will or will not be
accepted as acceptable substitutions.
The Quality Control function of the contractor should be isolated from the
production department and the QC Manager should report directly to a high level
company officer to avoid conflicts of interest with production.
Interim Guidelines:
9-4
9.2 Quality Assurance & Special Inspection
Verification inspection and testing should be the responsibility of the owner and/or the
engineer unless otherwise provided for in the Contract Documents. The Quality Assurance
designate should act for and in behalf of the owner or engineer on all inspection, NDT and quality
matters that are within the scope of the Contract Documents.
9.2.1 General
Verification inspection and testing are the prerogatives of the owner who may perform this
function or, when provided for in the Contract Documents, waive independent verification, or
stipulate that both inspection and verification shall be performed by the contractor. In
municipalities that have adopted the UBC, verification inspection and testing is mandated for
structural welding, and is designated as Special Inspection.
The QA inspector should be included in the pre-job meetings for fabrication and erection
discussions referenced in 9.1.1. Fabrication/erection verification inspection and testing should be
performed concurrently with the Quality Control inspection and testing to ensure that the
contractor's QC program is meeting the requirements of the Contract Documents. The QA
inspector should ensure that the fitters and welders have the applicable WPS document and
required information for each connection and joint at their assembly station.
Inspectors responsible for acceptance or rejection of materials and workmanship should be
qualified in accordance with Chapters 10 and 11 of these Interim Guidelines. The engineer should
have the authority and duty to verify the qualifications of the inspectors. The inspector may use
assistants who are formally designated, aware of their assigned responsibility and the acceptance
criteria, and work under the direct supervision and monitoring of a qualified inspector.
9.2.3 Duties
The QA inspector should verify the qualifications of the QC inspectors and the NDT
technicians. The inspector should verify that the mill certifications for all materials are being
checked by the QC inspector and that they comply with the Contract Documents. The inspector
should verify that all fabrication and erection welding is performed in accordance with the
Contract Documents. Detailed duties are further described in Chapter 10 of these Interim
Guidelines.
9.2.4 Records
The inspector should ensure that each welder, NDT technician and QC inspector has a unique
identification mark or die stamp to identify his or her welds/weld tests/weld inspections. The QA
Inspector should ensure that the QA and NDT personnel are keeping the proper records of all
welders, welding operators and tack welders; all procedure and operator qualifications; all
Interim Guidelines:
9-5
accepted parts; the status of all rejected joints; NDT test reports; and other such information as
may be required.
9.2.5 Engineer Obligations
The structural engineer or designated welding engineer should perform a complete review of
the QA Agency. This review should encompass personnel qualification, written procedures
manual, and availability of equipment and qualified personnel. The Agency should employ an
American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) Level III qualified person who oversees
equipment calibration and personnel certification and training for the project on a full time basis.
Reviews should be performed in a timely manner. Disputes should be resolved by a qualified
welding engineer.
9.2.6 Contractor Obligations
The contractor should make available to the QA Inspector and QA NDT Technician (if
applicable) all drawings, project specifications, mill certifications, welder qualifications, WPSs and
PQRs applicable to the project. The contractor should cooperate fully with requests from
inspection and testing personnel for access to the connections and joints to be inspected or tested.
This includes beam and column turning in the shop, weld backing removal and access platforms
or scaffolding as required to perform the work safely. The contractor should be responsible for
all necessary corrections of deficiencies in materials and workmanship. The contractor should
comply with all requests of the QA Inspector to correct deficiencies. The QA NDT Technician
should be apprised of any repairs made by the contractor.
9.2.7 Extent of QA Testing
The QA representative may perform independent inspecting and testing to the extent
established in the contract documents. When conditions exist that make further testing advisable,
the QA representative, with the concurrence of the structural engineer of record, may perform
additional independent inspection and testing, to the degree his/her judgment suggests as
appropriate. Acceptance criteria should be mutually agreeable to the inspector and contractor.
Discrepancies between the QC and QA decisions should be resolved by the engineer.
Commentary: AWS D1.1 uses the term "Verification Inspection" synonymously
with the "Quality Assurance" function of other industries. The purpose of QA
programs is to provide an oversight to the contractor's QC program. This may
range from simple records/report reviews to a full testing and inspection
program, depending on the effectiveness of the Fabricator/Erector's QC program,
and the requirements of the building code. Often this cannot be established until
the contractor is selected.
The owner must ensure that an adequate Quality Control program is in place,
and is responsible for the Quality Assurance program. The use of licensed or
Interim Guidelines:
9-6
qualified fabrication shops in lieu of requiring independent Quality Assurance
provided by the owner is not recommended. However, a fabrication shop that is
licensed or qualified by a recognized program, such as the AISC Quality
Certification Program, does provide a minimum assurance of capability of good
performance.
The owner is responsible for establishing the Quality Assurance program.
Elements in an acceptable Quality Assurance program should conform to those
required by the UBC.
Since most owners have little expertise or knowledge related to construction,
this often means that the engineer must advise the owner, and, in many cases,
establish the program. Example Quality Assurance requirements might include
the following:
1. The lead welding inspector should be a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) per AWS-
QC-1 Standards, and, where applicable, should be certified by the responsible
jurisdiction as a qualified inspector for structural steel welding. Other welding
inspectors performing visual inspection under the supervision of the lead welding
inspector should hold an active and appropriate certification. Not more than four
non-CWIs should be under the supervision of a CWI.
2. All welding should be inspected visually as required by AWS D1.1 (See AWS D1.1
Section 8.15.1).
3. All complete and partial joint penetration welds should be inspected ultrasonically as
required by AWS D1.1 (See AWS D1.1 Section 8.15.4) after the weld is completed and
has cooled down. The inspector and NDT technician should perform the following
tasks for each weld.
a. Verify material identification per approved shop drawings and specifications.
b. Perform a UT lamination check of the column and beam as required by AWS
D1.1 or at least within a 6 in. radius around the weld. As a minimum this
check should be performed after welding, however, if performed before
welding as well, this may save some rework effort.
c. Verify that an approved welding procedure specification (WPS) has been
provided and that the WPS has been reviewed with each welder performing
the weld. A copy of the appropriate WPSs should be at each joint. Welds not
executed in conformance with the WPS should be considered rejectable (See
AWS D1.1 Section 6.3.1).
d. Identify welding consumables per approved shop drawings and approved
WPS (See AWS D1.1 Sections 6.2 and 6.5.3).
e. Verify welder identification and certification. Verify that required
supplemental qualification tests have been passed (See AWS D1.1 Section 6.4)
and mock-ups, if required by the Contract Documents, have been executed.
Interim Guidelines:
9-7
f. Verify proper amperage and voltage of the welding process by using a hand
held calibrated amp and volt meter. (Similar equipment should also be used
by the fabricator.) Amperage and voltage should be measured at the arc with
this equipment.
g. Visually inspect all required welds in accordance with AWS D1.1. Verify and
document the fabrication sequence including the following per approved shop
drawings and approved WPS (See AWS D1.1 Section 6.5.4):
1. Fit-up;
2. Preheat and interpass temperatures;
3. Welding machine settings. Voltage should be determined at the arc
and amperage on the cables. Welds executed outside of the
parameters contained in the approved WPS should be considered
rejectable;
4. Weld sequence;
5. Weld pass sequence and size of weld bead;
6. Peening, if required;
7. Removal of backup and weld (extension) tabs, preparatory grinding
and cleaning, and execution of reinforcing fillet weld, as required by
the WPS;
8. Application and maintenance of postheat or insulation to completed
weld as required by the WPS.
h. Ultrasonically inspect in accordance with AWS D1.1. Attempt to pass sound
through the entire weld volume from two crossing directions where possible.
In particular, inspect the beam bottom flange from both "A" and "B" faces.
This will require adequate staging to be provided by the contractor to permit
safe access by the inspector. This is normally not a problem in existing
buildings; however, it may be more difficult on buildings under construction.
Interim Guidelines:
9-8
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection
10-1
10. VISUAL INSPECTION
Visual inspection is the primary method which should be used to confirm that the procedures,
materials and workmanship incorporated in the Work are those that have been specified and
approved for the project. Visual inspection should be conducted by appropriately qualified
personnel, in accordance with a written practice.
10.1 Personnel Qualification
Visual inspection personnel should be qualified under AWS D1.1, Chapter 6. The basis of
qualification should be specified by the Engineer. Acceptable qualification bases are :
a) Current or previous certification as an AWS Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) in
accordance with the provisions of AWS QC1, Standard and Guide for
Qualification and Certification of Welding Inspectors, or
b) Current or previous qualification by the Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB) to the
requirements of the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Standard W178.2,
Certification of Welding Inspectors, or
c) An engineer or technician who, by training or experience, or both, in metals fabrication,
inspection and testing, is competent to perform inspection work.
The qualification of an inspector will remain in effect indefinitely, provided the inspector
remains active in the inspection of welded steel fabrication, unless there is a specific reason to
question the inspector's ability.
The Engineer should have the authority to verify the qualification of inspectors.
10.2 Written Practice
a) The employer (Testing Agency or Fabricator/Erector) should maintain a written
practice for the control and administration of inspection personnel training and
qualification.
b) The written practice should describe the employer's procedures for visual welding
inspection and material controls for determining the acceptability of materials and
weldments in accordance with the applicable codes, standards, specifications and
procedures.
c) The employer's written practice should describe the training and experience and
requirements for qualification.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
10-2
10.3 Duties
a) The inspector should review and understand the applicable portions of the
Specifications, the Contract Drawings and the Shop Drawings for the project.
b) The inspector should verify that all applicable welding Procedure Qualification Records
(PQR)s, welder and welding operator qualifications and welding procedure
specifications (WPS) are available, current and accurate.
c) The inspector should require requalification of any welder, welding operator or tack
welder who has, for a period of six months, not used the process for which the person
was qualified.
d) The inspector should check all mill certificates for material compliance with the project
requirements.
e) The inspector should verify the electrode/wire specification sheets for compliance with
the Contract Documents.
f) The inspector should make certain that all electrodes are used only in the positions and
with the type of welding parameters specified in the WPS.
g) The inspector should, at suitable intervals, observe joint preparation, assembly practice,
preheat temperatures, interpass temperatures, welding techniques, welder performance
and post-weld dressing to make certain that the applicable requirements of the WPS
and Code are met.
h) The inspector should inspect the work to ensure compliance with AWS D1.1, Sections
3 and 8.15. Size and contour of welds should be measured with suitable gauges.
Visual inspection may be aided by a strong light, magnifiers, or other devices which
may be helpful.
i) The QC inspector should be responsible for scheduling the NDT technicians in a timely
manner, after the visual inspection is complete and the assembly has cooled. For repair
welding, the NDT should not be performed sooner than 48 hours after the welding is
complete and cooled to ambient temperature.
j) Inspectors should identify the inspected and accepted welds, assemblies and
connections with a personal mark or stamp, or maintain adequate records to indicate
the status of inspection work. The accepted and rejected items should be documented
in a written report. The report should be transmitted to the designated recipients in a
timely manner.
Commentary: Depending on how the QA and QC functions are structured for any
particular project, the role of the visual inspector may vary considerably.
Ideally, the QC inspector is an employee of the contractor and answers to a QA
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection
10-3
department head who is not connected with production. If this is not the case, an
inherent conflict of interest may be present. The level of involvement of the QA
agency is highly dependent on the structure of the contractor's QC program. If
the contractor's QC program is well organized, has competent inspection and
testing personnel and is truly independent of production, the QA function can
operate in the classical manner as an overseer wherein random spot inspection
and testing suffice. In the opposite case where the QC department is being run by
production, the QA agency must take a very active role and perform many of the
QC duties.
The definitions of these roles can directly affect the project structure and
associated budgets. The Owner cannot accurately budget for QA testing and
inspection until the contractor is selected and the QC program established.
Alleviating this dilemma requires the designer to tightly specify the QC and QA
programs.
Although AWS D1.1 allows inspector qualification without the CWI
certification under the QC1 criteria, it is strongly recommended that the
inspection personnel be CWI certified (or previously certified), by experience and
written examination.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
10-4
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing
11-1
11. NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
Nondestructive testing includes magnetic particle testing (MT), Liquid Dye Penetrant testing
(PT), Radiographic Testing (RT) and Ultrasonic Testing (UT). The purpose of nondestructive
testing is to serve as a backup to Visual Inspection and to detect flaws and defects that are not
visible. Nondestructive examination is not a replacement for an adequate program of Visual
Inspection, and should not be used as such.
11.1 Personnel
11.1.1 Qualification
Nondestructive testing personnel shall be qualified under The American Society for
Nondestructive Testing, Inc., Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A, in one of the three
following levels:
a) NDT Level I - An NDT Level I individual should be qualified to properly perform
specific calibrations, specific NDT, and specific evaluations for acceptance or rejection
determinations according to written instructions and to record results. The NDT Level
I should receive the necessary instruction or supervision from a certified NDT Level III
individual or designee.
b) NDT Level II - An NDT Level II individual should be qualified to set up and calibrate
equipment and to interpret and evaluate results with respect to applicable codes,
standards and specifications. The NDT Level II should be thoroughly familiar with the
scope and limitations of the methods for which he/she is qualified and should exercise
assigned responsibility for on-the-job training and guidance of trainees and NDT Level
I personnel. The NDT Level II should be able to organize and report the results of
NDT.
c) NDT Level III - An NDT Level III individual should be capable of establishing
techniques and procedures; interpreting codes, standards, specifications and
procedures; and designating the particular NDT methods, techniques, and procedures
to be used. The NDT Level III should be responsible for the NDT operations for
which he/she is qualified and assigned and should be capable of interpreting and
evaluating results in terms of existing codes, standards, and specifications. The NDT
Level III should have sufficient practical background in applicable materials,
fabrication, and product technology to establish techniques and to assist in establishing
acceptance criteria when none are otherwise available. The NDT Level III should have
general familiarity with other appropriate NDT methods, as demonstrated by the
ASNT Level III Basic examination or other means. The NDT Level III, in the
methods in which certified, should be capable of training and examining NDT Level I
and II personnel for certification in those methods.
Interim Guidelines:
Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing Design of Steel Moment Frames
11-2
11.1.2 Written Practice
a) The employer (Testing Agency or Fabricator/Erector) should maintain a written
practice for the control and administration of NDT personnel training, examination and
certification.
b) The employer's written practice should describe the responsibility of each level of
certification for determining the acceptability of materials and weldments in accordance
with the applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.
c) The employer's written practice should describe the training, experience and
examination requirements for each level of certification.
11.1.3 Certification
a) Certification of all levels of NDT personnel is the responsibility of the employer.
b) Certification of NDT personnel should be based on demonstration of satisfactory
qualification in accordance with Sections 6, 7 and 8 of SNT-TC-1A, as modified by the
employer's written practice.
c) Personnel certifications should be maintained on file by the employer and a copy should
be carried by the technician.
11.1.4 Recertification
a) All levels of NDT Personnel should be recertified periodically in accordance with one
of the following criteria:
i) Evidence of continuing satisfactory performance
ii) Reexamination in those portions of the examinations in Section 8 deemed
necessary by the employer's NDT Level III
b) Recommended maximum recertification intervals are:
i) Levels I and II - 3 years
ii) Level III - 5 years
c) The employer's written practice should include rules covering the duration of
interrupted service that requires reexamination and recertification.
11.2 Execution
11.2.1 General
Nondestructive testing should not be used in lieu of visual inspection.
Commentary: Visual inspection and NDT should be used as a complement to one
another. There are four basic testing methods beyond visual inspection which are
commonly used: magnetic particle (MT), liquid penetrant (PT), radiographic
Interim Guidelines:
11-3
testing (RT) and ultrasonic testing (UT). The uses of the methods are described
in detail in AWS B1.0, Guide for Nondestructive Inspection of Welds.
When nondestructive testing other than visual is to be required, it should be
so stated in the bid documents. This information should designate the categories
of welds to be examined, the extent of examination in each category and the
methods of testing.
The designer should require that the testing laboratory employing the NDT
technicians be certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
NAVLAP program and that the technicians are qualified under ASTM E543.
Additionally, the laboratory should employ a Level III NDT supervisor under the
requirements of SNT-TC-1A.
The designer or his/her designated welding engineer should be familiar with
the strengths and limitations of each NDT method. Incorrect selection of the
methods has caused false reliance on the results. Each method has its own
strengths and weaknesses. Magnetic particle and liquid penetrant testing require
the least amount of training; radiographic and ultrasonic testing require a higher
level of training and background. NDT technicians are not generally required to
be certified welding inspectors under the QC1 requirements; however, it is highly
recommended that at least one NDT technician active on the project site be so
qualified.
11.2.2 Magnetic Particle Testing (MT)
MT may be used for surface and near-surface linear defect flaw detection. It is essential that
for linear indications to respond to MT, they must be oriented at an angle between 45
o
and 90
o
,
with the maximum influence occurring at 90
o
to the flux field. Therefore each area tested should
have the electromagnetic yoke positioned at 0
o
then at 90
o
.
Commentary: MTs depth limitation is less than 1/8 inch for typical flaws. The
instrument consists of an electro-magnetic yoke which sets up a magnetic flux
field around a weld. A very fine magnetic powder dust is applied to the area
being tested. As the flux lines cross a linear defect the field is interrupted and the
powder aligns with the defect. Spurious indications are sometimes encountered
along areas of poor weld bead contour, undercut or overlap. The use of a white
background paint to improve contrast can improve the reliability of this method.
A key use of this method is during air-arc gouging to determine if a crack has
been totally removed. Root pass testing is also commonly done with MT. These
tests, of course, require that the NDT technician be continually present during
welding.
Interim Guidelines:
11-4
11.2.3 Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT)
PT may be used to locate defects which are open to the surface.
Commentary: In PT, a highly fluid, red dye penetrant is sprayed on the surface
of the joint and allowed to soak into any open surface defect by gravity and
capillary action. The surface is then wiped clean and a white developer with a
powder consistency is applied. The red dye bleeds back out of the defect
highlighting the flaw. The method is typically used on completed welds.
Due to the problems associated with additional surface preparations and the
time involved with PT, it is recommended that MT be applied when ever possible.
There may be situations where, because of geometrical conditions or restricted
access, MT cannot be performed. PT is an allowable option keeping in mind that
additional surface preparation may be necessary.
11.2.4 Radiographic Testing (RT)
RT may be specified for internal flaw detection.
Commentary: The RT procedure consists of using an X-ray or gamma ray source
to expose a film similar to that used in medical applications. The most common
shop and field technique uses an iridium 192 source of gamma rays on one side
of the member being inspected and a film cassette on the opposite side. An
exposure is made and the film developed much the way photographic negatives
are produced. Areas of different film density relate to flaws in the weldment.
RT is sensitive to cracks, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, slag inclusions
and porosity defects. RT is rather insensitive to lamellar type defects
perpendicular to the path of radiation. It does produce a permanent film record.
Due to its two dimensional capability, it gives limited information about the
depth of the defect or the angular orientation of a crack. RT has limited
application in WSMFs because groove welds in T-joints and the associated
geometry of beam-column connections make it impractical. Additionally, the
surrounding area must be cleared of personnel for radiation safety requirements.
RT is a very useful tool for inspection of groove welds in butt splices in plate
applications.
11.2.5 Ultrasonic Testing (UT)
UT should be specified as the main form of NDT used in support of VI for the testing of
WSMFs. The bottom beam flange to column flange weld should be inspected in accordance with
the requirements of AWS D1.1. The proper scanning techniques beam angle(s) and transducer
should be used as specified in a written ultrasonic test procedure. The acceptance standard
should be that specified in the original contract documents. If these documents are unavailable
Interim Guidelines:
11-5
the acceptance criteria of D1.1 Chapter 8 Statically Loaded Structures should be used. The shear
wave scan should be preceded by a scan for laminations in the base metal as specified in D1.1.
Rejectable discontinuities should be reported on a standard format as recommended by D1.1, i.e.;
length, amplitude and classification. Reflections generated from the root and backing bar area of
the weld may be cause for further exploration when:
1. the operator is unable to determine if the signal is from a crack or the weld backing.
2. a reflection can be detected in the web zone but the received signal is not great enough to
cause rejection.
Although different angles, transducer sizes and scanning methods may be used to further
evaluate the root area, the removal of the backing bar may be just as cost effective and will always
yield more positive results. After the backing has been thoroughly removed, the root should be
tested with MT to detect any linear indication.
Typically, on existing buildings being inspected for damage, only the inside face of the top
flange of the beam to column weld is accessible. This will require the lower portion including the
root to be tested in the second leg of the ultrasonic sound path. This increases the difficulty of
evaluating the root and weld backing which is difficult enough to evaluate in the first leg of sound
travel. As in the bottom flange, all rejectable discontinuities should be recorded. If root defects
are found or discontinuities which are difficult to interpret, it should be the engineers decision
whether or not to do further exploration by UT and/or remove the steel backing. Access may
become a problem at perimeter columns where one half of the top beam flange is inaccessible.
Commentary: The UT test involves sending ultrasonic frequency sound waves
into a weldment. Any reflector within the weld or parent metal sends back a
reflected signal to the instrument. The sent and received signals are presented on
an oscilloscope for interpretation. Unlike RT, MT and PT, the interpretation of
the received signal is highly dependent on the skill and training of the technician.
The location and depth of the flaw can be accurately determined. The shape and
type can also be interpreted to some degree by competent operators. The
scanning surfaces must be clean and free from fireproofing, upset metal and weld
spatter for proper transducer contact.
AWS D1.1, Section 6.19, requires that the entire area to be scanned by shear
wave for weld flaw detection be first scanned by longitudinal wave to detect any
lamellar defects. These defects can mask indications from the weld areas, if
present, and are not favorably oriented for shear wave testing.
UT is highly sensitive to planar defects if they are favorably oriented to the
sound beam. The primary testing is done by utilizing a shear wave transducer
from the flange faces of the beams. The key to detection is to select the proper
testing angle which will intercept the flaw perpendicular to its orientation. The
amplitude of the received signal is directly related to the flaw orientation and,
Interim Guidelines:
11-6
hence, the rejection criteria. In the typical T-joint configuration of WSMF
connections, defects in the HAZ of the prepared bevel and root area are favorably
oriented to the sound path. This is not the case for the column face HAZ which is
not optimally oriented. Sometimes this area can be inspected by using a
longitudinal wave transducer from the back side of the column face if no
continuity plates are present; however, AWS has no rejection criteria for this
method.
UT technicians are prone to skipping the lamination check when pressed for
production. Recalibration of the instrument is required each time the transducer
is changed.
The intent of D1.1, 6.19.6.2 is to achieve shear wave testing from both the top
of the beam flange (A surface) and from the bottom of the beam flange (B
surface). High production pressures sometimes force premature movement of
scaffolding, allowing the UT technician access to only the top of the bottom
flange (A surface). This precludes proper testing of the weld area below the beam
web.
Another area of concern is back-up bar removal. Removal of backing is left
as an option in D1.1 which defers to the Contract Documents. It is strongly
recommended that back-up bar removal be required in the Contract Documents
to enhance visual and UT inspection.
A common problem with rejects identified by UT technicians occurs during
the air-arc gouging of the defect area. If too large of a carbon arc electrode is
used or if too large a pass is taken, the defect can easily be gouged out without
ever being observed by the welder or the UT inspector. For typical WSMF welds,
a 1/4 or 3/16 inch maximum size electrode should be used and light skim passes
taken. The UT technician should observe the process through a welding shield.
A technician can be falsely lured into reducing his/her rejection criteria if no
defect is found during gouging.
Interim Guidelines:
Design of Steel Moment Frames References
12-1
12. REFERENCES
ATLSS, Fractorgrahpic Analysis of Speciments from Failed Moment Connections, (publication
pending, title not exact), SAC, 1995.
ATLSS, Testing of Welded T Specimens, (publication pending, title not exact), SAC, 1995.
Allen J., Personal Correspondence, Test Reports for New Detail, July 30, 1995.
Allen J., Partridge, J.E., and Richard, R.M., Stress Distribution in Welded/Bolted Beam to
Column Moment Connections. The Allen Company, March, 1995.
American Association of State Highway and Transportaion Officials, Bridge Welding Code
AASHTO/AWS D1.5, 1995.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Statistical Analysis of Charpy V-notch Toughness For
Steel Wide Flange Structural Shapes, July, 1995.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, ASD, Ninth Edition,
1989.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, LRFD, Second Edition,
1994.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, December 1, 1993.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Joints using ASTM A325
or A490 Bolts. 1985.
American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Northridge Steel Update I, October, 1994.
American Welding Society, Guide for Nondestructive Inspection of Welds, AWS B1.10-86, 1986.
American Welding Society, Guide for Visual Inspection of Welds, AWS B1.11-88, 1988.
American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code - Steel AWS, D1.1-94, 1994.
Anderson, J.C., Johnson, R.G., Partridge, J.E., Post Earthquake Studies of A Damaged Low
Rise Office Building Technical Report: Case Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building
Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December,
1995.
Anderson, J.C., Filippou, F.C., Dynamic Response Analysis of the 18 Story Canoga Building,
SAC, March, 1995.
Interim Guidelines:
References Design of Steel Moment Frames
12-2
Anderson, J.C., Test Results for Repaired Specimen NSF#1, Report to AISC Steel Advisory
Committee, June, 1995.
Applied Technology Council, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California ATC-13,
Redwood City, CA 1985.
Applied Technology Counicl, Procedures for Post Earthquake Safety Evaluations of Buildings
ATC-20, Redwood City, CA, 1989.
Applied Technology Council, Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel
Structures, ATC-24, Redwood City, CA, 1992.
Astaneh-Asl, A. Post-Earthquake Stability of Steel Moment rames with Damage Connections.
Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, University
of Trento, Trento, Italy, 1995.
Avent, R., Designing Heat-Straightening Repairs, National Steel Construction Conference
Proceedings, Las Vegas, NV, AISC, 1992.
Avent, R., Engineered Heat Straightening, National Steel Construction Conference
Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, AISC, 1995.
Beck, J.L., May, B.S., Polidori, D.C., Vanik, M.W., Ambient Vibration Surveys of Three Steel-
Frame Buildings Strongly Shaken by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Analytical and Field
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-
04 Part 2, SAC, December, 1995.
Bertero, V.V., and Whittaker, A., Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC,
publication pending (title not exact), 1995.
Blodgett, O., Evaluation of Beam to Column Connections, SAC Steel Moment Frame
Connection Advisory No. 3, Feb. 1995.
Bonowitz, D, and Youssef, N. SAC Survey of Steel-Moment Frames Affected by the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings Affected by the
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, 1995.
Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings -1991 Edition FEMA 222, FEMA 223, Washington D.C., January, 1992.
New Buildings -1994 Edition FEMA 222A, FEMA223A, Washington D.C., July, 1995.
Campbell, K.W. and Bazorgnia, Y., Near Source Attentuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
from World Wide Accelerogram Records from 1957 - 1993, Proceedings of the Fifth National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Ill, 1994.
Interim Guidelines:
12-3
Campbell, S., Modeling of Weld Fractures Using the Drain Programs, Technical Report:
Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-05. SAC, 1995.
Chen, S.J. and Yeh, C.H., Enhancement of Ductility of Steel Beam-to-Column Connections for
Seismic Resistance, Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University, May,
1995.
Diererlein, G. Summary of Building Analysis Studies Analytical and Field Investigations of
Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC,
December, 1995
Durkin, M. E., Inspection, Damage, and Repair of Steel Frame Buildings Following the
Northridge Earthquake, Technical Report: Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings
Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, December, 1995.
Engelhardt, M.D., and Sabol, T.A. Testing of Welded Steel Moment Connections In Response to
the Northridge Earthquake, Progress Report to the AISC Advisory Subcommittee on Special
Moment Resisting Frame Research, October, 1994.
Engelhardt, M. D., Keedong, K.M. Sabol T. A., Ho, L., Kim, H. Uzarski, J. and Abunnasar, H.
Analysis of a Six Story Steel Moment Frame Building in Santa Monica, Analytical and Field
04 Part 1 SAC, December, 1995.
Engelhardt, M. D., Keedong, K.M., Uzarski, J., Abunassar, H., Sabol, T.A., Ho, L., and Kim, H.
Parametric Studies on Inelastic Modeling of Steel Moment Frames, Technical Report:
Engelhardt, M.D., et. al. Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC,
Englehardt, M.D., et. al. Accoustic Emission Recordings for Welded Beam Column Assembly
Tests, SAC, publication pending (title not exact), 1995.
Frank, K.H. The Physical and Metallurgical Properties Of Structural Steels State of Art Papers:
Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behavior
SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
Fillippou, F.C. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Canoga Park Towers with FEAP-
STRUC, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2, SAC., December, 1995.
Interim Guidelines:
12-4
Fisher, J.W., Dexter, R.J., and Kauffman, E.J., Fracture Mechanics of Welded Structural Steel
Connections. State of Art Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment
Connections and Frame System Behavior SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
Forrel/Elsesser Engineers, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Labs Steel Joint Test - Technical
Brief, San Francisco, CA, July 17, 1995.
Gates, W.E., and Morden, M., Lessons from Inspection, Evaluation, Repair and Construction of
Welded Steel Moment Frames Following the Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of
Damage to Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06
SAC, December, 1995.
Gates, W.E. Interpretation of SAC Survey Data on Damaged Welded Steel Moment Frames
Following the Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings Affected
by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, December, 1995.
Green, M. Santa Clarita City Hall; Northridge Earthquake Damage Technical Report: Case
Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of January
17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December, 1995.
Hall, J.F., Parameter Study of the Response of Moment-Resisting Steel Frame Buildings to
Near-Source Ground Motions, Technical Report: Parametric Analytical Investigations of
Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-
05. SAC, 1995.
Hajjar, J.F., OSullivan D.P., Leon, R. T., Gourley, B.C. Evaluation of the Damage to the Borax
Corporate Headquarters Building As A Result of the Northridge Earthquake, Technical Report:
Case Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of
January 17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December, 1995.
Harrison, P.L. and Webster, S.E., Examination of Two Moment Resisting Frame Connectors
Utilizing a Cover-Plate Design, Brittish Steel Technical, Swinden Laboratories, Moorgate,
Rotherham, 1995.
Hart, G.C., Huang, S.C., Lobo, R.F., Van Winkle, M., Jain, A., Earthquake Response of
Strengthened Steel Special moment Resisting Frames Analytical and Field Investigations of
Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC.,
December, 1995
Hart, G.C., Huang, S., Lobo, R., and Stewart, J., Elastic and Inelastic Analysis for Weld Failure
Prediction of Two Adjacent Steel Buildings, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings
Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC, December,
1995.
Interim Guidelines:
12-5
Hart, G.C., Huang, S., Lobo, R., and Stewart, J., Influence of Vertical Ground Motion on
Special Moment-Resisting Frames, Technical Report: Parametric Analytical Investigations of
05. SAC, 1995.
Heaton, T.H., Hall, J.F., Wald, D.J., and Halling, M.W. Response of High-Rise and Base-
Isolated Buildings to a Hypothetical M
w
7.0 Blind Thrust Earthquake Science Vol. 26, pp 206-
211, January, 1995.
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code UBC-94. Whittier, CA,
1994.
Iwan, W.D., Drift Demand Spectra for Selected Northridge Sites, Technical Report:
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., Ground Motion Parameters for Seismic Design,Bulletin of the
Sesimological Society of America, 1994.
Kariotis, J. and Eimani, T.J., Analysis of a Sixteen Story Steel Frame Building at Site 5, for the
Northridge Earthquake, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2, SAC, December, 1995.
Krawinkler, H.K., Systems Behavior of Structural Steel Frames Subjected to Earthquake
Ground Motions State of Art Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment
Krawinkler, H.K., Ali, A.A., Thiel, C.C., Dunlea, J.M., Analysis of a Damaged 4-Story Building
and an Undamaged 2- Story Building, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected
by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC, December, 1995.
Leon, R. T., Seismic Performance of Bolted and Riveted Connections State of Art Papers:
Miller, D.K. Welding of Seismically Resistant Steel Structures State of Art Papers: Metallurgy,
Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behavior SAC 95-09.
SAC, September, 1996
Naeim F., DiJulio, R., Benuska, K., Reinhorn, A. M., and Chen, L. Evaluation of Seismic
Performance of an 11 Story Steel Moment Frame Building During the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2 SAC, December, 1995.
Interim Guidelines:
12-6
Newmark, N.M. and Hall W.J., Earthquake Spectra and Design. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, 1982.
Paret, T.F., Sasaki, K.K., Analysis of a 17 Story Steel Moment Frame Building Damaged by the
Popov, E.P. and Yang, T.S. Steel Seismic Moment Resisting Connections. University of
California at Berkeley, May, 1995.
Popov, E.P., et. al. Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC, publication
pending (title not exact), 1995.
SAC, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Steel Moment Frames, October 23-24, 1994
SAC-94-01. Sacramento, CA, December, 1994.
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 1. September, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 2. October, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 3 SAC-95-01, February, Sacramento, CA, 1995.
Shonafelt, G.O., and Horn, W.B.. Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of Damaged Steel
Bridge Members, NCHRP Report 271, Transportation Research Board, 1984.
Skiles, J.L. and Campbell, H.H., Why Steel Fractured in the Northridge Earthquake SAC
Advisory No. 1, October, 1994.
Seismic Safety Commission, Northridge Earthquake Turning Loss to Gain, Report to the
Governor, Sacramento, CA, 1995.
Smith-Emry Company. Report of Test, July, 1995.
Sommerville, P, Graves, R., Chandan, S. Technical Report: Characterization of Ground Motion
During the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-03, SAC, December, 1995.
State of California. Division of the State Architect (DSA) and Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD). Interpretation of Regulations Steel Moment Resisting
Frames, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sacramento, CA. 1990.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, Interim
Recommendations for Design of Steel Moment Resisting Connection,. Sacramento, CA, January,
1995.
Interim Guidelines:
12-7
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Vision 2000: A Framework for
Performance Based Engineering of Buildings, Sacramento, CA, April, 1995.
Structural Shape Producers Council, Statistical Analysis of Tensile Data for Wide Flange
Structural Shapes, 1994.
Thiel, C.C., and Zsutty, T.C., Earthquake Characteristics and Damage Statistics, Earthquake
Spectra, Volume 3, No. 4., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Ca. 1987.
Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E. P. Seismic Steel Beam-Column Moment Connections State of Art
Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System
Behavior SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
Uang, C.M. and Latham, C.T. Cyclic Testing of Full-Scale MNH-SMRF Moment Connections,
Structural Systems Research, University of California, San Diego, March, 1995.
Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E.P., Steel Beam - Column Joints In Seismic Moment Resisting Frames,
Report No. UCB/EERC-88/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, Nov., 1988.
Uang, C.M., Yu, Q.S., Sadre, A., Bonowitz, D., Youssef, N. Performance of a 13 Story Steel
Moment-Resisting Frame Damaged in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Analytical and Field
Uang, C.M. and Bondad, D. Progress Report on Cyclic Testing of Three Repaired UCSD
Specimens, SAC, 1995.
Uang, C.M. and Lee, C.H. Seismic Response of Haunch Repaired Steel SMRFs: Analytical
Modelling and Case Studies Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2, SAC., December, 1995
Wald, D.J., Heaton, T.H., and Hudnut, K.W., The Slip History of the 1994 Northridge,
California, Earthquake Determined from Strong-Motion, Teleseismic, GPS, and Leveling Data,
United Sates Geologic Survey, 1995.
Watabe, M. Peformance of Wooden Houses and Steel Buildings during the Great Hanshin
Earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan, May, 1995.
Youssef, N.F.G, Bonowitz, D., and Gross, J.L., A Survey of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, NISTR 5625, Gaithersburg Md, April,
1995.
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

