2008 Hauksdottir Thesis Final

Application of the Reduced Beam Section Concept
for Improving the Ductility of Certain

Eccentrically Braced Frames
Heidrun Osp Hauksdottir
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
University of Washington
2008
Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Civil & Environmental Engineering

Graduate School
This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a masters thesis by
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.
Committee Members:
Jeffrey W. Berman
Laura Lowes
Charles W. Roeder
Date:
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a masters
degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies
freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is
allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with fair use as prescribed in the
U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purpose or by any means shall
not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature
Date
Abstract
Application of the Reduced Beam Section Concept

for Improving the Ductility of Certain
Eccentrically Braced Frames
Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

Professor Jeffrey W. Berman
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) are desirable seismic load resisting systems as
they combine the high elastic stiffness of concentrically braced frames (CBFs) with the
ductility and stable energy dissipation capacity of moment resisting frames (MRFs)
when configured in particular ways. EBFs with links attached to the columns are
particularly appealing for architects as they provide multiple locations for placement
of doors and hallways. However, previous research has shown that link-to-column
connections do not develop the necessary ductility and are prone to connection frac-
ture at low drift levels. Reduced beam sections (RBSs) have been proven to reduce
strain concentrations at the ends of beams in MRFs and enhance ductility but have
not been explored for use in EBF link-to-column connections where large moment
gradients are present. This thesis investigates the application of RBSs in EBF links
to enhance ductility.
A design procedure for applying the RBS concept to link-to-column connections
in EBFs is developed. The effectiveness of reduced link sections (RLSs) in reducing
demands at link ends is investigated by performing a preliminary study on a W14x82
shear link subject to the loading protocol for link-to-column connections from the
2006 AISC Seismic Provisions. A finite element model of the link, which will serve as
the basis for additional link modeling, is developed using the finite element program
MSC. Marc Mentat 2005r3. The main parameter impacting the effectiveness of the
RLS in reducing the flange strains at the link end is established as the ratio of moment
at the end of the link, ML , to the plastic moment strength of the section, MP , denoted
. Thereafter, a parametric study is performed by analyzing a set of links represent-
ing a range of wide-flange cross-sections and link lengths thought to encompass those
typically employed in EBFs and having RLSs with different values of . The research
shows that RLSs are effective in reducing flange plastic strain demands at the link
ends relative to links with unreduced cross-sections and have great potential for im-
proving the ductility of link-to-column connections. Additionally, the RLS concept is
shown to provide benefits for links not directly connected to columns by containing
inelastic behavior within the link and reducing bending moment transferred to the
beam outside the link.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Statement of Problem and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Organization of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 2: Review of Current Design Procedures and Recent Literature . . 5

2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Eccentrically braced frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Reduced beam section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1 EBF links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Arce (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Richards (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Okazaki (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2 RBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Engelhardt, Winneberger, Zekany and Potyraj (1998) . . . . . 22
Engelhardt, Venti, Fry, Jones and Holliday (2000) . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 3: Proposed RLS EBF methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 RLS Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
i
Chapter 4: Model development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Reference Model Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2.1 Element Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2.2 Geometric Nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.3 Material Nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.4 Boundary Conditions and Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.1 Convergence Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4.1 Specimen 6B (Arce, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4.2 Specimen DB2 (Engelhardt et al., 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter 5: Preliminary Study and Selection of Representative links . . . . 57

5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2 Preliminary Study of RLS Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.3 Design of Links for Parametric Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3.1 Sections and Link Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3.2 Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.3 Stiffener Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Chapter 6: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.2 Link Rotation Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3 Stresses and Plastic Strains at Critical Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.4 Comparison of RLS Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 107

7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.3 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
ii
Chapter 8: References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Appendix A: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Appendix B: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Appendix C: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
C.0.1 Shear links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
C.0.2 Intermediate links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
C.0.3 Flexural links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page

2.1 Typical configurations of EBFs (Okazaki, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Example of a reinforced link-to-column connection (Provisions, 2006) 11
2.3 Reduced beam section connection (Okazaki, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Moment at column face when plastic hinge occurs away from beam
end.(FEMA-350, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Overall view of test setup (Arce, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Details of the loading system (Okazaki, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7 Link Rotation Capacity (Okazaki, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8 Test setup (Engelhardt et al., 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1 Moment Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 A flowchart demonstrating the general design procedure . . . . . . . . 33
3.3 An example of excel spreadsheets used for design of links with RLSs.
This spreadsheet regards the design of shear links. . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1 Stiffener spacing of the W14x82 shear link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Tri-linear material model developed for A992 steel (Okazaki, 2004) . . 39
4.3 Link boundary conditions (a) Initial position (b) Deformed configura-
tion. (Richards, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Mesh refinements a) Model 1, b) Model 2, c) Model 3a . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Section cut A-A from Fig. 4.4, convergence checked at the locations
marked with a circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.6 Normal stress (s11) vs. number of elements in the flange at the end. . 45
4.7 Equivalent von Mises stress vs. number of elements in the flange at
the end. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.8 Equivalent plastic strain vs. number of elements in the flange at the end. 46
4.9 Plastic strain 11 vs. number of elements in the flange at the end. . . 46
4.10 Percent difference in plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, of re-
duced links relative to unreduced links for all three mesh refinements. 47
iv
4.11 Finite element model of Specimen 6B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.12 Specimen 6B at 0.03 radian cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.15 Specimen 6B at the end of cyclic loading (0.09 radians). . . . . . . . 50
4.16 Specimen 6B at the end of testing. (Arce 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.17 Analytical results; shear vs. plastic rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.18 Test results; shear vs. plastic rotation (Arce 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.19 Analytical model of specimen DB2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.20 Estimated rotation behavior of the column during testing. . . . . . . 54
4.21 Moment vs. plastic rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.22 DB2 at the end of cyclic loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.23 Deformed shape of specimen DB4 (Englehardt et al.,1998) . . . . . . 56
5.1 Stiffener spacing and RLS geometry for half link lengths of Cases 1-7
and for an unreduced case of the same link. Stiffeners are shown with
dashed lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of
the maximum rotation of each cycle, at the middle of the flange at the
ends of the link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.3 Cumulative plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the cumula-
tive rotation, at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link. . . . 67
5.4 Equivalent von Mises stress in layer 1 at various timesteps of cyclic
loading for Case 2: a) timestep 940 b) timestep 945 c) timestep 950 d)
timestep 965 e) timestep 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.8 W18x86 shear link used to specify the stiffener spacing parameters s1,
s2 and s3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
v
6.1 Shear hystereses for all link types of section W18x50 shown in (a), (c)
and (e). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b), (d) and (f). 86
6.2 Plastic rotation angle of links vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.3 Strain results for all link types of section W18x50 . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.4 Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the center
of the upper flange, along the link length of each link type of section
W18x50 at their target plastic rotation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.5 Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, across the
center of the RLS in the top flange in tension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.6 Shear link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of layer
1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93. 96
6.7 Intermediate link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction
of layer 1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.8 Flexural link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of
layer 1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with =
0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.9 Deformation demand in top flange at link ends displayed by plastic
strain contour bands in the longitudinal directions for (a) W18x50 shear
link and (b) W24x80 shear link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.10 Equivalent von Mises stress in Layers 1, 3 and 5 at the middle of the
flange at the end of the W18x50 and W24x84 shear links. . . . . . . . 99
6.11 Plastic rotation capacity vs. s2/tf ratio for all of the links, where s2
is the spacing of the stiffeners around the RLS and tf is the flange
thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
P P
6.12 |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. depth to length ratio for all link types
with = 0.86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
P P
6.13 |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. depth to length ratio for all link types
with = 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
P P
6.14 |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. for all links with = 0.86 with specifi-
cation of width-to-depth ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
P P
6.15 |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs for all of the links, with specification of
values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
A.1 Shear hystereses for W12x45 shear link shown in (a). Backbone curve
for the same link shown in (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
vi
A.2 Shear hystereses for W12x72 shear and intermediate links shown in (a)
and (c). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b) and (d). . . 117
A.3 Shear hystereses for W14x82 shear and intermediate links shown in (a)
and (c). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b) and (d). . . 118
A.4 Shear hystereses for all link types of section W18x50 shown in (a), (c)
B.1 Strain results for W12x45 shear link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

B.2 Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the center
B.3 Strain results for all link types of section W12x72 . . . . . . . . . . . 124
B.4 Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the
center of the upper flange, along the link length of W12x72 shear and
intermediate links at their target plastic rotation. . . . . . . . . . . . 125
B.6 Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the
center of the upper flange, along the link length of W14x82 shear and
intermediate links at their target plastic rotation. . . . . . . . . . . . 127
vii
C.1 Shear link W12x45: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of layer
C.7 Intermediate link W12x72: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
= 0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
C.12 Flexural link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of
0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
0.93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page

2.1 Loading protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Section properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Cyclic loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Convergence parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 Cyclic loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.5 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.6 Specimen loading history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.1 Model cases with different RLS parameters and stiffener spacing. De-
viations from the ranges allowed in the Provisions are shown in bold. 59
5.2 Stress and strain results for various cases of RLSs under monotonic
loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Stress and strain results for various cases of RLSs under cyclic loading. 63
5.4 Stress and strain results for Cases 1 and 5 under monotonic and cyclic
loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5 Stress and strain results for Cases 1 and 5 compared to an unreduced
link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.6 List of links that will be analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.7 RLS parameter ratios and values of for various types of links. Values
in bold are values of c that are higher than the maximum c given by
the Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.8 Maximum stiffener spacing allowed according to the Provisions . . . . 80
5.9 Stiffener spacing of the selected links for the parametric study. . . . . 81
6.1 Maximum plastic strain at the middle of the RLS and at the ends of
all of the shear links at p = 0.08 rad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
all of the intermediate links at p = 0.05 rad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
ix
all of the flexural links at p = 0.02 rad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.4 Link shear at the target plastic rotations normalized by the link shear
in unreduced links. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Jeffrey Berman for his time, guidance
and for providing me with a Research Assistantship during the summer. I also want
to thank Professors Laura Lowes and Charles Roeder for taking the time to serve on
my committee.
I greatly appreciate the financial support from the Valle Scholarship Program,
without it I wouldnt have been able to get this degree from the University of Wash-
ington.
I also want to thank all my friends at the University of Washington that have
helped me throughout my studies here.
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of Problem and Objectives
Eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) combine the high elastic stiffness of concentrically
braced frames (CBFs), and the high ductility and stable energy dissipation capacity of
moment resisting frames (MRFs). Ductile EBFs are expected to have large inelastic
deformations in the links when subjected to seismic loading while the adjacent fram-
ing remains essentially elastic. Such inelastic deformation causes significant strain
demands in the flanges at the ends of the links which can cause fractures, especially
in configurations where the link is connected to a column at one end. EBFs with
links attached to the columns are appealing for architects as they provide multiple
locations for placement of doors and hallways. However, there are no prequalified
connections for use as link-to-column connections making them costly to implement.
Recent research performed by Okazaki (2004) demonstrated that several different
post-Northridge moment resisting connection details (excluding reduced beam sec-
tion, RBS, connections) that performed well in beam-to-column connections failed to
provide adequate ductility in link-to-column connections. This thesis investigates a
possible solution for link-to-column connections that utilizes a reduced link section
(RLS) near the link end, similar to the RBS moment resisting frame connection. This
will help to reduce flange strains and increase fracture life while also making capacity
design of adjacent framing easier to achieve.
The objectives of this research are to develop a design procedure for using RLSs
2
in EBF links before their end connections to either braces or columns and investigate
their effectiveness in reducing flange strains and limiting link maximum capacity.
Only wide-flange cross-sections are considered along with equal link end moments
and no axial load. The anticipated advantages of applying RLSs in an EBF link are:
containing inelastic action within the link, reducing bending moment transferred to
the beam outside of the link, reducing bending moment and associated stress at the
column face, and moving the location of maximum plastic strain and the associated
flange deformation away from the column face.
By containing the inelastic action within the link strict capacity design is enabled
for the beam outside the link. By reducing the moment transferred to the beam
outside the link, the stability of the beam is improved and the likelihood of damage
to the beam outside the link is reduced. By reducing flange stresses and strains at
the column face in link-to-column connections, they will have an extended fracture
life and larger ductility.
To achieve the desired overall link behavior and reduction in plastic strain at the
ends of the link, the current limits for the RBS dimensions from the 2006 AISC Seismic
Provisions may need to be altered. In this work, a preliminary study is performed on
a selected shear link to determine how changes in a, b and c impact the RLSs ability
to reduce the critical flange strains. A shear link is used because they have more
difficulty achieving the desired yielding behavior and substantial strain reductions at
the link ends relative to intermediate and flexural links. Then, a set of representative
links are designed with various section sizes and link lengths. Thereafter, a parametric
study is conducted by analyzing this set of links using the loading protocol for link-to-
column connections from the 2006 AISC Seismic Provisions. Finally, the parametric
study results are presented and discussed, and conclusions and recommendations for
further research are given.
3
1.2 Scope of Work
The outline of the primary tasks of this research is as follows:
Describe the basic behavior and design of EBFs and RBSs, and review recent
research on EBFs and RBSs.
Derive a design procedure applying the RBS concept to link-to-column connec-

tions, for a link with equal end moments and no axial load.
Develop a reference finite element model (i.e., mesh size, element type, and
material model) that will be used for all links analyzed in this research.
Analyze the reference finite element model with various RLS sections to evaluate
the RLS effectiveness in achieving reduced flange strains.
Assess the impact of the design parameters a, b and c, on the reduction of flange
strains by comparing the maximum strains found in several RLS geometries to
those in unreduced link geometry.
Develop finite element models of links with various section sizes and link lengths,
and perform a parametric study using the loading protocol specified in Appendix
S of the 2006 AISC Seismic Provisions.
Assess the results, focusing on the impact of flange reduction on: stress and
strain distribution, lateral stability and web buckling of the link, demands on
adjacent framing, and shear and flexural behavior of the link.
1.3 Organization of Thesis
Chapter 2 discusses the basic behavior and design of EBFs and the RBS moment
connection. Thereafter, recent research on EBFs and RBSs are reviewed.
4
Chapter 3 presents a design procedure applying the RBS concept to link-to-column

connections.
Chapter 4 contains the development of the reference finite element model from which
the link models analyzed in this research will be derived. The definition of the model
is described thoroughly. Then the convergence of the model is checked and the model
is validated in terms of global response via a comparison with experimental results
from the literature for both an EBF link and RBS moment resisting connection.
Chapter 5 discusses a preliminary study, where the impact of utilizing values of a, b

and c that are outside of the current range allowed by the Provisions for RBS con-
nections in steel moment frames, is examined. From the results of the preliminary
study of RLS effectiveness, representative links of various properties are designed and
presented for studying the impact of using RLSs on a wide variety of links.
Chapter 6 presents results from the analyses of the representative links specified in
Chapter 5. Link rotation capacity, stress and strain demands and overall behavior of
all links is discussed. The effectiveness of the RLS in achieving the design objectives
for the range of links considered is assessed.
Chapter 7 includes a summary of the research, conclusions and recommendations

for further research.
5
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN PROCEDURES AND
RECENT LITERATURE
2.1 General
EBFs have been shown to have considerable ductility when configured such that the
links are mid-span of the beam. However, when EBFs are configured with link-
to-column connections, high strain concentration develop in the links at the link-
to-column connection resulting in pre-mature fracture at low ductility levels. As
discussed in this chapter, the most common fracture initiates near the groove weld
where the link flange is connected to the column flange. Here, a RBS moment connec-
tion is proposed for the link-to-column connection as this connection reduces stress
and strain concentration at the end of the link.
In this chapter, the basic behavior and design of EBFs and RBS moment con-
nections will be discussed, and recent research on EBFs and RBSs will be reviewed,
including a recent study by Okazaki (2004) that investigated the application of several
post-Northridge beam-to-column connection details as link-to-column connections.
2.2 Eccentrically braced frames
2.2.1 General
EBFs are a preferred framing system in regions of high seismicity. This system was
first developed in Japan in the early 1970s. Research in the United States on ec-
centrically braced frames started in the 1970s (Roeder and Popov, 1977, 1978) and
continued through the 1980s (Engelhardt & Popov 1989a, 1989b, 1992; Kasai &
Popov 1986a, 1986b, 1986c; Ricles & Popov 1987; Whittaker, Uang and Bertero
6
Figure 2.1: Typical configurations of EBFs (Okazaki, 2004)
1987; Bruneau et al., 1998).
An EBF consists of a beam, columns and either one or two diagonal braces. Fig 2.1
shows typical configurations of EBFs. The braces are connected to the beam so that
a small segment of the beam is isolated between the brace-to-beam connection and
the beam-to-column connection or between the two brace-to-beam connections. This
segment is called a link and is an essential part of this framing system. The basic
concept of eccentrically braced frames is to restrict inelastic action to the links. The
framing around the links is designed to sustain the maximum forces delivered by the
links and ensure that the links act as ductile seismic fuses. The inelastic behavior
in the links ensures that the surrounding seismic frame is undamaged.Eccentrically
braced frames can be viewed as a hybrid system between moment frames and con-
centrically braced frames. EBFs combine the advantages of these two systems and
minimize the disadvantages of them. They can develop the high elastic stiffness of
concentrically braced frames and high ductility and stable energy dissipation capacity
of moment resisting frames. They also have architectural advantages, in that they
create gaps for doorways and windows.
There are three basic types of EBFs, which are shown in Figure 2.1. The first type
is a D-braced frame, shown in Fig. 2.1-a), which is commonly used in narrow bays
of bracing, such as elevators. The other types are the split-K and V braced frames,
7
shown in Fig. 2.1-b) and c), which are preferred for wider bays.
2.2.2 Behavior
Eccentrically braced frames behave differently depending on the type of links they
employ. Links are divided into three types defined by their yielding behavior. That is,
whether the links plastic strength is controlled by shear, flexure or both. These types
of links are called shear links, flexural links, and intermediate links respectively. The
link length, e, is a key parameter that controls the inelastic behavior and ultimate
failure mode of the link.
Shear links are relatively short links that reach their nominal shear capacity, VP ,
before the link ends reach their nominal plastic flexural capacity, MP . The length of
shear links is required by the Provisions to be:
1.6MP
e (2.1)
VP
Shear links are preferred because they have significantly higher inelastic deformation
capacity. They have higher deformation capacity because the inelastic shear strains
are almost uniformly distributed over the link length. However, they require larger
inelastic deformation to achieve a given story drift. The maximum inelastic link
rotation angle, P , for shear links as specified in the Provisions is 0.08 rad. The
typical ultimate failure mode of shear links is inelastic web buckling which can be
controlled by adding web stiffeners.
Long links are considered flexural links. The Provisions require the length of
flexural links to be:
2.6MP
e (2.2)
VP
The links end moments reach MP before the link shear force reaches VP . Therefore,
flexural links must undergo very high bending strains at link ends to produce large
inelastic link deformation. Conversely, shear links do not develop excessively high
local strains because of their distribution of shear strain over the entire length. From
8
a structural point of view, this makes shear links more practical; however, flexural
links are often preferred by architectures because they provide good architectural and
planning advantages. The rotation capacity of flexural links is considerably smaller
than for short links according to experiments of Engelhardt and Popov (1989a). For
flexural links, the maximum inelastic link rotation angle, P , is 0.02 rad. The ultimate
failure mode of flexural links is typically fracture of link flange at/near link flange-
to-column connection, severe flange buckling and lateral torsional buckling of link.
Transverse stiffeners near the link ends improve link behavior by providing restraint
against flange local buckling.
Material strain hardening effects link behavior so both shear and flexural yielding
can occur over a wide range of link lengths. These links are called intermediate links.
The limitations of the link length described in Eq. 2.3 are required for intermediate
links. The maximum inelastic rotation angle of intermediate links, according to the
Provisions, is determined by linear interpolation between 0.08 rad. and 0.02 rad. for
link lengths within the limit:
1.6MP 2.6MP
<e< (2.3)
VP VP
Links are generally categorized by a normalized link length, , shown in Eq. 2.4.
Eqs. 2.1 to 2.3 indicate that shear links have less than 1.6, flexural links have
larger than 2.6 and intermediate links have values between 1.6 and 2.6.
eVP
= (2.4)
MP
As previously mentioned, web stiffeners can delay the onset of web shear buckling
and increase the link rotation capacity. According to the AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC 2006), hereafter referred to as the Provisions, stiffener requirements for links
are different for each type of link, depending on their length. At diagonal brace ends
of all links, full depth web stiffeners are required on both sides of the link. They
should have a combined width of at least (bf 2tf ) and a thickness not less than
9
0.75tw or 3/8 in., whichever is larger. Intermediate web stiffeners are also required as
follows:
1.6MP
a) For links of length e VP
(shear links)
if p = 0.08 rad
d
s 30tw (2.5)
5
if p = 0.02 rad
d
s 52tw (2.6)
5
if 0.02 < p < 0.08 rad linear interpolation of the above is used,
where s is the stiffener spacing and d is the link depth;
2.6MP 5MP
b) for links of length VP
<e< VP
(flexural links), stiffeners should be provided
at a distance of 1.5bf from each end of the link;
1.6MP 2.6MP
c) for links of length VP
<e< VP
(intermediate links), stiffeners need to be
provided that meet the requirements for a) and b);
5MP
d) for links of length e VP
(long flexural links), no stiffeners are required.
The links must satisfy compactness requirements to ensure stable inelasticity

