Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Edward Beck, Law-Crandall, Inc. C. Mark Saunders, Rutherford & Chekene, Inc.
David Houghton, Myers, Nelson, Houghton, Inc. Barry Schindler, John A. Martin & Associates
C. W. Pinkham, S. B. Barnes, Inc. Robert Schwein, Schwein-Christensen Laboratories
Allan Porush, Dames & Moore Charles Thiel Jr., Telesis Consultants
Thomas Sabol, Englekirk and Sabol, Inc.
Susan Dowty, International Conference of Building Officials Roy Johnston, Brandow & Johnston
Roger Ferch, Herrick Corporation William Mosseker, WHM Consultants
John Gross, National Institute of Standards and Technology Joseph Nicoletti, URS/Blume
Fred Herman, City of Palo Alto Richard Ranous, California Office of Emergency Services
Richard Holguin, City of Los Angeles M. P. Singh, National Science Foundation
Nestor Iwankiw, American Institute of Steel Construction John Theiss, EQE International, Inc.
ii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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); FEMA’s 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.
iii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
iv
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
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
v
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
vi
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
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 building’s individual construction characteristics, intended
occupancy and the costs associated with alternative actions. The Interim Guidelines
provided in this document for repair can restore a building’s 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 engineer’s 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:
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.
vii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 structure’s 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.
viii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
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
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
ix
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
x
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
xi
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
7.2.4 Plastic Rotation Capacity 7-7
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
xii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification andDesign of Steel Moment Frames
xiii
Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
xiv
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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;
1-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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:
1-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
• Design of new Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) buildings for seismic
resistance;
• Quality Assurance and Control in the repair, modification and construction of WSMF
buildings.
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.
1-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 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
society’s 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
1-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
Column flange
Fused zone
Beam flange
Backing bar
Fracture
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.
1-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
1-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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).
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
7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
“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:
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(Rw/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. btf/(d-tf)Fy>0.7ZxFy) 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 0.8ΣMs 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
1-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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:
“2211.7.1.1 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
1-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 Venture’s unique capability to combine the efforts of researchers, industry
representatives, code writers and practicing structural engineers is being applied to all major tasks.
1-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
1-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
• 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
1-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
1-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
1-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
2. inspection, evaluation and repair of buildings which have been affected by the
Northridge Earthquake or other 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.
1-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 1 - Introduction Design of Steel Moment Frames
1-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 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.
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.
2-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 building’s integrity, and development of strategies for the occupancy,
structural repair and/or modification of the building.
Owner’s 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.”
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.
2-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
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.
2-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 Index Dimensionless quantity indicating the ratio of a structure’s 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.
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.
2-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
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 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)
Maximum Capable The most severe ground motion likely to be experienced at a site, given the
2-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
Plastic Hinge In a flexural element, that region along a beam’s span at which flexural yielding
occurs.
Plastic Moment The moment that causes a plastic hinge to form in a flexural member.
2-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
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/Erector’s quality control system and
procedures, usually performed by the Owner’s Inspector or Special Inspector.
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)
Self Shielded FCAW A flux-cored arc welding process variation in where shielding is exclusively provided
by a flux contained within the tubular electrode.
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
2-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
2-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
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:
ANSI/AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code - Steel, published by the American Welding Society
ATLSS NSF Center on Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems at Lehigh
University
2-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
RT Radiographic Testing
UT Ultrasonic testing
VI Visual Inspection
2-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
WT Designation for a structural “T” section cut from a wide flange cross section
2.3 Notations
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%.
dj 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.
davg The mean value of the damage index for a group, considering all connections
inspected in the group
2-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
Dmax The maximum damage index for a group of connections at any floor.
Fym Mean yield strength for specified material, based on industry published data
Mc The moment demand at the center of the column when a beam mechanism is
formed
Mp That bending moment which causes a plastic hinge to form in a flexural element
of a frame, at minimum specified yield stress.
Mpr The bending moment expected to cause a plastic hinge to form in a flexural
element of a frame, considering the expected yield stress.
2-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations
Pf The probability that the damage to connections at any floor have resulted in
a damage index Di 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.
2-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 2 - Definitions, Abbreviations & Notations Design of Steel Moment Frames
2-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
Column splice
Continuity Plate Column
Weld
Shear Tab
Girder
Panel Zone
Doubler Plate
Base Plate
Frame Elevation
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 structure’s 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.
3-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
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.
G4
G1
G6
G8
G3 G2
G7
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
3-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
3-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
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 structure’s gravity load carrying strength as
well as lateral load resistance.. For related damage to column panel zones, refer to Section 3.2.5.
C7
C1 C5
C4
C2
C3
C6
3-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
3-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
W2 W1, W5
Note: See Figure 3-2 for related column damage and Figure 3-3 for girder damage
Figure 3-4 - Types of Weld Damage
3-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
3-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
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.
S3 S2
S6 S5
3-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
P4
P8
P9 P2
P7 P3
P5, P6
P1
3-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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 column’s minor axis.
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.
3-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
3-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
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.
3-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
3-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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).
Legend
70
MMI VII
MMI VIII
60
MMI IX
MMI X
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Buildings In Population Reaching or Exceeding Repair Cost Percentage
3-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 building’s 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 owner’s 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
3-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 3 - Damage Classification
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.
3-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 3 - Damage Classification Design of Steel Moment Frames
3-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
4. POST-EARTHQUAKE 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.
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:
4-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 building’s 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.
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:
4-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
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.
4-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
Regardless of the magnitude of the earthquake event, detailed evaluation should be considered
for a building if any of the following apply:
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.
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
4-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
4-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
4-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake 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,
Fy 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 (Rw 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.
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.
4-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 dj (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 building’s 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.
4-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
4-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
4-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
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.
4-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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, dj, for each inspected connection (Section
4.3.4)
Step 5: Determine the average damage index (davg) 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, Dmax.
(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.
4-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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 groups— one 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
building’s 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 building’s 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.
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
4-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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:
4-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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 Minimum number of Number of Connections Minimum number of
in Group1 connections to be in Group1 connections to be
inspected 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.
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
4-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
1. At least one connection is selected on every column face of every line of moment-
resisting framing in the group;
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.
4-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
Connections are selected for inspection in accordance with the following criteria:
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 building’s 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.
4-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 dj > 5 (Table 4-3a or b) are discovered; and,
3) not more than 10% of the total connections inspected are discovered to have dj > 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 building’s 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.
4-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
4-19
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
Girder, Column Shear Tab Damage Girder, Column Shear Tab Damage
or Weld Damage Damage Index or Weld 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.
4-20
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
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.
4-21
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
Assign damage indices, dj, 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:
The results of these added connection inspections, performed in this step are not included in
the calculation of average damage index davg per Section 4.3.6 but are included in the calculation
4-22
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
of the maximum likely damage index Dmax and probability of excessive damage, P, per Section
4.3.7.
For each group of connections, determine the estimated average value of the damage index
for the group (davg) and its standard deviation (σ) from the equations:
1 n dj
d avg = ∑
n j=1 10 (4-1)
2
1 n d j
σ =
2
∑ − d avg
n − 1 j=1 10
(4-2)
where: “n” is the number of connections in the sample selected for inspection under step 2
(Section 4.3.3), and
“dj” 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 6— Determine 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 “Dmax” is estimated based on the damage indices determined for the
connections actually inspected, and the probability “P” that Dmax 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 “Dmax” can be
calculated directly from the known values of the damage indices of the inspected connections.
If some connections in the group have not been inspected, determine the expected maximum
damage index at a floor “Dmax” 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 (4-3)
σ
S= (4-4)
k
4-23
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 Pf, from Table 4-4. Pf 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 − Pf )
q
(4-6)
Table 4-4 - Pf as a function of b
b Pf - (%) b Pf - (%)
-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
Finally, for each floor “i” in the group for which an inspection has been performed, determine
the cumulative damage index, “Di”, from the equation:
4-24
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
(k i − m i )d avg 1 mi d j
Di = + ∑ (4-7)
ki k i j =1 10
where: ki is the total number of connections in the group at floor “i”
mi is the number of inspected connections in the group at floor “i” including
the additional connections inspected under step 4
Take “Dmax” as the largest of the “Di” values calculated for each floor of the group.
If all connections in a group have been inspected, determine the damage index for each floor
“i” in the group from the equation:
ki
1 dj
Di =
ki
∑ 10
j =1
(4-8)
where: “ki” is the total number of connections in the group at floor “i”
Take “Dmax” as the maximum of the “Di” values calculated for each floor of the group.
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.
4-25
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 .
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.
4-26
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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 Dmax (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
4-27
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 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
4-28
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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
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.
7) Calculations of davg, Di, and Dmax for each group, and if all connections in a group
were not inspected, Pf and P.
8) Calculations demonstrating the safety of the building where Dmax > 33% and the
structural engineer has determined that an unsafe condition does not exist.
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
4-29
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
1. All of the connections in a group are expected to perform in the same statistical
manner;
4-30
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
2. The probability of damage to each connection is uniform over the group, that is, all
connections have the same probability of failure; and,
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.
Commentary: It is well known that torsion can play an important role in the
distribution of loads on a building’s 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 building’s 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.
4-31
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
For buildings with moment frames in only one direction, it is recommended that
the investigation procedure have at least two distinct groupings of connections.
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 Dmax exceeds 33% and the engineer has
determined that an unsafe condition does not exist.
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.
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.
4-32
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
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.
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.
4-33
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
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:
c. Ability of selected materials and framing systems to meet performance criteria with
given loads and configuration.
g. Presentation of the conclusions of the reviewer identifying any areas which need
further review, investigation and/or clarifications.
h. Recommendations, if any.
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.
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.
The structural engineer-of-record should retain the full responsibility for the structural design
as outlined in professional practice laws and regulations.
4-34
Interim Guidelines:
Evaulation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation
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.
4-35
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 4 - Post-Earthquake Evaluation Design of Steel Moment Frames
4-36
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
5. POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION
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.
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).
5-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 (dj
per Chapter 4 greater than 5) then damage is also commonly found in the panel
zone or shear tab areas.
5-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
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.
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.
5-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
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.
A detailed structural analysis of the building need not be performed prior to performing
building inspections. At the engineer’s 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
5-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
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.
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.
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
5-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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”
12”
6”
5-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
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.
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
5-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
5-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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,
5-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
2. Determine the extent of cracks found visually and by magnetic particle test.
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.
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
5-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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:
5-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
5-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
5-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
5-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
5-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection
5-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 5 - Post-Earthquake Building Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
5-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 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 building’s 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.
6-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
6-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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:
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.
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
6-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
6-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
Removed backing
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.
Air-arc gouge
Reweld
Removed backing
Backgouge , repair and
reinforce per Figure 6-1.
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
6-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
Air-arc gouge
Reweld
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.
Remove Shear Tab
Replace upon completion
tw
Shore Beam
6-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
Portion of E beam
Weld access hole flange removed
in column web 45o
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 10o 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.
6-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
Weld access
hole and
backing
New flange
6” minimum
splice plate
10o
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 10o, to channel slag out of joint.
Typical
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.
6-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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”).
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.
6-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
6-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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
6-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
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.
6-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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.
6-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
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.
6-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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 welder’s 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.
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.
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.
6-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
6-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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.
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.
6-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 contractor’s WPS, with
strict adherence to the preheat requirements.
6-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
6-19
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
6-20
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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.
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
6-21
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
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.
6-22
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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
6-23
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
6-24
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
6.6.3 Criteria
Undeformed
frame Deformed frame shape
Plastic Hinges
h
drift angle - θ
L’
6-25
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
6-26
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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 building’s 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 φshould 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 Fy
Shear Vs = 0.55 Fy d t
Axial compression Psc = 1.7 Fa A
Axial tension Pst = Fy A
Connectors
Full Penetration welds Fy A
Partial Penetration welds 1.7 allowable (see commentary)
Bolts and fillet welds 1.7 allowable
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
6-27
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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, TI, the structure
period, T, calculated in accordance with UBC-94 Section 1628 {NEHRP-94 Section 2.3.3.1}
should be used.
6-28
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
6-29
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
6-30
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
6-31
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 Fy,
throughout the loading history required to achieve the required plastic rotation
capacity, as indicated in a), above.
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.
6-32
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
plate for purposes of calculation. The permissible strength for weld metal should be taken in
accordance with the building code.
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.
6-33
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
6-34
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
Beam depth - d
Plastic
hinge Connection
reinforcement
d/3
Edge of reinforced
Edge of reinforced
L’
connection
connection
L
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.
where: α is a coefficient that accounts for the effects of strain hardening and modeling
uncertainty, taken as:
6-35
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
Fya 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 Fym, from
table 6-3 may be used.
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.
6-36
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
L/2
Plastic
hinge P Note: if 2Mpr /L’is less
then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this
case P/2 + wL’/2),
L’ then the plastic hinge
d/3 location will shift and L’
L must be adjusted,
accordingly
P
VA
w
Mpr Mpr
“A”
Vp L’
Plastic
Plastic
hinge
hinge
Mf Mpr Mpr
Mc
Vp dc
Vp
x
x+dc/2
6-37
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
where: Zc is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection
Fyc is the minimum specified yield stress for the column above and below
fa is the axial load in the column above and below
Mc 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.
6-38
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
3b c t c f 2
V = 0.55Fy d c t 1 + (11-1)
dbdct
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.
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.
6-39
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
Thickened flange
d
WT, trimmed
d/4
1
2
or or
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
6-40
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
better performance. Acceptable levels of flexural strength were maintained during large
inelastic deformations of the plastic hinge for both specimens.
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
d
d/3
1
2
or
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.
6-41
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
d/2, typical
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
6-42
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
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.
6-43
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
2
1
tested configuration
d/2
d
alternate configuration
Typical
Typical
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
demolition of the existing slab. Access to the bottom of the top flange requires overhead welding
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.
6-44
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
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.
Quantitative Results:
Separate Top & Bottom Side Plates
No. of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W36 x 150
Column Size: W14 x 426
Plastic Rotation achieved-
2 Specimens : >.015 radian
6-45
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
Quantitative Results:
No. of specimens tested: 3
Girder Size: W36 x 150
Column Size: W14 x 426
6-46
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair and Modification
6-47
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 6 - Post-Earthquake Repair & Modification Design of Steel Moment Frames
6-48
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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
7-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
document. However, the acceptance criteria for connections may be applied to type FR bolted
connections as well.
Design of frames to remain elastic under unreduced (Rw {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 Rw = 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..
7-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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:
1. The strength of the girder in flexure.
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined by Formula (11-1).
7-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
7.2.2 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 φshould 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 Fy
Shear Vs = 0.55 Fy d t
Axial compression Psc = 1.7 Fa A
Axial tension Pst = Fy A
Connectors
Full Penetration welds Fy A
Partial Penetration welds 1.7 allowable (see commentary)
Bolts and fillet welds 1.7 allowable
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.
7-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
Undeformed
frame Deformed frame shape
Plastic Hinges
h
drift angle - θ
L’
7-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 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.
If the types of damage described above are unacceptable for a given building,
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
7-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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:
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 building’s
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 TI.
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
7-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
7-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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
building’s 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 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
7-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
WSMF design should consider all effects of connection modifications on the response and
performance of the frame.
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.)
7-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
Connection design by calculations alone may be acceptable under the following conditions:
7-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
7-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
d) Cover plates, continuity plates, web tabs, bolts, and doubler plates.
f) Induced stresses because of restraint conditions on the welds and connection members.
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.
7-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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 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 Fy, 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.
7-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
7-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
7-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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, 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.
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:
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.
7-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
Beam depth - d
Plastic
hinge
d/3
L’
Edge of reinforced
Edge of reinforced
connection
connection
L
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.
Determine the probable value of the plastic moment, Mpr, at the location of the plastic hinges
as:
M pr = βM p = βZ b Fy (7-2)
where: ß 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, ß should be taken as 1.4 for ASTM A572 and
for A913, Grades 50 and 65 steels. Where adequate testing has been performed ß
should be permitted to be taken as 1.2 for these materials.
7-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
Expected Yield: The expected yield strength, for purposes of computing (Mpr) may be
taken as:
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.
Fy 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 Mpr.. 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.
β = [0.95 (54 ksi to 58 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) 1.2) = 1.35 t0 1.45, say 1.4
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
7-19
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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/2
Plastic
hinge P Note: if 2Mpr /L’is less
then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this
case P/2 + wL’/2),
L’ then the plastic hinge
d/3 location will shift and L’
L must be adjusted,
accordingly
P
VA
w
Mpr Mpr
“A”
Vp L’
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 7-4 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the beam shown in
Figure 7-3.
7-20
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
Plastic
Plastic
hinge
hinge
Mf Mpr Mpr
Mc
Vp dc
Vp
x
x+dc/2
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:
where: Zc is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection
Fyc is the minimum specified yield stress for the column above and below
fa is the axial load in the column above and below
Mc is the moment calculated at the center of the column in accordance with
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.
7-21
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
The adequacy of the shear strength of the column panel zone should be checked. For this
purpose, the term 0.8ΣMf should be substituted for the term 0.8ΣMs in UBC-94 Section
2211.7.2.1 {0.9ΣφbMp in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1}, repeated below for convenience of
reference. Mf is the calculated moment at the face of the column, when the beam mechanism
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 0.8ΣMs of the girders framing into
the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel zone shear strength may be obtained from the
following formula:
3b c t c f 2
V = 0.55Fy d c t 1 + (11-1)
dbdct
7-22
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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
7-23
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
7-24
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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 connections incorporating haunches, continuity plates should be provided opposite the
joint of the haunch flange with the column flange.
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.
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.
7-25
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
7-26
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
7-27
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
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.
7-28
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
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.
7-29
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
Performance is dependent on properly executed girder flange welds. The joint can be subject
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.
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.
d
WT WT
d/3
1
2
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
7-30
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
7-31
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
WT
d
d/3
1
2
or
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.
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
7-32
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
Quantitative Results:
Separate Top & Bottom Side Plates
No. of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W36 x 150
Column Size: W14 x 455
Plastic Rotation achieved-
2 Specimens :0.015 radian
7-33
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
of this connection has applied for US and foreign patents. Further information on technical data
for this configuration, may be obtained from the developer.
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.
Quantitative Results:
No. of specimens tested: 3
Girder Size: W36 x 150
7-34
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
Symmetrical Unsymmetrical
Weakened
Segment
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
7-35
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
Quantitative Results:
No. of specimens tested: 2
Girder Size: W30 x 99
Column Size: W14 x 176
Plastic Rotation achieved- 0.03 radian
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.
Steel
Shims
7-36
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
7-37
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
PP
1/4” Slot
Typical
3/4” Hole
7-38
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
7-39
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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 1.6MS/VS), 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.
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,
7-40
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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.
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.
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
7-41
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
These members are part of a building’s 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.
7-42
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 7 - New Construction
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..
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.
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
7-43
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 7 - New Construction Design of Steel Moment Frames
7-44
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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 Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates
Grade D
ASTM A500 Cold-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds &
(Grades B & C) Shapes
ASTM A501 Hot-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing
ASTM A572 High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Steels of Structural Quality
(Grades 42 & 50)
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.
8-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
8-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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.
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
8-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
8-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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
Standard Deviation [ s ] 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03
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.
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 (Fya,),
measured tensile strength (Fua ) and Charpy V-Notch energy rating (CVN).
8-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
Table 8-5 - Sample Steel Properties from a Building Affected by the Northridge Earthquake
Shape Fya1 ksi Fua, 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.
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)
8-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
bf/2 CL
bf/3
tf/2
Typical
CVN
Specimen
ASTM A673
CVN
Specimen
AISC- LRFD
A3-1c
Figure 8-1 - Standard Locations for Charpy V-Notch Specimen Extraction, Longitudinal Only
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.
8-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
8-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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.
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.
8-9
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
8.2 Welding
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.
Welding should be performed within the parameters established by the electrode manufacturer and
the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), required under AWS D1.1.
8-10
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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 manufacturer’s 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.
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 manufacturer’s 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.
8-11
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
8-12
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & 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
be incorporated into the SMAW filler metal with a reduction in impact toughness
properties.
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".
8-13
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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 WPS’s 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 WPS’s are required to meet these code
requirements. Further restrictions on suitable electrode diameters are not
recommended.
8-14
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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:
3. Postheat.
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.
8-15
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
8-16
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding
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.
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.
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.”
8-17
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 8 - Metallurgy & Welding Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
8-18
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance
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.
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
9-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
The structural engineer or designated welding engineer should perform a review of the
Fabricator/Erector’s Quality Control program, equipment condition, and availability of equipment
and qualified personnel. The review should include the following:
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.
9-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance
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.
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.
9-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
9-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance
accepted parts; the status of all rejected joints; NDT test reports; and other such information as
may be required.
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.
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.
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.
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
9-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance Design of Steel Moment Frames
9-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance
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.
9-7
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 9 - Quality Control/Quality Assurance Design of Steel Moment Frames
9-8
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection
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.
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.
10-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
10-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection
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.
10-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 10 - Visual Inspection Design of Steel Moment Frames
10-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing
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.
11-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
11-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing
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.
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.
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 45o and 90o ,
with the maximum influence occurring at 90o to the flux field. Therefore each area tested should
have the electromagnetic yoke positioned at 0o then at 90o .
Commentary: MT’s 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.
11-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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
11-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing
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.
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.
11-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Chapter 11 - Nondestructive Testing Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
11-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames References
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.
12-1
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
References Design of Steel Moment Frames
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.
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.
Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
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.
12-2
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames References
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.
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
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-
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:
Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-05. SAC, 1995.
Engelhardt, M.D., et. al. Testing of Repaired Welded Beam Column Assemblies, SAC,
publication pending (title not exact), 1995.
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.
12-3
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
References Design of Steel Moment Frames
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., O’Sullivan 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.
12-4
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames References
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
Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-
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 Mw 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:
Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-05. SAC, 1995.
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., 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:
Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behavior
SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
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.
12-5
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
References Design of Steel Moment Frames
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
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.
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.
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.
12-6
Interim Guidelines:
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Steel Moment Frames References
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
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-
04 Part 2 SAC, December, 1995.
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.
12-7
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 267b / June, 1999
Interim Guidelines
Advisory No. 2
Supplement to FEMA-267
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
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
June, 1999
i
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 SEAOC’s 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. CUREe’s 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.
ii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
iii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 FEMA’s 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.
iv
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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;
• 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:
• specify weld filler metals with rated toughness values for critical welded joints;
• 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;
v
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
• 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.
vi
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
vii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
viii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
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
ix
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 5-4
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
x
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
xi
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
xii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
xiii
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
xiv
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.1 at this time.
1.2 Scope
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.2 at this time.
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
Introduction
1-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
• 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 society’s 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
1-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Column flange
Fused zone
Beam flange
Backing bar
Fracture
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.
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
1-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Introduction
1-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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).
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
1-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
“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:
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(Rw/8) times the girder shear resulting from the prescribed seismic forces.
Introduction
1-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Where the flexural strength of the girder flanges is greater than 70 percent of the flexural strength of
the entire section, (i.e. btf/(d-tf)Fy>0.7ZxFy) 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 0.8ΣMs 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
1-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
“2211.7.1.1 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.
1.5 Sponsors
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.5 at this time.
1.7 Intent
Introduction
1-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.7 at this time.
1.8 Limitations
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 1.8 at this time.
Introduction
1-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Introduction
1-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
12-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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. 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
12-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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, (Commentary FEMA 223), Washington D.C., January,
1992.
Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings -1994 Edition FEMA 222A, (Commentary FEMA223A), Washington D.C., July,
1995.
Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
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:
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.
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
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-
04 Part 1 SAC, December, 1995.
References
12-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-05. SAC, 1995.
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,
publication pending (title not exact), 19951996.
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:
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.
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.
References
12-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Hajjar, J.F., O’Sullivan 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
Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-
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 Mw 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:
Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994 SAC95-05. SAC, 1995.
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.
References
12-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behavior
SAC 95-09. SAC, September, 1996
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
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.
Popov, E.P. and Yang, T.S. Steel Seismic Moment Resisting Connections. University of
California at Berkeley, May, 1995.
SAC, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Steel Moment Frames, October 23-24, 1994
SAC-94-01. Sacramento, CA, December, 1994.
References
12-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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 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
12-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, SAC 95-
04 Part 2 SAC, December, 1995.
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.
References
12-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.2 at this time.
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.
3-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
W3
W4
W2 W1, W5
Note: See Figure 3-2 for related column damage and Figure 3-3 for girder damage
Figure 3-4 - Types of Weld Damage
3-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
3-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.4 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.5 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 3.2.6 at this time.
3-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
3-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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.
3-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
3-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
3-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
4. POST-EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
4.1 Scope
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.1.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.1.2 at this time.
4-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
Except as indicated in Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2, below, Ddetailed evaluations should
include inspection of the building’s 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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.3.1 at this time.
4-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.3.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.2.4 at this time.
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.
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.
4-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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.
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, dj , for each inspected connection (Section
4.3.4)
Step 5: Determine the average damage index (davg) 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, Dmax.
(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 Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.3 at this time.
4-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.3.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.3.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.3.3 at this time.
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 building’s 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.
4-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
4-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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.
Girder, Column Shear Tab Damage Girder, Column Shear Tab Damage
or Weld Damage Damage Index or Weld 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
Post Earthquake Evaluation
4-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
the tables. A full reporting of the basis for these different values should be provided to the
building official, upon request.
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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.5 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.6 at this time.
4-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
4.3.7 Step 6— Determine the Probability that the Connections in a Group at a Floor Level
Sustained Excessive Damage
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.7 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.7.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.7.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.8 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.3.9 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.3 at this time.
4.5.4 Reports
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.4 at this time.
4-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.5 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.6 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.7 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 4.5.8 at this time.
4-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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
building’s 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.
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
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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.
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.
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.1.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.1.3 at this time.
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
5.2 Preparation
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.2.1.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.2.1.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.2.1.3 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.2.1.4 at this time.
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.
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
Exposed surfaces
6”
6”
6”
Fireproofing
Figure 5-1a Recommended Zone for Fireproofing Removal for Initial Inspections
6”
12”
6”
Fireproofing
Figure 5-1b Recommended Zone for Removal of Fireproofing for Complete Inspections
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.1.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.1.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.1.3 at this time.
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.1.4 at this time.
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.
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
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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.
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.
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
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.4 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 5.3.5 at this time.
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC99-01
Post-Earthquake Inspection
5-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
6.1 Scope
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.1 at this time.
6.2 Shoring
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.2 at this time.
6.4 Preparation
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.4 at this time.
6.5 Execution
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.5 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.2 at this time.
6.6.3 Criteria
6-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
formation of the plastic hinge at the predetermined location, together with forces resulting from
gravity loads.
Undeformed
frame Deformed frame shape
Plastic Hinges
h
drift angle - θ
L’
6-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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 building’s basic lateral force resisting system.
6-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
6.6.4.1 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
6-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
2211.4.2 {NEHRP-91 Section 10.2, except that the factor φshould 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 Ms = Z F y
Shear Vs = 0.55 Fy d t
Axial compression Psc = 1.7 Fa A
Axial tension Pst = Fy A
Connectors
Full Penetration welds Fy A
Partial Penetration welds 1.7 allowable (see commentary)
Bolts and fillet welds 1.7 allowable
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.
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
6-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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, LCL. 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.
cL
LCL
∆CL
lh
∆ CL
θp = LCL
6-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
θ p = θ ph
( LCL − lh )
(6.6.5-1)
LCL
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, TI, 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 θph. 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.
6-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
It should be noted that the connection assembly capacity criteria for the
modification of existing buildings, recommended by these Interim Guidelines, is
6-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.6.1 at this time.
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 Fy,
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
6-11
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 specimen’s 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.
6.6.6.3 Calculations
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.6.3 at this time.
6-12
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
6-13
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-14
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-15
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-16
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Plastic
hinge
Connection
s h=
d/4
sh = reinforcement
d/3
Edge of reinforced
Edge of reinforced
L’
connection
connection
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
6-17
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
where: α is a coefficient that accounts for the effects of strain hardening and modeling
uncertainty, taken as:
Fya 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 Fym, from
table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1 may be used.
6-18
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
When the Interim Guidelines were first published, Eq. 6.6.6.3.3-1 included a
coefficient, α, 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 α 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.
6-19
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
L/2
Plastic
hinge P Note: if 2Mpr /L’is less
then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this
case P/2 + wL’/2),
L’ then the plastic hinge
sh location will shift and L’
L must be adjusted,
accordingly
P
VA
w
Mpr Mpr
“A”
Vp L’
Plastic
Plastic
hinge
hinge
Mf Mpr Mpr
Mc
Vp dc
Vp
x
x+dc/2
6-20
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
where: Zc is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection
Fyc is the minimum specified yield stress for the column above and below
fa is the axial load in the column above and below
ΣMc is the moment calculated at the center of the column in accordance with
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, Mpr, within each beam in the connection.
6-21
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Vc =
∑ [M pr ] (
+ V p ( L − L ' ) / 2) − V f hb + d p / 2 )
ht
hb + d p + ht
Vp Mct M ct = Vc ht
Mpr (
M cb = Vc + V f hb )
∑
dp
Vf
M c = M ct + M cb
Mpr
Mcb
Vp Note:
The quantities Mpr, Vp, L, and L’are
hb
as previously identified.
Vf is the incremental shear distributed
Vc+Vf to the column at the floor level.
Other quantities are as shown.
(L-L’)/2
6-22
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
0.8ΣMs 0.8ΣMf of the girders framing into the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel
zone shear strength may be obtained from the following formula:
3b c t c f 2
V = 0.55Fy d c t 1 + (11-1)
dbdct
6-23
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
permitted by the code, thereby avoiding potential failures due to this kinking
action on the column flanges.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.7 at this time.
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
6-24
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
6-25
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.7.2 at this time.
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.
6-26
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
d/2, typical
Top &Bottom Top &Bottom
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.
6-27
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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. 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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.7.4 at this time.
6-28
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.7.5 at this time.
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.
6-29
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
High tensile
threaded rod Pipe
Steel
casting Plate
Bolts
Bolts
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.
6-30
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
6-31
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Design of frames to remain elastic under unreduced (Rw {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
7-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 Rw = 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..
New Construction
7-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
1. The strength of the girder in flexure.
2. The moment corresponding to development of the panel zone shear strength as determined by Formula (11-1).
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
7-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
7.2.2.1 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 φshould 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 Ms = Z F y
Shear Vs = 0.55 Fy d t
Axial compression Psc = 1.7 Fa A
Axial tension Pst = Fy A
Connectors
Full Penetration welds Fy A
Partial Penetration welds 1.7 allowable (see commentary)
Bolts and fillet welds 1.7 allowable
New Construction
7-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Undeformed
frame Deformed frame shape
Plastic Hinges
h
drift angle - θ
L’
New Construction
7-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
New Construction
7-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
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.
If the types of damage described above are unacceptable for a given building,
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.
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
7-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
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, LCL. This convention is
illustrated in Figure 7.2.4-1.
New Construction
7-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
cL
LCL
∆CL
lh
∆ CL
θp = LCL
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:
θ p = θ ph
( LCL − lh )
(7.2.4-1)
LCL
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 building’s
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
7-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 TI. 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 Rw (R) or RWi (Ri ), 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 θph. 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:
L − L'
θ p = 0.0251 + (7.2.4-2)
L'
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.
New Construction
7-11
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-12
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 building’s 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.
New Construction
7-13
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
In order to codify the need for more redundant structural systems, the 1997
Uniform Building Code has specifically adopted a reliability coefficient, ρx, 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 Council’s
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.
20
ρ = 2− (7.25-1)
rmax Ax
where:
rmax x = 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, rmax x 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.
Ax = 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 ρx 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 ρx of 1.1.
New Construction
7-14
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.2.6 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.2.7 at this time.
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
7-15
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.3.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.3.3 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.4.1 at this time.
The minimum acceptance criteria for connection qualification for specimens tested in
accordance with these Interim Guidelines should be as follows:
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to the plastic strength of
the girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength Fy, 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:
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, Fy 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
7-16
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 specimen’s 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.
New Construction
7-17
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
7-18
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
New Construction
7-19
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-20
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-21
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 as well as larger weldments with potential for enlarged heat
affected zones, higher residual stresses and conditions of restraint.
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, 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.
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
7-22
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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:
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.
Plastic
hinge
Connection
sh=
d/4
sh= reinforcement
d/3
Edge of reinforced
Edge of reinforced
L’
connection
connection
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
7-23
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
Determine the probable value of the plastic moment, Mpr, at the location of the plastic hinges
as:
M pr = βM p = βZ b Fy (7.5.2.2-12)
where: ß 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 β 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, ß should be taken as 1.4 for ASTM A572 and for A913,
Grades 50 and 65 steels. Where adequate testing has been performed ß should be
permitted to be taken as 1.2 for these materials.
Expected Yield: The expected yield strength, for purposes of computing (Mpr) may be
taken as:
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
7-24
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Fy 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 Mpr.. 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.
β = [0.95 (54 ksi to 58 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) 1.2) = 1.35 t0 1.45, say 1.4
β = [0.95 (54 ksi to 59 ksi)/50 ksi] (1.1) = 1.13 to 1.21, say 1.2
New Construction
7-25
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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/2
Plastic Note: Gravity loads can
hinge P w effect the location of the
plastic hinges. If 2Mpr /L’
is less then the gravity shear in
the free body (in this case
L’ P/2 + wL’/2), then the plastic
sh hinge location will shift
L significantly and L’must be
adjusted, accordingly
P
VA
w
Mpr Mpr
“A”
Vp L’
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 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
7-26
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Plastic
Plastic
hinge
hinge
Mf Mpr Mpr
Mc
Vp dc
Vp
x
x+dc/2
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:
where: Zc is the plastic modulus of the column section above and below the connection
Fyc is the minimum specified yield stress for the column above and below
fa is the axial load in the column above and below
ΣMc is the moment calculated at the center of the column in accordance with
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, Mpr, within each beam in the connection.
New Construction
7-27
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 ΣMc 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, ΣMc 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.
Vc =
∑ [M pr ] ( )
+ V p ( L − L ' ) / 2) − V f hb + d p / 2
ht
hb + d p + ht
Vp Mct M ct = Vc ht
Mpr (
M cb = Vc + V f hb )
∑
dp
Vf
M c = M ct + M cb
Mpr
Mcb
Vp Note:
The quantities Mpr, Vp, L, and L’are
hb
as previously identified.
Vf is the incremental shear distributed
Vc+Vf to the column at the floor level.
Other quantities are as shown.
(L-L’)/2
New Construction
7-28
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
the total column height, such as can occur in some haunched and side-plated
connections, the definition of ΣMc 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 ΣMc 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.
The adequacy of the shear strength of the column panel zone should be checked. For this
purpose, the term 0.8ΣMf should be substituted for the term 0.8ΣMs in UBC-94 Section
2211.7.2.1 {0.9ΣφbMp in NEHRP-91 Section 10.10.3.1}, repeated below for convenience of
reference. Mf is the calculated moment at the face of the column, when the beam mechanism
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
0.8ΣMs 0.8ΣMf of the girders framing into the column flanges at the joint. The joint panel
zone shear strength may be obtained from the following formula:
3b c t c f 2
V = 0.55Fy d c t 1 + (11-1)
dbdct
New Construction
7-29
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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.
2 2
4a + l
R = radius of cut =
8a
b
f
c l
Figure 7.5.3-1 Geometry of Reduced Beam Section
New Construction
7-30
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Circular
Straight Tapered
Reduced
Section Drilled Constant Drilled Tapered
New Construction
7-31
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
7-32
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 ½ to ¾ of the beam width, bf, 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, sh,, may be taken as ½ 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, Zx, 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.
Beam depth - d
reduced
section
l
Plastic
hinge L’
sh
c
New Construction
7-33
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
Mf/Sc, 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 Mf is
the moment at the face of the column flange, calculated as indicated in Section 7.5.2.4,
and Sc 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 beam’s expected
plastic moment capacity. The depth of cut-out, a, should be selected to be less than or
equal to bf/4.
The plastic section modulus of the RBS may be calculated from the equation:
(
Z RBS = Z x − bR t f d − t f ) (7.5.3.2-1)
where:
ZRBS is the plastic section modulus of the reduced beam section
Zx is the plastic modulus of the unreduced section
bR is the total width of material removed from the beam flange
tf is the thickness of the beam flange
d is the depth of the beam
The probable plastic moment, Mpr, at the RBS shall be calculated from the equation:
where:
ZRBS is the plastic section modulus of the reduced beam section
β is as defined in Section 7.5.2.2
New Construction
7-34
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 Mpr determined in accordance with Eq. 7.5.3.2-2.
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
7-35
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
The adequacy of the column panel zone should be checked in accordance with the procedures
of Section 7.5.2.6.
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.
New Construction
7-36
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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 2500ry/Fy.
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
7-37
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-38
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
7-39
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
connection designs based on tested configurations, the web connection design should be
consistent with the conditions in the tested assemblies.
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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.8.3 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.8.4 at this time.
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
7-40
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
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
7-41
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
7-42
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
cover plate
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.9.2 at this time.
New Construction
7-43
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 7-7 - Bottom Haunch Connection Modification
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
7-44
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-45
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.9.4 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.9.5 at this time.
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
7-46
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
7-47
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Straight Tapered
Circular
Reduced
Section
Quantitative Results:
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)
Girder Size: W21 x 44 to W36 x 150
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)
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.9.7 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.9.8 at this time.
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
7-48
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
New Construction
7-49
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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
7-50
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
High tensile
Bracket threaded rod Pipe
Plate
Bolts
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
7-51
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.1 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.2 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.3 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.4 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.5 at this time.
New Construction
7-52
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.6 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.7 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 7.10.8 at this time.
New Construction
7-53
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
New Construction
7-54
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 Specification Description
ASTM A36 Carbon Structural Steel
ASTM A283 Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates
Grade D
ASTM A500 Cold-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds &
(Grades B & C) Shapes
ASTM A501 Hot-Formed Welded & Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing
ASTM A572 High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Steels of Structural Quality
(Grades 42 & 50)
ASTM A588 High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel (weathering steel)
ASTM A9921 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.
8-1
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
8-2
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
There are no modifications to the Guidelines of Section 8.1.2 at this time.
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.
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
8-3
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
Minimum Yield Ultimate Tensile Minimum Elongation Minimum Elongation
ASTM Strength or Yield Strength, Ksi % %
Point, Ksi in 2 inches in 8 inches
A36 36 Min. 58-801 212 20
4
A242 42 Min.. 63 MIN. 213 18
A572, Gr. 42 42 Min. 60 Min. 24 20
A572, GR50 50 Min. 65 MIN. 212 18
A588 50 Min. 70 MIN. 213 18
A709, GR36 36 Min. 58-80 212 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.
8-4
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
Standard Deviation [ s ] 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03
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
8-5
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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 (Fya,), measured tensile strength (Fua ) 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 Fya1 ksi Fua, 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.
8-6
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
8-7
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
σ
Yield Strength
Offset ε
Figure 8.1.3-1 Typical Stress - Strain Curve for Structural Steel
8-8
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
8-9
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 70oF. 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.
8-10
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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.
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.
8.2 Welding
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.1 at this time.
8-11
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
Welding should be performed within the parameters established by the electrode manufacturer and
the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), required under AWS D1.1.
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
8-12
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 manufacturer’s 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.
8-13
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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
8-14
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
be incorporated into the SMAW filler metal with a reduction in impact toughness
properties.
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.
8-15
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
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 WPS’s 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 WPS’s are required to meet these code
requirements. Further restrictions on suitable electrode diameters are not
recommended.
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
8-16
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
H2/100g in the weld metal can be maintained (H16, H8, and H4 respectively)
under most welding conditions .
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.4 at this time.
8.2.5 Postheat
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.5 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.6 at this time.
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.7 at this time.
8-17
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 SAC 99-01
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 8.2.8 at this time.
8-18