Chap6 2

Interim Guidelines Advisory No.
2 SAC 99-01
6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION
6.1 Scope
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.1 at this time.
6.2 Shoring
6.3 Repair Details

6.4 Preparation
6.5 Execution
6.6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION
6.6.1 Definition of Modification
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.1 at this time.
6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections
6.6.3 Criteria
Connection modification intended to permit inelastic frame behavior should be proportioned

so that the required plastic deformation of the frame may be accommodated through the
development of plastic hinges at pre-determined locations within the girder spans, as indicated in
Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1. Beam-column connections should be designed with sufficient
strength (through the use of cover plates, haunches, side plates, etc.) to force development of the
plastic hinge away from the column face. This condition may also be attained through local
weakening of the beam section, at the desired location for plastic hinge formation. All elements
of the connection should have adequate strength to develop the forces resulting from the
Post-earthquake Repair and Modification
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’
Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior
Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is typically

accommodated through the development of inelastic flexural or shear strains
within discrete regions of the structure. At large inelastic strains these regions
can develop into plastic hinges, which can accommodate significant concentrated
rotations at constant (or nearly constant) load through yielding at tensile fibers
and buckling at compressive fibers. If a sufficient number of plastic hinges
develop in a frame, a mechanism is formed and the frame can deform laterally in
a plastic manner. This behavior is accompanied by significant energy
dissipation, particularly if a number of members are involved in the plastic
behavior, as well as substantial local damage to the highly strained elements.
The formation of hinges in columns, as opposed to beams, is undesirable, as this
results in the formation of weak story mechanisms with relatively few elements
participating, and consequently little energy dissipation occurring. In addition,
such mechanisms also result in local damage to critical gravity load bearing
elements.
The prescriptive connection contained in the UBC and NEHRP Recommended

Provisions prior to the Northridge Earthquake was based on the assumed
development of plastic hinge zones within the beams at adjacent to the face of the
column, or within the column panel zone itself. If the plastic hinge develops in
the column panel zone, the resulting column deformation results in very large
secondary stresses on the beam flange to column flange joint, a condition which
can contribute to brittle failure. If the plastic hinge forms in the beam, at the face
of the column, this can result in very large through-thickness strain demands on
6-2
the column flange material and large inelastic strain demands on the weld metal
and surrounding heat affected zones stress and strain demands on the welded
beam flange to column flange joint. These conditions can also lead to brittle
joint failure. Although ongoing research may reveal conditions of material
properties, design and detailing configurations that permit connections with
yielding occurring at the column face to perform reliably, for the present, it is
recommended In order to achieve more reliable performance, it is recommended
that the connection of the beam to the column be modified to be sufficiently
strong to force the inelastic action (plastic hinge) away from the column face.
Plastic hinges in steel beams have finite length, typically on the order of half the
beam depth. Therefore, the location for the plastic hinge should be shifted at
least that distance away from the face of the column. When this is done, the
flexural demands on the columns are increased. Care must be taken to assure
that weak column conditions are not inadvertently created by local strengthening
of the connections.
It should be noted that connection modifications of the type described above,

while believed to be effective in preventing brittle connection fractures, will not
prevent structural damage from occurring. Brittle connection fractures are
undesirable because they result in a substantial reduction in the lateral-force-
resisting strength of the structure which, in extreme cases, can result in instability
and collapse. Connections modified as described in these Interim Guidelines
should experience many fewer such brittle fractures than unmodified connections.
However, the formation of a plastic hinge within the span of a beam is not a
completely benign event. Beams which have formed such hinges may exhibit
large buckling and yielding deformation, damage which typically must be
repaired. The cost of such repairs could be comparable to the costs incurred in
repairing fracture damage experienced in the Northridge Earthquake. The
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 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.
It is important to recognize that in frames with relatively short bays, the

flexural hinging indicated in Figure 6.6.3-1 may not be able to form. If the
effective flexural length (L’in the figure) of beams in a frame becomes too short,
then the beams or girders will yield in shear before zones of flexural plasticity
6-3
can form, resulting in an inelastic behavior that is more like that of an

eccentrically braced frame than that of a moment frame. This behavior may
inadvertently occur in frames in which relatively large strengthened connections,
such as haunches, cover plates or side plates have been used on beams with
relatively short spans. This behavior is illustrated in Figure 6.6.3-2.
The guidelines contained in this section are intended to address the design of
flexurally dominated moment resisting frames. When utilizing these guidelines, it
is important to confirm that the configuration of the structure is such that the
presumed flexural hinging can actually occur. It is possible that shear yielding of
frame beams, such as that schematically illustrated in Figure 6.6.3-2 may be a
desirable behavior mode. However, to date, there has not been enough research
conducted into the behavior of such frames to develop recommended design
guidelines. If modifications to an existing frame result in such a configuration
designers should consider referring to the code requirements for eccentrically
braced frames. Particular care should be taken to brace the shear link of such
beams against lateral-torsional buckling and also to adequately stiffen the webs
to avoid local buckling following shear plastification.
Shear Link
Shear Link
Figure 6.6.3-2 Shear Yielding Dominated Behavior of Short Bay Frames
6.6.4 Strength and Stiffness
6.6.4.1 Strength
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
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.
Partial penetration welds are not recommended for tension applications in

critical connections resisting seismic induced stresses. The geometry of partial
penetration welds creates a notch-like condition that can initiate brittle fracture
under conditions of high tensile strain.
Many WSMF structures are constructed with concrete floor slabs that are
provided with positive shear attachment between the slab and the top flanges of
the girders of the moment-resisting frames. Although not generally accounted for
in the design of the frames, the resulting composite action can increase the
6-5
effective strength of the girder significantly, particularly at sections where

