Eqe 1103

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Published online 8 March 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1103
Evaluation of plastic energy dissipation capacity of steel beams

suffering ductile fracture under various loading histories
Yu Jiao1, , , Satoshi Yamada2 , Shoichi Kishiki3 and Yuko Shimada4
1 Department
of Environmental Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, J2-21, Nagatsuta 4259,
Yokohama 226-8503, Japan
2 Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology, J2-21, Nagatsuta 4259, Yokohama
226-8503, Japan
3 Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology, R3-12, Nagatsuta 4259, Yokohama
226-8503, Japan
4 Faculty of Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
SUMMARY
The energy dissipation capacity of a structure is a very important index that indicates the structural
performance in energy-based seismic design. This index depends greatly on the structural components that
form the whole system. Owing to the wide use of the strong-column weak-beam strength hierarchy where
steel beams dissipate the majority of earthquake input energy to the structures, it is necessary to evaluate
the energy dissipation capacity of the beams. Under cyclic loadings such as seismic effects, the damage of
the beams accumulates. Therefore, loading history is known to be the most pivotal factor influencing the
deformation capacity and energy dissipation capacity of the beams. Seismic loadings with significantly
different characteristics are applied to structural beams during different types of earthquakes and there
is no unique appropriate loading protocol that can represent all types of seismic loadings. This paper
focuses on the effects of various loading histories on the deformation capacity and energy dissipation
capacity of the beams. Cyclic loading tests of steel beams were performed. In addition, some experimental
results from published tests were also collected to form a database. This database was used to evaluate the
energy dissipation capacity of steel beams suffering from ductile fracture under various loading histories.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 July 2010; Revised 13 December 2010; Accepted 16 December 2010
KEY WORDS:
steel beam; cyclic loading test; energy dissipation capacity; loading history; ductile fracture
1. INTRODUCTION
The balance between seismic input energy and the energy dissipation capacity of the structures is
the principal concept of energy-based seismic design [1]. A structures energy dissipation capacity,
which depends greatly on its structural components, is an important index of earthquake resistance.
Steel moment frames with strong-column weak-beam mechanism are frequently used in earthquakeprone areas. In such a system, plastic hinges form in the beams and dissipate the majority of the
earthquake input energy, making the beams the dominant anti-earthquake components in the whole
structure.
Under cyclic loadings such as earthquake effects, the damage of the beams accumulates. Thus,
loading history is known as the most definitive factor that affects the deformation capacity and
Correspondence
to: Yu Jiao, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
J2-21, Nagatsuta 4259, Yokohama 226-8503, Japan.
E-mail: jiao.y.aa@m.titech.ac.jp, yjiao.sjtu.titech@gmail.com
1554
Y. JIAO ET AL.
0.05
4 y
3 y
0.04
ATC-24
Drift angle (rad.)
Deformation
2 y
y
0
y
2 y
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.04
4 y
0.05
8 p
FEMA 461
6 p
Japan Rec.
4 p
Rotation
Relative amplitude (ai/m)
0.02
0.03
3 y
1.0
SAC
0.03
0.048
0
2 p
0
2 p
4 p
6 p
1.0
8 p
Figure 1. Recommended standard loading protocols.
energy dissipation capability of the beams. Seismic effects of significantly different characteristics
are applied to structures during distinct earthquakes such as near-fault earthquakes or offshore
interplate earthquakes. Furthermore, the number and amplitudes of the loading cycles the beam
experiences during earthquakes depend on the configuration, strength, stiffness, etc. of the structure.
Figure 1 shows some of the most common recommended standard loading protocols employed
in steel beam cyclic loading tests including the ATC-24 protocol [2], the SAC protocol [3], and
the FEMA 461 [4] protocol, which are widely used in the U.S.A., and the loading protocol
recommended by the Building Research Institute and the Japan Iron and Steel Federation [5],
which is commonly accepted in Japan. Among the U.S.A. protocols, the ATC-24 is similar to
the Japanese one. The SAC protocol includes more small elastic cycles because of the observed
Northridge weld fractures that occurred before yielding occurred [6]. However, some researchers
and engineers are more concerned about the cumulative plastic deformation capacity of the beam
after yielding. The advantage of introducing the recommended loading protocols is that it is easy to
compare the performances of different specimens under the same loading protocol. A majority of the
loading protocols are incremental deformation amplitudes loadings, which seem to be inadequate
to represent different earthquake loadings. It is also indicated that a comprehensive testing program
for structural components should include a monotonic test in addition to cyclic tests [7]. There
is no unique best loading history that can represent all kinds of seismic loadings applied to the
beams. In order to assess the consequences of cumulative damage, more loading histories should
be employed in addition to the standard loading protocols in the steel beam tests. Under such
circumstances, it is necessary to seek a concise method of investigating the seismic performances
of beams with different structural details that are subjected to various loading histories.
Ductile fracture is one of the typical ultimate states of steel beams in earthquakes. During
the 1995 Kobe earthquake, a great deal of beam damage due to brittle fracture was observed.
After that, according to the new Japanese design code, the most dangerous brittle fracture should
be avoided. In addition, the current material and welding methods also help to prevent brittle
fracture. Therefore, this paper focuses on beams that suffer ductile fractures at the flanges. The
seismic performance of the beams is discussed in terms of energy. Five large-scale beamcolumn

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1555
EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY
1900
PL-450 x450 x16
Backing plate
(FB-9 x 25)
Detail
25
35
7
R10
35
Diaphragm
R35
H-400 x 200 x8 x13(SN400B)