R
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

H
a
z
a
r
d
s

o
f

S
t
e
e
l

M
o
m
e
n
t

F
r
a
m
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 267b / June, 1999
Interim Guidelines
Advisory No. 2
Supplement to FEMA-267
i
INTERIM GUIDELINES ADVISORY NO. 2
Supplement to FEMA-267 Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of
Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures
Report No. SAC-99-01
SAC Joint Venture
a partnership of:
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
Applied Technology Council (ATC)
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe)
Prepared for SAC Joint Venture Partnership by
Guidelines Development Committee
Ronald O. Hamburger, Chair
John D. Hooper
Robert E. Shaw
Lawrence D. Reaveley
Thomas Sabol
C. Mark Saunders
Raymond H.R. Tide
Project Oversight Committee
William J. Hall, Chair
John N. Barsom
Shirin Ader
John Barsom
Roger Ferch
Theodore V. Galambos
John Gross
James R. Harris
Richard Holguin
Nestor Iwankiw
Roy G. Johnston
Len Joseph
Duane K. Miller
John Theiss
John H. Wiggins
SAC Project Management Committee
SEAOC: William T. Holmes
ATC: Christoper Rojahn
CUREe: Robin Shepherd
Program Manager: Stephen A. Mahin
Investigations Director: James O. Malley
Product Director: Ronald O. Hamburger
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Project Officer: Michael Mahoney Technical Advisor: Robert D. Hanson
SAC Joint Venture
Sacramento, California 95825
916-427-3647
June, 1999
ii
THE SAC JOINT VENTURE
SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Applied Technology Council
(ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe,) formed specifically to address both
immediate and long-term needs related to solving problems of the Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) connection that
became apparent as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. SEAOC is a professional organization composed of
more than 3,000 practicing structural engineers in California. The volunteer efforts of SEAOCs members on various
technical committees have been instrumental in the development of the earthquake design provisions contained in the
Uniform Building Code as well as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings. The Applied Technology Council is a non-profit organization founded specifically to
perform problem-focused research related to structural engineering and to bridge the gap between civil engineering
research and engineering practice. It has developed a number of publications of national significance including ATC 3-
06, which serves as the basis for the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. CUREe is a nonprofit organization formed to
promote and conduct research and educational activities related to earthquake hazard mitigation. CUREes eight
institutional members are: the California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the University of California at
Berkeley, the University of California at Davis, the University of California at Irvine, the University of California at Los
Angeles, the University of California at San Diego, and the University of Southern California. This collection of
university earthquake research laboratory, library, computer and faculty resources is among the most extensive in the
United States. The SAC Joint Venture allows these three organizations to combine their extensive and unique resources,
augmented by subcontractor universities and organizations from around the nation, into an integrated team of
practitioners and researchers, uniquely qualified to solve problems related to the seismic performance of WSMF
structures.
DISCLAIMER
The purpose of this document is to serve as a supplement to the FEMA-267 publication Interim Guidelines: Evaluation,
Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures. This Advisory, which is intended to be used
in conjunction with FEMA-267, supercedes and entirely replaces Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1 (FEMA 267a).
FEMA-267 was published to provide engineers and building officials with guidance on engineering procedures for
evaluation, repair, modification and design of welded steel moment frame structures, to reduce the risks associated with
earthquake-induced damage. The recommendations were developed by practicing engineers based on professional
judgment and experience and a preliminary program of laboratory, field and analytical research. This preliminary
research, known as the SAC Phase 1 program, commenced in November, 1994 and continued through the publication of
the Interim Guidelines document. This Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2, which updates and replaces Interim
Guidelines Advisory No. 1, is based on supplementary data developed under a program of continuing research, known as
the SAC Phase 2 program, as well as findings developed by other, independent researchers. Final design
recommendations, superceding both FEMA-267 and this document are scheduled for publication in early 2000.
Independent review and guidance in the production of both the FEMA-267, Interim Guidelines and the advisories was
provided by a project oversight panel comprised of experts from industry, practice and academia. Users are cautioned that
research into the behavior of these structures is continuing. Interpretation of the results of this research may invalidate or
suggest the need for modification of recommendations contained herein. No warranty is offered with regard to the
recommendations contained herein, either by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the SAC Joint
Venture, the individual joint venture partners, their directors, members or employees. These organizations and
their employees do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any of the information, products or processes included in this publication. The reader is cautioned to carefully
review the material presented herein. Such information must be used together with sound engineering judgment when
applied to specific engineering projects. This Interim Guidelines Advisory has been prepared by the SAC Joint Venture
with funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under contract number EMW-95-C-4770. The
SAC Joint Venture gratefully acknowledges the support of FEMA and the leadership of Michael Mahoney and Robert
Hanson, Project Officer and Technical Advisor, respectively. The SAC Joint Venture also wishes to express its gratitude
to the large numbers of engineers, building officials, organizations and firms that provided substantial efforts, materials,
and advice and who have contributed significantly to the progress of the Phase 2 effort.
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
iii
PREFACE
Purpose
The purpose of the Interim Guidelines Advisory series is to provide engineers and building
officials with timely information and guidance resulting from ongoing problem-focused studies of
the seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frame structures. These advisories are intended to
be supplements to FEMA-267 Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design
of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures first published in August 1995.
The first Interim Guidelines Advisory, FEMA-267a, was published in January 1997. The
specific revisions and updates to the Interim Guidelines contained in FEMA-267a were developed
based on input obtained from a group of engineers and building officials actively engaged in the
use of the FEMA-267 document, in the period since its initial publication in August 1995. That
input was obtained during a workshop held in August 1996, in Los Angeles, California.
This second Interim Guidelines Advisory has been prepared as a series of updates and
revisions both to the FEMA-267, Interim Guidelines which it supplements and to the FEMA-
267a, Interim Guidelines Advisory publication, which it supercedes. The material contained in
this Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 is based on the extensive analytical and laboratory
research that has been conducted by the SAC Joint Venture and other researchers during the
intervening period, along with recent developments in the steel construction industry. The
material contained in this Advisory has been formatted to match that contained in the original
Interim Guidelines, to permit the user to insert this material directly into appropriate sections of
that document. This Advisory is not intended to serve as a self-contained text and should not be
used as such. It does, however, completely replace the material contained in FEMA-267a.
A new set of recommendations for the design, analysis, evaluation repair, retrofit and
construction of moment-resisting steel frames is currently being prepared as part of the Phase 2
Program to Reduce Earthquake Hazards in Steel Moment Frame Structures. These new Seismic
Design Criteria, which are anticipated to be completed early in the year 2000, will replace in their
entirety the FEMA-267 Interim Guidelines and this Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2.
Background
The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994, dramatically demonstrated that the
prequalified, welded beam-to-column moment connection commonly used in the construction of
welded steel moment resisting frames (WSMFs) in the period 1965-1994 was much more
susceptible to damage than previously thought. The stability of moment frame structures in
earthquakes is dependent on the capacity of the beam-column connection to remain intact and to
resist tendencies of the beams and columns to rotate with respect to each other under the
influence of lateral deflection of the structure. The prequalified connections were believed to be
ductile and capable of withstanding the repeated cycles of large inelastic deformation explicitly
relied upon in the building code provisions for the design of these structures. Although many
affected connections were not damaged, a wide spectrum of unexpected brittle connection
iv
fractures did occur, ranging from isolated fractures through or adjacent to the welds of beam
flanges to columns, to large fractures extending across the full depth of the columns. At the time
this damage was discovered, the structural steel industry and engineering profession had little
understanding of the specific causes of this damage, the implications of this damage for building
safety, or even if reliable methods existed to repair the damage which had been discovered.
Although the connection failures did not result in any casualties or collapses, and many WSMF
buildings were not damaged, the incidence of damage was sufficiently pervasive in regions of
strong ground motion to cause wide-spread concern by structural engineers and building officials
with regard to the safety of these structures in future earthquakes.
In response to these concerns, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) entered
into a cooperative agreement with the SAC Joint Venture to perform problem-focused study of
the seismic performance of welded steel moment connections and to develop interim
recommendations for professional practice. Specifically, these recommendations were intended to
address the inspection of earthquake affected buildings to determine if they had sustained
significant damage; the repair of damaged buildings; the upgrade of existing buildings to improve
their probable future performance; and the design of new structures to provide more reliable
seismic performance. Within weeks of receipt of notification of FEMAs intent to enter into this
agreement, the SAC Joint Venture published a series of two design advisories (SAC, 1994a; SAC,
1994b). These design advisories presented a series of papers, prepared by engineers and
researchers engaged in the investigation of the damaged structures and presenting individual
opinions as to the causes of the damage, potential methods of repair, and possible designs for
more reliable connections in the future. In February 1995, Design Advisory No. 3 (SAC, 1995a)
was published. This third advisory presented a synthesis of the data presented in the earlier
publications, together with the preliminary recommendations developed in an industry workshop,
attended by more than 50 practicing engineers, industry representatives and researchers, on
methods of inspecting, repairing and designing WSMF structures. At the time this third advisory
was published, significant disagreement remained within the industry and the profession as to the
specific causes of the damage observed and appropriate methods of repair given that the damage
had occurred. Consequently, the preliminary recommendations were presented as a series of issue
statements, followed by the consensus opinions of the workshop attendees, where consensus
existed, and by majority and dissenting opinions where such consensus could not be formed.
During the first half of 1995, an intensive program of research was conducted to more
definitively explore the pertinent issues. This research included literature surveys, data collection
on affected structures, statistical evaluation of the collected data, analytical studies of damaged
and undamaged buildings and laboratory testing of a series of full-scale beam-column assemblies
representing typical pre-Northridge design and construction practice as well as various repair,
upgrade and alternative design details. The findings of this research (SAC 1995c, SAC 1995d,
SAC 1995e, SAC 1995f, SAC 1995g, SAC 1996) formed the basis for the development of FEMA
267 - Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification, and Design of Welded Steel Moment
Frame Structures (SAC, 1995b), which was published in August, 1995. FEMA 267 provided the
first definite, albeit interim, recommendations for practice, following the discovery of connection
damage in the Northridge earthquake.
v
As a result of these and supplemental studies conducted by the SAC Joint Venture, as well as
independent research conducted by others, it is now known that a large number of factors
contributed to the damage sustained by steel frame buildings in the Northridge earthquake. These
included:
design practice that favored the use of relatively few frame bays to resist lateral
seismic demands, resulting in much larger member and connection geometries than had
previously been tested;
standard detailing practice which resulted in the development of large inelastic
demands at the beam to column connections;
detailing practice that often resulted in large stress concentrations in the beam-column
connection, as well as inherent stress risers and notches in zones of high stress;
the common use of welding procedures that resulted in deposition of low toughness
weld metal in the critical beam flange to column flange joints;
relatively poor levels of quality control and assurance in the construction process,
resulting in welded joints that did not conform to the applicable quality standards;
excessively weak and flexible column panel zones that resulted in large secondary
stresses in the beam flange to column flange joints;
large variations in the strengths of rolled shape members relative to specified values;
an inherent inability of material to yield under conditions of high tri-axial restraint such
as exist at the center of the beam flange to column flange joints.
With the identification of these factors it was possible for FEMA 267 to present a
recommended methodology for the design and construction of moment-resisting steel frames to
provide connections capable of more reliable seismic performance. This methodology included
the following recommendations:
proportion the beam-column connection such that inelastic behavior occurs at a
distance remote from the column face, minimizing demands on the highly restrained
column material and the welded joints;
specify weld filler metals with rated toughness values for critical welded joints;
detail connections to incorporate beam flange continuity plates, to minimize stress
concentrations;
remove backing bars and weld tabs from critical joints to minimize the potential for
stress risers and notch effects and also to improve the reliability with which flaws at
the weld root can be observed and repaired;
vi
qualify connection configurations through a program of full-scale inelastic testing of
representative beam-column assemblies, fabricated in the same manner as is proposed
for use in the structure;
increased participation of the design professional in the specification and surveillance
of welding procedures and the quality assurance process for welded joints.
In the time since the publication of FEMA-267, SAC has continued, under funding provided
by FEMA, to perform problem-focused study of the performance of moment resisting connections
of various configurations. This work, which is generally referred to as the SAC Phase II program,
includes detailed analytical evaluations of buildings and connections, parametric studies into the
effects on connection performance of connection configuration, base and weld metal strength,
toughness and ductility, as well as additional large scale testing of connection assemblies. The
intent of this study is to support development of final guidelines that will present more reliable and
economical performance-based methods for:
identification of damaged structures following an earthquake and determination of the
extent, severity and consequences of such damage;
design of effective repairs for damaged structures;
identification of existing structures that are vulnerable to unacceptable levels of
damage in future earthquakes;
design of structural upgrades for existing vulnerable structures;
design of new structures that are suitably resistant to earthquake induced damage;
procedures for construction quality assurance that are consistent with the levels of
reliability intended by the design criteria.
This Phase II program of research, which is being conducted by the SAC Joint Venture in
parallel and coordination with work by other researchers, is anticipated to be complete in late
1999. It is the intent of FEMA and the SAC Joint Venture to ensure that pertinent information
and findings from this program are made available to the user community in a timely manner
through the publication of this series of design advisory documents. This Interim Guidelines
Advisory No. 2 is the second such publication.
Format
This Advisory has been prepared as a series of updates and revisions to the FEMA-267,
Interim Guidelines publication. It has been formatted in a manner intended to facilitate the
identification of changes to the original FEMA-267 text. Only those sections of FEMA-267 that
are being revised at this time are included. Other sections of FEMA-267 remain in effect as the
current best recommendations of the SAC Joint Venture. This Advisory replaces the earlier
Interim Guidelines Advisory, FEMA-267a, in its entirety.
vii
To facilitate coordination of this Advisory with FEMA-267, the existing system of chapter and
section numbering has been retained. The Table of Contents lists all sections of the chapters
being revised, including those sections for which no revisions are included. Within the body of
this document, a section heading is provided for each section of the chapter; however, if no
revision to the section is currently being made, this is indicated immediately beneath the section
heading.
To facilitate reading of this document, where a revision is made to a section in FEMA 267, the
entire text of that section is included herein. Where existing text from FEMA-267 is reproduced
in this document, without edit, it is shown in normal face type for guidelines, and in italicized type
for commentary. Where existing text is being deleted, this is shown in strike through format. A
single strikethrough indicates text deleted in the first advisory, FEMA-267a. A double
strikethrough indicates text deleted in this current advisory. New text is shown in underline
format. A single underline identifies text added in the first advisory, FEMA-267a. A double
underline identifies text added in this current advisory. When a modification has been made to a
portion of text, relative to FEMA-267, this will also be noted by the presence of a vertical line at
the outside margin of the page. The following two paragraphs illustrate these conventions for
guideline and commentary text, respectively.
This sentence is representative of typical guideline text, that has been reprinted
from FEMA-267 without change.This sentence, is representative of the way in
which text being deleted from FEMA-267 in this Interim Guidelines Advisory is
identified. This sentence illustrates the way in which text deleted from FEMA-267
in the previous Interim Guidelines Advisory is identified. This sentence illustrates
the way in which text being added to FEMA-267 in this Interim Guidelines
Advisory is identified.This sentence illustrates the way in which text added to
FEMA-267 in the previous Interim Guidelines Advisory is identified.
Commentary: This sentence is representative of typical commentary text, that has
been reprinted from FEMA-267 without change. This sentence is representative of
the way in which commentary text being deleted from FEMA-267 in this Interim
Guidelines Advisory is identified. However, this sentence, is representative of the
way in which text being deleted from FEMA-267 commentary in the previous
Advisory is identified. This sentence indicates the way in which text added to the
FEMA-267 commentary in this Advisory is shown.This final sentence illustrates
the way in which text added in previous advisory, FEMA-267a, is identified.
Intent
This Interim Guidelines Advisory, together with the Interim Guidelines they modify, are primarily
intended for two different groups of potential users:
a) Engineers engaged in evaluation, repair, and upgrade of existing WSMF buildings and in
the design of new WSMF buildings incorporating either Special Moment-Resisting Frames
or Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames utilizing welded beam-column connections. The
viii
recommendations for new construction are applicable to all WSMF construction expected
to resist earthquake demands through plastic behavior.
b) Regulators and building departments responsible for control of the evaluation, repair, and
occupancy of WSMF buildings that have been subjected to strong ground motion and for
regulation of the design, construction, and inspection of new WSMF buildings.
The fundamental goal of the information presented in the Interim Guidelines as modified by this
Advisory is to help identify and reduce the risks associated with earthquake-induced fractures in
WSMF buildings through provision of timely information on how to inspect existing buildings for
damage, repair damage if found, upgrade existing buildings and design new buildings. The information
presented here primarily addresses the issue of beam-to-column connection integrity under the severe
inelastic demands that can be produced by building response to strong ground motion. Users are
referred to the applicable provisions of the locally prevailing building code for information with regard
to other aspects of building construction and earthquake damage control.
Limitations
The information presented in this Interim Guidelines Advisory, together with that contained in the
Interim Guidelines it modifies, is based on limited research conducted since the Northridge
Earthquake, review of past research and the considerable experience and judgment of the professionals
engaged by SAC to prepare and review this document. Additional research on such topics as the effect
of floor slabs on frame behavior, the effect of weld metal and base metal toughness, the efficacy of
various beam-column connection details and the validity of current standard testing protocols for
prediction of earthquake performance of structures is continuing as part of the Phase 2 program and is
expected to provide important information not available at the time this Advisory was formulated.
Therefore, many of the recommendations cited herein may change as a result of forthcoming research
results.
The recommendations presented herein represent the group consensus of the committee of
Guideline Writers retained by SAC following independent review by the Project Oversight
Committee. They may not reflect the individual opinions of any single participant. They do not
necessarily represent the opinions of the SAC Joint Venture, the Joint Venture partners, or the
sponsoring agencies. Users are cautioned that available information on the nature of the WSMF
problem is in a rapid stage of development and any information presented herein must be used
with caution and sound engineering judgment.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE SAC JOINT VENTURE ii
DISCLAIMER ii
PREFACE iii
Purpose iii
Background iii
Format vi
Intent vii
Limitations viii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Scope 1-1
1.3 Background 1-1
1.4 The SAC Joint Venture 1-8
1.5 Sponsors 1-8
1.6 Summary of Phase I Research 1-8
1.7 Intent 1-8
1.8 Limitations 1-9
1.9 Use of the Guidelines 1-9
3 CLASSIFICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE
3.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 3-1
3.2 Damage Types 3-1
3.2.1 Girder Damage 3-1
3.2.2 Column Flange Damage 3-1
3.2.3 Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities 3-1
3.2.4 Shear Tab Damage 3-4
3.2.5 Panel Zone Damage 3-4
3.2.6 Other Damage 3-4
3.3 Safety Implications 3-5
3.4 Economic Implications 3-7
4 POST-EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
4.1 Scope 4-1
4.2 Preliminary Evaluation 4-1
4.2.1 Evaluation Process 4-1
4.2.1.1 Ground Motion 4-1
4.2.1.2 Additional Indicators 4-1
4.2.2 Evaluation Schedule 4-1
4.2.3 Connection Inspections 4-2
4.2.3.1 Analytical Evaluation 4-2
4.2.3.2 Buildings with Enhanced Connections 4-3
4.2.4 Previous Evaluations and Inspections 4-3
x
4.3 Detailed Evaluation Procedure 4-3
4.3.1 Eight Step Inspection and Evaluation Procedure 4-3
4.3.2 Step 1 - Categorize Connections By Group 4-4
4.3.3 Step 2 - Select Samples of Connections for Inspection 4-4
4.3.3.1 Method A - Random Selection 4-5
4.3.3.2 Method B - Deterministic Selection 4-5
4.3.3.3 Method C - Analytical Selection 4-5
4.3.4 Step 3- Inspect the Selected Samples of Connections 4-5
4.3.4.1 Damage Characterization 4-5
4.3.5 Step 4 - Inspect Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connections 4-8
4.3.6 Step 5 - Determine Average Damage Index for the Group 4-8
4.3.7 Step 6 - Determine the Probability that the Connections in a
Group at a Floor Level Sustained Excessive Damage 4-9
4.3.7.1 Some Connections In Group Not Inspected 4-9
4.3.7.2 All Connections in Group Inspected 4-9
4.3.8 Step 7 - Determine Recommended Recovery
Strategies for the Building 4-9
4.3.9 Step 8 - Evaluation Report 4-9
4.4 Alternative Group Selection for Torsional Response 4-9
4.5 Qualified Independent Engineering Review 4-9
4.5.1 Timing of Independent Review 4-9
4.5.2 Qualifications and Terms of Employment 4-9
4.5.3 Scope of Review 4-9
4.5.4 Reports 4-9
4.5.5 Responses and Corrective Actions 4-10
4.5.6 Distribution of Reports 4-10
4.5.7 Engineer of Record 4-10
4.5.8 Resolution of Differences 4-10
5 POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION
5.1 Connection Types Requiring Inspection 5-1
5.1.1 Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Connections 5-1
5.1.3 Other Connection Types 5-3
5.2 Preparation 5-4
5.2.1 Preliminary Document Review and Evaluation 5-4
5.2.1.1 Document Collection and Review 5-4
5.2.1.2 Preliminary Building Walk-Through 5-4
5.2.1.3 Structural Analysis 5-4
5.2.1.4 Vertical Plumbness Check 5-4
5.2.2 Connection Exposure 5-4
5.3 Inspection Program 5-6
5.3.1 Visual Inspection (VI) 5-6
5.3.1.1 Top Flange 5-6
5.3.1.2 Bottom Flange 5-6
xi
5.3.1.3 Column and Continuity Plates 5-6
5.3.1.4 Beam Web Shear Connection 5-7
5.3.2 Nondestructive Testing (NDT) 5-7
5.3.4 Post-Earthquake Field Inspection Report 5-9
5.3.5 Written Report 5-9
6 POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION
6.1 Scope 6-1
6.2 Shoring 6-1
6.3 Repair Details 6-1
6.4 Preparation 6-1
6.5 Execution 6-1
6.6 Structural Modification 6-1
6.6.1 Definition of Modification 6-1
6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections 6-1
6.6.3 Criteria 6-1
6.6.4 Strength and Stiffness 6-4
6.6.4.1 Strength 6-4
6.6.4.2 Stiffness 6-6
6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design 6-10
6.6.6.1 Qualification Test Protocol 6-11
6.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 6-11
6.6.6.3 Calculations 6-12
6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties 6-13
6.6.6.3.2 Determine Plastic Hinge Location 6-16
6.6.6.3.3 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges 6-18
6.6.6.3.4 Determine Beam Shear 6-19
6.6.6.3.5 Determine Strength Demands on Connection 6-20
6.6.6.3.6 Check Strong Column - Weak Beam Conditions 6-21
6.6.6.3.7 Check Column Panel Zone 6-23
6.6.7 Modification Details 6-24
6.6.7.1 Haunch at Bottom Flange 6-24
6.6.7.2 Top and Bottom Haunch 6-26
6.6.7.3 Cover Plate Sections 6-26
6.6.7.4 Upstanding Ribs 6-28
6.6.7.5 Side-Plate Connections 6-29
6.6.7.6 Bolted Brackets 6-29
7 NEW CONSTRUCTION
7.1 Scope 7-1
7.2 General - Welded Steel Frame Design Criteria 7-3
7.2.1 Criteria 7-3
7.2.2 Strength and Stiffness 7-4
xii
7.2.2.1 Strength 7-4
7.2.2.2 Stiffness 7-5
7.2.3 Configuration 7-6
7.2.5 Redundancy 7-13
7.2.6 System Performance 7-15
7.2.7 Special Systems 7-15
7.3 Connection Design and Qualification Procedures - General 7-15
7.3.1 Connection Performance Intent 7-15
7.3.2 Qualification by Testing 7-16
7.3.3 Design by Calculation 7-16
7.4 Guidelines for Connection Qualification by Testing 7-16
7.4.1 Testing Protocol 7-16
7.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 7-16
7.5 Guidelines for Connection Design by Calculation 7-18
7.5.1 Material Strength Properties 7-18
7.5.2 Design Procedure - Strengthened Connections 7-23
7.5.2.1 Determine Plastic Hinge Locations 7-23
7.5.2.2 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinge 7-24
7.5.2.3 Determine Shear at Plastic Hinge 7-26
7.5.2.4 Determine Strength Demands at Critical Sections 7-26
7.5.2.5 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition 7-27
7.5.2.6 Check Column Panel Zone 7-29
7.5.3 Design Procedure - Reduced Beam Section Connections 7-30
7.5.3.1 Determine Reduced Section and Plastic Hinge Locations 7-33
7.5.3.2 Determine Strength and Probable Plastic Moment in RBS 7-33
7.5.3.3 Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition 7-35
7.5.3.4 Column Panel Zone 7-36
7.5.3.5 Lateral Bracing 7-36
7.5.3.6 Welded Attachments 7-37
7.6 Metallurgy & Welding 7-38
7.7 Quality Control / Quality Assurance 7-38
7.8 Guidelines on Other Connection Design Issues 7-38
7.8.1 Design of Panel Zones 7-39
7.8.2 Design of Web Connections to Column Flanges 7-39
7.8.3 Design of Continuity Plates 7-40
7.8.4 Design of Weak Column and Weak Way Connections 7-40
7.9 Moment Frame Connections for Consideration in New Construction 7-40
7.9.1 Cover Plate Connections 7-40
7.9.2 Flange Rib Connections 7-43
7.9.3 Bottom Haunch Connections 7-44
7.9.4 Top and Bottom Haunch Connections 7-46
7.9.5 Side-Plate Connections 7-46
7.9.6 Reduced Beam Section Connections 7-46
7.9.7 Slip-Friction Energy Dissipating Connections 7-48
xiii
7.9.8 Column Tree Connections 7-48
7.9.9 Slotted Web Connections 7-48
7.9.10 Bolted Bracket Connections 7-50
7.10 Other Types of Welded Connection Structures 7-52
7.10.1 Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF) 7-52
7.10.2 Dual Systems 7-52
7.10.3 Welded Base Plate Details 7-52
7.10.4 Vierendeel Truss Systems 7-52
7.10.5 Moment Frame Tubular Systems 7-52
7.10.6 Welded Connections of Collectors, Ties and Diaphragm Chords 7-53
7.10.7 Welded Column Splices 7-53
7.10.8 Built-up Moment Frame Members 7-53

8 METALLURGY & WELDING
8.1 Parent Materials 8-1
8.1.1 Steels 8-1
8.1.2 Chemistry 8-3
8.1.3 Tensile/Elongation Properties 8-3
8.1.4 Toughness Properties 8-10
8.1.5 Lamellar Discontinuities 8-10
8.1.6 K-Area Fractures 8-10
8.2 Welding 8-11
8.2.1 Welding Process 8-11
8.2.2 Welding Procedures 8-12
8.2.3 Welding Filler Metals 8-13
8.2.4 Preheat and Interpass Temperatures 8-17
8.2.5 Postheat 8-17
8.2.6 Controlled Cooling 8-17
8.2.7 Metallurgical Stress Risers 8-17
8.2.8 Welding Preparation & Fit-up 8-17