within them. The flange width-to-thickness requirements are presented in Eqs. 2.7
for shear links and 2.8 for intermediate and flexural links, and the web slenderness
criteria for all links in Eq. 2.9.
1.6MP
For e VP
:
bf E
< 0.38 (2.7)
2tf Fy
1.6MP
For e > VP
:
bf E
< 0.30 (2.8)
2tf Fy
For all link lengths:
h E
3.76 (2.9)
tw Fy
10
The construction of link-to-column connections before the Northridge earthquake

was similar to that of beam-to-column connections of moment resisting frames, MRFs.
Therefore, the pre-Northridge link-to-column connections can have problems similar
to those observed in beam-to-column connections in MRFs during the Northridge
earthquake. Thus, the Provisions contain specific requirements for link-to-column
connections to ensure adequate ductility capacity. These requirements are described
in the following paragraph.
The Provisions require that link-to-column connections should be designed for the
maximum inelastic link rotation angle, P , which is specified for the different types
of links. The strength of the connection measured at the column face must be equal
to at least the nominal shear strength of the link, Vn , at P . To satisfy these require-
ments, the Provisions require either using a prequalified link-to-column connection
in accordance with Appendix P in the Provisions(at this time there are actually no
prequalified link-to-column connections) or providing qualifying cyclic test results in
accordance with Appendix S in the Provisions. The Provisions provide for one ex-
ception, which is limited to shear links. This connection is reinforced with haunches
or other suitable reinforcement designed to prevent inelastic action in the reinforced
zone adjacent to the column (Provisions, 2005). The reinforced zone should remain
essentially elastic for the fully yielded and strain hardened link strength. Fig. 2.2
shows an example of that type of reinforced connection. Alternatively, the Provisions
recommend avoiding link-to-column connections in EBFs entirely.
2.3 Reduced beam section
The Northridge earthquake had a significant influence on the seismic design of steel
moment resisting frames as many beam-to-column connections fractured at low drift
levels. New configurations of the connections were considered and recommended for
use instead of the typical pre-Northridge connection. Among these connections was
the reduced beam section (RBS), which involves a reduction in the flanges of the beam
11
Figure 2.2: Example of a reinforced link-to-column connection (Provisions, 2006)
close to the ends. According to previous research on the behavior of RBS moment
connections, the most practical cutout is a radius cut as shown in Fig. 2.3. The design
requirements for RBS moment connections are shown in Eqs. 2.10 to 2.12.
Figure 2.3: Reduced beam section connection (Okazaki, 2004)
0.5bf a 0.75bf (2.10)
0.65d b 0.85d (2.11)
0.1bf c 0.25bf (2.12)
By reducing the section, yielding and plastic hinge formation is forced to occur at
the reduced beam section instead of at the end of the beam. Therefore, the highest
12
stress and strain in the beam occur at the reduced beam section. These connections
are prequalified by the Provisions for use in special moment frame and intermediate
moment frame systems.
The use of the RBS is limited to particular section sizes. The beam size is limited
to a depth of 36 in. for both rolled and built up wide-flange sections, a weight of
300 lbs/ft and a flange thickness of 1 in. Additionally, there are lateral bracing
requirements and a clear span-to-depth ratio limit that must be met. The beam also
has to meet compactness ratio requirements for the flanges and web according to
the Provisions. Requirements for the beam-to-column connection include: the beam
shall be connected to the flange of the column and the web shall be connected to the
flange of the column with a CJP groove weld extending between weld access holes.
When designing a RBS moment connection, the moment at the face of the column
must be determined to ensure that the beam-to-column connection can develop Mpr ,
the probable plastic moment in the reduced section. Since the plastic hinge occurs
away from the column face, the moment at the column face is calculated as shown in
Eq. 2.13 and in Fig. 2.4(FEMA-350, 2000).
Figure 2.4: Moment at column face when plastic hinge occurs away from beam
end.(FEMA-350, 2000)
13
Myf = Cy Mf (2.13)
where
Mf = Mpr + VP x (2.14)
1
Cy = (2.15)
Cpr ZSbeb
where
Mpr = probable peak plastic hinge moment
VP = shear at plastic hinge
x = distance from column face to plastic hinge (where the plastic hinge is at the
center of the RBS for this case)
Cpr = peak connection strength coefficient
Sb = elastic section modulus of the beam at the zone of plastic hinging
Zbe = effective plastic section modulus of the beam at the zone of plastic hinging
2.4 Literature Review
In this section, recent research on EBFs and RBSs will be reviewed, including a recent
study by Okazaki (2004) that investigated the application of several post-Northridge
beam-to-column connection details as link-to-column connections.
2.4.1 EBF links
Arce (2002)
Arce investigated the impact of the flange width-to-thickness ratio on the rotation
capacity and overstrength of links in eccentrically braced frames made from ASTM
A992 steel. Her experimental investigation was part of a research program on the
behavior of A992 steel links under cyclic loading. Sixteen links were tested by Arce,
at the University of Texas, Austin (UTA) and parallel analytical investigation, finite
14
Figure 2.5: Overall view of test setup (Arce, 2002)
element modeling under cyclic loading, was performed at the University of California
at San Diego (Richards, 2004). The study sought to increase the limiting flange
p p
width-to-thickness ratio for links from 52/ Fy to 65/ Fy such that several common
wide-flange shapes previously allowed as links using A36 steel could still be allowed
using A992 steel. Link overstrength factors were also reevaluated for links of A992
steel and for links with large ratios of flange to web area.
The test setup consisted of a link welded to end plates that were bolted to a large
beam and a large column as shown in Fig. 2.5. The column was pushed up to induce
a shear force and equal end moments in the link and the beam-to-link connection is
held in place. The same beam and column were used throughout the testing, only
the link section was replaced for each test. Specimens were chosen based on their
flange slenderness and flange-to-web area ratio. The loading protocol from the AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC 2000) was used for all specimens in this research. The
sixteen tests performed used four different wide flange sections, namely, W10x19,
W10x33, W16x36 and W10x68.
Three specimens had a fracture at a weld connecting the link end plate to the link
15
flange. The data from these specimens were not used because the failures were con-
sidered an artifact of the test setup. Only five specimens achieved the target plastic
rotation levels specified in the AISC Seismic Provisions. In seven of the eight speci-
mens that did not reach the target plastic rotation levels, there was a fracture of the
link web that initiated at the end of the stiffener welds. In some of these specimens,
this fracture occurred prior to any web buckling or only after mild web buckling.
This fracture mainly affected short shear yielding links. This type of fracture has
typically occurred in past tests after the link has achieved its target plastic rotation
level and after severe web buckling. The termination of the stiffener-to-web weld on
some specimens was moved further from the k-area in an attempt to prevent this
fracture; however this measure only delayed the fracture and did not prevent it.
Various lengths of W10x33 sections were tested as they had a compactness ratio
p
close to the proposed limit, 65/ Fy . The data for the W10x33 test specimens indi-
cated that the flange compactness ratio limit can be relaxed, in general. However,
the test results for the W16x36 section showed contradictory results. Therefore, Arce
recommended further investigation before relaxation of flange compactness ratio limit
is permitted.
Link overstrength is based on two things, material strain hardening and shear
resistance developed by the links flanges. The average total overstrength for the
links shear resistance was found to be 1.28 whereas overstrength factors of 1.25 and
1.1 are used for design of the braces and the design of the beam outside the link,
respectively. The latter appears to be somewhat low. Tension coupon tests were
conducted to verify the value of Ry , which accounts for difference between the mean
and nominal material yield stress. The results indicated an average ratio of actual
to nominal yield stress of 1.11 which is close to the value 1.1 specified by the AISC
Seismic Provisions. Arce came to the conclusion that the overstrength factors for
design of braces given by the AISC manual are reasonable compared to the test
results.
16
Richards (2004)
Richards (2004) investigated a number of issues concerning the design of eccentrically

braced frames. First, he used finite element models to investigate the unexpected
failures that occurred at low inelastic rotations in short links during the link testing
performed by Arce at the University of Austin (UTA). Richards expanded the model-
ing to include an investigation of the impact of the flange width-to-thickness ratio on
link rotation capacity. Thereafter, he considered the shortcomings in the traditional
approach for estimating link overstrength and proposed a new method. Richards also
used nonlinear response history analysis to develop a new loading protocol for testing
EBF links, which is discussed below.
Nonlinear response history analyses were performed for nine eccentrically braced
frames subjected to 20 earthquake records scaled to represent design events. The
maximum and cumulative rotation demands were quantified and used to develop a
loading protocol, in terms of story drift ratio, which represents these demands. The
demands were independent of link length and frame height. This eccentrically braced
frame loading protocol is used to calculate the appropriate rotation histories for short,
intermediate and long links. From these analyses it was established that the loading
protocol used for the link testing at UTA is significantly over-conservative for short
links. That loading protocol, from AISC(2002), has more large inelastic cycles and
the cumulative rotation to reach 0.09 radians is 60% more than necessary according
to the response history data. The AISC (2002) loading protocol was also found to be
somewhat over-conservative for intermediate links and unconservative for long links.
An alternative loading protocol developed by Richards was considered reasonable to
achieve realistic link rotation demands during link testing and has been adopted in
AISC (2006). Table 2.1 shows the AISC (2002) loading protocol as well as the revised
loading protocol by Richards.
More than 100 finite element models of all types of links were analyzed under
17
Table 2.1: Loading protocols
AISC protocol(2002) Revised protocol

Cycle [no.] T otal [rad.] Cycle [no.] T otal [rad.]
3 0.0025 6 0.00375
3 0.005 6 0.005
3 0.01 6 0.0075
2 0.02 6 0.01
2 0.03 4 0.015
2 0.04 4 0.02
2 0.05 2 0.03
2 0.06 1 0.04
2 0.07 1 0.05
2 0.08 1 0.07
2 0.09 1 0.09
2 0.10 1 0.11
2 0.11 1 0.13
Continue at increments of 0.01 rad Continue at increments of 0.02 rad
with two cycles at each amplitude with one cycle at each amplitude
cyclic loading to investigate the flange width-to-thickness ratio requirements. Overly

stringent requirements can result in heavier than necessary link sections, which can
impact the economy of the system. From the analyses, Richards established that the
link inelastic rotation capacity is not directly related to the flange width-to-thickness
p p
ratio and suggested the ratio be relaxed from 0.30 (Es /Fy ) to 0.38 (Es /Fy ) for
all links. The links that are most susceptible to strength loss due to local buckling
are intermediate links and it was found that the provisions specify design rotations
18
for some intermediate links that are rather non-conservative. The reason for this
overestimation of intermediate link rotation capacity is that the derivation of the
stiffener spacing requirements considers only shear buckling of the web and neglects
flexural stresses.
Richards also investigated link overstrength, which if overestimated can affect the
design of the rest of the frame. Richards concluded that the amount of overstrength
is not affected by the transition from A36 steel to A992 steel as the standard steel
for wide flange shapes. Some overstrength observed in experiments and finite element
analyzes of short links was found to be additional shear force carried in the link
flanges after web yielding. Richards proposed a procedure to determine the shear
force that can be carried by the link flanges and verified it against experimental and
finite element results. The modified plastic shear strength, Vp0 , is the shear carried by
the web, Vp , plus the shear carried by the flanges, Vf :
VP0 = VP + 2Vf (2.16)
The shear carried by the flanges is given as:
2MP f Fy bf t2f Fy t2w e

Vf = = 0 (2.17)
e 2e 31bf
where
MP f = nominal plastic flexural strength of link flange-beam with axial force
e = link length
Fy = specified minimum yield stress
bf = width of beam flange
tf = thickness of beam flange
tw = thickness of beam web
and the ultimate shear strength of a link if modified nominal shear strength accounted
19
for, is:
Vult = Ryw Vp0 (2.18)
where is a factor that accounts for strainhardening.

When columns are designed in an EBF, they are designed for the axial load re-
sulting from the maximum shear force developed in the link. Short links in high-rise
EBFs do not yield and harden simultaneously so axial load computation for column
design in high-rise buildings can be overestimated. This affects ultimate column axial
force demands. Richards concluded that the hardening factor should be at least 1.25
when computing column demands in low-rise EBFs and for the four top stories of
high-rise EBFs. For high-rise EBFs, the ten stories below the top four can have a
link hardening factor of 1.1 and for stories below the top fourteen the demand can be
computed with a hardening factor of 1.0.
Okazaki (2004)
Okazaki (2004) describes an experimental and analytical investigation of the seismic

performance of various types of link-to-column connections in eccentrically braced
frames. The main objectives of this research were to: evaluate the performance of
link-to-column connections used prior to the Northridge earthquake, test moment re-
sisting frame connections developed after the Northridge earthquake as link-to-column
connections, investigate the stress and strain environment at link-to-column connec-
tions, check whether it is possible to predict the performance of these connections
with finite element simulations, and to provide recommended design guidelines for
EBF link-to-column connections.
Okazaki performed a total of sixteen large-scale cyclic loading tests. The loading
system can be seen in detail in Fig. 2.6. These tests included four different connec-
tion types with four different link lengths. Two different loading protocols were used,
namely, the protocol from the 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions and the protocol devel-
20
Figure 2.6: Details of the loading system (Okazaki, 2004)
oped by Richards and Uang (2003). Link lengths varied for each of the connection
types to achieve different loading conditions and deformations. The test specimens
all had a W18x40 link and a W12x120 column, both of A992 steel. The connection
types tested were: a connection based on connection design prior to the Northridge
earthquake, a connection with improved welding of the pre-Northridge connection, a
free flange connection, and a no weld access hole connection.
The pre-Northridge connection failed at nearly half of the target inelastic link ro-
tation. Welding improvements were beneficial but not significant enough so that the
link would reach the required rotation level. The free flange connections achieved con-
siderably greater link rotations than the pre-Northridge connection, but still generally
failed to reach the link rotation requirements. The results for the connection with
no weld access hole depended strongly on the link length. Short links could achieve
an inelastic rotation up to 49% greater than the target rotation, whereas longer links
21
Figure 2.7: Link Rotation Capacity (Okazaki, 2004)
achieved an inelastic rotation of 17-37% less than the required target. The most com-
mon failure mode in these connections was fracture of the link flange initiating near
the groove weld which connects the link to the column flange. The connection details
that achieved desired ductilities in beam-to-column moment connections in MRFs
were found to generally lack the desired ductility of EBF link-to-column connections,
as the results for link rotational capacity show in Fig 2.7.
The local stresses and strains at link-to-column connection in EBFs are more
severe than those in moment resisting connections. Detailed finite element analysis
results for the stress and strain concentration correlated well to the fracture behavior
of the specimens during testing. Generally, the fracture of the link flange near the
groove weld was predicted by the analytical model. These results show that finite
element simulation can be used to predict connection behavior even at the highly
localized levels. Okazaki concluded that link-to-column connections should be avoided
because of their limited ductility resulting from flange fracture which was found to
be a major concern for links of all practical lengths.
22
Figure 2.8: Test setup (Engelhardt et al., 1998)
2.4.2 RBS
Engelhardt, Winneberger, Zekany and Potyraj (1998)
This research program consisted of testing five beam-to-column connection specimens