12-PL9-374 x96
Spot welding
Backing plate
(FB-9 x 25)
RHS-400 x400 x19(BCR295)
Figure 2. Specimen details.
subassemblies were tested under different loading histories with incremental, decremental, and
constant amplitudes in order to understand the influence of the diversity of the loading histories
on the beams. In addition, 24 specimens from six published steel beamcolumn subassembly tests
[813] were also investigated. Based on the complete experimental database, the energy dissipation
capacity of the steel beams with the failure mode of ductile fracture under various cyclic loading
histories was evaluated.
2. CYCLIC LOADING TESTS OF STEEL BEAMS

2.1. Objective
Cyclic loading tests of five T-type beamcolumn subassemblies (Nos. 15 in the database) with
exactly the same structural details were conducted to investigate the effect of the loading history on
the energy dissipation capacity of steel beams. The only variable in this experiment is the loading
history.
2.2. Specimens
The column of each specimen was a rectangular hollow section (RHS) 400 mm400 mm19 mm
(BCR295 steel) while the beam was a wide-flange section 400 mm (depth)200 mm (width)
8 mm (web thickness) 13 mm (flange thickness) (SN400B steel) (Figure 2). The beam was shop
welded onto the column via through-diaphragms with the improved type of weld access holes and
solid end tab in accordance with the Japanese Standard Specification JASS 6 [14]. The steel plates
of the column and panel zone were thick enough so that neither yielded even when the beam
reached its maximum strength. Furthermore, in order to prevent local buckling, stiffeners were
welded to the beams near the connections as well as the loading points. Tensile coupon tests of
both the flange and web were performed using JIS-1A testing samples [15]. The results are shown
in Figure 3.
2.3. Test setup
Each specimen, which was rotated 90 with its beam standing vertically and column lying horizontally, was setup through column jigs and screw jacks, with the former fastened onto the reaction
frame for vertical support and the latter contacting the reaction frame for horizontal support
(Figure 4). A loading jig connecting the free end of the beam and an oil jack, which was installed
horizontally on the reaction frame, made up the loading system. In addition, lateral supports (stiffening systems) were set at three locations to prevent lateral buckling of the beam. The beam
rotation is defined in Equation (1) and illustrated in Figure 5.
=

L
(1)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1556
Y. JIAO ET AL.
Flange
Web
Nominal stress [N/mm2]
600
500
400
300
Yielding Point
Strength
N/mm
200
100
Elongation
EL
Flange
282
452
32
Web
352
514
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
Nominal strain [%]
30
35
Figure 3. Coupon test results and specimen mechanical characteristics.
Oil Jack
Loading Jig
Lateral Support
Reaction Frame
Specimen
Screw Jack
Column Jig
Figure 4. Setup of cyclic loading tests.
Specimen
Specimen
Column's Face line
Column's Face line
Figure 5. Definition of beam rotation.


DOI: 10.1002/eqe
8 p
8 p
8 p
6 p
6 p
6 p
4 p
4 p
4 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
4 p
4 p
4 p
6 p
6 p
Loading 1
8 p
6 p
Loading 2
8 p
8 p
8 p
6 p
6 p
4 p
4 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
2 p
4 p
4 p
6 p
8 p
1557
8 p
Loading 3
6 p
Loading 4
Loading 5
8 p
Figure 6. Loading histories.
2.4. Loading histories

Five different deformation-controlled cyclic loadings, shown in Figure 6, were applied to the
specimens during the test with the unit beam rotation set to P (0.0058 rad by calculation), the
elastic beam rotation when the moment of the beams cantilever end equals its full plastic moment
M P (383 kN m by calculation). The five loading histories are as follows Loading1: Incremental
cyclic loading starting from 2 P , with intervals of 2 P . For each loading step, two cycles were
applied. Loading 2: Decremental cyclic loading completely converse of loading (1), i.e. loading
starting from the amplitude where the specimen subjected to loading (1) fractured, with intervals
of 2 P . For each loading step, two cycles were applied. Loadings 35:: Cyclic loading with a
constant amplitude of 3 P , 4 P , and 5 P , respectively. Loading (1) is recommended by the
Building Research Institute and the Japan Iron and Steel Federation [5]. Considering the seismic
effects of small amplitude shaking after large ones, the decremental loading (2) was also included
in the loading histories. Loadings (3)(5) were employed to simulate earthquake loadings under
long-duration ground motion.
2.5. Experimental results and discussion
The loaddeformation relationships obtained from the cyclic loading tests (hysteresis loops) are
shown in Figure 7. Ductile cracks on the beam flange were first observed near the toe of the
weld access hole of each specimen, which propagated longer and wider during the test until the
specimen reached fracture. Here, fracture is defined as the point when the measured load starts to
decrease while the specimens deformation is still increasing. The processes of the cyclic loading
tests were as follows. Loading 1: Loading started from two cycles of 2 P , until two cycles of
6 P , as scheduled. After that, the specimen fractured during the first loading cycle of +8 P . The
fracture point was confirmed when the cumulative rotation was approximately 0.605 rad. Loading 2:
Loading started with a half cycle of +8 P , which was the amplitude where the specimen under
loading (1) fractured, followed by the decremental cyclic loading mentioned above (from 6 P
to +2 P ). The specimen did not fracture until it was loaded again toward +8 P . The fracture
point was confirmed at the cumulative rotation of 0.677 rad. Loading 3: 26 cycles of loading with
a constant amplitude of 3 P were completed. The specimen fractured as it was approaching
+3 P of the 27th cycle, when the cumulative rotation equaled 1.863 rad. Loading 4: 9.5 cycles of
loading with a constant amplitude of 4 P were completed. The specimen fractured on its way to
4 P in the 10th cycle, when the cumulative rotation equaled 0.935 rad. Loading 5: 3 cycles of

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1558
Y. JIAO ET AL.
-6 -4 -2
800
-6 -4 -2
800
6 8
-800
-0.05
-800
-0.05
0.05
-4
800
0.05
Beam rotation (rad)

-5
800
Loading 5
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
-800
-0.05
0.05
Loading 4
-800
-0.05
Beam rotation (rad)
Beam rotation (rad)
Loading 3
Moment (kN-m)
-3
800
Loading 2
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
Loading 1
0.05
-800
-0.05
Beam rotation (rad)
0.05
Beam rotation (rad)
Figure 7. Loading-deformation relationships.