12. REFERENCES 12-1

xiv
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.1 at this time.
1.2 Scope
1.3 Background
Following the January 17, 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake, more than 100 steel buildings
with welded moment-resisting frames were found to have experienced beam-to-column connection
fractures. The damaged structures cover a wide range of heights ranging from one story to 26 stories;
and a wide range of ages spanning from buildings as old as 30 years of age to structures just being
erected at the time of the earthquake. The damaged structures are were spread over a large
geographical area, including sites that experienced only moderate levels of ground shaking. Although
relatively few such buildings were located on sites that experienced the strongest ground shaking,
damage to these buildings was quite severe. Discovery of these extensive connection fractures, often
with little associated architectural damage to the buildings, was has been alarming. The discovery has
also caused some concern that similar, but undiscovered damage may have occurred in other buildings
affected by past earthquakes. Indeed, there are now confirmed isolated reports of such damage. In
particular, a publicly owned building at Big Bear Lake is known to have been was damaged by the
Landers-Big Bear, California sequence of earthquakes, and at least one building, under construction in
Oakland, California at the time fo the several buildings were damaged during the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake, was reported to have experienced such damage in the San Francisco Bay Area.
WSMF construction is used commonly throughout the United States and the world, particularly
for mid- and high-rise construction. Prior to the Northridge Earthquake, this type of construction was
considered one of the most seismic-resistant structural systems, due to the fact that severe damage to
such structures had rarely been reported in past earthquakes and there was no record of earthquake-
induced collapse of such buildings, constructed in accordance with contemporary US practice.
However, the widespread severe structural damage which occurred to such structures in the
Northridge Earthquake calleds for re-examination of this premise.
The basic intent of the earthquake resistive design provisions contained in the building codes is to
protect the public safety, however, there is also an intent to control damage. The developers of the
building code provisions have explicitly set forth three specific performance goals for buildings
designed and constructed to the code provisions (SEAOC - 1990). These are to provide buildings with
the capacity to
resist minor earthquake ground motion without damage;
Introduction
1-2
resist moderate earthquake ground motion without structural damage but possibly some
nonstructural damage; and
resist major levels of earthquake ground motion, having an intensity equal to the strongest
either experienced or forecast for the building site, without collapse, but possibly with some
structural as well as nonstructural damage.
In general, WSMF buildings in the Northridge Earthquake met the basic intent of the building
codes, to protect life safety. However, the ground shaking intensity experienced by most of these
buildings was significantly less than that anticipated by the building codes. Many buildings that
experienced moderate intensity ground shaking experienced significant damage that could be viewed as
failing to meet the intended performance goals with respect to damage control. Further, some
members of the engineering profession (SEAOC - 1995b) and government agencies (Seismic Safety
Commission - 1995) have stated that even these performance goals are inadequate for societys current
needs.
WSMF buildings are designed to resist earthquake ground shaking based on the assumption that
they are capable of extensive yielding and plastic deformation, without loss of strength. The intended
plastic deformation is intended to be developed through a combination of consists of plastic rotations
developing within the beams, at their connections to the columns, and plastic shear yielding of the
column panel zones,. and is tTheoretically these mechanisms should be capable of resulting in benign
dissipation of the earthquake energy delivered to the building. Damage is expected to consist of
moderate yielding and localized buckling of the steel elements, not brittle fractures. Based on this
presumed behavior, building codes require a minimum lateral design strength for WSMF structures that
is approximately 1/8 that which would be required for the structure to remain fully elastic.
Supplemental provisions within the building code, intended to control the amount of interstory drift
sustained by these flexible frame buildings, typically result in structures which are substantially stronger
than this minimum requirement and in zones of moderate seismicity, substantial overstrength may be
present to accommodate wind and gravity load design conditions. In zones of high seismicity, most
such structures designed to minimum code criteria will not start to exhibit plastic behavior until ground
motions are experienced that are 1/3 to 1/2 the severity anticipated as a design basis. This design
approach has been developed based on historical precedent, the observation of steel building
performance in past earthquakes, and limited research that has included laboratory testing of beam-
column models, albeit with mixed results, and non-linear analytical studies.
Observation of damage sustained by buildings in the Northridge Earthquake indicates that contrary
to the intended behavior, in some many cases brittle fractures initiated within the connections at very
low levels of plastic demand, and in some cases, while the structures remained essentially elastic.
Typically, but not always, fractures initiated at, or near, the complete joint penetration (CJP) weld
between the beam bottom flange and column flange (Figure 1-1). Once initiated, these fractures
progressed along a number of different paths, depending on the individual joint and stress conditions.
Figure 1-1 indicates just one of these potential fracture growth patterns. Investigators initially identified
a number of factors which may have contributed to the initiation of fractures at the weld root including:
notch effects created by the backing bar which was commonly left in place following joint completion;
sub-standard welding that included excessive porosity and slag inclusions as well as incomplete fusion;
Introduction
1-3
and potentially, pre-earthquake fractures resulting from initial shrinkage of the highly restrained weld
during cool-down. Such problems could be minimized in future construction, with the application of
appropriate welding procedures and more careful exercise of quality control during the construction
process. However, it is now known that these were not the only causes of the fractures which
occurred.
Backing bar
Column flange
Beam flange
Fused zone
Fracture
Figure 1-1 - Common Zone of Fracture Initiation in Beam -Column Connection
Current production processes for structural steel shapes result in inconsistent strength and
deformation capacities for the material in the through-thickness direction. Non-metallic inclusions in
the material, together with anisotropic properties introduced by the rolling process can lead to lamellar
weakness in the material. Further, the distribution of stress across the girder flange, at the connection
to the column is not uniform. Even in connections stiffened by continuity plates across the panel zone,
significantly higher stresses tend to occur at the center of the flange, where the column web produces a
local stiffness concentration. Large secondary stresses are also induced into the girder flange to
column flange joint by kinking of the column flanges resulting from shear deformation of the column
panel zone.
The dynamic loading experienced by the moment-resisting connections in earthquakes is
characterized by high strain tension-compression cycling. Bridge engineers have long recognized that
the dynamic loading associated with bridges necessitates different connection details in order to provide
improved fatigue resistance, as compared to traditional building design that is subject to static
loading due to gravity and wind loads. While the nature of the dynamic loads resulting from
earthquakes is somewhat different than the high cycle dynamic loads for which fatigue-prone structures
are designed, similar detailing may be desirable for buildings subject to seismic loading.
In design and construction practice for welded steel bridges, mechanical and metallurgical notches
should be avoided because they may be the initiators of fatigue cracking. As fatigue cracks grow under
repetitive loading, a critical crack size may be reached whereupon the material toughness (which is a
function of temperature) may be unable to resist the onset of brittle (unstable) crack growth. The
beam-to-column connections in WSMF buildings are comparable to category C or D bridge details that
have a reduced allowable stress range as opposed to category B details for which special metallurgical,
inspection and testing requirements are applied. The rapid rate of loading imposed by seismic events,
and the complete inelastic range of tension-compression-tension loading applied to these connections is
Introduction
1-4
much more severe than typical bridge loading applications. The mechanical and metallurgical notches
or stress risers created by the beam-column weld joints are a logical point for fracture problems to
initiate. This, coupled with the tri-axial restraint provided by the beam web and the column flange, is a
recipe for brittle fracture.
During the Northridge Earthquake, oOnce fractures initiated in beam-column joints, they
progressed in a number of different ways. In some cases, the fractures initiated but did not grow, and
could not be detected by visual observation. In other cases, In many cases, the fractures progressed
completely directly through the thickness of the weld, and if fireproofing was removed, the fractures
were evident as a crack through exposed faces of the weld, or the metal just behind the weld (Figure 1-
2a). Other fracture patterns also developed. In some cases, the fracture developed into a surface that
resembled a through-thickness failure of the column flange material behind the CJP weld (Figure 1-2b).
In these cases, a portion of the column flange remained bonded to the beam flange, but pulled free
from the remainder of the column. This fracture pattern has sometimes been termed a divot or
nugget failure.
A number of fractures progressed completely through the column flange, along a near horizontal
plane that aligns approximately with the beam lower flange (Figure 1-3a). In some cases, these
fractures extended into the column web and progressed across the panel zone Figure (1-3b).
Investigators have reported some instances where columns fractured entirely across the section.
a. Fracture at Fused Zone
b. Column Flange Divot Fracture
Figure 1-2 - Fractures of Beam to Column Joints
a. Fractures through Column Flange
b. Fracture Progresses into Column Web
Figure 1-3 - Column Fractures
Introduction
1-5
Once these fractures have occurred, the beam - column connection has experienced a significant
loss of flexural rigidity and capacity. Residual flexural strength and rigidity must be developed through
a couple consisting of forces transmitted through the remaining top flange connection and the web
bolts. Initial rResearch suggests that residual stiffness is approximately 20% of that of the undamaged
connection and that residual strength varies from 10% to 40% of the undamaged capacity, when
loading results in tensile stress normal to the fracture plane. When loading produces compression
across the fracture plane, much of the original strength and stiffness remain. However, in providing
this residual strength and stiffness, the beam shear connections can themselves be subject to failures,
consisting of fracturing of the welds of the shear plate to the column, fracturing of supplemental welds
to the beam web or fracturing through the weak section of shear plate aligning with the bolt holes
(Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-4 - Vertical Fracture through Beam Shear Plate Connection
It is now known that these fractures were the result of a number of complex factors that were not
well understood either when these connections were first adopted as a standard design approach, or
when the damage was discovered immediately following the Northridge earthquake. Engineers had
commonly assumed that when these connections were loaded to yield levels, flexural stresses in the
beam would be transferred to the column through a force couple comprised of nearly uniform yield
level tensile and compressive stresses in the beam flanges. It was similarly assumed that nearly all of
the shear stress in the beam was transferred to the column through the shear tab connection to the
beam web. In fact, the actual behavior is quite different from this. As a result of local deformations
that occur in the column at the location of the beam connection, a significant portion of the shear stress
in the beam is actually transferred to the column through the beam flanges. This causes large localized
secondary stresses in the beam flanges, both at the toe of the weld access hole and also in the complete
joint penetration weld at the face of the column. The presence of the column web behind the column
flange tends to locally stiffen the joint of the beam flange to the column flange, further concentrating
the distribution of connection stresses and strains. Finally, the presence of the heavy beam and column
flange plates, arranged in a + shaped pattern at the beam flange to column flange joint produces a
condition of very high restraint, which retards the onset of yielding, by raising the effective yield
strength of the material, and allowing the development of very large stresses.
Introduction
1-6
The most severe stresses typically occur at the root of the complete joint penetration weld of the
beam bottom flange to the column flange. This is precisely the region of this welded joint that is most
difficult for the welder to properly complete, as the access to the weld is restricted by the presence of
the beam web and the welder often performs this weld while seated on the top flange, in the so-called
wildcat position. The welder must therefore work from both sides of the beam web, starting and
terminating the weld near the center of the joint, a practice that often results in poor fusion and the
presence of slag inclusions at this location. These conditions, which are very difficult to detect when
the weld backing is left in place, as was the typical practice, are ready-made crack initiators. When this
region of the welded joints is subjected to the large concentrated tensile stresses, the weld defects begin
to grow into cracks and these cracks can quickly become unstable and propagate as brittle fractures.
Once these brittle fractures initiate, they can grow in a variety of patterns, as described above, under
the influence of the stress field and the properties of the base and weld metals present at the zone of the
fracture.
Despite the obvious local strength impairment resulting from these fractures, many damaged
buildings did not display overt signs of structural damage, such as permanent drifts or extreme damage
to architectural elements. Until news of the discovery of connection fractures in some buildings began
to spread through the engineering community, it was relatively common for engineers to perform
cursory post-earthquake evaluations of WSMF buildings and declare that they were undamaged. In
order to reliably determine if a building has sustained connection damage, it is necessary to remove
architectural finishes and fireproofing and perform nondestructive examination including visual
inspection and ultrasonic testing careful visual inspection of the welded joints supplemented, in some
cases, by nondestructive testing. Even if no damage is found, this is a costly process. Repair of
damaged connections is even more costly. A few WSMF buildings have sustained so much connection
damage that it has been deemed more practical to demolish the structures rather than to repair them.
In the case of one WSMF building, damaged by the Northridge earthquake, repair costs were
sufficiently large that the owner elected to demolish rather than replace than building.
Immediately following the Northridge Earthquake, a series of tests of beam-column subassemblies
were performed at the University of Texas at Austin, under funding provided by the AISC as well as
private sources. The test specimens used heavy W14 column sections and deep (W36) beam sections
commonly employed in some California construction. Initial specimens were fabricated using the
standard prequalified connection specified by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Section 2211.7.1.2
of UBC-94 {NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.2.3} specified this prequalified connection as follows:
2211.7.1.2 Connection strength. The girder top column connection may be considered to be adequate
to develop the flexural strength of the girder if it conforms to the following:
1. the flanges have full penetration butt welds to the columns.
2. the girder web to column connection shall be capable of resisting the girder shear determined for the
combination of gravity loads and the seismic shear forces which result from compliance with Section
2211.7.2.1. This connection strength need not exceed that required to develop gravity loads plus
3(R
w
/8) times the girder shear resulting from the prescribed seismic forces.
Introduction
1-7
Where the flexural strength of the girder flanges is greater than 70 percent of the flexural strength of
the entire section, (i.e. bt
f
/(d-t
f
)F
y
>0.7Z
x
F
y
) the web connection may be made by means of welding or
high-strength bolting.
For girders not meeting the criteria in the paragraph above, the girder web-to-column connection shall
be made by means of welding the web directly or through shear tabs to the column. That welding shall
have a strength capable of developing at least 20 percent of the flexural strength of the girder web. The
girder shear shall be resisted by means of additional welds or friction-type slip-critical high strength bolts
or both.
and:
2211.7.2.1 Strength. The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the shear induced by beam
bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces, but the shear
strength need not exceed that required to develop 0.8M
s
of the girders framing into the column flanges
at the joint...
In order to investigate the effects that backing bars and weld tabs had on connection performance,
these were removed from the specimens prior to testing. Despite these precautions, the test specimens
failed at very low levels of plastic loading. Following these tests at the University of Texas at Austin,
reviews of literature on historic tests of these connection types indicated a significant failure rate in past
tests as well, although these had often been ascribed to poor quality in the specimen fabrication. It was
concluded that the prequalified connection, specified by the building code, was fundamentally flawed
and should not be used for new construction in the future.
In retrospect, this conclusion may have been somewhat premature. More recent testing of
connections having configurations similar to those of the prequalified connection, but incorporating
tougher weld metals, having backing bars removed from the bottom flange joint, and fabricated with
greater care to avoid the defects that can result in crack initiation, have performed better than those
initially tested at the University of Texas. However, as a class, when fabricated using currently
prevailing construction practice, these connections still do not appear to be capable of consistently
developing the levels of ductility presumed by the building codes for service in moment-resisting frames
that are subjected to large inelastic demands.When the first test specimens for that series were
fabricated, the welder failed to follow the intended welding procedures. Further, no special precautions
were taken to assure that the materials incorporated in the work had specified toughness. Some
engineers, with knowledge of fracture mechanics, have suggested that if materials with adequate
toughness are used, and welding procedures are carefully specified and followed, adequate reliability
can be obtained from the traditional connection details. Others believe that the conditions of high tri-
axial restraint present in the beam flange to column flange joint (Blodgett - 1995) would prevent ductile
behavior of these joints regardless of the procedure used to make the welds. Further they point to the
important influence of the relative yield and tensile strengths of beam and column materials, and other
variables, that can affect connection behavior. To date, there has not been sufficient research
conducted to resolve this issue.
Introduction
1-8
In reaction to the University of Texas tests as well as the widespread damage discovered following
the Northridge Earthquake, and the urging of the California Seismic Safety Commission, in September,
1994 the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) adopted an emergency code change to
the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC-94) {1994 NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Section 5.2}. This code change, jointly developed by the Structural Engineers Association of
California, AISI and ICBO staff, deleted the prequalified connection and substituted the following in its
place:
2211.7.1.2 Connection Strength. Connection configurations utilizing welds or high-strength
bolts shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or calculation, the ability to sustain
inelastic rotation and develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1 considering the effect of
steel overstrength and strain hardening.
2211.7.1.1 Required strength. The girder-to-column connection shall be adequate to develop the
lesser of the following:
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined from
formula 11-1.
Unfortunately, neither the required inelastic rotation, or calculation and test procedures are well
defined by these code provisions. Design Advisory No. 3 (SAC-1995) included an Interim
Recommendation (SEAOC-1995) that attempted to clarify the intent of this code change, and the
preferred methods of design in the interim period until additional research could be performed and
reliable acceptance criteria for designs re-established. The State of California similarly published a joint
Interpretation of Regulations (DSA-OSHPD - 1994) indicating the interpretation of the current code
requirements which would be enforced by the state for construction under its control. This applied
only to the construction of schools and hospitals in the State of California. The intent of these Interim
Guidelines is to supplement these previously published documents and to provide updated
recommendations based on the results of the limited directed research performed to date.
1.4 The SAC Joint Venture
1.5 Sponsors
1.6 Summary of Phase 1 Research
1.7 Intent
Introduction
1-9
1.8 Limitations
1.9 Use of the Guidelines
Introduction
1-10
This page intentionally left blank
References
12-1
12. REFERENCES
ATLSS, Fractographic Analysis of Specimens from Failed Moment Connections, (publication
pending, title not exact)Fracture Analysis of Failed Moment Frame Weld Joints Produced in Full-
Scale Laboratory Tests and Buildings Damaged in the Northridge Earthquake, SAC95-08, 1995.
ATLSS, Testing of Welded T Specimens, (publication pending, title not exact), SAC, 1995 A
Study of the Effects of Material and Welding Factors on Moment-Frame Weld Joint
Performance Using a Small-Scale Tension Specimen. Kauffman, E.J., and Fisher, J.W., SAC95-
08 1995.
Allen J., Personal Correspondence, Test Reports for New Detail, July 30, 1995.
Allen J., Partridge, J.E., and Richard, R.M., Stress Distribution in Welded/Bolted Beam to
Column Moment Connections. The Allen Company, March, 1995.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Bridge Welding Code
AASHTO/AWS D1.5, 1995.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, April,
1997
American Institute of Steel Construction, Statistical Analysis of Charpy V-notch Toughness For
Steel Wide Flange Structural Shapes, July, 1995.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, ASD, Ninth Edition,
1989.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, LRFD, Second Edition,
1998.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, December 1, 1993.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Joints using ASTM A325
or A490 Bolts. 1985.
American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Northridge Steel Update I, October, 1994.
American Welding Society, Guide for Nondestructive Inspection of Welds, AWS B1.10-86, 1986.
American Welding Society, Guide for Visual Inspection of Welds, AWS B1.11-88, 1988.
American Welding Society, Surface Roughness Guide for Oxygen Cutting, AWS C4.1-77, 1977.
American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code - Steel AWS D1.1-94, 1994.
References
12-2
American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code Steel AWS D1.1-98, 1998
Anderson, J.C., Johnson, R.G., Partridge, J.E., Post Earthquake Studies of A Damaged Low
Rise Office Building Technical Report: Case Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building
Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December,
1995.
Anderson, J.C., Filippou, F.C., Dynamic Response Analysis of the 18 Story Canoga Building,
SAC, March, 1995.
Anderson, J.C., Test Results for Repaired Specimen NSF#1, Report to AISC Steel Advisory
Committee, June, 1995.
Applied Technology Council, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California ATC-13,
Redwood City, CA 1985.
Applied Technology Counicl, Procedures for Post Earthquake Safety Evaluations of Buildings
ATC-20, Redwood City, CA, 1989.
Applied Technology Council, Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel
Structures, ATC-24, Redwood City, CA, 1992.
Astaneh-Asl, A. Post-Earthquake Stability of Steel Moment Frames with Damaged Connections.
Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, University
of Trento, Trento, Italy, 1995.
Avent, R., Designing Heat-Straightening Repairs, National Steel Construction Conference
Proceedings, Las Vegas, NV, AISC, 1992.
Avent, R., Engineered Heat Straightening, National Steel Construction Conference
Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, AISC, 1995.
Barsom, J. M. and Korvink, S. A. Through-thickness Properties of Structural Steels,
manuscript submitted to ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1997.
Beck, J.L., May, B.S., Polidori, D.C., Vanik, M.W., Ambient Vibration Surveys of Three Steel-
Frame Buildings Strongly Shaken by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Analytical and Field
04 Part 2, SAC, December, 1995.
Bertero, V.V., and Whittaker, A. and Gilani, A., Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column
AssembliesSeismic Tesing of Full-Scale Steel Beam-Column Assemblies, SAC96-01, publication
pending (title not exact), 1995X1996.
Blodgett, O., Evaluation of Beam to Column Connections, SAC Steel Moment Frame
Connection Advisory No. 3, Feb. 1995.
References
12-3
Bonowitz, D, and Youssef, N. SAC Survey of Steel-Moment Frames Affected by the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings Affected by the
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, 1995.
New Buildings -1991 Edition FEMA 222, (Commentary FEMA 223), Washington D.C., January,
1992.
New Buildings -1994 Edition FEMA 222A, (Commentary FEMA223A), Washington D.C., July,
1995.
New Buildings and Other Structures. 1997 Edition, FEMA 302, (Commentary FEMA303),
Washington, D.C., February, 1998
Campbell, K.W. and Bazorgnia, Y., Near Source Attentuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
from World Wide Accelerogram Records from 1957 - 1993, Proceedings of the Fifth National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Ill, 1994.
Campbell, S., Modeling of Weld Fractures Using the Drain Programs, Technical Report:
Chen, S.J. and Yeh, C.H., Enhancement of Ductility of Steel Beam-to-Column Connections for
Seismic Resistance, Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University, May,
1995.
Diererlein, G. Summary of Building Analysis Studies Analytical and Field Investigations of
Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC,
December, 1995
Durkin, M. E., Inspection, Damage, and Repair of Steel Frame Buildings Following the
Northridge Earthquake, Technical Report: Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings
Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, December, 1995.
Engelhardt, M.D., and Sabol, T.A. Testing of Welded Steel Moment Connections In Response to
the Northridge Earthquake, Progress Report to the AISC Advisory Subcommittee on Special
Moment Resisting Frame Research, October, 1994.
Engelhardt, M. D., Keedong, K.M. Sabol T. A., Ho, L., Kim, H. Uzarski, J. and Abunnasar, H.
Analysis of a Six Story Steel Moment Frame Building in Santa Monica, Analytical and Field
References
12-4
Engelhardt, M. D., Keedong, K.M., Uzarski, J., Abunassar, H., Sabol, T.A., Ho, L., and Kim, H.
Parametric Studies on Inelastic Modeling of Steel Moment Frames, Technical Report:
Engelhardt, M.D., Sabol, T. A., and Shuey, B.D. Testing of Repair Concepts for Damaged Steel
Moment Connections.et. al. Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC96-01,
Englehardt, M.D. Fowler, T.J., and Barnes, C.A., Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Welded Steel
Moment Connection Tests.et. al. Accoustic Emission Recordings for Welded Beam Column
Assembly Tests, SAC95-08, publication pending (title not exact), 1995.
Frank, K.H. The Physical and Metallurgical Properties Of Structural Steels State of Art Papers:
Fillippou, F.C. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Canoga Park Towers with FEAP-
STRUC, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2, SAC., December, 1995.
Fisher, J.W., Dexter, R.J., and Kauffman, E.J., Fracture Mechanics of Welded Structural Steel
Connections. State of Art Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment
Forrel/Elsesser Engineers, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Labs Steel Joint Test - Technical
Brief, San Francisco, CA, July 17, 1995.
Gates, W.E., and Morden, M., Lessons from Inspection, Evaluation, Repair and Construction of
Welded Steel Moment Frames Following the Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of
Damage to Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06
SAC, December, 1995.
Gates, W.E. Interpretation of SAC Survey Data on Damaged Welded Steel Moment Frames
Following the Northridge Earthquake, Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings Affected
by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC 95-06, SAC, December, 1995.
Green, M. Santa Clarita City Hall; Northridge Earthquake Damage Technical Report: Case
Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of January
17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December, 1995.
Hall, J.F., Parameter Study of the Response of Moment-Resisting Steel Frame Buildings to
Near-Source Ground Motions, Technical Report: Parametric Analytical Investigations of
05. SAC, 1995.
References
12-5
Hajjar, J.F., OSullivan D.P., Leon, R. T., Gourley, B.C. Evaluation of the Damage to the Borax
Corporate Headquarters Building As A Result of the Northridge Earthquake, Technical Report:
Case Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of
January 17, 1994 SAC 95-07. SAC, December, 1995.
Harrison, P.L. and Webster, S.E., Examination of Two Moment Resisting Frame Connectors
Utilizing a Cover-Plate Design, British Steel Technical, Swinden Laboratories, Moorgate,
Rotherham, 1995.
Hart, G.C., Huang, S.C., Lobo, R.F., Van Winkle, M., Jain, A., Earthquake Response of
Strengthened Steel Special moment Resisting Frames Analytical and Field Investigations of
Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC.,
December, 1995
Hart, G.C., Huang, S., Lobo, R., and Stewart, J., Elastic and Inelastic Analysis for Weld Failure
Prediction of Two Adjacent Steel Buildings, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings
Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC, December,
1995.
Hart, G.C., Huang, S., Lobo, R., and Stewart, J., Influence of Vertical Ground Motion on
Special Moment-Resisting Frames, Technical Report: Parametric Analytical Investigations of
05. SAC, 1995.
Heaton, T.H., Hall, J.F., Wald, D.J., and Halling, M.W. Response of High-Rise and Base-
Isolated Buildings to a Hypothetical M
w
7.0 Blind Thrust Earthquake Science Vol. 26, pp 206-
211, January, 1995.
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code UBC-97, Whittier, CA,
1997.
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code UBC-94. Whittier, CA,
1994.
Iwan, W.D., Drift Demand Spectra for Selected Northridge Sites, Technical Report:
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., Ground Motion Parameters for Seismic Design,Bulletin of the
Sesimological Society of America, 1994.
Kariotis, J. and Eimani, T.J., Analysis of a Sixteen Story Steel Frame Building at Site 5, for the
References
12-6
Krawinkler, H.K., Systems Behavior of Structural Steel Frames Subjected to Earthquake
Ground Motions State of Art Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment
Krawinkler, H.K., Ali, A.A., Thiel, C.C., Dunlea, J.M., Analysis of a Damaged 4-Story Building
and an Undamaged 2- Story Building, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected
by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 1, SAC, December, 1995.
Ksai, K. , and Bleiman, D. Bolted Brackets for Repair of Damaged Steel Moment Frame
Connections, 7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Design and
Construction Practices: Lessons Learned from Northridge and Kobe, Kobe, Japan, January, 1996
Leon, R. T., Seismic Performance of Bolted and Riveted Connections State of Art Papers:
Miller, D.K. Welding of Seismically Resistant Steel Structures State of Art Papers: Metallurgy,
Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behavior SAC 95-09.
SAC, September, 1996
Naeim F., DiJulio, R., Benuska, K., Reinhorn, A. M., and Chen, L. Evaluation of Seismic
Performance of an 11 Story Steel Moment Frame Building During the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2 SAC, December, 1995.
Newmark, N.M. and Hall W.J., Earthquake Spectra and Design. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, 1982.
NIST and AISC. Modification of Existing Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections for Seismic
Resistance. National Institute of Standards and Technology and American Institute of Steel
Construction. 1999
Paret, T.F., Sasaki, K.K., Analysis of a 17 Story Steel Moment Frame Building Damaged by the
Popov, E.P. and Yang, T.S. Steel Seismic Moment Resisting Connections. University of
California at Berkeley, May, 1995.
Popov, E.P. Blondet, M., Stepanov, L, and Stodjadinovic, B. Full-Scale Beam-Column
Connection Tests. et. al. Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC,
publication pending (title not exact), 1995 SAC 96-01. 1996..
SAC, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Steel Moment Frames, October 23-24, 1994
SAC-94-01. Sacramento, CA, December, 1994.
References
12-7
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 1. September, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 2. October, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
SAC . Steel Moment Frame Advisory No. 3 SAC-95-01, February, Sacramento, CA, 1995.
Shonafelt, G.O., and Horn, W.B.. Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of Damaged Steel
Bridge Members, NCHRP Report 271, Transportation Research Board, 1984.
Skiles, J.L. and Campbell, H.H., Why Steel Fractured in the Northridge Earthquake SAC
Advisory No. 1, October, 1994.
Seismic Safety Commission, Northridge Earthquake Turning Loss to Gain, Report to the
Governor, Sacramento, CA, 1995.
Smith Emery Company. Report of Test, July, 1995.
Sommerville, P, Graves, R., Chandan, S. Technical Report: Characterization of Ground Motion
During the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-03, SAC, December, 1995.
State of California. Division of the State Architect (DSA) and Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD). Interpretation of Regulations Steel Moment Resisting
Frames, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sacramento, CA. 1990.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismology Committee, Interim
Recommendations for Design of Steel Moment Resisting Connection,. Sacramento, CA, January,
1995.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Vision 2000: A Framework for
Performance Based Engineering of Buildings, Sacramento, CA, April, 1995.
Structural Shape Producers Council, Statistical Analysis of Tensile Data for Wide Flange
Structural Shapes, 1994.
Thiel, C.C., and Zsutty, T.C., Earthquake Characteristics and Damage Statistics, Earthquake
Spectra, Volume 3, No. 4., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Ca. 1987.
Tremblay, R., Tchebotarev, N., and Filiatrault, A., Seismic Performance of RBS Connections for
Steel Moment Resisting Frames: Influence of Loading Rate and Floor Slab, Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on the Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Area, Kyoto,
Japan, August, 1997
References
12-8
Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E. P. Seismic Steel Beam-Column Moment Connections State of Art
Papers: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System
Behavior SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
Uang, C.M. and Latham, C.T. Cyclic Testing of Full-Scale MNH-SMRF Moment Connections,
Structural Systems Research, University of California, San Diego, March, 1995.
Tsai, K.C. and Popov, E.P., Steel Beam - Column Joints In Seismic Moment Resisting Frames,
Report No. UCB/EERC-88/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, Nov., 1988.
Uang, C.M., Yu, Q.S., Sadre, A., Bonowitz, D., Youssef, N. Performance of a 13 Story Steel
Moment-Resisting Frame Damaged in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Analytical and Field
Uang, C.M. and Bondad, D. Progress Report on Cyclic Testing of Three Repaired UCSD
Specimens, SAC, 1995.
Uang, C.M. and Lee, C.H. Seismic Response of Haunch Repaired Steel SMRFs: Analytical
Modelling and Case Studies Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-04 Part 2, SAC., December, 1995
Wald, D.J., Heaton, T.H., and Hudnut, K.W., The Slip History of the 1994 Northridge,
California, Earthquake Determined from Strong-Motion, Teleseismic, GPS, and Leveling Data,
United Sates Geologic Survey, 1995.
Watabe, M. Peformance of Wooden Houses and Steel Buildings during the Great Hanshin
Earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan, May, 1995.
Youssef, N.F.G, Bonowitz, D., and Gross, J.L., A Survey of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, NISTR 5625, Gaithersburg Md, April,
1995.
Classifications and Implications of Damage
3-1
3. CLASSIFICATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE
3.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage
3.2 Damage Types
3.2.1 Girder Damage
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.1 at this time.
3.2.2 Column Flange Damage
3.2.3 Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities
Six types of weld discontinuities, defects and damage are defined in Table 3-3 and illustrated
in Figure 3-4. All apply to the complete joint penetration (CJP) welds between the girder flanges
and the column flanges. This category of damage was the most commonly reported type
fFollowing the Northridge Earthquake, many instances of W1a and W1b conditions were reported
as damage. These conditions, which are detectable only by ultrasonic testing or by removal of
weld backing, are now thought more likely to be construction defects than damage.
Table 3-3 - Types of Weld Damage, Defects and Discontinuities
Type Description
W1 Weld root indications
W1a Incipient indications - depth <3/16 or
t
f
/4; width < b
f
/4
W1b Root indications larger than that for W1a
W2 Crack through weld metal thickness
W3 Fracture at column interface
W4 Fracture at girder flange interface
W5 UT detectable indication - non-rejectable
3-2
W1, W5 W2
W3
W4
Note: See Figure 3-2 for related column damage and Figure 3-3 for girder damage
Figure 3-4 - Types of Weld Damage
Commentary: Despite significant controversy, type W1 and W5 discovered in
buildings following the Northridge earthquake, were commonly reported as
damage. These small discontinuities and defects located at the roots of the CJP
welds are detectable only by ultrasonic testing (UT) when the weld backing is left
in place or by visual testing (VT) or magnetic particle testing (MT) when weld
backing is removed. It now seems likely that most such conditions are not
damage at all, but rather, are pre-existing construction defects. A number of
factors point to this conclusion. First, statistical surveys of damage sustained by
buildings in the Northridge earthquake show that if type W1 and W5 conditions
are not considered, there was a much greater incidence of damage in frames
resisting north-south ground shaking than in frames resisting east-west shaking.
This appears to be correlated with the relative strength of the ground shaking
experienced along these two directional axes. However, there is no significant
difference between the incidence rate of reported W1 and W5 conditions in these
two directions, suggesting that these conditions are not correlated with shaking
intensity.
The discovery of W1 conditions in welds for which original construction
quality assurance documentation is available, indicating that no such defects
were present when the building was originally constructed, tends to contradict
this argument. However, investigations conducted by SAC under the Phase 2
project have indicated that as a result of the joint geometry, UT techniques are
often unable to detect W1 conditions at the weld root, when scanning of the joint
is conducted from the top surface of the beam bottom flange. It is important to
note that this is the most common method of conducting UT as part of
construction quality assurance. When UT scanning of a joint is conducted from
the bottom surface of the flange, as is commonly done when inspecting for
3-3
earthquake damage, it becomes more likely that such conditions will be detected,
since the geometric constraints present for top flange scanning are altered. This
leads to the conclusion that it is probable that typical construction quality
assurance UT of welded joints would be likely to miss W1 conditions, allowing
them to be discovered in later post-earthquake surveys.
When FEMA-267 was first published, it was recommended that W1 conditions
be treated as damage and that UT be used as a routine part of the post-
earthquake investigation process, in order to discover these conditions. However,
more recent investigations conducted by SAC have revealed that even the careful
scanning typically conducted as part of a post-earthquake inspection is not able
to reliably detect these conditions. Given that it is both expensive and difficult to
locate W1 conditions as part of a post-earthquake investigation, and also, that
most of these conditions are unlikely to be damage at all, it is no longer
recommended that exhaustive investigations for these conditions be conducted as
part of the earthquake damage investigation process.
Type W1 damage, discontinuities and defects and type W5 discontinuities are
detectable only by NDT, unless the backing bar is removed, allowing direct
detection by visual inspection or magnetic particle testing. Type W5 consists of
small discontinuities and may or may not actually be earthquake damage. AWS
D1.1 permits small discontinuities in welds. Larger discontinuities are termed
defects, and are rejectable per criteria given in the Welding Code. It is likely
therefore that some weld indications detected by NDT in a post-earthquake
inspection may be discontinuities which pre-existed the earthquake and do not
constitute a rejectable condition, per the AWS standards. Repair of these
discontinuities, designated as type W5 is not generally recommended. Some type
W1 indications are small planar defects, which are rejectable per the AWS D1.1
criteria, but are not large enough to be classified as one of the types W2 through
W4. Type W1 is the single most commonly reported non-conforming condition
reported in the post-Northridge statistical data survey, and in some structures,
represents more than 80 per cent of the total damage reported. The W1
classification is split into two types, W1a and W1b, based on their severity. Type
W1a incipient root indications are defined as being nominal in extent, less than
3/16 deep or 1/4 of the flange thickness, whichever is less, and having a length
less than 1/4 of the flange width. Some engineers believe that type W1a
indications are not earthquake damage at all, but rather, previously undetected
defects from the original construction process. A W1b indication is one that
exceeds these limits but is not clearly characterized by one of the other types. It
is more likely that W1b indications are a result of the earthquake than the
construction process.
As previously stated, some engineers believe that both type W1a and some
type W1b conditions are not earthquake related damage at all, but instead, are
3-4
rejectable conditions not detected by the quality control and assurance programs
in effect during the original construction. However, in recent large-scale sub-
assembly testing of the inelastic rotation capacity of girder-column connections
conducted in SAC Phase 1 at the University of Texas at Austin and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the University of California at
Berkeley, it was reported that significantly more indications were detectable in
unfailed CJP welds following the testing than were detectable prior to the test.
This tends to indicate that type W1 damage may be related to stresses induced in
the structures by their response to the earthquake ground motions. Regardless of
whether or not type W1 conditions are directly attributable to earthquake
response, it is clear that these conditions result in a reduced capacity for the CJP
welds and can act as stress risers, or notches, to initiate fracture in the event of
future strong demands.
Type W2 fractures extend completely through the thickness of the weld metal
and can be detected by either MT or VI techniques. Type W3 and W4 fractures
occur at the zone of fusion between the weld filler metal and base material of the
girder and column flanges, respectively. All three types of damage result in a
loss of tensile capacity of the girder flange to column flange joint and should be
repaired.
As with girder damage, damage to welds has most commonly been reported at
the bottom girder to column connection, with fewer instances of reported damage
at the top flange. Available data indicates that approximately 25 per cent of the
total damage in this category occurs at the top flange, and most often, top flange
damage occurs in connections which also have bottom flange damage. For the
same reasons previously described for girder damage, less weld damage may be
expected at the top flange. However, it is likely that there is a significant amount
of damage to welds at the top girder flange which have never been discovered due
to the difficulty of accessing this joint. Later sections of these Interim Guidelines
provide recommendations for situations when such inspection should be
performed.
3.2.4 Shear Tab Damage
3.2.5 Panel Zone Damage
3.2.6 Other Damage
3-5
3.3 Safety Implications
The implications of the damage described above with regard to building safety are discussed in
this section. As part of the SAC Phase 2 program, extensive nonlinear analyses have been
conducted of WSMF buildings to determine the effects of connection fractures on building
performance and also to develop an understanding of the risk of earthquake-induced building
collapse. These studies indicate that risk of collapse of WSMF buildings designed to modern
standards and having connections capable of ductile behavior is quite low. Even in regions of
very high seismicity, such as those areas of coastal California adjacent to major active faults, the
probability that such a building would experience earthquake-induced collapse appears to be on
the order of one occurrence per building, every 20,000 years. For buildings that have brittle
connections such as those commonly constructed prior to 1994, the probability of collapse
increases somewhat. If only the bottom flange connections of beams to columns is subject to
fracture, the risk of global collapse of buildings increases to perhaps one occurrence in 15,000
years, presuming that the fractures do not jeopardize column capacity. However, if both flanges
of the connections are subject to fracture, or if substantial column damage occurs, the risk of
collapse increases significantly. Also, it is important to note that severe connection fractures can
result in significant risk of local collapse and life safety endangerment.
While these studies have been helpful in providing an understanding of the level of risk
inherent in WSMF structures with brittle connections, they do not provide sufficient information
to There is insufficient knowledge at this time to permit determination of the assess the degree of
risk with any real confidence. However, based on the historic performance of modern WSMF
buildings, typical of those constructed in the United States, it appears that the risk of collapse in
moderate magnitude earthquakes, ranging up to perhaps M7, is very low for buildings which have
been properly designed and constructed according to prevailing standards. A possible exception
to this may be buildings located in the near field (< 10 km from the surface projection of the fault
rupture) of such earthquakes (Heaton, et. al. - 1995), however, this is not uniquely a problem
associated with steel buildings. Our current building codes in general, may not be adequate to
provide for reliable performance of buildings within the near field of large earthquakes. As is also
the case with all other types of construction, buildings with incomplete lateral force resisting
systems, severe configuration irregularities, inadequate strength or stiffness, poor construction
quality, or deteriorated condition are at higher risk than buildings not possessing these
characteristics.
No modern WSMF buildings have been sited within the areas of very strong ground motion
from earthquakes larger than M7, or for that matter, within the very near field for events
exceeding M6.5. This style of construction has been in wide use only in the past few decades.
Consequently, it is not possible to state what level of risk may exist with regard to building
response to such events. This same lack of performance data for large magnitude, long duration
events exists for virtually all forms of contemporary construction. Consequently, there is
considerable uncertainty in assigning levels of risk to any building designed to minimum code
requirements for these larger events.
3-6
Commentary: Research conducted to date has not been conclusive with regard to
the risk of collapse of WSMF buildings. Some testing of damaged connections
from a building in Santa Clarita, California have been conducted at the
University of Southern California (Anderson - 1995). In these tests, connection
assemblies which had experienced type P6 damage were subjected to repeated
cycles of flexural loading, while the column was maintained under axial
compression. Under these conditions, the specimens were capable of resisting as
much as 40 per cent of the nominal plastic strength of the girder for several
cycles of slowly applied loading, at plastic deformation levels as large as 0.025
radians. However, damage did progress in the specimen, as this testing was
performed. It is not known how these assemblies would have performed if the
columns were permitted to experience tensile loading. Data from other tests
suggests that the residual strength of connections which have experienced types
G1, G4, W2, W3, and W4 damage is on the order of 15 per cent of the
undamaged strength. Some analytical research (Hall - 1995) in which nonlinear
time history analyses simulating the effects of connection degradation due to
fractures were included, indicates that typical ground motions resulting in the
near field of large earthquakes can cause sufficient drift in these structures to
induce instability and collapse. Other researchers (Astaneh - 1995) suggest that
damaged structures, even if unrepaired, have the ability to survive additional
ground motion similar to that of the Northridge Earthquake.
Even though there were no collapses of WSMF buildings in the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, it should not be assumed that no risk of such collapse
exists. Indeed, a number of WSMF buildings did experience collapse in the 1995
Kobe Earthquake. The detailing of these collapsed Japanese buildings was
somewhat different than that found in typical US practice, however, much of the
fracture damage that occurred was similar to that discovered following the
Northridge event.
Because of a lack of data and experience with the effects of larger, longer
duration earthquakes, there is considerable uncertainty about the performance of
all types of buildings in large magnitude seismic events. It is believed that
seismic risks in such large events are highly dependent on the individual ground
motion at a specific site and the characteristics of the individual buildings.
Therefore, generalizations with regard to the probable performance of individual
types of construction may not be particularly meaningful.
The risks to occupants of WSMF buildings with brittle connections is regarded
as less, in most cases, than to occupants of the types of buildings listed below.
However, because of the uncertainties involved, the degree of risk in large events
cannot be definitively quantified, nor can it categorically be stated that properly
constructed WSMF buildings sited in the near field of large events are either
3-7
more or less at risk than many other code designed building systems which do not
appear on the following list:
Concentric braced steel frames with bracing connections that are weaker than the
braces
Knee braced steel frames
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings
Non-ductile reinforced concrete moment frames (infilled or otherwise)
Reinforced concrete moment frames with gravity load bearing elements that were
not designed to participate in the lateral force resisting system and that do not
have capacity to withstand earthquake-induced deformations
Tilt-up and reinforced masonry buildings with inadequate anchorage of their
heavy walls to their horizontal wood diaphragms
Precast concrete structures without adequate interconnection of their structural
elements.
In addition, WSMF structures with brittle connections would appear to have
lower inherent seismic risk than structures of any construction type that:
do not having complete, definable load paths
have significant weak and/or soft stories
have major torsional irregularity and insufficient stiffness and strength to resist
the resulting seismic demands
minimal redundancy and concentrations of lateral stiffness
These are general statements that represent a global view of system
performance. As with all seismic performance generalizations, there are many
steel moment frame buildings that are more vulnerable to damage than some
individual buildings of the general categories listed, just as there are many that
will perform better.
3.4 Economic Implications
3-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
Post Earthquake Evaluation
4-1
4. POST-EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
4.1 Scope
4.2 Preliminary Evaluation
4.2.1 Evaluation Process
Preliminary evaluation is the process of determining if a building should be subjected to
detailed post-earthquake evaluations. Detailed evaluations should be performed for all buildings
thought to have experienced strong ground motion, as indicated in Section 4.2.1.1 or for which
the other indicators of Section 4.2.1.2 apply. Detailed post-earthquake evaluations include the
entire process of determining if a building has experienced significant damage and if damage is
found, determining appropriate strategies for occupancy, structural repair and/or modification.
Except as indicated in Section 4.2.3, detailed evaluation should, as a minimum, include
inspections of a representative sample of moment-resisting (and other type) connections within
the building.
4.2.1.1 Ground Motion
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.1.1 at this time.
4.2.1.2 Additional Indicators
4.2.2 Evaluation Schedule
There are no modifications to the Guidelines of Section 4.2.2 at this time.
Commentary: It is important to conduct post-earthquake evaluations as soon
following the earthquake as is practical. Aftershock activity in the months
immediately following an earthquake is likely to produce additional strong
ground motion at the site of a damaged building. If there is adequate reason to
assume that damage has occurred, then such damage should be expeditiously
uncovered and repaired. However, since adequate resources for post-earthquake
evaluation may be limited, a staggered schedule is presented, with those buildings
having a greater likelihood of damage recommended for evaluation first.
4-2
Large magnitude earthquakes are often followed by large magnitude
aftershocks. Therefore, it is particularly urgent that post-earthquake evaluations
be performed expeditiously following such events. If insufficient resources are
available in the affected region to perform the NDT tests recommended by the
Guidelines of Chapter 5, it is recommended that visual inspection, in accordance
with Section 5.2.2, proceed as soon as possible. If visual inspection reveals
substantial damage, consideration should be given to vacating the building until
either an adequate period of time has passed so as to make the likelihood of very
large aftershocks relatively low (e.g. 4 weeks for magnitude 7 and lower, and 8
weeks for magnitudes above this), complete inspections and repairs are made, or
a detailed evaluation indicates that the structure retains adequate structural
stiffness and strength to resist additional strong ground shaking. Preliminary
visual inspections should not be used as an alternative to complete evaluation.
The table Table 4-1relates the urgency for post-earthquake building
evaluation to both the magnitude of the earthquake and the estimated peak
ground acceleration experienced by the building site. This is because large
magnitude events are more likely to have large magnitude aftershocks and
because buildings that experienced stronger ground accelerations are more likely
to have been damaged. Except in regions with extensive strong motion
instrumentation, estimates of ground motion are quite subjective. Following
major damaging earthquakes, government agencies usually produce ground
motion maps showing projected acceleration contours. These maps should be
used when available. When such maps are not available, ground motions can be
estimated using any of several attenuation relationships that have been published.
4.2.3 Connection Inspections
Except as indicated in Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2, below, Ddetailed evaluations should
include inspection of the buildings moment-resisting connections in order to determine their
condition. As a first pass, inspections may be limited to careful visual inspection of the joint of
the beam bottom flange to the column. When such inspection reveals the presence of connection
damage, a more thorough inspection of the damaged connection should be conducted. Since
moment-resisting frame buildings commonly have many connections, inspections can be quite
costly. Therefore, it shall be permissible to limit inspections toof a representative sample of
WSMF (and other) connections, except as indicated in Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2, below.
Section 4.3.3 provides three alternative approaches to selecting an appropriate sample of
connections for inspection.
4.2.3.1 Analytical Evaluation
4-3
4.2.3.2 Buildings with Enhanced Connections
4.2.4 Previous Evaluations and Inspections
4.3 Detailed Evaluation Procedure
Where detailed evaluation is recommended by Section 4.2, assessment of the post earthquake
condition of a building, its ability to resist additional strong ground motion and other loads, and
determination of appropriate occupancy, structural repair and/or modification strategies should be
based on the results of a detailed inspection and assessment of the extent to which structural
systems have been damaged.
In order to obtain complete data on a buildings post-earthquake condition, it is necessary to
inspect each of the buildings moment-resisting frame elements and their connections. However,
such extensive inspections could be very costly. As an alternative to that approach, this Section
presents a series of procedures by which a representative sample of beam-column connections is
selected and inspected. This Section presents one approach for making such assessments. In this
approach, the results of the sample inspections are used to calculate a cumulative damage index,
D, for the structure as well as the probability that if all of the buildings connections had been
inspected, the damage index at any floor of the structure has would have been found to exceeded
a value of 1/3. General occupancy, structural repair and modification recommendations are made
based upon the values calculated for these damage indices. In particular, a calculated damage
index of 1/3 is used to indicate, in the absence of more detailed analyses, that a potentially
hazardous condition may exist.
The structural engineer may use other procedures consistent with the principles of statistics
and structural mechanics to determine the residual strength and stiffness of the structure in the as-
damaged state and the acceptability of such characteristics relative to the criteria contained in the
building code, or other rational criteria acceptable to the building official.
There are no modifications to the Commentary of Section 4.3 at this time.
4.3.1 Eight Step Evaluation Procedure
Post-earthquake evaluation should be carried out under the direct supervision of a structural
engineer. The following eight-step procedure may be used to determine the condition of the
structure and to develop occupancy, repair and modification strategies. Note that this procedure
is written presuming that inspection is limited to a representative sample of the total number of
connections present in the building. If all connections in the building are to be inspected, steps 1,
2, 4 and 6 may be omitted.
4-4
Step 1: The moment-resisting connections in the building are categorized into two or more
groups (Section 4.3.2 and 4.4) comprised of connections expected to have similar
probabilities of being damaged.
Complete steps 2 through 7 below, for each group of connections.
Step 2: Determine the minimum number of connections in each group that should be inspected
and select the specific sample of connections to be inspected. (Section 4.3.3)
Step 3: Inspect the selected set of connections using the technical guidelines of Section 5.2.
and determine connection damage indices, d
j
, for each inspected connection (Section
4.3.4)
Step 4: If inspected connections are found to be seriously damaged, perform additional
inspections of connections adjacent to the damaged connections. (Section 4.3.5)
Step 5: Determine the average damage index (d
avg
) for connections in each group, and then the
average damage index at a typical floor. (Section 4.3.6)
Step 6: Given the average damage index for connections in the group, determine the
probability, P, that the connection damage index for any group, at a floor level,
exceeds 1/3, and determine the maximum estimated damage index for any floor, D
max
.
(Section 4.3.7)
Step 7: Based on the calculated damage indices and statistics, determine appropriate
occupancy, structural repair and modification strategies (Section 4.3.8). If deemed
appropriate, the structural engineer may conduct detailed structural analyses of the
building in the as-damaged state, to obtain improved understanding of its residual
condition and to confirm that the recommended strategies are appropriate or to
suggest alternative strategies.
Step 8: Report the results of the inspection and evaluation process to the building official and
building owner. (Section 4.3.9)
Sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.9 indicate how these steps should be performed.
There are no modifications to the Commentary of Section 4.3.1 at this time.
4.3.2 Step 1Categorize Connections by Groups
4.3.3 Step 2Select Samples of Connections for Inspection
4-5
4.3.3.1 Method A - Random Selection
4.3.3.2 Method B - Deterministic Selection
4.3.3.3 Method C - Analytical Selection
4.3.4 Step 3Inspect the Selected Samples of Connections
Commentary: The sample size suggested for inspection in the methods of Section
4.3.3 are based on full inspection using both visual (Section 5.3.1) and NDT
techniques (Section 5.3.2) at all connections in the sample. Other methods of
selection and inspection may be used as provided in Section 4.3, with the
approval of the building official. One such approach might be the visual-only
inspection of the bottom girder flange to column connection, but with the
inspection of a large fraction of the total connections in the group, possibly
including all of them. If properly performed, such an inspection procedure would
detect almost all instances of the most severe damage but would not detect weld
defects (W1a), or root cracking (W1b), nor lamellar damage in columns (C5).
The occurrence of a few of these conditions, randomly scattered through the
building would not greatly affect the assessment of the buildings post-earthquake
condition, or the calculation of the damage index. However, if a large number of
such defects were present in the building, this would be significant to the overall
assessment. Therefore, such an inspection approach should probably include
confirming NDT investigations of at least a representative sample of the total
connections investigated. If within that sample, significant incidence of visually
hidden damage is found, then full NDT investigations should be performed, as
suggested by these Interim Guidelines. Similarly, if visual damage is found at the
bottom flange, then complete connection inspection should be performed to
determine if other types of damage are also present.
4.3.4.1 Damage Characterization
Characterize the observed damage at each of the inspected connections by assigning a
connection damage index, d
j
, obtained either from Table 4-3a or Table 4-3b. Table 4-3a presents
damage indices for individual classes of damage and a rule for combining indices where a
connection has more than one type of damage. Table 4-3b provides combined indices for the
more common combinations of damage.
4-6
Table 4-3a - Connection Damage Indices
1
Index
2
d
j
G1 Girder Buckled Flange 4
G2 Girder Yielded Flange 1
G3 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture in HAZ 8
G4 Girder Top or Bottom Flange fracture outside HAZ 8
G5 Girder Top and Bottom Flange fracture 10
G6 Girder Yielding or Buckling of Web 4
G7 Girder Fracture of Web 10
G8 Girder Lateral-torsional Buckling 8
C1 Column Incipient flange crack (detectable by UT) 4
C2 Column Flange tear-out or divot 8
C3 Column Full or partial flange crack outside HAZ 8
C4 Column Full or partial flange crack in HAZ 8
C5 Column Lamellar flange tearing 6
C6 Column Buckled Flange 8
C7 Column Fractured column splice 8
W1a CJP weld Minor root indication - thickness <3/16 or t
f
/4; width < b
f
/4 01
W1b CJP weld Root indication - thickness > 3/16 or t
f
/4 or width > b
f
/4 04
W2 CJP weld Crack through weld metal thickness 8
W3 CJP weld Fracture at girder interface 8
W4 CJP weld Fracture at column interface 8
W5 CJP weld Root indicationnon-rejectable 0
S1a Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flanges sound) 4
S1b Shear tab Partial crack at weld to column (beam flange cracked) 8
S2a Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flanges sound) 1
S2b Shear tab Crack in Supplemental Weld (beam flange cracked) 8
S3 Shear tab Fracture through tab at bolt holes 10
S4 Shear tab Yielding or buckling of tab 6
4
6
S6 Shear tab Full length fracture of weld to column 10
3
4
3
4
3
1
3
4
3
4
3
8
P7 Panel Zone Full (or near full) depth fracture in web or doubler plate
3
8
3
6
P9 Panel Zone Fully severed column 10
Notes To Table 4-3a:
1. See Figures 3-2 through 3-6 for illustrations of these types of damage.
2. Where multiple damage types have occurred in a single connection, then:
a. Sum the damage indices for all types of damage with d=1 and treat as one type. If multiple types still
exist; then:
4-7
b. For two types of damage refer to Table 4-3b. If the combination is not present in Table 4-3b and the
damage indices for both types are greater than or equal to 4, use 10 as the damage index for the
connection. If one is less than 4, use the greater value as the damage index for the connection.
c. If three or more types of damage apply and at least one is greater than 4, use an index value of 10,
otherwise use the greatest of the applicable individual indices.
3. Panel zone damage should be reflected in the damage index for all moment connections attached to the
damaged panel zone within the assembly.
4. Missing or loose bolts may be a result of construction error rather than damage. The condition of the metal
around the bolt holes, and the presence of fireproofing or other material in the holes can provide clues to this.
Where it is determined that construction error is the cause, the condition should be corrected and a damage
index of 0 assigned.
Table 4-3b - Connection Damage Indices for Common Damage Combinations
1
Girder, Column
or Weld Damage
Shear Tab
Damage
Damage
Index
Girder, Column
or Weld Damage
Shear Tab
Damage
Damage
Index
G3 or G4 S1a 8 C5 S1a 6
S1b 10 S1b 10
S2a 8 S2a 6
S2b 10 S2b 10
S3 10 S3 10
S4 10 S4 10
S5 10 S5 10
S6 10 S6 10
C2 S1a 8 W2, W3, or W4 S1a 8
S1b 10 S1b 10
S2a 8 S2a 8
S2b 10 S2b 10
S3 10 S3 10
S4 10 S4 10
S5 10 S5 10
S6 10 S6 10
C3 or C4 S1a 8
S1b 10
S2a 8
S2b 10
S3 10
S4 10
S5 10
S6 10
1. See Table 4-3a, footnote 2 for combinations other than those contained in this table.
More complete descriptions (including sketches) of the various types of damage are provided
in Section 3.1. When the engineer can show by rational analysis that other values for the relative
severities of damage are appropriate, these may be substituted for the damage indices provided in
4-8
the tables. A full reporting of the basis for these different values should be provided to the
building official, upon request.
Commentary: The connection damage indices provided in Table 4-3 (ranging
from 0 to 10) represent judgmental estimates of the relative severities of this
damage. An index of 0 indicates no damage and an index of 10 indicates very
severe damage.
When initially developed, these connection damage indices were
conceptualized as estimates of the connections lost capacity to reliably
participate in the buildings lateral-force-resisting system in future earthquakes
(with 0 indicating no loss of capacity and 10 indicating complete loss of
capacity). However, due to the limited data available, no direct correlation
between these damage indices and the actual residual strength and stiffness of a
damaged connection was ever made. They do provide a convenient measure,
however, of the extent of damage that various connections in a building have
experienced.
When FEMA-267 was first published, weld root discontinuities, Type W1a and
defects, type W1b, were classified as damage in Table 4-3a with damage indices
of 1 and 4, respectively assigned. Recent evidence and investigations, however,
suggest strongly that these W1 conditions are not likely to be damage, and also
are difficult to reliably detect. As a result, with the publication of Interim
Guidelines Advisory No. 2, the damage indices for these conditions has been
reduced to a null value, consistent with classifying them as pre-existing
conditions, rather than damage.
It should be noted that the reduced damage index associated with these
conditions is not intended to indicate that these are not a concern with regard to
future performance of the building. In particular, type W1b conditions can serve
as ready initiators for the types of brittle fractures associated with the other
damage types and connections having such conditions are more susceptible to
future earthquake-induced damage than connections that do not have these
conditions. Correction of these conditions should generally be considered an
upgrade or modification, rather than a damage repair.
4.3.5 Step 4Inspect Connections Adjacent to Damaged Connections
4.3.6 Step 5Determine Average Damage Index for Each Group
4-9
4.3.7 Step 6Determine the Probability that the Connections in a Group at a Floor Level
Sustained Excessive Damage
4.3.7.1 Some Connections in Group Not Inspected
4.3.7.2 All Connections in Group Inspected
4.3.8 Step 7Determine Recommended Recovery Strategies for the Building
4.3.9 Step 8 - Evaluation Report
4.4 Alternative Group Selection for Torsional Response
4.5 Qualified Independent Engineering Review
4.5.1 Timing of Independent Review
4.5.2 Qualifications and Terms of Employment
4.5.3 Scope of Review
4.5.4 Reports
4-10
4.5.5 Responses and Corrective Actions
4.5.6 Distribution of Reports
4.5.7 Engineer of Record
4.5.8 Resolution of Differences
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-1
5. POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION
When required by the building official, or recommended by the Interim Guidelines in Chapter
4, post-earthquake inspections of buildings may be conducted in accordance with the Interim
Guidelines of this Chapter. In order to determine, with certainty, the actual post-earthquake
condition of a building, it is necessary to inspect all elements and their connections. However, it
is permissible to select An an appropriate sample (or samples) of WSMF connections should be
selected for inspection in accordance with the Chapter 4 Guidelines. These connections, and
others deemed appropriate by the engineer, should be subjected to visual inspection (VI) and
supplemented by non-destructive testing (NDT) as required by this Chapter.
Commentary: The only way to be certain that all damage sustained by a building
is detected is to perform complete inspections of every structural element and
connection. In most cases, such exhaustive post-earthquake inspections would be
both economically impractical and also unnecessary. As recommended by these
guidelines, the purpose of post-earthquake inspections is not to detect all damage
that has been sustained by a building, but rather, to detect with reasonable
certainty, that damage likely to result in a significant degradation in the
buildings ability to resist future loading. The connection sampling process,
suggested by Chapter 4 of these Interim Guidelines was developed to provide a
low probability that damage in buildings that had sustained a substantial
reduction in load carrying capacity would be overlooked while avoiding the
performance of exhaustive investigations of buildings that have sustained
relatively insignificant damage.
Where greater certainty in the detection of damage is desired for a building, a
more extensive program of inspection can be conducted. For those cases in
which it is desired to perform an analytical determination of the residual load
carrying capacity of the structure, complete inspections of elements and
connections should be performed so that an analytical model of the building can
be developed that reasonably represents its post-earthquake condition.
5.1 Connection Types Requiring Inspection
5.1.1 Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Connections
The inspection of a WSMF connection should start with visual inspection of the welded
bottom beam flange to column flange joint and the base materials immediately adjacent to this
joint. If damage to this joint is apparent, or suspected, then inspections of that connection should
be extended to include the complete joint penetration (CJP) groove welds connecting both top
and bottom beam flanges to the column flange, including the backing bar and the weld access
holes in the beam web; the shear tab connection, including the bolts, supplemental welds and
5-2
beam web; the column's web panel zone, including doubler plates; and the continuity plates and
continuity plate welds (See Figure 3-1). In addition, where visual inspection indicates potential
concealed damage, visual inspection should be supplemented with other methods of
nondestructive testing.
Commentary: The largest concentration of reported damage following the
Northridge Earthquake occurred at the welded joint between the bottom girder
flange and column, or in the immediate vicinity of this joint. To a much lesser
extent, damage was also observed in some buildings at the joint between the top
girder flange and column. If damage at either of these locations is substantial (d
j
per Chapter 4 greater than 5), then damage is also commonly found in the panel
zone or shear tab areas.
When originally published,These these Interim Guidelines recommended
complete inspection, by visual and NDT assisted means, of all of these potential
damage areas for a small representative sample of connections. This practice is
was consistent with that followed by most engineers in the Los Angeles area,
following the Northridge Earthquake. It requires removal of fireproofing from a
relatively large surface of the steel framing, which at most connections will be
undamaged.
In the time since the Interim Guidelines were first published, extensive
investigations have been conducted of the statistical distribution of damage
sustained by buildings in the Northridge earthquake, the nature of this damage
and the effect of this damage on the future load-carrying capacity of the
buildings. These investigations strongly suggest that the W1a and W1b
conditions at the weld root are unlikely to be earthquake damage, but rather,
conditions of discontinuity and defects from the original construction. Further,
studies have shown that NDT methods are generally unreliable in the detection of
these conditions. As a result, the current recommendation is not to conduct
exhaustive NDT investigations of connections in order to discover hidden
damage, as was originally recommended.
In a series of analytical investigations of the effect of moment-resisting
connection damage on building behavior, it was determined that even if a large
number of connections experience fracture at one beam flange to column joint,
there is relatively little increase in the probability of global collapse in a future
earthquake. Similarly, these investigations indicate that if both the top and
bottom beam flange to column joints fracture in a large a number of connections,
a very significant increase in the probability of global building collapse occurs.
Therefore, to reduce the costs associated with post-earthquake inspections, with
the publication of Interim Guidelines Advisory No.2 it is recommended that post-
earthquake inspections initially be limited to visual inspection of the beam bottom
5-3
flange to column joint region. If there is evidence of potential damage in this
region that is not directly observable by visual means, for example, a gap between
the weld backing and column flange, then supplemental investigations of this joint
should be conducted using NDT. Similarly, if it is determined that fractures have
occurred at the beam bottom flange joint, then inspections of that connection
should be extended to encompass the entire connection including the top beam
flange joint, the shear tab and column panel zone. This approach was permitted
as an alternate, in the original publication of the Interim Guidelines.
Some engineers have suggested an alternative approach consisting of visual -
only inspections, limited to the girder bottom flange to column joint, but for a
very large percentage of the total connections in the building. These bottom
flange joint connections can be visually inspected with much less fireproofing
removed from the framing surfaces. When significant damage is found at the
exposed bottom connection, then additional fireproofing is removed to allow full
exposure of the connection and inspection of the remaining surfaces. These
engineers feel that by inspecting more connections, albeit to a lesser scope than
recommended in these Interim Guidelines, their ability to locate the most severe
occurrences of damage in a building is enhanced. These engineers use NDT
assisted inspection on a very small sample of the total connections exposed to
obtain an indication of the likelihood of hidden problems including damage types.
If properly executed, such an approach can provide sufficient information to
evaluate the post-earthquake condition of a building and to make appropriate
occupancy, structural repair and/or modification decisions. It is important that
the visual inspector be highly trained and that visual inspections be carefully
performed, preferably by a structural engineer. Casual observation may miss
clues that hidden damage exists. If, as a result of the partial visual inspection,
there is any reason to believe that damage exists at a connection (such as small
gaps between the CJP weld backing and column face), then complete inspection
of the suspected connection, in accordance with the recommendations of these
Interim Guidelines should be performed. If this approach is followed, it is
recommended that a significantly larger sample of connections than otherwise
recommended by these Interim Guidelines, perhaps nearly all of the connections,
be inspected.
5.1.2 Gravity Connections
5.1.3 Other Connection Types
5-4
5.2 Preparation
5.2.1 Preliminary Document Review and Evaluation
5.2.1.1 Document Collection and Review
5.2.1.2 Preliminary Building Walk-Through.
5.2.1.3 Structural Analysis
5.2.1.4 Vertical Plumbness Check
5.2.2 Connection Exposure
Pre-inspection activities to expose and prepare a connection for inspection should include the
local removal of suspended ceiling panels or (as applicable) local demolition of permanent ceiling
finish to access the connection; and cleaning of sufficient fireproofing from the beam and column
surfaces to allow visual observation of the area to be inspected. If initial inspections are to be
limited to the beam bottom flange to column joint and the surrounding material, fireproofing
should be removed from the connection as indicated in Figure 5-1a. Removal of fireproofing need
only be sufficient to permit observation of the surfaces of base and weld metals. Wire brushing
and cleaning to remove all particles of fireproofing material is not necessary unless ultrasonic
testing of the joint area is to be conducted. In the event that damage is found at the bottom beam
flange to column joint, then additional fireproofing should be removed, as indicated in Figure 5-
1b, to expose the column panel zone, the column flange, continuity plates, beam web and flanges.
The extent of the removal of fireproofing should be sufficient to allow adequate inspection of the
surfaces to be inspected. Figure 5-1b suggests a pattern that will allow both visual and NDT
inspection of the top and bottom beam flange to column joints, the beam web and shear
connection, column panel zone and continuity plates, and column flanges in the areas of highest
expected demands. The maximum extent of the removal of fireproofing need not be greater than
a distance equal to the beam depth "d" into the beam span to expose evidence of any yielding.
5-5
6
6
6
Fireproofing
Exposed surfaces
Figure 5-1a Recommended Zone for Fireproofing Removal for Initial Inspections
6
6
12
Fireproofing
Figure 5-1b Recommended Zone for Removal of Fireproofing for Complete Inspections
Commentary: If inspection is to be limited to visual observation of the surfaces of
the base metal and welds, cleaning of fireproofing need only be sufficient to
expose these surfaces. However, if ultrasonic testing is to be performed, the
surface over which the scanning will be performed must be free Cleaning of weld
areas and removal of mill scale and weld spatter. Such cleaning should be done
with care, preferably using a power wire brush, to ensure a clean surface that
does not affect the accuracy of ultrasonic testing. The resulting surface finish
should be clean, free of mill scale, rust and foreign matter. The use of a chisel
should be avoided to preclude scratching the steel surfaces which could be
mistaken for yield lines. Sprayed-on fireproofing on WSMFs erected prior to
about 19801970 is likely to contain asbestos and should be handled according to
5-6
applicable standards for the removal of hazardous materials. Health hazards
associated with asbestos were recognized by industry in the late 1960s and by
1969, most commercial production of asbestos containing materials had ceased.
In April, 1973, the federal government formally prohibited the production of
asbestos containing materials with the adoption of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Allowing for shelf life of materials
produced prior to that date, it should be considered possible that buildings
constructed prior to 1975 contain some asbestos hazards. To preclude physical
exposure to hazardous materials and working conditions in such buildings, the
structural engineer should require by contractual agreement with the building
owner, prior to the start of the inspection program, that the building owner
deliver to the structural engineer for his/her review and files a laboratory
certificate that confirms the absence of asbestos in structural steel fireproofing,
local pipe insulation, ceiling tiles, and drywall joint compound.
The pattern of fireproofing removal indicated in Figure 5-1 is adequate to
allow visual and UT inspection of the top and bottom girder flange to column
joints, the beam web and shear connection and the column panel zone. As
discussed in the commentary to Section 5.1.1, some engineers prefer to initially
inspect only the bottom beam flange to column joint. In such cases, the initial
removal of fireproofing can be more limited than indicated in the figure. If after
initial inspection, damage at a connection is suspected, then full removal, as
indicated in the figure, should be performed to allow inspection of all areas of the
connection.
5.3 Inspection Program
5.3.1 Visual Inspection (VI)
5.3.1.1 Top Flange
5.3.1.2 Bottom Flange
5.3.1.3 Column and Continuity Plates
5-7
5.3.1.4 Beam Web Shear Connection
5.3.2 Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
NDT should may be used to supplement the visual inspection of connections selected in
accordance with the Interim Guidelines of Chapter 4. The testing agency and NDT personnel
performing this work should conform to the qualifications indicated in Chapter 11 of these Interim
Guidelines. The following NDT techniques should may be used at the top and bottom of each
connection, where accessible, to supplement visual inspection: These techniques should be used
whenever visual inspection indicates the potential for damage that is not directly observable.
a) Magnetic particle testing (MT) of the beam flange to column flange weld surfaces may be
used to confirm the presence of suspected surface cracks based on visual evidence. Where
fractures are evident from visual inspection, MT should be used to confirm the lateral
extent of the fracture.All surfaces which were visually inspected should be tested using the
magnetic particle technique.
Commentary: The color of powder should be selected to achieve maximum
contrast to the base and weld metal under examination. The test may be further
enhanced by applying a white coating made specifically for MT or by applying
penetrant developer prior to the MT examination. This background coating
should be allowed to thoroughly dry before performing the MT.
b) Ultrasonic testing (UT) may be used to detect the presence of hidden fractures, where
visual inspection reveals the potential for such fractures. of all faces at the beam flange
welds and adjacent column flanges (extending at least 3 inches above and below the
location of the CJP weld, along the face of the column, but not less than 1-1/2 times the
column flange thickness).
Commentary: The purpose of UT is to 1) locate and describe the extent of
internal defects not visible on the surface and 2) to determine the extent of cracks
observed visually and by MT. These guidelines recommend the use of visual
inspection as the primary tool for detecting earthquake damage (See commentary
to Sec. 5..1.1). UT can be a useful technique for confirmation of the presence of
suspected fractures at the beam flange to column flange joints. Visual evidence
that may suggest the need for such testing could include apparent separation of
the base of the weld backing from the face of the column.
Requirements and acceptance criteria for NDT should be as given in AWS D1.1-98 Sections 6
and 8. Acceptance or rejection of planar weld discontinuity (cracks, slag inclusion, or lack of
fusion), including root indications, should, as a minimum, be consistent with AWS Discontinuities
Severity Class designations of cracks and defects per Table 8.26.2 of AWS D1.1-98 for Static
5-8
Structures. Beam flange welds should be tested as "tension welds" per AWS D1.1 Table 8.15.3,
Note 3. Backing bars need not be removed prior to performing UT.
Commentary: The value of UT for locating small discontinuities at the root of
beam flange to column flange welds when the backing is left in place is not
universally accepted. The reliability of this technique is particularly questionable
at the center of the joint, where the beam web obscures the signal. There have
been a number of reported instances of UT detected indications which were not
found upon removal of the backing, and similarly, there have been reported
instances of defects which were missed by UT examination but were evident upon
removal of the backing. The smaller the defect, the less likely it is that UT alone
will reliably detect its presence.
Despite the potential inaccuracies of this technique, it is the only method
currently available, short of removal of the backing, to find subsurface damage in
the welds. It is also the most reliable method for finding lamellar problems in the
column flange (type C4 and C5 damage) opposite the girder flange. Removal of
weld backing at these connections results in a significant cost increase that is
probably not warranted unless UT indicates widespread, significant defects
and/or damage in the building.
The proper scanning techniques, beam angle(s) and transducer sizes should be used as
specified in the written UT procedure contained in the Written Practice, prepared in accordance
with Section 5.3.3 of these Interim Guidelines. The acceptance standard should be that specified
in the original contract documents, but in no case should it be less than the acceptance criteria of
AWS D1.1, Chapter 8, for Statically Loaded Structures.
The base metal should be scanned with UT for cracks. Cracks which have propagated to the
surface of the weld or beam and column base metal will probably have been detected by visual
inspection and magnetic particle tests performed earlier. The purpose of ultrasonic testing of the
base metal is to:
1. Locate and describe the extent of internal indications not apparent on the surface and,
2. Determine the extent of cracks found visually and by magnetic particle test.
Commentary: Liquid dye penetrant testing (PT) may be used where MT is
precluded due to geometrical conditions or restricted access. Note that more
stringent requirements for surface preparation are required for PT than MT, per
AWS D1.1.
If practical, NDT should be performed across the full width of the bottom
beam flange joint. However, if there are no discontinuity signals from UT of
5-9
accessible faces on one side of the bottom flange weld, obstructions on the other
side of the connection need not be removed for testing of the bottom flange weld.
Slabs, flooring and roofing need not be removed to permit NDT of the top
flange joint unless there is significant visible damage at the bottom beam flange,
adjacent column flange, column web, or shear connection. Unless such damage
is present, NDT of the top flange should be performed as permitted, without local
removal of the diaphragms or perimeter wall obstructions.
It should be noted that UT is not 100% effective in locating discontinuities
and defects in CJP beam flange to column flange welds. The ability of UT to
reliably detect such defects is very dependent on the skill of the operator and the
care taken in the inspection. Even under perfect conditions, it is difficult to
obtain reliable readings of conditions at the center of the beam flange to column
flange connection as return signals are obscured by the presence of the beam
web. If backing is left in place on the welds, UT becomes even less reliable.
There have been a number of reported instances in which UT indicated apparent
defects, that were found not to exist upon removal of the backing. Similarly, UT
has failed in some cases to locate defects that were later discovered upon removal
of the backing. Additional information on UT may be found in AWS B1.10.
5.3.4 Post-Earthquake Field Inspection Report
5.3.5 Written Report
5-10
Post-earthquake Repair and Modification
6-1
6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION
6.1 Scope
6.2 Shoring
6.3 Repair Details
6.4 Preparation
6.5 Execution
6.6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION
6.6.1 Definition of Modification
6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections
6.6.3 Criteria
Connection modification intended to permit inelastic frame behavior should be proportioned
so that the required plastic deformation of the frame may be accommodated through the
development of plastic hinges at pre-determined locations within the girder spans, as indicated in
Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1. Beam-column connections should be designed with sufficient
strength (through the use of cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) to force development of the
plastic hinge away from the column face. This condition may also be attained through local
weakening of the beam section, at the desired location for plastic hinge formation. All elements
of the connection should have adequate strength to develop the forces resulting from the
6-2
formation of the plastic hinge at the predetermined location, together with forces resulting from
gravity loads.
Plastic Hinges
Undeformed
frame
L
L
h
drift angle -

Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior
Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is typically
accommodated through the development of inelastic flexural or shear strains
within discrete regions of the structure. At large inelastic strains these regions
can develop into plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated
rotations at constant (or nearly constant) load through yielding at tensile fibers
and buckling at compressive fibers. If a sufficient number of plastic hinges
develop in a frame, a mechanism is formed and the frame can deform laterally in
a plastic manner. This behavior is accompanied by significant energy
dissipation, particularly if a number of members are involved in the plastic
behavior, as well as substantial local damage to the highly strained elements.
The formation of hinges in columns, as opposed to beams, is undesirable, as this
results in the formation of weak story mechanisms with relatively few elements
participating, and consequently little energy dissipation occurring. In addition,
such mechanisms also result in local damage to critical gravity load bearing
elements.
Provisions prior to the Northridge Earthquake was based on the assumed
development of plastic hinge zones within the beams at adjacent to the face of the
column, or within the column panel zone itself. If the plastic hinge develops in
the column panel zone, the resulting column deformation results in very large
secondary stresses on the beam flange to column flange joint, a condition which
can contribute to brittle failure. If the plastic hinge forms in the beam, at the face
of the column, this can result in very large through-thickness strain demands on
6-3
the column flange material and large inelastic strain demands on the weld metal
and surrounding heat affected zones stress and strain demands on the welded
beam flange to column flange joint. These conditions can also lead to brittle
joint failure. Although ongoing research may reveal conditions of material
properties, design and detailing configurations that permit connections with
yielding occurring at the column face to perform reliably, for the present, it is
recommended In order to achieve more reliable performance, it is recommended
that the connection of the beam to the column be modified to be sufficiently
strong to force the inelastic action (plastic hinge) away from the column face.
Plastic hinges in steel beams have finite length, typically on the order of half the
beam depth. Therefore, the location for the plastic hinge should be shifted at
least that distance away from the face of the column. When this is done, the
flexural demands on the columns are increased. Care must be taken to assure
that weak column conditions are not inadvertently created by local strengthening
of the connections.
It should be noted that connection modifications of the type described above,
while believed to be effective in preventing brittle connection fractures, will not
prevent structural damage from occurring. Brittle connection fractures are
undesirable because they result in a substantial reduction in the lateral-force-
resisting strength of the structure which, in extreme cases, can result in instability
and collapse. Connections modified as described in these Interim Guidelines
should experience many fewer such brittle fractures than unmodified connections.
However, the formation of a plastic hinge within the span of a beam is not a
completely benign event. Beams which have formed such hinges may exhibit
large buckling and yielding deformation, damage which typically must be
repaired. The cost of such repairs could be comparable to the costs incurred in
repairing fracture damage experienced in the Northridge Earthquake. The
continue to be safe for occupancy while repairs are made.
then alternative methods of structural modification should be considered that will
reduce the plastic deformation demands on the structure during a strong
earthquake. Appropriate methods of achieving such goals include the installation
of supplemental braced frames, energy dissipation systems, and similar
systematic modifications of the buildings basic lateral force resisting system.
It is important to recognize that in frames with relatively short bays, the
flexural hinging indicated in Figure 6.6.3-1 may not be able to form. If the
effective flexural length (L in the figure) of beams in a frame becomes too short,
then the beams or girders will yield in shear before zones of flexural plasticity
6-4
can form, resulting in an inelastic behavior that is more like that of an
eccentrically braced frame than that of a moment frame. This behavior may
inadvertently occur in frames in which relatively large strengthened connections,
such as haunches, cover plates or side plates have been used on beams with
relatively short spans. This behavior is illustrated in Figure 6.6.3-2.
The guidelines contained in this section are intended to address the design of
flexurally dominated moment resisting frames. When utilizing these guidelines, it
is important to confirm that the configuration of the structure is such that the
presumed flexural hinging can actually occur. It is possible that shear yielding of
frame beams, such as that schematically illustrated in Figure 6.6.3-2 may be a
desirable behavior mode. However, to date, there has not been enough research
conducted into the behavior of such frames to develop recommended design
guidelines. If modifications to an existing frame result in such a configuration
designers should consider referring to the code requirements for eccentrically
braced frames. Particular care should be taken to brace the shear link of such
beams against lateral-torsional buckling and also to adequately stiffen the webs
to avoid local buckling following shear plastification.
Shear Link
Shear Link
Figure 6.6.3-2 Shear Yielding Dominated Behavior of Short Bay Frames
6.6.4 Strength and Stiffness
6.6.4.1 Strength
6-5
follows:
Flexure M
s
= Z F
y
Shear V
s
= 0.55 F
y
d t
Axial compression P
sc
= 1.7 F
a
A
Axial tension P
st
= F
y
A
Connectors
y
A
Alternatively, the criteria contained in the 1997 edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1997) may be used.
Commentary: At the time the Interim Guidelines were first published, they were
based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code and the 1994 edition of
the NEHRP Provisions. In the time since that initial publication, more recent
editions of both documents have been published, and codes based on these
documents have been adopted by some jurisdictions. In addition, the American
Institute of Steel Construction has adopted a major revision to its Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC Seismic Provisions), largely
incorporating, with some modification, the recommendations contained in the
Interim Guidelines. This updated edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions has
been incorporated by reference into the 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions
and has also been adopted by some jurisdictions as an amendment to the model
building codes. Structural upgrades designed to comply with the requirements of
the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions may be deemed to comply with the intent of
these Interim Guidelines. Where reference is made herein to the requirements of
the 1994 Uniform Building Code or 1994 NERHP Provisions, the parallel
provisions of the 1997 editions may be used instead, and should be used in those
jurisdictions that have adopted codes based on these updated standards.
Partial penetration welds are not recommended for tension applications in
critical connections resisting seismic induced stresses. The geometry of partial
penetration welds creates a notch-like condition that can initiate brittle fracture
under conditions of high tensile strain.
Many WSMF structures are constructed with concrete floor slabs that are
provided with positive shear attachment between the slab and the top flanges of
the girders of the moment-resisting frames. Although not generally accounted for
in the design of the frames, the resulting composite action can increase the
6-6
effective strength of the girder significantly, particularly at sections where
curvature of the girder places the top flange into compression. Although this
effect is directly accounted for in the design of composite systems, it is typically
neglected in the design of systems classified as moment resisting steel frames.
The increased girder flexural strength caused by this composite action can result
in a number of effects including the unintentional creation of weak column -
strong beam and weak panel zone conditions. In addition, this composite effect
has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of reduced section or dog-bone
type connection assemblies. Unfortunately, very little laboratory testing of large
scale connection assemblies with slabs in place has been performed to date and
as a result, these effects are not well quantified. In keeping with typical
contemporary design practice, the design formulae provided in these Guidelines
neglect the strengthening effects of composite action. Designers should, however,
be alert to the fact that these composite effects do exist. Similar, and perhaps
more severe, effects may also exist where steel beams support masonry or
concrete walls.
6.6.4.2 Stiffness
Calculation of frame stiffness for the purpose of determining interstory drift under the
influence of the design lateral forces should be based on the properties of the bare steel frame,
neglecting the effects of composite action with floor slabs. The stiffening effects of connection
reinforcements (e.g.: haunches, side plates, etc.) may be considered in the calculation of overall
frame stiffness and drift demands. When reduced beam section connections are utilized, the
reduction in overall frame stiffness, due to local reductions in girder cross section, should be
considered.
Commentary: For design purposes, frame stiffness is typically calculated
considering only the behavior of the bare frame, neglecting the stiffening effects
of slabs, gravity framing, and architectural elements such as walls. The resulting
calculation of building stiffness and period typically underestimates the actual
properties, substantially. Although this approach can result in unconservative
estimates of design force levels, it typically produces conservative estimates of
interstory drift demands. Since the design of most moment-resisting frames are
controlled by considerations of drift, this approach is considered preferable to
methods that would have the potential to over-estimate building stiffness. Also,
many of the elements that provide additional stiffness may be subject to rapid
degradation under severe cyclic lateral deformation, so that the bare frame
stiffness may provide a reasonable estimate of the effective stiffness under long
duration ground shaking response.
Notwithstanding the above, designers should be alert to the fact that
unintentional stiffness introduced by walls and other non-structural elements can
6-7
significantly alter the behavior of the structure in response to ground shaking. Of
particular concern, if these elements are not uniformly distributed throughout the
structure, or isolated from its response, they can cause soft stories and torsional
irregularities, conditions known to result in poor behavior.
The plastic rotation capacity of modified connections should reflect realistic estimates of the
required level of plastic rotation demand. In the absence of detailed calculations of rotation
demand, connections should be shown to be capable of developing a minimum plastic rotation
capacity on the order of 0.025 to 0.030 radian. The demand may be lower when braced frames,
supplemental damping, base isolation, or other elements are introduced into the moment frame
system, to control its lateral deformation; when the design ground motion is relatively low in the
range of predominant periods for the structure; and when the frame is sufficiently strong and stiff.
As used in these Guidelines, plastic rotation is defined as the plastic chord rotation angle. The
plastic chord rotation angle is calculated using the rotated coordinate system shown in Fig. 6.6.5-
1 as the plastic deflection of the beam or girder, at the point of inflection (usually at the center of
its span,)
CI
, divided by the distance between the center of the beam span and the centerline of
the panel zone of the beam column connection, L
CL
. This convention is illustrated in Figure 6.6.5-
1.
It is important to note that this definition of plastic rotation is somewhat different than the
plastic rotation that would actually occur within a discrete plastic hinge in a frame model similar
to that shown in Figure 6.6.3-1. These two quantities are related to each other, however, and if
one of them is known, the other may be calculated from Eq. 6.6.5-1.
c
L
c
L
Beam span center line
CL
L
CL
p
CL
CL
L
=

Plastic hinge
l
h
Figure 6.6.5-1 Calculation of Plastic Rotation Angle
6-8

( )

p ph
CL h
CL
L l
L
=

(6.6.5-1)
where:
p
is the plastic chord angle rotation, as used in these Guidelines

ph
is the plastic rotation, at the location of a discrete hinge
L
CL
is the distance from the center of the beam span to the center of the
beam-column assembly panel zone
l
h
is the assumed location of the discrete plastic hinge relative to the center of the
If calculations are performed to determine the required connection plastic rotation capacity,
the capacity should be taken somewhat greater than the calculated deformation demand, due to
the high variability and uncertainty inherent in predictions of inelastic seismic response. Until
better guidelines become available, a required plastic rotation capacity on the order of 0.005
radians greater than the demand calculated for the design basis earthquake (or if greater
conservatism is desired - the maximum capable considered earthquake) is recommended.
Rotation demand calculations should consider the effect of plastic hinge location within the beam
span, as indicated in Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1, on plastic rotation demand. Calculations should
be performed to the same level of detail specified for nonlinear dynamic analysis for base isolated
structures in UBC-94 Section 1655 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4}. Ground motion time histories
utilized for these nonlinear analyses should satisfy the scaling requirements of UBC-94 Section
1655.4.2 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4} except that instead of the base isolated period, T
I
, the
structure period, T, calculated in accordance with UBC-94 Section 1628 {NEHRP-94 Section
2.3.3.1} should be used.
Commentary. When the Interim Guidelines were first published, the plastic
rotation was defined as that rotation that would occur at a discrete plastic hinge,
similar to the definition of
ph
. in Eq. 6.6.5-1, above. In subsequent testing of
prototype connection assemblies, it was found that it is often very difficult to
determine the value of this rotation parameter from test data, since actual plastic
hinges do not occur at discrete points in the assembly and because some amount
of plasticity also occurs in the panel zone of many assemblies. The plastic chord
angle rotation, introduced in Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1, may more
readily be obtained from test data and also more closely relates to the drift
experienced by a frame during earthquake response.
Traditionally, structural engineers have calculated demand in moment
frames by sizing the members for strength and drift using code forces (either
equivalent static or reduced dynamic forces) and then "developing the strength of
the members." Since 1988, "developing the strength" has been accomplished by
prescriptive means. It was assumed that the prescribed connections would be
strong enough so that the girder would yield (in bending), or the panel zone
6-9
would yield (in shear) in a nearly perfectly plastic manner producing the plastic
rotations necessary to dissipate the energy of the earthquake. It is now known
that the prescriptive connection is often incapable of behaving in this manner.
In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many moment-frame connections
fractured with little evidence of plastic hinging of the girders or yielding of the
subsequent to the earthquake suggests that the standard welded flange-bolted web
connection is unable to reliably provide plastic rotations beyond about 0.005
radian for all ranges of girder depths and often fails below that level. Thus, for
frames designed for code forces and for the code drift limits, new connection
configurations must be developed to reliably accommodate such rotation without
brittle fracture.
In order to develop reasonable estimates of the plastic rotation demands on a
frames connections, it is necessary to perform inelastic time history analyses.
For regular structures, approximations of the plastic rotation demands can be
obtained from linear elastic analyses. Analytical research (Newmark and Hall -
1982) suggests that for structures having the dynamic characteristics of most
WSMF buildings, and for the ground motions typical of western US earthquakes,
the total frame deflections obtained from an unreduced (no R or R
w
factor)
dynamic analysis provide an approximate estimate of those which would be
experienced by the inelastic structure. For the typical spectra contained in the
building code, this would indicate expected drift ratios on the order of 1%. The
drift demands in a real structure, responding inelastically, tend to concentrate in
a few stories, rather than being uniformly distributed throughout the structures
height. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect typical drift demands in individual
stories on the order of 1.5% to 2% of the story height. As a rough
approximation, the drift demand may be equated to the joint rotation demand,
yielding expected rotation demands on the order of perhaps 2%. Since there is
considerable variation in ground motion intensity and spectra, as well as the
inelastic response of buildings to these ground motions, conservatism in selection
of an appropriate connection rotation demand is warranted.
In recent testing of large scale subassemblies incorporating modified
connection details, conducted by SAC and others, when the connection design was
able to achieve a plastic rotation demand of 0.025 radians or more for several
cycles, the ultimate failure of the subassembly generally did not occur in the
connection, but rather in the members themselves. Therefore, the stated
connection capacity criteria would appear to result in connections capable of
providing reliable performance.
It should be noted that the connection assembly capacity criteria for the
modification of existing buildings, recommended by these Interim Guidelines, is
6-10
somewhat reduced compared to that recommended for new buildings (Chapter 7).
This is typical of approaches normally taken for existing structures. For new
buildings, these Interim Guidelines discourage building-specific calculation of
required plastic rotation capacity for connections and instead, encourage the
development of highly ductile connection designs. For existing buildings, such an
approach may lead to modification designs that are excessively costly, as well as
the modification of structures which do not require such modification.
Consequently, an approach which permits the development of semi-ductile
connection designs, with sufficient plastic rotation capacity to withstand the
expected demands from a design earthquake is adopted. It should be understood
that buildings modified to this reduced criteria will not have the same reliability
as new buildings, designed in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter
7. The criteria of Chapter 7 could be applied to existing buildings, if superior
reliability is desired.
When performing inelastic frame analysis, in order to determine the required
connection plastic rotation capacity, it is important to accurately account for the
locations at which the plastic hinges will occur. Simplified models, which
represent the hinge as occurring at the face of the column, maywill underestimate
the plastic rotation demand. This problem becomes more severe as the column
spacing, L, becomes shorter and the distance between plastic hinges, L, a
greater portion of the total beam span. Eq. 6.6.5-1 may be used to convert
calculated values of plastic rotation at a hinge remotely located from the column,
to the chord angle rotation, used for the definition of acceptance criteria
contained in these Guidelines. In extreme cases, the girder will not form plastic
hinges at all, but instead, will develop a shear yield, similar to an eccentric
braced frame.
6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design
Modified girder-column connections may be qualified by testing or designed using
calculations. Qualification by testing is the preferred approach. Preliminary designs of
connections to be qualified by test may be obtained using the calculation procedures of Section
6.6.6.3. The procedures of that section may also be used to calibrate previous tests of similar
connection configurations to slightly different applications, by extrapolation. Extrapolation of test
results should be limited to connections of elements having similar geometries and material
specifications as the tested connections. Designs based on calculation alone should be subject to
qualified independent third party review.
Commentary: Because of the cost of testing, use of calculations for interpolation
or extrapolation of test results is desirable. How much extrapolation should be
6-11
extrapolate to the smaller member sizes? - at least within comparable member
group families. However, there is evidence to suggest that extrapolation of test
results to assemblies using members of reduced size is not always conservative.
In a recent series of tests of cover plated connections, conducted at the University
of California at San Diego, a connection assembly that produced acceptable
results for one family of beam sizes, W24, did not behave acceptably when the
beam depth was reduced significantly to W18. In that project, the change in
relative flexibilities of the members and connection elements resulted in a shift in
the basic behavior of the assembly and initiation of a failure mode that was not
observed in the specimens with larger member sizes. In order to minimize the
possibility of such occurrences, when extrapolation of test results is performed, it
should be done with a basic understanding of the behavior of the assembly, and
the likely effects of changes to the assembly configuration on this behavior. Test
results should not be extrapolated to assembly configurations that are expected to
behave differently than the tested configuration. Extrapolation or interpolation
of results with differences in welding procedures, details or material properties is
even more difficult.
6.6.6.1Qualification Test Protocol
6.6.6.2Acceptance Criteria
a) The connection should develop beam plastic rotations as indicated in Section 6.6.5, for
at least one complete cycle.
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to 80% of the plastic
strength of the girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength F
y
,
throughout the loading history required to achieve the required plastic rotation
capacity, as indicated in a), above.
c) The connection should exhibit ductile behavior throughout the loading history. A
specimen that exhibits a brittle limit state (e.g. complete flange fracture, column
cracking, through-thickness failures of the column flange, fractures in welds subject to
6-12
tension, shear tab cracking, etc. ) prior to reaching the required plastic rotation shall be
considered unsuccessful.
d) Throughout the loading history, until the required plastic rotation is achieved, the
connection should be judged capable of supporting dead and live loads required by the
building code. In those specimens where axial load is applied during the testing, the
specimen should be capable of supporting the applied load throughout the loading
history.
The evaluation of the test specimens performance should consistently reflect the relevant limit
states. For example, the maximum reported moment and the moment at the maximum plastic
rotation are unlikely to be the same. It would be inappropriate to evaluate the connection using
the maximum moment and the maximum plastic rotation in a way that implies that they occurred
simultaneously. In a similar fashion, the maximum demand on the connection should be
evaluated using the maximum moment, not the moment at the maximum plastic rotation unless the
behavior of the connection indicated that this limit state produced a more critical condition in the
connection.
Commentary: Many connection configurations will be able to withstand
plastic rotations on the order of 0.025 radians or more, but will have sustained
significant damage and degradation of stiffness and strength in achieving this
deformation. The intent of the acceptance criteria presented in this Section is to
assure that when connections experience the required plastic rotation demand,
they will still have significant remaining ability to participate in the structures
lateral load resisting system.
In evaluating the performance of specimens during testing, it is important to
distinguish between brittle behavior and ductile behavior. It is not uncommon for
small cracks to develop in specimens after relatively few cycles of inelastic
deformation. In some cases these initial cracks will rapidly lead to ultimate
failure of the specimen and in other cases they will remain stable, perhaps
growing slowly with repeated cycles, and may or may not participate in the
ultimate failure mode. The development of minor cracks in a specimen, prior to
achievement of the target plastic rotation demand should not be cause for
rejection of the design if the cracks remain stable during repeated cycling.
Similarly, the occurrence of brittle fracture at inelastic rotations significantly in
excess of the target plastic rotation should not be cause for rejection of the
design.
6.6.6.3Calculations
6-13
6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties
In the absence of project specific material property information (for example, mill test
reports), the values listed in Table 6-3 Table 6.6.6.3.1-1 should be used to determine the strength
of steel shape and plate for purposes of calculation. The permissible strength for weld metal
should be taken in accordance with the building code.
Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1 - Properties for Use in Connection Modification Design
Material F
y
(ksi) F
y m
(ksi) F
u
(ksi)
A36 Beam 36
1 1
Dual Certified Beam
Axial, Flexural
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Through-Thickness
50
-
55
2
58
2
57
2
54
2
-
65 min.
Note 3
A572 Column/Beam
Axial, Flexural
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Shape Group 5
Through-Thickness
50
-
58
2
58
2
57
2
57
2
55
2
-
65 min.
Note 3
A992 Structural Shape
1
Use same values as for A572, Gr. 50
Notes:
1. See Commentary
the F
y flange
y web
.
3. See Commentary
Commentary: Table 6-3, Note 1 - The material properties for steel nominally
designated on the construction documents as ASTM A36 can be highly variable
and in recent years, steel meeting the specified requirements for both ASTM A36
and A572 has routinely been incorporated in projects calling for A36 steel.
Consequently, unless project specific data is available to indicate the actual
strength of material incorporated into the project, the properties for ASTM A572
steel should be assumed when ASTM A36 is indicated on the drawings, and the
assumption of a higher yield stress results in a more severe design condition.
The ASTM A992 specification was specifically developed by the steel industry
in response to expressed concerns of the design community with regard to the
permissible variation in chemistry and mechanical properties of structural steel
under the A36 and A572 specifications. This new specification, which was
adopted in late 1998, is very similar to ASTM A572, except that it includes
somewhat more restrictive limits on chemistry and on the permissible variation in
6-14
yield and ultimate tensile stress, as well as the ratio of yield to tensile strength.
At this time, no statistical data base is available to estimate the actual
distribution of properties of material produced to this specification. However, the
properties are likely to be very similar, albeit with less statistical scatter, to those
of material recently produced under ASTM A572, Grade 50.
Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1, Note 3 - In the period immediately following the
Northridge earthquake, the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers
Association of California and the International Conference of Building Officials
issued Interim Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) to provide guidance on the
design of moment resisting steel frame connections. Interim Recommendation
No. 2 included a recommendation that the through-thickness stress demand on
column flanges be limited to a value of 40 ksi, applied to the projected area of
beam flange attachment. This value was selected somewhat arbitrarily, to ensure
that through-thickness yielding did not initiate in the column flanges of moment-
resisting connections and because it was consistent with the successful tests of
assemblies with cover plates conducted at the University of Texas at Austin
(Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994), rather than being the result of a demonstrated
through-thickness capacity of typical column flange material. Despite the
somewhat arbitrary nature of the selection of this value, its use often controls the
overall design of a connection assembly including the selection of cover plate
thickness, haunch depth, and similar parameters.
It would seem to be important to prevent the inelastic behavior of connections
from being controlled by through-thickness yielding of the column flanges. This
is because it would be necessary to develop very large local ductilities in the
column flange material in order to accommodate even modest plastic rotation
demands on the assembly. However, extensive investigation of the through-
thickness behavior of column flanges in a T joint configuration reveals that
neither yielding, nor through-thickness failure are likely to occur in these
connections. Barsom and Korvink (1997) conducted a statistical survey of
available data on the tensile strength of rolled shape material in the through-
thickness direction. These tests were generally conducted on small diameter
coupons, extracted from flange material of heavy shapes. The data indicates that
both the yield stress and ultimate tensile strength of this material in the through-
thickness direction is comparable to that of the material in the direction parallel
to rolling. However, it does indicate somewhat greater scatter, with a number of
reported values where the through-thickness strength was higher, as well as lower
than that in the longitudinal direction. Review of this data indicates with high
confidence that for small diameter coupons, the yield and ultimate tensile values
of the material in a through-thickness direction will exceed 90% and 80%
respectively of the comparable values in the longitudinal direction. theThe causes
for through-thickness failures of column flanges (types C2, C4, and C5), observed
6-15
both in buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake and in some test
specimens, are not well understood. They are thought to be a function of the
metallurgy and purity of the steel; conditions of loading including the presence
of axial load and rate of loading application; conditions of tri-axial restraint;
conditions of local hardening and embrittlement within the welds heat affected
zone; stress concentrations induced by the presence of backing bars and defects
at the root of beam flange to column flange welds; and by the relationship of the
connection components as they may affect flange bending stresses and flange
curvature induced by panel zone yielding. Given the many complex factors which
can affect the through-thickness strength of the column flange, determination of a
reliable basis upon which to set permissible design stresses will require
significant research. Such research is currently being conducted under the SAC
phase II program.
While this statistical distribution suggests the likelihood that the through-
thickness strength of column flanges could be less than the flexural strength of
attached beam elements, testing of more than 40 specimens at Lehigh University
indicates that this is not the case. In these tests, high strength plates,
representing beam flanges and having a yield strength of 100 ksi were welded to
the face of A572, Grade 50 and A913, Grade 50 column shapes, to simulate the
portion of a beam-column assembly at the beam flange. These specimens were
placed in a universal testing machine and loaded to produce high through-
thickness tensile stresses in the column flange material. The tests simulated a
wide range of conditions, representing different weld metals as well and also to
include eccentrically applied loading. In 40 of 41 specimens tested, the assembly
strength was limited by tensile failure of the high strength beam flange plate as
opposed to the column flange material. In the one failure that occurred within
the column flange material, fracture initiated at the root of a low-toughness weld,
at root defects that were intentionally introduced to initiate such a fracture.
The behavior illustrated by this test series is consistent with mechanics of
materials theory. At the joint of the beam flange to column flange, the material is
very highly restrained. As a result of this, both the yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength of the material in this region is significantly elevated. Under
these conditions, failure is unlikely to occur unless a large flaw is present that can
lead to unstable crack propagation and brittle fracture. In light of this evidence,
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 deletes any requirement for evaluation of
through-thickness flange stress in columns.
was consistent with the successful tests of cover plated assemblies conducted at
6-16
the University of Texas at Austin (Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994). However,
of the column flange as well as larger weldments with potential for enlarged heat
affected zones, higher residual stresses and conditions of restraint.
Since the initial publication of the Interim Guidelines, a significant number of
tests have been performed on reduced beam section connections (See section
7.5.3), most of which employed beam flanges which were welded directly to the
column flanges using improved welding techniques, but without reinforcement
plates. No through-thickness failures occurred in these tests despite the fact that
calculated through-thickness stresses at the root of the beam flange to column
flange joint ranged as high as 58 ksi. The successful performance of these welded
joints is most probably due to the shifting of the yield area of the assembly away
from the column flange and into the beam span. Based on the indications of the
above described tests, and noting the undesirability of over reinforcing
connections, it is now suggested that a maximum through-thickness stress of
0.9F
yc
may be appropriate for use with connections that shift the hinging away
from the column face. Notwithstanding this recommendation, engineers are still
cautioned to carefully consider the through-thickness issue when these other
previously listed conditions which are thought to be involved in this type of
failure are prevalent.
continue to be performed. In the interim, structural engineers choosing to utilize
6.6.6.3.2 Determine Plastic Hinge Location
The desired location for the formation of plastic hinges should be determined as a basic
parameter for the calculations. For beams with gravity loads representing a small portion of the
6-17
total flexural demand, the location of the plastic hinge may be assumed to occur as indicated in
Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 and illustrated in Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1, at a distance equal to 1/3 of the beam depth
from the edge of the reinforced connection (or start of the weakened beam section), unless
specific test data for the connection indicates that a different value is appropriate. Refer to Figure
6-13.
Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 Plastic Hinge Location - Strengthened Connections
Connection Type Reference Section Hinge Location s
h
Cover plates Sect. 7.9.1 d/4 beyond end of cover plates