with different types of reduced beam sections(RBS), also called dogbone moment con-
nections. The first specimen consisted of a RBS cut with a constant width whereas the
other four had circular RBS cuts. The specimens beam sizes ranged from W30x148
to W36x194 of A572 Gr. 50 steel. The RBS cutout in the beam flanges was combined
with an all welded beam-to-column connection constructed using improved welding
practices developed following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The test setup is
shown in Fig. 2.8.
Since the Northridge Earthquake a wide variety of improvements to moment con-

nections have been developed. When the RBS is compared to other moment connec-
23
tions, it has the potential to combine good performance and economy with improved
reliability. The RBS is supposed to force yielding to occur away from the end of the
beam to reduce stress concentrations at the beam flange groove welds. For most con-
nections the connection is made stronger by increasing the strength at the end of the
beam whereas for the RBS, the connection demands are decreased by weakening the
beam. The RBS can also have simpler details in construction than other connections.
In the testing by Engelhardt et al.(1998) the beam-to-column connection was a fully
welded web connection, high toughness weld metal was used, the weld tabs at both
the top and bottom beam flange groove welds were removed as well as bottom flange
backing bars, a seal weld was used at the top flange backing bar and continuity plates
were used with a thickness equal to the beam flange thickness. These connection
details can also affect the performance of the reduced beam section.
A loading protocol suggested in ATC-24 (1992) was applied to all of the specimens
using displacement control. The constant width RBS connection showed excellent
results for the early inelastic cycles but fracture developed in the RBS at the end of
the flat portion of the cutout nearest the face of the column. The specimens with the
radius cut RBSs exhibited excellent performance and fracture did not occur. The most
intense yielding occurred in the flanges within the reduced beam section. Strength
loss in all of the specimens occurred due to local flange and web buckling combined
with lateral torsional buckling of the beam. Even though additional lateral support
relative to other connections might be needed the authors suggest that no additional
lateral support is necessary within the RBS itself. The maximum moment developed
within the RBS ranged from 1.05 to 1.29 times the plastic moment of the RBS, which
shows evidence of considerable strain hardening. A cost study was performed by
W&W Steel Company where they compared the radius cut RBS connection with
nine other moment connections and the RBS was the least costly connection. The
geometry of the cutout is the key design issue and the authors came up with design
24
requirements for the RBS parameters a, b and c, shown in Fig. 2.3.
a
= (0.5 to 0.75)bf (2.19)
b
= (0.65 to 0.85)d (2.20)
where
bf = width of beam flange
d = depth of beam section
They suggest that a and b should be kept small because when they are larger the
RBS is moved further away from the column. This makes the RBS less effective in
reducing the moment at the face of the column. However, if a and b are too small,
undesirable stress and strain concentrations can occur at the ends of the beam or
within the reduced beam section. Eqs. 2.19 and 2.20 represent a balance for the
values of a and b. Engelhardt et al.(1998) proposed the following limits for c:
Z
c (1 ((L a 0.5b)/1.15L)) 0.25bf (2.21)
2tf (d tf )
where
Z = plastic section modulus for full beam cross-section
L = length of the beam
= target bending moment at face of column divided by Mp of the beam(i.e.,
target bending moment at face of column = Mp .
The lower limit is estimated from the maximum moment developed at the middle of
the RBS and from the limits of the maximum moment at the face of the column.
Practically, the cutout can be at most about 50% of the beam flange width resulting
in the proposed upper limit. Notably, in the Provisions the parameter is taken as
1.0, allowing the moment at the column face to reach, but not exceed, MP of the
beam.
The elastic stiffness of a steel moment frame will be reduced if a reduced beam
section is used. A recent study showed that with a 50% flange reduction, the average
25
reduction in stiffness was 6-7%. And for a 40% reduction the stiffness decreases by
4-5%.
Engelhardt et al.(1998) concluded that the reduced beam section is one of the
more promising connection concepts for the design of ductile steel moment frames in
severe seismic regions.
Engelhardt, Venti, Fry, Jones and Holliday (2000)
Research on steel moment frame connections used in seismic regions was performed
by the Connection Performance team of the FEMA/SAC Phase II Steel Project. The
study is known as SAC Task 7.06a. The report has results from experimental and an-
alytical investigations on radius cut RBS moment connections. The main goal of the
research was to evaluate aspects of RBS connections that have not been specifically
examined before and evaluate the suitability of the design procedures. Three major
issues were investigated: the effect of composite floor slabs on the performance of a
RBS connection, the effect of large inelastic deformations of the joint panel zone, and
the acceptability of a bolted web connection instead of a fully welded web connection.
The experimental testing was performed at the University of Texas at Austin and
Texas A&M University, where eight full scale tests were performed. The purpose of
the analytical work was to evaluate whether finite element modeling can predict ex-
perimentally observed behavior and compare local weldment behavior of RBS moment
connections to traditional unreinforced moment connections.
The eight specimens tested were pairs of bare-steel specimens and specimens with
a composite concrete floor slab. The specimens of each pair were identical except
for the absence or presence of a composite floor slab. All specimens were W36x150
beams of A572 Gr. 50 steel and the columns were either W14x398 or W14x283 of the
same steel. The beams were all attached to column flanges to represent an interior
joint. The first pair had a bolted web connection, the second had a welded web
connection and both were designed to yield in the RBS as well as the column panel
26
zone. The third pair had a bolted web connection detail combined with a very weak
panel zone whereas the fourth pair had the same connection but had a strong panel
zone designed to remain elastic. The same details and welding procedures for the
beam flange groove welds were used in all of the specimens.
The RBS cuts were all designed according to previously published recommenda-
tions (Engelhardt et al.(1998)). All of the specimens exhibited good performance.
They reached story drift angles of at least 0.04 radians without fracture, proving that
the RBS can achieve large drift angles. After this level of story drift a connection
with a bolted beam web connection experienced a base metal fracture adjacent to a
beam flange groove weld but no such fracture occurred in specimens with welded web
connections. Therefore, a welded web connection is recommended for use in RBS con-
nections to reduce the risk of beam flange fractures. The composite floor did not cause
early fracture in the segments nor did it have other damaging effects; on the contrary
it improved the stability of the beam and delayed strength degradation. No shear
studs were used within the RBS cut to prevent beam flange fracture. The specimens
had no lateral support at the RBS and the unbraced length was approximately 35%
beyond the limit permitted by the current seismic codes for special moment frame
beams. The specimens were still able to maintain 80% of their strength at 0.04 rad
story drift angle so the conclusion was made that satisfactory performance was pos-
sible without lateral bracing at the RBS and with spacing between lateral supports
beyond the permitted limits. It was also found that web buckling could occur earlier
in the RBS segment of the beam when compared to a beam without a RBS so more
strict web slenderness limits may apply for this connection type.
The specimens with weak column panel zones showed excellent performance re-
garding story drift angels and energy dissipation but the connections ultimately failed
by beam flange fractures adjacent to groove welds, though at large drift levels. Panel
zone shear deformations caused these fractures and therefore strong panel zones are
recommended.
27
The weld performance of the beam flange groove welds were satisfactory since
no fractures occurred there in any of the connections tested prior to reaching a drift
of 0.04 rad. Finite element analysis was conducted on some of the specimens and
both global models of the entire specimens and local models of the region near the
groove welds were completed. The conclusion was made that finite element analysis
can predict connection response in the inelastic range reasonably well because the
finite element results for the load-deformation response compared well to the exper-
imentally measured responses. These results show that the primary benefit of using
RBS connections is the significant reduction of inelastic strain demand at critical
places/locations near the flange groove welds.
28
Chapter 3
PROPOSED RLS EBF METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
As discussed in Chapter 2, Okazaki (2004) was unsuccessful in applying several post-

Northridge moment resisting connection details to link-to-column connections. Fur-
ther, the Provisions recommend an expensive haunched connection for link-to-column
connections, which is itself untested. The objective of this chapter is to present a de-
sign procedure applying the RBS concept to link-to-column connections. To do this,
the link flanges are reduced with a radius cut, creating a reduced link section (RLS).
Such a link-to-column connection should reduce the plastic strain demand at the
column face, reducing the likelihood of flange fracture and improving ductility.
3.2 RLS Design Procedure
The reduced beam section is suitable for a beam that has flexural yielding occurring
initially but can be less suitable for beams subject to shear yielding. The advantage
of having a reduced beam section within a link in an EBF is mainly a decrease in
stress and strain concentration at the ends of the link, which involves a decrease in
moment at the face of the columns or in the moment transferred to the beam outside
the link. By decreasing the moment in the beam outside the link, the stability of the
beam improves and damage is reduced. Another advantage is that the RBS contains
inelastic behavior within the link, which enables strict capacity design. Here after,
the reduced section in a link will be referred to as a reduced link section, RLS.
The moment at the ends of the link is reduced by reducing the moment strength
at the RLS. The moment distribution of a link with a RLS is shown in Fig. 3.1. The
29
lower the moment at the RLS is, the lower the end moment is. Therefore, the RLS
needs to be designed so that the desired reduction of the end moment is achieved. As
the RLS is moved closer to the end, larger reductions in link end moment, ML , are
achievable. The following derivations of the limits of the moment at the center of the
reduced link section, will demonstrate how the parameters a, b, and c, in Fig. 3.1,
can be estimated to accomplish the desired reduction of the end moment.
MRLS
Link Moment ML
Diagram
VL
MRLS
eRLS
e
a b
c
RLS Cut
Link Flange
Figure 3.1: Moment Distribution
The RLS can be designed by implementing two limits. The first limits the link
end moment to some portion of unreduced links plastic moment and is:
ML MP (3.1)
where
ML = moment at the end of the link
= ratio of the moment at the end of the link to the plastic moment strength of
the section.
The second limit, shown in Eqs. 3.2 to 3.4, applies for each link type and is meant
to ensure that the link having an RLS behaves in a manner similar to a link without
30
section reduction:
Shear links:
RLS 1.6 (3.2)
Intermediate links:
1.6 RLS 2.6 (3.3)
Flexural links:
RLS 2.6 (3.4)
where
VP eRLS
RLS = (3.5)
MRLS
where
eRLS = length between the centers of the reduced link sections
MRLS = moment at the center of the reduced link section.
A limit for the moment at the center of the reduced link section, MRLS , can be
achieved by substituting Eq. 3.5 into Eqs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, resulting in:
Shear link:
VP eRLS
MRLS (3.6)
1.6
Intermediate link:
VP eRLS VP eRLS
MRLS (3.7)
1.6 2.6
Flexural link:
VP eRLS
MRLS (3.8)
2.6
This limit ensures the desired link behavior for each type of link.
From moment equilibrium of a link, the following equations are developed:

2MRLS
VL = (3.9)
eRLS
2ML
VL = (3.10)
e
31
By combining Eq. 3.1 with Eqs. 3.9 and 3.10, the following limit applies to the
moment in the RLS for links of all length:
MP eRLS
MRLS (3.11)
e
For a shear link, Eqs. 3.11 and 3.6 are the upper and lower limits for the moment
that can develop at the center of the RLS such that the link remains a shear link and
satisfies moment equilibrium. Eqs. 3.11 and 3.7 give two upper limits and one lower
limit for MRLS in intermediate links. Finally, Eqs. 3.11 and 3.8 give two upper limits
for MRLS in flexural links.
The moment at the center of the reduced link section can be computed as follows:
Ze
MRLS MP (3.12)
Z
where
Z = plastic section modulus for full beam cross-section
Ze = plastic section modulus at center of the reduced link section
The plastic section modulus at the center of the reduced link section can be calculated
according to Eq. 3.13.
Ze = Z 2ctf (d tf ) (3.13)
where
c = depth of cut at center of the reduced link section
tf = thickness of beam flange
d = depth of beam section
The length of the reduced link section, b, and the distance between the end of
the link to the reduced link section, a, influence the length between the centers of
the reduced link sections, eRLS as shown in Fig 3.1. Therefore, the limits for the
moment in the reduced link section, MRLS , change with variations of a and b. At
first, the depth of the RLS cut, c, is estimated as the maximum value given by the
RBS requirements. Then, when a decision has been made on the a and b parameters
32
the limits for MRLS can be computed. Thereafter, Eqs. 3.12 and 3.13 are used to
achieve the limits of the depth of cut at center of the reduced link section, c, which
might influence the estimated value of c.
The parameters, a, b and c can be selected so they fulfill the design requirements
in the Provisions, presented in Eqs. 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12. These requirements and
limitations on MRLS imposed by Eqs. 3.6 to 3.8 and 3.11 cannot be simultaneously
fulfilled for some sections and variations of . Therefore, modifications to Eqs. 2.10,
2.11 and 2.12 will be necessary to implement in RLSs, that is RBS technology applied
in EBF links to reduce flange strains at link ends. Additional limits of the RLS
geometry parameters a, b and c concerning constructibility are addressed in Chapter
5. The general design procedure of links with RLSs is presented in Fig 3.2 by a
flowchart. Excel spreadsheets were developed for the design of shear, intermediate
and flexural links with RLSs, an example of a design spreadsheet is shown in Fig 3.3.
33
Figure 3.2: A flowchart demonstrating the general design procedure

34
Figure 3.3: An example of excel spreadsheets used for design of links with RLSs. This
spreadsheet regards the design of shear links.
35
Chapter 4
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
4.1 General
As part of this research a number of finite element models of links were analyzed
to evaluate effectiveness of the RLS concept for reducing plastic strains at critical
locations. This chapter discusses the development of the reference finite element
model from which other link models were derived. First, the definition of the model,
including geometry, element type, and material model, is thoroughly described. Then
convergence of the model is checked using three levels of mesh refinements. Finally
the model is validated in terms of global response via a comparison with experimental
results from the literature for both an EBF link and RBS moment resisting connection.
4.2 Reference Model Definition
In this research, the program MSC. Marc Mentat 2005r3 is used for finite element
analysis of the links. The mesh refinement of the link models used throughout this
research was developed from a convergence study using a particular shear link. That
shear link is a W14x82 section with a length of 48 in. and a value of approximately
1.3, where is the normalized link length shown in Eq. 2.4. The section properties
from the AISC Manual of Steel Construction (AISC, 2005), hereafter referred to as
the AISC Manual, were used for definition of the model and are shown in Table 4.1.
The W14x82 section satisfies the compactness requirements for shear links in EBFs
shown in Eqs. 2.7 and 2.9. Shear links are required to have intermediate stiffeners,
which may be placed on both sides of the web or only on one side. Therefore, full
depth web stiffeners were added on one side of the link with a thickness of 0.55 in.
36
Figure 4.1: Stiffener spacing of the W14x82 shear link.
Table 4.1: Section properties
W14x82
d 14.3 in
bf 10.1 in
tf 0.855 in
tw 0.510 in
e 48 in
and at a spacing of 8.2 in. in the interior of the link and 11.8 in. at the link ends as
shown in Fig. 4.1. An unequal stiffener spacing is used to accommodate the RLS as
described below. The required stiffener spacing is 12.44 in. according to Eq. 2.5 and
the minimum thickness of the stiffeners is tw , which is 0.51 in. for a W14x82 section.
The shear link was designed with reduced link sections at each end. Initially, each
RLS fulfilled the design requirements for RBS beam-to-column connections given in
the Provisions, i.e. the limits for the dimensions a, b and c. The limits for this
37
W14x82 section are as follows:
5.05in a 7.58in
9.30in b 12.16in
1.10in c 2.53in
For the RLSs for this link, the following parameters were selected: a = 5.2 in, b =
9.4 in and c = 2.5 in. The value for in Eq. 3.11 for this RLS geometry is equal to
1.0.
The original model of the RLSs consisted of 1376 elements, 1461 nodes and 4333
degrees of freedom. An appropriate element type and boundary conditions were
selected and are described below. Material nonlinearity and geometric nonlinearity
were considered in all analyses.
4.2.1 Element Type
The element type used is a linear, four-noded quadrilateral, thick-shell element with
6 degrees of freedom. This element type, called type 75 in MSC. Marc, works
well for this problem since severe out of plane rotations are not expected and shear
locking is not a significant concern. This is a Mindlin element where shear strains are
calculated at the middle of the edges and interpolated to integration points. With
decreasing shell thickness, the elements behavior approaches that of a thin shell. The
element thickness-to-edge-length ratio of Model 2 and models derived from Model 2
(see Chapter 5) was 0.2 to 0.8, which is reasonable for this element given that the
formulation is practical for thin elements as well as thick elements. For this element
type, linear interpolation is used for the coordinates, displacements and rotations.
The element has four Gaussian integration points. Each element is divided into 5
layers in the through-thickness dimension and a linear interpolation of the results is
performed at each layer to compute resultant moment and shear. This is done to
facilitate simulation of yielding. The results will be taken from the outermost layers,
38
layers 1 and 5, since they give the most critical results for both stresses and strains.
Further information about the element formulation is given in the MSC. Marc Manual
(2006).
4.2.2 Geometric Nonlinearity
Geometric nonlinearity is implemented by using a large strain formulation. This is

applied by selecting the large strain option in MSC. Marc which utilizes an updated
Lagrange formulation. This formulation was used to capture the local buckling of
the links. In all of the links, no initial link imperfections were used to trigger buck-
ling. Instead, stiffeners were placed only on one side of the web, as allowed by the
Provisions.
4.2.3 Material Nonlinearity
A elastic-plastic constitutive model with kinematic hardening is used to describe

inelastic material response. The link material has an elastic modulus of 29000 ksi and
a Poissons ratio of 0.3. The von Mises yield criterion is used to define the elastic
domain. The material hardening follows from the model developed by Okazaki (2004)
for A992 steel, which is based on tension coupon tests. The material is assumed
to have tri-linear stress-strain behavior with kinematic hardening and no isotropic
hardening. The material model for the elasto-plastic region is shown in Fig. 4.2,
where the values for points 1, 2 and 3 in terms of Cauchy stress and logarithmic
plastic strain are the following:
y1 = 52.09 ksi, p1 = 0 in/in