M
Skeleton Curve
Elastic Unloading Part
Bauschinger Part
Figure 8. Decomposition of beams hysteresis loops.
loading with a constant amplitude of 5 P were completed. The specimen fractured on its way
to +5 P in the 4th cycle, when the cumulative rotation equaled 0.400 rad.
Loaddeformation hysteresis loops of steel beams under cyclic loading can be decomposed
into three parts: the skeleton curve, Bauschinger part, and elastic unloading part [1], as illustrated
in Figure 8. Here, the skeleton curve is obtained by connecting parts of the loaddeformation
relationship sequentially when the beam first experienced its maximum load (both positive and
negative). It is observed that the loaddeformation relationships of the steel beams under monotonic
loading have an approximate correspondence to the skeleton curves of the steel beams with
same structural details that fracture within relatively fewer loading cycles under cyclic loadings.
Moreover, assuming the Bauschinger part to be elastic and neglecting the Bauschinger part do
not result in unsafe-side estimation of energy absorption capacity, although the estimate might
be too conservative [1]. Therefore, there is an empirical rule that the deformation capacity and
energy dissipation capacity of the skeleton curves are adopted to characterize the behavior of the
beams [1]. Nevertheless, this empirical rule was obtained under the condition that the steel beams
fracture within relatively few loading cycles under cyclic loadings. Under certain loading histories
such as long-duration ground motions, a beam fractures after many loading cycles. In these cases,
the skeleton curves obtained are obviously shorter than the loaddeformation relationships of the
beams under monotonic loading. The energy dissipation capacity in the Bauschinger parts becomes
too large to be neglected, rendering this empirical rule no longer applicable. In this paper, the
experimental results were also studied by first dividing the hysteresis loops into skeleton curves and
Bauschinger parts similar to the abovementioned methodology [1], while taking into consideration
the contributions of the Bauschinger parts as well in the second step, which was neglected in [1].

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1559
Loading 1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Plus
Minus
0
Loading 2
-800
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.06
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
-800
800
800
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
800
Loading 3
-800
0
0.08
0.02
0.04
800
800
Loading 4
-800
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
0.08
| | (rad)
| | (rad)
| | (rad)
0.06
Loading 5
-800
0
0.08
0.02
0.04
| | (rad)
0.06
0.08
| | (rad)
Figure 9. Skeleton curves.
800
Loading 1
-800
800
Plus
Minus
Loading 2
-800
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
Loading 3
-800
0.125
| | (rad)
0.25
0.375
0.5
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
| | (rad)
| | (rad)
800
Plus
Minus
0
Loading 4
Moment (kN-m)
800
Moment (kN-m)
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
Plus
Minus
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
800
Plus
Minus
0
Loading 5
-800
-800
0
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
| | (rad)
| | (rad)
Figure 10. Bauschinger parts.
The skeleton curves and Bauschinger parts of both the plus and minus loading sides derived
from the loaddeformation relationships are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Very similar skeleton
curves can be observed from loadings (1), (2), and (5), which share the same characteristics of
the comparatively large maximum deformation amplitudes; the specimens under these loading
histories reached ductile fracture points within a fewer number of loading cycles. On the other
hand, the skeleton curves of loadings (3) and (4) with relatively small deformation amplitudes and
large numbers of loading cycles are considerably shorter than are those of the others. Although
the skeleton curves of all specimens have similar shapes, they become shorter when the maximum
loading amplitudes decrease, whereas the Bauschinger parts grow remarkably larger. The decrease
in the energy dissipation capacity in the skeleton curves is much less than is the increase in
the energy dissipation capacity in the Bauschinger parts. Thus, the sacrifice of the skeleton
curves results in larger overall energy dissipation capacity. In order to evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of the beams under various loading histories, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the energy dissipation capacity of the skeleton curves and the Bauschinger
parts.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1560
Y. JIAO ET AL.
3. RELEVANT EXPERIMENTS OF THE STEEL BEAMS