Haunches Sect. 7.9.3, 7.9.4 d/3 beyond toe of haunch
Vertical Ribs Sect. 7.9.2 d/3 beyond toe of ribs
L
B
e
a
m

d
e
p
t
h

-

d
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
=
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge
Connection
reinforcement
s
h
=
d/4
Figure 6-13 Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1 - Location of Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The suggested locations for the plastic hinge, at a distance d/3
away from the end of the reinforced section indicated in Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 and
Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1 are is based on the observed behavior of test specimens, with
no significant gravity load present. If significant gravity load is present, this can
shift the locations of the plastic hinges, and in the extreme case, even change the
form of the collapse mechanism. If flexural demand on the girder due to gravity
load is less than about 30% of the girder plastic capacity, this effect can safely be
neglected, and the plastic hinge locations taken as indicated. If gravity demands
significantly exceed this level then plastic analysis of the girder should be
6-18
performed to determine the appropriate hinge locations. Note that in zones of
high seismicity (UBC Zones 3 and 4, and NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7) gravity
loading on the girders of earthquake resisting frames typically has a very small
effect.
6.6.6.3.3 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges
The probable value of the plastic moment, M
pr
, at the location of the plastic hinges should be
determined from the equation:
M 0.95 Z F
pr b ya
= a (6-1)
M 1.1Z F
pr b ya
= (6.6.6.3.3-1)
where: is a coefficient that accounts for the effects of strain hardening and modeling
uncertainty, taken as:
1.1 when qualification testing is performed or calculations are
correlated with previous qualification testing
1.3 when design is based on calculations, alone.
F
ya
is the actual yield stress of the material, as identified from mill test reports. Where
mill test data for the project is not traceable to specific framing elements, the
average of mill test data for the project for the given shape may be used. When
mill test data for the project is not available, the value of F
ym
, from
table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1 may be used.
Z
b
Commentary: The 1.10.95 factor, in equation 6.6.6.3.3-1, is used to adjust
account for two effects. First, it is intended to account for the typical difference
between the yield stress in the beam web, where coupons for mill certification
tests are normally extracted, andto the value in the beam flange. Beam flanges,
being comprised of thicker material, typically have somewhat lower yield
strengths than do beam web material. Second, it is intended toThe factor of 1.1
recommended to account for strain hardening, or other sources of strength above
yield, and agrees fairly well with available test results. It should be noted that the
1.1 factor could underestimate the over-strength where significant flange
buckling does not act as the gradual limit on the connection. Nevertheless, the
1.1 factor seems a reasonable expectation of over-strength considering the
complexities involved.
6-19
Connection designs that result in excessive strength in the girder connection
relative to the column or excessive demands on the column panel zone are not
expected to produce superior performance. There is a careful balance that must
be maintained between developing connections that provide for an appropriate
allowance for girder overstrength and those that arbitrarily increase connection
demand in the quest for a conservative connection design. The factors
suggested above were chosen in an attempt to achieve this balance, and arbitrary
increases in these values are not recommended.
When the Interim Guidelines were first published, Eq. 6.6.6.3.3-1 included a
coefficient, , intended to account both for the effects of strain hardening and
also for modeling uncertainty when connection designs were based on
calculations as opposed to a specific program of qualification testing. The intent
of this modeling uncertainty factor was twofold: to provide additional
conservatism in the design when specific test data for a representative connection
was not available, and also as an inducement to encourage projects to undertake
connection qualification testing programs. After the Interim Guidelines had been
in use for some time, it became apparent that this approach was not an effective
inducement for projects to perform qualification testing, and also that the use of
an overly large value for the coefficient often resulted in excessively large
connection reinforcing elements (cover plates, e.g.) and other design features that
did not appear conducive to good connection behavior. Consequently, it was
decided to remove this modeling uncertainty factor from the calculation of the
probable strength of an assembly.
6.6.6.3.4 Determine Beam Shear
The shear in the beam at the location of the plastic hinge should be determined. A free body
diagram of that portion of the beam located between plastic hinges is a useful tool for obtaining
the shear at each plastic hinge. Figure 6-14Figure 6.6.3.4-1 provides an example of such a
calculation.
6-20
L
s
h
L
Plastic
hinge P
L/2
P
Mpr
Mpr
L Vp
2
/2}/L
A
V
A
w
Note: if 2M
pr
/L is less
case P/2 + wL/2),
must be adjusted,
accordingly
Figure 6-14 Figure 6.6.3.4-1 - Sample Calculation of Shear at Plastic Hinge
6.6.6.3.5 Determine Strength Demands on Connection
hinge. Figure 6-15 Figure 6.6.3.5-1 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the
beam shown in Figure 6-14Figure 6.6.3.4-1.
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
x
M
f
x+dc/2
d
c
M
f
=M
pr
+V
p
x
M
c
M
c
=M
pr
+V
p
(x+d
c
/2)
Figure 6-15 Figure 6.6.3.5-1 - Calculation of Demands at Critical Sections
6-21
are used to check weak beam - strong column conditions. Other critical sections
should be selected as appropriate to the connection configuration.
6.6.6.3.6 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition
Buildings which form sidesway mechanisms through the formation of plastic hinges in the
beams can dissipate more energy than buildings that develop mechanisms consisting primarily of
plastic hinges in the columns. Therefore, if an existing buildings original design was such that
hinging would occur in the beams rather than the columns, care should be taken not to alter this
behavior with the addition of connection reinforcement. To determine if the desired strong
column - weak beam condition exists, the connection assembly should be checked to determine if
the following equation is satisfied:
Z (F f ) M 1.0
c yc a c
>

(6.6.6.3.6-12)
where: Z
c
F
yc
f
a
M
c
Section 6.6.6.3.5 sum of the column moments at the top and bottom of the
panel zone, respectively, resulting from the development of the probable beam
plastic moments, M
pr
, within each beam in the connection.
Commentary: Equation 6.6.6.3.6-12 is based on the building code provisions for
strong column - weak beam design. The building code provisions for evaluating
strong column - weak beam conditions presume that the flexural stiffness of the
columns above and below the beam are approximately equal, that the beams will
yield at the face of the column, and that the depth of the columns and beams are
small relative to their respective span lengths. This permits the code to use a
relatively simple equation to evaluate strong column - weak beam conditions in
which the sum of the flexural capacities of columns at a connection are compared
to the sums of the flexural capacities in the beams. The first publication of the
Interim Guidelines took this same approach, except that the definition of M
c
was
modified to explicitly recognize that because flexural hinging of the beams would
occur at a location removed from the face of the column, the moments delivered
by the beams to the connection would be larger than the plastic moment strength
of the beam. In this equation, M
c
was taken as the sum of the moments at the
6-22
center of the column, calculated in accordance with the procedures of Sect.
6.6.3.5.
This simplified approach is not always appropriate. If non-symmetrical
connection configurations are used, such as a haunch on only the bottom side of
the beam, this can result in an uneven distribution of stiffness between the two
column segments, and premature yielding of the column, either above, or below,
the beam-column connection. Also, it was determined that for connection
configurations in which the panel zone depth represents a significant fraction of
the total column height, such as can occur in some haunched and side-plated
connections, the definition of M
c
contained in the initial printing of the
Guidelines could lead to excessive conservatism in determining whether or not a
strong column - weak beam condition exists in a structure. Consequently, Interim
Guidelines Advisory No. 1 adopted the current definition of M
c
for use in this
evaluation. This definition requires that the moments in the column, at the top
and bottom of the panel zone be determined for the condition when a plastic
hinge has formed at all beams in the connection. Figure 6.6.6.3.6-1 illustrates a
method for determining this quantity. In such cases, When evaluation indicates
that a strong column - weak beam condition does not exist, a plastic analysis
should be considered to determine if an undesirable story mechanism is likely to
form in the building.
(L-L)/2
d
p
h
t
h
b
M
pr
V
p
V
p
M
pr
V
c
V
c
+V
f
M
ct
M
cb
assumed point of zero moment
Note:
The quantities M
pr
, V
p
, L, and L are
as previously identified.
V
f
is the incremental shear distributed
to the column at the floor level.
Other quantities are as shown.
V
f
( )
[ ] ( )
( )
V
M V L L V h d
h d h
M V h
M V V h
M M M
c
pr p f b p
b p t
ct c t
cb c f b
c ct cb
=
+ +
+ +
=
= +
= +
' ) / / 2 2
Figure 6.6.6.3.6-1 Calculation of Column Moment for Strong Column Evaluation
6-23
6.6.6.3.7 Check Column Panel Zone
f
2211.7.2.1 {0.9
b
M
p
in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1} repeated below for convenience of
reference. M
f
forms, calculated as indicated in Section 6.6.6.3.5, above. In addition, it is recommended not to
use the alternative design criteria indicated in UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 (NEHRP-91 Sect.
10.10.3.1), permitting panel zone shear strength to be proportioned for the shear induced by
bending moments from gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces. For
convenience of reference, UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 is reproduced below, edited, to indicate the
recommended application:
2211.7.2.1 Strength (edited). The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the
shear induced by beam bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the
prescribed seismic forces, but the shear strength need not exceed that required to develop
0.8M
s
0.8M
f
of the girders framing into the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel
zone shear strength may be obtained from the following formula:
V 0.55F d t 1
3b t
d d t
y c
c c f
2
b c
= +
(11-1)
where: b
c
d
b
= the depth of the beam (including haunches or cover plates)
d
c
t
cf
Commentary: The effect of panel zone shear yielding on connection behavior is
not well understood. In the past, panel zone shear yielding has been viewed as a
benign mechanism that permits overall frame ductility demands to be
accommodated while minimizing the extent of inelastic behavior required of the
beam and beam flange to column flange joint. The criteria permitting panel zone
shear strength to be proportioned for the shears resulting from moments due to
gravity loads plus 1.85 times the design seismic forces was adopted by the code
specifically to encourage designs with weak panel zones. However, during recent
testing of large scale connection assemblies with weak panel zones, it has been
noted that in order to accommodate the large shear deformations that occur in
the panel zone, extreme kinking deformations were induced into the column
flanges at the beam flange to column flange welded joint. While this did not lead
to premature joint failure in all cases, it is believed to have contributed to such
premature failures in at least some of the specimens. The recommendations of
this section are intended to result in stronger panel zones than previously
6-24
permitted by the code, thereby avoiding potential failures due to this kinking
action on the column flanges.
6.6.7 Modification Details
6.6.7.1Haunch at Bottom Flange
Figure 6-166.6.7.1-1 illustrates the basic configuration for a connection modification
consisting of the addition of a welded haunch at the bottom beam flange. Several tests of such a
modification were conducted by Uang under the SAC phase I project (Uang, 1995). Following
that work, additional research on the feasibility of improving connection performance with welded
haunches was conducted under a project that was jointly sponsored by NIST and AISC (NIST,
1998). As indicated in the report of that work, the haunched modification improves connection
performance by altering the basic behavior of the connection. In essence, the haunch creates a
prop type support, beneath the beam bottom flange. This both reduces the effective flexural
stresses in the beam at the face of the support, and also greatly reduces the shear that must be
transmitted to the column through the beam. Laboratory tests indicate this modification can be
effective when the existing low-toughness welds between the beam bottom flange and column are
left in place, however, more reliable performance is obtained when the top welds are modified. A
complete procedure for the design of this modification may be found in NIST, 1998. two
alternative configurations of this detail that have been tested (Uang - 1995). The basic concept is
to reinforce the connection with the provision of a triangular haunch at the bottom flange. The
intended behavior of both configurations is to shift the plastic hinge from the face of the column
and to reduce the demand on the CJP weld by increasing the effective depth of the section. In one
test, shown on the left of Figure 6-16, the joint between the girder bottom flange and column was
cut free, to simulate a condition which might occur if the bottom joint had been damaged, but not
repaired. In a second tested configuration, the bottom flange joint was repaired and the top flange
was replaced with a locally thickened plate, similar to the detail shown in Figure 6-9.
Design Issues: This approach developed acceptable levels of plastic rotation. Acceptable levels
of connection strength were also maintained during large inelastic deformations of the plastic
hinge. This approach does not require that the top flange be modified, or slab disturbed, unless
other conditions require repair of the top flange, as in the detail on the left of Figure 6-16. The
bottom flange is generally far more accessible than the top flange because a slab does not have
to be removed. In addition, the haunch can be installed at perimeter frames without removal of
the exterior building cladding. There did not appear to be any appreciable degradation in
performance when the bottom beam flange was not re-welded to the face of the column.
Eliminating this additional welding should help reduce the cost of the repair.
Performance is dependent on properly executed complete joint penetration welds at the column
face and at the attachment of the haunch to the girder bottom flange. The joint can be subject to
through-thickness flaws in the column flange; however, this connection may not be as sensitive
6-25
to this potential problem because of the significant increase in the effective depth of the beam
section which can be achieved. Welding of the bottom haunch requires overhead welding. The
skewed groove welds of the haunch flanges to the girder and column flanges may be difficult to
execute.
Experimental Results: This approach developed excellent levels of plastic rotation. In Specimen
1, the bottom flange CJP weld was damaged in a prior test but was not repaired: only the bottom
haunch was added. During the test of specimen 1, a slowly growing crack developed at the
underside of the top flange-web intersection, perhaps exacerbated by significant local buckling
of the top flange. Some of the buckling may be attributed to lateral torsional buckling that
occurred because the bottom flange was not restrained by a CJP weld. A significant portion of
the flexural strength was lost during the cycles of large plastic rotation. In the second specimen,
the bottom girder flange weld was intact during the haunch testing, and its performance was
significantly improved compared with the first specimen. The test was stopped when significant
local buckling led to a slowly growing crack at the beam flange and web intersection. At this
time, it appears that repairing damaged bottom flange welds in this configuration can produce
better performance. Acceptable levels of flexural strength were maintained during large
inelastic deformations of the plastic hinge for both specimens. As reported in NIST, 1998, a total
of 9 beam-column connection tests incorporating bottom haunch modifications of pre-
Northridge connections have been tested in the laboratory, including two dynamic tests. Most of
the connection assemblies tested resisted in excess of 0.02 radians of imposed plastic rotation.
However, for those specimens in which the existing low-toughness weld was left in place at the
beam top flange, without modification, connection behavior was generally limited by fractures
generating at these welds at relatively low plastic rotations. It may be expected that enhanced
performance can be obtained by replacing or reinforcing these welds as part of the modification.
Figure 6-166.6.7.1-1 - Bottom Haunch Connection Modification
6-26
Specimen 1 UCSD-1R: 0.04 radian (w/o bottom flange weld)
Specimen 2 UCSD-3R:0.05 radian (with bottom flange weld)
Specimen UCSD-4R: 0.014 radian (dynamic- limited by test setup)
Speciemn UCSD-5R: 0.015 radian (dynamic- limited by test setup)
Girder Size: W36x150
Column Size: W14x257
Plastic Rotation achieved -
Specimen UCB-RN2: 0.014 radian (no modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1R: 0.019 radian (partial modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1RB: 0.028 radian (modified top weld)
Specment UTA-NSF4: 0.015 radian (no modification of top weld)
Girder Size: W18x86
Specimen SFCCC-8: 0.035 radian (cover plated top flange)
6.6.7.2Top and Bottom Haunch
6.6.7.3Cover Plate Sections
Figure 6.6.7.3-1 Figure 6-18 illustrates the basic configurations of cover plate connections.
The assumption behind the cover plate is that it reduces the applied stress demand on the weld at
the column flange and shifts the plastic hinge away from the column face. Only the connection
with cover plates on the top of the top flange has been tested. There are no quantitative results
for cover plates on the bottom side of the top flange, such as might be used in repair. It is likely
that thicker plates would be required where the plates are installed on the underside of the top
flange. The implications of this deviation from the tested configuration should be considered.
6-27
Top &Bottom
Near and Far Sides
Top &Bottom
d
d/2, typical
Figure 6-18 Figure 6.6.7.3-1 - Cover Plate Connection Modification
Design Issues: Following the Northridge earthquake, the University of Texas at Austin
conducted a program of research, under private funding, to develop a modified connection
configuration for a specific project. Following a series of unsuccessful tests on various types of
connections,Approximately eight connections similar to that shown in Figure 6-18Figure 6.7.3-1
have been were tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and have demonstrated the ability to
achieve acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the beam flange to column flange
welding wasis correctly executed and through-thickness problems in the column flange wereare
avoided. Due to the significant publicity that followed these successful tests, as well as the
economy of these connections relative to some other alternatives, cover plated connections
quickly became the predominant configuration used in the design of new buildings. As a result,
a number of qualification tests have now been performed on different variations of cover plated
connections, covering a wide range of member sizes ranging from W16 to W36 beams, as part of
the design process for individual building projects. The results of these tests have been
somewhat mixed, with a significant number of failures reported. Although this connection type
appears to be significantly more reliable than the typical pre-Northridge connection, it should be
expected that some connections in buildings incorporating this detail may still be subjected to
earthquake initiated fracture damage. Designers should consider using alternative connection
types, unless highly redundant framing systems are employed.
The option with the top flange cover plate located on top of the flange can be used on
perimeter frames where access to the outer side of the beam is restricted by existing building
cladding. The option with the cover plate for the top flange located beneath the flange can be
installed without requiring modification of the slab. In the figures shown, the bottom cover plate
is rectangular, and sized slightly wider than the beam flange to allow downhand fillet welding of
the joint between the two plates. Some configurations using triangular plates at the bottom
flange, similar to the top flange have also been tested.
6-28
Designers using this detail are cautioned to be mindful of not making cover plates so thick
that excessively large welds of the beam flange combination to column flange result. As the
cover plates increase in size, the weld size must also increase. Larger welds invariably result in
greater shrinkage stresses and increased potential for cracking prior to actual loading. In
addition, larger welds will lead to larger heat affected zones in the column flange, a potentially
brittle area.
to through-thickness failures in the column flange. Access to the top of the top flange requires
and may be problematic for perimeter frames. Costs are greater than those associated with
approaches that concentrate modifications on the bottom flange
Experimental Results: Six of eight connections tested by the University of Texas at Austin were
able to achieve plastic rotations of at least 0.025 radians, or better. These tests were performed
using heavy column sections which forced nearly all of the plastic deformation into the beam
plastic hinge; very little column panel zone deformation occurred. Strength loss at the extreme
levels of plastic rotation did not reduce the flexural capacity to less than the plastic moment
capacity of the section based on minimum specified yield strength. One specimen achieved
plastic rotations of 0.015 radians when a brittle fracture of the CJP weld (type W2 failure)
occurred. This may partially be the result of a weld that was not executed in conformance with
the specified welding procedure specification. The second unsuccessful test specimen achieved
plastic rotations of 0.005 radian when a section of the column flange pulled out (type C2
failure). The successful tests were terminated either when twisting of the specimen threatened to
damage the test setup or the maximum stroke of the loading ram was achieved. Since the
completion of that testing, a number of additional tests have been performed. Data for 18 tests,
including those performed by Engelhardt and referenced above, are in the public domain. At
least 12 other tests have been performed on behalf of private parties, however, the data from
these tests are not available. Some of those tests exhibited premature fractures.
Girder Size: W21 x 68 to W36 x 150
Column Size: W12 x 106 to W14 x 455, and 426
6 13 Specimens : >.025 radian to 0.05 radian
13 Specimens: 0.005 <
p
< 0.0250.015 radian (W2 failure)
12 Specimens: 0.005 radian (C2 failure)
6.6.7.4Upstanding Ribs
6-29
6.6.7.5Side-Plate Connections
6.6.7.6Bolted Brackets
Heavy bolted brackets, incorporating high strength bolts, may be added to existing welded
connections to provide an alternative load path for transfer of stress between the beams and
columns. To be compatible with existing welded connections, the brackets must have sufficient
strength and rigidity to transfer beam stresses with negligible deformation. Pre-tensioning of the
bolts or threaded rods attaching the brackets to the column flanges and use of welds or slip-
critical connections between the brackets and beam flanges can help to minimize deformation
under load. Reinforcement of the column flanges may be required to prevent local yielding and
excessive deformation of these elements. Two alternative configurations, which may be used
either to repair an existing damaged, welded connection or to reinforce an existing undamaged
connection are illustrated in Figure 6.6.7.6-1. The developer of these connections offers the
brackets in the form of proprietary steel castings. Several tests of these alternative connections
have been performed on specimens with beams ranging in size from W16 to W36 sections and
with large plastic rotations successfully achieved. Under a project jointly funded by NIST and
AISC, the use of a single bracket at the bottom flange of the beam was investigated. It was
determined that significant improvement in connection behavior could be obtained by placing a
bracket at the bottom beam flange and by replacing existing low-toughness welds at the top flange
with tougher material. NIST, 1998 provides a recommended design procedure for such
connection modifications.
Design Issues: The concept of bolted bracket connections is similar to that of the riveted wind
connections commonly installed in steel frame buildings in the early twentieth century. The
primary difference is that the riveted wind connections were typically limited in strength either
by flexural yielding of outstanding flanges of the brackets, or shear and tension on the rivets,
rather than by flexural hinging of the connected framing. Since the old-style wind connections
could not typically develop the flexural strength of the girders and also could be quite flexible,
they would be classified either as partial strength or partially restrained connections. Following
the Northridge earthquake, the concept of designing such connections with high strength bolts
and heavy plates, to behave as fully restrained connections, was developed and tested by a
private party who has applied for patents on the concept of using steel castings for this purpose.
Bolted bracket connections can be installed in an existing building without field welding. Since
this reduces the risk of construction-induced fire, brackets may be installed with somewhat less
demolition of existing architectural features than with welded connections. In addition, the
quality assurance issues related to field welding are eliminated. However, the fabrication of the
brackets themselves does require quality assurance. Quality assurance is also required for
operations related to the drilling of bolt holes for installation of bolts, surface preparation of
faying surfaces and for installation and tensioning of the bolts themselves.
6-30
Pipe
Plate
Bolts
High tensile
threaded rod
Bolts
Steel
casting
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US and Foreign
Patents have been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as authorized
in writing by the developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign
Patent Intellectual Property Laws.
Figure 6.6.7.6-1 Bolted Bracket Modification
Bolted brackets can be used to repair damaged connections. If damage is limited to the beam
flange to column flange welds, the damaged welds should be dressed out by grinding. Any
existing fractures in base metal should be repaired as indicated in Section 6.3, in order to
restore the strength of the damaged members and also to prevent growth of the fractures under
applied stress. Since repairs to base metal typically require cutting and welding, this reduces
somewhat the advantages cited above, with regard to avoidance of field welding.
Experimental Results: A series of tests on several different configurations of proprietary heavy
bolted bracket connections have been performed at Lehigh University (Ksai & Bleiman, 1996) to
qualify these connections for use in repair and modification applications. To test repair
applications, brackets were placed only on the bottom beam flange to simulate installations on a
connection where the bottom flange weld in the original connection had failed. In these
specimens, bottom flange welds were not installed, to approximate the condition of a fully
fractured weld. The top flange welds of these specimens were made with electrodes rated for
notch toughness, to preclude premature failure of the specimens at the top flange. For
specimens in which brackets were placed at both the top and bottom beam flanges, both welds
were omitted. Acceptable plastic rotations were achieved for each of the specimens tested. No
testing has yet been performed to determine the effectiveness of bolted brackets when applied to
an existing undamaged connection with full penetration beam flange to column flange welds with
low toughness or significant defects or discontinuities.
Girder Size: W16x40 and W36x150
Column Size: W12x65 and W14x425
Plastic Rotation achieved - 0.05 radians - 0.07 radians
6-31
New Construction
7-1
7. NEW CONSTRUCTION
7.1 Scope
This Chapter presents interim design guidelines for new welded steel moment frames
(WSMFs) intended to resist seismic demands through inelastic behavior. The criteria apply to all
SMRF structures designed for earthquake resistance and those IMRF and OMRF structures
located in Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zones 3 and 4 {National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Map Areas 6 and 7} or assigned to 1997 NEHRP Seismic Design
Categories D, E, or F. Light, single-story buildings, the design of which is governed by wind,
need not consider these Interim Guidelines. Frames with bolted connections, either fully
restrained (type FR) or partially restrained (type PR), are beyond the scope of this document.
However, the acceptance criteria for connections may be applied to type FR bolted connections as
well.
Commentary: Observation of damage experienced by WSMF buildings in the
Northridge Earthquake and subsequent laboratory testing of large scale beam-
column assemblies has demonstrated that the standard details for WSMF
connections commonly used in the past are not capable of providing reliable
service in the post-elastic range. Therefore, structures which are expected to
experience significant post-elastic demands from design earthquakes, or for
which highly reliable seismic performance is desired, should be designed using
the Interim Guidelines presented herein.
In order to determine if a structure will experience significant inelastic
behavior in a design earthquake, it is necessary to perform strength checks of the
frame components for the combination of dead and live loads expected to be
present, together with the full earthquake load. Except for structures with special
performance goals, or structures located within the near field (within 10
kilometers) of known active earthquake faults, the full earthquake load may be
taken as the minimum design earthquake load specified in the building code, but
calculated using a lateral force reduction coefficient (R
w
or R) of unity. If all
components of the structure and its connections have adequate strength to resist
these loads, or nearly so, then the structure may be considered to be able to resist
the design earthquake, elastically.
Design of frames to remain elastic under unreduced (R
w
{R} taken as unity)
earthquake forces may not be an overly oppressive requirement, particularly in
more moderate seismic zones. Most frame designs are currently controlled by
drift considerations and have substantially more strength than the minimum
specified for design by the building code. As part of the SAC Phase 1 research, a
number of modern frame buildings designed with large lateral force reduction
coefficients (Rw = 12, {R = 8}) were evaluated for unreduced forces calculated
New Construction
7-2
using the standard building code spectra. It was determined that despite the
nominally large lateral force reduction coefficients used in the original design,
the maximum computed demands from the dynamic analyses were only on the
order of 2 to 3 times those which would cause yielding of the real structures
(Krawinkler, et. al. - 1995; Uang, et. al. - 1995; Engelhardt, et. al. - 1995, Hart,
et. al. - 1995; Kariotis and Eimani - 1995). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to
expect that OMRF structures (nominally designed with a lateral force reduction
coefficient R
w
= 6 {R = 4.5}) could resist the design earthquakes with near elastic
behavior. Regardless of these considerations, better seismic performance can be
expected by designing structures with greater ductility rather than less, and
engineers are not encouraged to design structures for elastic behavior using
brittle or unreliable details..
For structures designed to meet special performance goals, and buildings
located within the near field of major active faults, full earthquake loads
calculated in accordance with the above procedure may not be adequate. For
such structures, the full earthquake load should be determined using a site
specific ground motion characterization and a suitable analysis procedure.
Recent research (Heaton, et. al. - 1995) suggests that the elastic response
spectrum technique, typically used for determining seismic forces for structural
design, may not provide an adequate indication of the true earthquake demands
produced by the large impulsive ground motions common in the near field of
large earthquake events. Further, this research indicates that frame structures,
subjected to such impulsive ground motions can experience very large drifts, and
potential collapse. In an attempt to address this, both the 1997 edition of the
Uniform Building Code and the 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions specify
design ground motions for structures located close to major active faults that are
substantially more severe than those contained in earlier codes. While the more
severe ground motion criteria contained in these newer provisions are probably
adequate for the design of most structures, analytical studies conducted by SAC
confirm that even structures designed to these criteria can experience very large
drift demands, and potentially collapse, if the dynamic characteristics of the
impulsive loading and those of the structure are matched. Direct nonlinear time
history analysis, using an appropriate ground motion representation would be
one method of more accurately determining the demands on structures located in
the near field. Additional research on these effects is required.
As an alternative to use of the criteria contained in these Interim Guidelines,
OMRF structures in zones of high seismicity (UBC seismic zones 3 and 4 and
NEHRP map areas 6 and 7) and OMRF structures assigned to 1997 NEHRP
Seismic Design Categories D, E or F, may be designed for the connections to
remain elastic (R
w
or R taken as 1.0) while the beams and columns are designed
using the standard lateral force reduction coefficients specified by the building
New Construction
7-3
code. Although this is an acceptable approach, it may result in much larger
connections than would be obtained by following these Interim Guidelines.
The use of partially restrained connections may be an attractive and
economical alternative to the design of frames with fully restrained connections.
However, the design of frames with partially restrained connections is beyond the
scope of this document. The AISC is currently working on development of
practical design guidelines for frames with partially restrained connections.
7.2 General - Welded Steel Frame Design Criteria
7.2.1 Criteria
Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) systems should, as a minimum, be designed for the
provisions of the prevailing building code and these Interim Guidelines. Special Moment-
Resisting Frames (SMRF)s and Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames (OMRF)s with FR
connections, should additionally be designed in accordance with either the 1997 edition of the
AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1997) or the emergency code
change to the 1994 UBC {NEHRP-1994}, restated as follows:
2211.7.1.1. Required Strength {NEHRP-1994 Section 5.2, revision to Ref. 8.2c of Ref. 5.3}
The girder-to-column connections shall be adequate to develop the lesser of the following:
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined by Formula (11-1).
2211.7.1.3-2 Connection Strength
Connection configurations utilizing welds and high strength bolts shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or
calculation, the ability to sustain inelastic rotations and to develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1
considering the effects of steel overstrength and strain hardening.
Commentary: At the time the Interim Guidelines were first published, they were
based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code and the 1994 edition of
the NEHRP Provisions. In the time since that initial publication, more recent
editions of both documents have been published, and codes based on these
documents have been adopted by some jurisdictions. In addition, the American
Institute of Steel Construction has adopted a major revision to its Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC Seismic Provisions), largely
incorporating, with some modification, the recommendations contained in the
Interim Guidelines. This updated edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions has
been incorporated by reference into the 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions
and has also been adopted by some jurisdictions as an amendment to the model
building codes. SMRF and OMRF systems that are designed to comply with the
requirements of the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions may be deemed to comply with
the intent of these Interim Guidelines. Where reference is made herein to the
New Construction
7-4
requirements of the 1994 Uniform Building Code or 1994 NERHP Provisions, the
parallel provisions of the 1997 editions may be used instead, and should be used
in those jurisdictions that have adopted codes based on these updated standards.
The 1997 edition NEHRP Provisions and AISC Seismic Provisions introduce
a new structural system termed an Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF).
Provisions for IMRF structures include somewhat more restrictive detailing and
design requirements than those for OMRF structures, and less than those for
SMRF structures. The intent was to provide a system that would be more
economical than SMRF structures yet have better inelastic response capability
than OMRF structures. The SAC project is currently conducting research to
determine if the provisions for the new IMRF system are adequate, but has not
developed a position on this at this time.
At this time, no recommendations are made to change the minimum lateral
forces, drift limitations or strength calculations which determine member sizing
and overall performance of moment frame systems, except as recommended in
Sections 7.2.2, 7.2.3 and 7.2.4. The design of joints and connections is discussed
in Section 7.3. The UBC permits OMRF structures with FR connections,
designed for 3/8R
w
times the earthquake forces otherwise required, to be
designed without conforming to Section 2211.7.1. However, this is not
recommended.
7.2.2 Strength and Stiffness
7.2.2.1 Strength
follows:
Flexure M
s
= Z F
y
Shear V
s
= 0.55 F
y
d t
Axial compression P
sc
= 1.7 F
a
A
Axial tension P
st
= F
y
A
Connectors
y
A
New Construction
7-5
applications in critical connections resisting seismic-induced stresses. The
Many WSMF structures are constructed with concrete floor slabs that are
provided with positive shear attachment between the slab and the top flanges of
the girders of the moment-resisting frames. Although not generally accounted for
in the design of the frames, the resulting composite action can increase the
effective strength of the girder significantly, particularly at sections where
curvature of the girder places the top flange into compression. Although this
effect is directly accounted for in the design of composite systems, it is typically
neglected in the design of systems classified as moment resisting steel frames.
The increased girder flexural strength caused by this composite action can result
in a number of effects including the unintentional creation of weak column -
strong beam and weak panel zone conditions. In addition, this composite effect
has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of reduced section or dog-bone
type connection assemblies. Unfortunately, very little laboratory testing of large
scale connection assemblies with slabs in place has been performed to date and
as a result, these effects are not well quantified. In keeping with typical
contemporary design practice, the design formulae provided in these Guidelines
neglect the strengthening effects of composite action. Designers should, however,
be alert to the fact that these composite effects do exist.
7.2.2.2 Stiffness
Calculation of frame stiffness for the purpose of determining interstory drift under the
influence of the design lateral forces should be based on the properties of the bare steel frame,
neglecting the effects of composite action with floor slabs. The stiffening effects of connection
reinforcements (e.g.: haunches, side plates, etc.) may be considered in the calculation of overall
frame stiffness and drift demands. When reduced beam section connections are utilized, the
reduction in overall frame stiffness, due to local reductions in girder cross section, should be
considered.
Commentary: For design purposes, frame stiffness is typically calculated
considering only the behavior of the bare frame, neglecting the stiffening effects
of slabs, gravity framing, and architectural elements. The resulting calculation of
building stiffness and period typically underestimates the actual properties,
substantially. Although this approach can result in unconservative estimates of
design force levels, it typically produces conservative estimates of interstory drift
demands. Since the design of most moment-resisting frames are controlled by
considerations of drift, this approach is considered preferable to methods that
would have the potential to over-estimate building stiffness. Also, many of the
New Construction
7-6
elements that provide additional stiffness may be subject to rapid degradation
under severe cyclic lateral deformation, so that the bare frame stiffness may
provide a reasonable estimate of the effective stiffness under long duration
ground shaking response.
Notwithstanding the above, designers should be alert to the fact that
unintentional stiffness introduced by walls and other non-structural elements can
significantly alter the behavior of the structure in response to ground shaking. Of
particular concern, if these elements are not uniformly distributed throughout the
structure, or isolated from its response, they can cause soft stories and torsional
irregularities, conditions known to result in poor behavior.
7.2.3 Configuration
Frames should be proportioned so that the required plastic deformation of the frame can may
be accommodated through the development of plastic hinges at pre-determined locations within
the girder spans, as indicated in Figure 7-1Figure 7.2.3-1. Beam-column connections should be
designed with sufficient strength (through the use of cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) to
force development of the plastic hinge away from the column face. This condition may also be
attained through local weakening of the beam section at the desired location for plastic hinge
formation.
Plastic Hinges
Undeformed
frame
L
L
h
drift angle -