curvature of the girder places the top flange into compression. Although this
effect is directly accounted for in the design of composite systems, it is typically
neglected in the design of systems classified as moment resisting steel frames.
The increased girder flexural strength caused by this composite action can result
in a number of effects including the unintentional creation of weak column -
strong beam and weak panel zone conditions. In addition, this composite effect
has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of reduced section or “dog-bone”
type connection assemblies. Unfortunately, very little laboratory testing of large
scale connection assemblies with slabs in place has been performed to date and
as a result, these effects are not well quantified. In keeping with typical
contemporary design practice, the design formulae provided in these Guidelines
neglect the strengthening effects of composite action. Designers should, however,
be alert to the fact that these composite effects do exist. Similar, and perhaps
more severe, effects may also exist where steel beams support masonry or
concrete walls.
6.6.4.2 Stiffness
Calculation of frame stiffness for the purpose of determining interstory drift under the
influence of the design lateral forces should be based on the properties of the bare steel frame,
neglecting the effects of composite action with floor slabs. The stiffening effects of connection
reinforcements (e.g.: haunches, side plates, etc.) may be considered in the calculation of overall
frame stiffness and drift demands. When reduced beam section connections are utilized, the
reduction in overall frame stiffness, due to local reductions in girder cross section, should be
considered.
Commentary: For design purposes, frame stiffness is typically calculated

considering only the behavior of the bare frame, neglecting the stiffening effects
of slabs, gravity framing, and architectural elements such as walls. The resulting
calculation of building stiffness and period typically underestimates the actual
properties, substantially. Although this approach can result in unconservative
estimates of design force levels, it typically produces conservative estimates of
interstory drift demands. Since the design of most moment-resisting frames are
controlled by considerations of drift, this approach is considered preferable to
methods that would have the potential to over-estimate building stiffness. Also,
many of the elements that provide additional stiffness may be subject to rapid
degradation under severe cyclic lateral deformation, so that the bare frame
stiffness may provide a reasonable estimate of the effective stiffness under long
duration ground shaking response.
Notwithstanding the above, designers should be alert to the fact that

unintentional stiffness introduced by walls and other non-structural elements can
6-6
significantly alter the behavior of the structure in response to ground shaking. Of

particular concern, if these elements are not uniformly distributed throughout the
structure, or isolated from its response, they can cause soft stories and torsional
irregularities, conditions known to result in poor behavior.
6.6.5 Plastic Rotation Capacity
The plastic rotation capacity of modified connections should reflect realistic estimates of the
required level of plastic rotation demand. In the absence of detailed calculations of rotation
demand, connections should be shown to be capable of developing a minimum plastic rotation
capacity on the order of 0.025 to 0.030 radian. The demand may be lower when braced frames,
supplemental damping, base isolation, or other elements are introduced into the moment frame
system, to control its lateral deformation; when the design ground motion is relatively low in the
range of predominant periods for the structure; and when the frame is sufficiently strong 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
Plastic hinge Beam span center line

cL
∆CL
lh
∆ CL
θp = LCL
Figure 6.6.5-1 Calculation of Plastic Rotation Angle
6-7
θ p = θ ph
( LCL − lh )
(6.6.5-1)
LCL
where: θp is the plastic chord angle rotation, as used in these Guidelines

θph is the plastic rotation, at the location of a discrete hinge
LCL is the distance from the center of the beam span to the center of the
beam-column assembly panel zone
lh is the assumed location of the discrete plastic hinge relative to the center of the
beam-column assembly panel zone
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.
Traditionally, structural engineers have calculated demand in moment

frames by sizing the members for strength and drift using code forces (either
equivalent static or reduced dynamic forces) and then "developing the strength of
the members." Since 1988, "developing the strength" has been accomplished by
prescriptive means. It was assumed that the prescribed connections would be
strong enough so that the girder would yield (in bending), or the panel zone
6-8
would yield (in shear) in a nearly perfectly plastic manner producing the plastic
rotations necessary to dissipate the energy of the earthquake. It is now known
that the prescriptive connection is often incapable of behaving in this manner.
In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many moment-frame connections

fractured with little evidence of plastic hinging of the girders or yielding of the
column panel zones. Testing of moment frame connections both prior to and
subsequent to the earthquake suggests that the standard welded flange-bolted web
connection is unable to reliably provide plastic rotations beyond about 0.005
radian for all ranges of girder depths and often fails below that level. Thus, for
frames designed for code forces and for the code drift limits, new connection
configurations must be developed to reliably accommodate such rotation without
brittle fracture.
In order to develop reasonable estimates of the plastic rotation demands on a

frame’s connections, it is necessary to perform inelastic time history analyses.
For regular structures, approximations of the plastic rotation demands can be
obtained from linear elastic analyses. Analytical research (Newmark and Hall -
1982) suggests that for structures having the dynamic characteristics of most
WSMF buildings, and for the ground motions typical of western US earthquakes,
the total frame deflections obtained from an unreduced (no R or Rw factor)
dynamic analysis provide an approximate estimate of those which would be
experienced by the inelastic structure. For the typical spectra contained in the
building code, this would indicate expected drift ratios on the order of 1%. The
drift demands in a real structure, responding inelastically, tend to concentrate in
a few stories, rather than being uniformly distributed throughout the structure’s
height. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect typical drift demands in individual
stories on the order of 1.5% to 2% of the story height. As a rough
approximation, the drift demand may be equated to the joint rotation demand,
yielding expected rotation demands on the order of perhaps 2%. Since there is
considerable variation in ground motion intensity and spectra, as well as the
inelastic response of buildings to these ground motions, conservatism in selection
of an appropriate connection rotation demand is warranted.
In recent testing of large scale subassemblies incorporating modified

connection details, conducted by SAC and others, when the connection design was
able to achieve a plastic rotation demand of 0.025 radians or more for several
cycles, the ultimate failure of the subassembly generally did not occur in the
connection, but rather in the members themselves. Therefore, the stated
connection capacity criteria would appear to result in connections capable of
providing reliable performance.
It should be noted that the connection assembly capacity criteria for the
modification of existing buildings, recommended by these Interim Guidelines, is
6-9
somewhat reduced compared to that recommended for new buildings (Chapter 7).
This is typical of approaches normally taken for existing structures. For new
buildings, these Interim Guidelines discourage building-specific calculation of
required plastic rotation capacity for connections and instead, encourage the
development of highly ductile connection designs. For existing buildings, such an
approach may lead to modification designs that are excessively costly, as well as
the modification of structures which do not require such modification.
Consequently, an approach which permits the development of semi-ductile
connection designs, with sufficient plastic rotation capacity to withstand the
expected demands from a design earthquake is adopted. It should be understood
that buildings modified to this reduced criteria will not have the same reliability
as new buildings, designed in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter
7. The criteria of Chapter 7 could be applied to existing buildings, if superior
reliability is desired.
When performing inelastic frame analysis, in order to determine the required

connection plastic rotation capacity, it is important to accurately account for the
locations at which the plastic hinges will occur. Simplified models, which
represent the hinge as occurring at the face of the column, maywill underestimate
the plastic rotation demand. This problem becomes more severe as the column
spacing, L, becomes shorter and the distance between plastic hinges, L’, a
greater portion of the total beam span. Eq. 6.6.5-1 may be used to convert
calculated values of plastic rotation at a hinge remotely located from the column,
to the chord angle rotation, used for the definition of acceptance criteria
contained in these Guidelines. In extreme cases, the girder will not form plastic
hinges at all, but instead, will develop a shear yield, similar to an eccentric
braced frame.
6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design
Modified girder-column connections may be qualified by testing or designed using

calculations. Qualification by testing is the preferred approach. Preliminary designs of
connections to be qualified by test may be obtained using the calculation procedures of Section
6.6.6.3. The procedures of that section may also be used to calibrate previous tests of similar
connection configurations to slightly different applications, by extrapolation. Extrapolation of test
results should be limited to connections of elements having similar geometries and material
specifications as the tested connections. Designs based on calculation alone should be subject to
qualified independent third party review.
Commentary: Because of the cost of testing, use of calculations for interpolation

or extrapolation of test results is desirable. How much extrapolation should be
accepted is a difficult decision. As additional testing is done, more information
may be available on what constitutes "conservative" testing conditions, thereby
6-10
allowing easier decisions relative to extrapolating tests to actual conditions which

are likely to be less demanding than the tests. For example, it is hypothesized
that connections of shallower, thinner flanged members are likely to be more
reliable than similar connections consisting of deeper, thicker flanged members.
Thus, it may be possible to test the largest assemblages of similar details and
extrapolate to the smaller member sizes? - at least within comparable member
group families. However, there is evidence to suggest that extrapolation of test
results to assemblies using members of reduced size is not always conservative.
In a recent series of tests of cover plated connections, conducted at the University
of California at San Diego, a connection assembly that produced acceptable
results for one family of beam sizes, W24, did not behave acceptably when the
beam depth was reduced significantly to W18. In that project, the change in
relative flexibilities of the members and connection elements resulted in a shift in
the basic behavior of the assembly and initiation of a failure mode that was not
observed in the specimens with larger member sizes. In order to minimize the
possibility of such occurrences, when extrapolation of test results is performed, it
should be done with a basic understanding of the behavior of the assembly, and
the likely effects of changes to the assembly configuration on this behavior. Test
results should not be extrapolated to assembly configurations that are expected to
behave differently than the tested configuration. Extrapolation or interpolation
of results with differences in welding procedures, details or material properties is
even more difficult.
6.6.6.1 Qualification Test Protocol
There are no modifications to the Guidelines or Commentary of Section 6.6.6.1 at this time.
6.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria
The minimum acceptance criteria for connection qualification for specimens tested in
accordance with these Interim Guidelines should be as follows:
a) The connection should develop beam plastic rotations as indicated in Section 6.6.5, for
at least one complete cycle.
b) The connection should develop a minimum strength equal to 80% of the plastic
strength of the girder, calculated using minimum specified yield strength 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
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.
Commentary: Many connection configurations will be able to withstand

plastic rotations on the order of 0.025 radians or more, but will have sustained
significant damage and degradation of stiffness and strength in achieving this
deformation. The intent of the acceptance criteria presented in this Section is to
assure that when connections experience the required plastic rotation demand,
they will still have significant remaining ability to participate in the structure’s
lateral load resisting system.
In evaluating the performance of specimens during testing, it is important to

distinguish between brittle behavior and ductile behavior. It is not uncommon for
small cracks to develop in specimens after relatively few cycles of inelastic
deformation. In some cases these initial cracks will rapidly lead to ultimate
failure of the specimen and in other cases they will remain stable, perhaps
growing slowly with repeated cycles, and may or may not participate in the
ultimate failure mode. The development of minor cracks in a specimen, prior to
achievement of the target plastic rotation demand should not be cause for
rejection of the design if the cracks remain stable during repeated cycling.
Similarly, the occurrence of brittle fracture at inelastic rotations significantly in
excess of the target plastic rotation should not be cause for rejection of the
design.
6.6.6.3 Calculations
6-12
6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties

In the absence of project specific material property information (for example, mill test
reports), the values listed in Table 6-3 Table 6.6.6.3.1-1 should be used to determine the strength
of steel shape and plate for purposes of calculation. The permissible strength for weld metal
should be taken in accordance with the building code.
Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1 - Properties for Use in Connection Modification Design

Material Fy (ksi) Fy m (ksi) Fu (ksi)
1 1
A36 Beam 36
Dual Certified Beam
Axial, Flexural 50 65 min.
Shape Group 1 552
Shape Group 2 582
Shape Group 3 572
Shape Group 4 542
Through-Thickness - - Note 3
A572 Column/Beam
Axial, Flexural 50 65 min.
Shape Group 1 582
Shape Group 2 582
Shape Group 3 572
Shape Group 4 572
Shape Group 5 552
Through-Thickness - - Note 3
A992 Structural Shape1 Use same values as for A572, Gr. 50
Notes:
1. See Commentary
2. Based on coupons from web. For thick flanges,
the Fy flange is approximately 0.95 Fy web.
3. See Commentary
Commentary: Table 6-3, Note 1 - The material properties for steel nominally
designated on the construction documents as ASTM A36 can be highly variable
and in recent years, steel meeting the specified requirements for both ASTM A36
and A572 has routinely been incorporated in projects calling for A36 steel.
Consequently, unless project specific data is available to indicate the actual
strength of material incorporated into the project, the properties for ASTM A572
steel should be assumed when ASTM A36 is indicated on the drawings, and the
assumption of a higher yield stress results in a more severe design condition.
The ASTM A992 specification was specifically developed by the steel industry
in response to expressed concerns of the design community with regard to the
permissible variation in chemistry and mechanical properties of structural steel
under the A36 and A572 specifications. This new specification, which was
adopted in late 1998, is very similar to ASTM A572, except that it includes
somewhat more restrictive limits on chemistry and on the permissible variation in
6-13
yield and ultimate tensile stress, as well as the ratio of yield to tensile strength.
At this time, no statistical data base is available to estimate the actual
distribution of properties of material produced to this specification. However, the
properties are likely to be very similar, albeit with less statistical scatter, to those
of material recently produced under ASTM A572, Grade 50.
Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1, Note 3 - In the period immediately following the

Northridge earthquake, the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers
Association of California and the International Conference of Building Officials
issued Interim Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) to provide guidance on the
design of moment resisting steel frame connections. Interim Recommendation
No. 2 included a recommendation that the through-thickness stress demand on
column flanges be limited to a value of 40 ksi, applied to the projected area of
beam flange attachment. This value was selected somewhat arbitrarily, to ensure
that through-thickness yielding did not initiate in the column flanges of moment-
resisting connections and because it was consistent with the successful tests of
assemblies with cover plates conducted at the University of Texas at Austin
(Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994), rather than being the result of a demonstrated
through-thickness capacity of typical column flange material. Despite the
somewhat arbitrary nature of the selection of this value, its use often controls the
overall design of a connection assembly including the selection of cover plate
thickness, haunch depth, and similar parameters.
It would seem to be important to prevent the inelastic behavior of connections

from being controlled by through-thickness yielding of the column flanges. This
is because it would be necessary to develop very large local ductilities in the
column flange material in order to accommodate even modest plastic rotation
demands on the assembly. However, extensive investigation of the through-
thickness behavior of column flanges in a “T” joint configuration reveals that
neither yielding, nor through-thickness failure are likely to occur in these
connections. Barsom and Korvink (1997) conducted a statistical survey of
available data on the tensile strength of rolled shape material in the through-
thickness direction. These tests were generally conducted on small diameter
coupons, extracted from flange material of heavy shapes. The data indicates that
both the yield stress and ultimate tensile strength of this material in the through-
thickness direction is comparable to that of the material in the direction parallel
to rolling. However, it does indicate somewhat greater scatter, with a number of
reported values where the through-thickness strength was higher, as well as lower
than that in the longitudinal direction. Review of this data indicates with high
confidence that for small diameter coupons, the yield and ultimate tensile values
of the material in a through-thickness direction will exceed 90% and 80%
respectively of the comparable values in the longitudinal direction. theThe causes
for through-thickness failures of column flanges (types C2, C4, and C5), observed
6-14
both in buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake and in some test

specimens, are not well understood. They are thought to be a function of the
metallurgy and “purity” of the steel; conditions of loading including the presence
of axial load and rate of loading application; conditions of tri-axial restraint;
conditions of local hardening and embrittlement within the weld’s heat affected
zone; stress concentrations induced by the presence of backing bars and defects
at the root of beam flange to column flange welds; and by the relationship of the
connection components as they may affect flange bending stresses and flange
curvature induced by panel zone yielding. Given the many complex factors which
can affect the through-thickness strength of the column flange, determination of a
reliable basis upon which to set permissible design stresses will require
significant research. Such research is currently being conducted under the SAC
phase II program.
While this statistical distribution suggests the likelihood that the through-
thickness strength of column flanges could be less than the flexural strength of
attached beam elements, testing of more than 40 specimens at Lehigh University
indicates that this is not the case. In these tests, high strength plates,
representing beam flanges and having a yield strength of 100 ksi were welded to
the face of A572, Grade 50 and A913, Grade 50 column shapes, to simulate the
portion of a beam-column assembly at the beam flange. These specimens were
placed in a universal testing machine and loaded to produce high through-
thickness tensile stresses in the column flange material. The tests simulated a
wide range of conditions, representing different weld metals as well and also to
include eccentrically applied loading. In 40 of 41 specimens tested, the assembly
strength was limited by tensile failure of the high strength beam flange plate as
opposed to the column flange material. In the one failure that occurred within
the column flange material, fracture initiated at the root of a low-toughness weld,
at root defects that were intentionally introduced to initiate such a fracture.
The behavior illustrated by this test series is consistent with mechanics of

materials theory. At the joint of the beam flange to column flange, the material is
very highly restrained. As a result of this, both the yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength of the material in this region is significantly elevated. Under
these conditions, failure is unlikely to occur unless a large flaw is present that can
lead to unstable crack propagation and brittle fracture. In light of this evidence,
Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2 deletes any requirement for evaluation of
through-thickness flange stress in columns.
Interim Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) included a value of 40 ksi,

applied to the projected area of beam flange attachment, for the through-
thickness strength to be used in calculations. This value was selected because it
was consistent with the successful tests of cover plated assemblies conducted at
6-15
the University of Texas at Austin (Engelhardt and Sabol - 1994). However,

because of the probable influence of all the factors noted above, this value can
only be considered to reflect the specific conditions of those tests and specimens.
Although reduced stresses at the column face produced acceptable results in

the University of Texas tests, the key to that success was more likely the result of
forcing the plastic hinge away from the column than reduction of the through-
thickness stress by the cover plates. Reduction of through-thickness column
flange stress to ever lower levels by the use of thicker cover plates is not
recommended, since such cover plates will result in ever higher forces on the face
of the column flange as well as larger weldments with potential for enlarged heat
affected zones, higher residual stresses and conditions of restraint.
Since the initial publication of the Interim Guidelines, a significant number of

tests have been performed on reduced beam section connections (See section
7.5.3), most of which employed beam flanges which were welded directly to the
column flanges using improved welding techniques, but without reinforcement
plates. No through-thickness failures occurred in these tests despite the fact that
calculated through-thickness stresses at the root of the beam flange to column
flange joint ranged as high as 58 ksi. The successful performance of these welded
joints is most probably due to the shifting of the yield area of the assembly away
from the column flange and into the beam span. Based on the indications of the
above described tests, and noting the undesirability of over reinforcing
connections, it is now suggested that a maximum through-thickness stress of
0.9Fyc may be appropriate for use with connections that shift the hinging away
from the column face. Notwithstanding this recommendation, engineers are still
cautioned to carefully consider the through-thickness issue when these other
previously listed conditions which are thought to be involved in this type of
failure are prevalent.
Notwithstanding all of the above, successful tests using cover plates and other
measures of moving hinges (and coincidentally reducing through-thickness stress)
continue to be performed. In the interim, structural engineers choosing to utilize
connections relying on through-thickness strength should recognize that despite
the successful testing, connections relying on through-thickness strength can not
be considered to be fully reliable until the influence of the other parameters
discussed above can be fully understood. A high amount of structural
redundancy is recommended for frames employing connections which rely on
through-thickness strength of the column flange.
6.6.6.3.2 Determine Plastic Hinge Location

The desired location for the formation of plastic hinges should be determined as a basic
parameter for the calculations. For beams with gravity loads representing a small portion of the
6-16
total flexural demand, the location of the plastic hinge may be assumed to occur as indicated in
Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 and illustrated in Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1, at a distance equal to 1/3 of the beam depth
from the edge of the reinforced connection (or start of the weakened beam section), unless
specific test data for the connection indicates that a different value is appropriate. Refer to Figure
6-13.
Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 Plastic Hinge Location - Strengthened Connections
Connection Type Reference Section Hinge Location “sh”
Cover plates Sect. 7.9.1 d/4 beyond end of cover plates
Haunches Sect. 7.9.3, 7.9.4 d/3 beyond toe of haunch
Vertical Ribs Sect. 7.9.2

Beam depth - d d/3 beyond toe of ribs
Plastic
hinge
Connection
s h=
d/4
sh = reinforcement
d/3
Edge of reinforced
Edge of reinforced
L’
connection
connection
Figure 6-13 Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1 - Location of Plastic Hinge
Commentary: The suggested locations for the plastic hinge, at a distance d/3
away from the end of the reinforced section indicated in Table 6.6.6.3.2-1 and
Figure 6.6.6.3.2-1 are is based on the observed behavior of test specimens, with
no significant gravity load present. If significant gravity load is present, this can
shift the locations of the plastic hinges, and in the extreme case, even change the
form of the collapse mechanism. If flexural demand on the girder due to gravity
load is less than about 30% of the girder plastic capacity, this effect can safely be
neglected, and the plastic hinge locations taken as indicated. If gravity demands
significantly exceed this level then plastic analysis of the girder should be
6-17
performed to determine the appropriate hinge locations. Note that in zones of

high seismicity (UBC Zones 3 and 4, and NEHRP Map Areas 6 and 7) gravity
loading on the girders of earthquake resisting frames typically has a very small
effect.
6.6.6.3.3 Determine Probable Plastic Moment at Hinges

The probable value of the plastic moment, Mpr, at the location of the plastic hinges should be
determined from the equation:
M pr = 0.95aZ b Fya (6-1)
M pr = 1.1Z b Fya (6.6.6.3.3-1)
where: α is a coefficient that accounts for the effects of strain hardening and modeling
uncertainty, taken as:
1.1 when qualification testing is performed or calculations are

correlated with previous qualification testing
1.3 when design is based on calculations, alone.
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.
Zb is the plastic modulus of the section
Commentary: The 1.10.95 factor, in equation 6.6.6.3.3-1, is used to adjust

account for two effects. First, it is intended to account for the typical difference
between the yield stress in the beam web, where coupons for mill certification
tests are normally extracted, andto the value in the beam flange. Beam flanges,
being comprised of thicker material, typically have somewhat lower yield
strengths than do beam web material. Second, it is intended toThe factor of 1.1
recommended to account for strain hardening, or other sources of strength above
yield, and agrees fairly well with available test results. It should be noted that the
1.1 factor could underestimate the over-strength where significant flange
buckling does not act as the gradual limit on the connection. Nevertheless, the
1.1 factor seems a reasonable expectation of over-strength considering the
complexities involved.
6-18
Connection designs that result in excessive strength in the girder connection

relative to the column or excessive demands on the column panel zone are not
expected to produce superior performance. There is a careful balance that must
be maintained between developing connections that provide for an appropriate
allowance for girder overstrength and those that arbitrarily increase connection
demand in the quest for a “conservative” connection design. The factors
suggested above were chosen in an attempt to achieve this balance, and arbitrary
increases in these values are not recommended.
When the Interim Guidelines were first published, Eq. 6.6.6.3.3-1 included a
coefficient, 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.
6.6.6.3.4 Determine Beam Shear

The shear in the beam at the location of the plastic hinge should be determined. A free body
diagram of that portion of the beam located between plastic hinges is a useful tool for obtaining
the shear at each plastic hinge. Figure 6-14Figure 6.6.3.4-1 provides an example of such a
calculation.
6-19
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’
taking the sum of moments about “A” = 0

Vp ={Mpr + Mpr + P L’/2 + wL’2/2}/L’
Figure 6-14 Figure 6.6.3.4-1 - Sample Calculation of Shear at Plastic Hinge
6.6.6.3.5 Determine Strength Demands on Connection

In order to complete the design of the connection, including sizing the various plates and
joining welds which make up the connection, it is necessary to determine the shear and flexural
strength demands at each critical section. These demands may be calculated by taking a free body
of that portion of the connection assembly located between the critical section and the plastic
hinge. Figure 6-15 Figure 6.6.3.5-1 demonstrates this procedure for two critical sections, for the
beam shown in Figure 6-14Figure 6.6.3.4-1.
Plastic
Plastic
hinge
hinge
Mf Mpr Mpr
Mc
Vp dc
Vp
x
x+dc/2
Mf=Mpr +Vpx Mc=Mpr +Vp(x+dc/2)

Critical Section at Column Face Critical Section at Column Centerline
Figure 6-15 Figure 6.6.3.5-1 - Calculation of Demands at Critical Sections
6-20
Commentary: Each unique connection configuration may have different critical

sections. The vertical plane that passes through the joint between the beam
flanges and column (if such joining occurs) will typically define at least one such
critical section, used for designing the joint of the beam flanges to the column, as
well as evaluating shear demands on the column panel zone. A second critical
section occurs at the center line of the column. Moments calculated at this point
are used to check weak beam - strong column conditions. Other critical sections
should be selected as appropriate to the connection configuration.
6.6.6.3.6 Check for Strong Column - Weak Beam Condition

Buildings which form sidesway mechanisms through the formation of plastic hinges in the
beams can dissipate more energy than buildings that develop mechanisms consisting primarily of
plastic hinges in the columns. Therefore, if an existing building’s original design was such that
hinging would occur in the beams rather than the columns, care should be taken not to alter this
behavior with the addition of connection reinforcement. To determine if the desired strong
column - weak beam condition exists, the connection assembly should be checked to determine if
the following equation is satisfied:
∑Z c (Fyc − f a ) ∑M c > 1.0 (6.6.6.3.6-12)
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.
Commentary: Equation 6.6.6.3.6-12 is based on the building code provisions for

strong column - weak beam design. The building code provisions for evaluating
strong column - weak beam conditions presume that the flexural stiffness of the
columns above and below the beam are approximately equal, that the beams will
yield at the face of the column, and that the depth of the columns and beams are
small relative to their respective span lengths. This permits the code to use a
relatively simple equation to evaluate strong column - weak beam conditions in
which the sum of the flexural capacities of columns at a connection are compared
to the sums of the flexural capacities in the beams. The first publication of the
Interim Guidelines took this same approach, except that the definition of 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
6-21
center of the column, calculated in accordance with the procedures of Sect.

6.6.3.5.
This simplified approach is not always appropriate. If non-symmetrical

connection configurations are used, such as a haunch on only the bottom side of
the beam, this can result in an uneven distribution of stiffness between the two
column segments, and premature yielding of the column, either above, or below,
the beam-column connection. Also, it was determined that for connection
configurations in which the panel zone depth represents a significant fraction of
the total column height, such as can occur in some haunched and side-plated
connections, the definition of 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 6.6.6.3.6-1 illustrates a
method for determining this quantity. In such cases, When evaluation indicates
that a strong column - weak beam condition does not exist, a plastic analysis
should be considered to determine if an undesirable story mechanism is likely to
form in the building.
Vc assumed point of zero moment
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
Figure 6.6.6.3.6-1 Calculation of Column Moment for Strong Column Evaluation
6-22
6.6.6.3.7 Check Column Panel Zone

The adequacy of the shear strength of the column panel zone should be checked. For this
purpose, the term 0.8ΣMf 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 6.6.6.3.5, above. In addition, it is recommended not to
use the alternative design criteria indicated in UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 (NEHRP-91 Sect.
10.10.3.1), permitting panel zone shear strength to be proportioned for the shear induced by
bending moments from gravity loads plus 1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces. For
convenience of reference, UBC-94 Section 2211.7.2.1 is reproduced below, edited, to indicate the
recommended application:
2211.7.2.1 Strength (edited). The panel zone of the joint shall be capable of resisting the
shear induced by beam bending moments due to gravity loads plus 1.85 times the
prescribed seismic forces, but the shear strength need not exceed that required to develop
0.8ΣMs 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 
where: bc = width of column flange

db = the depth of the beam (including haunches or cover plates)
dc = the depth of the column
t = the total thickness of the panel zone including doubler plates
tcf = the thickness of the column flange
Commentary: The effect of panel zone shear yielding on connection behavior is

not well understood. In the past, panel zone shear yielding has been viewed as a
benign mechanism that permits overall frame ductility demands to be
accommodated while minimizing the extent of inelastic behavior required of the
beam and beam flange to column flange joint. The criteria permitting panel zone
shear strength to be proportioned for the shears resulting from moments due to
gravity loads plus 1.85 times the design seismic forces was adopted by the code
specifically to encourage designs with weak panel zones. However, during recent
testing of large scale connection assemblies with weak panel zones, it has been
noted that in order to accommodate the large shear deformations that occur in
the panel zone, extreme “kinking” deformations were induced into the column
flanges at the beam flange to column flange welded joint. While this did not lead
to premature joint failure in all cases, it is believed to have contributed to such
premature failures in at least some of the specimens. The recommendations of
this section are intended to result in stronger panel zones than previously
6-23
permitted by the code, thereby avoiding potential failures due to this kinking
action on the column flanges.
6.6.7 Modification Details
6.6.7.1 Haunch at Bottom Flange
Figure 6-166.6.7.1-1 illustrates the basic configuration for a connection modification

consisting of the addition of a welded haunch at the bottom beam flange. Several tests of such a
modification were conducted by Uang under the SAC phase I project (Uang, 1995). Following
that work, additional research on the feasibility of improving connection performance with welded
haunches was conducted under a project that was jointly sponsored by NIST and AISC (NIST,
1998). As indicated in the report of that work, the haunched modification improves connection
performance by altering the basic behavior of the connection. In essence, the haunch creates a
prop type support, beneath the beam bottom flange. This both reduces the effective flexural
stresses in the beam at the face of the support, and also greatly reduces the shear that must be
transmitted to the column through the beam. Laboratory tests indicate this modification can be
effective when the existing low-toughness welds between the beam bottom flange and column are
left in place, however, more reliable performance is obtained when the top welds are modified. A
complete procedure for the design of this modification may be found in NIST, 1998. two
alternative configurations of this detail that have been tested (Uang - 1995). The basic concept is
to reinforce the connection with the provision of a triangular haunch at the bottom flange. The
intended behavior of both configurations is to shift the plastic hinge from the face of the column
and to reduce the demand on the CJP weld by increasing the effective depth of the section. In one
test, shown on the left of Figure 6-16, the joint between the girder bottom flange and column was
cut free, to simulate a condition which might occur if the bottom joint had been damaged, but not
repaired. In a second tested configuration, the bottom flange joint was repaired and the top flange
was replaced with a locally thickened plate, similar to the detail shown in Figure 6-9.
Design Issues: This approach developed acceptable levels of plastic rotation. Acceptable levels
of connection strength were also maintained during large inelastic deformations of the plastic
hinge. This approach does not require that the top flange be modified, or slab disturbed, unless
other conditions require repair of the top flange, as in the detail on the left of Figure 6-16. The
bottom flange is generally far more accessible than the top flange because a slab does not have
to be removed. In addition, the haunch can be installed at perimeter frames without removal of
the exterior building cladding. There did not appear to be any appreciable degradation in
performance when the bottom beam flange was not re-welded to the face of the column.
Eliminating this additional welding should help reduce the cost of the repair.
Performance is dependent on properly executed complete joint penetration welds at the column
face and at the attachment of the haunch to the girder bottom flange. The joint can be subject to
through-thickness flaws in the column flange; however, this connection may not be as sensitive
6-24
to this potential problem because of the significant increase in the effective depth of the beam
section which can be achieved. Welding of the bottom haunch requires overhead welding. The
skewed groove welds of the haunch flanges to the girder and column flanges may be difficult to
execute.
Experimental Results: This approach developed excellent levels of plastic rotation. In Specimen
1, the bottom flange CJP weld was damaged in a prior test but was not repaired: only the bottom
haunch was added. During the test of specimen 1, a slowly growing crack developed at the
underside of the top flange-web intersection, perhaps exacerbated by significant local buckling
of the top flange. Some of the buckling may be attributed to lateral torsional buckling that
occurred because the bottom flange was not restrained by a CJP weld. A significant portion of
the flexural strength was lost during the cycles of large plastic rotation. In the second specimen,
the bottom girder flange weld was intact during the haunch testing, and its performance was
significantly improved compared with the first specimen. The test was stopped when significant
local buckling led to a slowly growing crack at the beam flange and web intersection. At this
time, it appears that repairing damaged bottom flange welds in this configuration can produce
better performance. Acceptable levels of flexural strength were maintained during large
inelastic deformations of the plastic hinge for both specimens. As reported in NIST, 1998, a total
of 9 beam-column connection tests incorporating bottom haunch modifications of pre-
Northridge connections have been tested in the laboratory, including two dynamic tests. Most of
the connection assemblies tested resisted in excess of 0.02 radians of imposed plastic rotation.
However, for those specimens in which the existing low-toughness weld was left in place at the
beam top flange, without modification, connection behavior was generally limited by fractures
generating at these welds at relatively low plastic rotations. It may be expected that enhanced
performance can be obtained by replacing or reinforcing these welds as part of the modification.
Figure 6-166.6.7.1-1 - Bottom Haunch Connection Modification
6-25
Quantitative Results: No. of specimens tested: 29

Girder Size: W30 x 99
Column Size: W14 x 176
Plastic Rotation achieved-
Specimen 1 UCSD-1R: 0.04 radian (w/o bottom flange weld)
Specimen 2 UCSD-3R:0.05 radian (with bottom flange weld)
Specimen UCSD-4R: 0.014 radian (dynamic- limited by test setup)
Speciemn UCSD-5R: 0.015 radian (dynamic- limited by test setup)
Girder Size: W36x150

Column Size: W14x257
Plastic Rotation achieved -
Specimen UCB-RN2: 0.014 radian (no modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1R: 0.019 radian (partial modification of top weld)
Specimen UTA-1RB: 0.028 radian (modified top weld)
Girder Size: W36x150

Specment UTA-NSF4: 0.015 radian (no modification of top weld)
Girder Size: W18x86

Specimen SFCCC-8: 0.035 radian (cover plated top flange)
6.6.7.2 Top and Bottom Haunch
6.6.7.3 Cover Plate Sections
Figure 6.6.7.3-1 Figure 6-18 illustrates the basic configurations of cover plate connections.
The assumption behind the cover plate is that it reduces the applied stress demand on the weld at
the column flange and shifts the plastic hinge away from the column face. Only the connection
with cover plates on the top of the top flange has been tested. There are no quantitative results
for cover plates on the bottom side of the top flange, such as might be used in repair. It is likely
that thicker plates would be required where the plates are installed on the underside of the top
flange. The implications of this deviation from the tested configuration should be considered.
6-26
Near and Far Sides
d/2, typical
Top &Bottom Top &Bottom
Figure 6-18 Figure 6.6.7.3-1 - Cover Plate Connection Modification
Design Issues: Following the Northridge earthquake, the University of Texas at Austin
conducted a program of research, under private funding, to develop a modified connection
configuration for a specific project. Following a series of unsuccessful tests on various types of
connections,Approximately eight connections similar to that shown in Figure 6-18Figure 6.7.3-1
have been were tested (Engelhardt & Sabol - 1994), and have demonstrated the ability to
achieve acceptable levels of plastic rotation provided that the beam flange to column flange
welding wasis correctly executed and through-thickness problems in the column flange wereare
avoided. Due to the significant publicity that followed these successful tests, as well as the
economy of these connections relative to some other alternatives, cover plated connections
quickly became the predominant configuration used in the design of new buildings. As a result,
a number of qualification tests have now been performed on different variations of cover plated
connections, covering a wide range of member sizes ranging from W16 to W36 beams, as part of
the design process for individual building projects. The results of these tests have been
somewhat mixed, with a significant number of failures reported. Although this connection type
appears to be significantly more reliable than the typical pre-Northridge connection, it should be
expected that some connections in buildings incorporating this detail may still be subjected to
earthquake initiated fracture damage. Designers should consider using alternative connection
types, unless highly redundant framing systems are employed.
The option with the top flange cover plate located on top of the flange can be used on
perimeter frames where access to the outer side of the beam is restricted by existing building
cladding. The option with the cover plate for the top flange located beneath the flange can be
installed without requiring modification of the slab. In the figures shown, the bottom cover plate
is rectangular, and sized slightly wider than the beam flange to allow downhand fillet welding of
the joint between the two plates. Some configurations using triangular plates at the bottom
flange, similar to the top flange have also been tested.
6-27
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.

Girder Size: W21 x 68 to W36 x 150
Column Size: W12 x 106 to W14 x 455, and 426
6 13 Specimens : >.025 radian to 0.05 radian
13 Specimens: 0.005 < θp < 0.0250.015 radian (W2 failure)
12 Specimens: 0.005 radian (C2 failure)
6.6.7.4 Upstanding Ribs
6-28
6.6.7.5 Side-Plate Connections
6.6.7.6 Bolted Brackets
Heavy bolted brackets, incorporating high strength bolts, may be added to existing welded
connections to provide an alternative load path for transfer of stress between the beams and
columns. To be compatible with existing welded connections, the brackets must have sufficient
strength and rigidity to transfer beam stresses with negligible deformation. Pre-tensioning of the
bolts or threaded rods attaching the brackets to the column flanges and use of welds or slip-
critical connections between the brackets and beam flanges can help to minimize deformation
under load. Reinforcement of the column flanges may be required to prevent local yielding and
excessive deformation of these elements. Two alternative configurations, which may be used
either to repair an existing damaged, welded connection or to reinforce an existing undamaged
connection are illustrated in Figure 6.6.7.6-1. The developer of these connections offers the
brackets in the form of proprietary steel castings. Several tests of these alternative connections
have been performed on specimens with beams ranging in size from W16 to W36 sections and
with large plastic rotations successfully achieved. Under a project jointly funded by NIST and
AISC, the use of a single bracket at the bottom flange of the beam was investigated. It was
determined that significant improvement in connection behavior could be obtained by placing a
bracket at the bottom beam flange and by replacing existing low-toughness welds at the top flange
with tougher material. NIST, 1998 provides a recommended design procedure for such
connection modifications.
Design Issues: The concept of bolted bracket connections is similar to that of the riveted “wind
connections” commonly installed in steel frame buildings in the early twentieth century. The
primary difference is that the riveted wind connections were typically limited in strength either
by flexural yielding of outstanding flanges of the brackets, or shear and tension on the rivets,
rather than by flexural hinging of the connected framing. Since the old-style wind connections
could not typically develop the flexural strength of the girders and also could be quite flexible,
they would be classified either as partial strength or partially restrained connections. Following
the Northridge earthquake, the concept of designing such connections with high strength bolts
and heavy plates, to behave as fully restrained connections, was developed and tested by a
private party who has applied for patents on the concept of using steel castings for this purpose.
Bolted bracket connections can be installed in an existing building without field welding. Since
this reduces the risk of construction-induced fire, brackets may be installed with somewhat less
demolition of existing architectural features than with welded connections. In addition, the
quality assurance issues related to field welding are eliminated. However, the fabrication of the
brackets themselves does require quality assurance. Quality assurance is also required for
operations related to the drilling of bolt holes for installation of bolts, surface preparation of
faying surfaces and for installation and tensioning of the bolts themselves.
6-29
High tensile
threaded rod Pipe
Steel
casting Plate
Bolts
Bolts
WARNING: The information presented in this figure is PROPRIETARY. US and Foreign

Patents have been applied for. Use of this information is strictly prohibited except as authorized
in writing by the developer. Violators shall be prosecuted in accordance with US and Foreign
Patent Intellectual Property Laws.
Figure 6.6.7.6-1 Bolted Bracket Modification
Bolted brackets can be used to repair damaged connections. If damage is limited to the beam
flange to column flange welds, the damaged welds should be dressed out by grinding. Any
existing fractures in base metal should be repaired as indicated in Section 6.3, in order to
restore the strength of the damaged members and also to prevent growth of the fractures under
applied stress. Since repairs to base metal typically require cutting and welding, this reduces
somewhat the advantages cited above, with regard to avoidance of field welding.
Experimental Results: A series of tests on several different configurations of proprietary heavy

bolted bracket connections have been performed at Lehigh University (Ksai & Bleiman, 1996) to
qualify these connections for use in repair and modification applications. To test repair
applications, brackets were placed only on the bottom beam flange to simulate installations on a
connection where the bottom flange weld in the original connection had failed. In these
specimens, bottom flange welds were not installed, to approximate the condition of a fully
fractured weld. The top flange welds of these specimens were made with electrodes rated for
notch toughness, to preclude premature failure of the specimens at the top flange. For
specimens in which brackets were placed at both the top and bottom beam flanges, both welds
were omitted. Acceptable plastic rotations were achieved for each of the specimens tested. No
testing has yet been performed to determine the effectiveness of bolted brackets when applied to
an existing undamaged connection with full penetration beam flange to column flange welds with
low toughness or significant defects or discontinuities.

Girder Size: W16x40 and W36x150
Column Size: W12x65 and W14x425
Plastic Rotation achieved - 0.05 radians - 0.07 radians
6-30
This page intentionally left blank
6-31

Chap6 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap6 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap6 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interim Guidelines Advisory No.

6. POST-EARTHQUAKE REPAIR AND MODIFICATION

6.3 Repair Details

6.6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION

6.6.1 Definition of Modification

6.6.2 Damaged vs. Undamaged Connections

Connection modification intended to permit inelastic frame behavior should be proportioned

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

Figure 6-12 Figure 6.6.3-1 - Desired Plastic Frame Behavior

Commentary: Nonlinear deformation of frame structures is typically

The prescriptive connection contained in the UBC and NEHRP Recommended

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

It should be noted that connection modifications of the type described above,

It is important to recognize that in frames with relatively short bays, the

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

can form, resulting in an inelastic behavior that is more like that of an

Figure 6.6.3-2 Shear Yielding Dominated Behavior of Short Bay Frames

6.6.4 Strength and Stiffness

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

Partial penetration welds are not recommended for tension applications in

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

effective strength of the girder significantly, particularly at sections where

Commentary: For design purposes, frame stiffness is typically calculated

Notwithstanding the above, designers should be alert to the fact that

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

significantly alter the behavior of the structure in response to ground shaking. Of

6.6.5 Plastic Rotation Capacity

Plastic hinge Beam span center line

Figure 6.6.5-1 Calculation of Plastic Rotation Angle

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

where: θp is the plastic chord angle rotation, as used in these Guidelines

Traditionally, structural engineers have calculated demand in moment

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many moment-frame connections

In order to develop reasonable estimates of the plastic rotation demands on a

In recent testing of large scale subassemblies incorporating modified

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

When performing inelastic frame analysis, in order to determine the required

6.6.6 Connection Qualification and Design

Modified girder-column connections may be qualified by testing or designed using

Commentary: Because of the cost of testing, use of calculations for interpolation

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

allowing easier decisions relative to extrapolating tests to actual conditions which

6.6.6.1 Qualification Test Protocol

6.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

Commentary: Many connection configurations will be able to withstand

In evaluating the performance of specimens during testing, it is important to

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

6.6.6.3.1 Material Strength Properties

Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1 - Properties for Use in Connection Modification Design

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

Table 6-3Table 6.6.6.3-1, Note 3 - In the period immediately following the

It would seem to be important to prevent the inelastic behavior of connections

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification

both in buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake and in some test

The behavior illustrated by this test series is consistent with mechanics of

Interim Recommendation No. 2 (SEAOC-1995) included a value of 40 ksi,

Post-earthquake Repair and Modification