Even though some basic information of the effects of loading histories on the energy dissipation
capacity of steel beams was obtained from the experiment mentioned in Section 2, the number and
diversity of the specimens are rather limited. To form a stronger argument, additional published
experimental data were included in the database for evaluating the energy dissipation capacity of
the beams. The loaddeformation results from six published beam-to-column subassembly (shopwelded flange and web connection) experiments were investigated. Stiffeners were welded near the
connections on all specimens (beam parts) to prevent local buckling. The ultimate states of all of
these specimens were confirmed to be ductile fractures at the beam flanges near the connections.
Here, the definition of fracture is the same as that illustrated in the previous cyclic loading tests.
Together with the cyclic loading tests mentioned in Section 2, details of the database are listed in
Table I. For the wide-flange section, H is the beam depth, B is the beam width, and tw and t f are
the web and flange thicknesses, respectively. For the rectangular hollow section, D is the column
width and t is the thickness.
Nos. 69 are specimens from the monotonic loading tests [8]. The shape of the column crosssection (RHS column/wide-flange column), the thickness of the column, and the presence of
the weld access holes are the variables of this experiment. The cross-sections and spans of the
wide-flange beams were kept constant.
Seven wide-flange beam-to-RHS-column connection specimens, numbered 1016, from a
full-scale shaking table test [9] were also collected (Table I). The NS component of the JMA
Kobe record (according to the Japan Meteorological Agency of Kobe, 1995), which was scaled
to the peak velocity of 1.0 m/s, was input during testing. Note that due to the characteristics
of the input record (near-fault earthquake record), each specimen fractured within few plastic
loading cycles, meaning the skeleton curves obtained from this experiment would be very
similar to the loaddeformation relationships of the beams if they were subjected to monotonic
loading [1].
Thirteen specimens (Nos. 1729) from four cyclic loading tests [1013] are also included
in the database (Table I). Eight of them are steel beam specimens with 50 mm thick end plates
(PL in Table I); the others are beamcolumn subassemblies with wide-flange beams and RHS
columns.
4. ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY OF STEEL BEAMS UNDER RANDOM LOADING

HISTORIES
4.1. Equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio
The energy dissipation capacity of steel beams was expressed by means of the Equivalent Cumulative Plastic Deformation Ratio (), which is one of the indices used to quantify cumulative damage
in energy-based seismic design. Equation (2) shows the definition of :
=
Wp
M p p
(2)
where W p is the plastic energy dissipation capacity of a steel beam, M p is the full plastic
moment of the steel beam, and p is the beam rotation when the moment at the beam end
reaches M p .
The equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of steel beams subjected to monotonic
loading 0 is illustrated in Figure 11, which is defined as
0 =
W p0
M p p
(3)
where W p0 is the plastic energy dissipation capacity of a steel beam under monotonic loading.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Cross section
W H B tw t f
W 400200813
W 400200813
W 400200813
W 400200813
W 400200813
W 3001506.59
W 3001506.59
W 3001506.59
W 300150659
W 6003001225
W 6003001225
W 6003001225
W 6003001225
W 60030012 25
W 6003001225
W 6003001632
W 600200912
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 6002001117
W 400200813
W 400200813
W 4883001118
W 4883001118
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6 [8]
7 [8]
8 [8]
9 [8]
10 [9]
11 [9]
12 [9]
13 [9]
14 [9]
15 [9]
16 [9]
17 [10]
18 [11]
19 [11]
20 [11]
21 [11]
22 [11]
23 [11]
24 [11]
25 [11]
26 [12]
27 [12]
28 [13]
29 [13]
Connection
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
1500
1500
1500
1500
2729
2729
2729
2729
2729
2729
2729
2050
3725
3725
3725
3725
2225
2225
2225
2225
1900
1900
2150
2150
282
282
282
282
282
334
334
334
334
330
330
330
330
330
330
316
291
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
314
314
386
318
62
62
62
62
62
70
70
70
70
64
64
64
64
64
64
62
68
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
71
71
73
72
352
352
352
352
352
375
375
375
375
413
413
413
413
413
413
378
385
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
368
368
396
318
68
68
68
68
68
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
70
74
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
78
78
71
72
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
25
25
35
35
35
35
0
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
35
Span
Flange
Web
Weld access
2
2
(mm) y (N/mm) YR (%) y (N/mm) YR (%) Hole (mm)
Beam
Table I. Database details.
W 2502501014
2509
2509
2506
50016
50022
50022
50022
50022
50032
50032
40019
PL50
PL50
PL50
PL50
PL50
PL50
PL50
PL50
40019
40019
40019
40019
40019
40019
40019
40019
40019
Cross section
D t
Column
359
359
397
267
324.5
324.5
324.5
324.5
324.5
348
364
364
312
501
498
498
498
342
405
405
388
(N/mm2 )
y
Cyclic
Cyclic
Cyclic
Cyclic
Cyclic
Mono
Mono
Mono
Mono
Shaking
Shaking
Shaking
Shaking
Shaking
Shaking
Shaking
Incr.
Incr.
Incr.
Con.
Con.
Incr.
Incr.
Con.
Con.
Incr.
Incr.
Incr.
Incr.
6.5
7
26.5
10
3.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
3
3
3
14
14.5
2.5
3
8
17.5
11.5
4.5
8.5
18.5
8.5
7
6.5
11
10
10.5
6.55
8
3
4
5
17.76
15.28
9.85
9.25
12.35
13.65
13.91
14.1
12.94
13.92
15.28
4.72
6
6
4
6
6
6
4
6
6.1
7.6
6
6
Loading Number of
history
cycles
max / p
1561

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1562
Y. JIAO ET AL.
M
Mp
M
WP0
Figure 11. Plastic energy dissipation of steel beam under monotonic loading.
M
Skeleton Curve
Bauschinger Part
WS
0
WB
Figure 12. Decomposition of the hysteresis loop and plastic energy dissipation of steel
beams under cyclic loading.
In case of beams under cyclic loadings, with the decomposition of the hysteresis loops, the
plastic energy dissipation capacity of a steel beam W p is expressed as the sum of the plastic
energy dissipation capacity from both their skeleton curves and Bauschinger parts, as shown in
Equation (4) and Figure 12:
W p = WS + W B
(4)
where W S and W B are the plastic energy dissipation capacity of the skeleton curve and Bauschinger
part, respectively. Consequently, it is possible to express the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of steel beams under cyclic loading in Equations (5)(7).
= S + B
(5)
S = W S /(M p p )
(6)
B = W B /(M p p )
(7)
where S and B are the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of the skeleton curve and
Bauschinger part, respectively. In this study, the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of
each part of the hysteresis loop was studied to investigate the energy dissipation capacity of steel
beams subjected to cyclic loading.
4.2. Energy dissipation capacity of the steel beams under monotonic loading
4.2.1. Outline. The loading history is one of the principal factors that affect the plastic deformation capacity of steel beams. However, in order to evaluate a beams energy dissipation capacity,
the mechanical characteristics of the material and its geometric characteristics must also be taken
into consideration. Among them, the yield point and yield ratio of the steel together with the
beams section and span affect the full plastic moment, initial stiffness, and the post-yield stiffness of the beam. The size of the weld access holes as well as the column cross-section greatly