Figure 7-1 Figure 7.2.3-1 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior
Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is typically
accommodated through the development of inelastic flexural or shear strains
within discrete regions of the structure. At large inelastic strains these regions
can develop into plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated
rotations at constant (or nearly constant) load through yielding at tensile and
compressive fibers and by buckling at compressive fibers. If a sufficient number
of plastic hinges develop in a frame, a mechanism is formed and the frame can
New Construction
7-7
deform laterally in a plastic manner. This behavior is accompanied by significant
energy dissipation, particularly if a number of members are involved in the
plastic behavior, as well as substantial local damage to the highly strained
elements. The formation of hinges in columns, as opposed to beams, is
undesirable, as this results in the formation of weak story mechanisms with
relatively few elements participating, so called story mechanisms and
consequently little energy dissipation occurring. In addition, such mechanisms
also result in local damage to critical gravity load bearing elements.
Provisions prior to the Northridge Earthquake was based on the assumed
development of plastic hinge zones within the beams at adjacent to the face of the
column, or within the column panel zone itself. If the plastic hinge develops in
the column panel zone, the resulting column deformation results in very large
secondary stresses on the beam flange to column flange joint, a condition which
can contribute to brittle failure. If the plastic hinge forms in the beam, at the face
of the column, this can result in very large through-thickness strain demands on
the column flange material and large inelastic strain demands on the weld metal
and surrounding heat affected zones. These conditions can also lead to brittle
joint failure. Although ongoing research may reveal conditions of material
properties, design and detailing configurations that permit connections with
yielding occurring at the column face to perform reliably, for the present it is
recommended In order to achieve more reliable performance, it is recommended
that the connection of the beam to the column be configured to force the inelastic
action (plastic hinge) away from the column face. This can be done either by
local reinforcement of the connection, or locally reducing the cross section of the
beam at a distance away from the connection. Plastic hinges in steel beams have
finite length, typically on the order of half the beam depth. Therefore, the
location for the plastic hinge should be shifted at least that distance away from
the face of the column. When this is done through reinforcement of the
connection, the flexural demands on the columns, for a given beam size, are
increased. Care must be taken to assure that weak column conditions are not
inadvertently created by local strengthening of the connections.
It should be noted that some professionals and researchers believe that
configurations which permit plastic hinging to occur adjacent to the column face
may still provide reliable service under some conditions. These conditions may
include limitations on the size of the connected sections, the use of base and weld
metals with adequate notch toughness, joint detailing that minimizes notch effects,
and appropriate control of the relative strength of the beam and column
materials. Sufficient research has not been performed to date either to confirm
these suggestions or define the conditions in which they are valid. Research
however does indicate that reliable performance can be attained if the plastic
New Construction
7-8
hinge is shifted away from the column face, as suggested above. Consequently,
these Interim Guidelines make a general recommendation that this approach be
taken. Additional research should be performed to determine the acceptability of
other approaches.
It should also be noted that reinforced connection (or reduced beam section)
configurations of the type described above, while believed to be effective in
preventing brittle connection fractures, will not prevent structural damage from
occurring. Brittle connection fractures are undesirable because they result in a
substantial reduction in the lateral-force-resisting strength of the structure which,
in extreme cases, can result in instability and collapse. Connections configured
as described in these Interim Guidelines should experience many fewer such
brittle fractures than unmodified connections. However, the formation of a
plastic hinge within the span of a beam is not a completely benign event. Beams
which have formed such hinges may, if plastic rotations are large, exhibit
significantlarge buckling and yielding deformation, damage which typically must
be repaired. The cost of such repairs could be comparable to the costs incurred
in repairing fracture damage experienced in the Northridge Earthquake. The
continue to be safe for occupancy while repairs are made.
then alternative structural systems should be considered that will reduce the
plastic deformation demands on the structure during a strong earthquake.
Appropriate methods of achieving such goals include the installation of
supplemental braced frames, energy dissipation systems, base isolation systems
and similar structural systems. Framing systems incorporating partially
restrained connections may also be quite effective in resisting large earthquake
induced deformation with limited damage.
It is important to recognize that in frames with relatively short bays, the
flexural hinging indicated in Figure 7.2.3-1 may not be able to form. If the
effective flexural length (L in the figure) of beams in a frame becomes too short,
then the beams or girders will yield in shear before zones of flexural plasticity
can form, resulting in an inelastic behavior that is more like that of an
eccentrically braced frame than that of a moment frame. This behavior may
inadvertently occur in frames in which relatively large strengthened connections,
such as haunches, cover plates or side plates have been used on beams with
relatively short spans. This behavior is illustrated in Figure 7.2.3-2.
The guidelines contained in this section are intended to address the design of
flexurally dominated moment resisting frames. When utilizing these guidelines, it
is important to confirm that the configuration of the structure is such that the
New Construction
7-9
presumed flexural hinging can actually occur. It is possible that shear yielding of
frame beams, such as that schematically illustrated in Figure 7.2.3-2 may be a
desirable behavior mode. However, to date, there has not been enough research
conducted into the behavior of such frames to develop recommended design
guidelines. Designers wishing to utilize such configurations should refer to the
code requirements for eccentrically braced frames. Particular care should be
taken to brace the shear link of such beams against lateral-torsional buckling and
also to adequately stiffen the webs to avoid local buckling following shear
plastification.
Shear Link
Shear Link
Figure 7.2.3-2 Shear Yielding Dominated Behavior of Short Bay Frames
The plastic rotation capacity of tested connection assemblies should reflect realistic estimates
of the total (elastic and plastic) drift likely to be induced in the frame by earthquake ground
shaking, and the geometric configuration of the frame. For frames of typical configuration, and
for ground shaking of the levels anticipated by the building code, a minimum plastic rotation
capacity of 0.03 radian is recommended. As used in these Guidelines, plastic rotation is defined
as the plastic chord rotation angle. The plastic chord rotation angle is calculated using the rotated
coordinate system shown in Fig. 7.2.4-1 as the plastic deflection of the beam or girder, at its point
of inflection (usually the mid-span,)
CI
, divided by the distance between this mid-span point and
the centerline of the panel zone of the beam column connection, L
CL
. This convention is
illustrated in Figure 7.2.4-1.
New Construction
7-10
c
L
c
L
Beam span center line
CL
L
CL
p
CL
CL
L

Plastic hinge
l
h
Figure 7.2.4-1 Calculation of Plastic Rotation Angle
It is important to note that this definition of plastic rotation is somewhat different than the
plastic rotation that would actually occur within a discrete plastic hinge in a frame model similar
to that shown in Figure 7.2.3-1. These two quantities are related to each other, however, and if
one of them is known, the other may be calculated from Eq. 7.2.4-1.When the configuration of a
frame is such that the ratio L/L is greater than 1.25, the plastic rotation demand should be taken
as follows:
( )

p ph
CL h
CL
L l
L

(7.2.4-1)
where:
p
is the plastic chord angle rotation, as used in these Guidelines

ph
is the plastic rotation, at the location of a discrete hinge
L
CL
is the distance from the center of the beam-column assembly panel zone
to the center of the beam span
l
h
is the location of the discrete plastic hinge relative to the center of the
( ) ( ) + 0.025 1 L L' L' (7-1)
where: L is the center to center spacing of columns, and
L is the center to center spacing of plastic hinges in the bay under consideration
The indicated rotation demands may be reduced when positive means, such as the use of base
isolation or energy dissipation devices, are introduced into the design to control the buildings
response. When such measures are taken, nonlinear dynamic analyses should be performed and
the connection demands taken as 0.005 radians greater than the plastic rotation demands
calculated in the analyses. The nonlinear analyses should conform to the criteria specified in
UBC-94 Section 1655 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.2} for nonlinear dynamic analysis of base
New Construction
7-11
isolated structures. Ground motion time histories utilized for these nonlinear analyses should
satisfy the scaling requirements of UBC-94 Section 1655.4.2 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.6.4.4},
except that if the building is not base isolated, the structure period T, calculated in accordance
with UBC-94 Section 1628 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.3.3.1} should be substituted for T
I
. When
using methods of nonlinear analysis to establish the plastic rotation demands on frame
connections, the analysis results should not be scaled by the factor R
w
(R) or R
Wi
(R
i
), as
otherwise permitted by the building code.
Commentary: When the Interim Guidelines were first published, the plastic
rotation was defined as that rotation that would occur at a discrete plastic hinge,
similar to the definition of
ph
. in Eq. 7.2.4-1, above. In subsequent testing of
prototype connection assemblies, it was found that it is often very difficult to
determine the value of this rotation parameter from test data, since actual plastic
hinges do not occur at discrete points in the assembly and because some amount
of plasticity also occurs in the panel zone of many assemblies. The plastic chord
angle rotation, introduced in this advisory, may more readily be obtained from
test data and also more closely relates to the drift experienced by a frame during
earthquake response.
This change in the definition of plastic rotation does not result in any
significant change in the acceptance criteria for beam-column assembly
qualification testing. When the Interim Guidelines were first published, they
recommended an acceptance criteria given by Eq. 7.2.4-2, below:
p
L L
L
+

_
,
0 025 1 .
'
'
(7.2.4-2)
For typical beam-column assemblies in which the plastic hinge forms relatively
close to the face of the column, perhaps within a length of 1/2 the beam depth,
this typically resulted in a plastic rotation demand of 0.03 radians, as currently
measured.
Traditionally, engineers have calculated demand in moment frames by sizing
the members for strength and drift using code forces (either equivalent static or
reduced dynamic forces) and then "developing the strength of the members."
Since 1988, "developing the strength" has been accomplished by prescriptive
means based on a review of testing of moment frame connections to that date. It
was assumed that the prescribed connections would be strong enough that the
beam or girder would yield (in bending), or the panel zone would yield (in shear)
in a nearly perfectly plastic manner producing the plastic rotations necessary to
dissipate the energy of the earthquake.
New Construction
7-12
A realistic estimate of the interstory drift demand for most structures and most
earthquakes is on the order of 0.015 to 0.025 times the story height for WSMF
structures designed to code allowable drift limits. In such frames, a portion of
the drift will be due to elastic deformations of the frame, while the balance must
be provided by inelastic rotations of the beam plastic hinges, by yielding of the
column panel zone, or by a combination of the two.
In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, many moment-frame connections
fractured with little evidence of plastic hinging of the beams or yielding of the
subsequent to the earthquake suggests that the standard, pre-Northridge, welded
flange-bolted web connection is unable to reliably provide plastic rotations
beyond about 0.005 radian for all ranges of beam depths and often fails below
that level. Since the elastic contribution to drift may approach 0.01 radian, the
necessary inelastic contributions will exceed the capability of the standard
connection in many cases. For frames designed for code forces and for the code
drift, the necessary plastic rotational demand may be expected to be on the order
of 0.02 radian or more and new connection configurations should be developed to
accommodate such rotation without brittle fracture.
The recommended plastic rotation connection demand of 0.03 radians was
selected both to provide a comfortable margin against the demands actually
expected in most cases and because in recent testing of connection assemblies,
specimens capable of achieving this demand behaved in a ductile manner through
the formation of plastic hinges.
For a given building design, and known earthquake hazard, it is possible to
more accurately estimate plastic rotation demands on frame connections. This
requires the use of nonlinear analysis techniques. Analysis software capable of
performing such analyses is becoming more available and many design offices
will have the ability to perform such analyses and develop more accurate
estimates of inelastic demands for specific building designs. However, when
performing such analyses, care should be taken to evaluate building response for
multiple earthquake time histories, representative of realistic ground motions for
sites having similar geologic characteristics and proximity to faults as the actual
building site. Relatively minor differences in the ground motion time history used
as input in such an analysis can significantly alter the results. Since there is
significant uncertainty involved in any ground motion estimate, it is
recommended that analysis not be used to justify the design of structures with
non-ductile connections, unless positive measures such as the use of base
isolation or energy dissipation devices are taken to provide reliable behavior of
the structure.
New Construction
7-13
It has been pointed out that it is not only the total plastic rotation demand that
is important to connection and frame performance, but also the connection
mechanism (for example - panel zone yielding, girder flange yielding/buckling,
etc.) and hysteretic loading history. These are matters for further study in the
continuing research on connection and joint performance.
7.2.5 Redundancy
The frame system should be designed and arranged to incorporate as many moment-resisting
connections as is reasonable into the moment frame.
Commentary: Early moment frame designs were highly redundant and nearly
every column was designed to participate in the lateral-force-resisting system. In
an attempt to produce economical designs, recent practice often yieldedproduced
designs which utilized only a few large columns and beams in a small proportion
of the buildings frames for lateral resistance, with the balance of the building
columns designed not considered or designed to participate in lateral resistance.
This practice led to the need for large welds at the connections and to reliance on
only a few connections for the lateral stability of the building. The resulting
large framing elements and connections are believed to have exacerbated the
poor performance of the pre-Northridge connection. Further, if only a few
framing elements are available to resist lateral demands, then failure of only a
few connections has the potential to result in a significant loss of earthquake-
resisting strength. Together, these effects are not beneficial to building
performance.
The importance of redundancy to building performance can not be over-
emphasized. Even connections designed and constructed according to the
improved procedures recommended by these Interim Guidelines will have some
potential, albeit greatly reduced, for brittle failures. As the number of individual
beams and columns incorporated into the lateral-force-resisting system is
increased, the consequences of isolated connection failures are significantly
reduceds. Further, as more framing elements are activated in the buildings
response to earthquake ground motion, the building develops greater potential for
energy absorption and dissipation, and greater ability to limit control
earthquake-induced deformations to acceptable levels.
Incorporation of more of the building framing into the lateral-force-resisting
system will lead to smaller members and therefore an anticipated increase in the
reliability of individual connections. It will almost certainly lead to improved
overall system reliability. Further, recent studies conducted by designers indicate
that under some conditions, redundant framing systems can be constructed as
economically as non-redundant systems. In these studies, the additional costs
incurred in making a greater number of field-welded moment-resisting
New Construction
7-14
connections in the more redundant frame were balanced by a reduced total
tonnage of steel in the lateral-force-resisting systems, and sometimes reduced
foundation costs as well.
In order to codify the need for more redundant structural systems, the 1997
Uniform Building Code has specifically adopted a reliability coefficient,
x
, tied
to the redundancy of framing present in the building. This coefficient, with values
varying from 1.0 for highly redundant structures to 1.5 for non-redundant
structures, is applied to the design earthquake forces, E, in the load combination
equations, and has the effect of requiring more conservative design force levels
for structures with nonredundant systems. The Building Seismic Safety Councils
Provisions Update Committee has also approved a proposal to include such a
coefficient in the1997 NEHRP Provisions also includes such a coefficient. The
formulation of this coefficient and its application are very similar in both the
1997 Uniform Building Code and 1997 NEHRP Provisions.
As proposed contained in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, the reliability
coefficient is given by the equation:
x
A r
max
20
2 (7.25-1)
where:
r
x max
= the ratio of the design story shear resisted by the single element
carrying the most shear force in the story to the total story shear, for a
given direction of loading. For moment frames,
r
x max
is taken as the
maximum of the sum of the shears in any two adjacent columns in a
moment frame divided by the story shear. For columns common to two
bays with moment resisting connections on opposite sides at the level
under consideration, 70% of the shear in that column may be used in the
column shear summation.
A
x
= the floor area in square feet of the diaphragm level immediately above the
story.
The 1997 UBC and NEHRP Provisions also require that structures utilizing
moment resisting frames as the primary lateral force resisting system be
proportioned such that they qualify for a maximum value of
x
of 1.25. Structures
located within a few kilometers of major active faults must be configured so as to
qualify for a maximum value of
x
of 1.1.
New Construction
7-15
The most redundant moment-resisting frame systems are distributed frames in
which all beam-column connections are detailed to be moment resisting. In these
types of structures, half of the moment-resisting connections will be to the minor
axis of the column which will typically result in weak column/strong beam
framing. The 1994 UBC requirements limit the portion of the building design
lateral forces that can be resisted by relative number of weak column/strong beam
connections in the moment frame system. This limitation was adopted to avoid
the design of frames likely to develop story mechanisms as opposed to concern
about the adequacy of moment-resisting connections to the minor axis of
columns. However, the limited research data available on such connections
suggests that they do not behave well.
There is a divergence of opinion among structural engineers on the
desirability of frames in which all beam-column connections are made moment-
resisting, including those of beams framing to the minor axis of columns. Use of
such systems as a means of satisfying the redundancy recommendations of these
Interim Guidelines requires careful consideration by the structural engineer.
Limited testing in the past has indicated that moment connections made to the
minor axis of wide flange columns are subject to the same types of fracture
damage experienced by major axis connections. As of this time, there has not
been sufficient research to suggest methods of making reliable connections to the
column minor axis.
7.2.6 System Performance
7.2.7 Special Systems
7.3 Connection Design & Qualification Procedures - General
7.3.1 Connection Performance Intent
The intent of connection design should be to force the plastic hinge away from the face of the
column to a pre-determined location within the beam span. This may be accomplished by local
reinforcement of the connection itself (cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) or by local
reductions of the beam section (drilled holes, trimmed flanges, etc.). All elements of the
connection should have adequate strength to develop the forces resulting from the formation of
the plastic hinge at the predetermined location, together with forces resulting from gravity loads.
Section 7.5.2 outlines a design procedure for reinforced connection designs. Section 7.5.3
provides a design procedure for reduced section connections.
New Construction
7-16
7.3.2 Qualification by Testing
7.3.3 Design by Calculation
7.4 Guidelines for Connection Qualification by Testing
7.4.1 Testing Protocol
7.4.2 Acceptance Criteria
a) The connection should develop beam plastic rotations as indicated in Section
7.2.4, for at least one complete cycle.
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to the plastic strength of
the girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength F
y
, tThroughout the
loading history required to achieve the required plastic rotation capacity, as
indicated in a), above, the connection should develop a minimum moment at the
column face as follows:
i) For strengthened connections, the minimum moment at the column face
should be equal to the plastic moment of the girder, calculated using the
minimum specified yield strength, F
y
of the girder. If the load limiting
mechanism in the test is buckling of the girder flanges, the engineer, upon
consideration of the effect of strength degradation on the structure, may
consider a minimum of 80% of the nominal strength as acceptable.
ii) For reduced section connection designs, the minimum moment at the
column face should be equal to the moment corresponding to development
of the nominal plastic moment of the reduced section at the reduced
section, calculated using the minimum specified yield strength, F
y
of the
girder, and the plastic section modulus for the reduced section. The
moment at the column face should not be less than 80% of the nominal
plastic moment capacity of the unreduced girder section.
New Construction
7-17
c) The connection should exhibit ductile behavior throughout the loading history. A
specimen that exhibits a brittle limit state (e.g. complete flange fracture, column
cracking, through-thickness failures of the column flange, fractures in welds
subject to tension, shear tab cracking, etc. ) prior to reaching the required plastic
rotation should be considered unsuccessful.
d) Throughout the loading history, until the required plastic rotation is achieved, the
connection should be judged capable of supporting dead and live loads required by
the building code. In those specimens where axial load is applied during the
testing, the specimen should be capable of supporting the applied load throughout
the loading history.
The evaluation of the test specimens performance should consistently reflect the relevant limit
states. For example, the maximum reported moment and the moment at the maximum plastic
rotation are unlikely to be the same. It would be inappropriate to evaluate the connection using
the maximum moment and the maximum plastic rotation in a way that implies that they occurred
simultaneously. In a similar fashion, the maximum demand on the connection should be
evaluated using the maximum moment, not the moment at the maximum plastic rotation unless the
behavior of the connection indicated that this limit state produced a more critical condition in the
connection.
Commentary: While the testing of all connection geometries and member
combinations in any given building might be desirable, it would not be very
practical nor necessary. Test specimens should replicate, within the limitations
associated with test specimen simplification, the fabrication and welding
procedures, connection geometry and member size, and potential modes of
failure. If the testing is done in a manner consistent with other testing programs,
reasonable comparisons can be made. On the other hand, testing is expensive
and it is difficult to realistically test the beam-column connection using actual
boundary conditions and earthquake loading histories and rates.
It was suggested in Interim Recommendation No. 2 by the SEAOC Seismology
Committee that three tested specimens be the minimum for qualification of a
connection. Further consideration has led to the recognition that while three tests
may be desirable, the actual testing program selected should consider the
conditions of the project. Since the purpose of the testing program is to "qualify
the connection", and since it is not practical for a given project to do enough tests
to be statistically meaningful considering random factors such as material,
welder skills, and other variables, arguments can be made for fewer tests of
identical specimens, and concentration on testing specimens which represent the
range of different properties which may occur in the project. Once a connection
is qualified, that is, once it has been confirmed that the connection can work,
monitoring of actual materials and quality control to assure emulation of the
tested design becomes most important.
New Construction
7-18
Because of the cost of testing, use of calculations for interpolation or
extrapolation of test results is desirable. How much extrapolation should be
extrapolate to the smaller member sizes - at least within comparable member
group families. However, there is evidence to suggest that extrapolation of test
results to assemblies using members of reduced size is not always conservative.
In a recent series of tests of cover plated connections, conducted at the University
of California at San Diego, a connection assembly that produced acceptable
results for one family of beam sizes, W24, did not behave acceptably when the
beam depth was reduced significantly, to W18. In that project, the change in
relative flexibilities of the members and connection elements resulted in a shift in
the basic behavior of the assembly and initiation of a failure mode that was not
observed in the specimens with larger member sizes. In order to minimize the
possibility of such occurrences, when extrapolation of test results is performed, it
should be done with a basic understanding of the behavior of the assembly, and
the likely effects of changes to the assembly configuration on this behavior. Test
results should not be extrapolated to assembly configurations that are expected to
behave differently than the tested configuration. Extrapolation or interpolation
of results with differences in welding procedures, details or material properties is
even more difficult.
7.5 Guidelines for Connection Design by Calculation
In conditions where it has been determined that design of connections by calculation is
sufficient, or when calculations are used for interpolation or extrapolation, the following
guidelines should be used.
7.5.1 Material Strength Properties
In the absence of project specific material property information, the values listed in Table 7-1
Table 7.5.1-1 should be used to determine the strength of steel shape and plate for purposes of
calculation. The permissible strength for weld metal should be taken in accordance with the
building code. Additional information on material properties may be found in the Interim
Guidelines of Chapter 8.
New Construction
7-19
Table 7-1Table 7.5.1-1 - Properties for Use in Connection Design
Material F
y
(ksi) F
y m
(ksi) F
u
(ksi)
A36 36 use values for
Dual Certified
58
Dual Certified Beam
Axial, Flexural
3
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Through-Thickness
50
-
55
1
58
1
57
1
54
1
-
65 min.
Note 5
A572 Column/Beam
Axial, Flexural
3
Shape Group 1
Shape Group 2
Shape Group 3
Shape Group 4
Shape Group 5
Through-Thickness
50
-
58
1
58
1
57
1
57
1
55
1
-
65 min.
,
Note 5
A992
2
Use same values as ASTM A572
A913-50
Axial, Flexural
Through-thickness
50
-
58
1
-
65 min.
,
Note 5
A913--65
Axial, Flexural
Through-thickness
65 75
1
(4) 80 min.
Note 5
Notes:
the F
y flange
y web
.
2. See Commentary
3. Values based on (SSPC-1994)
4. ASTM A913, Grade 65 material is not recommended for use in the
beams of moment resisting frames
5. See Commentary
Commentary: Table7.5.1-1 Note 2 - The ASTM A992 specification was
specifically developed by the steel industry in response to expressed concerns of
the design community with regard to the permissible variation in chemistry and
mechanical properties of structural steel under the A36 and A572 specifications.
This new specification, which was adopted in late 1998, is very similar to ASTM
A572, except that it includes somewhat more restrictive limits on chemistry and
on the permissible variation in yield and ultimate tensile stress, as well as the
ratio of yield to tensile strength. At this time, no statistical data base is available
to estimate the actual distribution of properties of material produced to this
specification. However, the properties are likely to be very similar, albeit with
less statistical scatter, to those of material recently produced under ASTM A572,
Grade 50.
New Construction
7-20
Table 7.5.1-1 Note 5 -In the period immediately following the Northridge
earthquake, the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of
California and the International Conference of Building Officials issued Interim
Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) to provide guidance on the design of
moment resisting steel frame connections. Interim Recommendation No. 2
included a recommendation that the through-thickness stress demand on column
flanges be limited to a value of 40 ksi, applied to the projected area of beam
flange attachment. This value was selected somewhat arbitrarily, to ensure that
through-thickness yielding did not initiate in the column flanges of moment-
resisting connections and because it was consistent with the successful tests of
assemblies with cover plates conducted at the University of Texas at Austin
(Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994), rather than being the result of a demonstrated
through-thickness capacity of typical column flange material. Despite the
somewhat arbitrary nature of the selection of this value, its use often controls the
overall design of a connection assembly including the selection of cover plate
thickness, haunch depth, and similar parameters.
It would seem to be important to prevent the inelastic behavior of connections
from being controlled by through-thickness yielding of the column flanges. This
is because it would be necessary to develop very large local ductilities in the
column flange material in order to accommodate even modest plastic rotation
demands on the assembly. However, extensive investigation of the through-
thickness behavior of column flanges in a T joint configuration reveals that
neither yielding, nor through-thickness failure are likely to occur in these
connections. Barsom and Korvink (1997) conducted a statistical survey of
available data on the tensile strength of rolled shape material in the through-
thickness direction. These tests were generally conducted on small diameter
coupons, extracted from flange material of heavy shapes. The data indicates that
both the yield stress and ultimate tensile strength of this material in the through-
thickness direction is comparable to that of the material in the direction parallel
to rolling. However, it does indicate somewhat greater scatter, with a number of
reported values where the through-thickness strength was higher, as well as lower
than that in the longitudinal direction. Review of this data indicates with high
confidence that for small diameter coupons, the yield and ultimate tensile values
of the material in a through-thickness direction will exceed 90% and 80%
respectively of the comparable values in the longitudinal direction. the actual
The causes for through-thickness failures of column flanges (types C2, C4, and
C5), observed both in buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake and in
some test specimens, are not well understood. They are thought to be a function
of the metallurgy and purity of the steel; conditions of loading including the
presence of axial load and rate of loading application; conditions of tri-axial
restraint; conditions of local hardening and embrittlement within the welds heat
affected zone; stress concentrations induced by the presence of backing bars and
New Construction
7-21
defects at the root of beam flange to column flange welds; and by the relationship
of the connection components as they may affect flange bending stresses and
flange curvature induced by panel zone yielding. Given the many complex factors
which can affect the through-thickness strength of the column flange,
determination of a reliable basis upon which to set permissible design stresses
will require significant research. Such research is currently being conducted
under the SAC phase II program.
While this statistical distribution suggests the likelihood that the through-
thickness strength of column flanges could be less than the flexural strength of
attached beam elements, testing of more than 40 specimens at Lehigh University
indicates that this is not the case. In these tests, high strength plates,
representing beam flanges and having a yield strength of 100 ksi were welded to
the face of A572, Grade 50 and A913, Grade 50 and 65 column shapes, to
simulate the portion of a beam-column assembly at the beam flange. These
specimens were placed in a universal testing machine and loaded to produce high
through-thickness tensile stresses in the column flange material. The tests
simulated a wide range of conditions, representing different weld metals as well
and also to include eccentrically applied loading. In 40 of 41 specimens tested,
the assembly strength was limited by tensile failure of the high strength beam
flange plate as opposed to the column flange material. In the one failure that
occurred within the column flange material, fracture initiated at the root of a low-
toughness weld, at root defects that were intentionally introduced to initiate such
a fracture.
The behavior illustrated by this test series is consistent with mechanics of
materials theory. At the joint of the beam flange to column flange, the material is
very highly restrained. As a result of this, both the yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength of the material in this region is significantly elevated. Under
these conditions, failure is unlikely to occur unless a large flaw is present that can
lead to unstable crack propagation and brittle fracture. In light of this evidence,
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 deletes any requirement for evaluation of
through-thickness flange stress in columns.
was consistent with the successful tests of assemblies with cover plates conducted
at the University of Texas at Austin (Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994). However,
New Construction
7-22
of the column flange as well as larger weldments with potential for enlarged heat
affected zones, higher residual stresses and conditions of restraint.
Since the initial publication of the Interim Guidelines, a significant number of
tests have been performed on reduced beam section connections (See section
7.5.3), most of which employed beam flanges which were welded directly to the
column flanges using improved welding techniques, but without reinforcement
plates. No through-thickness failures occurred in these tests despite the fact that
calculated through-thickness stresses at the root of the beam flange to column
flange joint ranged as high as 58 ksi. The successful performance of these welded
joints is most probably due to the shifting of the yield area of the assembly away
from the column flange and into the beam span. Based on the indications of the
above described tests, and noting the undesirability of over reinforcing
connections, it is now suggested that a maximum through-thickness stress of
0.9F
yc
may be appropriate for use with connections that shift the hinging away
from the column face. Notwithstanding this recommendation, engineers are still
cautioned to carefully consider the through-thickness issue when these other
previously listed conditions which are thought to be involved in this type of
failure are prevalent. Connections relying on through-thickness strength can not
continue to be performed. In the interim, engineers choosing to utilize
7.5.2 Design Procedure - Strengthened Connections
The following procedure may be followed to size the various elements of strengthened
connection assemblies that are intended to promote formation of plastic hinges within the beam
span by providing a reinforced beam section at the face of the column. Section 7.5.3 provides a
New Construction
7-23
modified procedure recommended for use in the design of connection assemblies using reduced
beam sections to promote similar inelastic behavior. Begin by selecting Select a connection
configuration, such as one of those indicated in Sections 7.9.1, 7.9.2, 7.9.3, 7.9.4, or 7.9.5, that
will permit the formation of a plastic hinge within the beam span, away from the face of the
column, when the frame is subjected to gravity and lateral loads. Then proceed as described in
the following sections. The following procedure should be followed to size the various elements
of the connection assembly:
7.5.2.1 Determine Plastic Hinge Locations
For beams with gravity loads representing a small portion of the total flexural demand, the
location of the plastic hinge may be assumed to occur as indicated in Table 7.5.2.1-1 at a distance
equal to 1/3 of the beam depth from the edge of the reinforced connection (or start of the reduced
beam section), unless specific test data for the connection indicates that a different location value
is more appropriate. Refer to Figure 7-2Figure 7.5.2.1-1.
Table 7.5.2.1-1 Plastic Hinge Location - Strengthened Connections
Connection Type Reference Section Hinge Location s
h
Cover plates Sect. 7.9.1 d/4 beyond end of cover plates

Haunches Sect. 7.9.3, 7.9.4 d/3 beyond toe of haunch
Vertical Ribs Sect. 7.9.2 d/3 beyond toe of ribs
L
B
e
a
m

d
e
p
t
h

-

d
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
d
g
e

o
f

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
=
d/3
L
Plastic
hinge
Connection
reinforcement
s
h
=
d/4
Figure 7-2 Figure 7.5.2.1-1 - Location of Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The suggested locations for the plastic hinge, at a distance d/3
away from the end of the reinforced section (or beginning of reduced section)
indicated in Table 7.5.2.1-1 and Figure 7.5.2.1-1 are is based on the observed
behavior of test specimens, with no significant gravity load present. If significant
New Construction
7-24
gravity load is present, this can shift the locations of the plastic hinges, and in the
extreme case, even change the form of the collapse mechanism. If flexural
demand on the girder due to gravity load is less than about 30% of the girder
plastic capacity, this effect can safely be neglected, and the plastic hinge
locations taken as indicated. If gravity demands significantly exceed this level,
then plastic analysis of the girder should be performed to determine the
appropriate hinge locations. In zones of high seismicity (UBC Zones 3 and 4,
and NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7), gravity loading on the girders of earthquake
resisting frames typically has a very small effect, unless tributary areas for
gravity loads are large.
7.5.2.2 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges
Determine the probable value of the plastic moment, M
pr
, at the location of the plastic hinges
as:
M M Z F
pr p b y
(7.5.2.2-12)
where: is a coefficient that adjusts the nominal plastic moment to the estimated hinge
moment based on the mean yield stress of the beam material and the estimated
strain hardening. A value of 1.2 should be taken for for ASTM A572, A992 and
A913 steels. When designs are based upon calculations alone, an additional factor
is recommended to account for uncertainty. In the absence of adequate testing of
the type described above, should be taken as 1.4 for ASTM A572 and for A913,
Grades 50 and 65 steels. Where adequate testing has been performed should be
permitted to be taken as 1.2 for these materials.
Z
b
Commentary: In order to compute , the expected yield strength, strain
hardening and an appropriate uncertainty factor need to be determined. The
following assumed strengths are recommended:
Expected Yield: The expected yield strength, for purposes of computing (M
pr
) may be
taken as:
F
ye
= 0.95 F
ym
(7.5.2.2-2-3)
The 0.95 factor is used to adjust the yield stress in the beam web, where
coupons for mill certification tests are normally extracted, to the value in the
beam flange. Beam flanges, being comprised of thicker material, typically have
somewhat lower yield strengths than do beam web material.
New Construction
7-25
F
y m
for various steels are as shown in Table 7-1 Table 7.5.1-1, based on a
survey of web coupon tensile tests (Steel Shape Producers Council - 1994). The
engineer is cautioned that there is no upper limit on the yield point for ASTM A36
steel and consequently, dual-certification steel having properties consistent with
ASTM A572, Grade 50 is routinely supplied when ASTM A36 is specified.
Consequently, it is the recommendation here that the design of connections be
based on an assumption of Grade 50 properties, even when A36 steel is specified
for beams. It should be noted that at least one producer offers A36 steel with a
maximum yield point of 50 ksi in shape sizes ranging up to W 24x62. Refer to the
commentary to Section 8.1.3 for further discussion of steel strength issues.
Strain Hardening: A factor of 1.1 is recommended for use with the mean yield
stress in the foregoing table when calculating the probable plastic moment
capacity M
pr
.. The 1.1 factor for strain hardening, or other sources of strength
above yield, agrees fairly well with available test results. The 1.1 factor could
underestimate the over-strength where significant flange buckling does not act as
a gradual limit on the beam strength. Nevertheless, the 1.1 factor seems a
reasonable expectation of over-strength considering the complexities involved.
Modeling Uncertainty: Where a design is based on approved cyclic testing, the
modeling uncertainty may be taken as 1.0, otherwise the recommended value is
1.2. When the Interim Guidelines were first published, the coefficient included
a 1.2 factor to account for modeling uncertainty when connection designs were
based on calculations as opposed to a specific program of qualification testing.
The intent of this factor was twofold: to provide additional conservatism in the
design when specific test data for a representative connection was not available
and also as an inducement to encourage projects to undertake connection
qualification testing programs. After the Interim Guidelines had been in use for
some time, it became apparent that this approach was not an effective inducement
for projects to perform qualification testing, and also that the use of an overly
large value for the coefficient often resulted in excessively large connection
reinforcing elements (cover plates, e.g.) and other design features that did not
appear conducive to good connection behavior. Consequently, it was decided to
remove this modeling uncertainty factor from the calculation of .
In summary, for Grade 50 steel, we have:
= [0.95 (54 ksi to 58 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) 1.2) = 1.35 t0 1.45, say 1.4
= [0.95 (54 ksi to 59 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) = 1.13 to 1.21, say 1.2
New Construction
7-26
7.5.2.3 Determine Shear at the Plastic Hinge
The shear at the plastic hinge should be determined by statics, considering gravity loads acting
on the beam. A free body diagram of that portion of the beam between plastic hinges, is a useful
tool for obtaining the shear at each plastic hinge. Figure 7-3 Figure 7.5.2.3-1 provides an
example of such a calculation. For the purposes of such calculations, gravity load should be based
on the load combinations required by the building code in use.
L
s
h
L
Plastic
hinge P
L/2
P
Mpr
Mpr
L Vp
2
/2}/L
A
V
A
w
Note: Gravity loads can
effect the location of the
plastic hinges. If 2M
pr
/L
is less then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this case
P/2 + wL/2), then the plastic
hinge location will shift
significantly and L must be
adjusted, accordingly
w
Figure 7-3 Figure 7.5.2.3-1- Sample Calculation of Shear at Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The UBC gives no specific guidance on the load combinations to
use with strength level calculations while the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
do specify load factors for the various dead, live and earthquake components of
load. For designs performed in accordance with the UBC, it is customary to use
unfactored gravity loads when checking the strength of elements.
7.5.2.4 Determine Strength Demands at Each Critical Section
hinge. Figure 7-4 Figure 7.5.2.4-1 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the
beam shown in Figure 7-3 Figure 7.5.2.3-1.
New Construction
7-27
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
Plastic
hinge
Vp
M
pr
x
M
f
x+dc/2
d
c
M
f
=M
pr
+V
p
x
M
c
M
c
=M
pr
+V
p
(x+d
c
/2)
Figure 7-4 Figure 7.5.2.4-1 - Calculation of Demands at Critical Sections
are used to check strong column - weak beam conditions. Other critical sections
should be selected as appropriate.
7.5.2.5 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition
When required by the building code, the connection assembly should be checked to determine
if strong column - weak beam conditions are satisfied. In lieu of UBC-94 equation 11-3.1
{NEHRP-91 equation 10-3}, the following equation should be used:
Z (F f ) M 1.0
c yc a c
>