y2 = 69.94 ksi, p2 = 0.04808 in/in
y3 = 125.7 ksi, p3 = 0.43508 in/in
Note that the Cauchy stress is used because in the updated Lagrange large strain
analysis, stresses are computed over the updated element dimensions.
39
130
3
120
110
Cauchy stress [ksi] 100
90
80
70 2
60
1
50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Plastic logarithmic strain, p [in/in]
Figure 4.2: Tri-linear material model developed for A992 steel (Okazaki, 2004)
4.2.4 Boundary Conditions and Loading
Fig. 4.3 shows an idealization of the boundary conditions used for the analyses. For the
left end of the link, all of the rotations and translations are restrained except for the
horizontal translation which is constrained to be equal for all nodes at that end. The
right end of the link is permitted to have a vertical translation, again constrained to be
equal for all nodes at that end, but all other translations and rotations are restrained.
Thus, the links boundary conditions are estimated to be fully restrained for torsion
at each end and for in-plane rotation at each end. Although these assumed boundary
conditions are reasonable and have been used in previous research (Richards, 2004),
it should be noted that the actual stiffnesses of adjacent members may be somewhat
less than these approximated conditions. Thus, these approximated conditions will
help reduce flange strains at the ends of the link but will increase the likelihood of
lateral torsional buckling. The vertical displacement applied to the end of the link is
calculated from the loading sequence for link-to-column connections in the Provisions,
which is given in terms of link rotation. The first cycles, where the total link rotation
40
angle is 0.00375, 0.005, 0.0075 and 0.01 radians, are omitted because the shear link
remains elastic when these rotations are applied. The cyclic loading applied is shown
in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Cyclic loading
Cycle T otal
[no.] [rad.]
4 0.015
4 0.02
2 0.03
1 0.04
1 0.05
1 0.07
1 0.09
Continue at increments of 0.02 rad
with one cycle at each amplitude
Figure 4.3: Link boundary conditions (a) Initial position (b) Deformed configuration.
(Richards, 2004)
41
4.3 Analysis
A Newton-Raphson formulation with displacement control is used for the numerical

iterations performed in the nonlinear analysis. The tolerance of the relative residual
is set to 0.01. The number of analysis steps taken is 1000 and inertial effects are not
considered.
4.3.1 Convergence Study
The mesh refinement of the model to be used throughout the research was determined
by performing a convergence study. Fig. 4.4 shows the level of mesh refinements that
were considered for the reference shear link, W14x82. Model 1 has element sizes of 2
in. by 2-3 in. Model 2 has element sizes of 1 in. by 1-1.5 in. Model 3a has element
sizes of 0.5 in. by 0.5-0.75 in. The normal stress and plastic strain in the longitudinal
direction as well as the equivalent von Mises stress and equivalent plastic strain, are
checked for convergence at the four different locations shown in Fig. 4.5. They are:
at the middle of the flange at the end and close to the end of the link, at the middle
of the RBS, and at the tip of the RBS.
The results for the stresses and strains at each location are shown in Table 4.3 at
a link rotation of 0.09 rad. during Cycle 13. Also shown are the percent differences
between Models 1 and 3a and Models 2 and 3a. Importantly, the differences between
key values in each mesh refinement are decreasing with each refinement as Table 4.3
shows. The difference in the strains is large at locations with stress concentration
or high restraint, which is an expected result. Table 4.3 indicates that the difference
between stresses in the various models is relatively low at all locations, except for
the normal stress at the middle of the RLS. The highest difference between the mesh
refinements in the equivalent von Mises stress is in the flange at the location of the
discontinuity at the link end. However, the difference there is relatively small and
there is little difference in the equivalent von Mises stresses at the other locations
42
Figure 4.4: Mesh refinements a) Model 1, b) Model 2, c) Model 3a
between mesh refinements. Since equivalent von Mises stress is a function of all the
stresses occurring at a given location it is a reasonable measure of convergence. The
convergence of this stress indicates that Model 1 could be used for the analyses per-
formed in this research. However, since the difference in the normal stress at the
middle of the RLS is larger for Model 1 than for Model 2, Model 2 was selected
for the analyses in this research. Additionally, Model 2 appears to have converged
when examining the strains around the RLS and has the added advantage of signifi-
cantly improved computational time relative to Model 3a. Figs. 4.6 to 4.9 show the
convergence graphically at each location for each model.
The reduction of plastic strain at the end of a reduced link relative to an unreduced
43
Figure 4.5: Section cut A-A from Fig. 4.4, convergence checked at the locations
marked with a circle
link is of primary concern in this research. Since the plastic strain results have not
converged for that specific location in Model 2, unreduced links of all three mesh
refinements were analyzed to investigate this reduction. The reduction of plastic
strain in the reduced cases relative to the unreduced cases is shown in Fig 4.10 and
indicates that similar reduction is achieved in all of the mesh refinements. Thus,
Model 2 was considered to show reasonable results of reduction in plastic strain at
the ends of the link.
44
Table 4.3: Convergence parameters
Middle at end Close to end

1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Model1 61.7 53.4 0.0099 0.0121 57.7 53.3 0.0078 0.0094
Difference1 6% 6% 55% 55% 1% -1% 24% 27%
Model2 63.3 54.8 0.0147 0.0179 58.4 54.1 0.0069 0.0080
Difference2 4% 4% 33% 34% 2% 0% 8% 9%
Model3a 65.6 56.9 0.022 0.027 57.0 53.8 0.006 0.007
Middle of RLS Tip of RLS
1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Model1 37.7 54.0 0.0087 0.0106 61.3 56.3 0.0161 0.0184
Difference1 25% 0% -40% -43% -8% 0% 38% 36%
Model2 43.5 53.9 0.0085 0.0101 58.0 55.9 0.0229 0.0253
Difference2 13% 0% -36% -38% -2% 1% 12% 12%
Model3a 50.1 54.1 0.0062 0.0074 57.0 56.2 0.0259 0.0288
1) Normal stress in longitudinal direction [ksi]
2) Equivalent von Mises stress [ksi]
3) Equivalent plastic strain [in/in]
4) Plastic strain in longitudinal direction[in/in]
1 Percent difference between Model 1 and Model 3a
2 Percent difference between Model 2 and Model 3a
45
80
Normal stress in longitudinal direction [ksi]

Middle at end
Close to end
Middle of RLS
70
Tip of RLS
60
50
40
30
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. of elements at end
Figure 4.6: Normal stress (s11) vs. number of elements in the flange at the end.
60
Middle at end
Close to end
Equivalent von Mises stress [ksi]
Middle of RLS
58
Tip of RLS
56
54
52
50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4.7: Equivalent von Mises stress vs. number of elements in the flange at the
end.
46
0.035
Middle at end
Close to end
0.03
Equivalent plastic strain [in/in] Middle of RLS
Tip of RLS
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4.8: Equivalent plastic strain vs. number of elements in the flange at the end.
0.04
Plastic strain in longitudinal direction[in/in]
Middle at end
0.035 Close to end
Middle of RLS
0.03 Tip of RLS
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4.9: Plastic strain 11 vs. number of elements in the flange at the end.
47
70
Middle at end
60
Difference in plastic strain[%]

50
40
30
20
10
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4.10: Percent difference in plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, of re-
duced links relative to unreduced links for all three mesh refinements.
4.4 Comparison
4.4.1 Specimen 6B (Arce, 2002)
The finite element model was verified by analyzing Specimen 6B from Arce (2002)
and comparing the results to the test results. This specimen is a W10x33 section,
with a length of 50 in and stiffeners on one side of the web. The measured section
properties given by Arce were used for the section. The mesh refinement consists of
elements with dimensions of approximately 1 in. by 1 in., making them similar to
those in Model 2 described in the previous section. The material properties of the
model are the same as of the reference model.
The testing utilized an older loading protocol from the 2002 AISC Seismic Pro-
visions (AISC 2002); therefore, that older protocol was also used in the analysis.
Table 4.4 shows this loading protocol in terms of total link rotation. The first 6 cy-
cles with rotations of 0.0025 and 0.005 radians, were omitted because the specimen
48
Figure 4.11: Finite element model of Specimen 6B.
remained elastic at those small rotations.

Buckling was observed during the cyclic analysis in agreement with the experimen-
tal observations. Figs. 4.12 to 4.15 show the buckled shape of the section at various
link rotations during the analysis, where the contour bands indicate transverse dis-
placement. Fig. 4.16 shows the buckled shape of the specimen at the end of testing.
When the buckled shape of the link after the last cycle is compared to the buckled
Table 4.4: Cyclic loading
Cycle T otal
[no.] [rad.]
3 0.01
2 0.02
2 0.03
2 0.04
2 0.05
2 0.06
2 0.07
2 0.08
2 0.09
49
shape of the link at the end of testing, similar deformations are noted. The analytical
results show that buckling has occurred in the flanges as well as in the web, which
also occurred during the testing of this specimen.
Figure 4.12: Specimen 6B at 0.03 radian cycle.

50
Figure 4.15: Specimen 6B at the end of cyclic loading (0.09 radians).
Figure 4.16: Specimen 6B at the end of testing. (Arce 2002)
The analytical results for the shear developed within the link by the applied dis-
placements, as shown in Fig. 4.17, are compared to the experimental results, shown
in Fig. 4.18. From those figures it is clear that the analytical results compare well
to the experimental results and the strength degradation due to local buckling is
well represented. Fig. 4.17 shows the approximate rotation when buckling occurred
during testing. When this rotation is compared to when buckling occurs during the
analysis, relatively pre-mature buckling occurs during the analysis. The maximum
shear achieved within the link was 96 kips during testing and 89.5 kips from the
analysis. This 7% error is considered acceptable. The analysis of Specimen 6B from
Arce (2002) verifies that the finite element model used for this research is able to
reasonably represent the behavior of links under large deformations when compared
to experimental data, albeit in the absence of a RLS. Further, the results indicate
51
that the software MSC.Marc Mentat 2005r3 is able to model buckling within both the
web and flanges of the section during cyclic analysis and that the cyclic degradation
due to local buckling is well represented.
150 Analytical results

Vp
Vmax [Arce 2002]
100 Buckling[Arce 2002]
Shear force [kips]
50
50
100
150
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1

Plastic rotation [rad]
Figure 4.17: Analytical results; shear vs. plastic rotation
Figure 4.18: Test results; shear vs. plastic rotation (Arce 2002)
52
4.4.2 Specimen DB2 (Engelhardt et al., 1998)
Engelhardt et al.(1998) tested a number of moment resisting connections with RBSs.

For further verification of the finite element modeling methods used for RLSs here,
one of the tested sections, Specimen DB2, was modeled and the analytical results were
compared with the test results. Specimen DB2 is a W36x150 beam section attached to
a W14x426 column. The analytical model will consider only the beam section where,
according to the experimental results, the majority of inelastic behavior occurred.
Table 4.5 lists material properties obtained for the sections flanges and web from
tension coupon tests.
The flanges and web of the finite element model were assigned material properties
corresponding to those in Table 4.5 using a tri-linear material model. The length
of the specimen was set to 134 in., the distance from the face of the column to the
applied displacement during testing as shown previously in Fig. 2.8. The section
properties given by the AISC Manual for a W36x150 section were used for the model.
The mesh used in the model around the RBS is similar to that of Model 2 discussed
in the previous section, since that is the crucial area of the analysis. A courser mesh
refinement was used for the rest of the beam, as shown in Fig. 4.19. Since the RBS
area is the location of primary inelastic behavior and possible instabilities, using
Model 2s mesh refinement in that region will provide an opportunity for validation
of the modeling technique.
Table 4.5: Material properties
Fy Fu
[ksi] [ksi]
Flange 41.4 58.7
Web 47.1 61.8
53
Figure 4.19: Analytical model of specimen DB2
Boundary conditions were applied such that the translations and rotations of the
left and right end were fixed with the exception that the translation in the vertical
direction at the right end is permitted and used for load application. In the test setup,
the left end is not completely fixed since the column has a finite flexibility. This is
corrected in the analytical model by applying smaller displacements at the right end
than those used in the experiment.
The loading history used for testing Specimen DB2 was based on the protocol in
ATC-24(1992) and is shown in Table 4.6. The total rotation, total , is the sum of the
beam and column rotation angles as shown in Eq. 4.1.
total = b + col (4.1)
where b is the beam rotation angle and col is the column rotation angle. The
loading history used in this analysis is the same minus a rotation corresponding to
the approximate rotation component due to column deformation during testing. The
rotation component from column deformation was elastic and estimated to be 0.002
radians at the peak moments of each cycle, as shown in Fig 4.20. The estimated value
is based on a comparison of the experimental and analytical results when the total
rotations were used in the analysis.
The analytical result for the moment response of the beam compares well to the
test results, as Fig. 4.21 shows. The maximum moment achieved by the section dur-
54
Table 4.6: Specimen loading history
Cycle Beam tip displacement total applied

[no.] [in.] [rad.] [rad.]
3 0.50 0.004 0.002
3 0.75 0.006 0.004
3 1.00 0.007 0.005
3 2.00 0.015 0.013
3 3.00 0.022 0.020
2 4.00 0.030 0.028
2 5.00 0.037 0.035
2 6.00 0.045 0.043
Figure 4.20: Estimated rotation behavior of the column during testing.
ing testing was 23,822 k-in while the analytical value was 24,400 k-in, which is only
a 2.5% difference. As shown in Fig. 4.21, the hysteresis curves are similar although
there is more rapid strength loss in the model initially after buckling has occurred.
The buckled shape of the finite element model at the end of cyclic loading is shown
in Fig. 4.22 and compares well with that shown in Fig. 4.23, which is actually Spec-
55
4
x 10
3
Test results
Analytical results
2
1
Moment [kipin]
3
0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Plastic rotation [rad]
Figure 4.21: Moment vs. plastic rotation
imen DB4 from Englehardt et al.(1998) at the end of testing. Four radius cut RBS
specimens (DB2 to DB5) were tested by Engelhardt et al.(1998) and all had simi-
lar performance, in particular Specimens DB4 and DB5 had identical geometry and
similar hystereses. In all specimens, the web yielded over its full depth but the most
severe yielding occurred in the flanges within the RBS. Fig. 4.22 and Fig. 4.23 also
show that the yield behavior of the model and the specimen is comparable. There-
fore, the comparable hysteresis, buckled shape and yielding of the RBS model and
test specimen indicate that the refinement of the model is reasonable when compared
to experimental results.
56
Figure 4.22: DB2 at the end of cyclic loading
Figure 4.23: Deformed shape of specimen DB4 (Englehardt et al.,1998)
4.5 Summary
The development of the reference finite element model of a link with RLSs that will
be expanded on in later sections has been described. A convergence study on the
mesh refinement showed that the mesh of Model 2 is adequate. A comparison of link
behavior with experimental behavior for a link and RBS moment connection validated
the mesh and overall model. Therefore, Model 2 will be used in the preliminary study
of RLS effectiveness in Chapter 5 and throughout the rest of the research described
in this thesis.
57
Chapter 5
PRELIMINARY STUDY AND SELECTION OF

REPRESENTATIVE LINKS
5.1 General
To achieve the desired yield behavior of a link with a RLS, the limits of the de-
sign parameters a, b and c governing the geometry of the reduced section have to
be reevaluated, especially for shear links. This chapter will examine the impact of
utilizing values of a, b and c that are outside of the current range allowed by the
Provisions for RBS connection in steel moment frames. The W14x82 shear link used
for the convergence study in Chapter 4 will be redesigned with variations in a, b and
c, resulting in different values of the design parameter which is the ratio of the
moment at the end of the link, ML , to the plastic moment strength of the section,
MP . These links are then analyzed and investigated to identify values of which
result in a desirable yield behavior. After establishing target design values of a set
of links having various properties are designed and presented for studying the impact
of using RLSs on a wide variety of links. Chapter 6 presents results of analyses of
these links.
5.2 Preliminary Study of RLS Effectiveness
The goals of this preliminary study were to: investigate the effectiveness of the RLS
concept in limiting strain demand at the link ends while maintaining the links desired
overall behaviors and to establish reasonable range for the key design parameters.
To achieve the desired behavior and substantial strain reductions at the link ends,
the current limits for the RBS dimensions a, b and c from the Provisions(shown in
58
Fig. 2.3) may need to be altered.

For the link described in the Reference Model Definition Section of Chapter 4, i.e.
a W14x82 shear link with a mesh refinement corresponding to Model 2 and length
of 48 in., the parameters a, b and c were changed to achieve yielding in flanges at
the RLS prior to yielding in the flanges at the link ends. Seven combinations of a,
b and c, denoted Cases 1 through 7, were considered and analyzed and are shown in
Table 5.1. Case 1 represents values that meet the requirements of the Provisions for
RBS sections in SMRF. In Cases 2 and 3, the value of a was reduced to achieve a
lower value of , while b and c were held at the same values as for Case 1. In Case 4,
the value of b was reduced to achieve a lower value of while a and c were assigned
the same values as Case 1. In Case 5 both a and b were reduced while in Case 7 only
c was reduced. In Case 6, a is reduced and b is increased from the Case 1 values.
Table 5.1 also shows the maximum and minimum values for RBS connections from
the Provisions and indicates deviations from the ranges allowed in the Provisions for
each case in bold.
The stiffener spacing of all of the cases is presented in Table 5.1 as the parameters
s1, s2 and s3. The maximum allowable stiffener spacing according to Eq. 2.5 from the
Provisions is 12.44 in. for a W14x82 section. Stiffeners are preferred to be held outside
of the RLSs to avoid unnecessary stress concentrations within the RLSs. Therefore,
the stiffener spacing of Cases 1-7 needs to be uneven depending on the length of the
RLS, whereas for an unreduced case the stiffener spacing is kept the same throughout
the link length. In this case, an unreduced link of the same section and length has a
stiffener spacing of 12 in. Fig 5.1 shows the stiffener spacing and RLS geometry of
Cases 1-7 and stiffener spacing of an unreduced link.
As shown in Table 5.1, Cases 3, 5, and 7 have the lowest value of , which is near
0.86. Therefore, these cases are expected to have the lowest magnitude of stress and
strain at the ends of the link. Further, Cases 3 and 5 have the largest eRBS values, as
the length between the center of the RLSs varies because of the changes in a and b.
59
Table 5.1: Model cases with different RLS parameters and stiffener spacing. Deviations
from the ranges allowed in the Provisions are shown in bold.
a b c s1 s2 s3 RLS MRLS
[in] [in] [in] [in] [in] [in] [k-in]
Case 1 5.2 9.4 2.5 4 11.8 8.2 1.00 1.33 4076.13
Case 2 4.2 9.4 2.5 3 11.8 9.2 0.93 1.43 4076.13
Case 3 3.2 9.4 2.5 2 11.8 10.2 0.87 1.52 4076.13
Case 4 5.2 7.0 2.5 4 9.4 10.6 0.92 1.45 4076.13
Case 5 4.2 7.0 2.5 3 9.4 11.6 0.86 1.54 4076.13
Case 6 4.6 10.6 2.5 4 11.8 8.2 1.00 1.33 4076.13
Case 7 5.2 9.4 3.0 4 11.8 8.2 0.86 1.55 3501.36
AISC Min 5.05 9.30 1.01
AISC Max - 7.58 - 12.16 - 2.53 12.44 12.44 12.44
Thus, these cases are expected to have the largest stresses and strains in the reduced
sections. Note that in Cases 1 through 6, where c remains unchanged, the design
plastic moment capacity at the RLS stays the same because it depends on the plastic
section modulus at the center of the RLS. When c is increased in Case 7, the plastic
section modulus at the RLS decreases making MRLS lower for Case 7 relative to the
other cases. The analysis results are described below for both monotonic loading up
to 0.09 rad. of link rotation and cyclic loading using the loading protocol from the
Provisions and described in Chapter 4.
The stress and strain results at the locations indicated in Fig. 4.5, for the link
geometries in Table 5.1 subjected to monotonic loading up to a 0.09 radian total link
rotation, are shown in Table 5.2. Similar results are shown in Table 5.3 for the links
at peak rotation of the cycle at 0.09 rad. of total rotation from the loading protocol
in the Provisions. Note all stress and strain values are from the outer layer of the top
60
Figure 5.1: Stiffener spacing and RLS geometry for half link lengths of Cases 1-7 and
for an unreduced case of the same link. Stiffeners are shown with dashed lines.
flanges shell elements. Symmetric behavior about the longitudinal axis at mid-height
of the web was observed, such that the values from the outer layer of the bottom flange
were similar to those from the outer layer of the top flange. As expected, Cases 3, 5
and 7 have low stresses and strains at the ends of the link and Cases 3 and 5 have
the largest stresses and strains at the middle of the reduced beam sections. However,
Case 2 also has relatively low stresses and strains at the end of the link, even though
this case has a higher value of . Case 2 does not have high stresses and strains at
the center of the RLS relative to Cases 3 and 5, which is expected since the distance
between the RLSs in Case 2 is smaller than in Cases 3 and 5. Thus, a lack of strain
61
hardening in the RLS of Case 2 may have helped keep the stresses and strains at the
link end similar to those in Cases 3 and 5.
To interpret the results, it is more instructive to examine strains rather than
stresses. This is because if yielding occurs at both the RLS and at the link end,
which occurs due to strain hardening, the difference in the stresses at those locations
will be small. Under monotonic loading (Table 5.2), none of the cases considered
achieve higher flange strains at the middle of the RLS than at the middle of the
link end; only Cases 3 and 5 come close to accomplishing that. Under cyclic loading
(Table 5.3), Cases 3, 4, 5, and 7 are effective in limiting the strains at the middle
of the link end to less than those at the middle of the RLS. The analysis of Case
7 indicated that the link started to yield in the flanges of the RLS rather than the
web, even though RLS was less than 1.6. Considering the cases where the RLS flange
strains from cyclic analysis were higher than those at the link end, Case 5 had the
most desirable behavior. Case 5 exhibited web yielding, followed by yielding of the
flange in the reduced section, followed by yielding of the flange at the link ends.
Considering these preliminary results, it appears to be possible to design a RLS EBF
link that behaves as a shear link and concentrates larger flange strain demands in the
RLS section relative to the link ends. Additionally, both the upper and lower bounds
on MRLS are important as illustrated by Case 7.
62
Table 5.2: Stress and strain results for various cases of RLSs under monotonic
loading.

1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Unreduced 79.9 69.4 0.0344 0.0420 - - - -
Case 1 1.00 74.7 64.8 0.0254 0.0311 59.2 56.9 0.0115 0.0131
Case 2 0.93 73.1 63.5 0.0228 0.0278 57.6 57.3 0.0125 0.0141
Case 3 0.87 71.7 62.3 0.0203 0.0248 66.1 62.1 0.0221 0.0261
Case 4 0.92 74.7 64.8 0.0254 0.0310 59.4 57.9 0.0138 0.0157
Case 5 0.86 73.8 64.1 0.0239 0.0291 58.5 58.5 0.0154 0.0173
Case 6 1.00 74.4 64.6 0.0249 0.0304 59.3 57.2 0.0122 0.0139
Case 7 0.86 71.6 62.1 0.0200 0.0245 57.6 55.9 0.0092 0.0104
1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Case 1 1.00 57.2 56.4 0.0096 0.0113 64.7 62.2 0.0249 0.0279
Case 2 0.93 61.3 58.4 0.0145 0.0169 68.0 65.3 0.0326 0.0365
Case 3 0.87 64.5 60.6 0.0198 0.0230 71.0 68.2 0.0397 0.0445
Case 4 0.92 63.6 58.3 0.0138 0.0164 71.7 67.5 0.0376 0.0425
Case 5 0.86 66.4 60.6 0.0191 0.0225 74.4 70.0 0.0464 0.0525
Case 6 1.00 56.3 56.5 0.0101 0.0117 63.9 61.8 0.0241 0.0269
Case 7 0.86 67.5 64.1 0.0279 0.0323 73.5 70.9 0.0504 0.0564
63
Table 5.3: Stress and strain results for various cases of RLSs under cyclic loading.

1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Unreduced 68.1 59.1 0.0338 0.0414 - - - -
Case 1 1.00 63.3 54.8 0.0147 0.0179 58.4 54.1 0.0069 0.0080
Case 2 0.93 61.9 53.6 0.0085 0.0104 57.8 53.2 0.0070 0.0082
Case 3 0.87 61.3 53.1 0.0067 0.0078 60.7 55.2 0.0167 0.0201
Case 4 0.92 63.6 55.1 0.0123 0.0151 58.1 53.6 0.0082 0.0096
Case 5 0.86 62.7 54.4 0.0090 0.0109 57.9 53.9 0.0090 0.0105
Case 6 1.00 63.1 54.6 0.0123 0.0151 58.8 54.1 0.0071 0.0083
Case 7 0.86 61.0 52.8 0.0049 0.0059 58.9 53.5 0.0033 0.0037
1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Case 1 1.00 43.5 53.9 0.0085 0.0101 58.0 55.9 0.0229 0.0253
Case 2 0.93 45.9 55.5 0.0147 0.0177 59.3 57.4 0.0361 0.0404
Case 3 0.87 56.9 57.3 0.0212 0.0252 62.4 60.3 0.0461 0.0518
Case 4 0.92 54.8 55.4 0.0136 0.0162 59.0 59.4 0.0381 0.0432
Case 5 0.86 60.7 56.4 0.0217 0.0259 64.0 60.7 0.0534 0.0607
Case 6 1.00 39.3 53.5 0.0086 0.0103 57.4 55.5 0.0231 0.0255
Case 7 0.86 62.5 59.0 0.0355 0.0419 65.7 63.7 0.0684 0.0770
64
Table 5.4: Stress and strain results for Cases 1 and 5 under monotonic and cyclic
loading.
Middle at end Middle of RLS

1) 2) 3) 4) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Case 1-monotonic 74.7 64.8 0.0254 0.0311 57.2 56.4 0.0096 0.0113
Case 1-cyclic 63.3 54.8 0.0147 0.0179 43.5 53.9 0.0085 0.0101
Case 5-monotonic 73.8 64.1 0.0239 0.0291 66.4 60.6 0.0191 0.0225
Case 5-cyclic 62.7 54.4 0.0090 0.0109 60.7 56.4 0.0217 0.0259
Having most of the inelastic deformation in the flange occur at the reduced section
is the most desirable behavior. However, reducing the strain demands at the link ends
and balancing the yielding between the RLS section and the link end may be enough
to prevent fracture of link-to-column connections. Comparing the strain values at the
link ends for the reduced section cases in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 to those for the unreduced
case, also given in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, it is clear that all reduced sections are effective
in reducing the flange strains relative to the unreduced link condition. Those cases
with larger flange strains in the RLS section generally have larger reductions in the
flange strain at the link ends relative to the unreduced link case.
As previously mentioned, Case 5 with = 0.86 gave the best results of Cases 1-7,
regarding both strain reduction at the link end and yielding behavior. In contrast,
Case 1 gave the worst results of Cases 1-7, which was expected since Case 1 has =
1.00. In Tables 5.4 and 5.5, these two cases are used for comparison of results from
cyclic and monotonic loading, and the effectiveness of their RLSs when compared to
unreduced cases.
65
The effectiveness of implementing particular RLS geometries is more apparent

when examining the cyclic analysis results rather than the monotonic analysis results
as illustrated in Table 5.4, which shows the results for Cases 1 and 5 from both cyclic
and monotonic loading. When the results for cyclic and monotonic loading of Cases
1 and 5 are compared, the stresses are generally similar. However, when comparing
strains the effectiveness of Case 5 in shifting strain demand from the link end to the
RLS is clearer in the results from cyclic loading than it is from the results of monotonic
loading. Since many inelastic cycles of loading can occur during an earthquake, it
is believed that the cyclic analysis results better represent the benefits of using RLS
EBF links in reducing flange stains at link ends and are better able to identify the
most effective RLS geometries.
The results for Case 1 and Case 5 at 0.09 rad. of rotation during cyclic loading
were compared to the same results for an unreduced link. These results are shown
Table 5.5: Stress and strain results for Cases

1 and 5 compared to an unreduced link
Middle at end
1) 2) 3) 4)
Case 1 63.3 54.8 0.0147 0.0179
Unreduced 68.1 59.1 0.0338 0.0414
Difference 7% 7% 57% 57%
Case 5 62.7 54.4 0.0090 0.0109

Unreduced 68.1 59.1 0.0338 0.0414
Difference 8% 8% 73% 74%
4) Plastic strain in longitudinal direction [in/in]
66
in Table 5.5 for the critical location at the middle of the flange at the link end. The
difference in stress and strain between an unreduced link and a link with a RLS is
greatest for Case 5 but both cases result in significant strain reduction. Again, the
difference in the flange stresses is less significant because yielding still occurs at the
link ends due to strain hardening.
Fig. 5.2 shows the plastic strain at the middle of the flange at the link end in the
longitudinal direction at the maximum rotation of each cycle for both Case 5 and the
unreduced section. The figure shows how the difference between flange strain demand
in the two cases grows with increasing rotation demand. The cumulative plastic
strain in the longitudinal direction is plotted against the cumulative total rotation
as shown in Fig. 5.3. The figure shows how the cumulative plastic strain increases
nearly exponentially for the unreduced case while it increases nearly linearly for Case
5, resulting in significantly reduced cumulative plastic strain at this critical fracture
location.
Plastic strain in longitudinal direction, p [in/in]
0.05
Case 5
0.04 Unreduced section
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
|maxi| [rad]
Figure 5.2: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of the
maximum rotation of each cycle, at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link.
67
0.7
Case 5
Unreduced section
0.6
0.5
|p| [in/in]
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
|maxi| [rad]
Figure 5.3: Cumulative plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the cumulative
rotation, at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link.
Figs. 5.4 to 5.6 show the yielding pattern for Cases 2, 4 and 5. These cases have
been selected because they contrast cases when i) a is decreased ii) b is decreased and
iii) both a and b are decreased. The figures show the equivalent von Mises stress in
the link during the final cycle of the loading protocol. The RLS yields prior to the
ends of the flanges for all of the links but shortly after that the ends start yielding.
When time step 945 is compared for all the cases, it can be seen that the RLS has
achieved more yielding in Case 5 than in the other cases. At the end of the cyclic
loading, the links have completely yielded at the ends of the flanges but the stress is
higher at the RLS as shown in Table 5.3. The stress is higher in the RLS in Case 5
than in Cases 2 and 4, and the stress is also lower in the flanges at the end of the link
in Case 5 than in Case 4.
68
Figure 5.4: Equivalent von Mises stress in layer 1 at various timesteps of cyclic loading
for Case 2: a) timestep 940 b) timestep 945 c) timestep 950 d) timestep 965 e) timestep
1000
69
1000
70
1000
71
When the depth of the RLS cut, c, is changed in Case 7 from 2.5 in. to 3.0 in.,
the link starts yielding in the RLS instead of the web as shown in Fig. 5.7. But it
yields in the web shortly after and by the end of the cyclic loading, yielding occurs
in the flanges at the ends of the link. The link was expected to yield in the web first
because RLS is 1.55 for this link, but that did not occur.
This preliminary study has shown that RLSs can be designed to limit flange strain
demands at the link ends relative to links as commonly designed today. It has also
identified particular geometries and design parameters that are more effective in re-
ducing the critical strain demands while preserving the desired order of yielding of
link elements. Based on the results, it seems that values of 0.86 in combination with
values of a and b less then those allowed by the Provisions for RBS connections in
SMRFs result in the most desirable behavior(i.e. Case 5). However, all RLS sections
were found to reduce the critical flange strains somewhat. As described in the next
section, additional geometrical design constraints are present in RLS design for var-
ious cross-sections. In many instances the RLS sections are similar to those of Case
4, which was also found to be effective in achieving the desirable behavior. Based
on these results, a series of links with RLSs were designed and are described in the
following section. These will include shear, intermediate, and flexural links of various
cross-sections.
72
1000
73
5.3 Design of Links for Parametric Study
This section describes the links designed for use in a parametric study of RLS effec-
tiveness. First, the selected link cross-sections and lengths are discussed, followed by
the design of the RLSs for each link and the selected stiffener locations. All links were
then modeled using the methods described in Chapter 4 with the mesh refinement of
Model 2. Analysis results are discussed in Chapter 6 from which recommendations
for design of RLSs are drawn.
5.3.1 Sections and Link Lengths
Table 5.3.1 shows the sections that will be used as part of the parametric study.
These sections were selected because they represent a range of depths and flange
widths typically associated with EBF links. As shown in Table 5.3.1, all of the
sections are designed as shear links, however not all of them are used as intermediate
or flexural links because their shallow depths and low plastic moment strength make
them inefficient for use as those link types. The link lengths, e, correspond to selected
values of of 1.30, 2.10 or 2.90 to represent the three primary types of link yielding
behavior. From the link length a depth-to-length ratio is established which could later
be used as a general design parameter for links with RLSs. The parametric study
may also identify a range for where reducing the link section is most effective.
74
Table 5.6: List of links that will be analyzed
Section Link classification e [in] d/e Af /Aw MP [k-in] VP [kips]

W12x45 Shear 38 1.30 0.32 2.4 110 3210
Shear 50 1.30 0.25 3.2 141 5400
W12x72
Intermediate 80 2.10 0.15 3.2 141 5400
Shear 48 1.30 0.53 2.6 193 6950
W14x82
Intermediate 74 2.10 0.33 2.6 193 6950
Shear 37 1.30 0.49 1.4 180 5050
W18x50 Intermediate 90 2.10 0.20 1.4 180 5050
Flexural 114 2.90 0.16 1.4 180 5050
Shear 47 1.30 0.30 2.1 243 9300
W18x86 Intermediate 76 2.10 0.19 2.1 243 9300
Flexural 105 2.90 0.14 2.1 243 9300
Shear 50 1.30 0.37 1.3 318 11200
W24x84 Intermediate 80 2.10 0.23 1.3 318 11200
Flexural 111 2.90 0.17 1.3 318 11200
75
5.3.2 Reductions
As noted in the previous section is the main parameter impacting the effectiveness
of the RLS in reducing the flange strains at the link end. The reduction of stresses
and strains at the end of the link is more significant when is smaller, i.e., the
reductions were larger for Case 5 with of 0.86 than Case 1 with of 1.0. There
are other practical considerations for designing the RLS sections beyond achieving
a significant strain reduction at the link end. For example, it is desirable to keep
the values of a, b and c as close to meeting the requirements for RBS sections in
the Provisions as possible. Further, reducing a too far can lead to welding access
problems for the stiffeners that are likely necessary at a from the link end, and
reducing c too far can lead to torsional instabilities and changes in the links primary
yielding behavior. Thus, it is most desirable to reduce only b relative to the minimum
allowed in the Provisions to achieve the desired results. This corresponds to Case 4
in the preliminary study described above where was 0.92. The results for Case 4 in
Table 5.3 also show a considerable reduction in plastic strain at the ends of the link
although they were not as large as for the most effective geometry of Case 5.
Using the general RLS design considerations described above, the links in Table
5.3.1 were designed to have reduced sections with values of 0.86 and 0.93, which are
similar to Cases 4 and 5 from the preliminary study. From these values, the RBS
parameters a, b and c shown in Table 5.7 were selected. That table also shows the
ratios a/amin , b/bmin and c/cmax , where amin , bmin and cmax are the minimum values
of a and b and the maximum value of c from the Provisions. The selection of values
for a, b and c subject to constraints derived from the general design considerations
described above. The value of a was constrained to be greater than 3.5 in. to ensure
access for welding at the end of the link, since a stiffener would be present at a from
the end. The value of a usually needs to be near this limit for a shear link, whereas
for intermediate and flexural links larger values can be used to achieve the desired
76
value. The b value is limited to a minimum of 0.25d or 2c, whichever is larger.

This constrains the shape of the cutout for the RLS to be circular and contain no
greater portion of that circle than half. The value of c is preferred to be limited to
the maximum value given by the Provisions, 0.25bf , but if c needs to be larger to
achieve the desired value, the limit is set to 0.275bf . Note that when b = 2c there
is 180 of the circular cut of each flange reduction. This extreme has the potential
to create stress concentrations in the RLS that may initiate early fracture, negating
the benefits of the RLS. Further study of these issues, including modifying the RLS
geometry to use a tapered cut similar to that proposed by Chen et al. (1996), are
necessary but outside the scope of this initial study.
Table 5.7 shows that for flexural and intermediate links the parameters get closer
to the minimums and maximums from the Provisions. This is advantageous because
the RLS will affect the primary yielding behavior for these types of links (i.e., flexural
yielding), whereas for shear links its primary purpose is to reduce the strains at the
ends. The table also shows that for W24x84 and W18x50 shear links with equal to
0.86, the value of c needs to be larger than the maximum value given by the Provisions
to ensure that the limits a and b described above would be fulfilled.
77
Table 5.7: RLS parameter ratios and values of for various types of links. Values in bold
are values of c that are higher than the maximum c given by the Provisions
a/amin b/bmin c/cmax a b c

AISC Range1 - - - - 4.03 to 7.87 to 0.81 to
W12x45
6.04 10.29 2.01

Shear 0.86 0.93 0.60 1.00 3.75 4.75 2.01
0.93 0.99 0.76 1.00 4.00 6.00 2.01
AISC Range - - - - 6.00 to 8.00 to 1.20 to
9.00 10.46 3.00
W12x72
Shear 0.86 0.83 0.88 1.00 5.00 7.00 3.00

0.93 1.00 0.94 1.00 6.00 7.50 3.00
Intermediate 0.86 1.50 1.19 1.00 9.00 9.50 3.00
0.93 1.50 1.31 0.93 9.00 10.46 2.80
7.58 12.16 12.16
W14x82
Shear 0.86 0.79 0.75 1.00 4.00 7.00 2.53

0.93 0.89 0.91 1.00 4.50 8.50 2.53
Intermediate 0.86 1.50 1.02 1.00 7.58 9.50 2.53
0.93 1.50 1.31 0.97 7.58 12.16 2.45
5.63 15.30 1.88
Shear 0.86 0.93 0.34 1.06 3.50 4.00 2.00
W18x50
0.93 1.00 0.38 1.00 3.75 4.50 1.88

Intermediate 0.86 1.00 0.68 1.00 3.75 8.00 1.88
0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 3.75 11.60 1.88
Flexural 0.86 1.33 1.00 1.00 5.00 11.70 1.88
0.93 1.50 1.31 1.00 5.63 15.30 1.88
1 This is the range of values allowed in the Provisions for RBS beam-to-column connections.
78
Table 5.7 Continued
a/amin b/bmin c/cmax a b c

8.33 15.64 2.78
Shear 0.86 0.72 0.63 1.00 4.00 7.50 2.78
W18x86
0.93 0.81 0.75 1.00 4.50 9.00 2.78

Intermediate 0.86 1.17 1.00 1.00 6.50 11.96 2.78
0.93 1.50 1.00 1.00 8.33 11.96 2.78
Flexural 0.86 1.50 1.31 0.95 8.33 15.64 2.65
0.93 1.50 1.31 0.85 8.33 15.64 2.35
6.77 20.49 2.26
Shear 0.86 0.89 0.38 1.11 4.00 6.00 2.50
W24x84
0.93 0.89 0.41 1.00 4.00 6.50 2.26

Intermediate 0.86 0.89 0.70 1.00 4.00 11.00 2.26
0.93 1.00 0.89 1.00 4.51 14.00 2.26
Flexural 0.86 1.22 1.00 1.00 5.50 15.67 2.26
0.93 1.50 1.18 1.00 6.77 18.50 2.26
79
5.3.3 Stiffener Locations
The stiffener spacing specified by the Provisions and shown in Chapter 2.2.2, were
followed as much as possible when the stiffener spacing was determined for the links
in Table 5.7. For unreduced links the stiffener spacing is usually the same throughout
the link, whereas for links with RLSs the stiffener spacing needs to be uneven to
avoid placing a stiffener within the RLSs. For the links with RLSs, stiffeners are
placed outside of the RLSs to prevent unnecessary stress concentrations. For the
shear links in Table 5.7 intermediate stiffeners need to be provided. One stiffener
is placed on each side of the RLS and an even stiffener spacing is held between the
RLSs. For the flexural links, stiffeners need to be provided at a distance of 1.5bf
from each end of the link. However, for the case of links with RLSs, this can be
difficult since that location is usually within the RLSs. Therefore, one stiffener is
placed on each side of the RLSs. The distance between these stiffeners is usually
higher than 1.5bf because of the length of the RLS. Intermediate links need to fulfill
the stiffener spacing requirements of both the shear links and flexural links so the
method of stiffener spacing used for the shear links is also used for the intermediate
links. For intermediate links, the length of the RLS is usually higher than both 1.5bf
or the maximum required stiffener spacing which can lead to inelastic flange/web
local buckling. This is the primary concern for intermediate links since interaction
of the buckling modes can happen because both moment and shear force are large at
the ends of an intermediate link. For the intermediate links with RLSs, the stiffener
spacing is even except that the distance from the link ends to the stiffeners closest
to the ends is around 1.5bf . The parameter s1, s2 and s3 are used for the stiffener
spacing of the links as shown in Fig. 5.8. Table 5.8 shows the maximum stiffener
spacing allowed for all of the links, according to the Provisions and Table 5.9 shows
the stiffener spacing used in the analyses.
80
Figure 5.8: W18x86 shear link used to specify the stiffener spacing parameters s1, s2
and s3.
Table 5.8: Maximum stiffener spacing allowed according to the Provisions
Intermediate stiffener spacing Distance from link end

Section Shear link Interm. link (Flexural and interm. links)
[in] [in] [in]
W12x45 7.6 - -
W12x72 10.4 15.2 18.0
W14x82 12.4 18.1 15.2
W18x50 7.1 11.0 11.3
W18X86 10.7 16.0 16.7
W24x84 9.3 14.5 13.5
81
Table 5.9: Stiffener spacing of the selected links for the parametric study.
Section Link classification s1 s2 s3

[in] [in] [in]
Shear 0.86 3.0 6.3 6.5
W12x45 0.93 3.2 7.6 5.5
Unreduced 7.6
Shear 0.86 4.0 9.0 8.0
0.93 5.1 10.4 9.6
Unreduced 10.0
W12x72
Intermediate 0.86 8.0 12.5 13.0
0.93 8.0 12.5 13.0
Unreduced 18.0 14.7
Shear 0.86 3.0 9.4 11.6
0.93 3.0 11.8 9.2
Unreduced 12.0
W14x82
Intermediate 0.86 7.0 15.7 15.3
0.93 7.0 15.4 15.6
Unreduced 15.0 15.3
Shear 0.86 3.0 6.0 6.3
0.93 3.0 6.0 6.3
Unreduced 6.2
Intermediate 0.86 3.0 10.5 10.7
W18x50 0.93 3.0 13.1 8.9
Unreduced 11.3 9.1
Flexural 0.86 4.6 12.5
0.93 5.0 16.6
Unreduced 11.0
82
Table 5.9 Continued
Section Link classification s1 s2 s3

[in] [in] [in]
Shear 0.86 3.0 9.5 8.3
0.93 4.0 10.6 14.4
Unreduced 10.0
Intermediate 0.86 5.9 13.1 14.0
W18x86 0.93 7.8 16.1 16.1
Unreduced 16.0 16.0
Flexural 0.86 7.8 16.8
0.93 7.8 16.8
Unreduced 15.4
Shear 0.86 3.0 8.0 8.0
0.93 3.0 8.5 7.7
Unreduced 9.2
Intermediate 0.86 3.0 13.0 14.0
W24x84 0.93 3.0 17.0 11.3
Unreduced 13.0 12.0
Flexural 0.86 5.0 16.7
0.93 6.0 20.0
Unreduced 13.0
5.4 Summary
A preliminary study of the effectiveness of employing different RLSs to reduce de-

mands at the ends of a W14x82 shear link was discussed. Both monotonic and cyclic
analyses were performed, and the conclusion was made that cyclic analysis better rep-
resents the benefits of using RLS EBF links in reducing flange strains than monotonic
83
analysis. The preliminary study indicated that it is possible to design an effective RLS
for a shear link and maintain the overall shear yielding dominated behavior. The re-
sults for various RLS designs (Cases 1 through 7) were compared to the results for
the unreduced link and showed a significant reduction in flange strain demand at the
ends of the links. Differences in stresses was less significant because yielding still
occurs at the link ends due to strain hardening. The main parameter impacting the
effectiveness of the RLS in reducing the flange strains at the link end was estab-
lished, i.e., . Limits for the RLS design parameters were set based on achieving the
desired behavior and some practical considerations: a is limited to a minimum of
3.5-4.0 in. because of stiffener welding access, b is limited to a minimum of 0.25d
or 2c whichever is larger to maintain proper RLS geometry, and c is limited to the
same maximum limit as presented in the Provisions, 0.25bf , or if necessary in certain
shear links 0.275bf . These limits and the results of the preliminary study were used
to develop a set of link designs that will be analyzed and discussed in Chapter 6.
These links represent a range of wide-flange cross-sections and link lengths thought
to encompass those typically employed in EBFs. The results will be used to further
verify the effectiveness of the RLS in reducing flange strain demands and establish
additional design recommendations.
84
Chapter 6
RESULTS
6.1 General
The links discussed in Chapter 5 and shown in Table 5.3.1, were analyzed and the
results for shear strength, rotation capacity and plastic strain in the flange in the
longitudinal direction were collected. Shear strength is examined to: (i) verify that
the links maintain capacities larger than 80% of their maximum shear strength at their
target plastic rotations, and (ii) to investigate the strength reduction resulting from
application of the RLS concept relative to unreduced links. The results for plastic
strain in the flanges are examined because of the significant role that strain plays
in causing fracture of link-to-column connections. The plastic strain is investigated
along the length of the link at the middle of the flange using the results from the outer
layer of the shell elements. Plastic strains at the ends of the link flanges for links with
RLSs are compared to the unreduced cases. To facilitate discussion of results in this
chapter, links will be referred to as Section , such as W12x45 86 1.3.
6.2 Link Rotation Capacity
All links shown in Table 5.3.1, including unreduced links for each cross-section and
link length, were analyzed under the loading protocol shown in Table 4.2. However,
the maximum rotation the links were subjected to varied between link types because
of the difference in target plastic rotation levels, which is 0.08 rad. for the shear links,
0.05 rad. for the intermediate links, and 0.02 rad. for the flexural links. The total
rotation of the links, i.e., the sum of the elastic and plastic components, required to
reach these target plastic rotations is not the same for each type of link. Thus, to
85
ensure the target rotations are achieved and any strength degradation is observed, the
loading protocol from Table 4.2 is applied up to a total rotation of 0.13 rad. for shear
links and 0.09 rad. for intermediate and flexural links. In the nonlinear analysis of
all links the same pseudo-time step was used, consequently the total number of time
steps varied for the models depending on link type. The number of time steps was
1538 for the shear link models and 1000 for intermediate and flexural link models.
Both the link strengths and flange strains are to be evaluated at the target plastic
rotations. The analysis results show that the shear links reach p = 0.08 rad. near
time step 892, the intermediate links reach p = 0.05 rad. near time step 712 and
flexural links reach p = 0.02 rad. near time step 342. This corresponds to total
rotations of 0.085-0.087 rad. for shear links, 0.055-0.058 rad. for intermediate links
and 0.025-0.027 rad. for flexural links.
Cyclic shear force versus plastic rotation curves and backbone curves for all of the
analyzed links are shown in Appendix A. Examples of the behavior of various links
with a W18x50 section are shown in Fig. 6.1.
For shear links, all of the cyclic shear force versus plastic rotation curves indi-
cate that little strength degradation due to web, flange or lateral torsional buckling
occurred during cyclic loading. Typically, a links plastic rotation capacity has been
defined as the rotation where the link shear force from the backbone curve drops below
80% of the maximum shear force obtained, denoted by the 0.8Vmax line in all cyclic
hysteresis and backbone curves. As shown in Appendix A, and for the W18x50 shear
links in Figs. 6.1(a) and (b), all of the shear links have strengths larger than 0.8Vmax
at their target plastic rotation, 0.08 rad. Fig. 6.2 shows the plastic rotation capacity
versus the normalized link length, , for all links analyzed. Note that none of the
shear links had significant strength degradation before the analyses were terminated
at 0.13 rad of total rotation. Therefore, the rotation capacities for shear links shown
in Fig. 6.2 are actually the plastic rotations at the end of the analyses.
The hystereses and backbone curves for intermediate links clearly show a reduction
86
=86% =86%
300 300
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
200 0.8Vmax 200
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2
Plastic rotation [10 rad] Plastic rotation [10 rad]
(a) W18x50 - Shear link (b) W18x50 - Shear link
=86% =86%
200 200
=93% =93%
150 Unreduced 150 0.8Vmax
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 2
(c) W18x50 - Intermediate link (d) W18x50 - Intermediate link
=86% =86%
150 150
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
100 0.8Vmax 100
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Plastic rotation [102rad] Plastic rotation [102rad]
(e) W18x50 - Flexural link (f) W18x50 - Flexural link
Figure 6.1: Shear hystereses for all link types of section W18x50 shown in (a), (c)
and (e). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b), (d) and (f).
87
0.14
0.12
Plastic rotation capacity [rad] 0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
AISC maximum rotation
0.02 =86%
=93%
0
0 1 2 3 4

Figure 6.2: Plastic rotation angle of links vs.
in shear strength of the links and increased degradation due to lateral torsional and
local buckling when compared to the unreduced links (Appendix A and Figs. 6.1(c)
and (d) for the W18x50 section). Considerable strength degradation occurs for all
of the intermediate links except for section W14x82. Fig. 6.2 shows that despite the
increased degradation resulting from lateral torsional and local buckling when reduced
sections are used, most intermediate links are able to reach the maximum plastic
rotation allowed by the Provisions. The lone exception is W18x50 93 2.1 where the
plastic rotation capacity was 0.0485 rad. This link was one of several links where the
stiffener spacing at the RLS is considerably higher than the stiffener spacing between
the RLSs (spacings s2 and s3 in Table 5.9). For the links with this difference in
stiffener spacing, significant local buckling of flanges and web occur within the RLSs.
This is the case for links W12x45 93 1.3 and W24x84 93 2.1 as well, although those
still achieved the maximum rotations allowed by the Provisions. In such cases it may
be desirable to reduce the length of the RLS, b, such that it does not exceed the
88
stiffener spacing used between the RLSs.

As shown in Fig. 6.2 and Appendix A, all flexural links achieved plastic rotations
larger than the maximum allowed in the Provisions prior to 20% strength degradation.
However, strength degradation from local and lateral torsional buckling was observed.
In links with a lower ratio of flange area to web area, Af /Aw , the local and lateral
torsional buckling was more severe, i.e., the degradation for the W18x50 and W24x84
flexural links was larger than for the W18x86 flexural links. Further, as shown in
Appendix A and for the W18x50 links in Figs. 6.1(e) and (f), the reduced flexural
links all had more severe strength degradation than the unreduced cases, whereas
for shear links the strength degradation is similar to the strength degradation of the
unreduced cases.
6.3 Stresses and Plastic Strains at Critical Locations
As discussed in Chapter 5, reducing the strain demands at the link ends and balanc-
ing the yielding between the RLS section and the link end may be enough to prevent
fracture of link-to-column connections. Thus, the flange plastic strain in the longitu-
dinal direction of the links is investigated. Plastic strain results from the top layer of
the shell elements making up the upper link flange were harvested for each link. This
data was taken at the end of each cycle for the location at the middle of the flange at
the link ends and at the instant when the links first reach their target plastic rotations
for all nodes at the middle of the link flange over the entire link length. These results
are used to develop figures similar to those presented in Chapter 5, Figs. 5.2 and 5.3,
for all analyzed link cases. In these figures the flange plastic strain at the end of the
link is plotted versus the maximum rotation for each cycle, and the cumulative flange
plastic strain at the end of the link is plotted versus the cumulative total rotation. A
third figure is also developed for all analyzed link cases where the flange plastic strain
in the longitudinal direction, at the center of the upper link flange, is plotted along
the link length. Examples of each of these plots are shown in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4 for
89
all link lengths and reductions of the W18x50 section. Appendix B has these figures
for all links considered. Additionally, Tables 6.3, 6.3 and 6.3 show values for flange
plastic strain at the midpoint of the RLS and at the link end taken at the target
plastic rotations for shear links, intermediate links and flexural links respectively.
Table 6.1: Maximum plastic strain at the middle of the RLS and at the ends of all of the
shear links at p = 0.08 rad.
Max at middle of RLS Middle at end

Section bf /d d/e = 0.86 = 0.93 = 0.86 = 0.93 Unreduced
w12x45 0.67 0.32 0.0247 0.0308 0.0148 0.0139 0.0278
w12x72 0.98 0.25 0.0313 0.0180 0.0084 0.0134 0.0308
W14x82 0.71 0.30 0.0454 0.0397 0.0093 0.0094 0.0371
w18x50 0.42 0.49 0.0682 0.0486 0.0206 0.0210 0.0401
w18x86 0.60 0.37 0.0477 0.0376 0.0128 0.0142 0.0369
w24x84 0.37 0.53 0.0829 0.0595 0.0188 0.0203 0.0463
intermediate links at p = 0.05 rad.

w12x72 0.98 0.15 0.0682 0.0555 0.0025 0.0032 0.0882
W14x82 0.71 0.19 0.1048 0.0992 0.0038 0.0040 0.1102
w18x50 0.42 0.30 0.1062 0.0826 0.0064 0.0022 0.1162
w18x86 0.60 0.23 0.1017 0.1047 0.0022 0.0019 0.1133
w24x84 0.37 0.33 0.1014 0.0840 0.0055 0.0051 0.1298
90
1
0.08 =86%
=93%
0.8
Target p
0.04
|p| [in/in]
0.02 0.6
0
0.4
0.02
=86%
0.04
=93% 0.2
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
|max | [rad] |max | [rad]
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
0.3 Unreduced section Unreduced section
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i

Plastic strain in longitudinal direction, [in/in]
0.1
p
0.05
0 0.1
|p| [in/in]
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.05
=86% =86%
0.2 =93% =93%
Unreduced section Unreduced section
0.25
Target p Target p
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
Figure 6.3: Strain results for all link types of section W18x50; Plastic strain in the
longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of the maximum rotation of each cycle, at
the middle of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (a), (c) and (e). Cumulative
plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the cumulative rotation, at the middle
of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (b), (d) and (f).
91
flexural links at p = 0.02 rad.

w18x50 0.42 0.22 0.0491 0.0450 0.0009 0.0008 0.0491
w18x86 0.60 0.17 0.0586 0.0515 0.0016 0.0024 0.0429
w24x84 0.37 0.24 0.0436 0.0439 0.0011 0.0010 0.0587
Figs. 6.3(a), (c) and (e) show for the W18x50 section, how the difference between
flange strain demand at the link end in the unreduced and reduced link cases grows
with increasing rotation demand. For shear links, the difference in plastic strain
demand between reduced links with equal to 0.86 or 0.93 is significant for the
W12x72, W18x86 and W24x84 sections as shown in Appendix B and Table 6.3,
although for the W18x50, W12x45 and W14x82 sections the difference is small as
shown in Fig. 6.3(a) and Table 6.3. For the intermediate and flexural links of all
sections there is little difference in the flange strain reductions for different values
of , and both values considered reduce the strain demand significantly as shown in
Tables 6.3 and 6.3 and the figures of Appendix B.
Figs. 6.3(b), (d) and (f) show the cumulative plastic strain in the longitudinal
direction plotted versus the cumulative total rotation for section W18x50. Fig. 6.3(b)
shows how the cumulative plastic strain increases exponentially for the unreduced
shear link while it increases nearly linearly for both shear links with RLSs, resulting
in significantly lower cumulative plastic strain at the target rotation level. Similar
results are shown for the other shear link sections in Appendix B. For intermediate and
flexural links, the cumulative plastic strain increases much faster for the unreduced
links than for the reduced links. The results for the reduced links increase somewhat
linearly until just before the target plastic rotation when the links start to buckle
92
0.08 0.15

=86% =86%
0.06 =93% 0.1 =93%
Unreduced Unreduced
0.04 0.05
0.02 0
0 0.05
0.02 0.1
0.04 0.15
0.06 0.2
0.08 0.25
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Location along the link length [in] Location along the link length [in]
(a) W18x50 - Shear link (b) W18x50 - Intermediate link

0.06
=86%
0.04 =93%
Unreduced
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100
Location along the link length [in]
(c) W18x50 - Flexural link
Figure 6.4: Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the center
of the upper flange, along the link length of each link type of section W18x50 at their
target plastic rotation.
within the RLSs. During cycles where buckling is occurring within the RLS there
is little increase in cumulative plastic strain at the ends of the link. This buckling
in the RLS and plateau of plastic strain demand also occurs for some of the shear
links as shown in Appendix B. For example, once the rotation of the W12x45 93 1.3
link reaches the target plastic rotation, the links strength deteriorates due to local
buckling in the RLS and no additional strain demand occurs at the link end. This
can be seen in both the plots of the plastic strain at the end of the link and in the
plots of the cumulative plastic strain at the end of the link.
93
The figures showing the longitudinal plastic strain in the top flange along the link
length (i.e. Fig 6.4 and the similar figures in Appendix B) are given for the point
when the link reaches the target plastic rotation, target p . As previously mentioned,
the results are harvested from the top layer of the top flange shell elements to show
the highest plastic strain for the part of the flange in tension. If the bottom layer of
the shell elements would have been considered, results for the highest values of the
compressive plastic strain would have been harvested. Therefore, the plastic strain in
tension is of primary concern in these figures, which is the right ends of the links for
this point in the loading.
The figures of flange plastic strain along the length of the link, for all of the links,
clearly show that the plastic hinges are moved from the ends of the link into the
RLSs. Therefore, the plastic strain at the ends of the links is significantly lower than
those in the unreduced links of the same size. These results are shown numerically in
Tables 6.3 to 6.3 which have values for plastic strain at the middle of the RLS and
at the link end for all links. When the plastic strain response of shear, intermediate
and flexural links is compared, the reduction of plastic strain at the end of the link is
more significant for flexural and intermediate links than for the shear links. However,
even the shear links show that the maximum strains have been successfully relocated
to the RLSs. Similar yield behavior occurs within the RLS for all link types as shown
in Appendix B and the links with as 0.86 generally have higher strains within the
RLSs than the links with equal to 0.93. This is not true for the W12x45 shear
link because of the significant difference in the stiffener spacings s2 and s3 (shown in
Table 5.9) for the link when is 0.93. The large stiffener spacing around the RLS in
W12x45 93 1.3 results in flange buckling and larger strains within the RLS for that
link relative to W12x45 86 1.3.
Large strains within the RLS can cause the link to fracture within that segment.
This fracture is not modeled here and needs further investigation. The RLS geometry
can impact the strains across the RLS. Fig. 6.5 shows the strain across the RLS versus
94
the location along the flange widths for selected shear, intermediate and flexural links,
with the cycle number and rotation where the data was taken indicated in the figure
caption. When the strain gradient is investigated across the RLS for sections W12x72,
W18x50 and W18x86, it can be seen that for shear links, the strain gradient is larger
for RLSs with a smaller flange widths. For flexural and intermediate links, the strain
gradient across the RLS is similar for all sections; however, the strain magnitudes are
larger for sections with smaller flange widths. Notably, the W18x50 86 1.3 link in
Fig. 6.5 has a RLS length, b, of 4.0 in., which is the smallest value used in any link
and may be contributing to the increased RLS strain gradient and magnitude shown.
0.07 0.08
W12x72_86_1.3 W12x72_86_2.1
W18x50_86_1.3 W18x50_86_2.1
p
0.06 0.07
W18x86_86_1.3 W18x86_86_2.1
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01 0.03
0 0.02
3 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Location along center of RLS [in] Location along center of RLS [in]
(a) Shear links at 0.030 rad.(Cycle 14) (b) Interm. links at 0.025 rad.(Cycle 11)
W18x50_86_2.9
W18x86_86_2.9
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Location along center of RLS [in]
(c) Flexural links at 0.020 rad.(Cycle 5)
Figure 6.5: Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, across the
center of the RLS in the top flange in tension.
95
This effect may result in future research in the identification of a lower bound on the
value of b relative to the RLS flange width to avoid fracture in the RLS region.
The deformed shapes of each link are shown in Appendix C, where the plastic
strains in the links longitudinal direction are shown at the target plastic rotation.
Figs. 6.6 to 6.8 show as examples the plastic strain and deformed shape for all link
types having the W18x50 section. Fig. 6.7 shows the impact of larger stiffener spacing
around the RLS in allowing local buckling within that RLS. These deformed shapes,
and plastic strain contour figures provide further evidence that the RLS designs are
effective in shifting strain and deformation demands away from the link ends and to
the RLS areas. For shear links, the concentrated rotation is mostly accommodated at
the link ends which imposes a flange kink deformation. The RLS smoothly spreads
the local flange kink deformation over a larger segment along the link length, and at
regions away from the link flange welds, as shown in Figs. 6.9 for the W18x50 and
W24x84 sections. To verify that this kink deformation is reduced at the end of the
flanges of shear links, through-thickness stress results for the W18x50 and W24x84
sections were investigated at the middle of the flange at the end of the links. The
stress results for layers 1, 3 and 5 of the shell elements of the reduced sections, with
equal to 0.86, and the unreduced sections are compared in Fig. 6.10 and show a
reduction of the local stress gradient in the flange.
96
Figure 6.6: Shear link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of layer 1
for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93.
97
Figure 6.7: Intermediate link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of
layer 1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93.
98
Figure 6.8: Flexural link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of layer
1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93.
99
(a) W18x50, a) = 0.86 b) Unreduced (b) W24x84, a) = 0.86 b) Unreduced
Figure 6.9: Deformation demand in top flange at link ends displayed by plastic strain
contour bands in the longitudinal directions for (a) W18x50 shear link and (b) W24x80
shear link
1 1
W18x50_86_1.3 W24x84_86_1.3
W18x50_plain_1.3 W24x84_plain_1.3
2 2
Layer no.
Layer no.
3 3
4 4
5 5
50 52 54 56 58 60 50 52 54 56 58 60
Equivalent von Mises stress [ksi] Equivalent von Mises stress [ksi]
Figure 6.10: Equivalent von Mises stress in Layers 1, 3 and 5 at the middle of the
flange at the end of the W18x50 and W24x84 shear links.
100
6.4 Comparison of RLS Behaviors
Beyond reducing the the plastic strain demand at the link ends, a RLS in a link of
an EBF may also decrease the moment at the end of the link which must be resisted
by the beam outside the link, the column, and/or the brace. By decreasing this
moment, the beam outside the link which often drives selection of the link itself, can
be designed lighter than in an EBF with no RLSs. The maximum moment developed
at the link end is proportional to the maximum shear. Table 6.4 shows the link shear
at the target plastic rotation for each link with RLSs, normalized by the link shear
for the corresponding unreduced link. Comparing the maximum shear strengths from
analyses of links with RLSs to those of unreduced links, as shown in Table 6.4, there
is usually a 0-17% difference in strength. Thus, the moment at the end of the link
is decreased by the same percentage. As expected, the reduced shear links seem to
achieve strengths similar to the unreduced shear links, with the strength reduction
ranging from 0%-7%. The reduced intermediate links show a strength reduction of
10-14% relative to the unreduced cases, and the reduced flexural links show a 10-17%
strength reduction. Generally the strength reduction is more for links with = 86%
than when = 93%. Recall that = ML /MP , where ML is the moment at the end of
the link, which indicates that strength reductions for links yielding primarily in flexure
are expected to be between 7 and 14%, assuming strain hardening and buckling are
similar in the reduced and unreduced cases. This matches the data and shows that
for capacity design of adjacent framing, the reduced sections capacity can be used
which reduce design loads when flexural or intermediate links are used.
Fig. 6.2 showed the plastic rotation capacity, defined as the rotation where the
shear strength backbone curve drops below 0.8 times the maximum shear, versus the
normalized link length, . Generally, links with = 86% had larger plastic rotation
capacities than those with = 93%, especially for intermediate and flexural links. This
is somewhat counterintuitive given that links with = 93% should have larger flexural
101
Table 6.4: Link shear at the target plastic rotations normalized by the link shear in
unreduced links.
Section Link type = 0.86 = 0.93

W12x45 Shear 1.00 0.96
Shear 0.93 0.97
W12x72
Intermediate 0.87 0.90
Shear 0.95 0.95
W14x82
Intermediate 0.86 0.88
Shear 0.94 0.95
W18x50 Intermediate 0.87 0.87
Flexural 0.83 0.86
Shear 0.98 0.97
Flexural 0.85 0.90
Shear 0.97 0.99
Flexural 0.83 0.86
strength and therefore a larger rotational capacity. For the cases where intermediate
and flexural links with = 93% have smaller plastic rotation capacities than those
with = 86%, it can be attributed to a large unbraced length for the flange in the
RLS region caused by the stiffener spacing s2 in Table 5.9. Generally for these cases,
the stiffener spacing, s2, had to be larger than the limit given by the Provisions while
s3 was kept within the limit. The strength degradation in these cases is triggered by
flange local buckling rather than lateral torsional buckling, indicating that the length
of the RLS and unbraced length of the flange should be minimized in design. Fig 6.11
shows the plastic rotation capacity versus the ratio of the stiffener spacing, s2, to the
102
0.14 0.14
0.12 0.12
Plastic rotation capacity [rad]
Plastic rotation capacity [rad]

0.1 0.1
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
= 1.3
0.02 =86% 0.02 = 2.1
=93% = 2.9
0 0
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
s2/tf s2/tf
(a) values specified (b) values specified
Figure 6.11: Plastic rotation capacity vs. s2/tf ratio for all of the links, where s2 is
the spacing of the stiffeners around the RLS and tf is the flange thickness.
thickness of the flanges, tf . The figure shows that the intermediate link that failed
to achieve the target plastic rotation at 0.8Vmax had the highest s2/tf ratio of the
intermediate links, which is 23. Therefore, a limiting the s2/tf ratio to less than 20
is recommended for intermediate links. For flexural links, the highest s2/tf ratio of
the analyzed flexural links was 29, which is recommended as the limit for flexural
links but could be increased or decreased based on test data or other analyses. These
limits are especially recommended for links with up to 1.0, and can be achieved by
either reducing the RBS parameter c or increasing a, instead of increasing b.
The impact of the links depth-to-length ratio, d/e, on the effectiveness of the
RLS in reducing flange plastic strains was investigated by comparing the cumulative
plastic strains at the target rotation for reduced links normalized by that value for
P P
unreduced links, i.e., |p,red |/ |p,unred |. Fig. 6.12 shows this comparison for
all of the links with = 0.86. The results for links with = 0.93 are shown in Fig. 6.13
and are comparable.
The values for intermediate and flexural links show that when the depth-to-length
ratio is larger there is a larger reduction of cumulative plastic strain, i.e., the ratio of
103
0.5
at target P
0.4
0.3
p,unred
/
p,red 0.2
0.1 = 1.3

= 2.1
= 2.9
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Depthtolength ratio, d/e [in/in]
P P
Figure 6.12: |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. depth to length ratio for all link types with
= 0.86.
0.7
at target P
0.6
0.5
p,unred
0.4
/
0.3
0.2
p,red
= 1.3

0.1 = 2.1
= 2.9
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Depthtolength ratio, d/e [in/in]
P P
Figure 6.13: |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. depth to length ratio for all link types with
= 0.93.
P P
|p,red | to |p,unred | is lower. The RLS effectiveness does not seem to show any
trend with depth-to-length ratios for shear links, likely because the strain demands
are still driven by shear yielding of the link and are independent of the links flexural
strength and d/e ratio. These results show that the RLS design is applicable for
104
all of the analyzed link sections as shear, intermediate and flexural links. Thus, no
depth-to-length design limit has been established from these analyses of sections of
depth 12 in. to 24 in.
The affect of width-to-depth ratio on RLS effectiveness was also checked for all of
P P
the links. Fig. 6.14(a) shows |p,red |/ |p,unred | plotted against for links with
= 0.86. The figure also shows the width-to-depth ratio of each section. Fig. 6.14(b)
shows the same data but with the axes re-scaled to provide more detail for intermedi-
ate and flexural links. For intermediate and flexural links, when the width-to-depth
P P
ratio is larger the ratio of |p,red | to |p,unred | is larger. Thus, the RLS is more
effective in reducing the cumulative plastic strain relative to the unreduced case, when
the sections are deeper, i.e., when they are more efficient in carrying flexure. This
result agrees with that drawn from Figs. 6.12 and 6.13 and again the RLS seems
effective at all bf /d ratios considered.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, RLSs are less effective in reducing flange strains in

shear links relative to intermediate or flexural links because of their primary mode
0.5
bf/d=0.98 in bf/d=0.98 in
at target P
b /d=0.71 in bf/d=0.71 in
at target
f
0.4 bf/d=0.67 in bf/d=0.67 in
0.1
0.3 bf/d=0.42 in b /d=0.42 in
p,unred
p,unred
f
/
0.2
0.05
p,red
p,red
0.1

0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

(a) All link types (b) Intermediate and flexural links

P P
Figure 6.14: |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs. for all links with = 0.86 with specifi-
cation of width-to-depth ratios.
105
of yielding. Further, shear links are more affected by differences in the values than
intermediate or flexural links. Fig 6.15 shows how the ratio of cumulative plastic
flange strain of reduced shear links to unreduced shear links is more sensitive for
variations in than intermediate or flexural links are. In moment resisting frames
with RBS beam-to-column connections, the beams resistance at the column face is
taken as the sections full plastic moment capacity, which is equivalent to a value
of 1.0 in the design procedure of Chapter 3. Testing of RBS connections has shown
that even though is 1.0, the RBS is still effective in limiting strain demand at the
beam ends because of the flexurally dominated behavior. The same is true here for
RLSs applied to intermediate and flexural links, i.e., because they are dominated by
flexural yielding, larger values of , or smaller reductions in the flanges, are still able
to greatly reduce the flange strains at the link ends.
0.7
= 0.86
= 0.93
at target P
0.6
0.5
p,unred
0.4
/
0.3
0.2
p,red

0.1
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3

P P
Figure 6.15: |p,red |/ |p,unred | vs for all of the links, with specification of
values.
106
6.5 Summary
All of the analyzed links achieved their target plastic rotations with one exception.
Flange buckling in the RLS is a concern because of the stiffener spacing and larger
unbraced length. The results showed that the application of RLSs was effective for
all links considered, but more effective for intermediate and flexural links. For in-
termediate and flexural links, the RLSs were more effective for shapes with larger
depth-to-length ratio, d/e, and smaller bf /d ratio, i.e., shapes that have larger flex-
ural capacity. The strength reduction data of the links indicated that the reduced
sections capacity can be used for capacity design of adjacent framing.
107
Chapter 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary
This thesis has discussed the effectiveness of applying reduced beam sections to links in
eccentrically braced frames. The objectives of this are to improve ductility in link-to-
column connections in architecturally appealing D- and V-braced EBF configurations,
to contain inelastic deformations within the link, and to limit the moment transferred
to adjacent framing. To investigate the application of the reduced beam concept to
links, finite element analyses of shear, intermediate and flexural links of various cross-
sections and having reduced link sections, RLSs, were performed using the program
MSC. Marc Mentat 2005r3.
First, a design procedure for applying the RBS concept to EBF links was presented
in Chapter 3. The design procedure seeks to limit the link end moment to Mp , where
is less than or equal to 1.0, while maintaining the desired primary link yielding
behavior. This established limits for the moment in the reduced link section, MRLS ,
for shear, intermediate and flexural links. A hierarchy of design constraints then leads
to selection of the RLS geometry parameters a, b and c.
A finite element model of a shear link with a W14x82 section and having RLSs,
denoted the reference model, was developed and a convergence study on the mesh
refinement was conducted, resulting in the selection of an adequate mesh size. There-
after, the same mesh density was used to compare analytical results with results from
experiments on a shear link and a RBS beam-to-column connection from the litera-
ture. The comparison validated the mesh and overall modeling technique, which was
108
used throughout the remainder of the research.

The effectiveness of RLSs in reducing demands at link ends was investigated by
performing a preliminary study on a W14x82 shear link. Both monotonic and cyclic
analyses were performed, and it was found that the cyclic analysis better represents
the benefits of using RLS EBF links in reducing flange strains. The preliminary
study indicated that it is possible to design an effective RLS for a shear link and
maintain the overall shear yielding dominated behavior. The results for various RLS
designs (Cases 1 through 7) were compared to the results for the unreduced link and
showed a significant reduction in flange strain demand at the ends of the links for all
cases. Specific geometries that had the largest reductions in flange strain demands
while maintaining the shear yielding behavior of the link were identified. The main
parameter impacting the effectiveness of the RLS in reducing the flange strains at
the link end was found to be . Limits for the RLS design parameters were set
based on observations about link behavior, RLS effectiveness, and some practical
considerations: a is limited to a minimum of 3.5-4.0 in. because of stiffener welding
access, b is limited to a minimum of 0.25d or 2c whichever is larger to maintain
proper RLS geometry, and c is limited to the same maximum limit as presented in
the Provisions, 0.25bf , or if necessary in certain shear links 0.275bf . These limits and
the results of the preliminary study were used to develop a set of link designs that
were analyzed in the subsequent phase of the research.
The set of links analyzed in the parametric study represent a range of wide-
flange cross-sections and link lengths thought to encompass those typically employed
in EBFs. The link lengths, e, correspond to selected values of the normalized link
length, , of 1.30, 2.10 or 2.90 to represent the three primary types of link yielding
behavior. All of the analyzed links achieved their target plastic rotations (i.e. the
maximum rotations allowed by the Provisions) with one exception. That link high-
lighted that flange buckling in the RLS is a concern. The stiffener spacing around
the RLS can create a long unbraced length of flange within the RLS where signifi-
109
cant inelastic compressive strains develop, triggering flange buckling. A limit for the
spacing between stiffeners bounding the RLSs, s, is recommended such that the s/tf
ratio does not exceed 20 for intermediate links and 29 for flexural links. The results
showed that the application of the RLSs was effective in reducing flange strains at
the link ends for all links considered, but more effective for intermediate and flexural
links. For intermediate and flexural links, the RLSs were more effective for shapes
with larger depth-to-length ratios, d/e, and smaller width-to-depth ratios, bf /d, i.e.,
shapes that carry flexure more efficiently and generally have larger outer fiber strains
for a given curvature. However, large strains at the RLSs can lead to fracture within
the RLSs. RLSs in shear links were also found to reduce local flange kinking at the
link end and the local stress gradient in the flange. For flexural and intermediate links
with RLSs, the maximum link shear and end moments were reduced and were found
to be near 2Mp /e and Mp respectively. For shear links, reductions in link shear of
0-7% were observed.
7.2 Conclusions
The application of RLSs in EBFs is effective in reducing flange strains at the ends
of all link types, though more effective for intermediate and flexural links than shear
links. Plastic hinges and concentration of local flange deformations are forced to oc-
cur at the RLSs rather than at the ends of the links. Thus, plastic strain demands in
the flanges at the ends of the link are significantly reduced and yielding is balanced
between the RLS and the link end, which can delay fracture at link-to-column connec-
tions. Additionally, the moment transferred to the beam outside the link, the column
face, and/or the brace is generally smaller when RLSs are used. For links yielding
primarily in flexure, the reduced sections capacity can be used for the capacity design
of adjacent framing.
110
7.3 Recommendations for Further Research
This thesis has demonstrated the benefits of employing RLSs to reduce plastic strain
demands at link ends and to better contain inelastic deformation within the link.
However, additional research is necessary to develop the complete design recommen-
dations necessary for code implementation. This list below highlights some of the
more critical research needs.
Additional link designs and parameters that should be considered for further
evaluation of RLS effectiveness:
Refined RLS shapes to better distribute strain demands in the RLS, i.e.,
tapered RLS sections.
Link designs where a, b and c are kept within the limits for RBS moment
frame connections in the Provisions.
For investigation of the lateral stability of links, RLSs designs with ranges
of b and c should be considered. This may help establish limits for these
parameters to avoid lateral torsional buckling in intermediate and flexural
links.
The RLS was least effective in shear links. There may be a limit on the
depth of shear links where the RLS becomes ineffective. Thus, links with
sections deeper than the W24x84 should be investigated.
Links with less than 1.3 are occasionally used and they should be analyzed
to check whether RLSs can be effective in such cases.
Because of analysis constraints, the first stiffener from the ends of the link
could not be placed right where the RLS begins. Links with the stiffeners
at this location should be investigated.
111
The stiffener requirements of the Provisions might need to be altered be-

cause of RLS geometry. A comparison of current stiffener requirements
and likely RLS geometries should be made to identify conflicts.
A study of stiffener spacing around the RLS should be performed to inves-

tigate design requirements necessary to avoid inelastic flange and web local
buckling. This is a primary concern for intermediate links since interaction
of the buckling modes can occur because both moment and shear force are
large at the ends of an intermediate link. Stiffener spacings with more than
a 30% difference in s2 and s3 (where s3 fulfills the stiffener requirements
of the Provisions) resulted in considerable buckling within the RLSs.
For the design of links with RLSs, slenderness limits of the section should
be considered since the web buckles earlier than for an unreduced link.
Tubular cross-sections with RLSs should be investigated because they

could work even better for shear links than wide flange cross-sections with
RLSs.
Investigation of RLS EBF links with unequal end moments and axial load
present is recommended.
Experiments on different configurations of EBF links with RLSs are recom-

mended, for links of various cross-sections and link lengths.
112
Chapter 8
REFERENCES
AISC(2002), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of

Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC(2005), Steel Construction Manual, 13th Ed., American Institute of Steel Con-
struction, Chicago, IL.
AISC(2006), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute

of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Arce, G. (2002). Impact of higher strength steels on local buckling and overstrength
of links in eccentrically braced frames. Masters Thesis, The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX.
ATC(1992), Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures

Report 24, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., and Whittaker, A.(1998), Ductile Design of Steel Struc-
tures. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Chen, S.J., Yeh, C.H., Chu, J.M. (1996), Ductile Steel Beam-to-Column Connec-
tions for Seismic Resistance. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 11:
1292-1299. November. ASCE.
113
Engelhardt, M.D., and Popov, E.P. (1989a). Behavior of Long Links in Eccentrically
Braced Frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-89-01, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, College of Engineering, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Engelhardt, M.D., and Popov, E.P. (1989b). On Design of Eccentrically Braced

Frames. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 3. August.
Engelhardt, M.D., and Popov, E.P. (1992). Experimental Performance of Long Links
in Eccentrically Braced Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 11:
3067-3088. November. ASCE.
Engelhardt, M.D., Winneberger, T., Zekany, A.J., and Potyraj, T.J. (1998), Exper-
imental Investigation of Dogbone Moment Connections, Engineering Journal, Vol.
35, No. 4, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Engelhardt, M.D., Fry, G., Johns, S., Venti, M., and Holliday, S. (2000), Behavior
and Design of Radius-Cut, Reduced Beam Section Connections, SAC Report 00/17,
SAC Joint Venture.
FEMA-350, Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame build-
ings (2000), Prepared by the SAC joint venture for the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.
Kasai, K., and Popov, E.P. (1986a). Study of Seismically Resistant Eccentrically
Braced Steel Frame Systems. Report No. UCB/EERC-86/01, Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California Berkeley, Berke-
ley, CA.
114
Kasai, K., and Popov, E.P. (1986b). General Behavior of WF Steel Shear Link
Beams. Journal of The Structural Division. Vol. 112, No. 2: 362-382. February.
ASCE.
Kasai, K., and Popov, E.P. (1986c). Cyclic Web Buckling Control for Shear Link
Beams. Journal of The Structural Division. Vol. 112, No. 3: 505-523. March. ASCE.
MSC. Marc Manual (2006), MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA.
Okazaki, T.(2004). Seismic Performance of Link-to-Column Connections in Steel Ec-

centrically Braced Frames, Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX.
Richards P. and Uang, C.M. (2003). Development of testing protocol for short links
in eccentrically braced frames. Report No. SSRP-2003/08, Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Richards, P.(2004), Cyclic Stability and Capacity Design of Steel Eccentrically Braced
Frames, Dissertation, The University of California, San Diego, CA.
Ricles, J.M., and Popov E.P. (1987). Dynamic Analysis of Seismically Resistant
Eccentrically Braced Frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-87/07. Berkeley: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center. University of California.
Roeder, C.W., and Popov, E.P. (1977). Inelastic Behavior of Eccentrically Braced
Steel Frames Under Cyclic Loadings. Report No. UCB/EERC-77/18, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California Berke-
115
ley, Berkeley, CA.
Roeder, C.W., and Popov, E.P. (1978). Eccenctrically Braced Frames for Earth-
quakes. Journal of the Structural Division. Vol. 104, No.3: 391-412, March. ASCE.
Whittaker, A.S.; Uang, C.M.; and Bertero, V.V. 1987. Earthquake Simulation Tests
and Associated Studies of a 0.3-Scale model of a Six-Story Eccentrically Braced Steel
Structure. Report No. UCB/EERC-87/02. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center. University of California.
116
Appendix A
=86% =86%
200 200
=93% =93%
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

100 100
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) w12x45 - Shear link (b) w12x45 - Shear link
Figure A.1: Shear hystereses for W12x45 shear link shown in (a). Backbone curve
for the same link shown in (b).
117
250 =86% 250 =86%

=93% =93%
0.8Vmax
150 150
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

100 100
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2
=86% =86%
150 =93% 150 =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
100 0.8Vmax 100
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(c) w12x72 - Intermediate link (d) w12x72 - Intermediate link
Figure A.2: Shear hystereses for W12x72 shear and intermediate links shown in (a)
and (c). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b) and (d).
118
=86% =86%
300 =93% 300 =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
0.8Vmax
200 200
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2

250 =86% 250 =86%
200 =93% 200 =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
150 0.8Vmax 150
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
200 200
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure A.3: Shear hystereses for W14x82 shear and intermediate links shown in (a)
and (c). Backbone curves for the same links shown in (b) and (d).
119
=86% =86%
300 300
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
200 0.8Vmax 200
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2
=86% =86%
200 200
=93% =93%
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 2
=86% =86%
150 150
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
100 0.8Vmax 100
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure A.4: Shear hystereses for all link types of section W18x50 shown in (a), (c)
120
=86% =86%
400 400
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
300 300
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

200 200
100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
300 300
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2

300 =86% 300 =86%
=93% =93%
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
200 200
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 2
=86% =86%
200 =93% 200 =93%
0.8Vmax
100 100
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
50 50
0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
200 200
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(e) w18x86 - Flexural link (f) w18x86 - Flexural link
121
600 600
=86% =86%
=93% =93%
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]

200 200
0 0
200 200
400 400
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 2

400 400
=86% =86%
=93% =93%
300 300
Unreduced 0.8Vmax
0.8Vmax
200 200
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
300 300
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 2

300 =86% 300 =86%
=93% =93%
0.8Vmax
Shear force [kips]
Shear force [kips]
100 100
0 0
100 100
200 200
141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 141210 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(e) w24x84 - Flexural link (f) w24x84 - Flexural link
122
Appendix B
0.8
0.08 =86%
0.7 =93%
0.6 Target p
0.04
0.5
|p| [in/in]
0.02
0.4
0
0.02 0.3
=86% 0.2
0.04
=93%
0.06 Unreduced section 0.1
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i
Figure B.1: Strain results for W12x45 shear link; Plastic strain in the longitudinal
direction vs. the absolute value of the maximum rotation of each cycle, at the middle
of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (a). Cumulative plastic strain in the
longitudinal direction vs. the cumulative rotation, at the middle of the flange at the
ends of the link shown in (b).
123
0.04
=86%
=93%
p
0.03
Unreduced
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 10 20 30 40
Figure B.2: Path plot of the plastic strain in the longitudinal direction, at the center
124
0.8
0.08 =86%
0.7 =93%
0.6 Target p
0.04
0.5
|p| [in/in]
0.02
0.4
0
0.02 0.3
=86% 0.2
0.04
=93%
0.06 Unreduced section 0.1
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
Figure B.3: Strain results for all link types of section W12x72; Plastic strain in the
longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of the maximum rotation of each cycle,
at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (a) and (c). Cumulative
of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (b) and (d).
125
0.04 0.1

=86% =86%
0.03 =93% =93%
p
Unreduced Unreduced
0.02 0.05
0.01
0 0
0.01
0.02 0.05
0.03
0.04 0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80
of the upper flange, along the link length of W12x72 shear and intermediate links at
their target plastic rotation.
126
1
0.08 =86%
=93%
0.8
Target p
0.04
|p| [in/in]
0.02 0.6
0
0.4
0.02
=86%
0.04
=93% 0.2
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of the maximum rotation of each cycle,
at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (a) and (c). Cumulative
of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (b) and (d).
127
0.05 0.15

=86% =86%
=93% =93%
p
0.1
Unreduced Unreduced
0.05
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.05 0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80
of the upper flange, along the link length of W14x82 shear and intermediate links at
their target plastic rotation.
128
1
0.08 =86%
=93%
0.8
Target p
0.04
|p| [in/in]
0.02 0.6
0
0.4
0.02
=86%
0.04
=93% 0.2
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i

0.1
p
0.05
0 0.1
|p| [in/in]
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.05
=86% =86%
0.2 =93% =93%
0.25
Target p Target p
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
129
0.08 0.15

=86% =86%
0.06 =93% 0.1 =93%
p
Unreduced Unreduced
0.04 0.05
0.02 0
0 0.05
0.02 0.1
0.04 0.15
0.06 0.2
0.08 0.25
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.06
=86%
0.04 =93%
Unreduced
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100
130
1
0.08 =86%
=93%
0.8
Target p
0.04
|p| [in/in]
0.02 0.6
0
0.4
0.02
=86%
0.04
=93% 0.2
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i

0.1
p
0.05
0 0.1
|p| [in/in]
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.05
=86% =86%
0.2 =93% =93%
0.25
Target p Target p
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
131
0.05 0.15

=86% =86%
=93% 0.1 =93%
p
Unreduced Unreduced
0.05
0 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05 0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80

0.06
=86%
=93%
0.04 Unreduced
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
132
0.08 =86%
=93%
0.06 1 Unreduced section
Target p
0.04
0.8
|p| [in/in]
0.02
0.6
0
0.02 0.4
=86%
0.04
=93%
0.2
Target p
0.08 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
i i

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
|p| [in/in]
0
0.1
0.1
0.2 =86% =86%

0.05
=93% =93%
Target p Target p
0.4 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i

0.1
p
0.05
0 0.1
|p| [in/in]
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.05
=86% =86%
0.2 =93% =93%
0.25
Target p Target p
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
i i
Figure B.11: Strain results for all link types of section W24x84; Plastic strain in
the longitudinal direction vs. the absolute value of the maximum rotation of each
cycle, at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (a), (c) and (e).
Cumulative plastic strain in the longitudinal direction vs. the cumulative rotation,
at the middle of the flange at the ends of the link shown in (b), (d) and (f).
133
0.1 0.15

=86% =86%
=93% 0.1 =93%
p
Unreduced Unreduced
0.05 0.05
0 0.05
0.1
0.05 0.15
0.2
0.1 0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80

0.06
=86%
0.04 =93%
Unreduced
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
134
Appendix C
C.0.1 Shear links
Figure C.1: Shear link W12x45: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of layer 1
135
136
137
138
139
140
C.0.2 Intermediate links
Figure C.7: Intermediate link W12x72: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of
141
142
143
Figure C.10: Intermediate link W18x86: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction
of layer 1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93.
144
Figure C.11: Intermediate link W24x84: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction
of layer 1 for a) unreduced link, b) link with = 0.86 , c) link with = 0.93.
145
C.0.3 Flexural links
Figure C.12: Flexural link W18x50: Plastic strain in the longitudinal direction of
146
147

2008 Hauksdottir Thesis Final

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2008 Hauksdottir Thesis Final

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Application of the Reduced Beam Section Concept

for Improving the Ductility of Certain

Heidrun Osp Hauksdottir

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Civil & Environmental Engineering

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

Heidrun Osp Hauksdottir

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

Application of the Reduced Beam Section Concept

Heidrun Osp Hauksdottir

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

Chapter 2: Review of Current Design Procedures and Recent Literature . . 5

Chapter 3: Proposed RLS EBF methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 5: Preliminary Study and Selection of Representative links . . . . 57

Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure Number Page

B.1 Strain results for W12x45 shear link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table Number Page

1.1 Statement of Problem and Objectives

1.2 Scope of Work

The outline of the primary tasks of this research is as follows:

Derive a design procedure applying the RBS concept to link-to-column connec-

1.3 Organization of Thesis

Chapter 3 presents a design procedure applying the RBS concept to link-to-column

Chapter 5 discusses a preliminary study, where the impact of utilizing values of a, b

Chapter 7 includes a summary of the research, conclusions and recommendations

2.2 Eccentrically braced frames

Figure 2.1: Typical configurations of EBFs (Okazaki, 2004)

1987; Bruneau et al., 1998).

The links must satisfy compactness requirements to ensure stable inelasticity

The construction of link-to-column connections before the Northridge earthquake

2.3 Reduced beam section

Figure 2.2: Example of a reinforced link-to-column connection (Provisions, 2006)

Figure 2.3: Reduced beam section connection (Okazaki, 2004)

0.5bf a 0.75bf (2.10)

0.65d b 0.85d (2.11)

0.1bf c 0.25bf (2.12)

2.4 Literature Review

2.4.1 EBF links

Figure 2.5: Overall view of test setup (Arce, 2002)

Richards (2004) investigated a number of issues concerning the design of eccentrically

Table 2.1: Loading protocols

AISC protocol(2002) Revised protocol

cyclic loading to investigate the flange width-to-thickness ratio requirements. Overly

VP0 = VP + 2Vf (2.16)

The shear carried by the flanges is given as:

2MP f Fy bf t2f Fy t2w e

Vult = Ryw Vp0 (2.18)

where is a factor that accounts for strainhardening.

Okazaki (2004) describes an experimental and analytical investigation of the seismic

Figure 2.6: Details of the loading system (Okazaki, 2004)

Figure 2.7: Link Rotation Capacity (Okazaki, 2004)

Figure 2.8: Test setup (Engelhardt et al., 1998)

Engelhardt, Winneberger, Zekany and Potyraj (1998)

This research program consisted of testing five beam-to-column connection specimens

Since the Northridge Earthquake a wide variety of improvements to moment con-

requirements for the RBS parameters a, b and c, shown in Fig. 2.3.

Engelhardt, Venti, Fry, Jones and Holliday (2000)

As discussed in Chapter 2, Okazaki (2004) was unsuccessful in applying several post-

3.2 RLS Design Procedure

Figure 3.1: Moment Distribution

From moment equilibrium of a link, the following equations are developed:

Figure 3.2: A flowchart demonstrating the general design procedure