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1563
local bending of the column tube wall

(RHS column)
Loss of section
(Weld access hole)
Figure 13. Local bending of column tube wall and loss of web section.
affect the joint efficiency of the beam web. Specifically, the weld access holes (loss of section)
cause a decrease in a beams moment of plastification. The tube walls of a column (especially
RHS column) at the connections tend to have an out-of-plane deformation when the beams are
subjected to bending. These are the main reasons for the inefficiency of the connections moment
transmission [8], i.e. the joint efficiency of the beam web is less than 100% (Figure 13). The
influence of the material and geometric characteristics can be assessed by investigating beams
under monotonic loading. Then, the energy dissipation capacity of beams under cyclic loading
histories is studied based on the energy dissipation capacity of the beams under monotonic
loading.
According to the current research, the concept of a bilinear model of a beams loaddeformation
relationship under monotonic loading was introduced to illustrate the effect of joint efficiency.
The relationship between the strain concentration ratio of the beam flange and the ultimate beam
moment was obtained [8]. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of quantitative studies of deformation
capacity/energy dissipation capacity. In this study, a quantitative bilinear model was developed to
obtain the monotonic plastic deformation capacity of a beam.
4.2.2. Parametric study of a beams loaddeformation relationship. In order to obtain a reasonable
second stiffness ratio of the bilinear loaddeformation model, a parametric study of the material
characteristics and the beam moment gradient was conducted through an in-plane analysis [1618]
of the ideal cantilever wide-flange beams subjected to monotonic shear bending (without outof-plane deformation). The cross-section of the analytical beam model was set to a wide-flange
section of 600 mm (depth)300 mm (width)13 mm (web thickness)25 mm (flange thickness).
In order to change the beam moment gradient, three different beam spans were defined: 3, 4,
and 6 m. In addition, four stressstrain relationship models (material characteristics) with different
yield stresses/strains and yield ratios were introduced in this analysis. Two types of steel with
different yield points and elongations that are commonly used in Japan as steel beams, SN400
and SN490, were chosen as typical materials. The tensile coupon test results of these two types
of steel were used as the basic stressstrain models. The experimental yield ratio of SN400 was
around 60% while that of SN490 was around 70%. It is possible to obtain two more relevant
stressstrain models with different yet reasonable yield ratios (70% for SN400 and 80% for SN490)
by varying the post-yield stress value. The input stressstrain relation models and the output
analytic results are shown in Figures 14 and 15. There is hardly any significant difference between
the second stiffness ratios of the loaddeformation relationships, despite the different parameters.
Therefore, it is feasible to assume that the second stiffness ratio of the ideal steel wide-flange beam
loaddeformation relationships under monotonic loading is a constant, which is considered to be
around 2.5%.
4.2.3. Web joint efficiency at the ultimate state. It is necessary to discuss the joint efficiency of the
beam web at the beam-to-column connection at its ultimate state in order to ascertain the ultimate

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1564
Y. JIAO ET AL.
Nominal stress (N/mm2)
600
500
400
300
SN400-60%
SN400-70%
SN490-70%
SN490-80%
200
100
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Nominal strain
0.2
0.25
Figure 14. Input stressstrain relationship models.

2
M / Mp
1.5
1
Bilinear model
Analytic results
0.5
0
10
20
30
/ p
Figure 15. Results of the parametric study.
load and rotation of the beam under monotonic loading. Ultimate joint efficiency w is defined as
w =
j Mwu
(8)
Mwu
where j Mwu is the maximum moment of the beam web at the connection considering the loss of
the beam section and local bending of the column tube wall, Mwu = wu Z wp is the ideal maximum
moment of the beam web at the connection, wu is the ultimate stress of the beam web, and Z wp
is the plastic section modulus of the full section beam web. Here, j Mwu is calculated by modified
Equations (9) and (10) based on the Japanese Recommendation for design of connections in steel
structures [19].
j Mwu
= m Z wpe wy
(beams with weld access holes)
j Mwu
= m Z wpe wu
(beams without weld access holes)
(9)
(10)
where wy is the yield stress of the beam web, Z wpe = 14 (Db 2tbf 2Sr )2 tbw is the plastic section
modulus of the beam web considering the loss of cross-section, and m [19, 20] is the normalized
bending strength of the beam web at the beam-to-column connection m = j Mwu /Mwp , where Mwp
is the full plastic moment of the beam web considering the loss of section due to the weld
access holes. Here, m is controlled by the size of the column, beam and the weld access holes
as well as the yield strengths of the column and beam. In design, it is possible to approximate
m as follows: for thewide-flange columns (strong-axis direction), m = 1; for the RHS columns,
m = min{1, 4(tcf /d j ) (b j cy )/(tbw wy )}, where cy is the yield stress of the column, Db is the
beam height, tbf is the thickness of the beam flange, Sr is the loss of cross-section in the beam
height dimension (usually the length of the weld access hole along the beam height), tbw is the

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1565
120
Calculated value (%)
100
80
60
40
Modi. Meth.
AIJ Rec. Meth.
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Experimental value (%)
Figure 16. Verification of the joint efficiency calculation method.
thickness of the beam web, tcf is the steel plate thickness of the RHS column, d j is the inner
distance of two diaphragms, b j = Bc 2tcf is the width of the yield area on the RHS column
obtained from the yield line theory, and Bc is the width of the RHS column.
In [19], only Equation (9), which originates from plastic analysis where the material is considered to be elastic-perfectly plastic, is recommended. Nevertheless, strain hardening occurs in real
structural steel. In the wide-flange beams without weld access holes, the web works more efficiently and reaches the maximum stress wu at the ultimate state. Equation (10) is introduced in
this study for beams without weld access holes.
The experimental results of the 11 specimens (specimen Nos. 69 from the monotonic loading
tests [8] and specimen Nos. 1016 from the shaking table tests [9]) from the database were
investigated to verify the proposed evaluation method of joint efficiency. Note that although the
specimens from the shaking table tests were subjected to cyclic loadings, under the JMA Kobe
record, the specimens reached the maximum load within very few loading cycles. The strain
data of the measuring steps in the loaddeformation skeleton curve were connected, which could
approximately be regarded as the strain history under monotonic loading. The calculated joint
efficiencies of these 11 specimens through the recommended [19] as well as the modified evaluation
method were compared with the experimental values calculated by Okada et al. [8]. Verification of
the evaluation methods is shown in Figure 16 with the experimental results plotted on the x-axis
and the calculated results plotted on the y-axis. The modified method shows higher accuracy.
Particularly for specimens without weld access holes, the results of the modified method are
considerably closer to the experimental results (arrows in Figure 16).
4.2.4. Bilinear loaddeformation model. A bilinear loaddeformation relationship model is
proposed here based on the model mentioned in [8] to evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of
steel beams under monotonic loading. Figure 17 shows details of the model. Following the previous
discussion, it is necessary to divide the beams into two categories: with and without weld access
holes. For both categories, K is the initial stiffness and K st = 2.5% K is the second stiffness.
Mu and u are the actual ultimate loaddeformation conditions considering the decrease in joint
efficiency. For beams without weld access holes, the plastification moment can be represented by
M p and p . Mui and ui are the ideal ultimate moment and beam rotation, respectively, when the
joint efficiency w is 100%, which can be obtained from the model with some basic structural
information. For beams with weld access holes, the loss of the beam section causes a decrease
in the plastification moment. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the full plastic moment from
the net beam section. Thus, the plastification moment M p and the corresponding beam rotation
p are smaller than the commonly defined values of M p and p . Mui is the same as the ideal

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1566
Y. JIAO ET AL.
K st = 2.5% K
Actual ultimate condition

(Joint efficiency<100%)
Actual ultimate condition

(Joint efficiency<100%)
Mui
Mu
Mui
Mu Mp
,
Mp
Ideal ultimate condition Mp

(Joint efficiency=100%)
Kst
Kst
W
K
,
p p
Ideal ultimate condition

(Joint efficiency=100%)
ui
ui
Steel beams without weld access hole
Steel beams with weld access holes
Figure 17. Bilinear load-deformation model of steel beams under monotonic loading.
25
20
0 (Cal.)
15
2
3
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
0 (Exp.)
Figure 18. Verification of 0 of steel beams under monotonic loading.
ultimate fracture moment of the beams without weld access holes while ui is the corresponding
beam rotation. The actual maximum moment of the beam Mu is expressed in Equation (11) as
Mu = Mfu +w Mwu
(w 1)
(11)
where Mfu = fu Z fp is the maximum moment of the beam flange at the connection and Z fp is
the plastic section modulus of the full section beam flange. From the joint efficiency w , it is
possible to obtain the maximum beam rotation u from the bilinear model. In other words, the
actual ultimate loaddeformation condition of a steel beam subjected to monotonic loading can be
derived.
Therefore, through this model, it is possible to calculate the energy dissipation capacity W p0
as well as the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio 0 of steel beams subjected to
monotonic loading. The experimental results from the monotonic loading tests [8] were investigated
to verify the evaluation method. Figure 18 shows the verification. The experimental results of
0 from the monotonic loading tests are plotted on the x-axis and the calculated results of 0
are plotted on the y-axis. The graph shows good correspondence between the experimental and
calculated values of the monotonic energy dissipation capacity of the beams. The effects of the
mechanical characteristics of the material and the geometric characteristics of the beam on the
energy dissipation capacity of the beam were obtained.
4.3. Energy dissipation capacity of steel beams under various cyclic loadings
4.3.1. Normalization of the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio. In order to remove
the influence of the material and geometric characteristics on the energy dissipation capacity of
steel beams, the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratios of the skeleton curves ( S ) and
Bauschinger parts ( B ) of the beams as well as the overall equivalent cumulative plastic deformation
ratios , were normalized by the equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratios of steel beams
under monotonic loading 0 . The normalized values S /0 , B /0 , and /0 can be regarded as the

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1567
3
2.5
/ = 0.15
S/0
/
M
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
max/p
15
20
Figure 19. Relationship between the normalized equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of the
skeleton curve and the normalized maximum deformation.
energy dissipation capacity of the steel beam with the same material and geometric characteristics,
which is only affected by the different loading histories.
4.3.2. Maximum deformation and the energy dissipation capacity. This section discusses the relationship of the energy dissipation capacity of a beam and the maximum beam deformation during
the loading procedure. The maximum deformation max is defined as the absolute value of the
maximum beam rotation experienced by the specimens under cyclic loadings, which is normalized
by p (Table I) for comparison between different specimens. The relationship between the normalized skeleton equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio S /0 and the normalized maximum
deformation max / p of the database is plotted in Figure 19. The plots show an approximately
linear relationship, which is expressed in Equation as (12),
S /0 = 0.15max / p
(3max / p 17.76)
(12)
4.3.3. Number of loading cycles and energy dissipation capacity. This section looks at the energy
dissipation capacity of the steel beams under various loading histories by investigating its relationship with the number of loading cycles the beams survive until ductile fracture. For the previously
mentioned shaking table tests, it is necessary to count the number of effective loading cycles
until fracture, i.e. the loading cycles with their amplitudes in the plastic region that contribute to
plastic energy dissipation. The rainflow-counting algorithm originally published in [21] was used
to calculate the number of loading cycles in the shaking table tests. This algorithm defines cycles as
closed load/deformation hysteresis loops. According to the loaddeformation relationship recorded
during the tests, a large number of loading cycles experienced by the specimen was within the
elastic region, which contributed little to the total plastic energy dissipation. Therefore, cycles with
loading amplitudes less than 2/3 M p , which hardly influenced the energy dissipation capacity of
the specimens, were skipped in the cycle counting.
In the database (Table I), the number of loading cycles until the beam fractures, N , varies from
0.5 to 26.5. The relationships of the normalized equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratios
of the specimens and the number of loading cycles until the specimens fracture are plotted in
Figure 20. S /0 decreases with an increase in N , while B /0 and /0 show opposite trends.
The fitted line of each relationship is also plotted in these graphs It is possible to approximate
the normalized equivalent plastic deformation ratios of the specimens as functions of ln(N n ) with
tolerable errors, as illustrated in Equations (13)(15).
S /0
= ln N 5/4 +1.9 (0.5N 1)
S /0
= ln N 5/12 +1.9 (1<N 26.5)
(13)

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1568
Y. JIAO ET AL.
Skeleton Curve
6
5
/ = ln N
+ 1.9
/0
/0
5
3
4
2
/ = ln N
Bauschinger Part
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
10
Number of Loading Cycles
15
20
25
30
8
7
6
/0
5
4
/ = ln N
+ 1.9
Overall
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure 20. Relationship between the normalized equivalent cumulative plastic deformation ratio of the
skeleton curve and the number of loading cycles until fracture.
B /0
=0
(0.5N 1)
B /0
= ln N 5/3
(1<N 26.5)
/0 = ln N 5/4 +1.9 (0.5N 26.5)
(14)
(15)
Note that, different from the commonly used Miners rule, proposed Equations (12)(15) are
based on the decomposition of the beams hysteresis loops, which can only be applied after the
plastification of the steel beams subjected to relatively large amplitude cyclic loadings. Since
Equations (12)(15) were obtained from the experimental results, the applicable ranges of these
equations are considered to be within the scope of the database, ie. (0.5N 26.5). Considering
the characteristics of the seismic loadings applied on steel beams, the amplitudes are rather large
and the total numbers of shaking cycles, especially those that cause damage to structures, is quite
limited, usually a few tens. Therefore, Equations (12)(15) can be considered valid in seismic
design However, when it comes to the loading cycles whose amplitudes are within the elastic region
where the number of loading cycles is extremely large, these equations are no longer applicable.
5. CONCLUSION
The energy dissipation capacity of the structural components plays a significant role in energybased seismic design because it is the index of structural performance. Considering the diversity
of earthquake loadings applied to steel beams, this study aims at evaluating the energy dissipation
capacity of beams ending in ductile fracture under various loading histories.
Five beamcolumn subassemblies were tested under different cyclic loadings to study the effects
of various loading histories on the energy dissipation capacity of steel beams. Together with some
published experimental results, a database of steel beams tested under diverse loading protocols
was created. The energy dissipation capacity of the steel beams under various loading histories
was evaluated by studying the energy dissipation capacity of the skeleton curves and Bauschinger
parts of the specimens in the database. The conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1569
(1) Under various loadings, a linear relationship was found between the normalized equivalent
cumulative plastic deformation ratio of the skeleton curve ( S /0 ) and the normalized
maximum deformation (max / p ).
(2) The normalized equivalent plastic deformation ratio of each part of the beams loaddeformation relationship ( S /0 and B /0 ) and the overall normalized equivalent plastic
deformation ratio (/0 ) can be approximately expressed by the natural logarithmic functions of the number of loading cycles that the beam experiences in its plastic region until
fracture (N ).
(3) It is possible to evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of steel beams that suffer ductile
fracture under random loading histories through Equations (12)(15) by the maximum
deformation (max / p ) experienced by the beams.
In energy-based seismic design of a steel moment frame, in order to evaluate the seismic behavior
of the entire structure, it is necessary to obtain the energy dissipation capacity of each structural
element (steel beam in a weak-beam frame). During the design procedure, it is possible to calculate
the maximum deformations of the beams via response analysis. Thereupon, the energy dissipation
of the beams can be evaluated through the equations suggested in this paper. Consequently, the
energy dissipation capacity, i.e. the seismic performance of the entire steel moment frame can be
evaluated. The results of this study are useful in the design work used to estimate the seismic
performance of steel moment frames.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful acknowledgment is given to Prof. Keiichiro Suita of the Kyoto University for providing his
experimental data of steel beams under cyclic loading.
REFERENCES
1. Akiyama H. Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, 1985.
2. Krawinkler H. Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures. Report No. ATC-24,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1992.
3. Clark P, Frank K, Krawinkler H, Shaw R. Protocol for fabrication, inspection, testing, and documentation of
beam-column connection tests and other experimental specimens. SAC Steel Project Background Document,
Report No. SAC/BD-97/02, 1997.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Interim testing protocols for determining seismic performance
characteristics of structural and nonstructural components. FEMA 461 Draft Document, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, CA, 2007.
5. Building Research Institute and the Japan Iron and Steel Federation. Study on Testing Method for Structural
Performance Evaluation of Steel Structures. Tokyo, 2002.
6. Youssef N, Bonowitz D, Gross JL. A survey of steel moment-resisting frame buildings affected by the 1994
Northridge earthquake. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NISTIR 5625, 1995.
7. Krawinkler H. Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components.
The 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco, 2009.
8. Okada K, Matsumoto Y, Yamada S. Evaluation of effect of joint efficiency at beam-to-column connection on
ductility capacity of steel beams (in Japanese). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions
of AIJ 2003; 568:131138.
9. Matsumoto Y, Yamada S, Akiyama H. Fracture of beam-to-column connections simulated by means of the
shaking table test using the inertial loading equipment. Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas. Balkema:
Rotterdam, 2000; 215222.
10. Kishiki S, Uehara D, Yamada S, Suzuki K, Saeki E, Wada A. New ductile steel frames limiting damage to
connection elements at the bottom flange of beam-ends: part 3 experimental evaluation of composite effects and
damage to concrete slab (in Japanese). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions of AIJ
2005; 595:123130.
11. Suita K. Flexural strength demand for beam-to-column connections in earthquake resistant design of steel
moment frames (in Japanese). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions of AIJ 2003;
567:165171.
12. Kobayashi A. Evaluation of ultimate energy dissipation capacity of steel under cyclic loading (in Japanese).
Master Thesis, submitted to Tokyo Institute of Technology; 2005.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1570
Y. JIAO ET AL.
13. Nakagomi T, Fujita T, Minami K, Lee K, Murai M. Study on beam-end detail for the method of non-scallop on
beam-to-column welded joints (in Japanese). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions
of AIJ 1997; 498:145151.
14. Architectural Institute of Japan. Japanese architectural standard specification JASS 6, steel work (in Japanese).
Tokyo: AIJ; 1996.
15. Japanese Standards Association. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) Z 2201, Test pieces for tensile test for metallic
materials, Tokyo, 1998.
16. Kato B, Akiyama H, Uchida N. Ultimate strength of structural steel members (I) (in Japanese). Transactions of
the AIJ 1966; 119:2230.
17. Yamada M, Sakae K, Tadokoro T, Shirakawa K. Elasto-plastic bending deformation of wide flange beamcolumns
under axial compression, Part I: Bending moment-curvature and bending momentdeflection relations under static
loading (in Japanese). Transactions of the AIJ 1966; 127:814.
18. Yamada S, Akiyama H. Deteriorating behavior of steel members in post-buckling range. Structural Stability and
Design. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995; 169174.
19. Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendation for design of connections in steel structures (in Japanese). AIJ:
Tokyo, 2006.
20. Suita K, Tanaka T. Flexural strength of beam web to square tube column joints (in Japanese). Steel Construction
Engineering 2000; 7(26):5158.
21. Endo T, Matsuishi M, Mitsunaga K, Kobayashi K, Takahashi K. Rainflow method, the proposal and the applications
(in Japanese). Bulletin of the Kyushu Institute of Technology Science and Technology 1974; 28:3362.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Eqe 1103

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

Eqe 1103

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Evaluation of plastic energy dissipation capacity of steel beams

Drift angle (rad.)

Relative amplitude (ai/m)

Figure 1. Recommended standard loading protocols.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

PL-450 x450 x16

H-400 x 200 x8 x13(SN400B)

RHS-400 x400 x19(BCR295)

Figure 2. Specimen details.

2. CYCLIC LOADING TESTS OF STEEL BEAMS

Nominal stress [N/mm2]

Figure 3. Coupon test results and specimen mechanical characteristics.

Figure 4. Setup of cyclic loading tests.

Column's Face line

Column's Face line

Figure 5. Definition of beam rotation.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

Figure 6. Loading histories.

2.4. Loading histories

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Beam rotation (rad)

Beam rotation (rad)

Beam rotation (rad)

Beam rotation (rad)

Beam rotation (rad)

Figure 7. Loading-deformation relationships.

Figure 8. Decomposition of beams hysteresis loops.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

Figure 9. Skeleton curves.

Figure 10. Bauschinger parts.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

3. RELEVANT EXPERIMENTS OF THE STEEL BEAMS

4. ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY OF STEEL BEAMS UNDER RANDOM LOADING

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Table I. Database details.

Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

local bending of the column tube wall

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Nominal stress (N/mm2)

Figure 14. Input stressstrain relationship models.

Figure 15. Results of the parametric study.

(beams with weld access holes)

(beams without weld access holes)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

EVALUATION OF PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

Calculated value (%)

Experimental value (%)

Figure 16. Verification of the joint efficiency calculation method.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:15531570

Actual ultimate condition

Actual ultimate condition

Ideal ultimate condition Mp

Ideal ultimate condition

Steel beams without weld access hole

Figure 18. Verification of 0 of steel beams under monotonic loading.

/0 = ln N 5/4 +1.9 (0.5N 26.5)