(7.5.2.5-1-4)
where: Z
c
F
yc
f
a
M
c
Section 7.5.2.4 sum of the column moments at the top and bottom of the
panel zone, respectively, resulting from the development of the probable beam
plastic moments, M
pr
, within each beam in the connection.
New Construction
7-28
Commentary: The building code provisions for evaluating strong column - weak
beam conditions presume that the flexural stiffness of the columns above and
below the beam are approximately equal, that the beams will yield at the face of
the column, and that the depth of the columns and beams are small relative to
their respective span lengths. This permits the code to use a relatively simple
equation to evaluate strong column - weak beam conditions in which the sum of
the flexural capacities of columns at a connection are compared against the sums
of the flexural capacities in the beams. The first publication of the Interim
Guidelines took this same approach, except that the definition of M
c
was
modified to explicitly recognize that because flexural hinging of the beams would
occur at a location removed from the face of the column, the moments delivered
by the beams to the connection would be larger than the plastic moment strength
of the beam. In this equation, M
c
was taken as the sum of the moments at the
center of the column, calculated in accordance with the procedures of Sect.
7.5.2.4.
(L-L)/2
d
p
h
t
h
b
M
pr
V
p
V
p
M
pr
V
c
V
c
+V
f
M
ct
M
cb
assumed point of zero moment
Note:
The quantities M
pr
, V
p
, L, and L are
as previously identified.
V
f
is the incremental shear distributed
to the column at the floor level.
Other quantities are as shown.
V
f
( )
[ ] ( )
( )
V
M V L L V h d
h d h
M V h
M V V h
M M M
c
pr p f b p
b p t
ct c t
cb c f b
c ct cb
+ +
+ +
+
+
' ) / / 2 2
Figure 7.5.2.5-1 Calculation of Column Moment for Strong Column
Evaluation
This simplified approach is not always appropriate. If non-symmetrical
connection configurations are used, such as a haunch on only the bottom side of
the beam, this can result in an uneven distribution of stiffness between the two
column segments, and premature yielding of the column, either above, or below,
the beam-column connection. Also, it was determined that for connection
configurations in which the panel zone depth represents a significant fraction of
New Construction
7-29
the total column height, such as can occur in some haunched and side-plated
connections, the definition of M
c
contained in the initial printing of the
Guidelines could lead to excessive conservatism in determining whether or not a
strong column - weak beam condition exists in a structure. Consequently, Interim
Guidelines Advisory No. 1 adopted the current definition of M
c
for use in this
evaluation. This definition requires that the moments in the column, at the top
and bottom of the panel zone be determined for the condition when a plastic
hinge has formed at all beams in the connection. Figure 7.5.2.5-1 illustrates a
method for estimating this quantity.
7.5.2.6 Check Column Panel Zone
f
should be substituted for the term 0.8M
s
in UBC-94 Section
2211.7.2.1 {0.9
b
M
p
in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1}, repeated below for convenience of
reference. M
f
forms, calculated as indicated in Section 7.5.2.4 above. In addition, it is recommended that the
alternative design criteria indicated in UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 (NEHRP-91 Sect. 10.10.3.1),
permitting panel zone shear strength to be proportioned for the shear induced by bending
moments from gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces, not be used. For
convenience of reference, UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 is reproduced below, edited, to indicate the
recommended application.
2211.7.2.1 Strength (edited). The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the
shear induced by beam bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the
prescribed seismic forces, but the shear strength need not exceed that required to develop
0.8M
s
0.8M
f
of the girders framing into the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel
zone shear strength may be obtained from the following formula:
V 0.55F d t
3b t
d d t
y c
c c f
2
b c
+
1
]
1
1 (11-1)
where: b
c
d
b
= the depth of the beam (including any haunches or cover plates)
d
c
t
cf
Commentary: The effect of panel zone shear yielding on connection behavior is
not well understood. In the past, panel zone shear yielding has been viewed as a
benign, or even beneficial mechanism that permits overall frame ductility
demands to be accommodated while minimizing the extent of inelastic behavior
required of the beam and beam flange to column flange joint. The criteria
New Construction
7-30
permitting panel zone shear strength to be proportioned for the shears resulting
from moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the design seismic forces was
adopted by the code specifically to permit designs with somewhat weak panel
zones. However, during recent testing of large scale connection assemblies with
weak panel zones, it has been noted that in order to accommodate the large shear
deformations that occur in the panel zone, extreme kinking deformations were
induced into the column flanges at the beam flange to column flange welded joint.
While this did not lead to premature joint failure in all cases, it is believed to
have contributed to such premature failures in at least some of the specimens.
The recommendations of this section are intended to result in stronger panel
zones than previously permitted by the code, thereby avoiding potential failures
due to this kinking action on the column flanges.
7.5.3 Design Procedure - Reduced Beam Section Connections
The following procedure may be followed to size the various elements of reduced beam
section (RBS) assemblies with circular curved reductions in beam flanges, such as shown in
Figure 7.5.3-1., such as those indicated in Section 7.9.6 indicates other configurations for such
connections, however, the circular curved configuration shown in Figure 7.5.3-1 is currently
preferred. RBS assemblies are intended to promote the formation of plastic hinges within the
beam span by developing a segment of the beam with locally reduced section properties and
strength. Begin by selecting an RBS configuration, such as one of those indicated in Figure 7.5.3-
1, that will permit the formation of a plastic hinge within the reduced section of the beam. Of the
configurations shown in the figure, the circular curved configuration is preferred.
c l
a
a
R = radius of cut =
4a + l
8a
2 2
b
f
Figure 7.5.3-1 Geometry of Reduced Beam Section
Commentary: Connection assemblies in which inelastic behavior is shifted away
from the column face through development of a segment of the beam with
intentionally reduced properties, so-called reduced beam section (RBS) or
dogbone connections, appear to have the potential to provide an economical
New Construction
7-31
solution to the WMSF connection problem. These recommendations are based on
limited design configurations that have successfully been tested ing that has been
conducted of these types of connections to date. While a A large number of RBS
tests have been conducted, these tests have not included the effects of floor slabs
or loading rates approximating those that would be produced by a buildings
response to earthquake ground motionsincluding some tests of assemblies with
floor slabs present. Extensive additional testing of RBS connections, intended to
explore these and other factors relevant to connection performance, are currently
planned under funding provided by NIST and the SAC phase II program. In the
interim, designers specifying RBS connections may wish to consider provision of
details to minimize the participation of the slab in the flexural behavior of the
beam at the reduced section. The criteria presented in this section are partially
based on a draft procedure developed by AISC (Iwankiw, 1996).
Reduced
Section Drilled Constant Drilled Tapered
Circular
Straight Tapered
Figure 7.5.3-2 Alternative Reduced-Beam Section Patterns
Figure 7.5.3-1 Reduced Beam Section Patterns
Several alternative configurations of RBS connections have also been tested
to date. As indicated in Figures 7.5.3-21 and 7.9.6-1, these include constant
section, tapered section, curved section, and drilled hole patterns. It appears that
several of these configurations are more desirable than others. In particular, the
drilled hole section patterns have been subject to tensile failure across the
reduced net section of the flange through the drill holes. A few RBS tests utilizing
straight or tapered cuts have failed within the reduced section at plastic rotation
demands less than recommended by these Guidelines. In all of these cases, the
failure occurred at locations at which there was a change in direction of the cuts
in the beam flange, resulting in a geometric stress riser or notch effect. It is also
reported that one of these tests failed at the beam flange continuity plate - to
column flange joint. There have been no reported failures of RBS connection
New Construction
7-32
assemblies employing the circular curved flange cuts, and therefore, this is the
pattern recommended in these Guidelines. This would appear, therefore, to be a
more desirable configuration, although some successful tests have been
performed using the straight and tapered configurations.
It is important that the pattern of any cuts made in the flange be proportioned
so as to avoid sharp cut corners. All corners should be rounded to minimize
notch effects and in addition, cut edges should be cut or ground in the direction
of the flange length to have a surface roughness meeting the requirements of AWS
C4.1-77 class 4, or smootherroughness value less than or equal to 1,000, as
defined in ANSI/ASME B46.1.
Concerns have been raised by some engineers over the strength reduction
inherent in the RBS. Clearly, code requirements for strength, considering gravity
loads and gravity loads in combination with wind, seismic and other loads must
be met. For higher seismic zones, beam sizes are typically governed by elastic
stiffness considerations (drift control) and this must be addressed. Also, for
seismic loads, the Building Codes typically require that connections for Special
Moment Resisting Frames must develop the strength or the plastic bending
moment of the beam. There may be a problem of semantics where these
requirements are applied to a system using RBS connections. Is the RBS part of
the connection or is it part of the beam, the strength of which must be developed
by the connection? Clearly, the latter interpretation should be applied.
Notwithstanding the above, it must be kept in mind that, although unstated,
and typically not quantified, there is inherent in design practice an implied
relationship between the elastic behavior that we analyze and the inelastic
behavior which the building is expected to experience. Elastic drift limitations
commonly used are considered to be related to the anticipated inelastic drifts and
ultimate lateral stability of the framed structure in at least an intuitively
predictable manner. It can be shown that RBSs such as those that have been
tested will reduce the elastic stiffness (increase the drift) on the order of 5%.
However, because of the reduction in strength, the effect on the inelastic drift may
be more significant. Thus, it seems prudent to require that the RBS maintain a
reasonably high proportion of the frame inelastic strength. For the connections
tested to date, the inelastic strength of the RBS section has been in the range of
70% of that of the full section. However, the moment demand at the face of the
column, corresponding to development of this reduced section strength, is likely
to be in the range of 85% to 90% of the strength of the full beam. This seems to
be quite reasonably high considering the accuracy of other seismic design
assumptions.
Although the use of RBS designs tends to reduce the total strength demand on
the beam flange - to - column flange connection, relative to strengthened
New Construction
7-33
connections, designs utilizing RBS configurations should continue to follow the
recommendations for beam flange continuity plates, weld metal and base metal
notch toughness recommended by the Interim Guidelines for strengthened
connections.
7.5.3.1 Determine Reduced Section and Plastic Hinge Locations
The reduced beam section should be located at a sufficient distance from the face of the
column flange (dimension c in Figures 7.5.3-1 and 7.5.3.1-1) to avoid significant inelastic
behavior of the material at the beam flange - to - column flange joint. Based on testing performed
to date, it appears that a value of c on the order of to of the beam width, b
f
, is sufficient.
d/4 (where d is the beam depth) is sufficient. The total length of the reduced section of beam
flange (dimension l in Figures 7.5.3-1 and 7.5.3.1-1) should be on the order of 0.65d to 0.85d,
where d is the beam depth.3d/4 to d. The location of the plastic hinge, s
h
,, may be taken as the
length of the cut-out, l.indicated in Table 7.5.3.1-1, unless test data indicates a more appropriate
value should be used. When tapered configurations are utilized, the slope of the tapered cut in the
beam flange should be arranged such that the variation of the plastic section modulus, Z
x
, within
the reduced section approximates the moment gradient in the beam during the condition when
plastic hinges have formed within the reduced beam sections at both ends.
L
B
e
a
m

d
e
p
t
h

-

d
L
Plastic
hinge
reduced
section
c
l
s
h
Figure 7.5.3.1-1 Critical Dimensions - RBS Assemblies
7.5.3.2 Determine Strength and Probable Plastic Moment in RBS
The RBS may be proportioned to meet the following criteria:
New Construction
7-34
1. The section at the RBS should be sufficient to satisfy the strength criteria specified by
the building code for Dead, Live, Seismic, Snow, Wind, and other applicable design
forces.
2. The elastic stiffness of the frame, considering the effects of the RBS, should be
sufficient to meet the drift requirements specified by the code, under the design seismic
and other forces.
3. The expected stress in the beam flange - to - column flange weld, under the application
of gravity forces and that seismic force that results in development of the probable
plastic moment of the reduced section at both ends of the beam, should be less than or
equal to the strength of the weld, as indicated in Section 7.2.2 of the Interim
Guidelines.
4. The expected through-thickness stress on the face of the column flange, calculated as
M
f
/S
c
, under the application of gravity forces and that seismic force that results in
development of the probable plastic moment of the reduced section at both ends of the
beam, should be less than or equal to the values indicated in Section 7.5.1, where M
f
is
the moment at the face of the column flange, calculated as indicated in Section 7.5.2.4,
and S
c
is the elastic section modulus of the beam at the connection considering weld
reinforcement, bolt holes, reinforcing plates, etc. The maximum moment at the face of
the column should be in the range of 85 percent to 100 percent of the beams expected
plastic moment capacity. The depth of cut-out, a, should be selected to be less than or
equal to b
f
/4.
The plastic section modulus of the RBS may be calculated from the equation:
( )
Z Z b t d t
RBS x R f f

(7.5.3.2-1)
where:
Z
RBS
is the plastic section modulus of the reduced beam section
Z
x
is the plastic modulus of the unreduced section
b
R
is the total width of material removed from the beam flange
t
f
is the thickness of the beam flange
d is the depth of the beam
The probable plastic moment, M
pr
, at the RBS shall be calculated from the equation:

M Z F
pr RBS y

(7.5.3.2-2)
where:
Z
RBS
is the plastic section modulus of the reduced beam section
is as defined in Section 7.5.2.2
New Construction
7-35
The strength demand on the beam flange - to - column flange weld and on the face of the
column may be determined by following the procedures of Section .7.5.2.3 and 7.5.2.4 of the
Interim Guidelines, using the value of M
pr
determined in accordance with Eq. 7.5.3.2-2.
Commentary: Initial design procedures for RBS connections published by SAC
recommended that sufficient reduction of the beam flange be made to maintain
flexural stresses in the beam, at the column face, below the anticipated through-
thickness yield strength of the column flange material. Since the publication of
those recommendations, extensive testing of RBS connections has been conducted,
both with and without composite slabs. The testing conducted to date on RBS
specimens This testing has typically been for configurations that would result in
somewhat larger strength demands at the face of the column flange than
suggested by the criteria originally published by SAC. contained in this Advisory.
Typically, the tested specimens had reductions in the beam flange area on the
order of 35% to 45% and produced moments at the face of the column that
resulted in stresses on the weld and column as large as large as 90 to 100% of the
expected material strength of the beam, which is often somewhat in excess of the
through-thickness yield strength of the column material. The specimens in these
tests all developed acceptable levels of inelastic deformation. Recent studies
conducted for SAC at Lehigh University confirm that the significant conditions of
restraint that exist at the beam flange to column flange joint results in
substantially elevated column through-thickness strength, negating a need to
reduce flexural stresses below the anticipated column yield strength. In view of
this evidence, SAC has elected to adopt design recommendations consistent with
configurations that were successfully tested. The criteria contained in this
Advisory suggest that these demands be reduced to a level which would maintain
weld stresses within their normally specified values and through-thickness column
flange stresses at the same levels recommended for strengthened connections.
This may require the beam flanges to be reduced by as much as 50% or more for
some frame configurations, or that supplemental reinforcement such as cover
plates or vertical ribs be provided in addition to the reduced section. This
approach was taken to maintain consistency with the criteria recommended for
strengthened connections and with the knowledge that the factors affecting the
performance of these connections are not yet fully understood.
7.5.3.3 Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition
The adequacy of the design to meet strong column - weak beam conditions should be checked
in accordance with the procedures of Section 7.5.2.5
New Construction
7-36
7.5.3.4 Column Panel Zone
The adequacy of the column panel zone should be checked in accordance with the procedures
of Section 7.5.2.6.
7.5.3.5 Lateral Bracing
The reduced section of the beam flanges should be provided with adequate lateral support to
prevent lateral-torsional buckling of the section. Lateral braces should be located within a
distance equal to 1/2 the beam depth from the expected location of plastic hinging, but should not
be located within the reduced section of the flanges.
Commentary: Unbraced compression flanges of beams are subject to lateral-
torsional buckling, when subjected to large flexural stresses , such as occur in the
plastic hinges of beams reduced sections of RBS connections during response to
strong ground motion. To prevent such behavior lateral-torsional buckling, it is
recommended that both flanges of beams be provided with lateral support.
Section 9.8 of the 1997 AISC Seismic Specification requires such bracing in
general, and specifically states as follows:
Both flanges of beams shall be laterally supported directly or indirectly.
The unbraced length between lateral supports shall not exceed 2500r
y
/F
y
. In
addition, lateral supports shall be placed near concentrated forces, changes
in cross section and other locations where analysis indicates that a plastic
hinge will form during inelastic deformations of the SMF.
Adequate lateral support of the top flanges of beams supporting concrete
filled metal deck or formed slabs can usually be obtained through the normal
welded attachments of the deck to the beam or through shear studs. Lateral
support of beam flanges can also be provided through the connections of
transverse framing members or by provision of special lateral braces, attached
directly to the flanges. Such attachments should not be made within the reduced
section of the beam flange as the welding or bolting required to make such
attachments can lead to premature fracturing in these regions of high plastic
demands.
For beams in moment-resisting frames, it has traditionally been assumed that
the direct attachment of the beam flanges to the columns provided sufficient
lateral support of both beam flanges to accommodate the plastic hinges
anticipated to develop in these frames at the beam-column connection. However,
connection configurations like the RBS, developed following the Northridge
earthquake, are intended to promote formation of these plastic hinges at some
distance from the beam-column interface. This brings to question the adequacy
of the beam flange to column flange attachments to provide the necessary lateral
New Construction
7-37
support at the plastic hinge. While this issue is pertinent for any connection
configuration that promotes plastic hinge formation remote from the beam-
column interface, RBS connections could be more susceptible to lateral-torsion
buckling at the plastic hinge because the reductions in the beam flange used to
achieve plastic hinge formation also locally reduce the torsional resistance of the
section. For that reason, FEMA-267a recommended provision of lateral bracing
adjacent to the reduced beam section.
Provision of lateral bracing does result in some additional cost. Therefore,
SAC has engaged in specific investigations to evaluate the effect of lateral
bracing both on the hysteretic behavior of individual connections as well as
overall frame response to large lateral displacements. Until these investigations
have concluded SAC continues to recommend provision of lateral bracing for
RBS connections. It should be noted that Section 9.8 of the 1997 AISC Seismic
Specification states:
If members with Reduced Beam Sections, tested in accordance with
Appendix S are used, the placement of lateral support for the member shall be
consistent with that used in the tests.
Most testing of RBS specimens performed as part of the SAC project have
consisted of single beams cantilevered off a column to simulate the exterior
connection in a multi-bay moment-resisting frame. The beams have generally
been braced at the end of the cantilever length, typically located about 100 inches
from the face of the column. For the ASTM A572, Grade 50, W36x150 sections
typically tested, this results in a nominal length between lateral supports that is
comparable to 2500r
y
/F
y
.
The appropriate design strength for lateral bracing of compression elements
has long been a matter of debate. Most engineers have applied rules of thumb
that suggest that the bracing element should be able to resist a small portion,
perhaps on the order of 2% to 6% of the compressive force in the element being
braced, applied normal to the line of action of the compression. A recent
successful test of an RBS specimen conducted at the University of Texas at Austin
incorporated lateral bracing with a strength equal to 6% of the nominal
compressive yield force in the reduced section.
7.5.3.6 Welded Attachments
Headed studs for composite floor construction should not be placed on the beam flange
between the face of the column and the extreme end of the RBS, as indicated in Figure 7.5.3.6-1.
Other welded attachments should also be excluded from these regions of the beam.
New Construction
7-38
Reduced beam section
welded attachment permitted
welded attachment prohibited
Figure 7.5.3.6-1 Welded Attachments to RBS Beams
Commentary: There are two basic reasons for omitting headed studs in the
region between the reduced beam section and the column. The first of these is
that composite action of the slab and beam can effectively counteract the
reduction in beam section properties achieved by the cutouts in the top beam
flange. By omitting shear studs in the end region of the beam, this composite
behavior is neutralized, protecting the effectiveness of the section reduction. The
second reason is that the portion of the beam at the reduced section is expected to
experience large cyclic inelastic strains. If welded attachments are made to the
beam in this region, the potential for low-cycle fatigue of the beam, under these
large cyclic inelastic strains is greatly increased. For this same reason, other
welded attachments should also be excluded from this region.
7.6 Metallurgy and Welding
7.7 Quality Control/Quality Assurance
7.8 Guidelines on Other Connection Design Issues
New Construction
7-39
7.8.1 Design of Panel Zones
No current recommendations are made to supplement or modify the UBC-1994 {NEHRP-91}
provisions for the design of panel zones, other than as indicated in Section 7.5.2.6, above. Panel
zone demands should be calculated in accordance with Section 7.5.2.6. As with other elements of
the connection, available panel zone strength should be computed using minimum specified yield
stress for the material, except when the panel zone strength is used as a limit on the required
connection strength, in which case F
ym
should be used.
Where connection design for two-sided connection assemblies is relying on test data for one-
sided connection assemblies, consideration should be given to maintaining the level of panel zone
deformation in the design to a level consistent with that of the test, or at least assume that the
panel zone must remain elastic, under the maximum expected shear demands.
Commentary: At present, no changes are recommended to the code requirements
governing the design of panel zones, other than in the calculation of the demand.
As indicated in Section 7.5.2.6, it is recommended that the formulation for panel
zone demand contained in the UBC, based on 1.85 times the prescribed seismic
forces, not be utilized. This formulation, which is not contained in either the
AISC Seismic Provisions or the NEHRP Provisions, is felt to lead to the design of
panel zones that are excessively flexible and weak in shear. There is evidence
that panel zone yielding may contribute to the plastic rotation capability of a
connection. However, there is also concern and some evidence that if the
deformation is excessive, a kink will develop in the column flange at the joint with
the beam flange and, if the local curvature induced in the beam and column
flanges is significant, can contribute to failure of the joint. This would suggest
that greater conservatism in column panel zone design may be warranted.
In addition to the influence of the deformation of the panel zone on the
connection performance, it should be recognized that the use of doubler plates
and especially the welding associated with them is likely to be detrimental to the
connection performance. It is recommended that the Engineer consider use of
column sizes which will not require addition of doubler plates, where practical.
7.8.2 Design of Web Connections to Column Flanges
Specific modifications to the code requirements for design of shear connections are not made
at this time. It should be noted that the emergency code change to the UBC-94 {NEHRP-94}
deleted the former requirements for supplemental web welds on shear connections. This is felt to
be appropriate since these welds can apparently contribute to the potential for shear tab failure at
large induced rotations.
When designing shear connections for moment-resisting assemblies, the designer should
calculate shear demands on the web connection in accordance with Section 7.5.2.4, above. For
New Construction
7-40
connection designs based on tested configurations, the web connection design should be
consistent with the conditions in the tested assemblies.
Commentary: Some engineers consider that it is desirable to develop as much
bending strength in the web as possible. Additionally, it has been observed in
some laboratory testing that pre-mature slip of the bolted web connection can
result in large secondary flexural stresses in the beam flanges and the welded
joints to the column flange. However, there is some evidence to suggest that if
flange connections should fail, welding of shear tabs to the beam web may
promote tearing of the tab weld to the column flange or the tab itself through the
bolt holes, and some have suggested that welding be avoided and that web
connections should incorporate horizontally slotted holes to limit the moment
which can be developed in the shear tab, thereby protecting its ability to resist
gravity loads on the beam in the event of flexural connection failure.
Some recent finite element studies of typical connections by Goel, Popov and
others have suggested that even when the shear tab is welded, shear demands at
the connections tend to be resisted by a diagonal tension type behavior in the web
that tends to result in much of the shear being resisted by the flanges.
Investigation of these effects is continuing.
7.8.3 Design of Continuity Plates
7.8.4 Design of Weak Column and Weak Way Connections
7.9 Moment Frame Connections for Consideration in New Construction
7.9.1 Cover Plate Connections
Figure 7-5 Figure 7.9.1-1 illustrates the basic configuration of cover plated connections.
Short cover plates are added to the top and bottom flanges of the beam with fillet welds adequate to
transfer the cover plate forces to the beam flanges. The bottom flange cover plate is shop welded to the
column flange and the beam bottom flange is field welded to the column flange and to the cover plate.
The top flange and the top flange cover plate are both field welded to the column flange with a
common weld. The web connection may be either welded or high strength (slip critical) bolted.
Limited testing of these connections (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), (Tsai & Popov -1988) has been
performed. More than 30 tests of such connections have been performed, with data on at least 18 of
these tests available in the public domain.
New Construction
7-41
A variation of this concept which has been tested successfully very recently (Forell/Elsesser
Engineers -1995), uses cover plates sized to take the full flange force, without direct welding of the
beam flanges themselves to the column. In this version of the detail, the cover plate provides a cross
sectional area at the column face about 1.7 times that of the beam flange area. In the detail which has
been tested, a welded shear tab is used, and is designed to resist a significant portion of the plastic
bending strength of the beam web.
T&B
Figure 7-5 Figure 7.9.1-1 - Cover Plate Connection
Design Issues: Following the Northridge earthquake, the University of Texas at Austin
conducted a program of research, under private funding, to develop a modified connection
configuration for a specific project. Following a series of unsuccessful tests on various types of
connections, approximatelyApproximately eight connections similar to that shown in Figure 7-5
Figure 7.9.1-1 were have been recently tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and they have
demonstrated the ability to achieve acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the beam
flange to column flange welding wasis correctly executed and through-thickness problems in the
column flange were are avoided. This configuration is relatively economical, compared to some
other reinforced configurations, and has limited architectural impact. As a result of these
factors, and the significant publicity that followed the first successful tests of these connections,
cover plated connections quickly became the predominant configuration used in the design of
new buildings. As a result, a number of qualification tests have now been performed on different
variations of cover plated connections, covering a wide range of member sizes ranging from
W16 to W36 beams, as part of the design process for individual building projects. The results of
these tests have been somewhat mixed, with a significant number of failures reported. Although
this connection type appears to be significantly more reliable than the typical pre-Northridge
connection, it should be expected that some connections in buildings incorporating this detail
may still be subjected to earthquake initiated fracture damage. Designers should consider using
alternative connection types, unless highly redundant framing systems are employed.
New Construction
7-42
Six of eight connections tested by the University of Texas at Austin were able to achieve
plastic rotations of at least 0.025 radians, or better. Strength loss at the extreme levels of plastic
rotation did not reduce the flexural capacity to less than the plastic moment capacity of the
section based on minimum specified yield strength. One specimen achieved plastic rotations of
0.015 radians when a brittle fracture of the CJP weld (type W2 failure) occurred. This may
partially be the result of a weld that was not executed in conformance with the specified welding
procedure specification. The second unsuccessful test specimen achieved plastic rotations of
0.005 radian when a section of the column flange (type C2 failure) occurred. A similar failure
occurred in recent testing by Popov of a specimen with cover plates having a somewhat modified
plan shape.
Column Size: W12 x 106 to W14 x 455
6 13 Specimens : >0.025 radian
1 3 Specimens: 0.015 0.005 <
p
< 0.025 radian
1 2 Specimens: 0.005 radian
Although apparently more reliable than the former prescriptive connection, this
configuration is subject to some of the same flaws including dependence dependent on properly
executed beam flange to column flange welds, and through-thickness behavior of the column
flange. Further these effects are somewhat exacerbated as the added effective thickness of the
beam flange results in a much larger groove weld at the joint, and therefore potentially more
severe problems with brittle heat affected zones and lamellar defects in the column. Indeed, a
significant percentage of connections of this configuration have failed to produce the desired
amount of plastic rotation.
One of the issues that must be faced by designers utilizing cover plated connections is the
sequence of operations used to attach the cover plate and beam flange to the column. In one
approach, the bottom cover plate is shop welded to the column, and then used as the backing for
the weld of the beam bottom flange to the column flange. This approach has the advantage of
providing an erection seat and also results in a somewhat reduced amount of field welding for
this joint. A second approach is to attach the cover plate to the beam flange, and then weld it to
the column, in the field, as an integral part of the beam flange. There are tradeoffs to both
approaches. The latter approach results in a relatively large field weld at the bottom flange with
large heat input required into the column and beam. If this operation is not performed with
proper preheat and control of the heat input, it can potentially result in an enlarged and brittle
heat affected zone in both members. The first approach results in reduced heat input and
therefore, somewhat minimized potential for this effect. However, proper control of preheat and
heat input remains as important in either case, as improper procedures can still result in brittle
conditions in the heat affected zone. Further, the detail in which the cover plate is shop welded
to the column can lead to a notch effect for the column flange at the seam between the beam
New Construction
7-43
flange and cover plate. This is effect is illustrated in Figure 7.9.1-2. At least one specimen
employing this detail developed a premature fracture across the column flange that has been
related to this notch effect. This effect has been confirmed by recent fracture mechanics
modeling of this condition conducted by Deierlein.
When developing cover plated connection details, designers should attempt to minimize the
total thickness of beam flange and cover plate, so as to reduce the size of the complete joint
penetration weld of these combined elements to the column flange. For some frame
configurations and member sizes, this combined thickness and the resulting CJP weld size can
approach or even exceed the thickness of the column flange. While there is no specific criteria
in the AWS or AISC specifications that would suggest such weldments should not be made,
judgementally they would not appear to be desirable from either a constructability or
performance perspective. As a rough guideline, it is recommended that for connections in which
both the beam flange and cover plate are welded to the column flange, the combined thickness of
these elements should not exceed twice the thickness of the beam flange nor 100% of the
thickness of the column flange. For cover plated connections in which only the cover plate is
welded to the column flange, the same thickness limits should be applied to the cover plate.
column
flange
(in tension)
cover plate
beam bottom flange
seam acts as notch
Figure 7.9.1-2 Notch Effect at Cover Plated Connections
7.9.2 Flange Rib Connections
New Construction
7-44
7.9.3 Bottom Haunch Connections
Figure 7.9.3-1 7-7 indicates the configuration of a connection with a haunch at the bottom
beam flange.several potential configurations for single, haunched beam-column connections. As
with the cover plated and ribbed connections, the intent is to shift the plastic hinge away from the
column face and to reduce the demand on the CJP weld by increasing the depth of the section.
To date, the configuration incorporating the triangular haunch has been subjected to limited
testing. Testing of configurations incorporating the straight haunch are currently planned, but
have not yet been performed. Several tests of this connection type were conducted by Uang under
the SAC phase I project (Uang, 1995). Following that work, additional research on the feasibility
of improving connection performance with welded haunches was conducted under a project that
was jointly sponsored by NIST and AISC (NIST, 1998). That project was primarily focused on
the problem of upgrading connections in existing buildings. As indicated in the report of that
work, the haunched modification improves connection performance by altering the basic behavior
of the connection. In essence, the haunch creates a prop type support, beneath the beam bottom
flange. This both reduces the effective flexural stresses in the beam at the face of the support, and
also greatly reduces the shear that must be transmitted to the column through the beam. A
complete procedure for the design of this modification may be found in NIST, 1998.
Figure 7.9.3-1 Bottom Haunch Connecction
Two Nine tests are known to have been performed to date, both successfully all intended to
replicate the condition of an existing connection that has been upgraded. Except for those
specimens in which existing vulnerable welded joints were left in place at the top flange, these
connections generally achieved large plastic rotations. Several dynamic tests have also been
New Construction
7-45
successfully conducted, although only moderate plastic deformation demands could be imposed
due to limitations of the laboratory equipment. Both tests were conducted in a
repair/modification configuration. In one test, a portion of the girder top flange, adjacent to the
column, was replaced with a thicker plate. In addition, the bottom flange and haunch were both
welded to the column. This specimen developed a plastic hinge within the beam span, outside the
haunched area and behaved acceptably. A second specimen did not have a thickened top flange
and the bottom girder flange was not welded to the column. Plastic behavior in this specimen
occurred outside the haunch at the bottom flange and adjacent to the column face at the top
flange. Failure initiated in the girder at the juncture between the top flange and web, possibly
contributed to by buckling of the flange as well as lateral torsional buckling of the section.
Fracture progressed slowly along the top fillet of the girder and eventually, traveled into the
flange itself.
Design Issues: The haunch can be attached to the girder in the shop, reducing field erection
costs. Weld sizes are smaller than in cover plated connections. The top flange is free of
obstructions.
Specimen 1 UCSD-1R:0.04 radian (w/o bottom flange weld and
reinforced top flange)
Specimen 2 UCSD-3R:0.05 radian (with bottom flange weld and
reinforced top flange)
Plastic Rotation achieved -
Specimen UCB-RN2: 0.014 radian (no modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1R: 0.019 radian (partial modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1RB: 0.028 radian (modified top weld)
Specimen UTA-NSF4: 0.015 radian (no modification of top weld)
Girder Size: W18x86
Specimen SFCCC-8: 0.035 radian (cover plated top flange)
New Construction
7-46
Performance is dependent on properly executed complete joint penetration welds at the
column face. The joint can be subject to through-thickness flaws in the column flange; however,
this connection may not be as sensitive to this potential problem because of the significant
increase in the effective depth of the beam section which can be achieved. Welding of the bottom
haunch requires overhead welding when relatively shallow haunches are used. The skewed
groove welds of the haunch flanges to the girder and column flanges may be difficult to execute.
The increased depth of the beam, resulting from the haunch may have undesirable impact on
architectural design. Unless the top flange is prevented from buckling at the face of the column,
performance may not be adequate. For configurations incorporating straight haunches, the
haunch must be long, in order to adequately develop stress into the haunch, through the web.
This tends to increase demands at the column face. Additional testing of all these configurations
is recommended.
7.9.4 Top and Bottom Haunch Connections
7.9.5 Side-Plate Connections
7.9.6 Reduced Beam Section Connections
In this connection, the cross section of the beam is intentionally reduced within a segment, to
produce an intended plastic hinge zone or fuse, located within the beam span, away from the
column face. Several ways of performing this cross section reduction have been proposed. One
method includes removal of a portion of the flanges, symmetrical about the beam centerline, in a
so-called dog bone profile. Care should be taken with this approach to provide for smoothly
contoured transitions to avoid the creation of stress risers which could initiate fracture. It has also
been proposed to create the reduced section of beam by drilling a series of holes in the beam
flanges. Figure 7-11 Figure 7.9.6-1 illustrates both concepts. The most successful configurations
have used reduced sections formed with circular cuts. Configurations which taper the reduced
section, through the use of unsymmetrical cut-outs, or variable size holes, to balance the cross
section and the flexural demand have also been tested with success.
Testing of this concept was first performed by a private party, and US patents were applied
for and granted. These patents have now been released. Limited testing of both dog-bone and
drilled hole configurations have been performed in Taiwan (Chen and Yeh - 1995). The American
Institute of Steel Construction is currently performing additional tests of this configuration
(Smith-Emery - 1995), however the full results of this testing are not yet available. has performed
successful testing of 4 linearly tapered RBS connections. In the time since the first publication of
the Interim Guidelines, a number of tests have been successfully conducted of RBS connections
with circular curved cut-outs, including investigations and at the University of Texas at Austin,
has successfully tested 4 circular curved RBS specimens. Others, including Popov at the
New Construction
7-47
University of California at Berkeley, and Texas A&M University., have also tested circular curved
RBS connections with success.
When this connection type was first proposed, There is a concern was expressed that the
presence of a concrete slab at the beam top flange would tend to limit the effectiveness of the
reduced section of that flange, particularly when loading places the top flange into compression.
It may be possible to mitigate this effect with proper detailing of the slab. Limited testing of RBS
specimens with composite slabs has recently been successfully conducted at Ecole Polytechnic, in
Montreal, Canada. In these tests, shear studs were omitted from the portion of the top flange
having a reduced section, in order to minimize the influence of the slab on flexural hinging. In
addition, a 1 inch wide gap was placed in the slab, around the column, to reduce the influence of
the slab on the connection at the column face. More recently, both the University of Texas at
Austin and Texas A&M University have conducted successful tests of RBS connections with
slabs and without such gaps present between the slab and column. This most recent testing
suggests that the presence of the slab actually enhances connection behavior by retarding buckling
of the top flange in compression and delaying strength degradation effects commonly observed in
specimens tested without slabs.
Design Issues: This connection type is potentially the most economical of the several types which
have been suggested. The reliability of this connection type is dependent on the quality of the
complete joint penetration weld of the beam to column flange, and the through-thickness
behavior of the column flange. If the slab is not appropriately detailed, it may inhibit the
intended fuse behavior of the reduced section beam segment. It is not clear at this time
whether it would be necessary to use larger beams with this detail to attain the same overall
system strength and stiffness obtained with other configurations. In limited testing conducted to
date of the unsymmetrical dog-bone configuration (Smith-Emery - 1995), the plastic hinging
which occurred at the reduced section was less prone to buckling of the flanges than in some of
the other configurations which have been tested, due to the very compact nature of the flange in
the region of the plastic hinge. However, the tendency for lateral-torsional buckling is
significantly increased suggesting the need for lateral bracing of the beam flanges, near the
reduced section.
Experimental Results: A number of researchers have performed tests on RBS specimens to date.
Most tests have utilized the ATC-24 loading protocol, which is similar to the protocol described
in Section 7.4.1 of the Interim Guidelines. Testing employed at Ecole Polytechnic, in Montreal,
Canada utilized a series of different testing protocols including the ATC-24 procedure and a
dynamic excitation simulating the response of a connection in a building to an actual earthquake
accelerogram (Tremblay, et. al., 1997). This research included two tests of connections with
composite floor slabs. All of the reported tests with circular flange cuts have performed
acceptably, however, the dynamic tests at Ecole Polytechnic only imposed 0.025 radians of
plastic rotation on the assembly.
New Construction
7-48
Reduced
Section
Straight Tapered
Circular
Drilled Constant Drilled Tapered
Figure 7-11 7.9.6-1 - Reduced Beam Section Connection
No. of specimens tested: 219 published (without slabs)2
Girder Size: W21 x 62W30 x 99 thru W 36 x 194
Column Size: W14x120W14 x 176 thru W 14 x 426, W24 x 229
Plastic Rotation achieved:- 0.03 radian
Straight: - 0.02 radian
Tapered - 0.027 - 0.045 radian
Circular - 0.03 - 0.04 radian
No. of specimens tested: 42published (with slabs)
Column Size: W14 x 90 to W14x257
Plastic Rotation achieved: 0.03-0.05 radians (ATC-24 loading protocol)
0.025 radians (earthquake simulation limited
by laboratory setup, no failure observed)
7.9.7 Slip - Friction Energy Dissipating Connection
7.9.8 Column-Tree Connection
7.9.9 Proprietary Slotted Web Connections
In the former prescriptive connection, in which the beam flanges were welded directly to the
column flanges, beam flexural stress was transferred into the column web through the combined
New Construction
7-49
action of direct tension across the column flange, opposite the column web, and through flexure
of the column flange. This stress transfer mechanism and its resulting beam flange prying moment
results in a large stress concentration at the center of the beam flange, opposite the column web.
Recent research (Allen, et. al. - 1995) indicates that the provision of continuity plates within the
column panel zone reduces this stress concentration somewhat, but not completely. The intent of
the proprietary slotted web connections is to further reduce this stress concentration and to
achieve a uniform distribution of flexural stress across the beam flange at the connection, and also,
to promote local buckling of the beam flanges under compressive loads to limit the amount of
demand on the beam flange to column flange weld. Claimed assets for this connection include
elimination of the vertical beam shear in the beam flange welds, elimination of the beam lateral
torsional buckling mode, and the participation of the beam web in resisting its portion of the beam
moment. A number of different configurations for this connection type have been developed and
tested. Figure 7.9.9-17-14 indicates one such configuration for this connection type that has been
successfully tested and which has been used in both new and retrofit steel moment-resisting
frames. In this configuration, slots are cut into the beam web, extending from the weld access
hole adjacent to the top and bottom flanges, and extending along the beam axis a sufficient length
to alleviate the stress concentration effects at the beam flange to column flange weld. The beam
web is welded to the column flange. vertical plates are placed between the column flanges,
opposite the edges of the top and bottom beam flanges to stiffen the outstanding column flanges
and draw flexural stress away from the center of the beam flange. Horizontal plates are placed
between these vertical plates and the column web to transfer shear stresses to the panel zone. The
web itself is softened with the cutting of a vertical slot in the column web, opposite the beam
flange. High fidelity finite element models were utilized to confirm that a nearly uniform
distribution of stress occurs across the beam flange.
Slot, typ.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US patents have been granted
and Foreign Patents have been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as
authorized in writing by the developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign
Figure 7.9.9-17-14 - Proprietary Slotted Web Connection
New Construction
7-50
Design Issues: This detail is potentially quite economical, entailing somewhat more shop
fabrication than the former prescriptive connection, but similar levels of field erection work.
Contrary to the recommendations contained in these Interim Guidelines, this connection does
not shift the location of plastic hinging away from the column face. However, two a number of
connections employing details similar to that shown in Figure 7-147.9.9-1 have recently been
tested successfully (Allen. - 1995). The connection detail is sensitive to the quality of welding
employed in the critical welds, including those between the beam and column flanges., and
between the vertical and horizontal plates and the column elements. It has been reported that
one specimen, with a known defect in the beam flange to column flange weld was informally
tested and failed at low levels of loading.
The detail is also sensitive to the balance in stiffness of the various plates and flanges. For
configurations other than those tested, detailed finite element analyses may be necessary to
confirm that the desired uniform stress distribution is achieved. The developer of this detail
indicates that for certain column profiles, it may be possible to omit the vertical slots in the
column web and still achieve the desired uniform beam flange stress distribution.
This detail may also be sensitive to the toughness of the column base metal at the region of
the fillet between the web and flanges. In heavy shapes produced by some rolling processes the
metal in this region may have substantially reduced toughness properties relative to the balance
of the section. This condition, coupled with local stress concentrations induced by the slot in the
web may have the potential to initiate premature fracture. The developer believes that it is
essential to perform detailed analyses of the connection configuration, in order to avoid such
problems. Popov tested one specimen incorporating a locally softened web, but without the
vertical and horizontal stiffener plates contained in the detail shown in Figure 7-14. That
specimen failed by brittle fracture through the column flange which progressed into the holes cut
into the web. The stress patterns induced in that specimen, however, were significantly different
than those which occur in the detail shown in the figure.
Quantitative Results: Number of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W 27x94
Column Size: W 14x176
Plastic Rotation Achieved:
Quantitative data on connection testing may be obtained from the
licensor.
7.9.10 Bolted Bracket Connections
Framing connections employing bolted or riveted brackets have been used in structural steel
construction since its inception. Early connections of this type were often quite flexible, and also
had limited strength compared to the members they were connecting, resulting in partially
restrained type framing. However, it is possible to construct heavy bolted brackets employing
New Construction
7-51
high strength bolts to develop fully restrained moment connections. Pretensioing of the bolts or
threaded rods attaching the brackets to the column flanges and use of slip-critical connections
between the brackets and beam flanges can help to provide the rigidity required to obtain fully
restrained behavior. Reinforcement of the column flanges may be required to prevent local
yielding and excessive deformation of these elements, as well. Two alternative configurations that
have been tested recently are illustrated in Figure 7.9.10-1. The developer of these configurations
offers the brackets in the form of proprietary steel castings. Several tests of these alternative
connections have been performed on specimens with beams ranging in size from W16 to W36
sections and with large plastic rotations successfully achieved.
Design Issues: The concept of bolted bracket connections is similar to that of the riveted wind
connections commonly installed in steel frame buildings in the early twentieth century. The
primary difference is that the riveted wind connections were typically limited in strength either
by flexural yielding of outstanding flanges of the brackets, or shear and tension on the rivets,
rather than by flexural hinging of the connected framing. Since the old-style wind connections
could not typically develop the flexural strength of the girders and also could be quite flexible,
they would be classified either as partial strength or partially restrained connections. Following
the Northridge earthquake, the concept of designing such connections with high strength bolts
and heavy plates, to behave as fully restrained connections, was developed and tested by a
private party who has applied for patents on the concept of using steel castings for this purpose.
Pipe
Plate
High tensile
threaded rod
Bolts
Bracket
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US and Foreign
Patents have been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as authorized
in writing by the developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign
Figure 7.9.10-1 Bolted Bracket Connections
Bolted connections offer a number of potential advantages over welded connections. Since no
field welding is required for these connections, they are inherently less labor intensive during
New Construction
7-52
erection, and also less dependent on the technique of individual welders for successful
performance. However, quality assurance should be provided for installation and tensioning of
the bolts, as well as correction of any problems with fit-up due to fabrication tolerances.
Experimental Results: A series of tests on several different configurations of proprietary heavy
bolted bracket connections have been performed at Lehigh University (Ksai & Bleiman, 1996) to
qualify these connections for use in repair and modification applications. To test repair
applications, brackets were placed only on the bottom beam flange to simulate installations on a
connection where the bottom flange weld in the original connection had failed. In these
specimens, bottom flange welds were not installed, to approximate the condition of a fully
fractured weld. The top flange welds of these specimens were made with electrodes rated for
notch toughness, to preclude premature failure of the specimens at the top flange. For
specimens in which brackets were placed at both the top and bottom beam flanges, both welds
were omitted. Acceptable plastic rotations were achieved for each of the specimens tested.
Girder Size: W16x40 and W36x150
Column Size: W12x65 and W14x425
Plastic Rotation achieved - 0.05 radians - 0.07 radians
7.10 Other Types of Welded Connection Structures
7.10.1 Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF)
7.10.2 Dual Systems
7.10.3 Welded Base Plate Details
7.10.4 Vierendeel Truss Systems
7.10.5 Moment Frame Tubular Systems
New Construction
7-53
7.10.6 Welded Connections of Collectors, Ties and Diaphragm Chords
7.10.7 Welded Column Splices
7.10.8 Built-up Moment Frame Members
New Construction
7-54
Metallurgy & Welding
8-1
8. METALLURGY & WELDING
8.1 Parent Materials
8.1.1 Steels
Designers should specify materials which are readily available for building construction and which
will provide suitable ductility and weldability for seismic applications. Structural steels which may be
used in the lateral-force-resisting systems for structures designed for seismic resistance without special
qualification include those contained in Table 8.1.1-1. Refer to the applicable ASTM reference
standard for detailed information.
Table 8.1.1-1 - Structural Steel Prequalified for Use in Seismic Lateral-Force-Resisting Systems
ASTM A36 Carbon Structural Steel
ASTM A283
Grade D
Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates
ASTM A500
(Grades B & C)
Cold-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds &
Shapes
ASTM A501 Hot-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing
ASTM A572
(Grades 42 & 50)
High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Steels of Structural Quality
ASTM A588 High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel (weathering steel)
ASTM A992
1
Steel for Structural Shapes for Use in Building Framing
Notes:
1- See Commentary
Structural steels which may be used in the lateral-force-resisting systems of structures designed for
seismic resistance with special permission of the building official are those listed in Table 8.1.1-2. Steel
meeting these specifications has not been demonstrated to have adequate weldability or ductility for
general purpose application in seismic-force-resisting systems, although it may well possess such
characteristics. In order to demonstrate the acceptability of these materials for such use in WSMF
construction it is recommended that connections be qualified by test, in accordance with the guidelines
of Chapter 7. The test specimens should be fabricated out of the steel using those welding procedures
proposed for use in the actual work.
Table 8.1.1-2 - Non-prequalified Structural Steel
ASTM A242 High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel
ASTM A709 Structural Steel for Bridges
ASTM A913 High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Shapes of Structural Quality, Produced by
Quenching & Self-Tempering Process
8-2
Commentary: Many WSMF structures designed in the last 10 years incorporated
ASTM A36 steel for the beams and ASTM A572 grade 50 steel for the columns.
This provided an economical way to design structures for the strong column -
weak beam provisions contained in the building code. Recent studies conducted
by the Structural Shape Producers Council (SSPC), however, indicate that
material produced to the A36 specification has wide variation in strength
properties with actual yield strengths that often exceed 50 ksi. This wide
variation makes prediction of connection and frame behavior difficult. Some
have postulated that one of the contributing causes to damage experienced in the
Northridge earthquake was inadvertent pairing of overly strong beams with
average strength columns.
The AISC and SSPC have been working for several years to develop a new
specification for structural steel that would have both minimum and maximum
yield values defined and provide for a margin between maximum yield and
minimum ultimate tensile stress. AISC recently submitted such a specification,
for a material with 50 ksi specified yield strength, to ASTM for development into
a standard specification. ASTM formally adopted the new specification for
structural shapes, with a yield strength of 50 ksi, under designation A992 in 1998
and It is anticipated that domestic mills will begin have begun producing
structural wide flange shapes to this specification. within a few years and that
eventually, this new material will replace A36 as the standard structural material
for incorporation into lateral-force-resisting systems.
Since the formal approval of the A992 specification by ASTM occurred after
publication of the 1997 editions of the building codes and the AISC Seismic
Specification, it is not listed in any of these documents as a prequalified material
for use in lateral force resisting systems. Neither is it listed as prequalified in
AWS D1.1-98. However, all steel that complies with the ASTM-992 specification
will also meet the requirements of ASTM A572, Grade 50 and should therefore be
permissible for any application for which the A572 material is approved. See
also, the commentary to Section 8.2.2.
Under certain circumstances it may be desirable to specify steels that are not
recognized under the UBC for use in lateral-force-resisting systems. For
instance, ASTM A709 might be specified if the designer wanted to place limits on
toughness for fracture-critical applications. In addition, designers may wish to
begin incorporating ASTM A913, Grade 65 steel, as well as other higher strength
materials, into projects, in order to again be able to economically design for
strong column - weak beam conditions. Designers should be aware, however, that
these alternative steel materials may not be readily available. It is also
important when using such non-prequalified steel materials, that precautions be
taken to ensure adequate weldability of the material and that it has sufficient
ductility to perform under the severe loadings produced by earthquakes. The
8-3
cyclic test program recommended by these Interim Guidelines for qualification of
connection designs, by test, is believed to be an adequate approach to qualify
alternative steel material for such use as well.
Note that ASTM A709 steel, although not listed in the building code as
prequalified for use in lateral-force-resisting systems, actually meets all of the
requirements for ASTM A36 and ASTM A572. Consequently, special
qualification of the use of this steel should not be required.
Although the 1994 editions of the Uniform Building Code and the NEHRP
Provisions do not prequalify the use of ASTM A913 steel in lateral force resisting
systems, the pending 1997 edition of the UBC does prequalify its use. Both the
1997 NEHRP Provisions and the AISC Seismic Provisions prequalify the use of
this steel in elements that do not undergo significant yielding, for example, the
columns of moment-resisting frames designed to meet strong column - weak beam
criteria. Consequently, special approval of the Building Official should no
longer be required as a pre-condition of the use of material conforming to this
specification, at least for columns.
8.1.2 Chemistry
Commentary: Some concern has been expressed with respect to the movement in
the steel producing industry of utilizing more recycled steel in its processes. This
results in added trace elements not limited by current specifications. Although
these have not been shown quantitatively to be detrimental to the performance of
welding on the above steels, a the new A992specification for structural steel
proposed by AISC does place more control on these trace elements. Mill test
reports now include elements not limited in some or all of the specifications.
They include copper, columbium, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, silicon and
vanadium. The analysis and reporting of an expanded set of elements should be
possible, and could be beneficial in the preparation of welding procedure
specifications (WPSs) by the welding engineer if critical welding parameters are
required. Modern spectrographs used by the mills are capable of automated
analyses. When required by the engineer, a request for special supplemental
requests should be noted in the contract documents.
8.1.3 Tensile/Elongation Properties
Mechanical property test specimens are taken from rolled shapes or plates at the rolling mill in the
manner and location prescribed by ASTM A6 and ASTM A370. Table 8-3 Table 8.1.3-1 gives the
basic mechanical requirements for commonly used structural steels. Properties specified, and
controlled by the mills, in current practice include minimum yield strength or yield point, ultimate
8-4
tensile strength and minimum elongation. However, there can be considerable variability in the actual
properties of steel meeting these specifications.
SSPC, in cooperation with SEAOC, has collected statistical data on the strength characteristics of
two grades (ASTM A36 and ASTM A572 Grade 50) of structural steels, based on mill test reports
from selected domestic producers for the 1992 production year. Data were also collected for "Dual
Grade" material that was certified by the producers as complying with both ASTM A36 and ASTM
A572 Grade 50. Table 8-4 Table 8.1.3-2 summarizes these results as well as data provided by a single
producer for ASTM A913 material.
Unless special precautions are taken to limit the actual strength of material incorporated into the
work to defined levels, new material specified as ASTM A36 should be assumed to be the dual grade
for connection demand calculations, whenever the assumption of a higher strength will result in a more
conservative design condition.
Table 8-3 Table 8.1.3-1 - Typical Tensile Requirements for Structural Shapes
ASTM
Minimum Yield
Strength or Yield
Point, Ksi
Ultimate Tensile
Strength, Ksi
Minimum Elongation
%
in 2 inches
Minimum Elongation
%
in 8 inches
A36 36 Min. 58-80
1
21
2
20
A242 42
4
Min.. 63 MIN. 21
3
18
A572, Gr. 42 42 Min. 60 Min. 24 20
A572, GR50 50 Min. 65 MIN. 21
2
18
A588 50 Min. 70 MIN. 21
3
18
A709, GR36 36 Min. 58-80 21
2
20
A709, GR50 50 Min. 65 MIN. 21 18
A913, GR50 50 Min. 65 MIN. 21 18
A913, GR65 65 Min. 80 MIN. 17 15
A992 50 Min. 65 Max. 65 MIN 21 18
Notes: 1- No maximum for shapes greater than 426 lb./ft.
2- Minimum is 19% for shapes greater than 426 lb. /ft.
3- No limit for Shape Groups 1, 2 and 3.Minimum is 18% for shapes greater than 426 lb./ft.
4. Minimum is 50 ksi for Shape Groups 1 and 2, 46 ksi for Shape Group 3, and 42 ksi for Shape Groups 4
and 5.
8-5
Table 8-4 Table 8.1.3-2 - Statistics for Structural Shapes
1,2
Statistic A 36 Dual
GRADE
A572
GR50
A913
GR65
Yield Point (ksi)
Mean 49.2 55.2 57.6 75.3
Minimum 36.0 50.0 50.0 68.2
Maximum 72.4 71.1 79.5 84.1
Mean + 1 s 54.1 58.9 62.7 79.3
Tensile Strength (ksi)
Mean 68.5 73.2 75.6 89.7
Minimum 58.0 65.0 65.0 83.4
Maximum 88.5 80.0 104.0 99.6
Mean + 1 s 73.1 76.5 81.8 93.2
Yield/Tensile Ratio
Mean 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.84
Minimum 0.51 0.65 0.62 0.75
Maximum 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.90
Mean + 1 s 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.87
Mean - 1 s 0.66 0.71 0.71 0.81
1: The data presented for ASTM A36, Dual Grade and ASTM A572 Grade 50 were included as
part of the SSPC study (SSPC-1994). The data for ASTM A913 were derived from a single
producer and may not be available from all producers.
2. Statistical Data on the distribution of strength properties for material meeting ASTM A992 are not
presently available. Pending the development of such statistics, it should be assumed that A992
material will have similar properties to ASTM A572, Gr. 50 material.
Commentary: The data given in Table 8-4 Table 8.1.3-2 for A36 and A572
Grade 50 is somewhat weighted by the lighter, Group 1 shapes that will not
ordinarily be used in WSMF applications. Excluding Group 1 shapes and
combining the Dual Grade and A572 Grade 50 data results in a mean yield
strength of 48 ksi for A36 and 57 ksi for A572 Grade 50 steel. It should also be
noted that approximately 50% of the material actually incorporated in a project
will have yield strengths that exceed these mean values. For the design of
facilities with stringent requirements for limiting post-earthquake damage,
consideration of more conservative estimates of the actual yield strength may be
warranted.
Until recently, In wide flange sections the tensile test coupons in wide flange
sections are currently were taken from the web. The amount of reduction rolling,
finish rolling temperatures and cooling conditions affect the tensile and impact
8-6
properties in different areas of the member. Typically, the web exhibits about five
percent higher strength than the flanges due to faster cooling. In 1998 ASTM A6
was revised to specify that coupons be taken from the flange of wide flange
shapes.
Design professionals should be aware of the variation in actual properties
permitted by the ASTM specifications. This is especially important for yield
strength. Yield strengths for ASTM A36 material have consistently increased over
the last 15 years so that several grades of steel may have the same properties or
reversed properties, with respect to beams and columns, from those the designer
intended. Investigations of structures damaged by the Northridge earthquake
found some WSMF connections in which beam yield strength exceeded column
yield strength despite the opposite intent of the designer.
As an example of the variations which can be found, Table 8-5 Table 8.1.3-2
presents the variation in material properties found within a single building
affected by the Northridge earthquake. Properties shown include measured yield
strength (F
ya
,), measured tensile strength (F
ua
) and Charpy V-Notch energy rating
(CVN).
Table 8-5Table 8.1.3-2 - Sample Steel Properties from a Building Affected by the Northridge
Earthquake
Shape F
ya
1
ksi F
ua
, ksi CVN, ft-lb.
W36 X 182 38.0 69.3 18
W36 X 230 49.3 71.7 195
Note 1 - ASTM A36 material was specified for both structures.
The practice of dual certification of A36 and A572, Grade 50 can result in
mean yield strengths that are fifty percent higher than the specified yield of A36.
Since there is no practical way to discern whether dual grade steel will be
supplied, unless direct purchase of steel from specific suppliers is made, in the
absence of such procurement practices, the prudent action for determining
connection requirements, where higher strengths could be detrimental to the
design, would be to assume the dual grade material whenever A36 or A572 Grade
50 is specified.
In the period since the initial publication of the Interim Guidelines, several
researchers and engineers engaged in connection assembly prototype testing have
reported that tensile tests on coupons extracted from steel members used in the
prototype tests resulted in lower yield strength than reported on the mill test
report furnished with the material, and in a few cases lower yield strength than
would be permitted by the applicable ASTM specification. This led to some
confusion and concern, as to how mill test reports should be interpreted.
8-7
The variation of the measured yield strength of coupons reported by
researchers engaged in connection prototype testing, as compared to that
indicated on the mill test reports, is not unusual and should be expected. These
variations are the result of a series of factors including inconsistencies between
the testing procedures employed as well as normal variation in the material itself.
The following paragraphs describe the basis for the strengths reported by
producers on mill certificates, as well as the factors that could cause independent
investigators to determine different strengths for the same material.
Mill tests of mechanical properties of steel are performed in accordance with
the requirements of ASTM specifications A6 and A370. ASTM A6 had
historically required that test specimens for rolled W shapes be taken from the
webs of the shapes, but recently was revised to require testing from the flanges of
wide flange shapes with 6 inch or wider flanges. A minimum of two tests must be
made for each heat of steel, although additional tests are required if shapes of
significantly different thickness are cast from the same heat. Coupon size and
shape is specified based on the thickness of the material. The size of the coupon
used to test material strength can effect the indicated value. Under ASTM A6,
material that is between 3/4 inches thick and 4 inches thick can either be tested in
full thickness straps or in smaller 1/2 diameter round specimens. In thick
material, the yield strength will vary through the thickness, as a result of cooling
rate effects. The material at the core of the section cools most slowly, has larger
grain size and consequently lower strength. If full-thickness specimens are used,
as is the practice in most mills, the recorded yield strength will be an average of
the relatively stronger material at the edges of the thickness and the lower yield
material at the center. Many independent laboratories will use the smaller 1/2
round specimens, and sometimes even sub-sized 1/4 round specimens for tensile
testing, due to limitations of their testing equipment. Use of these smaller
specimens for thick material will result in testing only of the lower yield strength
material at the center of the thickness.
ASTM A370 specifies the actual protocol for tensile testing including the
loading rate and method of reporting test data. Strain rate can affect the strength
and elongation values obtained for material. High strain rates result in elevated
strength and reduced ductility. Under ASTM A370, yield values may be
determined using any convenient strain rate, but not more than 1/16 inch per
inch, per minute which corresponds to a maximum loading rate of approximately
30 ksi per second. Once the yield value is determined, continued testing to obtain
ultimate tensile values can proceed at a more rapid rate, not to exceed 1/2 inch
per inch per minute.
Under ASTM A370, there are two different ways in which the yield property
for structural steel can be measured and reported. These include yield point and
yield strength. These are illustrated in Figure 8.1.3-1. The yield point is the peak
8-8
stress that occurs at the limit of the elastic range, while the yield strength is a
somewhat lower value, typically measured at a specified offset or elongation
under load. Although a number of methods are available to determine yield
point, the so-called drop of the beam method is most commonly used for
structural steel. In this method the load at which a momentary drop-off in
applied loading occurs is recorded, and then converted to units of stress to obtain
the yield point. Yield strength may also be determined by several methods, but is
most commonly determined using the offset method. In this method, the stress -
strain diagram for the test is drawn, as indicated in Figure 8.1.3-1. A specified
offset, typically 0.2% strain for structural steel, is laid off on the abscissa of the
curve and a line is drawn from this offset, parallel to the slope of the elastic
portion of the test. The stress at the intersection of this offset line with the stress-
strain curve is taken as the yield strength.
Yield Point
Yield Strength
Offset
Figure 8.1.3-1 Typical Stress - Strain Curve for Structural Steel
The material specifications for structural steels typically specify minimum
values for yield point but do not control yield strength. The SSPC has reported
that actual practice among the mills varies, with some mills reporting yield
strength and others reporting yield point. This practice is permissible as yield
strength will always be a somewhat lower value than yield point, resulting in a
somewhat conservative demonstration that the material meets specified
requirements. However, this does mean that there is inconsistency between the
values reported by the various mills on certification reports. Similarly, the
procedures followed by independent testing laboratories may be different than
those followed by the mill, particularly with regard to strain rate and the location
at which a coupon is obtained.
8-9
Under ASTM A6, coupons for tensile tests had historically been obtained from
the webs of structural shapes. However, most engineers and researchers engaged
in connection testing have preferred to extract material specimens from the
flanges of the shape, since this is more representative of the flexural strength of
the section. Coupons removed from the web of a rolled shape tend to exhibit
somewhat higher strength properties than do coupons removed from the flanges,
due to the extra amount of working the thinner web material typically experiences
during the rolling process and also because the thinner material cools more
rapidly after rolling, resulting in finer grain size. Given these differences in
testing practice, as well as the normal variation that can occur along the length
of an individual member and between different members rolled from the same
heat, the reported differences in strength obtained by independent laboratories,
as compared to that reported on the mill test reports, should not be surprising. It
is worth noting that following the recognition of these differences in testing
procedure, the SSPC in coordination with AISC and ASTM developed and
proposed a revision to the A6 specification to require test specimens to be taken
from the flanges of rolled shapes when the flanges are 6 inches or more wide. It
is anticipated that mills will begin to alter practice to conform to a revised
specification in early 1997 This has since become the standard practice.
The discovery of the somewhat varied practice for reporting material strength
calls into question both the validity of statistics on the yield strength of structural
steel obtained from the SSPC study, and its relevance to the determination of the
expected strength of the material for use in design calculations. Although the
yield point is the quantity controlled by the ASTM material specifications, it has
little relevance to the plastic moment capacity of a beam section. Plastic section
capacity is more closely related to the stress along the lower yield plateau of the
typical stress-strain curve for structural steel. This strength may often be
somewhat lower than that determined by the offset drop-of-the-beam method.
Since the database of material test reports on which the SSPC study was based
appears to contain test data based on both the offset and drop-of-the-beam
methods, it is difficult to place great significance in the statistics derived from it
and to draw a direct parallel between this data and the expected flexural strength
of rolled shapes. It would appear that the statistics reported in the SSPC study
provide estimates of the probable material strength that are somewhat high.
Thus, the recommended design strengths presented in Tables 6.6.6.3-1 and 7.5.1-
1 of the Interim Guidelines would appear to be conservative with regard to design
of welds, panel zones and other elements with demands limited by the beam yield
strength.
Under the phase II program of investigation, SAC, together with the shape
producers, is engaged in additional study of the statistical distribution of yield
strength of various materials produced by the mills. This study is intended to
provide an improved understanding of the statistical distribution of the lower
8-10
yield plateau strength of material extracted from section flanges, measured in a
consistent manner. In addition, it will provide correlation with yield strengths
determined by other methods such that the data provided on mill test certificates
can be properly interpreted and utilized. In addition, the possibility of revising
the ASTM specifications to provide for more consistent reporting of strength data
as well as the reporting of strength statistics that are directly useful in the design
process will be evaluated. In the interim period, the data reported in Table 8-1.3-
2, extracted from the SSPC study, remain the best currently available
information.
8.1.4 Toughness Properties
8.1.5 Lamellar Discontinuities
8.1.6 K-Area Fractures
Recently, there have beenIn the period 1995-96 there were several reports of fractures initiating in
the webs of column sections during the fabrication process, as flange continuity plates and/or doubler
plates were welded into the sections. This fracturing typically initiated in the region near the fillet
between the flange and web. This region has been commonly termed the k-area because the AISC
Manual of Steel Construction indicates the dimension of the fillet between the web and flange with the
symbol k. The k-area may be considered to extend from mid-point of the radius of the fillet into the
web, approximately 1 to 1-1/2 inches beyond the point of tangency between the fillet and web. The
fractures typically extended into, and sometimes across, the webs of the columns in a characteristic
half-moon or smiley face pattern.
Investigations of materials extracted from fractured members have indicated that the material in this
region of the shapes had elevated yield strength, high yield/tensile ratio, high hardness and very low
toughness, on the order of a few foot-pounds at 70
o
F. Material with these properties can behave in a
brittle manner. Fracture can be induced by thermal stresses from the welding process or by subsequent
weld shrinkage, as apparently occurred in the reported cases. There have been no reported cases of in-
service k-line fracture from externally applied loading, as in beam-column connections, although such a
possibility is perceived to exist under large inelastic demand.
It appears that this local embrittling of sections can be attributed to the rotary straightening process
used by some mills to bring the rolled shapes within the permissible tolerances under ASTM A6. The
straightening process results in local cold working of the sections, which strain hardens the material.
The amount of cold working that occurs depends on the initial straightness of the section and
consequently, the extent that mechanical properties are effected is likely to vary along the length of a
member. The actual process used to straighten the section can also affect the amount of local cold
working that occurs.
8-11
Engineers can reduce the potential for weld-induced fracture in the k-area by avoiding welding
within the k-area region. This can be accomplished by detailing doubler plates and continuity plates
such that they do not contact the section in this region. The use of large corner clips on beam flange
continuity plates can permit this. Selection of column sections with thicker webs, to eliminate the need
for doubler plates; the use of fillet welds rather than full penetration groove welds to attach doubler
plates to columns, when acceptable for stress transfer; and detailing of column web doubler plates such
that they are offset from the face of the column web can also help to avoid these fabrication-induced
fracture problems.
Commentary: It appears that detailing and fabrication practice can be adjusted
to reduce the potential for k-area fracture during fabrication. However, the
acceptability of having low-toughness material in the k-area region for service is
a question that remains. It is not clear at this time what percentage of the
material incorporated in projects is adversely affected, or even if a problem with
regard to serviceability exists. SAC recently placed a public call, asking for
reports of fabrication-induced fractures at the k-area, but only received limited
response. However, in one of the projects that did report this problem, a
significant number of columns were affected. This may have been contributed to
by the detailing and fabrication practices applied on that project.
Other than detailing structures to minimize the use of doubler plates, and to
avoid large weldments in the potentially sensitive k-area of the shape, it is not
clear at this time, what approach, if any, engineers should take with regard to this
issue. There are several methods available to identify possible low notch
toughness in structural carbon steels, including Charpy V-Notch testing and
hardness testing of samples extracted from the members. However, both of these
approaches are quite costly for application as a routine measure on projects and
the need for such measures has not yet been established.
Following publication of advisories on the k-line problem by AISC, and the
publication of similar advisory information in FEMA-267a,reports on this
problem diminished. It is not clear whether this is due to revised detailing
practice on the part of engineers and fabricators, revised mill rolling practice, or
a combination of both. SAC, AISC and SSPC are continuing to research this
issue in order to identify if a significant problem exists, and if it does, to
determine its basic causes, and to develop appropriate recommendations for mill,
design, detailing, and fabrication practices to mitigate the problem.
8.2 Welding
8.2.1 Welding Process
8-12
8.2.2 Welding Procedures
Welding should be performed within the parameters established by the electrode manufacturer and
the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), required under AWS D1.1.
Commentary: A welding procedure specification identifies all the important
parameters for making a welded joint including the material specifications of the
base and filler metals, joint geometry, welding process, requirements for pre- and
post-weld heat treatment, welding position, electrical characteristics, voltage,
amperage, and travel speed. Two types of welding procedure specifications are
recognized by AWS D1.1. These are prequalified procedures and qualified-by-
test procedures. Prequalified procedures are those for which the important
parameters are specified within the D1.1 specification. If a prequalified
procedure is to be used for a joint, all of the variables for the joint must fall
within the limits indicated in the D1.1 specification for the specific procedure. If
one or more variables are outside the limits specified for the prequalified
procedures, then the fabricator must demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed
procedure through a series of tests and submit documentation (procedure
qualification records) demonstrating that acceptable properties were obtained.
Regardless of whether or not a prequalified or qualified-by-test procedure is
employed, the fabricator should prepare a welding procedure specification, which
should be submitted to the engineer of record for review and be maintained at the
work location for reference by the welders and inspectors. The following
information is presented to help the engineer understand some of the issues
surrounding the parameters controlled by the welding procedure specification.
For example, the position (if applicable), electrode diameter, amperage or
wire feed speed range, voltage range, travel speed range and electrode stickout
(e.g. all passes, 0.072 in. diameter, 248 to 302 amps, 19 to 23 volts, 6 to 10
inches/minute travel speed, 170 to 245 inches/minute wire feed speed, 1/2" to 1"
electrode stickout) should be established. This information is generally submitted
by the fabricator as part of the Welding Procedure Specification. Its importance
in producing a high quality weld is essential. The following information is
presented to help the engineer understand some of the issues surrounding these
parameters.
The amperage, voltage, travel speed, electrical stickout and wire feed speed
are functions of each electrode. If prequalified WPSs are utilized, these
parameters must be in compliance with the AWS D1.1 requirements. For FCAW
and SMAW, the parameters required for an individual electrode vary from
manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, for these processes, it is essential that
the fabricator/erector utilize parameters that are within the range of
recommended operation published by the filler metal manufacturer. Alternately,
the fabricator/erector could qualify the welding procedure by test in accordance
8-13
with the provisions of AWS D1.1 and base the WPS parameters on the test results.
For submerged arc welding, the AWS D1.1 code provides specific amperage
limitations since the solid steel electrodes used by this process operate essentially
the same regardless of manufacture. The filler metal manufacturers guideline
should supply data on amperage or wire feed speed, voltage, polarity, and
electrical stickout. The guidelines will not, however, include information on
travel speed which is a function of the joint detail. The contractor should select a
balanced combination of parameters, including travel speed, that will ensure that
the code mandated weld-bead sizes (width and height) are not exceeded.
Recently, ASTM approved a new material specification for structural steel
shape, ASTM A992. This specification is very similar to the ASTM A572, Grade
50 specification except that it includes additional limitations on yield and tensile
strengths and chemical composition. Although material conforming to A992 is
expected to have very similar welding characteristics to A572 material, it was
adopted too late to be included as a prequalified base material in AWS D1.1-98.
Although the D1 committee has evaluated A992 and has taken measures to
incorporate it as a prequalified material in AWS D1.1-2000, technically, under
AWS D1.1-98, welded joints made with this material should follow qualified-by-
test procedures.
In reality, structural steel conforming to ASTM A992 may actually have
somewhat better weldability than material conforming to the A572 specification.
This is because A992 includes limits on carbon equivalent, precluding the
delivery of steels where all alloys simultaneously approach the maximum
specified limits. Therefore, it should be permissible to utilize prequalified
procedures for joint with base metal conforming to this specification.
8.2.3 Welding Filler Metals
Commentary: Currently, there are no notch toughness requirements for weld
metal used in welding ASTM A 36 or A 572, Grade 50, steel in AWS D1.1. This
topic has been extensively discussed by the Welding Group at the Joint
SAC/AISC/AISI/NIST Invitational Workshop on September 8 and 9, 1994, and by
all participants of the SAC Invitational Workshop on October 28 and 29, 1994.
The topic was also considered by the AWS Presidential Task Group, which
decided that additional research was required to determine the need for
toughness in weld metal. There is general agreement that adding a toughness
requirement for filler metal would be desirable and easily achievable. Most filler
metals are fairly tough, but some will not achieve even a modest requirement such
as 5 ft-lb. at + 70? F. What is not in unanimous agreement is what level of
toughness should be required. The recommendation from the Joint Workshop was
8-14
20 ft-lb. at -20? F per Charpy V-Notch [CVN] testing. The recommendation
from the SAC Workshop was 20 ft-lb. at 30? F lower than the Lowest Ambient
Service Temperature (LAST) and not above 0? F. The AWS Presidential Task
Group provided an interim recommendation for different toughness values
depending on the climatic zone, referenced to ASTM A709. Specifically, the
recommendation was for 20 ft-lb. at temperatures of 70

degrees F for Zone 1, 40
degrees F for Zone 2, and 10

degrees F for Zone 3. The AWS also suggested
toughness values for base metals used in these applications.
Some fractured surfaces in the Northridge and Kobe Earthquakes revealed
evidence of improper use of electrodes and welding procedures. Prominent
among the misuses were high production deposition rates. Pass widths of up to 1-
1/2 inches and pass heights of 1/2 inch were common. The kind of heat input
associated with such large passes promotes grain growth in the HAZ and
attendant low notch toughness. In evaluation of welds in buildings affected by the
Northridge earthquake, the parameters found to be most likely to result in
damage-susceptible welds included root gap, access capability, electrode
diameter, stick-out, pass thickness, pass width, travel speed, wire feed rate,
current and voltage were found to be the significant problems in evaluation of
welds in buildings affected by the Northridge earthquake.
Welding electrodes for common welding processes include:
AWS A5.20: Carbon Steel Electrodes for FCAW
AWS A5.29: Low Alloy Steel Electrodes for FCAW
AWS A5.1: Carbon Steel Electrodes for SMAW
AWS A5.5: Low Alloy Steel Covered Arc Welding Electrodes (for SMAW)
AWS A5.17: Carbon Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for SAW
AWS A5.23: Low Alloy Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for SAW
AWS A5.25: Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for Electroslag
Welding
In flux cored arc welding, one would expect the use of electrodes that meet
either AWS A5.20 or AWS A5.29 provided they meet the toughness requirements
specified below.
Except to the extent that one requires Charpy V-Notch toughness and
minimum yield strength, the filler metal classification is typically selected by the
Fabricator. Compatibility between different filler metals must be confirmed by
the Fabricator, particularly when SMAW and FCAW-SS processes are mixed.
Generally speaking, SMAW-type filler metals may not be applied to FCAW-SS
type filler metals (e.g. when a weld has been partially removed) while FCAW-type
filler metals may be applied to SMAW-type filler metals. This recommendation
considers the use of aluminum as a killing agent in FCAW-SS electrodes that can
8-15
be incorporated into the SMAW filler metal with a reduction in impact toughness
properties.
As an aid to the engineer, the following interpretation of filler metal
classifications is provided below:
E
1
X
2
X
3
T
4
X
5
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.20 (e.g. E71T1)
E
1
X
2
X
3
T
4
X
5
X
6
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.29 (e.g. E70TGK2)
E
1
XX
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
For electrodes specified under AWS A5.1 or AWS A5.5. (e.g. E7018)
NOTES:
1. Indicates an electrode.
2. Indicates minimum tensile strength of deposited weld metal (in tens of ksi, e.g., 7 = 70
ksi).
3. Indicates primary welding position for which the electrode is designed (0 = flat and
horizontal and 1 = all positions).
4. Indicates a flux cored electrode. Absence of a letter indicates a "stick" electrode for
SMAW.
5. Describes usability and performance capabilities. For our purposes, it conveys whether
or not Charpy V-Notch toughness is required (1, 5, 6 and 8 have impact strength
requirements while 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 do not). A "G" signifies that the properties are not
defined by AWS and are to be agreed upon between the manufacturer and the specifier.
Impact strength is specified in terms of the number of foot-pounds at a given temperature
(e.g., 20 ft-lb. at 0 degrees F). Note that for electrodes specified under AWS A5.20, the
format for usage is "T-X".
6. Designates the chemical composition of deposited metal for electrodes specified under
AWS A5.29. Note that there is no equivalent format for chemical composition for
electrodes specified under AWS A5.20.
7. The first two digits (or three digits in a five digit number) designate the minimum tensile
strength in ksi.
8. The third digit (or fourth digit in a five digit number) indicates the primary welding
position for which the electrode is designed (1 = all positions, 2 = flat position and fillet
welds in the horizontal position, 4 = vertical welding with downward progression and for
other positions.)
9. The last two digits, taken together, indicate the type of current with which the electrode
can be used and the type of covering on the electrode.
8-16
10. Indicates a suffix (e.g., A1, A2, B1, etc.) designating the chemical composition of the
deposited metal.
Electrode Diameter: (See AWS D1.1 Section 4.14.1.2) The issue of maximum
electrode diameter has not been studied sufficiently to determine whether or not
electrode diameter is a critical variable. Recent tests have produced modified
frame joints with acceptable test results using the previous standard-of-practice
0.120 in. diameter wire. The use of smaller diameter electrodes will slow the rate
of deposition (as measured by volume) but will not, in and of itself, produce an
acceptable weld. The following lists the maximum allowable electrode diameters
for prequalified FCAW WPSs according to D1.1:
Horizontal, complete or partial penetration welds: 1/8 inch (0.125")*
Vertical, complete or partial penetration welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
Horizontal, fillet welds: 1/8 inch (0.125")
Vertical, fillet welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
Overhead, reinforcing fillet welds: 5/64 inch (0.078")
* This value is not part of D1.1-94, but will be part of D1.1-96.
For a given electrode diameter, there is an optimum range of weld bead sizes
that may be deposited. Weld bead sizes that are outside the acceptable size range
(either too large or too small) may result in unacceptable weld quality. The D1.1
code controls both maximum electrode diameters and maximum bead sizes (width
and thickness). Prequalified WPSs are required to meet these code
requirements. Further restrictions on suitable electrode diameters are not
recommended.
Low-hydrogen electrodes. Low hydrogen electrodes should be used to minimize
the risk of hydrogen assisted cracking (HAC) when conditions of high restraint
and the potential for high hardness microstructures exist. Hydrogen assisted
cracking can occur in the heat affected zone or weld metal whenever sufficient
concentrations of diffusible hydrogen and sufficient stresses are present along
with a hard microstructure at a temperature between 100 C and 100 C.
Hydrogen is soluble in steel at high temperatures and is introduced into the weld
pool from a variety of sources including but not limited to: moisture from coating
or core ingredients, drawing lubricants, hydrogenous compounds on the base
material, and moisture from the atmosphere.
At the present time, the term low hydrogen is not well defined by AWS. The
degree of hydrogen control required to reduce the risk of hydrogen assisted
cracking will depend on the material being welded, level of restraint,
preheat/interpass temperature, and heat input level. When a controlled level of
diffusible hydrogen is required, electrodes can be purchased with a supplemental
designator that indicates a diffusible hydrogen concentration below 16, 8, or 4 ml
8-17
H
2
/100g in the weld metal can be maintained (H16, H8, and H4 respectively)
under most welding conditions .
The diffusible hydrogen potential (measured in ml/100g deposited weld metal)
will depend on the type of consumable, welding process, plate/joint cleanliness,
and atmospheric conditions in the area of welding. Some consumables may
absorb moisture after exposure to the atmosphere. Depending on the type of
consumable, this may result in a significant increase in the weld metal diffusible
hydrogen concentration. In situations where control of diffusible hydrogen
concentrations is important, the manufacturer should be consulted for advice on
proper storage and handling conditions required to limit moisture absorption.
Hydrogen assisted cracking may be avoided through the selection and
maintenance of an adequate preheat /interpass temperature and/or minimum heat
input. Depending on the type of steel and restraint level, a trade-off between an
economic preheat/interpass temperature and the diffusible hydrogen potential of
a given process exists. There have been several empirical approaches developed
to determine safe preheat levels for a given application that include consideration
of carbon equivalent, restraint level, electrode type, and preheat. When followed,
the guidelines for preheat that have been established in AWS D1.1 and D1.5 are
generally sufficient to reduce the risk of hydrogen assisted cracking in most mild
steel weldments.
Hydrogen assisted cracking will typically occur up to 72 hours after completion
of welding. For the strength of materials currently used in moment frame
construction, inspection of completed welds should be conducted no sooner than
24 hours following weld completion.
8.2.4 Preheat and Interpass Temperatures
8.2.5 Postheat
8.2.6 Controlled Cooling
8.2.7 Metallurgical Stress Risers
8-18
8.2.8 Welding Preparation & Fit-up

Interim Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Interim Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTERIM GUIDELINES:

Evaluation, Repair, Modification and

Cover plates Sect. 7.9.1 d/4 beyond end of cover plates

Cover plates Sect. 7.9.1 d/4 beyond end of cover plates

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen