Column Stiffener Detailing and Panel Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections PDF

.
I:
I
I UNIVERSITY OF MINNE OTA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Department of
I Civil Engineering
I Institute of Technology
I
I
I RR3179
I
•I
-
8807
I\lSC ElR Lbr.ry
II\\n \11\ \\ 1\\1\\~

Em7
I
,~
I
••.,
I
,
I'
I
Structural Engineering Report No. ST-01-3.2
III COLUMN STlFFENERDETAJLlNG
1 AND PANEL ZONE BEBA VIOR OF
STEEL MOMENT FRAME CONNECTIO
i Daeyong Lee, ean . Cotton, Robert J. Dexter,

Jerome F. Hajjar, Yanqun Yeo and ara D. Ojard
I June 2002
I
i
I
I
I
t
Department of Civil Engineering
t Institute of Tecbnology
niversity of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota SS4SS
I
I
I
I
..
'I
I '"
I Abstract
I
I Extensive damage to steel moment connections has been reported since the 1994
Northridge earthquake. While low-toughness welds and notch-like discontinuities
I' created by the bottom flange backing bars have been identified as primary causes of the
fractures that occurred, other factors have also been linked to the failures. Column
I stiffening design practices, resulting in the design of weak panel zones and a lack of or
insufficient use of continuity plates, have been speculated as potential contributors to the
I fractures. The concern associated with the role of column stiffener detailing in the
Northridge damage has subsequently led to a tendency towards over-conservatism in
f stiffener design. However, the additional expense of larger stiffeners coupled with the
II potential for fabrication cracking due to larger, highly restrained welds required to attach
such stiffeners is an undesirable consequence of this increased conservatism .
To study these column stiffener design issues, a research project was launched to
I reassess the AISC design criteria related to the limit states of Local Flange Bending
I (LFB), Local Web Yielding (LWY), and Panel Zone (PZ) strength, and to develop new,
economical alternatives for the detailing of such stiffeners. The project contains three
I components: finite element analyses to investigate the performance of various column

stiffener details and to corroborate the results of the experiments, monotonically-loaded
I pull-plate tests to evaluate the non-seismic LFB and LWY design criteria and to
investigate non-seismic behavior of the alternative stiffener details, and cyclically-loaded
I crucifornl tests to evaluate the seismic LFB, LWY, and PZ design criteria and to
investigate the seismic behavior of the alternative stiffener details. This report focuses
t primarily on reporting the results of the cyclically-loaded cruciform tests.

A total of six cruciform girder-to-column joint subassemblages were fabricated
I and tested in this project. Five joint subassemblages were originally designed and
fabricated for the investigation into the provisions for detailing of column stiffening.
I However, due to premature brittle girder fractures occurring in one of the five test
I
I
I
specimens, an additional cruciform specimen with similar detailing and improved notch- I
toughness in the weld metal was fabricated and tested. The column sizes selected in this
I
project ranged from a W 14x 145 to a W 14x283. The range of these colurnn sizes
permitted several stiffener details to be included in the test matrix, and for the limits of
the LFB and PZ limit states to be explored. A W24x94 was used for all girders. The
panel zones of the specimens were designed to be relatively weak in most specimens,
,
such that the stiffening details would be thoroughly tested at large strains. The 'I
alternative stiffener details included two fillet-welded doubler plate details, one groove-
welded offset doubler plate detail, and one fillet-welded continuity plate detail with a I
thickness of the continuity plate being approximately half the thickness of the girder
flange. These details avoid placing highly restrained Complete 10int Penetration (CJP) f
groove welds in the potentially low-toughness k-area of the columns.
The connection detail tested in this project may be classified as a Welded II
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web (WUF-W) connection detail, which is a prequalified
connection within FEMA 350. This connection consisted of a CJP-welded girder web-to- I
column flange, an improved weld access hole detail in the girder, and girder flange-to-
column flange CJP weld details outlined in FEMA 350 and FEMA 353. Welding I
inclUded the use ofE70T -6 consumables for the girder flange-to-column flange CJP
welds and E71 T-8 for the girder web-to-column flange CJP welds and the shear tab-to- I
girder web fillet welds. Shear tab-to-column flange and all stiffeners-to-column flange
welds used E70T -I consumables. I
From the cruciform tests, the performance of the alternative stiffening details as
well as the limit states of LFB and PZ strength were assessed. The five specimens, I
excluding the prematurely fractured specimen, completed the SAC loading history, each
with several cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without noticeable strength degradation. The
I
primary failure mode was Low-Cycle Fatigue (LCF) fracturing in one or more girder
flanges . The test results showed that, when properly detailed and welded with notch- t
tough filler metal, the WUF-W moment connections can perform adequately under large
quasi-static cyclic loads even though relatively weak panel zone strengths are chosen. In
I
addition, the test results confirmed that satisfactory cyclic connection performance may
I
II
I
I
.,
I ;;
, be achieved without continuity plates if the column flanges are sufficiently thick. The
altemative column stiffener details in steel moment-resisting connections were also
I successfully verified.
The test results showed that the LFB strength equation included in the 1999 AlSC
I
, LRFD Specification is adequate, if slightly conservative, for non-seismic detailing (in
addition, related research on this project proposed alternative LFB and LWY strength
equations that better match the test data). For seismic detailing, when coupled with the
I application of the seismic demand specified in the 1992 AlSC Seismic Provisions and
FEMA 350, the LFB strength equation is more clearly conservative. The panel zone
I strength equation included in the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions was also evaluated
based on the five successful test results, as well as on a comparison with the 44 past
t experimental tests. This equation was found to significantly overpredict the panel zone
strength in many cases, particularly for specimens having larger columns. An alternate
model (i.e., a modified Fielding and Huang model) estimating the panel zone post-elastic
I stiffness was developed from a newly assumed panel zone behavior at its ultimate state,
I and modified based on the five experimental results so as to more accurately capture the
post-yield panel zone strength. This modified Fielding and Huang model was found to be
I more accurate in its prediction of the panel zone strength of W 14 and larger columns, and
was shown to be somewhat conservative for smaller columns.
I In addition, it was determined that in order to provide a more accurate assessment

of the panel zone strength corresponding to experimental results, the panel zone strength
I equation of the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions, or that proposed in this research based
upon the modified Fielding and Huang model, needs to be scaled. For this purpose, a
I new methodology, which also properly scales the corresponding panel zone design
demand as well as the panel zone strength, is introduced. This methodology may be used
I to evaluate the selected panel zone equation based on experimental results, and can
provide an appropriate demand for the selected panel zone strength equation.
I The report concludes with a series of specific conclusions related to column

stiffener design of steel moment-resisting connections. Conditions under which no
I
I
stiffeners are required, both for non-seismic and seismic detailing, are clarified,
III
I
I
I
assessments of the alternative stiffener details are summarized, and issues related to the I
proposed design equations are highlighted.
I
I
,
I
j
I
I
a
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
iv
I
I
,.
, ..!
I Acknowledgements
t
I This research was sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
(AISC) and by the University of Minnesota. In-kind funding and materials were
t provided by Lejeune Steel Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Danny's Construction
I Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Braun lntenec, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Edison

Welding Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Special thanks are due to Lincoln Electric Company
I for donating an Idealarc DC-600 power supply and an LN-J 0 wire feed unit to the
, University of Minnesota Structures Laboratory. Supercomputing resources were

provided by the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute. This support is gratefully
, acknowledged.
The authors wish to thank Professor Theodore V. Galambos of the University of
Minnesota, Mr. Lawrence A. Kloiber of Lejeune Steel Company, and Dr. John C. elson
I of the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology Characteri zation Facility for their
valuable assistance with the design, fabrication , and characterization of the experimental
I tests. A great deal of thanks is also extended to Mr. Paul M. Bergson of the University of
Minnesota for his many hours of assistance and advice related to the experimental
I research. The authors also appreciate the efforts of a number of undergraduate and
graduate students who assisted at various times throughout this project. Finally, the
I authors would like to thank the members of the external advisory group on this project
for their advice and guidance, as well as others who have provided assistance throughout
I this research. These individuals include: T. Schlafly, AlSC, C. Carter, A1SC, W. Baker,
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, J. Barsom, Pennsylvania, R. Bjorhovde, The Bjorhovde
I Group, M. Engstrom, Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, J. Fisher, Lehigh University, M.

Johnson, Edison Welding Institute, J. Malley, Degcnkolb Engineers, D. Miller, Lincoln
I Electric Company, S. Rolfe, University of Kansas, and W. Thornton, Cives Engineering

Corporation.
I
I v
I
,
,
Table of Contents
,
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ i I
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x

t
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... xxvii
I
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Organization of the Report ........................................ .............................................. 5
,
2. Background of Design Provisions for Column Stiffening ................. .. .....7 f
2.1 History of Panel Zone Design Provisions ........................................ ....................... 7
2. 1.1 Panel Zone Sbear Strength .......................... ................................................... 8
2. 1.2 Panel Zone Slenderness ............................................................................... 15
I
2.2 Opinions Regarding Panel Zone Design and Behavior ........................................ 16 I
2.3 Background of LFB and LWY Provisions............................................................21
2.4 Economic Considerations of Column Stiffening ................ .... .............. ................ 24 I
3. Specimen Selection and Design ........................................................................ 28
3.1 Parametric Study of Panel Zone Stiffening Requirements ................................. .. 29
I
3.1.1 Definitions of Parameters ............................................................................ 29 I
3.1.2 Results of Panel Zone Parameter Study ....................................................... 35
3.1.3 Conclusions .. .................. ..............................................................................39
3.2 Specimen Selection ............................................................................................... 40
I
3.2.1 Crucifonn Specimen Selection Procedure ............................................ ..... ..40 I
3.2.2 Specimen Justification ................................................................................. 55
I
-I
VI
I
t 3.2.2.1 Specimen Parameter Discussion ......................................................... 55
3.2.2.2 Individual Specimen Discussion ......................................................... 59
1 3.3 Specimen Design ......................................... ......................................................... 62
3.3.1 Dimensions of Cruci form Specimens .......................................................... 62
'I 3.3.2 Girder-to-Column Moment Connection Design .......................................... 63
3.3.2.1 Welded Connection Details ................................................................ 64
t 3.3.2.2 Access Hole Details ............................................................................ 66
3.3.3 Panel Zone and Column Stiffener Design ................................................... 67
I 3.3.3.1 Panel Zone Design .............................................................................. 67
I 3.3.3.2 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Design ...................................................69

3.3 .3.3 Groove-Welded Offset (Box) Doubler Plate Design .......................... 72
3.3 .3.4 Continuity Plate Design ...................................................................... 72
I 3.4 Material Properties ....... ................... ........................ .............................................. 74
3.4.1 Steel Material Properties .............................................................................. 74
I 3.4.2 Weld Material Properties ............................................................................. 76
I 4. Test Setup and Instrumentation ...................................................................... 92
I 4.1 Test Setup .............................................................................................................. 92

4.2 Loading History .................................................................................................... 94
4.3 Instrumentation .....................................................................................................95
I 4.3.1 Strain Gages ................................................................................................. 95
I 4.3.2 Linear Variable Differential Transformers .................................................. 97

4.3.3 Specimen Coordinate System and Gage Locations ..................................... 99
I 5. Summary of Test Re ults ................................................................................. 131
I 5.1 Applied Loading History .................................................................................... 131

5.1.1 Loading History of Specimen CRI ............................................................ 131
I 5.1.2 Loading History of Specimen CR2 ............................................................ 132

5.1.3 Loading History of Specimen CR3 ............................................................ 132
I 5.1.4 Loading History of Specimen CR4 ............................................................ 132
VII
I
I
I
5.1.5 Loading History of Specimen CR4R ......................................................... 132
5.1.6 Loading History of Specimen CR5 ............................................................ 133
t
5.2 Summary of Specimen Performance .............................. .................... ................ 133
5.2. 1 Performance of Specimen CRI .................................... ...... ........................ 133
f
5.2.2 Performance of Specimen CR2 .............. ........... ......................................... 135 ,I
t
5.2.3 Performance of Specimen CR3 .................................................................. 137
5.2.4 Performance of Specimen CR4 ............ ... ................................................... 139
5.2.5 Performance of Specimen CR4R .................. ............................................. 140
5.2.6 Performance of Specimen CR5 .................................................................. 142 I
6. Analysis and Discussion of Test Results .......................... ........................... 198 i
6.1 Comparison of Experimental Behavior and Finite Element Analysis ................ 199
6.2 Panel Zone Behavior .............. ........................................... ......... .... ........... ...... .... 20 I I
6.2.1 Progression of Panel Zone Yielding .......................................................... 20 I
6.2.2 Panel Zone Behavior in the Elastic Range ................ .. ............................... 203
j
6.2.3 Effects of Large Panel Zone Deformation ............ ..... ................................ 205
6.2.4 AlSC Panel Zone Provisions ..................................................................... 207 I
6.3 Alternate Model for Post-Yield Panel Zone Strength ......................................... 21I
6.3 .1 Modified Fielding and Huang Model .. .......................... .... .................. ...... 211 I
6.3.2 Verification of Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10) ...... 215
6.3.3 Comparison of Panel Zone Thicknesses .................................................... 218 I
6.3.4 Scaling of Panel Zone Design Capacity and Demand ............................... 222
6.4 Local Flange Bending ......................................................................................... 225 I
6.5 Stress Distribution in Girder Flange ................................................................... 233
6.6 Comparison of Results and Discussion of Continuity Plate and Doubler I
Plate Detailing ................................................................................................... .. 235
I
7. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. .323
7.1 Research Summary ............................................................................................. 323
I
7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. .329
I
VIII
I
I
.-
""
.-
I 7.2.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 329

7.2.2 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 334
I
Appendix A. Calculation of Specimen Deformation and Rotation
I Quantities ............................................................................................................... 336
I A. I Rotation and Deformation from Displacement Data ......................................... 336

A.2 Calculated Plastic Rotation and Deformation Quantities .................................. 338
I
-,
A.3 Plastic Rotations Relative to the Column Centerline ......................................... 340
I Appendix B. Failure Analysi of Specimen CR4 ......................................... .40 I
I References ....................................................................................................................427
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
ix
I
I
I
List of Figures t
t
I
2.1 (a) Fielding and Huang Model for Post-Elastic Panel Zone Behavior ........................27
2.1(b) KrawinkJer Model for Post-Elastic Panel Zone Behavior ......................................27
3. 1 Seismic Girder-Column Combinations Meeting SCWB Criterion -

,
50 ksi Columns ......................................................................................................81 I
3.2 Seismic Girder-Column Combinations Meeting SCWB Criterion - ~
65 ksi Columns ...................................................................................................... 81 I

3.3 Seismic SCWB Girder-Column Combinations Requiring Doubler Plates -
50 ksi Columns ............................................................................... ....................... 82 I
3.4 Seismic SCWB Girder-Column Combinations Requiring Doubler Plates
65 ksi Columns .. ................ .................................................................................... 82 I
3.5(a) Beveled. Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Detail (Detail I) ......................................... 83
3.5(b) Square-Cut Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Detail (Detail 11) ...................................83 I
3.5(c) Offset (Box) Doubler Plate Detail ...................... .................................................... 83
3.6 Typical Moment Frame Elevation Showing Interior Joint and Specimen I
Idealization ................................................ ............................................................. 83
3.7 Typical Cruciform Specimen With Basic Dimensions ........................................... .... 84 I
3.8 SAC WUF-W Moment Connection Details [after (FEMA. 2000a)] .......................... 84
3.9 Typical Welded Moment Connection Details ........ .. ............ ....................................... 85 J
3.10 Top Flange Weld With Reinforcing Fillets .............................................................. 86
3.11 Bottom Flange Reinforcing Fillet Weld ................................................................... 86
I
3.12 Access Hole and End of Web Groove Weld Showing Overlap of Shear Tab
Into Access Hole .................................................................................................... 87 f
3.13 Access Hole Dimensions .......................................................................................... 87
3.14 Specimen CR2 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Details ................................................ 88
I
3.15 Specimen CRJ Stiffening Details ............................................................................ .89
I
x
I
I
I
I 3.16 Specimen CRS Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Details .................... ............................ 90
3.17 Specimen CR4 Offset (Box) Doubler Plate Details ...................... ..... ....................... 91
I
4.1 Load Frame Elevation With Specimen .................... ................................................. 107
I 4.2 Top View of Load Frame and Load Pin ................................................................... 108
4.3 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Bracing ......................................................................... 108
I 4.4 Bottom Load Pin Assembly ...................................... ................................................ 109
I 4.5 Actuator Bracket Showing Connection to Girder and Top of Actuator .......... ......... 109
4.6 General Specimen Loading History: Drift Level vs. Cumulative Cycles ................ I I 0
I 4.7 Panel Zone and Girder Web instrumentation for Specimen CR 1...... ....................... 111
4.8 Panel Zone and Girder Web Instrumentation for Specimen R2 ............... .............. 112
4.9 Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR2 ................................................... 113
I 4.10 Panel Zone and Girder Web Instrumentation for Specimen CR3 ........................... 114
I 4.11 Doubler Plate instrumentation for Specimen CRJ ................................................. 115
, 4. 12 Panel Zone and Girder Web Instrumentation for Specimen CR4 ........................... 116
4.13 Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR4 ..... ............................................ 117
4.14 Panel Zone and Girder Web Instrumentation for Specimen R4R ...................... .. 118
I 4.15 Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR4R ............................................... 119

4. 16 Doubler Plate lnstrumentation for Specimen CR5 ................................................. 120
I 4.17 Location and Labels of Girder Flange Strain Gages for All pecimens ................. 121
4.18 Location of Column Flange Strain Gages for All Specimens ................................. I 22
I 4.19 Strain Gage Labels for Girder and Column Flanges of All pecimens .................. 123
4.20 CF Group Strain Gages for Specimens CR I , CR2, and R5 .............................. 124
I 4.21 Continuity Plate lnstrumentation for Specimen CR3 ............................................. 125

4.22 Girder and Panel Zone LVDT Placement for All Specimens ................................. 126
1 4.23 Column Flange LVDT Placement for Specimens CRI, CR2, and CRS ................. 127
4.24 Column Flange LVDT Placement for Specimens CR4 and CR4R ........................ 128
I 4.25 Load Frame LVDT Placement ................................................................................ 129

4.26 Specimen Coordinate System ................................................................................. 130
I
xi
J
I
I
5.1 umber of Completed 4.0% lnterstory Drift Cycles without Significant I
Strength Degradation ........................................................................................... 157
5.2 Displacement History of Specimen CR I ................................ .................................. 158 I
5.3 Displacement History of Specimen CR2 .................................................................. 158
5.4 Displacement History of Specimen CRJ .................................................................. 159 I
5.5 Displacement History of Specimen CR4 .................................................................. 159
5.6 Displacement History of Specimen CR4R ............................................................... 160 I
5.7 Displacement History of Specimen CRS .................................................................. 160
5.8 Moment vs.lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CRI .................................................... 161 I
5.9 Moment vs.lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CRI .................................................. 161
5.10 Plastic Rotation of East Connection CRI .............................................................. 162
5.11 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRI ............................................................. 162
a
5. 12 East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR I ........................ 163 I
5.13 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI ....................... 163
I
5.14 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defomlation, CRI .......................................................... 164
5.15 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR 1......................... 164
5.16 Low-Cycle Fatigue Fracture of East Bottom Flange, CRI ..................................... 165
,
5. 17 East Bottom Flange Fracture Following Test, CR 1................................................ 165
5.18 East Bottom Flange Fracture Surface After Testing, CRI ..................................... 166 I
5.19 Typical Beam Web-to Column Weld Cracking, CRI ............................................ 166
5.20 Typical Low-Cycle Fatigue Cracking of Access Hole ........................................... 167 I
5.21 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR2 ............... ................................... 168
5.22 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CR2 ................................................ 168 I
5.23 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR2 .............................................................. 169
I
5.24 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR2 ............................................................. 169
5.25 East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ........................ 170
5.26 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ....................... 170
,
5.27 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR2 .......................................................... 171
5.28 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ......................... 171 I
5.29 Panel Zone Yielding and Column Local Flange Deformation, CR2 ...................... 172
XII
I
I
I
,1)
.~
,
I
'J
1)
5.30 Significant Crack Opening in West Top Flange, CR2 ............................................ 172
5.31 Fracture in West Top Flange, CR2 .................. ........... ............ ................................ 173
I 5.32 Complete Failure of West Top Flange, CR2 .......................................................... 173

5.33 Moment vs. InterstoryDrift for East Girder, CRJ .................................................. 174
I 5.34 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CRJ ................................................ 174
5.35 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRJ .................... .......................................... 175
I 5.36 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRJ ............................................................. 175
I 5.38 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRJ ....................... 176
5.39 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR3 ........................................................ .. 177
I 5.40 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3 ......................... 177
5.41 Panel Zone Yielding and Significant Column Deformation, CRJ ......................... 178
I
, 5.42 Crack Opening in East Bottom Flange, CR3 .......................................................... 178
5.43 Fracture in East Bottom Flange, CRJ ..................................................................... 179
5.44 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR4 .................................................. 180
5.45 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4 ................................................ 180
I 5.46 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4 .............................................................. 181
J 5.47 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4 ............................................................. 181

I 5.49 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 ....................... 182
5.50 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4 .......................................................... 183
5.51 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 ......................... 183
I 5.52 Fracture of East Top Flange, CR4 .......................................................................... 184
I 5.53 Fracture of West Top Flange, CR4 ......................................................................... 184

5.54 Fracture of West Bottom Flange, CR4 ............................................................. ...... 185
I 5.55 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR4R ............................................... 186
5.56 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4R .............................................. 186
I 5.57 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4R ................................................ ........... 187

5.58 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4R .......................................................... 187
I 5.59 East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R ...................... 188
XIII
I
I
I
5.60 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R .................... \88
5.61 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4R ....................................................... \89
I
5.62 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R ...................... 189
5.63 Through-Width Line Crack on West Girder Top Flange, CR4R. ........................... 190
I
5.64 Fracture of East Girder Top Flange, CR4R .......... .................................................. 190 I
5.65 Crack following Bevel of the Base Metal at East Girder Top Flange, CR4R ........ 191
5.66 Lateral-Tortional Buckling in the West Girder, CR4R ........................................... 19\
5.67 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CRS .................................................. 192
I
5.68 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CRS ................................................ \92 I
5.69 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRS .............................................................. 193
5.70 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRS ............................................................. \93 I
5.72 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 ....................... 194 I
5.73 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defomlation, CR5 .......................................................... 195
5.74 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 ......................... 195
5.75 Panel Zone Yielding and Significant Column Deformation, CR5 ......................... 196
a
5.76 Crack Opening in West Girder Top Flange, CR5 ................................................... 196 I
5.77 Fracture in West Girder Top Flange, CR5 .............................................................. 197
I
6.1 Typical Cruciform Specimen Finite Element Model [after (Ye et aI., 2000)] .......... 251
6.2 Typical Cruciform Connection Region Modeling [after (Ye et aI., 2000)] .............. 251 I
6.3 Stress-Strain Curve for A992 Steel [after eYe et aI., 2000)] ..................................... 252
6.4 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CRI ................... 252 I
6.5 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specinlen CR2 .... ............... 253
6.6 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CRJ ................... 253 I
6.7 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CR4R ................ 254
6.8 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CR5 ................... 254 I
6.9 Comparison of ExperimentaJ and FEA Connection Plastic Rotation,
Specimen CR I ..................................................................................................... 255 I
6.10 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Connection Plastic Rotation,
I
XIV
I
I
I-
I Specimen CR2 ............................ :........................................................................ 255
I Specimen CRJ ............. ...... .................................................................................. 256
I Specimen CR4R .......................................... ......................... .................... ............ 256
I Specimen CRS ................ ..................................................................................... 257
6.14 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation,
I Specimen CRI ........... ................. ......................................................................... 257
6. 15 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Defonnation,
I Specimen CR2 .....................................................................................................258
I Specimen CRJ ... ......... ............................... .......................................................... 258
I Specimen CR4R .............................................. ..................................................... 259
I 6.18 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation,

Specimen CRS ..................................................................................................... 259
I 6.19 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (1 .0% Drifi) .................................................................260

6.20 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (1.5% Drift) ................................................................. 260
I 6.21 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (2.0% Drifi) .................................. ............................... 26I
6.22 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (3.0% Drift) ................................................................. 261
I 6.23 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (Following Test) ...... .......... ......................................... 262
6.24 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (1 .5% Drifi) ................................................................. 263
I 6.25 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (2.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 263

6.26 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (3 .0% Drifi) ........ ......................................................... 264
I 6.27 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (4.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 264

6.28 Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (1 .5% Drifi) ................................................................. 265
i 6.29 Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (2.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 265

6.30 Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (3.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 266
I 6.31 Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (4.0% Dri fi) ................................................................. 266
xv
I
I
I
6.32 Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (1.5% Drift) ..... ............. ................... ........ ................. 267
6.33 Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (2.0% Dri ft) .............................................................. 267
I
6.34 Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (3.0% Drift) .............................................................. 268 I
6.35 Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (4.0% Drift) .............. ............................ .................... 268
6.36 Specimen CRS Panel Zone (1 .5% Drift) ................................................................. 269 I
6.37 Specimen CR5 Panel Zone (2.0% Drift) ................... .......... .................................... 269
6.38 Specimen CRS Panel Zone (3.0% Drift) ....... ............ .... .......... ......... ... ...... ........ ...... 270 I
6.39 Specimen CR5 Panel Zone (4.0% Drift) ................................................................. 270
6.40 Elastic StT1lin History of Specimen CRI (panel Zone Center) ............................... 271 I
6.41 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRI (Panel Zone Comer) ...............................271
6.42 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR2 (panel Zone Center) ............................... 272 I
6.43 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR2 (panel Zone Comer) ............................... 272
6.44 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR3 (Panel Zone Center) .. ............................. 273 I
6.45 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR3 (Panel Zone Comer) ...............................273
6.46 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR4R (panel Zone Center) ......... .................. .. 274 I
6.47 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR4R (Panel Zone Comer) ............................274
6.48 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR5 (Panel Zone Center) ............................... 275 I
6.49 Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR5 (panel Zone Comer) ............................... 275
6.50(a) Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.375% Drift for Positive I
Loading Direction, Specimen CR I ...................................................................... 276
6.50(b) Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.375% Drift for egative I
Loading Direction, Specimen CR I ..................................... ............... .................. 276
6.51 (a) Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.5% Drift for Positive I
Loading Direction, Specimen CR I ... ................................................................... 276
6.51(b) Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.5% Drift for Negative I
Loading Direction, Specimen CRI ...................................................................... 276
6.52 Close-up View of Column Flange Yielding and Kinking Due to the I
Concentrated Girder Flange Force (Specimen CRl) .......................... .............. ... 277
6.53 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CRI Column Flange I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)...................................................................... 278
I
XVI
I
I
I C!>
,~
,,....'
I 6.54 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CRI Column Flange

(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................... ......... ... ..278
1 6.55 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CR2 Column Flange
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ....... ........................... .... ............. ...... ............. 279
I 6.56 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CR2 Column Flange
'"' (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ........... .................................................. 279

(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... ............. 280
,I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ....... ................................. ..................... 280

6.59 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CR4R Column Flange
I
!I (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ... ........................ ........................................... 281
6.60 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CR4R Column Flange
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................... ..............................281
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) .................. .................................................... 282
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) .. ............ ........... ...................... .............. 282
I 6.63 Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2. 1, CRI ..............................283
6.64 Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2.1, CR2 .............................. 283
I 6.65 Panel Zone Behavior versus A]SC Design Equation 2.1, CRJ ........... ................... 284
6.66 Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2.1, CR4R ............................ 284
I 6.67 Panel Zone Behavior versus AlSC Design Equation 2.1, CR5 .............................. 285
I 6.68(a) Net Shear Forces Acting on Panel Zone Showing Deformed Shape .......... ... .... 285
6.68(b) Modified Fielding and Huang Model for Post-Elastic Panel Zone Behavior .... 285
I 6.69 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and

Equation 6.9, CRI .... .. ... ....................... ...................... .. ....... .... ............................. 286
i 6.70 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and

Equation 6.9, CR2 ............................................. ....... ........................................... .286
I 6.71 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to A]SC (1997) and
I
XVIl
I
I
Equation 6.9, CR3 ........ ............... ................................................................ ......... 287
6.72 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AlSC (1997) and
I
Equation 6.9, CR4R .. ................................. .......................................................... 287 I
Equation 6.9, CR5 ...... ......... .................................................................................288 I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CRI ............. .................. 288 I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR2 ...............................289 I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR3 ............................... 289 I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6. 10), CR4R ............................290 I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR5 ... ............................ 290 I
6.79 Schematic Explanation for Scaling of Panel Zone Capacity, Specimen CRI ........ 291
6.80 Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face ofeRI Column Flange ear Web I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................................................... ... 292
6.81 Longitudinal Strain on inside Face ofCRI Column Flange ear Web I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 292
6.82 Longitudinal Strain on inside Face ofCR2 Column Flange ear Web I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................... ................... ................ 293
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ........ ..................................................... 293
6.84 Longitudinal Strain on inside Face ofCR5 Column Flange Near Web I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tcnsion) ...................................................................... 294
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 294
6.86 Transverse Strain on inside Face of CR I Column Flange at Location of
Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................. 295
•I
XVIII
I
I
':::I
,-
I ,.-"
I 6.87 Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR I Column Flange at Location of

Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ......................... 295
I 6.88 Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR2 Column Flange at Location of
Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................. 296
I 6.89 Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR2 Column Flange at Location of
I 6.90 Transverse Strain on Inside Face ofCR5 Column Flange at Location of
I Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................. 297

6.91 Transverse Strain on Inside Face ofCR5 Co lumn Flange at Location of
I 6.92 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face of CR I Column
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) .......................................................... 298
I 6.93 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCRI Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 298

6.94 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCR2 Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) .......................................................... 299

6.95 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face of CR2 Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................ ................................. 299

6.96 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCRS Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ... ....................................................... 300

6.97 Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on lnside Face ofCR5 Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 300

6.98 Specimen CRI Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
I (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension} .................................... .................................. 301

6.99 Specimen CRI Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 301

6.100 Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
i, (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ...................................................................... 302

6.101 Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 302
xix
I
I
I
6.102 Specimen CRI Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column Length
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ...................................................................... 303
I
6.103 Specimen CRI Colwnn Flange Displacement Transverse to Column Length I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................................... .......................... 303
6.104 Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column Length I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ..................................................................... .304
6.105 Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column Length
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) .. .................. ......................................... 304
I
6.106 Assumed Yield Line Pattern in Colwnn Flange Due to LFB ............................... 305 I
6.107 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... 306 I
6.108 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) .................................................306 I
6.109 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR2 West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 307 I
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ............. .. .......................................... 308 I
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................ .308 I
6.113 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ........ ............. ......... ........................... 309 I
6.114 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 309 I
6. 116 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR5 West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 31 0 i
6.117 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI East Girder Bottom Flange near
I
xx
I
I
I-
'"'
I A
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... 31 1
6.118 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR I East Girder Bottom Flange near
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 311
6.119 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR2 East Girder Bottom Flange near
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... 312
I Col umn Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ......... ... ... ... .... ... .. ..... ...... ......... .. 312
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... 313
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ......... ........................................ 313
6.123 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R East Girder Bottom Flange near
I Column Flange {Girder Flange in Tension) ......................................................... 314
6.124 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R East Girder Bottom Flange near
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 314
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) ................... ...................................... 315
I 6.126 Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR5 East Girder Bottom Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression) .................................................315
6.127 Strain Distribution (Strains CP3 to CPI) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
I (East Top Flange in Tension) ............................................................................... 316
I 6.128 Strain Distribution (Strains CP3 to CP I) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate

(East Top Flange in Compression) ......................................................................316
I 6.129 Strain Distribution (Strains CP7 to CP4) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Tension) ............................................................................... 317
I 6.130 Strain Distribution (Strains CP7 to CP4) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Compression) ...................................... ................................ 317
-I 6. 131 Strain Distribution (Strains CP I 0 to CP8) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate

(East Top Flange in Tension) .......................................... ..... .... ............................ 318
6.132 Strain Distribution (Strains CPIO to CP8) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
XXI
I
I
I
(East Top Flange in Compression) ...................................................................... 318
6.133 Strain Distribution (Strains CP 12 to CP II) in Specimen CRJ Continuity Plate
I
(East Top Flange in Tension} ............................................................................... 319 I
6.134 Strain Distribution (Strains CP 12 to CP II) in Specimen CRJ Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Compression) .. ..................... ............................................... 319 I
6.135 Strain Distribution (Strains CP13 to CPI4) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Tension} ....................................... ....................... ......... ... ..... 320
6.136 Strain Distribution (Strains CPI3 to CPI4) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate
I
(East Top Flange in Compression) ...................................................................... 320 I
6.137 Strain Distribution (Strains CPI5 to CPI8) in Specimen CRJ Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Tension} ............................................................................... 321 I
6.138 Strain Distribution (Strains CP15 to CPI8) in Specimen CRJ Continuity Plate
(East Top Flange in Compression) ..................................... ................................. 321 I
6.139 Shear Strain Variation in Specimen CR4R Panel Zone
(East Bottom Flange in Tension) ..................................................................... .... 322 I
6.140 Shear Strain Variation in Specimen CR4R Panel Zone
(East Bottom Flange in Compression) ................................................................. 322 I
A. I Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR I ...................................................................... 342 I
A.2 Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CRI ..................................................................... 342
A.3 Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CR2 ...................................................................... 343 I
A.4 Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR2 ..................................................................... 343
A.5 Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CRJ ...................................................................... 344 I
A.6 Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR3 ..................................................................... 344
A.7 Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR4 .................................... .................................. 345 I
A.8 Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR4 .. ............................................ ....................... 345
A.9 Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR4R ................................................................... 346 I
A. IO Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR4R ................................................................ 346
A. II Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR5 .................................................................... 347
A.12 Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CRS ............................................ ............. .......... 347
-I
xxii
I
I
I ~
I A.13 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CRI ................................................. 348
A.14 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CRI... ............................................ .348
I A.15 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR2 .................................................349
A.16 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR2 ................................. .............. .349
I A.17 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR3 ................................................. 350
A.18 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR3 .. ............... ............................... 350
I A.19 Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR4 ................................................. 35I
A.20 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4 ................................................ 35I
I A.21 Moment vs. Interstory Dri ft for East Girder, CR4R .............................................. 352
A.22 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4R .............................................352
I A.23 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR5 ................................................. 353
A.24 Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR5 ................................................ 353
I A.25 Illustration of Girder LVDT Placement and Measurement of Rotation ................ 354
A.26(a) East Girder Total Rotation, CR I ....................................................................... 355
I A.26(b) East Girder Total Rotation. R I (Re-scaled) .................................................... 355
A.27 West Girder Total Rotation , CR I ..........................................................................356
I A.28 East Girder Total Rotation CR2 ............................................................................ 357
A.29 West Girder Total Rotation, CR2 .......................................................................... 357
I A.30(a) East Girder Total Rotation, CR3 ...................................................................... .358
A.30(b) East Girder Total Rotation, CR3 (Re-scaled) .................................................... 358
I A.31 West Girder Total Rotation, CR3 .......................................................................... 359
A.32 East Girder Total Rotation, CR4 ............................ ................ ................................360
I A.33 West Girder Total Rotation, CR4 ...................................................................... .... 360
A.34 East Girder Total Rotation, CR4R ......................................................................... 361
I A.35 West Girder Total Rotation, CR4R ........ ................................................................ 36I
I A.36 East Girder Total Rotation, CRS ............................................................................ 362

A.37(a) West Girder Total Rotation, CR5 ...................................................................... 363
I A.37(b) West Girder Total Rotation, CR5 (Re-scaled) .................................................. 363

A.38 Illustration of Panel Zone Shear Deformation Measurement
I [after (Krawinkler et aI. , 1971»)ofFlange ............ ................................................ 364
XXIII
I
I
I
A.39(a) Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR I ............................... ........................ 365 I
A.39(b) Panel Zone Total Shear Defomlation, CRI (Re-scaled) .................... ............... 365
A.40 Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR2 ............................................. ............. .366 I
A.41 Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR3 .................. .........................................367
A.42 Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR4 ............................................. .............. 367 I
A.43 Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR4R. ........................................................ 368
A.44 Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR5 ......................................................... .. 368 I
A.45 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRI ......... ..................... ..................... .369
A.46 Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRI ............................... .................. .369 I
A.47 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR2 ................................................... .370
A.48 Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR2 .................................................. 370 I
A.49 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR3 .................................... ................ 371
A.50 Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR3 .................................................. 371 I
A.51 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4 ................................................... .372
A.52 Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4 ............ ...................................... 372 I
A.53 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4R ................................................ .373
A.54 Total Pl astic Rotation of West Connection, CR4R ............................................... .373 I
A.55 Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRS .................................................... 374
A.5 6 Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR5 .................................................. 374 I
A.57(a) East Girder Plastic Rotation, CRI ..... ............................. ................................... 375
A.57(b) East Girder Plastic Rotation, CRI (Re-scaled) ............................................. .... 375 I
A.58 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRI ..... ........ ........................................................... 376
A.59 East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR2 ........................................................................ .. 377 I
A.60 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR2 ....................................................................... .377
A.61 (a) East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3 ..................................................................... 378 I
A.61(b) East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3 (Re-scaled) ......................................... ........ 378
A. 62 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3 ........................................................................ 379 I
A. 63 East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4 .......................................................................... 380
A.64 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4 ........................................................................ 380
I
A.65 East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4R ....................................................................... 381
I
XXIV
I
I
(l)
I ,-
-.j
,..
,~,
I A.66 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4R. .................... ................................................ .38 1

A.67 East Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS ... .......... ..... .... ........ ............... ............................. 382
I A.68(a) West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS ................................................................... .383

A.68(b) West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS (Re-scaled) .... ........................................... .383
I A.69(a) Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR1 ..................................................... 384
A.69(b) Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CRI (Re-scaled) ................................. 384
'I A.70 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR2 ................... ......... ............................ .38S
A.71 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR3 ......................................................... 386
I A. 72 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4 ............................................... .. ........ 386
A. 73 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4R ..................................................... .387
I A.74 Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CRS ......................................................... 387
A.7S(a) East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI ................... 388
I A.7S(b) East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI
(Re-scaled) ......... ..................................................................................................388
I A.76 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR I ........... ..... ...... 389
A. 77 East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ....................... .390
I A.78 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ...................... 390
A.79(a) East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3 ............. ...... 39 1
I A.79(b) East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3
(Re-scaled) ................................... ........................................................................ 391
I A.80 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3 ...................... 392
A.8! East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 ....................... .393
II A.82 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 ..................... .393
I A.83 East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R ..................... 394
A.84 West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R .. .................. 394
I A.8S East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRS ........................ 395
A.86(a) West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 ............. ..... 396
I A.86(b) West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRS

(Re-scaled) ..................................... ........................ .............................................. 396
I A.87(a) Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI ................... 397
xxv
I
I
I
A.S7(b) Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI
(Re-scaled) ........................................................................................................ ... 397
I
A.SS Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 ........................ 39S
A.S9 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3 ................... .....399
I
A.90 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 ........................ 399
A.91 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R ..................... 400
I
A.92 Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 ........................ 400
f
B.I Strain History ofCR4 East Top Flange During 1.0% Drift Cycles ........................ .416
B.2 Strain History ofCR4 West Top Flange During 1.0% Drift Cycles ........................ 416
I
B.3 Strain History ofCR4 East Top Flange During 1.5%, 2.0% Cycles ........................ 417 I
B.4 Strain History ofCR4 West Top Flange During 1.5%,2.0% Cycles ..................... .417
B.5 Strain History of CR4 West Bottom Flange During 1.5%, 2.0% Cycles ................. 4IS I
B.6 West Top Flange Fracture Surface From Specimen CR4 ...................................... .. 4IS
B.7 West Top Flange Fracture Surface at Column Face from Specimen CR4 .............. .419 I
B.S Close-up View of Specimen CR4 Fracture Surface Features Near Center
of Flange .................................................................... .................................. ........ 419 I
B.9 Typical Sectioning of Fracture Surfaces for Lnvestigation ...................................... .420
B.IO Fractured Weld Section From East Top Flange of Specimen CR4 ....................... .420
B.II Fractured Weld Section From West Top Flange of Specimen CR4 ...................... 421
.'
B.12 Fractured Weld Section From West Bottom Flange of Specimen CR4 .................421
B. J3 Weld Section From East Bottom Flange of Specimen CR4 ................................. .422
I
B.14 Weld Section From Top Flange of Specimen CRI .......... ..................................... .422 I
B.15 LOF and Slag Inclusions in Specimen CR4 West Top Flange .............................. 423
B.16 Slag Inclusions Above Backing Bar in Specimen CR4 West Top Flange ............. 423 I
B.17 LOF in Center of Specimen CR4 West Bottom Flange ......................................... 424
B. IS SEM Photo Showing Cleavage Planes on Fracture Surface of Specimen CR4 .... .424 I
B.19 SEM Photo Showing Brittle Cleavage Behavior of Welds of Specimen CR4 ...... 425
B.20 SEM Photo Showing Ductile Fracture ofE71 T-S Fillet Weld of Specimen CR4.425 I
B.21 llIustration of LEFM Application to Backing Bar Notch ...................................... 426
XXVI
I
I
I
I
I List of Tables
I
I 3.1 Crucifonn Test Specimen Matrix ............................................................................... 77
3.2 Strength-Io-Demand Ratios for PZ Yielding, LFB, and LWY Limit States .............. 77
I 3.3 Panel Zone StTength Comparisons ................. ............................................................. 77
3.4 Steel W-Shape Tensile Properties ............................................................................... 78
I 3.5 Plate Material Tensile Properties ................................................................................ 78
3.6 Weld Material Properties ............................................................................................ 79
I 3.7 Tested Weld Material Properties (E70T-6 Only) ........................................................ 79
3.8 Summary of Parameters used for CJP Welds ............................................................. 80
I
4.1 General Specimen Loading History ...................... .................................................... IOO
I 4.2 Definilions of Strain Gage Label Nomenclature ............................... ....................... 100
4.3 Specimen CR I Strain Gage Locations ...................................................................... I 0 I
I 4.4 Specimen CR2 Strain Gage Locations ...................................................................... I 02
I 4.5 pecimen CR3 Strain Gage Locations ...................................................................... 103

4.6 Specimen CR4 Strain Gage Locations ...................................................................... I 04
I 4.7 Specimen CR4R Strain Gage Locations ................................................................... 105

4.8 Specimen CRS Strain Gage Locations ...................................................................... I 06
I 5.1 Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR I ..................................... 145
I 5.2 Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR2 ..................................... 146
5.3 Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR3 ..................................... 147
5.5 Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR4R ................................... 149
5.7 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR I .......................................... 151
I 5.8 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR2 .......................................... 152
xxvii
I
I
I
5.9 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR3 .......................................... 153 I
5.10 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR4 ................................. ... .... 154
5.11 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR4R ..................................... 155 I
5.12 Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR5 ..................................... ... 156
I
6.1 Panel Zone Strengths and Post-Elastic Strength lncreases Using
AlSC (1997) and Modified Fielding and Huang (1971) Equations ..................... 241 I
6.2 Connection Member Sizes and Joint Type for Tests Used to
Evaluate Panel Zone Provisions ....................... .................................................... 242 I
6.3 Parameters For Tests Used to Evaluate Panel Zone Provisions ............................... 244
6.4 Panel Zone Strength Test-to-Predicted Ratios ................ ................ .......................... 246 I
6.5 Girder-Column Combinations for Panel Zone Thickness Calculations ................... 248
6.6 Required Panel Zone Thicknesses .................. .......................................................... 249 I
6.7 Comparison of Panel Zone Thicknesses ................................................................ ... 250
6.8 Scale Factor, n, for Panel Zone Capacity Corresponding to Test Resu lts ................ 250 I
6.9 Column Bending Stresses and Corresponding Strains in the Region 6 to 12 in.
Below the Girder Flange ............................ ..... ................................ ..................... 250 I
8.1 Comparison of Measured and Required CVN Toughness From Cruciform I
Tests .............. ........ ....................... ....... ................................................................ .414
B.2 Comparison of AWS Test Plate and Strained Pull-Plate Specimen CVNs .............. 414 I
B.3 E70T-6 Weld Chemistry From Specimens CRI and CR4, and Consumable
Producer's Typical Data .... ................ ..................... ..... ....................................... .415 I
8.4 Welding Parameters From Specimens CRI and CR4 .... .... ........ ............................. .415
I
I
I
I
xxviii
I
I
I~
I Chapter 1
I
I Introduction
I
Following the orthridge earthquake of January 17, 1994, damage wa
I discovered in a number of steel moment frame structures. This damage most often
consisted of brittle fractures of the bottom flange girder-ta-column complete JOint
I penerration (CJP) welds. The fractures cau ed were by a number of factors related to the
I use of low toughness welds ; connection de Ign and detailing that led to larger moment-
frame members, less system redundancy, and higher srrain demands on tbe connections;
I the use of higher strength girders leading to potential undermatching of the weld; and n
number of other connection detailing and construction practice that were typical prior to
I the earthquake (FEMA , 2000a). Additionally, column stiffening practices have been
cited as a possible contributor to the fractures, largely as a result of observations that
I many of the connections that fractured 10 the orthndge eanhquake la ked contlOUity
plate and that some had weak panel zones (Roeder, 1997; FEMA, 2000b). FlOlte
I element analysis also has howed an increase in tress or strain concenrratlon

girder flange-to-column flange weld associated with excessively weak panel zone or
10 the
I insufficient continuity plates (EI-Tawil et a!., 1998; Ricles et a!., 2000).

As a result of this, there has ub equently been a tendency to be overly
I conservative in tbe design and detailing of column stiffening. A wealth of research by

the SAC program (FEMA, 2000b) and others has attempted to re olve many I uc
I related to connection design and detailing, and has led to new guideline for seismic
construction (FEMA, 2000a). While there has al 0 been some re earch on column
I stiffening issues, most has focu ed on the pre ence or absence of continuity plate and
doubler plates, and not on the as oClated de ign equation and detail 109. Without a
I
I
I
I
definitive verification of design procedures, the conservatism in stiffening design is I
understandable.
Design criteria for the limit states related to column stiffening are presented in I
Chapter K of the AlSC Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specification (AlSC,
1993, 1999a). The limit states of primary importance for stiffening of connections I
include local flange bending (LFB), local web yielding (L WY), and panel zone yielding
(PZ). Additional provisions for seismic design of doubler plates and continuity plates are I
included in the AlSC Seismic Provisions (1992, 1997), however the 1997 AlSC Seismic
Provisions (AlSC, 1997) removed all continuity plate design procedures, requiring I
instead that they be proportioned based on connection qualification tests. Continuity
plate design equations were reestablished and new panel zone design equations were I
developed and included in the final SAC Recommended Seismic Design Criteria (FEMA,
2000a). I
The current design equations for column stiffening included in the AlSC LRFD
Specification (1993, 1999a) and AISC Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1997) are largely based I
on bodies of research conducted several years ago. Work by Sherbourne and Jensen
(1957) and Graham et aI. (1960) established the provisions for LFB and LWY, while I
research by Krawinkler et at. (1971) and Bertero et at. (1973) led to the current PZ design
equations. These provisions were derived from research conducted on older A 7 and A36 I
steels, and on member sizes smaller than typically used in current moment frame
construction. I
A concern related to the tendency towards over-conservatism in stiffener design,
and the various requirements for such stiffeners included in recent recommendations and I
codes, is the potential for fabrication problems. The SAC criteria (FEMA, 2000a) require
continuity plates of equal thickness to girder flanges for interior connections. Thinner I
continuity plates are permitted for exterior connections. Furthermore, the connection of
the continuity plates to the column flanges must be made with ClP welds, and must
I
include reinforcing fillet welds under the backing bars, resulting in a condition of high
restraint due to weld shrinkage. The new panel zone design equations may require
I
moderatel y thicker doubler plates in the case of large columns. Often, these doublers are
I
2
I
I
I~
"
I connected to the column web by CJP welds in the k-area of the columns. Not only are
excessive stiffeners economically undesirable, the associated welding of thick stiffeners
I as described above may cause fabrication cracking. The restraint imposed by CJP welds
in the connection region has caused fabrication cracking in the k-area of the columns in
I the past (Tide, 2000).
I 1.1 Research Obj ectives

The research described herein is part of a larger research project sponsored by the
I American Institute of Steel Construction. The primary objectives of the project are to
reassess the current provisions for column stiffening and to develop and test economical
I alternative details for such stiffeners. This includes an assessment of the LFB, LWY, and
PZ provisions, as well as testing of various innovative doubler plate and continuity plate
I designs.
I Three distinct components comprise the research in order to meet these

objectives. The components include a computational study, monotonically-loaded pull-
I plate experiments, and cyclically-loaded cruciform connection experiments. The

computational study included analyses of all experimental specimens as well as
I parametric studies to extend the results to member sizes and details not tested.
Information on this work can be found in Ye et al. (2000). The pull-plate experiments
I investigated the limit states of LFB and LWY primarily for non-seismic design, and
tested various doubler plate and continuity plate stiffener details. Information on these
I tests can be found in Prochnow et al. (2000a, 2000b) and Dexter et aI. (2001). The final
component of the research project is the subject of this report .
I This report details the design and testing of the cyclically-loaded cruciform
girder-to-column connection specimens. It was originally planned to test five cruciform
I specimens for this experimental study. Due to premature fracturing in three of the four
complete joint penetration welds connecting the girder flanges to the column flanges in
I one of five specimens, one additional cruciform specimen was fabricated and tested.
The specimens were designed with the primary intent to assess the current PZ
I design provisions, to verify the results of the pull-plate experiments with respect to LFB
3
I
I
I
and continuity plate detailing for seismic design , and to test various innovative doubler
plate details. A secondary focus of the experiments was an evaluation of the perfonnance
I
of new moment-frame connection details and weld metal notch-toughnes requirements
developed a a result of the 'onhridge eanhquake.
I
The test specimens were selected following a parametric study of all practical
girder-to-column combinations. The study identified the stiffening requirements of
I
several potential test specimens. A range of dimensional and design parameters were I
considered in the selection of the final specimens. The member sizes and stlffenmg
details of the five specimens were selected from the potential combinations to balance all I
primary objectives. These included the asse sment of the panel zone design proviSions,
testing of various stiffener details, and verification of the LFB proviSions. Additional I
consideration wa given to specimen and details that could be correlated to the result of
the pull-plate experiments conducted by Prochnow et al. (2000a). All specimen were I
fabricated from A992 wide-flange sections, and all detailing material was A572 grade 50
steel. Study of deep columns and members made of high strength steel is beyond the
scope of this research.
One specimen included a large, unstiffened column section and no doubler plates. I
It was intended for investigation of the panel zone strength provisions of column with
thick flanges, as well as the LFB limn state behavior for large, heavy columns. Two I
additional specimens included one or two doubler plates but no continuity plates. These
specimens were geared for te ting the LFB limit states, as well as to investigate a panel I
zone detail that included a doubler plate fillet-welded to the column flanges . All three
specimens were also intended to show that continuity plates are not necessarily required I
for all seismic moment-resisting connections. Another specimen investigated the use of a
fillet-welded continuity plate detail similar to those tested in the pull-plate experiment of I
Prochnow et al. (2000a). Each of these specimens was designed with relatively weak
panel zones to investigate the Impact of the weak panel zone on the stress and stram I
concentrations in these new column-stiffening details. A final peclmen featured an
innovative offset doubler plate detail intended to act as both continuity plates and doubler I
plates.
I
4
I
I
I ~
I ~
1.2 Organization of th e Report
I This report consists of seven chapters. Chapter 2 provides background
information on limit states pertaining to column stiffening, including LFB, LWY, and PZ
I yielding. A detailed history of the panel zone provisions is also presented, including
opinions and recommendations from several research programs conducted both before
I and after the Northridge earthquake. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the
economic issues related to column stiffening.
I Chapter 3 describes the experimental procedure used for the cruciform tests. It
I begins with a presentation of the methods and results of the parametric study used to
identify possible specimens, followed by a description of the specimen selection
I procedure. The selection procedure includes a discussion of several parameters related to

the LFB, LWY, and PZ yielding limit states. Justification of the final test matrix is
I presented, and the features of each specimen are detailed. The design procedures for
various specimen components are then presented, including the moment connections,
I panel zones, and all stiffeners (i.e., doubler plates and continuity plates). The material
properties of the rolled sections, plate material, and welds are also given in this chapter,
I including test results, required properties, and manufacturer's data.

Chapter 4 illustrates the test setup used for the experimental study. This includes
I the configuration of load frame assembly. The loading protocol adopted in this test
program is also described. Chapter 4 concludes with a presentation of the
I instrumentation plans for all specimens.

Chapter 5 summarizes the applied load histories and basic behavior of all of the
I test specimens. The first section details the actual load histories applied to each
specimen. The behavior of each specimen is then individually discussed. Included are
I progressions of yielding and fracture, descriptions of the failure modes, and summaries of
the rotation and deformation characteristics of each specimen.
I Chapter 6 interprets and extends the basic results of the specimens presented in
Chapter 5. A comparison is made between the finite element results from Ye et al.
I (2000) and the experimental results. The panel zone behavior of the specimens is then
5
I
I
I
discussed, including a comparison of results to the behavior predicted by the current I
AlSC panel zone strength provisions. An alternate model of panel zone strength is also
presented and compared to the experimental behavior. The LFB behavior of the I
specimens is also discussed, and comparisons are made to the results and
recommendations given by Prochnow et al. (20ooa). I
Chapter 7 includes research summaries, conclusions and recommendations related
to the cruciform testing. Based on the six cruciform specimens tested and analysis of I
these results, several conclusions and recommendations are made with respect to the
panel zone strength provisions, the LFB limit state, and weld toughness requirements. I
Appendix A documents the procedures used to calculate all rotation and
deformation data from the actuator and linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) I
data. Additional plots not presented in Chapter 5 are also included in the appendix.
Appendix B summarizes the failure analysis of Specimen CR4, which exhibited I
premature brittle weld failure in three of the four complete joint penetration welds
connecting the girder flanges to the column flanges. Forensic examination and material I
testing of the welds are used to explain the occurrence of the weld fracrures.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
I
I
I: .~.
I Chapter 2
I
I Background of Design Provisions for Column Stiffening
I
Both the AlSe LRFD Specification (1993 , 1999a) and the AlSe Seismic
I Provisions (1997) contain design and detailing requirements for panel zones and doub ler
plates in moment-resisting connections. This chapter discusses the development of the
I present panel zone provisions, specifically focusing on the requirements in the Seismic
Provisions. A collection of opinions from various researchers regarding panel zone
I design and behavior, both prior to and fo llowing the Northridge earthquake, is also
presented. The provisions for local flange bending (LFB) and local web yielding (L WY),
I pertaining to the design of transverse stiffeners (continuity plates), are also outlined. The
chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the economics of column sti ffenin g
I alternatives.
I 2.1 History of Panel Zone Design Provisions
I The 1997 AlSe Seismic Provisions for panel zones in Special Moment Frames
(SMF) and Intermediate Moment Frames (IMF) includes two design equations (A[Se,
I 1997). The first specifies the shear strength of the joint panel and the second places a
limitation on panel zone slenderness. The backgrounds of these provisions are presented
I below and include information on the research behind their development and on their
adoption by other codes and specifications. These panel zone design criteria as given by
I the 1997 AlSe Seismic Provisions (ArSe , 1997) are:
3b'ft~
t/J,R•. = t/J.,O.6F,.d ,t p ( I+ ---'"-'!- J (Equation 9-1, 1997) (2 .1)
I d gd,t p
where:
I R, = nominal panel zone shear strength
7
I
I
I
¢v = resistance factor = 1.0 [modified from 0.75 by AlSe (2001)] I
F ye = minimum specified column yield stress
be/= column flange width I
le/= column flange thickness
de = column depth I
dg = girder depth
Ip = panel zone thickness I
t ~ (d, + w,)/90 (Equation 9-2, 1997) (2.2) I
where:
I = column web or doubler plate thickness; or total thickness if doublers are plug welded
I
d, = panel zone depth
w, = panel zone width
I
2.1.1 Panel Zone Shear Strength
I
Prior to the development of the current design provisions used by AlSe, panel
zones were designed using either Allowable Stress Design (ASD) or Plastic Design
I
(Krawinkler, 1978). The nominal panel zone shear capacity, Vn , for the ASD and Plastic
Design methods (AlSe, 1978) are, respectively:
I
V.
V,
= O.4F.,yd ,I p
=0.55F).cd ,I p
(2.3)
(2.4)
I
I
The required shear strength was calculated as the shear produced by the
unbalanced beam moments acting at the faces of the connection, less the column story I
shear. These shears due to gravity, wind, and/or seismic loads were calculated at service
(un factored) loads. However, SEAOe. in the 1975 Recommended Lateral Force I
Requirements ("Blue Book"), suggested designing the panel zones for the capacity of the
members framing into the joint, thus assuring plastic hinges could form in the beams. In I
the case of seismic loading, ASD allowed a 33% increase in allowable stress. changing
I
8
I
I
0::>
I ,-
,,,,.1
,..,
.
I the expression for the joint shear strength to Vn = O.53Fyc;Ciglp, resulting in a value similar
to plastic design. Both the plastic design equation and the latter ASD seismic expression
I have been observed to accurately predict the onset of inelastic behavior in the panel zone
when column axial loads are small (Krawinkler, 1978).
I Monotonic testing by Fielding and Huang (1971) revealed a large post-yield
capacity in panel zones. An expression was derived for the post-yield stiffness assuming
I elastic-plastic behavior of the panel and treating the column flanges as elastic cantilevers
in bending. This model is illustrated in Figure 2. 1a. The expression for the post-yield
I stiffness is given by:
dV, = 24EI,
I dy d:
(2.5)
I where:
Vf =shear due to column flange contribution
y= shear deformation
II E = modulus of elasticity
I If= moment of inertia of individual column flange
I Their bi-linear model agreed well with the experimentally observed behavior during the
initial stages of panel zone yielding.
I Cyclic testing by Bertero, Krawinkler, and Popov in the early 1970's led to the
development of an ultimate strength criterion for panel zones similar to that used today.
I It should be noted that this testing was conducted on very small member sizes (W8
sections used as columns, and WIO, Wl2 and WI4 sections used as girders). Krawinkler
I (1978) modeled the joint as an elastic-plastic shear panel bounded by rigid elements
connected by rotational springs. Figure 2.1b illustrates this model. Based on an
I approximate expression for the spring stiffness from a finite element analysis
(Krawinkler et aI., 1971) and an assumed maximum allowable shear deformation of four
I times the nominal shear yield strain, 4»., to ensure controlled inelastic deformation, the
following was deri ved:
I
9
I
I
I
(2.6)
I
I
Equation 2.6 was adopted by SEAOC in the 1988 Blue Book, although the 3.45
factor was reduced to 3.0. UBC in 1988 also adopted the expression in this form . The I
A1SC LRFD Specification (1993, I 999a) and the AlSC Seismic Provisions (1992,1997)
further modi fied the equation by increasing the factor of 0.55 to 0.6, consistent with the I
assumed shear yield stress of 0.6Fy used in several equations by AlSC.
Both SEAOC (1988) and UBC (1988) also defined the required strength of the
I
panel zone as the shear originating from the connected girder bending moments due to
gravity loads plus 1.85 times the seismic forces . However, this required shear strength
I
was permitted to remain at or below that required to develop 0.8EM" where M, is the
plastic moment strength of the connected girders. Prior to this, SEAOC had implied that
I
panel zones should be designed to allow development of the full plastic capacity of the
girders.
I
Depending on the basis for calculating the required shear strength, panel zones
designed by Equation 2.1 can behave quite differently. If the panel zone is weak relative
I
to the girder flexural strength, most of inelastic behavior may take place within the
connection, while stronger panel zones will allow shared energy dissipation between the
I
joint and the connected girders. More specifically, a weak panel zone will put relatively
high stress and strain concentrations at the location of the kink in the column flange
I
adjacent to the critical girder flange-to-column welds. This may increase the potential for
low-cycle fatigue and brittle fracture at that location. On the other hand, a strong panel
I
zone may increase the stress and strain concentrations in the girder, on the other side of
the critical girder flange-to-column welds and at the critical weld access hole area. It is
I
presently not clear whether a strong or weak panel zone is best for the overall resistance
of the connection to low-cycle fatigue and brittle fracture. Such response may depend on
I
a number of factors, including the fracture toughness of the welds, the detailing of the
welds and access holes, and the particular girder and column section.
I
I
10
I
I
II
I Following the adoption of this ultimate strength criterion, and prior to the 1994
Northridge earthquake, the capacity of panel zones had been infrequently questioned, the
I exception being the case of very thick column flanges . Krawinkler (1978) noted th.at
Equation 2.6 would need verification for thick column flanges, and finite element
I analysis conducted by El-Tawil et a!. (1998, 1999) showed the expression to be slightly
unconservative for this case. However, one ongoing debate, especially in the wake of the
I Northridge earthquake, is over the determination of required shear in the joint.
Two common conclusions have generally been drawn from the analytical and
I experimental work on panel zone behavior:
• Panel zone yielding is a stable phenomenon under repeated cycles of large inelastic
I distortion and is thus an excellent dissipater of energy; however, excessive panel zone
deformation can lead to localized kinking of the column flanges, which may increase
I the potential for low cycle-fatigue and brittle fracture of the girder flange-to-column
I •
welds.
Panel zone stiffi1ess can significantly influence global frame stiffness and must be
I considered in analysis; elastic drift is substantially greater in designs with weak panel
zones.
I The current expressions for panel zone strength, Vn , were adopted following
repeated observations of this first conclusion and following additional testing on deeper
I sections by Popov et a!. in 1986 (Roeder and Foutch, 1996). Since this time, a number of
changes in panel zone design requirements have been due to changes in the speci fication
of required shear strength, Vu [given as Ru in the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (AlSC,
II 1997)] . Recent code provisions for required shear strength are summarized below.
I • 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions:
I Vu is determined from load combinations 3-5 and 3-6, which consider the full
earthquake forces and overturning effects. However, Vu is not required to exceed
I the shear forces determined from 0.9r.t/lf,Mp, where ¢r, = 0.9, and Mp is the girder
nominal plastic moment, ZxFy. These applicable load combinations. along with a
I reduced resistance factor for panel zone shear of ¢Iv = 0.75, are intended to give
11
I
I
I
roughly the same level of safety as the 1991 UBC code, in which Vu is detennined I
based on gravity loads plus 1.85 times the seismic forces (A1SC, 1992). The 1994
NEHRP provisions also adopted this version of the Seism ic Provisions (NEHRP, I
1994).
• FEMA 267: Interim Guidelines (1995a) I
Vu is detennined from the shear induced by girder bending moments due to
gravity loads plus 1.85 times the seismic forces, but the required shear strength I
need not exceed that required to develop O.8LMj , where Mj is the moment at the
column face when a plastic mechanism fonns . This is a slight modification of I
UBC 1994, which placed the ceiling at O.8LM" where M, is the plastic moment
capacity of the framing girders.
I
• 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions:
Ru is detennined from load combinations 4- I and 4-2, but need not exceed the
I
shear due to O.8r.RyMp, where R)Mp is the expected plastic moment based on an
assumed increase in yield strength beyond the nominal value. These
I
combinations are similar to Equations 3-5 and 3-6 from the 1992 AlSC Seismic
Provisions (AlSC, 1992), except for the amplification of earthquake forces by the
I
structural overstrength factor, n.,and the change in nominal earthquake loads I
included in ASCE 7-95 (ASCE, 1995) (note that the commentary to the
Provisions contains an error in identifying the applicable load combinations as
A4-5 and A4-6 from the 1993 A1SC LRFD Specification). These provisions.
I
however, are still intended to provide the same reliability as the 1991 UBC
requirements (AISC, 1997). The 1997 NEHRP provisions also adopted this
I
•
version of the Seismic Provisions (NEHRP, 1997).
FEMA 267 A: Advisory No. 1 (1997a)
I
Vu is detennined from the shear due to O.8LM.f The load combination of gravity
plus 1.85 times the seismic forces is no longer considered, and the maximum cap
I
on the required shear previously specified instead constitutes the sole basis for I
calculating the required shear strength. This change is purportedly based on
I
12
I
I
I c!:>
•
-I
I~
.J
I experimental observations of kinking in the column flanges due to large panel

zone deformations.
I • AISC Seismic Provisions Supplement No. I (\ 999b)
R" is determined from load combinations 4-1 and 4-2, but need not exceed the
I shear due to 0.8W"pb, where W"pb = L(I .IR)U p + M v} , and M •. is the additional
moment due to shear amplification. The change from R~p to M"pb in the moment
I summation was made to be consistent with the definition of the expected girder
moment capacity used for the strong column-weak beam (SCWB) check in the
I Provisions (A1SC, 1999b).
II • AISC Seismic Provisions Supplement No. 2 (2001)

The use ofload combinations 4-1 and 4-2 from the 1997 A1SC Seismic
I Provisions (A1SC, 1997) is no longer permitted, as it is recognized these

combinations do not directly relate to achieving yielding of the girders. The
I thickness of the panel zone must be based on the method used to proportion tested
(or prequalified) connections. However, as a minimum , R" "shall be determined
I from the summation of the moments at the column faces as determined by

projecting the expected moments at the plastic hinge points to the column faces"
I (AISC, 2001). One major change from Supplement No. I is the removal of the
factor of 0.8 from the moment summation. A second major change in thi s
I supplement is an increase in the resistance factor used with the Equation 2.1, ¢i."
from 0.75 to 1.0.
I Observations of stable energy dissipation associated with inelastic panel zone
I behavior are what originally led to the desire for designs with weak panel zones.
However, these same provisions may prevent the connected girders from ever reaching
I their plastic capacity except under extremely large panel zone deformations and
significant strain hardening (i .e., deformations well beyond the maximum of 4i}.assumed
I in Krawinkler's derivation). Although these extreme deformations may be stable in the

panel zone, they may also lead to local kinking in the beam and column flanges. This
I kinking, observed by Krawinkler et al. (1971), Bertero et al. {I 973}, and Krawinkler
13
I
I
I
(1978), is considered one possible contributing factor to the orthridge fractures (Roeder I
and Foutch, 1996). The changes suggested in FEMA 267 A (1997a) and the supplements
to the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (1999b, 2001) - all of which increased the required I
shear strength - reflect this belief.
More recently, a new approach to panel zone design has been incorporated into I
the recommended design criteria put forth by SAC (FEMA, 2000a). The new method is
in response to growing concern over the present provisions. Several recent investigations I
have shown that large panel zone deformations can occur even when they are designed as
per Equation 2.1 (Choi et al ., 2000; Rides et aI., 2000; FEMA, 2ooob). Instead of I
incorporating the post-yield strength recognized in the current AlSC provisions, and
basing demand on the ultimate strength of the connected members, the method attempts I
to balance the onset of yielding between the panel zone and connected girders. It has
been shown that this balance leads to beller overall connection performance (Roeder, I
2000). The panel zone demand associated with this method is essentially the shear due to
flexural yielding of the beams, while the recognized shear strength of the panel zone is I
that at first yield. The required thickness, ' '''1' of the panel zone is determined as:
I
(2.7)
I
M ,., = F).,S. (2.8)
where:
I
II = height between girder centerlines of adjacent stories
R)., = ratio of expected yield strength of girder to minimum specified value
I
M,., = girder yield moment
R )'C = ratio of expected yield strength of column to minimum specified value I
F)., = minimum specified girder yield stress
S, = elastic girder section modulus
I
If the required thickness determined by Equation 2.7 is greater than the column
I
web thickness, doubler plates are required. As an alternative, the panel zone may be
I
14
I
I
.:!>
I .~
I proportioned based on a tested connection, similar to the provisions of AISC Supplement

No. 2 (2001).
I
2.1.2 Panel Zone Slenderness
I The empirical AISC panel zone slenderness provision given as ( <?: (d, + wJ/90
first appeared in the 1988 SEAOC Blue Book. Since then, it has been adopted without
I change by the 1988 and subsequent UBC codes, as well as the 1992 and 1997 AIse
Seismic Provisions (AlSe, 1992, 1997). The equation appears in the Blue Book as
I Equation 4-2, Section 4F.2.b (SEAOC, 1988). The commentary to this section refers to a
Krawinkler reference (1978) as the source, saying the equation is "based on tests" that
I show the buckling of panel zones meeting the criteria of Equation 4-2 will not reduce the
shear capacity of the joint under repeated cyclic loading.
I The referenced paper (Krawinkler, 1978), however, contains nothing pertaining to
panel zone slenderness limitations and is not a report of experimental work. Rather it
I contains references to earlier experimental work by Bertero, Krawinkler, and Popov from
I the early 1970's. Data on these tests can be found in Krawinkler et a!. (1971) and Bertero
et aJ. (1973), and in abbreviated form in Bertero et a!. (1972) and Krawinkler et a!.
I (1975). None of the above references give specific slenderness criteria for panel zones,
although all note that buckling of thin panel zones occurred at large inelastic distortions.
I The actual development of the slenderness equation has been attributed to work
performed by Teal as pan of a SEAOe committee sometime in the early 1980's (Popov,
I 1999). However, no published records of the equation 's development or any other
background information appear to be available.
I If, in fact, the data behind this provision is from the aforementioned tests (Bertero
et aI., 1973; Krawinkler et aI. , 1971), it is probably based on two test specimens,
I designated Al and A2. These specimens consisted ofW8x24 columns and WIOxl5
girders with unrein forced panel zones. The web thickness of a W8x24 is 0.245 inches.
I Using the dimensions of the resulting panel zone, an expression of ( '" (d, + w,)I68 can be
derived. It was noted by Krawinkler et al. (1971) and Bertero et al. (1973) that when the
I panel zones of these specimens did buckle, there was no loss of strength observed. In
15
I
I
I
fact, the shear capacities of these panel zones continued to increase as the steel began to I
strain harden.
The question then arises as to whether the allowable value of (d: + w:}f90 was a I
liberalization of the tested slenderness limits based on the engineering judgement of Teal
and the SEAOC committee. Although the test results from Krawinkler et al. (1971, I
1975) and Bertero et al. (1972, 1973) are likely the basis for the panel zone slenderness
provision, it is still unclear how the maximum value of (d, + w,}/t = 90 was arrived at. I
2.2 Opinions Regarding Panel Zone Design and Behavior I
Historically, the most common opinion regarding panel zone yielding has been
that it is beneficial when limited, but undesirable when it becomes excessive. This desire
I
to recognize the benefits oflirnited inelasticity in panel zone design is what led to the
development of the present panel zone shear strength provision, allowing for "controlled
I
inelastic deformations" (Krawinkler, 1978). This balanced approach to panel zone
yielding is not universally accepted, however. Popov (1987) has discussed three major
I
philosophies of panel zone design:
I
• Rigid panel zone approach: In this method, panel zones are designed to essentially
remain elastic, forcing all yielding into the girders.
I
• Flexible panel zone approach: This method, previously advocated by Kawano
(1984), confines most inelastic behavior to the panel zones, and was considered most
I
•
suitable for low-rise structures.
Balanced approach: This method allows for distributed inelasticity between the
I
girders and panel zones, consistent with Krawinkler's "controlled inelastic
deformation" assumption (Krawinkler, 1978).
I
Contained in these design philosophies are more than just panel zone strength
I
calculations. Inherent in them are also methods of demand determination. As illustrated
in Section 2.1, panel zone demands are either based on load combinations or are
I
functions of the plastic capacity of the connected girders. Clearly, a design based on a
I
16
I
I
.'
I ,--
~I
"
I first-yield strength equation (e.g., Plastic Design), which intends that the panel zone
remain essentially elastic, would still result in a flexible panel zone relative to the rest of
I the structural system if the demand was significantly underestimated. Thus, panel zone
design is an issue of the relative strengths of the panel zone, girders, and columns.
I Summarized below are past opinions of researchers regarding panel zone strength and
demand requirements:
I
• Krawinkler et al. (1971) advocated balanced inelasticity between girders and panel
I zones, even though extremely large, stable panel zone deformations were recorded in
their tests. To ensure this balanced design, the researchers believed that a design
I method incorporating panel zone inelasticity would also have to be based on a
demand from the full plastic capacity of the girders.
I • Fielding and Huang (1971) noted the large post·yield capacity of panel zones, but felt
that any changes to design provisions recognizing this strength would also have to
I take into account the required rigidity of the joint.
I • Bertero et a!. (1973) echoed the statements of Krawinkler et al. (1971) by proposing a
design procedure for panel zone strength that allows for limited panel zone
I inelasticity based on a demand calculated from the full plastic capacity of the
connected girders.
I • Becker (1975) concluded that underdesigned panel zones can be the weak elements in
a structure and can significantly reduce the structure's strength and stiffness.
I • Popov et al. (1986) advocated designs incorporating balanced inelastic demands

between the girders and panel zones. The researched cautioned against the design of
I weak panel zones, as they were considered potential contributors to some of the
experimentally observed failures .
I • Lee and Lu (1989) studied composite girder-to-column connections and concluded

that the panel zones were still ductile in composite frames. Thus, they suggested
I •
designing panel zones for limited inelastic deformations.
Ghobarah et al. (1992) advocated distributing the inelastic demands between the
I girders and panel zones, even though large recorded joint deformations were stable.
17
I
I
I
The researchers also recommended against designing overly stiff panel zones because I
of the large demands imposed on the girders.
• Schneider et a!. (1993) concluded that weak panel zones are undesirable for weak I
column-strong beam (WCSB) frames. Even though the panel zone yielding was
stable, large drifts and losses of stiffness were deemed unacceptable. I
The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused the engineering community to question I
most aspects of connection design, including the design of panel zones. Generally, this
has resulted in a trend of increased conservatism in the proportioning of doubler plates I
and other column reinforcement. While this has not resulted in a complete reversion to
the rigid panel zone design approach, the trend towards stiffer joint designs are reflected I
by recent code changes and design guidelines. Opinions derived from recent testing and
new design suggestions include: I
• Tsai et a!. (1995) proposed that panel zone demand be calculated as 80% of the flange I
ultimate moment, ZjFu , where Zf is the plastic section modulus of the flanges. This
suggestion was based on the distributed inelasticity in specimens designed in this I
manner. In addition, the researchers believed the post-yield strength criterion (e.g.,
AlSC, 1992) should be replaced with a more conservative first-yield expression, even I
though it was noted that the current provisions satisfactorily predicted post-yield
panel zone strengths in the specimens tested. I
• The SAC Phase I testing (SAC, 1996) showed that designs based on UBC (1988)
often resulted in panel zone rotations as large or larger than girder plastic rotations.
I
While this panel zone deformation was stable, it was hypothesized to be a contributor
to the Northridge fractures. Further study of the panel zone design provisions was
I
•
suggested.
Roeder and Foutch (1996) conducted a statistical analysis of past connection tests and
I
concluded that panel zone yielding reduced the flexural ductility of the connected
girders. The researchers hypothesized that the trend towards weaker panel zones in
I
I
18
I
I
:'
.-
I .,,I
I recent pre-Northridge codes (e.g., UBC, 1988; AISC, 1992) may be correlated to the
Northridge connection fractures.
I • The AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) retained the post-yield panel zone
strength equation, but altered the load combinations used to calculate demand. The
I structural overstrength factor, with a value between two and three, replaced the 1.0
load factor on earthquake loads, which were adjusted accordingly in ASCE 7 (ASCE,
I 1995). Additionally, the demand cap was altered to reflect the expected strength
properties of the girders instead of the nominal properties, resulting in a higher cap on
I required strength.
• The FEMA Interim Guidelines Advisory No. I (1997a) retained the post-yield panel
I zone strength equation, but eliminated the load combination method of demand
calculation. Instead, demand was given by the expression previously specified as a
I demand cap in the original Interim Guidelines (FEMA, 1995a). The explicit intent of
I •
this change was designs with stronger panel zones.
EI-Tawil et al. (1998,1999) conducted finite element analyses that showed the post-
I elastic panel zone strength to be reasonably accurate, except in cases of very thick
column flanges. However, the researchers also showed that connections with very
I weak panel zones were more susceptible to brittle and/or ductile fractures, based on
local stress conditions. The demand cap of 80% of the girder plastic moment
I capacities specified by the FEMA Interim Guidelines (1995a) was believed adequate
for interior connections, but un conservative for exterior connections.
I • Bjorhovde et al. (1999) conducted several tests on WCSB connections with weak
panel zones to investigate the possibility ofk-area fractures. Good plastic rotation
I was achieved in all specimens, and was dominated by panel zone yielding. Kinking
of the column flanges was observed, and was hypothesized as a contributor to
I specimen failure. Several fractures propagated along the fillet region of the column,
but none were found to originate in the k-area.
I • Stojadinovic et al. (2000) observed similar connection plastic rotations regardless of

panel zone strengths. One specimen with a weak panel zone and undersized fillet
I welds on the continuity plates failed by fracture of these welds and subsequent tearing
19
I
I
I
in the column k-line. While it was not concluded that a weak panel zone played a I
role in the fracture, it was not ruled out as a factor.
• Ricies et al. (2000) conducted full-scale tests and finite element analyses of I
connections, and concluded that stronger panel zones result in better overall
performance. The [mite-element work showed a 50% increase in ductile fracture I
potential at the end of the beam web groove welds for the weak panel zone case. A
recommendation was made that panel zones be designed such that less than 50% of I
the total plastic rotation is due to panel zone deformation. Based on the experimental
results, it was recommended that only the column web shear strength be considered in I
design, resulting in stronger panel zones. Cracking at the ends of the beam web
groove welds in some specimens was attributed to effects of weaker panel zones. I
• Choi et al. (2000) recommended designing panel zones for limited yielding (a
ductility level oD or 4) based on tests of the free-flange connection detail. While I
good rotational performance was achieved in specimens with weak panel zones, the
failure modes were different from those seen in the strong panel zone specimens. The
I
column flange deformation associated with weak panel zones was thought to have led
to low-cycle fatigue cracking in the beam flanges and the shear tab-to-column
I
attachment. In contrast, lateral-torsional buckling was the failure mode observed in
all specimens with strong panel zones.
I
• Chi et al. (2000) performed finite element analyses to investigate fracture toughness
demands (K/ and CTOD) in the CJP welds of the beam flange to column. At large
I
connection plastic rotations, weak panel zones resulted in toughness demands
approximately double those of strong panel zones. The authors suggested a re-
I
•
evaluation of current seismic panel zone design standards [e.g., AlSC (1997)] .
Roeder (2000) analyzed over 100 past connection tests (including SAC testing) to
I
identify trends related to panel zone behavior. Specimens that yielded in flexure first
generally showed larger rotations than those with first yielding in the panel zone;
I
however the largest rotations were achieved in tests where panel zone yielding
initiated soon after beam yielding. Very stiff panel zones were shown to adversely
I
I
20
I
I
I -
I affect perfonnance. The author recommended a balanced approach to design such
that some panel zone yielding occurs following the onset of flexural yielding.
I • FEMA (2000a) included a new approach to panel zone design based on the work of
Roeder for the SAC program (FEMA. 20OOb). The intent was to balance the onset of
I flexural and panel zone yielding. It is noted that the procedure will not result in
dramatic differences from past design methods. except in cases of very thick column
I flanges. In this situation. moderately thicker doubler plates may be needed.
I The research and recommendations discussed above clearly show the trend
towards increased conservatism in the design of panel zones following the orthridge
I earthquake. However. with the exception ofEI-Tawil (1998.1999). and to some extent
Choi et al. (2000), none of the recent research has directly addressed the AI C design
I equations (Equations 2. 1 and 2.2). Further evaluation of these provisions is necessary to
bring the issue of appropriate panel zone design to a closure. The present research
I program is intended to contribute to this effort.
I 2.3 Background of LFB and LWY Provision
I The design of continuity plates in moment-resisting connections is primarily

governed by local flange bending (LFB) and local web yielding (LWY) limit states.
I While the web crippling (WC) limit state is also applicable to moment connections. a
study by Prochnow et al. (2000a) showed that it never governed the need for continuity
I plates in typical connection configurations. These LFB and LWY limit states are
included in the AlSC LRFD Specification (1993. I 999a) for non-seismic design. and
I additional requirements were provided in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (A1SC.
1992). The 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (A1SC. 1997). however. removed procedures
I for sizing continuity plates. requiring instead that they be proportioned based on tested
connections. The SAC Recommended Seismic Design Criteria (FEMA. 2000a) restored
I equations for detennining continuity plate requirements in seismic moment rrames.

The AlSC provisions for continuity plates are based primarily on the work of
I Sherbourne and Jensen (1957) and Graham et al. (1960). A detai led background on these
21
I
I
I
limit states can be found in Prochnow et al. (2oo0a). For the LFB limit state, continuity I
plates must be provided if the required strength, Ru , exceeds the resistance of the column
flange, gi ven by: I
¢R. = ¢6 .2S{~ F,y (Equation KI-I , 1999a) (2.9)
where: I
¢ = resistance factor = 0.9
I
For the LWY limit state, continuity plates are required if Ru exceeds the web resistance,
given by:
I
¢R. =¢(Sk + N)F,y{no (interior)
(exterior)
(Equation K 1-2, 1999a)
(Equation K 1-3, 1999a)

(2. 10)
(2.11 )
I
where: I
¢ = 1.0
k = distance from outer face of column flange to web toe of column fillet I
N = length of bearing surface = {dfor moment connections
I
The demand, R., for both limit states is based on the force delivered to the
connection by the girder flanges. Several possibilities exist for calculation of this I
demand, including:
R. = F,~ Arf (2.12) I

R. = 1.8F,., Arf (2. 13)
I
R. = l.lR). F,~ A rf (2.14)
where: I
Ad= area of girder flange
R = ratio of expected yield strength to minimum specified value I
Equation 2.12 is typically used for non-seismic design, representing the nominal yield I
strength of the flange. Equation 2.13 was included in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions
I
22
I
I
I ~,
I (AlSC, 1992). The 1.8 factor includes a strain-hardening factor of 1.3 on the yield
strength, and assumes the full plastic capacity of the girder is carried by the flanges .
I Thus, the 1.3 factor is increased by the ratio of the plastic section modulus, Z., to the
flange section modulus, Zf This ratio is typically at most about 1.4, resulting in the
I factor of 1.8 (1.4* 1.3 '" 1.8) (Bruneau et aI. , 1998). Equation 2.13, however, predicts
stresses in the flange well above the tensile strength of most structural steels. Equation
I 2.14 was presented by Prochnow et al. (2000a) and provided a more realistic flange force
for the pull-plate experiments. The 1.IRy factor is consistent with the SCWB check and
I panel zone demand calculations used by AISC (1997, 1999b).
The SAC Recommended Seismic Design Criteria (FEMA, 2000a) includes two
I equations for determining the need for continuity plates. Both are based on mitigating
the LFB limit state. Continuity plates are required if:
I I. 8bgf I gf F,~ R,., (2. 15)
F,.,R,.,
I
(2. 16)
I where:
I bgf= girder flange width

R yg = ratio of expected yield strength of girders to minimum specified value
I R ye = ratio of expected yield strength of column to minimum specified value
I Equation 2.15 inherently includes a demand that is essentially given by Equation

2.13 and a capacity presented in Equation 2.9. Equation 2.16 is based on testing
I conducted by Ricles et al. (2000) for SAC.

The pull-plate tests recently conducted by Prochnow et al. (2000a) investigated
I the limit states ofLFB and LWY. It was shown that the present AISC provisions
(Equations 2.9 and 2.10) were reasonable and slightly conservative for non-seismic
I design (Prochnow et aI. , 200030 2000b; Dexter et aI., 2001). New equations that better
described the test results were presented for these limit states, however the calculated
I resistances are similar to the current AlSC equations (Equations 2.9 and 2.10).
23
I
I
I
Furthermore, the test resu lts showed that the demand given by Equation 2.13 was I
impossible to achieve in the pull-plate tests, and Equation 2.14 provided a more
reasonable demand for these experiments. I
2.4 Economic Considerations of Column Stiffening I
The economics of column stiffening are an important aspect of design that must
not be overlooked. It is well known that transverse stiffeners and doubler plates are
I
expensive additions to the detailing of columns (Carter, 1999). While the material costs
are low, the fabrication and installation costs are high. In a cost comparison of arbitrary
I
column reinforcement details (i.e., continuity plates and doubler plates) it has been shown
that the detailing (cutting, welding, etc.) governed the cost, and not the overall material
I
thickness and dimensions (AlSC, 1999c). Significant cost savings and increased
simplicity can be achieved if column reinforcement can be fully or partially eliminated.
I
While eliminating transverse stiffeners and doubler plates generally requires
larger column sections, the associated costs may often be fully offset by the savings
I
associated with simplified detailing. The AlSC study (1999c) and Troup (1999) showed
that increasing the column size by up to 100 Ibl ft to eliminate both continuity plates and
I
doubler plates was often the more economical alternative. However, some recent seismic
specifications (AlSC, 1997) either require or suggest the use of transverse stiffeners in all
I
high seismic applications. For these cases, eliminating the need for doubler plates alone
may still prove the economical choice. These options are particularly attractive in non-
I
seismic design .
One possible alternative to increasing the size of a column to avoid doubler plates
I
would be to produce columns specifically designed to eliminate web stiffening (i.e.,
columns with thicker webs). This would lessen the need for doubler plates without
I
adding unnecessary weight to the column flanges . Columns such as this have been
available in the past. The fifth edition of the AISC Manual (AlSC, 1959) included a
I
"column core" section that was often used with flange cover plates to produce columns
heavier than the largest available rolled sections. The column core section was a
I
WF 14x320 with a flange thickness of 2.093 in. and a web thickness of 1.89 in. This
I
24
I
I
I ....,'~
to
I flange thickness is very similar to currently produced WI4x283 columns (1<1= 2.07 in.),
but the web thickness of the WFI4x320 is similar to the much heavier WI4x426 column
I (10' = 1.875 in.).

Often, particularly in the case of interior moment-frame connections under lateral
I loading, the need for column stiffening will be governed by panel zone shear. For
example, consider an interior connection consisting of a W 14 column section and
I W36x 150 girders. Using the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) for LFB, a
WI4x283 column is needed to avoid continuity plates in this connection. However,
I using the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) for panel zone strength, a
WI4x455 column is required to avoid doubler plates. Production of sections with thicker
I webs has been periodically discussed, but no mills presently roll such columns. By
making columns available with thicker webs, the need for column stiffening may be
I reduced with only a minimal increase in steel weight.
In addition to increasing the column size, specifying a higher strength grade of
I steel may also lessen the need for stiffening. Specifying a minimum of grade 50 steel for
columns is now standard. While grade 65 steel further strengthens a column, it is
I presently more expensive than other steels, and a more detailed cost assessment of the
alternatives has to be made.
I ot only can the elimination of column stiffening often lead to a lower cost
structure, but other benefits can also be realized. The welding associated with transverse
I stiffeners and doubler plates can be highly constrained, leading to possible fabrication
cracking and undesirable residual stress conditions. In addition to more favorable
I material conditions, eliminating stiffening simplifies the detailing and lessens the
possibility of confusion between the designers and fabricators. Finally, the larger
I columns required to eliminate stiffening promote the strong column-weak beam condition
required by the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) and FEMA (2oo0a).
I In situations where stiffening cannot be fully or even partially eliminated, the
I AISC Steel Design Guide 13 (AISC, I 999c) provides suggestions on how to limit the
economic impacts. The following are often applicable to both seismic and non-seismic
I applications:
25
I
I
I
I
• Increase the number of moment-resisting connections or frames, resulting in more
economical stiffening details I
• Use fillet welds instead of CJP welds where appropriate
• Specify a single doubler plate up to thicknesses around one-half inch; if greater, I
specify two doubler plates
• Select doubler plate thicknesses such that plug welding to the column web is not I
required
• Limit the number of different plate thicknesses for transverse stiffeners and doubler I
plates
I
This chapter has outlined the various design provisions for column stiffening
related to the limit states of panel zone yielding, local flange bending, and local web
I
yielding. The history behind the development of the present panel zone design equations
was also presented. This revealed that a substantial body of past research directly and
I
indirectly tied to column stiffening issues exists, including several programs conducted as
a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. However, some issues remain unresolved or
I
unaddressed. These include experimental evaluation of the current AlSC Seismic
Provisions (AJSC, 1997) panel zone limit state, testing of alternative stiffening details
I
that avoid welding in the potentially low-toughness k-line area of wide-flange shapes,
and the reestablishment of definitive design criteria and details for continuity plates,
I
especially in seismic moment frames . By addressing these issues, overly conservative
stiffening designs can be avoided, resulting in more economical steel structures. The
I
research described herein is intended to contribute to the resolution of such issues.
I
I
I
I
26
I
I
I
I
I
- y
(c:?)r-- - - - ' O l "
Vr
-+
- -y
I I f'"
Vr
, -+
I i t
Rigid
O.95d
a Rigid
d/2 Link
I Boundaries
I , "
1
_ _ (iJ;------1"':»
Vr
Rotational
Spring
(a) (b)
I
Figure 2.1: (a) Fielding and Huang. and (b) Krawinkler Models for Post-Elastic Panel
I Zone Behavior
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
27
I
I
I
Chapter 3 I
I
Specimen Selection and Design I
I
This chapter describes the selection and design of the five crucifonn specimens
tested in this research . The selection of the five specimens was based partly on a I
parametric study of panel zone stiffening requirements, described in detail in this chapter.
Other factors considered during the selection process included correlations with past I
research, testing equipment capacity, and a study of parameters relevant to moment frame
connection design. A justification of the resulting test matrix is presented, outlining the I
key aspects of each specimen.
One of the five originally planned specimens resulted in an unexpected brittle I
fracture. As it turned out, the deposited weld metal did not meet the SAC minimum
Charpy V-Notch (CVN) test (notch toughness) requirements (FEMA, 2000e). It is not I
believed that the fracture was related to the column stiffening details. Therefore, this
result, although important, is tangential to the discussion of the effect of column I
stiffening, which presumes inherently that all welds meet the recommended SAC
minimum CVN requirements. The behavior of this specimen and an analysis of the I
fracture are discussed in detail in Appendix B to this report. This specimen was
replicated (with weld consumables that do meet the SAC CVN requirements) and was re- I
tested, creating a sixth specimen.
The specimen design section describes the basic dimensions of the total of six test I
specimens, the details of the girder-to-colurnn moment connections common to all
specimens, and the design of the various stiffening details. Also presented are the results I
of material testing, including the tensi le properties of the steel, and properties of the weld
metal.
I
I
28
I
I
I' .-
I 3.1 Parametric Study of Pan el Zone Stiffening Requirement

3.1.1 Defini tion s of Para meters
I To aid the process of selecting sizes for the cruciform test specimens, and to
identi fy general trends, a study was performed to compare various properties of and
I stiffening requirements for the panel zone. Initially, over 44,000 possible W-section
girder and column combinations were considered, based on a list of over 200 available
I section sizes (AlSC, 1995). However, the results discussed herein are limited to those
girder-column combinations that can be defined as typical seismic moment frame
I configurations. For the purposes of this study, "typical seismic moment frame
configurations" were defined as all W24 through W36 girders in combination with all
I Wl4x90 and larger W14 column sections (i.e., all Wl4 sections with a nominal flange
width of 14 inches or greater). This resulted in an array of 1848 potential combinations.
I Both 50 ksi and 65 ksi column material was considered, to include the possibility
I of grades A572/50, AS72/65, A992, and A913 column steel. All girder steel was
assumed to be grade 50. Plate material strength for all column stiffener material was
I assumed to be 50 ksi .
In addition to the parameters included in the study, a check of the strong column-
I weak beam (SCWS) condition was also implemented. Thc basic SCWB condition used
was that specified in the AlSC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) for Special Moment
I Frame (SMF) and Intermediate Moment Frame (lMF) structures, and is given as:
I (3.1)
I
I where:
IM ;" = IZ« F)~- P... /Ar) (3.2)

colli"''''
I
coI_1U
IM ;" = I(l.lR ,F,.,Z, +M,) (3.3)

6'rtlm ,Inkn
I Z< = column plastic section modulus

29
I
I
I
Zg = girder plastic section modulus I
F y< = column yield strength
FY8 = girder yield strength I
P.,/Ac= column axial stress
Ry = ratio of expected yield strength to specified minimum yield strength I
M. = additional girder moment at co lumn centerline due to shear amplification
I
This check included a variable column axial stress, P.,!A c, but no additional girder
moment due to shear amplification from the location of the plastic hinge to the column I
centerline (i.e., M. = 0). A range ofaxial stresses was considered, and included 0, 10, 20
and 40 ksi. Substituting Equations (3.2) and (3.3) into (3.1) yielded the SCWB relation I
used in the study. This is given as:
I
(3.4) I
I
Girder-to-column configurations meeting this criterion for a particular axial load
would be permitted for SMF and lMF applications, while those configurations failing this I
check, even at a column axial stress of zero, were considered permissible Ordinary
Moment Frame (OMF) or non-seismic configurations. Five major parameters were then I
investigated for the study of panel zone stiffening requirements, including:
I
• Panel zone strength to demand ratio: ¢RJ R.
• Required doubler plate thickness: t req
I
•
•
Panel zone web slenderness: (dz+w.)/t •.
Panel zone doubler plate slenderness: (dz+W,)/tdp
I
• Panel zone aspect ratio: d,lwz
I
I
30
I
I
I .:..~
I The development of the parametric study is discussed in the following sections.
A similar parametric study for the LFB and LWY limit states was conducted and reported
I in Prochnow et a!. (2oooa). All development and results herein are applicable to general
seismic design. No non-seismic design was explicitly considered in this study for two
I primary reasons. First, the cyclic testing plan does not represent the loading conditions of
non-seismic moment frames, and would thus essentially give results applicable to non-
I seismic details under seismic loading. Second, panel zone demand in the AISC LRFD
Specifications (1993 , I 999a) is based on load combinations, which would require the
I design of prototype frames for a specified lateral load. There is no demand cap as is
included in the AJSC Seismic Provisions (AJSC, 1997) that can be used to calculate the
I required shear strength. However, the test matrix presented in Section 3.2 includes some
non-seismic (or OMF) details that will be tested cyclically. lfthese details can be shown
I to perfonn well under simulated seismic loading, it is almost assured that they would be
adequate for static loading conditions. on-seismic specimens and details were defined
I by girder-column combinations not meeting the SCWB requiremenl and/or column
sti ffeners sized for demands less than those given by the AISC Seismic Provisions (1992,
I 1997).
I Pallel ZOlle Strellgth to Demalld Ratio

The basic formula used for the design strength of the panel zones, lAR", was that
I given by the AJSC Seismic Provisions (AJSC, 1997), and modified by Supplements os.
I and 2 to the Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1999b, 2001). It is also applicable to non-
I seismic applications when panel zone defonnation is accounted for in the structural
analysis (AJSC, 1993, 1999a). This fonnula (using the Seismic Provisions nOlalion) is
I gwen as:
I
(3 .5)
I where:
I tAR•. = panel zone design shear strength

31
I
I
I
F ye = column yield strength I
brf= column flange width
Ir:f= column flange thickness I

de = column depth
dg = girder depth I
Ip = panel zone thickness
I
As this section of the study only considered the strength of unrein forced panel zones, the
total panel thickness, Ip, was taken as the column web thickness, I • . The resistance factor, I
¢." was taken as 1.0, consistent with AISC Supplement No. 2 (200 I).
The 1997 A1SC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) specified a panel zone demand I
based on load combinations, and included a cap on demand based on the capacity of the
members framing into the joint. These load combinations were removed by Supplement I
o. I (AISC, 1999b). Instead of load combinations, the cap became the sole basis for
calculation of demand. This general formula is given as: I
"
R. = C L...
'''.."
I.lR , M p
d,
- V, (3.6) I
where:
Ru = required panel zone strength
I
C = constant
Ry = overstrength factor; equal to 1.1 for grades 50 and 65 steel
I
Mp = nominal girder plastic moment capacity
Ve = column shear
I
The 1997 A1SC Seismic Provisions (A1SC, 1997) specified a value of the
I
constant, C, equal to 0.8. This took into account the effect of gravity loading on interior
spans offsetting a percentage of the moments due to lateral loading. However, because
I
this assumption is unconservative for exterior connections, Supplement o. 2 (A1SC,
2001) conservatively increased the value of the constant to 1.0 for all connections. Thus,
I
the value of 1.0 was used for this study. The determination of column shear was based
I
32
I
I
I on a statics analysis of the basic specimen dimensions (given in Section 3.3). If the
resulting value of tA,R,1Ru for a particular combination of members was greater than or
I equal to one, no doubler plates were needed .
Reql/ired DOl/bier Plate 17Iickness
I If the values of tA,R.lRu given by the above study of strength to demand ratios
were less than one, the need for doubler plates was indicated. The required thickness,
I Iffi/' was derived from the following:
I 3brf/~ J
R.".. = -R. = 0.6Fy d C
( {
I, + I"" 1+ ( ) (3.7)
I where:
¢, d, d c I, +1""
I R•.ffi/ = required nominal panel zone shear strength

I. = column web thickness
I I r tq = required doubler plate thickness
I Solution of Equation (3 .7) for

plate thickness in the study:
Ircq yielded the basic equation used for required doubler
I
I (3.8)
I This equation for the required thickness is based on a doubler plate yield strength
equal to that of the column material. As the material used for the doubler plates was
I assumed to be grade 50, there is a potential discrepancy between the yield strengths of the
columns and doubler plates if grade 65 columns are used. Thus, the final values of
I required thickness, Iffi/' were determined by scaling the value from Equation (3.8) by the
ratio of the column yield strength to the doubler plate yield strength. While not correct,
I strictly speaking (as the equation for panel zone strength was derived based on a single
I
33
I
I
I
material strength), this method was considered satisfactory. A negative required I
thicknesses as per Equation (3.8) indicated doubler plates were not needed.
I
Panel Zone Web Slenderness
In addition to the panel zone strength equation given in the AISC Seismic I
Provisions, there is a slenderness limitation applicable to both the column web in the
panel zone and any doubler plates, if needed (AISC, 1997). This requirement is given as: I
I? (d, + w, )/ 90 (3.9) I
where:
1= column web, doubler plate, or total thickness (only if doublers are plug welded) I
d, = panel zone depth
w, = panel zone width I
The panel zone depth, d" is defined as the depth between continuity plates and I
was taken as the beam depth less twice the flange thickness. The width, w" is defined as
the width of the panel zone between column flanges, and was thus taken as the column I
depth less twice the flange thickness. The thickness, I, can be either the web thickness or
doubler plate thickness, depending on the component considered. In this section of the I
study, the column web thickness was considered. Equation (3.9) was then rearranged to
give the expression used in the study: I
(3 .10)
I
If the value on the left side of Equation (3 .10) was less than or equal to 90, the
I
slenderness criterion was met. A value greater than 90 indicated that the column web
thickness of the particular girder-column combination was insufficient.
I
I
I
34
I
I
.-.....,
I
I Panel Zone Doubler Plate Slenderness
Similar to Equation (3.10) above, the slenderness criterion used in this section is
I gIVen as:
I (d, + w, )/ldP 5 90 (3 .11)
where:
I Idp = doubler plate thickness
I The doubler plate thickness, tdp, used in Equation (3.11) depends on whether a one- or
I two-sided doubler plate is assumed. All analyses discussed herein were conducted
assuming a one-sided doubler plate, in which case Idp equals the required doubler plate
I thickness, t,eq, as calculated from Equation (3.8). As with the web slenderness
investigation, a (d; + Wz)/ ldp value of90 or less indicated that the slenderness criterion
I was met.
I Panel Zone Aspect Ralio

The panel zone aspect ratio is given as dJ w;, where these variables are as defined
I previously. While there are no requirements pertaining to the aspect ratio in the current
AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997), it has been investigated in the past (Krawinkler
I et aI., 1971 ; Bertero et aI., 1973), and has been targeted as a possible variable for furth er
study in recent publications (EI-Tawil et aI., 1998. 1999). The concern stems from finite
I element studies that show significant bending deformations in thick panel zones with
large aspect ratios (i.e., panel zones with large shear stiffness relative to panel zone
I bending stiffness). The strength equation given by Equation (3.5), however, is based on
an assumption of pure shear deformation .
I 3.1.2 Results of Panel Zone Parameter Study
I The following results are applicable to panel zones designed in accordance with
the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) as modified by Supplement Nos. I and
I 2 (AISC, I 999b. 2001). All connections were assumed to be interior (i.e., girders
35
I
I
I
framing into both sides of the column), as these are the focus of the experimental I
investigation.
The SCWB check implemented in the study revealed that this requirement placed I
significant limitations on potential test specimens, if the SCWB criterion was strictly
adhered to. For a column strength of 50 ksi and no column axial load, the number of I
possible girder-to-column combinations decreased from the total number of seismic
combinations considered, 1848, to 575 when the SCWB criterion was applied. For axial I
loads of 10,20, and 40 ksi, the number of SCWB combinations decreased to 436, 281 ,
and 12, respectively. Similarly, for grade 65 column steel, the number of combinations I
meeting the SCWB requirement decreased from 766 to 645, 506, and 204 as the axial
load was increased from zero to 40 ksi . Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate these results. The I
results, as they apply to the parameters studied, are discussed further in the sections that
follow. I
Pallel ZOlle Strellgth to Demalld Ratio I
Results from this section of the study indicated that, within a given nominal girder
depth, as the girder sections get smaller (i.e., lower weight per foot) , the number of I
girder-column combinations (for a particular girder) requiring panel zone reinforcement
becomes smaller. That is, heavier girder sections within a given depth are more likely to I
require column reinforcement. Note that this result does not consider the effect of the
SCWB requirement limiting the possible combinations. These results also indicated that I
large columns are generally needed, regardless of girder size, if an unreinforced panel
zone is desired. For example, the smallest unreinforced grade 50 column section possible I
in combination with grade 50 W24x68 girders (the lightest girder section considered) was
a W14x257 . Similarly, a W14x211, grade 65 column was needed for W24x68 girders if I
the panel zone was to be unreinforced.
I
Required Doubler Plate Thickll ess
Regardless of the column yield strength or axial stress assumed in the SCWB I
check, this portion of the study yielded two general results applicable to all analyses of
I
36
I
I
.:p
I :;or,..
1 required doubler plate thicknesses conducted. First, a majority of the girder-column
combinations failed the SCWB check. Of the 1848 seismic combinations considered,
1 over 50% failed this check even when grade 65 column steel was used with grade 50
girders, and no axial load was applied to the columns. At the other extreme, only 12
1 combinations met the SCWB requirement when grade 50 columns were used and a 40 ksi
axial stress was applied.
1 The second general result was that, of the combinations meeting the SCWB
criterion, fewer than half require doubler plates. Put another way, a majority of
1 combinations that would have required doubler plates failed the SCWB check. For
example, when a 40 ksi column axial stress was assumed, no configurations that met the
1 SCWB criterion also required doubler plates for either grade of column steel. For grade
50 columns, assuming a column axial stress of20 ksi (representing an upper bound of
1 typical column loads), only 23 configurations requiring doubler plates also met the
SCWB requirement. This number increased to 79 when grade 65 columns were
1 considered. For a 10 ksi axial stress (representing a lower bound of typical column
loads), the number of possible combinations requiring doubler plates increased further,
1 but was still only 6.8% and 10.4% of the original 1848 seismic configurations for 50 ksi
and 65 ksi columns, respectively. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 further illustrate these results. The
1 figures show the number of combinations that both meet the SCWB condition and require
doubler plates, as a function of assumed column axial stress. It is clear from these results
I that if both panel zone strength and SCWB requirements must be met, the possible
choices of girder-to-column combinations requiring doubler plates are limited.
1 The actual required doubler plate thicknesses determined in this section of the
study also revealed a general trend . Considering the analyses that assumed 10 and 20 ksi
1 column axial stresses (i.e., those meant to represent the range of typical axial stresses),
maximum required thicknesses above one inch were rare for configurations meeting the
1 SCWB requirement. That is, once required doubler plate thicknesses became much
larger than an inch, the combinations began failing the SCWB check.
I
1
37
I
1
I
Panel Zone Web Slenderness I
The results of the panel zone web slenderness check indicated that this
slenderness limitation would not be a controlling factor in any potential test specimens. I
While combinations ofW14x90 and W14x99 columns with the W30 and larger girders
often failed this check, these combinations also always failed the SCWB check. I
Furthermore, for potential combinations meeting the SCWB check, the value of
(d=+wz)lt., was generally significantly less than the maximum allowable value of90. In I
no case was this value greater than 73.
I
Panel Zone Doubler Plate Slenderness
The results of this second slenderness check indicated that, based on minimum I
required doubler plate thicknesses, the doubler plate slenderness limitation often
controlled. Thus, the minimum doubler plate thickness of many potential test I
configurations was governed by this slenderness criterion.
To illustrate, in the case of grade 50 columns and a 10 ksi column axial stress, I
over 50% of those specimens both needing doubler plates and meeting the SCWB
requirement failed tills slenderness check. For grade 65 columns and a 10 ksi axial stress, I
this percentage dropped slightly below 50%. For both column grades, when a 20 ksi
column axial stress was assumed, a large majority of specimens that both required I
doubler plates and met the SCWB check also failed the slenderness check.
I
Panel Zone Aspect Ratio
Results from the study of this parameter indicated that there is not a large amount I
of variability in the panel zone aspect ratio when the typical seismic configurations are
considered. The range of aspect ratios calculated was 1.79 to 2.71. Previous analysis and I
testing has included aspect ratios ranging from approximately 1.0 (Krawinkler et aI.,
1971 ; Bertero et aI., 1973 ; Popov et aI., 1986) to approximately 2.7 (SAC, 1996; EI-Tawil I
et aI. , 1998, Stojadinovic et aI. , 2000; Ricles et aI. , 2000). Using the testing equipment
discussed in Section 3.2, the range of aspect ratios that can be tested becomes 1.79 to
I
2.25.
I
38
I
I
I~
I
3.1.3 Conclusions
I The major conclusions drawn from the results of the parametric study are
summarized below:
I • For seismic design, requiring that the SCWB criterion be met significantly limited the
number of potential girder-column test specimen combinations. A majority of girder-
I column combinations failed the SCWB check even considering grade 65 columns
with grade 50 girders and no column axial stress.
I • Large columns are generally needed if an unreinforced panel zone is desired. Of all
interior seismic combinations considered, the smallest column section needing no
I reinforcement was a W 14x211 . This assumed a grade 65 column, and W24x68 grade
50 girders.
I • Most of the seismic girder-column configurations that required doubler plates failed
the SCWB check. That is, of the combinations meeting the SCWB requirement, a
I majority required no doubler plates.
I • Very thick doubler plates were rarely needed for those configurations that met the
SCWB requirement. For typical column axial loads of 10 to 20 ksi , the computed
I •
total required thickness of doubler plates was rarely above 1.0 inches.
The panel zone slenderness criterion, when applied to column webs, never controlled
I •
seismic girder-column configurations when the SeWB check was also applied.
Of the configurations that both met the SCWB requirement and required doubler
I plates, many failed the panel zone slenderness limit. Thus, the minimum thickness of
many doubler plates was controlled by this slenderness provision.
I • The range of panel zone aspect ratios was relatively small considering the seismic
girder-column combinations. The values of the aspect ratios were large, however,
I when compared to a number of connections tested prior to the Northridge earthquake.
I
I
39
I
I
I
I
3.2 pecimen Selection
3.2.1 Cruciform Specimen Selection Procedure I
As the entire range ofW-section girder-column combinations includes over
40,000 possibilities, rational selection criteria were needed to limit the number of I
potential cruciform test configurations. A number of such criteria were applied to the
range of possibilities, progressively narrowing the list of potential tests. These criteria I
fell into six general categories:
I
• Commonly used girder and column sizes
• SCWB condition
I
•
•
Testing equipment capacity
Recentl y tested sizes
I
•
•
Width-thickness ratios
Analysis of relevant parameters
I
The first five categories were used to eliminate a majority of the possible specimen
I
configurations. The final category was then employed to rationally select potential
combinations that could be used both to verify the panel zone design equations over a
I
range of parameters and to test a variety of doubler plate and continuity plate details. A
description follows of the above criteria and the resulting list of configurations.
I
Commonly Used Girder and Coillmn Sizes
I
Generally, for seismic moment frame design, columns ofWl4 nominal size and
girders of W24 to W36 nominal size are used . The columns considered in this category
I
included W14x90 and larger. All combinations not within the above size range were thus
eliminated from consideration as specimens. Thus, the study of deep column sections
I
was not addressed in this research . The column and girder sizes were further limited by
considering only sizes that are commonly made in the United States. This eliminated
I
seven of the heaviest W 14 column sizes. These two restrictions resulted in a list of 17
I
40
I
I
I possible columns and 76 possible girders. The remaining selection criteria discussed
below are limited to these seismic moment frame combinations.
I
SC WE Condition
I As the experimental investigation is directed primarily at seismic moment frame

detailing, and most moment frames in regions of high seismicity are either SMF or IMF
I [requiring the strong column-weak beam condition to be met as per the 1997 AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997)], a SCWB check was the next selection criterion
I applied to the list of potential combinations. This was described in the parametric study
discussed previously in Section 3. 1. Depending on the assumed column axial stress (0,
I 10, 20, or 40 ksi) and the column yield strength, the number of specimens eliminated by
this check varied widely, but was always over 50% of the seismic moment frame
I combinations. An axial stress of 10 ksi was used as the standard for this selection
criterion, representing an approximate lower bound of typical column axial loads.
I The SCWB condition was not considered an absolute requirement, however. As
discussed in the parametric study, some non-seismic detailing will be tested, including
I specimens not meeting the SCWB requirement. This served primarily to narrow the list
to likely seismic girder-column combinations, from which the majority of the test
I specimens were selected.
I Testing Equipment Capacity

The specimen configuration (discussed further in Section 3.3) consists of II -foot
II girders attached to a 14.25-foot column section. The girder size and length is determined
by the bolt hole locations in the floor, the actuator capacities, and the required girder
I rotations. Two 77-kip actuators are used on each girder, for a total capacity of 154 kips
per girder. These actuators have a maximum stroke of plus or minus six inches. This
I results in a maximum moment of 1694 kip-feet and a maximum total rotation of 0.043
radians. This total rotation exceeds an interstory drift of 4.0%, required to qualify a
I connection as per FEMA design guidelines (FEMA, 2000a).
I
41
I
I
I
Using the maximum moment from an II-foot girder length (1694 kip-feet), and I
an assumed stress of 60 ksi to account for strain hardening, an allowable plastic section
modulus of339 in3 was calculated. This eliminated all W36 and W33 nominal depth I
girders, and limited the size ofW30 sections to a W30x99. The heaviest W27 and W24
sections that could be tested were W27xl02 and W24x117, respectively. This I
significantly reduced the number of girders that could be tested. Of the original 76 girder
sizes in the W24 to W36 nominal size range, ten met the plastic section modulus I
requirement.
I
Recently Tested Sizes
A goal was established of using sections tested recently as a part of the SAC Steel I
Project or related research activities. This was done with the belief that it may help
determine the reliability of post-Northridge connection designs while requiring limited I
extrapolations of results when comparing to previous testing. The list of most commonly
tested sizes includes the following columns and girders: W14x120, W 14x 145, WI4x 176, I
W14x211 , W14x257, W14x311 , W14x398, W24x68, W27x94, W30x99, andW36x150
(SAC, 1996; Kaufmann et aI. , 1996; Xue et aI., 1996; Leon et aI., 1998; Dexter and I
Melendrez, 2000; Stojadinovic et aI., 2000; Ricles et aI., 2000).
I
Width -Thic/Ol ess Ratios
While re-evaluation of the provisions for limiting width-thickness ratios, bit and I
hit, is beyond the scope of this project, consideration was given to these limiting values
given by the AISC Seismic Provisions for SMF and IMF applications (AISC, 1997) when I
selecting specimens. The current limit on bit for flanges in flexure of 52/-YFy yields a
value of8.7 for A36 steel, 7.4 for grade 50 steel, and 6.4 for grade 65 steel. These values I
are lower than the bit values often used for the girders used in several previous relevant
test results. Krawinkler et al. (1971) noted severe local flange buckling in A36 girders I
with a bit of 15.4. The subsequent testing by Bertero et al. (1973) reduced the bit ratios
to 11 .7 and 10.3 and noted much improved behavior through significant inelastic
I
rotations. With the increasing use of higher strength steels, meeting the current bit limits
I
42
I
I
I
I becomes more difficult. This is especially true when grade 65 columns are considered.
In this case, all WI4 columns smaller than a WI4xl76 fail the bit requirement. However.
I a relaxation of the current seismic limit on bit of5 21>1F) to the non-seismic value of
651>1F) is being considered (Iwankiw, 1999). At a minimum, all cruciform specimens
I were required to meet the non-seismic criteria of 651>1Fy •
The limits on hit imposed by AISC (1997) for seismic applications are much less
I restrictive. considering the typical seismic moment frame girders. If axial load is
I neglected in the girders, hit is limited to 74 for grade 50 steel, based on the requirement
that hit $ 5201>lF, (AISC, 1997). The maximum hit value of all typical girders
I considered was 54.5 (W33x 118), and none of the W 14 column sections considered
approached this limit. Thus, the hll limitation was not a governing factor in the cruci form
I specimen selection.
I Alla/)'sis o(Re/evalll Parameters

Both to verify the panel zone design equations and test new continuity plate and
I doubler plate details, a number of specimen parameters were considered. These included:
I •
•
Column flange thickness, tif
Girder depth, dg
I • Post-elastic panel zone strength factor, ( d3brfl~ )

, d,1
p
I • Column yield strength. F,y:

• Doubler plate effectiveness and detailing
I • Axial load P./P,
I •
•
Panel zone demand, Ru
Panel zone aspect ratio, d,lw:
I •
•
Panel zone slenderness parameter, (d: + w,)/1
Column web thickness, tc»'
I • Girder flange area, Agf
43
I
I
I
• Continuity plate details (thickness and welding) I
These parameters were used to find reasonable combinations of the remaining column I
and girder sections not eliminated by the other selection criteria. The first nine
parameters relate primarily to the panel zone strength and buckling criteria. The I
remaining three relate to transverse stiffener design and have been discussed in detail by
Prochnow et aI. (2000a). They are discussed in Section 3.2.2 however, as they relate to I
the five cruciform tests. With only five specimens, not all parameters can be given
detailed consideration without introducing too many variables in each test. A discussion, I
justification, and plan of investigation of each parameter to be tested are presented below.
For those variables not included in the final test matrix, a justification is given. I
• Column Flange Thickness I
The contribution of panel zone boundary elements, namely the column flanges, to
panel zone shear resistance has been recognized for over 30 years. Fielding and Huang I
(1971), Krawinkleret al. (1971), and Benero et al. (1973) developed various models of
panel zone shear behavior that incorporated the contributions of boundary elements into I
the inelastic range. One of the models proposed by Krawinkler et al. (1971) would
eventually be used to formulate the panel zone shear strength equation that is used I
presently (Krawinkler, 1978). The post-elastic term in this panel zone shear strength
equation is directly proponional to the square of the column flange thickness. Thus, the I
recognized post-yield strength of the panel zone is influenced most by the thickness of
the column flange. I
The experimental work behind the development of the panel zone strength
provision involved specimens with column flange thicknesses of 0.40 inches (W8x24)
I
and 0.935 inches (W8x67) (Krawinkler et aI., 1971 ; Benero et aI., 1973). The larger
thickness of 0.935 inches corresponds today with what would be considered a thin
I
column flange for use in moment frame construction (roughly corresponding to the flange
thickness of a W 14x 120). More typical column sections used presently have flange
I
thicknesses of one to three inches or greater. In the concluding remarks of one
I
44
I
I
.,
I experimental report (Bertero et aI., 1973), the reader is cautioned that careful
extrapolation of the data must be made to cases of thick column flanges, and in the
I derivation of the current panel zone strength equation, Krawinkler (1978) encouraged
further research into the veri fication of the provision for use with very thick column
I flanges.
Since 1978, a number of additional experimental investigations involving panel
I zone behavior have been conducted, but the tested column flange thicknesses remained
relatively small until the most recent experiments following the Northridge earthquake.
I Popov et al. (1986) tested half-scale flange thicknesses of 0.625 and 1.25 inches, noting
that they were relatively thin, but no comparisons to panel zone strength provisions were
I made. The investigators further specu lated that the column stiffening requirements
(continuity plates and doubler plates) would be reduced if thicker column flanges were
I used. Lee and Lu (1989) tested composite joint subassemblages with column flange
thicknesses of 0.67 and 0.68 inches, and found reasonable agreement with the panel zone
I strength predictions developed by Krawinkler (1978). In fact, panel zone strength was
significantly underestimated during positive bending due to the effects of the concrete
I slabs. Ghobarah et al. (1992) tested extended bolted end-plate joints with column flange
I thicknesses of 0.53 and 0.81 inches. The results indicated that predicted panel zone
strengths were underestimated by 17-40%, due primarily to effects of the end-plates in
the post-elastic range. Tsai et al. (1995) conducted full-scale tests using columns with a
I flange thickness of 1.19 inches and noted that the current provisions satisfactorily predict
I the post-yield strength of panel zones, but also suggested the adoption of simpler, more
conservative strength and demand calculation procedures.
I Phases I and 2 of the SAC program (SAC, 1996; Choi et aI. , 2000; Stojadinovic
et aI., 2000; Ric1es et aI., 2000; FEMA, 2000b) conducted tests with columns
I representative of those used in new construction. Column flange thicknesses from 0.94
to 2.845 inches were tested in these investigations. A general consensus of these
I investigations was that the panel zone design requirements prior to Northridge (e.g., UBC
(1988) and AlSC (1992)] needed re-evaluation. [n other words, the panel zones of many
I experiments were considered weak in comparison to the girders. As noted in Chapter 2,
45
I
I
I
Ricles et al. (2000) recommended designing panel zones using only the column web
contribution, neglecting the effects of the column flanges.
I
Recent analytical work by El-Tawil et al. (1998, 1999) focused on parameters
affecting panel zone behavior. The three-dimensional, nonlinear, finite element ana lyses
I
were performed on full-scale girder-to-column configurations, representative of member I
sizes typically used today. One variable was the column flange thickness, which was
varied between 1.3 and 3.2 inches, while holding the girder to panel zone strength ratio I
essentially constant. The resu lts indicated that, while the panel zone provisions
accurately predicted the shear strength for most specimens, strength was slightly I
underestimated in the specimen with the thickest column flange.
The cruciform specimen test matrix attempts to further investigate the effects of I
column flange thickness on panel zone strength by incorporating a range of flange
thicknesses. I
• Girder Deplh I
While girder depth is only encountered in the panel zone strength provision as a
variable in the denominator of the post-elastic term, it is still an important parameter in I
the design of panel zones and connections in general. In a study of past experiments by
Roeder and Foutch (1996), it was shown that the flexural ductility ratio (FDR) of girders I
decreased significantly as the depths of the members increased. This can be partly
explained by the finite element results from EI-Tawil et al. (1998). As the girder depths I
were increased in their analyses, significantly larger inelastic strains were observed at
plastic rotations of 0.03 radians. This indicated the potential for reduced ductility and I
low-cycle fatigue in those joints with the deepest girders.
Girder depth is also an important parameter when specifically considering panel
I
zone strength and design. For those tests with significant panel zone yielding, Roeder
and Foutch ' s results (1996) showed the same trend of reduced FDRs with increasing
I
depth; however, the FDRs as a whole were much lower than those tests without
significant panel zone deformation. This is important when considering that the depths of
I
girders used in the experiments that formed the basis for the current panel zone
I
46
I
I
I
provisions (Krawinkler et aI., 1971; Bertero et aI., 1973) were small in comparison to
common member sizes used today. In that work, WIO, W12 and WI4 nominal depth
I sections were tested including WIOxl5 , WIOx29, W12x27, and WI4x22 girders.
In fact, little full-scale testing related to panel zones occurred before 1994. Popov
I et a!. (1986) conducted half-scale testing on 18- and 21-inch nominal depth girder and
column sections, representing the largest cyclic tests oftheir kind at the time. Full-scale
I tests by Lee and Lu (1989) were conducted, but relatively small W 18x35 girders were
used, and experiments conducted by Ghobarah et a!. (1992) tested 14- and 16-inch
I nominal depth girders. It was not until after the Northridge earthquake that full-scale
tests, representative of member sizes currently used, became the nonn . Tsai et a!. (1995)
I tested W21 girders, ranging in size from 50 to 101 Ib/ft. and W24, W30. and W36 girders
I have been tested as a part of the SAC experimental work (SAC, 1996; Choi et aI., 2000;
Stojadinovic et aI., 2000; Ricles et aI., 2000; FEMA, 2ooob).
I While the crucifonn tests in the current research program represent realistic
connection configurations presently used, girder depth was not varied. The range of
I depths possible taking testing equipment into consideration was not considered sufficient
to warrant inclusion as a main parameter.
I • Post-Elastic Panel Zone Strength Factor
I as:
The post-elastic tenn in the panel zone strength provisions (AI C, 1997) is given
t (3.12)
I While the post-elastic strength of the panel zone is influenced most directly by the
column flange thickness, this tenn takes into account more fully the contributions of the
I boundary elements than does tJ alone. This expression was developed by Krawinkler
(1978) as a result of the panel zone behavior observed in earlier testing by Krawinkler et
t a!. (1971) and Bertero et a!. (1973), and was based on a finite element analysis ofajoint
by Krawinkler et a!. (1971). Just as the results from E1-Tawil et a!. (1998, 1999) served
I to verify the panel zone strength provision for most cases, so too did they indirectly serve
47
I
I
.,
I
to verify this post-elastic strength tenn . A similar argument can be made with respect to I
other tests that have investigated the panel zone strength equation (Lee and Lu, 1989;
Ghobarah, et al ., 1992). 'J
An analysis of the post-elastic tenn revealed that values on the order of 0.1 0 to
0.40 are typical for common moment frame configurations. Thus, the post-elastic I
contribution to total panel zone strength is on the order of 10% to 40% of the elastic
strength in most cases. I
Because a range of column flange thicknesses was incorporated into the crucifonn
test matrix, the post-elastic strength factor is also varied in the current research program. t
• ColunIn Yield Strength I
All current panel zone provisions were developed at a time when A36 steel was
used almost exclusively as the structural framing material. Currently, A36 steel is being I
phased out for use in rolled wide-flange shapes, and what is still available generally has
yield strengths similar to the grade 50 steels. While a trend towards grade 65 columns I
(e.g., A913 steel) will likely be seen, the current test program is limited to grade 50
(A992) column and girder sections. I
• Doubler Plate Effectiveness and Detailing I
There are two aspects of doubler plate effectiveness that must be considered as
they relate to panel zone design . The first is concerned with the capacity of doubler I
plates to carry their proportionate share of the total shear demand. This is especially
relevant for the case of Figure C-9.3 (c) now given in the commentary to the 1997 AlSC t
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). This detail consists of two doubler plates placed
symmetrically at some distance from the column web, fonning a box-type section. A
I
similar detail has been investigated by Bertero et al. (1973), and found to be less than
fully effective. In fact, the concept of an effectiveness factor was proposed for this detail,
I
but not developed. Rather, further experimental study was suggested.
Other previous studies investigating doubler plate effectiveness have focused on
t
configurations with doubler plates welded directly to the column webs. Results from
I
48
I
I
I
I
, Becker (1975) indicated that the doubler plates were not fully effective until strains
became high, after which the doubler plates did carry their share of the shear. The results
from Ghobarah et al. (1992) showed the doubler plates to essentially be fully effective, as
did additional results from Bertero et al. (1973) for doubler plates welded directly to the
I column web. Thus, there has been a general consensus that doubler plates, when welded
to the column web, can be treated as fully effective in design.
I The second aspect of doubler plate effectiveness is one of the relative strength
between the column and doubler plate steels. Since doubler plates fabricated from
I modern, higher strength steels are uncommon, there will potentially be a discrepancy
between the yield strength of the columns and the yield strength of the doubler plates. To
I meet strong column-weak beam requirements, columns may increasingly be fabricated
I with grade 65 steels, whereas plate material is most commonly specified grade 36 or 50.
This raises a question of how to accurately determine required doubler plate thicknesses.
'I Any required thickness determined from the current AISC panel zone strength equation
, (AlSC, 1997) implicitly requires the same grade of steel as the column. It is unclear if
scaling this calculated thickness by a ratio of the column to doubler plate yield strength is
sufficient.
t This issue of unequal yield strengths is beyond the scope of the present
investigation. As all columns selected were A992, both column and stiffener detailing
material are grade 50. The box detail, however, was included in the test matrix.
I
, In addition to the box detail of Figure C-9.3 (c) in the Seismic Provisions (AlSC,
1997), additional permitted doubler plate details are given, including fillet-welded and
groove-welded configurations. As most recent tests have either omitted doubler plates or
I used the groove-welded detail, investigation into the fillet-welded detail is necessary.
Thus, fillet-welded doubler plates were included in the present test matrix.
r • Colullln Axial Loads
I A wide range of column axial loads has been used in previous connection
experiments. At one extreme, Peters and Driscoll (1968) performed tests with the axial
I compressive loads of PIP)" between 0.6 and 0.8. At the other extreme, most recent tests
49
I
I
I
have either used no axial load (e.g., Tsai et aI., 1995; SAC, 1996, Stojadinovic et aI., I
2000; Ric1es et aI., 2000) or even placed the columns in tension (Leon et aI., 1998). Most
other past experiments, however, have used more typical axial loads of PIPy between 0.1 I
and 0.5 (Fielding and Huang, 1971; Krawinkler et aI. , 1971; Bertero et aI., 1973; Popov
et aI. , 1986; Ghobarah et aI., 1992; Schneider et aI. , 1993). I
The question then arises whether axial loads would affect the results of the
cruciform tests. Clearly, when PIPy is as large as 0.8, axial-shear interaction is I
significant. This interaction becomes small, however, when PIPy is reduced to a more
typical 0.1 to 0.5 range. AlSC only requires interaction be considered in the design of I
panel zones when PIPy is greater than or equal to 0.75 (AISC, 1993, 1999a, 1997),
implying minimal interaction effects below this level. I
While the presence of axial load more closely replicates true conditions, the
present experimental study does not involve the application of any column axial loads. I
Based on equipment capacity, axial loads, PIP)", equal to 0.2 or less could be applied.
The resulting axial stresses would be small in comparison to the triaxial stresses I'
generated in the highly restrained regions of the connections, and consequently would not
influence results to a measurable degree (Hajjar et aI. , 1998a). Furthermore, because J
recent SAC testing has also neglected axial loading, the results of the present tests are
more directly comparable to this other ongoing research. t
I
• Panel Zone Demand
The method used to calculate the shear demand on the panel zone can affect
whether or not column flange kinking becomes a potential contributor to failure. This
,
phenomenon of localized kinking of the column flanges at the level of the girder flanges
has been seen experimentally (Krawinkler et aI., 1971 ; Popov et aI., 1986; Choi et a!.,
I
2000), reproduced computationally (EI-Tawil et a!., 1998; Ye et a!., 2000), and has been
speculated as a potential contributor to the failures in some tests following Northridge
'I
(SAC, 1996; Choi et aI. , 2000). It is caused by a panel zone, which is weak in
comparison to the connected elements. Thus, it is an issue of relative strength. If the
I
I
50
I
I
I ,r
I method used to calculate panel zone demand underestimates the actual force delivered
during a seismic event, the panel zone will be weak relative to the girders and colunms.
I As presented in Chapter 2, the method of calculating panel zone shear demand has
changed numerous times since the current strength equation was adopted by SEAOC in
i 1988. Initially, demand was based on a working load combination of dead and live load
plus 1.85 times the seismic forces (SEAOC, 1988; ORC, 1988). A demand cap of 80%
I of the plastic moment capacities of the connected girders was also specified. The FEMA
Interim Guidelines (1995a) were initially similar to the ORC in their demand calculation
I procedure. However, the first advisory to these guidelines (FEMA, I 997a) removed the
load combination from the calculation procedure. The former demand cap of 80% of the
I plastic moment capacity at the column face became the sole basis for shear demand
I calculation. The AISC Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1997) used factored load
combinations with additional amplification of the earthquake loads. The intent was to
provide similar reliability to the ORC provisions (ArSC, 1997). A demand cap is also
I specified, based, in this case, on 80% of the expected girder plastic moment capacities,
I taking material overstrength and strain hardening into account. Supplement No. I to the
AJSC Seismic Provisions (AISC, I 999b) removed the load combinations, and
I Supplement No.2 (AISC, 200 I) changed the 80% factor on the expected girder plastic
moment capacity to 100%.
It has been argued that basing required panel zone strength on a speci lied
I percentage of the girder plastic capacities is more logical than the use of load
j combinations when considering seismic design. From observations of the undesirable

behavior of panel zones designed for working stresses, Krawinkler et al. (1971)
a concluded that structural elements must be designed relative to the other components, and
weak links must be avoided. The assumption in seismic design of moment frames is that
I the girders will yield under the forces delivered by the design earthquake. Assuming the
girders yield, then, it is logical to define ultimate panel zone strength relative to a fully
I plastic girder cross section instead of a comparatively arbitrary load combination.

The current research program does not include panel zone demand as a primary
I variable, as this would require specimens representing several different panel zone
51
I
•
I
strengths. Instead, as described in Section 3.2.2.1 , the panel zones are designed with I
similar strengths such that the design deformation of 4)). recommended by Krawinkler
(1978) is exceeded. For comparative purposes, however, the current research program I
calculates shear demand based on girder plastic moment capacities, and not load
combinations. In other words, when comparing the relative strengths of the panel zones, i
(e.g. , ¢.,RvIRu), the demand, Ru, is based on girder plastic capacity, consistent with AlSC
Supplement No. 2 (2001). I
• Panel Zone Aspect Ratio
The derivation of the panel zone strength equation assumed that the panel zone f
defonned in pure shear (Krawinkler, 1978). Previous experimental and computational
results, however, have shown that this is not generally a good assumption when the
I
aspect ratio is high. Results presented by Krawinkler et a!. (1971) and Bertero et a!.
(1973) showed large bending defonnations of the panel zones tested with aspect ratios
I
(depth to width) of approximately two. The finite element study by EI-Tawil et al. (1998 ,
1999) showed significant reverse curvature bending in tests with large aspect ratios and
I
high shear to bending stiffness (i.e., thick panel zones). A finite element analysis by Tsai
and Popov (1988), however, showed that pure shear defonnation was a reasonable I
assumption for aspect ratios near 1.0.
From the early 1970' s until the 1994 Northridge earthquake, most of the
I
investigations conducted to investigate panel zones have tested relatively low aspect
ratios. The specimens tested by Popov et a!. (1986) had aspect ratios of near 1.0, tests by
I
Lee and Lu (1989) had aspect ratios of approximately 1.5 to 1.9, tests by Ghobarah et a!.
(1992) had aspect ratios of approximately 1.0 to 1.3, and specimens tested by Tsai et al.
i
(1995) had aspect ratios of approximately 1.6. Much higher aspect ratios have been
tested during the SAC program, however, ranging from approximately 1.8 to 2.7 (SAC,
a
1996; Leon et aI., 1998; Choi et aI., 2000; Stojadinovic et aI. , 2000; Ricles et aI. , 2000).
The fact that the observed defonnations, in cases of large aspect ratios, were not
I
I
,
in pure shear does not necessarily invalidate the panel zone strength provision. Results
from EI-Tawil et al. (1998, 1999) indicated that the strength provision was generally
,
accurate over the range of parameters tested, including girder depth, column flange
52
•
I
I thickness, and column web thickness. By changing the girder depth, the aspect ratio was
varied, and by changing the column web thickness, the ratio of shear to bending stiffness
I
, was varied. Among these parameters, panel zone strength was only overestimated when
the column web or column flange was very thick. The authors did suggest, however, that
provisions for panel zones recognizing axial-shear-bending interaction may be warranted.
Because girder depth is not included as a parameter in the test matrix, the panel
I zone aspect ratio is held constant, and is similar to others tested in the SAC program.
• Panel Zone Slenderness Parameter
I The current limitation placed on column web and doubler plate slenderness
(AISC, 1997) is given by an empirical equation, yet relates to shear buckling:
I
t ~ (d, + w,}/90
I (3.9)
I As discussed in Chapter 2, this expression was most likely developed by Teal in the early
1980's as a part ofa SEAOC committee (Popov, 1999), and is likely based on test results
I from Krawinkler et a\. (1971) and Bertero et a\. (1973). No written record of its
development has been uncovered, however. The provision is intended to ensure that, if a
I web or doubler plate meeting the requirement buckles, no loss of strength will occur
under cyclic loading. Some of the column webs and doubler plates tested (Krawinkler et
I a\. 1971; Bertero et a\., 1973) did, in fact, buckle at large panel zone defornlations. The
value of 90 in the equation is apparently a liberalization of the tested web and doubler
i plate slendernesses (the tested thicknesses were approximately equal to (d: + wJ/68). A
literature review uncovered no previous experiments that based doubler plate thicknesses
I on the minimum allowed by Equation (3.9). Thus, while the provision is empirical, it is
clearly not overly conservative. However, no recent testing has addressed the provision.
I An alternative to the slenderness provision given by Equation (3.9) could

specifically incorporate shear buckling theory. One such possibility is the slenderness
I limitation given in the AISC LRFD Specifications (1993, I 999a) for stiffened members
in shear. To avoid shear buckling, the following is required :
I
53
I
I
I
~ 5 187t'· (3.13)
I
1"1 Fy
where: I
kv = 5 + 5/(a/h)2 = shear buckling coefficient
II = clear distance between nanges less the fillet distances f
= web thickness
t ",
F} = yield strength of steel I

a = distance between sti ffeners
Using the notation in the Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1997), II is approximately I
equal to W: , a is equal to d" t •. becomes t (i.e., either the web or doubler plate thickness),
and F). is the column yield strength, Fyc. Using these substitutions and solving Equation
I
(3.13) for the thickness, t, yields a slenderness provision based on AlSC shear buckling
criteria:
I
t >--
~F,~ d . w_
- 418~d ,2 +w2,
-- (3.14) I
I
An analysis of the thicknesses given by Equation (3.14) revealed that required
thicknesses were on the order of one-third to one-half those required by Equation (3.9), I
the current provision. Values given by Equation (3. 14) for the common seismic girder-
column combinations were always less than 0.25 inches. If it is again assumed that
Equation (3.9) is not overly conservative, the limitation given by Equation (3.14) would
I
clearly be unconservative for seismic design. Obviously, not all assumptions used in the i
development of Equation (3.13) are met when applied to panel zones, specifically doubler
plates. I
In summary, the slenderness provision given by AlSC (1997) is investigated to
some extent by the current research program. An alternative provision based on shear I
buckling would be more desirable, but current AlSC LRFD (1993, 1999a) buckling
equations do not appear to be appropriate. I
I
54
I
I
3.2.2 Specimen Justification
Based on the above selection criteria and test parameters, the five crucifom1
specimens were selected. The test matrix is outlined in Table 3.1. Doubler plate details
Fillet I and Fillet II represent the two fillet-welded details tested in this research program.
Detail I is similar to the fillet-welded doubler plate detail given in Figure C-9.3 (b) of the
AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). Detail II is a fillet-welded detail developed as a
part of the present research program. The box doubler detail is similar to that shown in
Figure C-9.3 (c) of the Seismic Provisions. Figure 3.5 schematically illustrates the three
doubler plate details. The design and detailing of these stiffening details are presented in
Section 3.3.3. The continuity plate detail of Specimen CR3 is representative of
transverse stiffeners used prior to the Northridge earthquake. The plate thickness is
approximately equal to half the beam flange thickness, and fillet welds are used to
connect the stiffeners to both the column flanges and web (or doubler plates). This detail
has been shown to perform satisfactorily in recent monotonically loaded pull-plate tests
(prochnow et aI., 2000a), and finite element analyses (Ye et aI., 2000).
3.2.2.1 Specimen Parameler Discllssion

• Colli/lin Flange Thickn ess
The four column sections represented by the five specimens exhibit a range of
typical column flange thicknesses encountered in design . The section with the thinnest
flange, a W 14x 145 (1</= 1.09 inches) is slightly larger than the thickest flange tested by
KrawinkJer et al. (1971) and Bertero et al. (1973) and would be used in relatively small
moment frame connections. The largest section, a WI4x283 (1</= 2.07 inches) represents
a moderately thick flange, which will significantly increase the recognized post-elastic
strength of the panel zone. While none of the column flanges are as thick as the 3.2 inch
maximum thickness analyzed by EI-Tawil et al. (1998, 1999), the range represented by
the specimens is comparable to that tested in the SAC program (SAC, 1996; Leon et aI.,
1998; Choi et aI., 2000; Stojadinovic et aI., 2000; Ric1es et aI. , 2000), and is sufficient to
evaluate the panel zone strength provision for thin to moderately thick column flanges .
55
I
• Girder Depth
While girder depth is recognized as a parameter significantly contributing to the
,
behavior of panel zones and connections in general (Roeder and Foutch, 1996; El-Tawil
et a!., 1998), it is not varied in the present test matrix. The single girder size of W24x94
I
was selected because it can deliver a larger flange force than other sections considered I
without exceeding the capacity of the available actuators.
I
• Post-Elastic Panel Zone Strength Factor
A range of post-elastic strength contributions is represented by the test specimens.
This value ranges from under 10% for the thinnest column flanges to almost 40% for the
,
unreinforced W 14x283 specimen. The specimens are intended to help evaluate the I
reliability of the post-elastic panel zone strength contribution.
I
• Doubler Plate Effectiveness
Four of the five specimens include doubler plates, including three different details
j
that will allow the evaluation of doubler plate effectiveness, in addition to verifying the
suitability of the particular detailing. One specimen includes the box-type doubler plate
,I
configuration detail given by Figure C-9.3 (c) in the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions
(AlSC, 1997), and three utilize doubler plates fillet welded to the column flange. While J
the effectiveness of doubler plates with a lower strength than the column is not
investigated, effectiveness as it relates to the doubler plate detailing is a key parameter in I
the test matrix.
I
• Panel Zelle Demand
The general philosophy of panel zone design for the test specimens (discussed in
I
detail in Section 3.3.3. 1) is based on testing stiffening details beyond expected levels of
deformation. Thus, most specimens include weak panel zones [i.e., they do not meet the
I
requirements of AlSC (1997) or FEMA (2000a»). However, the column web and doubler
plate thicknesses were selected to ensure the panel zones exceed the design deformation
I
of 4J:) from Krawinkler (1978), and inherent in the AlSC design provisions. Finite
I
56
"
I
....
,
I u"
I element analyses by Ye et al. (2000) verified that defonnations beyond this level should
be reached in the tests. This design methodology also allows for further investigation of
I the present strength provisions and the effects of column flange kinking on connection
I I perfonnance. The strengths of the panel zones are quantified in Section 3.3.3. 1 by
comparing the relative strengths of the girders and panel zones.
I
, • Panel Zone Aspect Ratio
Because the girder depth is not varied in the present research program. and
column depth does not vary significantly. the aspect ratio is held constant. However. the
W24 depth selected for the crucifonn tests results in an aspect ratio of approximately 1.8.
I which is similar to many other recent tests. The specimens are intended to provide
additional panel zone data for connections with realistic aspect ratios and varying shear to
I bending stiffness (i .e.• a range of panel zone thicknesses). The effect of the expected
defonnation patterns of such panel zones on the perfonnance and behavior of the welded
I moment connections will be studied.
I • Panel Zone Slenderness Parameter
I The present investigation includes testing of doubler plates with slenderness
, values approximately equivalent to those tested by Krawinkler et al. (1971) and Bertero
et al. (1973). but none at the limiting value. The half-inch doubler plates of Specimen
CR3 have a (d: + Wz)/tdp value of71. roughly equivalent to the value of68 previously
I tested by BerteTO et al. (1973). This specimen will help to confinn the validity of the
slenderness provision. Testing of doubler plates with a (d=+ W=)/tdp value of90 or greater
I is desirable. but the plate thicknesses required for this were not compatible with the
targeted strength of the panel zones.
I • Width-Thickness Ratios
i The selected columns cover a range of bit values. The W 14x 145 represents the
maximum value of7.1. while the WI4x283 has the minimum value at 3.9. The value of
I 7.1 for grade 50 steel is near the 52/..JF). limit of7.4 (AISC. 1997). The single girder size
57
I
I
I
ofW24x94 represents a bit of 5.2. This section was chosen for its stockier flange
(relative to the W30x99 and other sizes recently tested by the SAC program) to maximize
I
the flange force delivered to the connection by delaying local buckling. I
• Column Web Thickn ess
The test matrix represents a range of column web thicknesses between 0.68 inches
I
(W14x145) and 1.29 inches (W14x283). When doubler plates are considered (as when
evaluating the resistance to PZ yielding and LWY), the range of web thicknesses
I
becomes the range of total panel zone thickness, tp, of 1.29-2.33 inches. These ranges of I
thickness are significantly larger than those used to develop the current provisions for
column stiffening (Sherbourne and Jensen, 1957; Graham et aI., 1960; Krawinkler et aI., I
1971), and represent realistic values seen in current moment frame construction.
I
• Girder Flange Area
As with the recent pull-plate experiments (Prochnow et aI., 2000a), a single girder I
size was selected, and girder flange area was not varied as a result. The girder section, a
W24x94 (Agf = 7.93 in2 ), was chosen to deliver a large flange force without exceeding I
equipment capacity. The moderately thick flange of 0.875 in. (bit = 5.2) was intended to
ensure that early local buckling does not reduce the demand on the panel zone. I
I
• Continuity Plate Details
To corroborate and extend the results from Prochnow et al. (2oooa), a fillet-
welded, half-thickness continuity plate detail is included in the test matrix. This detail
,
was typically used prior to the Northridge earthquake, but has not been allowed
subsequently (AISC, 1997; FEMA, 2000a). Some recent testing (Ricles et aI., 2000) has
I
addressed whether or not continuity plates are needed in all connections, but the issue of
an appropriate thickness has not been thoroughly tested . Some recent finite element
I
work, however, has been performed to investigate thickness and welding requirements
(EI-Tawil et aI., 1998; Vee et aI. , 1998; Ye et aI., 2000). These indicated that thinner,
i
fillet-welded continuity plates may be adequate.
I
58
I
I
I
- '-
V"
~
I 3.2.2.2Individllal Specimen DisclIssion

I Discussed below are the key aspects of the five specimens, focusing on the details
of the column stiffening, and the limit states targeted in each test. Table 3.2 presents the
I strength-to-demand ratios for the PZ yielding, LFB, and LWY limit states using various
methods of demand calculation. Panel zone strengths are based on the AlSC Seismic
I Provisions (1997, 2001), while LFB and LWY strengths are based on AISC LRFD
Specifications (1993 , 1999a).
It
SPECIMEN CRI
I Girders: W24x94
'I Column: WI4x283

Doubler Plates: None
Continuity Plates: None
I
Specimen CRI represents a moderately large, unrein forced interior connection
I with a relatively weak panel zone. It is intended primarily to study the panel zone
I strength provision for thick column flanges . The relatively thick column flange of 2.07
inches coupled with the unrein forced panel zone results in a post-elastic strength
contribution of approximately 40%, representing a high, yet typical value. This specimen
I meets the SCWB check as defined for this study at a column axial load of20 ksi. No
I continuity plates are needed as per the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and
FEMA design guidelines (FEMA, 2000a) (i.e., Equations 2.9, 2.15 and 2. 16). Specimen
CRI is also intended to show that continuity plates are not necessarily needed for all
I seismic applications.
I SPEClME CR2
'" Girders: W24x94
I Column: WI4xl93
I Doubler Plates: I @ 0.625 in.
,~
59
I
I
Continuity Plates: None I
Specimen CR2 represents a moderate scale, reinforced interior connection with a I
single-sided doubler plate. It is intended primarily as a verification of the seismic AISC
(1992) LFB criterion (Equations 2.9 and 2.13). This specimen requires continuity plates
by calculation, but is on the cusp of needing them (¢R,/Ru = 0.82, R,/Ru = 0.91), and is
I
intended to confirm that continuity plates are not always needed for seismic moment I
frame applications. A relatively weak panel zone, similar to Specimen CR I, is provided.
An innovative fillet welded doubler plate detail is utilized (Detail II), the development of t
which is presented in Section 3.3.3. The SCWB condition is met for axial stresses up to
approximately 5 ksi . The presence of the doubler plate and thinner column flanges I
reduces the value of the post-elastic panel zone strength contribution, but it is still of a
moderate magnitude at approximately 17%. The sing.le-sided doubler plate allows for I
comparisons in strain distributions between the column web and doubler plate.
I
CRJ
PECIME
Girders: W24x94 I
Column: WI4x176
Doubler Plates: 2 @ 0.5 in. I
Continuity Plates: 0.5 in. thick, fillet-welded
I
Specimen CR3 represents a moderate scale, reinforcement with both doubler
plates and continuity plates. It is intended primarily as a test of half-thickness, fillet-
I
welded continuity plates. It is also a second test of doubler plate Detail II. This
specimen requires continuity plates as per A1SC (1992) seismic LFB equations (2.9 and
I
2.13), and is intended to show the fillet-welded continuity plate detail can perform
adequately in cyclic loading applications. The provided panel zone strength is similar to
I
Specimen CRI. The SCWS check is met for an axial load of zero. Because of the
thinner column flanges and heavier panel zone reinforcement, the predicted post-elastic I
strength of the panel zone is reduced to approximately 12%.
I
60
I
I
I v-
I
SPECIMEN CR4
I Girders: W24x94
Column: WI4xl76
I Doubler Plates: 2 @ 0.75 in.
I
Specimen CR4 represents a moderate scale connection with innovative, heavy
I panel zone reinforcement (i.e., a total doubler plate thickness greater than the column
web thickness), and no continuity plates in a situation in which they would be required by
I the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) (i.e., Equations 2.9 and 2. 13). The
t offset doubler detail is used as the column stiffening of this specimen in order to
investigate the feasibility of this detail to resist both panel zone shear and flange bending
(by providing restraint to the column flanges) . The design of this stiffening detail is
I presented in Section 3.3.3. Unlike the other specimens, a stronger panel zone is provided
- based on the work of Bertero et al. (1973) on a similar sti ffening detail - meeting the
I requirements of both AISC and SAC (Equations 2.1 and 2.7). Like Specimen CR3, this
I specimen meets the SCWS criterion for no axial load. The thick doubler plates result in
a low post-elastic panel zone strength contribution, at just below 10%.
I SPECIMEN CRS
I Girders: W24x94
Column: WI4xl45
i Doubler Plates: 2 @ 0.625 in.

I Specimen CR5 represents the smallest column section tested (WI4xI45), with
I fillet-welded doubler plates and no continuity plates. It is primarily intended to verify the
AISC (1993, 1999a) LFB provisions for non-seismic design (Equations 2.9 and 2.12).
I Also tested is doubler plate Detail I, the beveled fillet-welded design (presented in
61
I
I
I
Section 3.3.3). This specimen is on the cusp, but requires continuity plates as per the
non-seismic design requirements (¢R./R" = 0.84, R./R" = 0.94). While tested cyclically,
I
the non-seismic details of this specimen (i.e., lack of continuity plates) are intended to I
verify the LFB requirements in the LRFD Specification (AlSC, 1993, 1999a). The panel
zone strength is again similar to Specimen CRI. Because a smaller column was needed I
to breach the non-seismic LFB limits, Specimen CR5 does not meet the SCWB criterion.
A low post-elastic panel zone strength of approximately 8% is expected. I
3.3 Specimen Design I
As briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter, due to unexpected premature brittle
fracture, one of the five originally selected specimens (i.e., Specimen CR4) was I
replicated with new weld consumables and re-tested. This new specimen was named as
Specimen CR4R. This section describes the design of the total of six cruciform I
specimens, including Specimen CR4R. Specifically addressed are the general
dimensions of the specimens, the moment connection design common to all tests, and the
I
design of the panel zones and various stiffening details.
I
3.3.1 Dimensions of Cruciform Specimens
The cruciform specimens represent an interior moment frame joint from a I
structure in strong-axis bending (see Figure 3.6). When subjected to lateral loading, such
a structure is expected to exhibit reverse curvature bending both in the columns and I
beams, with inflection points occurring near mid-span of the beams and mid-height of the
columns. This assumption is reasonable when gravity loading is small in comparison to
I
the seismic loads. The column inflection points were simulated with load pins at the top
and bottom of the columns (discussed further in Chapter 4). The free end of the girders at
j
the point of actuator attachment simulates the girder inflection points.
A typical cruciform specimen is illustrated in Figure 3.7. All wide-flange
1
material was A992. The total length of column between inflection points is 171 inches,
measured to the pin centerlines. The girder length, measured from the centerline of the
I
column to the centerline of the actuator attachment, is 140 inches. Thus, the specimens
I
62
I
I
I
I represent a moment frame structure with a 14.25-foot story height and 23.33-foot column
spacing (resulting in an approximate girder clear span of22 feet for typical W14
I columns). The effective length of the girders measured [rom the face of the column to
the point ofload application is approximately 132 inches. This value varies slightly
I depending on column depth, as the 140-inch distance to the actuators is fixed . For the
W24x94 girders, this effective length requires approximately 96 kips of load to reach the
I nominal plastic moment capacity of 12,700 kip-inches.
I 3.3.2 Gi rder-to-Column Mo ment Connection Design

The same moment connection details were used to join the girders to the columns
I in all specimens. The basic detail is similar to the Welded Unreinforced Flange - Welded
Web connection (WUF-W) developed for the SAC program by Ric1es et al. (2000) and
I prequalified for use in OMF and SMF structures (FEMA, 2000a). It is a fully welded
connection consisting of complete joint penetration (CJP) welds of the beam flanges and
I web to the columns. Figure 3.8 illustrates the WUF-W connection recommended by
SAC [after (FEMA, 2000a)].
I A number of fundamental differences exist between this connection and the
standard pre-Northridge moment connection. These differences are discussed in detail in
I the SAC State-of-the-Art Report on Connection Performance (FEMA, 2000b) and are
briefly summarized here. First, improved welding materials and details are used to
I mitigate the brittle fracture problems seen following Northridge. Higher toughness
I electrodes (e.g., E70T-6 and E70TG-K2) are used in place of the E70T-4 electrode
commonly specified prior to Northridge. Bottom backing bars are removed, and
reinforcing fillet welds are placed below the bottom flange welds and top flange backing
I bars. A fully welded web connection, welding the shear tab to the girder web and the
girder web to the column flange, is also required in place of bolted shear tabs. Another
I
, major difference in the WUF-W connection is the use of an improved access hole design .
While the changes to welding materials and procedures mitigate the brittle fracture
problem. low-cycle fatigue may occur in the access hole region ifnot properly detailed .
I Testing by Hajjar et al. (1998a) and Stojadinovic et al. (2000) clearly illustrated the
63
i
I
I
problem of low-cycle fatigue in the access hole region. The access hole design is based
on a computational parametric study (Mao et aI., 200 I) and experimental testing by
I
Ricles et al. (2000). I
3.3.2. 1 Welded COl/llection Details I
Figure 3.9 illustrates the typical welded connection details used to fabricate the
specimens. This connection is essentially the prequalified WUF-W connection discussed I
above with minor differences, primarily in the attachment and detailing of the shear tab.
These differences arose from the fact that the specimens were detailed prior to the I
publication of the final SAC design recommendations. The connections tested by Ricles
et al. (2000) formed the basis for the detailing of the present specimens. I
All girder flanges were groove-welded using the self-shielded, flux cored arc
welding process (FCA W-s). The bottom backing bars were removed, and the weld roots I
were backgouged using an air-arc process.
For the first two specimens that were fabricated, Specimens CR I and CR4, 5/64 I
in. diameter E70T-6 (Lincoln lnnershield NR-305) wire was used. The weld procedures
are summarized in Section 3.4.2. This wire and the weld procedures were subsequently I
found to produce weld metal that did not meet the SAC recommended minimum notch
toughness requirements. The SAC guidelines (FEMA, 2000e) recommend that weld I
metal be used that meets two Charpy V-Notch test requirements: I) 40 ft-Ibs at 70"F; and
2) 20 ft-Ibs at O"F. The low temperature requirement is a relaxation of the AWS I
classification requirements of20 ft-Ibs at - 20"F.
Details of these fractures and the reasons for the low CVN of the weld metal are I
discussed in Appendix B since they are not related to column reinforcing details. The
fact that low notch toughness can be obtained in some consumables that are supposed to I
have adequate toughness according to their classification is very important and should be
investigated further. However, it is the intent of this study to investigate the effect of I
column stiffening details on the performance of connections that do meet the SAC
minimum requirements for weld metal. It would ordinarily be best to purchase the I
consumables on the market and thereby get weld metal with representative material
I
64
i
I
...
I~
I r
.c
I properties. However, these tests are expensive to perform and the chance of further low
toughness welds could not be tolerated. Therefore, while the consumable manufacturers
I continue to investigate the reasons for the variation in notch toughness, it was decided to
use consumables that were previously characterized by the Edison Welding Institute
I (EWl) in past SAC research and are known to have good notch toughness for the
remaining specimens. This 3/32 in. diameter E70T-6 (Lincoln lnnershield NR-305) wire
I was used for the girder flange-to-column CJP welds in Specimens CR2, CRJ, CR4R, and
CR5. As noted in Section 3.4.2, different welding equipment was also used for these
I remaining specimens.
The CJP welds connecting the girder web to the column flange and all reinforcing
I fillet welds were placed using 0.068 in. diameter E71T-8 (Lincoln lnnershield NR-
203MP) wire for Specimens CR 1 and CR4, and using 5/64 in. diameter E71 T-8 (Lincoln
I lnnershield NR-232) wire for the other specimens. Both of these E71 T -8 weld wires are
notch-tough FCAW-s electrodes capable of all-position welding. These reinforcing
I welds were placed under the top flange backing bar and below the backgouged region
under the bottom flange. The ends of the bottom flange welds were ground to a smooth
I transition between the beam flanges and column face. Figures 3. 10 and 3.11 show
typical as-welded flanges .
I The shear tab acted as the backing bar for the CJP weld of the girder web to the
column flange, and was designed to extend approximately 0.25 inches into the top and
I bottom access holes. This extension acts as a short runoff tab, allowing the weld to
extend the full depth of the girder web (see Figure 3.12). For the specimens fabricated
I for this research, the ends of the CJP weld of the girder web to the column flange were
I, not ground smooth, in contrast to the recommendations of FEMA (2000a), so as to

investigate whether this economy of labor was detrimental to the connection
I performance. Note that the shear tabs were located on the north side of the specimen for
Specimens CRI and CR4, and on the south side for the remaining specimens.
I The gas-shielded flux cored process (FCA W-g) and notch-tough E70T-1 was
used for all shop welds, including the shear tab welding. The shear tab was welded to the
I column in the fabrication shop using 1/4 in. fillet welds on each side of the plate although
65
I
I
I
this deviated from the prequali lied WUF-W connections of FEMA (2000a), which I
requires partial joint penetration (P1P) welds for this detail. Two 7/8 in. AJ25 bolts were
used on each connection for erection purposes. These were placed far enough from the I
access holes to allow ultrasonic (UT) inspection of the web weld terminations, and they
were snug tight. I
Supplemental fillet welding was also provided between the shear tab and girder
web. A 5/ 16 in. fillet weld was placed along the full height of the shear tab between it I
and the girder web using E71 T -8 wire. This weld cannot be wrapped around to the top
and bottom of the shear tab due to interference with the access holes. This was addressed I
by the final SAC WUF-W recommendations (FEMA, 2000a), which require a beveled
shear tab (see Figure 3.8), allowing both for overlap into the access holes and the wrap- I
around of the fillet welds.
All field welding was conducted in the Structures Laboratory at the University of I
Minnesota by an experienced field welder. The complete penetration welds (both flanges
and webs) were ultrasonically tested by a certified inspector in conformance with A WS I
01 .1-00, Table 6.3 for cyclically loaded joints (A WS, 2000).
I
3.3.2.2 Access Hole Details
As stated previously, the access holes for the test specimens were designed based I
on the work of Ricles et al. (2000) and Mao et al. (200 1). Figure 3.13 illustrates the
dimensions of the access holes in the present experiments. This design is required for I
many of the SAC prequalified connections (FEMA, 2000a), including the WUF-W. The
key parameter in this type of access hole is the slope of the flat transition region between I
the girder flange and drilled hole. The depth of the access hole and the size and location
of the drilled bole are selected to ensure this transition slope does not exceed 25°. A I
shallow slope reduces the plastic strain demand at the toe of the transition, delaying the
onset of low-cycle fatigue cracks. Using the dimensions of the access hole shown in
I
Figure 3.13, a slope of 15° was provided for the current specimens. Figure 3.12
illustrates a typical access hole as fabricated.
I
I
66
I
I
I y
I 3.3.3 Panel Zone and Column Stiffener Design

As the primary focus of the crucifo 1 tests is to investigate the design provisions
I for panel zones and column stiffening, and to test new stiffening alternatives, a
significant effort was put into the design of the specimen panel zones and column
I stiffeners. The panel zones were designed with the intent to exceed the limit state shear
'.'I deformation of 41:)., where JY is the shear yield strain. As discussed in Chapter 2, this
deformation level of 4yy is based on the panel zone design equation developed by
Krawinkler (1978). This ensures that the strength provision (Equation 3.5) can be
investigated, and subjects the panel zones and stiffeners to upper-bound strain demands.
Column stiffening was designed to both mitigate LFB and increase the panel zone
I strength. A number of stiffening alternatives are explored by the six test specimens in the
current research.
I
I 3.3.3.1 Panel Zone Design
As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the design of the panel zones was based on
I providing a panel zone weak enough to exceed the typical design deformation of 41:).
This ensures that all column stiffening details are rigorously tested through large strain
I cycles, and provides a means for evaluating the strength of the panel zone at the design
deformation. It was also desirable, however, to ensure the panel zones were strong
I enough to allow for development of the plastic moment strength of the girders. This is
necessary to develop large flange forces, thereby placing high force demands on the
I column details.
To meet this balance of girder and panel zone strength, a method of estimating the
I relative strengths was used. Nominal strength ratios provide a convenient method to
evaluate the relative strength of the components. The quantity of most interest for the
I purpose of panel zone design was the ratio of nominal panel zone strength (PJ to girder
strength (Pg) . These strengths were calculated as the total girder tip loads required to
I reach the nominal strength under consideration, and are given by:
I
67
I
I
I
I
(3. 15)
I
I
2Z.F,~
P
•
= ---'c....!!..
L•
(3.16)
I
where:
Lg = girder length to face of column
I
Le = column length between top and bottom load pins
Z, = girder plastic section modulus
.1
F )'1; = minimum specified yield strength of girders
I
These equations are similar to those used by EI-Tawil et al. (1998) to make strength ratio
comparisons in their parametric finite element studies. The nominal strength of the panel
I
zone is based on the AISC provision (Equation 3.5) with a resistance factor, rp.", of 1.0.
The nominal girder strength is calculated [rom the summation of the girder plastic
I
moment strengths.
A baseline value of Pj Pg equal to approximately 1.0 was targeted for the
I
specimens. This implies that the nominal strength of the panel zone (at an average shear
distortion of 4 y» is achieved at the same time the girders reach their plastic moment
I
strength. By selecting this ratio, the intent is to achieve the goals of exceeding both Mp in
the girders and 4y>. in the panel zones.
I
Table 3.3 expresses the panel zone strengths of the six specimens in terms of the I
p,IPg ratio (using both the nominal material strengths and the mill report values), rp.,R.lRw
[from AISC (1997, 2001)], and ',Jtr"l [using the SAC procedure (FEMA, 2000a)] .
Significant deviations from the target Pj P, were made for Specimens CR4 and CR4R.
I
These specimens feature the box doubler plate detail. As described in Section 3.2. 1, it
was expected that this type of detail would be less than fully effective, based on the
I
I
68
I
I
I:
I results ofBertero et al. (1973). Thus, the doubler plates provided were 50% thicker than
Specimen CR3, which has the same W 14x 176 column section. The strength to demand
I ratios given in Table 3.3 for the AISC and SAC procedures reveal that the panel zones of
most specimens are weak or borderline satisfactory as per current design standards, so as
I to impart high strains to the stiffening details. Again the exception is Specimen CR4,
which meets the requirements of both methods.
I
3.3.3.2 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Design
I As was shown in Figure 3.5, two fillet-welded doubler plate details are included
in the test matrix. The first (Detail I) is essentially the detail shown in Figure C-9.3 (b) of
I the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). It consists of doubler plates beveled at 45°
to avoid interference with the column radius region. The plates are placed nush against
I the column web and fillet-welded to the column nanges. A minimum fillet weld is also
required across the top and bottom of the plate as per AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC,
I 1997). This procedure avoids placing highly restrained CJP welds in the column k-area,
I a situation that has caused fabrication cracking in some instances (Tide, 2000), especially
as the welds become larger.
I This detail has its limitations, however, one of which led to the development of
the second fillet-welded design (Detail ll). For practical fillet weld sizes (approximately
I 1 in. or less), plate thicknesses are limited to about 3/4 in. This may not be practical for
some connections and larger fillet welds needed for thicker plates may make the detail
I less economical. A second, more critical issue was discovered during fabrication of this
detail. Using nominal k dimensions and maximum permissible fillet encroachments from
I the AISC Manual (1995), a minimum bevel size (and thus minimum plate thickness) of
7/16 in. was calculated. A practical minimum doubler thickness using this detail of 1/2
I in. was thus selected. As revealed in a recent A1SC Dimension Advisory (2001), the
, actual k values for many shapes currently rolled - including the columns selected for the
cruciform specimens - have become significantly larger. The large fillet radii of the
columns used for the specimens made proper fit-up of 1/2 in. and 5/8 in. beveled doubler
I plates impossible. Forcing these doubler plates nush against the column web would have
69
I
I
I
required gaps between the doublers and column flanges of greater than 1116 in .. Fillet I
welds are not prequalified for gaps exceeding 1/16 in. Using the new k dimensions given
for detailing, minimum plate thickness for proper fit-up increases to approximately I in. I
This is larger than the thicknesses of the doubler plates intended for the specimens, and
would require 1.25 in. fillet welds. I
Fillet Detail II was developed as an alternative to the beveled detail. Instead of
beveling the plate to fit against the column web, the doublers are simply cut square to the I
width between column flanges (approximately 12.5 in. for WI4 columns) and placed in
the column until they interfere with the column radius. As with Detaill, the plates are I
then fillet-welded to the column flanges . By cutting the plates just narrower than the
width between flanges, the gap between the doublers and column flanges remains below I
the 1116 in. A result of this detail, however, is a gap between the column web and
doubler plate of approximately 7/8 in. This does not allow for welding across the top and I
bottom of the plate. According to the AlSe Steel Design Guide 13, however, there is
theoretically no force transfer at these welds if the doublers are extended above and I
below the level of the beam flanges (AISe, 1999c). This same situation arises with the
use of the offset (box) doubler plates (discussed in Section 3.3.3.3). Detail II is I
considered an economical alternative because it requires no beveling, and is fillet-welded
as opposed to elP-welded. i
The size of the fillet welds needed for both details were calculated using
procedures given in the AlSe Design Guide 13 (AlSe, 1999c). It is required that the I
fillet welds be able to develop the full shear strength of the doubler plates (AISe, 1997).
Two equations are given in the AlSe Design Guide: I
W = rp, 0.6F,,,,p 1dp (./21 = 1.70Fyd/ dP (3.17) I
"'. rpwO.6FEXX 2 . F EXY
(3.18)
I
where:
Wm i. = minimum required fillet weld size
¢, = resistance factor for shear = 0.9
a
I
70
I
I
I-
I tPw = resistance factor for weld = 0.75
Fydp = minimum specified yield strength of doubler plate
I tdp = thickness of doubler plate
F £xx = minimum specified strength of weld electrode
I bevel = beveled width of doubler plate
I Equation 3. I 7 yields the weld size necessary to develop the shear strength of the full plate
thickness, while Equation 3.18 satisfies the geometric requirements, ensuring the
I effective throat in the beveled and welded region is at least equal to tbe plate th.ickness.
Only Equation 3.17 is applicable to Detail 11.
I All doubler plates were extended 6 in. above and below the beam nanges. This
corresponds to approximately (2 .5k + N), the extension necessary for the doublers to be
I considered effective in resisting LWY. Although LWY was not the controlling limit state
I expected in any specimen, this was done to be consistent with the doubler plate
placement used in the pull-plate experiments conducted by Prochnow et a!. (2000a) that
I investigated the LWY provisions.

Doubler plate Detail II was used for Specimens CR2 and CR3, while Detail I was
I used for Specimen CR5. Strictly speaking, proper fit-up of the 5/8 in. plates could not be
achieved in Specimen CR5 with Detail I due to the large column radii, however this
I specimen has member sizes similar to some of the pull-plate specimens tested by
Prochnow et aJ. (2000a). It was desired to replicate the doubler plate details tested on the
I pull-plates for the best correlation between the tests. A gap between the web and doubler
plate of approximately 1/4 in. still resulted using the beveled plates, but this was
I considered sufficiently similar to the pull-plate doubler configuration. This gap did not
allow for welding across the top and bottom of the doublers, however. The thickness of
I all doubler plates was based on the procedures outlined in Section 3.3.3. 1.
Figures 3.14 to 3.16 show the details of the fillet welded doubler plates for the
I three specimens incorporating them . The FCA W -g process with E70T- I notch-tough
consumables was used for all shop welding of the doubler plates.
I
71
I
I
I
3.3.3.3 Groove-Welded Offset (Box) Doubler Plate Design I
The final doubler plate detail tested by the present research is an offset stiffener
similar to that given in Figure C-9.3 (c) of the AJSC Seismic Provisions (AJSC, 1997). It I
differs from this detail, however, because it does not include continuity plates in addition
to the offset doublers. This detail is economically desirable if the plates can be shown to I
be effective both as doublers and continuity plates (i.e., mitigating PZ yielding, LFB, and
LWY). In addition to carrying shear, the offset plates act to stiffen the column flanges. I
Like both fillet-welded details (i.e., Detail 1 and Detail II), the box detail also avoids
welding in the column k-area. Complete joint penetration (ClP) welds are used to join I
the plates to the column flanges.
The location of the plates (i.e., the amount of offset from the column web) was I
based on the parametric finite element study conducted by Ye et at. (2000). This study
showed that the doublers were most effective when placed between 113 and 2/3 of the I
half-flange width from the web. In this location, the strain concentrations in the center of
the girder flanges were reduced without an excessive increase towards the flange tips. A I
second result of the finite element study was that the expected loss of effectiveness of the
offset doublers did not occur in the models. The shear strains carried by the offset I
doublers were very similar to the strains in the doublers placed directly against the web.
A location corresponding to an offset of2/3 of the half-flange width was selected for the I
experiments. For a W24x94 girder, this equates to a gap of 2 in. between the column web
and doubler plate. I
The offset stiffener detail was used on Specimens CR4 and CR4R. The
placement and welding details are shown in Figure 3.17. The welds to the column I
flanges were made using a prequalified, single-bevel CJP groove weld. The FCAW-g
process with an E70T -1 consumable was used, and the welds were ultrasonically tested.
I
3.3.3.4 Continuity Plate Design
I
The design of the continuity plates on Specimen CR3 was an extension of the
testing conducted by Prochnow et at. (2000a) on pull-plate specimens. The basic detail
I
consists of continuity plates with a thickness equal to half the beam flange thickness,
I
72
I
I
I ':
II fillet-welded to both the doubler plates and column flanges. These half-thickness, fillet-
welded continuity plates were shown to perfonn adequately in the monotonically loaded
I tests. This detail is included in the present testing to investigate the suitability for
cyclicaIly loaded seismic applications, and is considered an economical alternative to the
I full-thickness, CJP-welded continuity plates typically specified following Northridge.
Sizing of the continuity plates and welds was predominantly based on the AlSC
I Steel Design Guide 13 (AlSC, 1999c) for wind or low-seismic applications. The
requirements for high-seismic design require full-thickness continuity plates (i.e., equal
I to the beam flange thickness) that are CJP-welded to the column flanges. Figure 3.15
illustrates the continuity plate details of Specimen CRJ. Note that this detail is used in
I conjunction with fillet-welded doubler plate Detailll. The 112 in. thickness of the
continuity plates is approximately half the thickness of the W24x94 flange. A 5 in. width
I was selected in compliance with the requirement of bit 5 95h/Fy contained in the LRFD
I Specifications (AlSC, 1993, 1999a). I in. clips were provided to avoid interference with
the fillet welds between the doubler plates and column flanges. Using the seismic LFB
demand (Equation 2. 13) and the LFB resistance of the WI4x 176 colunm (Equation 2.9),
I the continuity plate demand is 231 kips per pair, equal to the difference between the
I demand and resistance. The area of the provided continuity plates must resist this force.
The 5 in. wide, 112 in. thick continuity plates have a design resistance of 225 kips based
I on tensile yielding of the full width, essentially equal to the demand of231 kips.
The fillet weld sizes were based on developing the tensile yield strength of the
I plate at the connection to the column flanges, and developing the shear strength of the
plate along the connection to the doubler plates. The equations for these criteria, based
I on the AlSC Design Guide (AlSC, I 999c), are:
(3 .19)
II
¢, 0.6F"pl,p 0.849F../ ,p
(3.20)
W"". = ¢•.O.6FEXY .J2
I where:
= FUY
I ¢, = resistance factor for tension = 0.9
73
I
F ycp = minimum specified yield strength of continuity plate I
tcp = thickness of continuity plate
I
Equation 3.19 detennines the weld size to the column flange, while Equation 3.20
detennines the weld size needed along the doubler plates. Note that both equations I
assume double-sided fillet welds. As with the doubler plate details, the continuity plates
were welded with the FCAW -g process and E70T -1 electrodes. I
3.4 Material Properties I
Material testing was perfonned on all wide-flange shapes and available stiffening
plates used for the test specimens. Tensile testing was conducted to characterize the
I
stress-strain behavior of the steel. Results of the coupon tests are compared to reported
mill values and requirements for the A992 steel sections. Typical weld properties from
I
the E70T -6 and E71 T -8 consumables supplied by the producer are compared to SAC and
A WS requirements (FEMA, 2000a, 2000d; A WS, 1995). Four sets of tested material
I
properties of the E70T -6 wire are also presented.
I
3.4.1 Steel Material Properties
Tensile testing was perfonned on all structural wide-flange shapes included in the
I
test matrix. The Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) Technical Memorandum
No. 7 (SSRC, 1998) was followed as the testing procedure. Tensile properties of the
I
plate material used for the stiffening details were either detennined from testing or mill
certificate data (when available). All W -shapes of the same size were produced from the
I
same heat, and all plate material of a given thickness was produced from the same heat.
For each W -section, two coupons were taken from the flanges and two from the web.
I
The edge of web coupons was taken no closer than 2 in. from the k-line, as recommended
in the SAC Phase 2 testing protocol (SAC, 1997). Full-thickness specimens were used,
I
with a gage length and width of 8 in. and 1.5 in., respectively. When material was
available, at least two coupons from each plate thickness were tested. Full-thickness
I
I
74
I
I
I ~
,T
....
I coupons with a gage length and width of2 inches and 0.5 inches, respectively, were used
for the plate material tests.
I Several quantities were obtained for each wide-flange section coupon, including
the dynamic yield stress, Fy .dy", (at a 0.2% offset), static yield stress, F),.Sh modulus of
I elasticity, E, strain hardening modulus, Esh, ultimate strength, F", yield-to-tensile ratio
(using F)'.dy"), YIT, and percent elongation. Table 3.4 summarizes the tensile test results
I and mill certificate values for the W-shapes. The test results represent the average of the
two coupons cut from each location. Table 3.5 reports the tensile properties of the plate
I material. When coupons were tested, the results are the average of the two or three
samples taken from each thickness. The strain hardening modulus of the W-shapes was
I calculated using the procedure recommended in the SAC Protocol (SAC, 1997).
As shown in Table 3.4, the web material generally exhibited higher yield
I strengths, higher yield-to-tensile ratios, lower strain hardening moduli, and lower total
elongation. These trends are characteristic of work-hardened steel, and would typically
I be expected in the thjnner web material of rolled W-shapes. Although all dynamic yield
points exceeded the required 50 ksi for A992 shapes, note that several of the static yield
I stresses are below this value. It is also noted that the mill test values generally
corresponded more closely with the dynamic yield stress measurements. This was
I expected, as mjll tests do not report static yield points. The ASTM specification for
A992 steel (ASTM, 1998a) speci fies the yield strength between 50 and 65 ksi, a
I minimum tensile strength of 65 ksi, a maximum YIT of 0.85 and a minimum elongation
I of 18%. Referring to Table 3.4, all shapes met these requirements of this specification
when the dynamic (0.2% offset) yield strength values are used. Ifstatic yield strengths
I are used, the flange of the W24x94, and both the Wl4x 193 and Wl4x283 column
sections do not meet the minimum yield strength requirements. The measured values of
I the strain hardening modulus, Esh , ranged between 272 and 636 ksi, with an average value
of512 ksi. In a recent study of wide-flange shapes, Frank (FEMA, 2000c) reported an
I average strain hardening modulus of380 ksi.
I
75
I
I
I
3.4.2 Weld Material Properties I
Table 3.6 lists the typical as-welded properties of the E70T -6 and E71 T-8
consumables used for fabrication of the girder-to-column moment connections. Data was I
obtained from the manufacturer's literature for 2000. Also included in the table are the
SAC and A WS minimum requirements for the electrodes (FEMA, 2000a, 2000d; A WS, I
1995). Based on SAC testing, E70T -6 has been recommended for use in girder-to-
column welds for new seismic construction (FEMA, 2000d), as it has been shown to I
typically meet the minimum toughness requirements.
In order to verify the material properties of the CJP welds, one weld test plate was I
made for Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 in the Structures Laboratory at the time
of the welding. Basic dimensions of the weld test plate can be found in Figure 2A in I
A WS AS.20-95 (A WS, 1995). These test results, which followed ASTM E23 (ASTM,
1994b) for the Charpy V-Notch impact test and ASTM E8 (ASTM, I 994a) for the tensile I
coupon test, are presented in Table 3.7, while the weld procedures for these girder ftange-
to-column CJP welds are summarized in Table 3.8. Table 3.7 also shows the CVN test I
results for Specimens CRI and CR4. These CVN specimens were machined from one of
the groove welds in the cruciform joint specimen after the test. The strain from the cyclic
,I
testing could have strain hardened the weld and adversely affected the weld notch
toughness. However, the weld is supposed to be overmatched (i.e., having a higher yield I
strength than the base metal) and therefore should not experience significant plastic strain
during loading, particularly for Specimen CR4, which failed early in the testing history, I
so this effect is not thought to significantly affect the CVN results of that specimen.
Unfortunately, weld test plates were not prepared at the time of the welding for I
Specimens CRI and CR4.
I
I
I
I
76
I
I
I: ~
I Table 3.1: Crucifonn Test Specimen Matrix
Specimen CRl CR2 CRJ C R4 CRS

I Girder W24x94 W24x94 W24x94 W24x94 W24x94
Column WI4x283 W14xl93
I Doubler Plate None Fillet II
W14xl 76
Fillet n
WI4xl76
Box
WI4x l45
Fillet I
I I DP Thickness NA 0.625 in. 2@ 0.5in. 2@ 0.75 in. 2@ 0.625 in.

Continuity PI. None None Fillet None (box) None
I CP Thickness NA NA 0.5 in. NA NA
I Table 3.2: Strength-to-Demand Ratios for PZ Yielding. LFB and LWY Limit States
I Specimen
PZ
¢.R/ R. (2.12)"
LFB rpR,/R.
(2.13)" (2.14)" (2.12)"
LWY rpR.IR.
(2.13)" (2.14)"
I CRI 0.83 3.04 1.69 2.51 2.38 1.32 1.97

CR2 0.76 1.47 0.82 1.22 2.20 1.22 1.82
I CRJ 0.86 1.22 0.68 1.01 2.51 1.39 2.07
CR4 1.07 1.22 0.68 1.01 3. 19 1.77 2.64
I CRS 0.85 0.84 0.47 0.70 2.34 1.30 1.94
Numbers 10 parentheses represent the equal10ns used to calculate demand, Ru
I
Table 3.3: Panel Zone Strength Comparisons
I Specimen PI P, PIP, ¢.R/ R. t/t ..,
II CRl
(nominal)
1.02
(mill reports)
1.10
(A1SC)
0.83
(SAC)
0.72
I, CR2
CRJ
0.93
1.05
1.01
1.20
0.76
0.86
0.78
0.92
CR4,CR4R 1.31 1.49 1.07 1.1 8

I CRS 1.04 1.20 0.85 0.95
I
77
I
I
I
Table 3.4: Steel W-Shape Tensile Properties I
2 2 -
...." -.. .. '" " .. .. " .... " .. ;d" ,,-
." "" I
~
u
",-
c:::" "'" ..
",
~ ~
u
~~
" "-
c.: ....
"'~
,.~
.. "
,,~
~ E
.D~
~ E
~
:; E
"
.. E
"s E" c.. U""
.D~
,,- .D
E
" ~=
" E
",C'
,. E"
" c:::; E" - -E"
~
..
.D ~
-
.. '" ... " 'l;" c " ."'. .=0 c " '" -" ",'" c-
" '0
"
",'" "' "... '".... u" "':;: u-= :!u
", -= ...- u0 ",
'"..... "'
~u -= <;:U ~u
"' -= ...'"
- ... - ...-"'"'"u
0
-;;U .... " :;:
" "... ...... I
:!<Il -<Il :!-"
" ~~ ~ 2 ;!;2 ..." "
... " "'u
" r! -;;u
,",'0 "''0
~.: ~8 - u -"
~u
-"
",
"" -
"on
... "
u
"on
-"
:!"
~- ~ ~ ;-; - ~~ ;-;2 ~ 2 ~~ ~ ~ ;-;- ~ ~
~.: ~-
"~ " ~ u
-
~
Coupon Test Results

I
F
(k,1i
F'A
50.6
46.4
59.7
55.0
54.3
NA
60.0
NA
50.7
47.8
52.3
48.8
50. 1
46.4
54 .0
49.8
55.2
5 1.8
57.5
53.6
54.3
NA
56.8
NA
56.6
52.9
58.7
54.8
I
(ksil
F.
(ksil
E
(ksil
69.2
28100
74.1
29500
72.3
NA
76.0
NA
73. 1
211200
72.6
29850
72.2
29800
72.4
296'0
76.6
29500
76.1
29750
73.8
NA
74.3
NA
77.2
29 100
77.2
29)50 I
E.. 272 NA NA 636 572 572 479 564 486 NA NA 507 500
I
535
(ksl)
rff 73. 1 80.6 75 .1 78.9 69. 1 72.0 69.4 74.6 72. 1 75 .5 73.6 76.4 73.3 76. 1
('!o)
% 30.7 25.0 34.5 83.5 3 1.3 29.7 31.8 28.0 29.0 27. 1 34.0 34.0 27.0 26.1
[long
Mill Test Results I

F, 50.0 NA 54.0 54.5 57.0 55.0 57.5
( ....1)
F.
(ksi)
68.5 NA 73.5 74.0 76.0 72.0 76.5 I
% 27.5 NA 22.0 25.5 25.0 27.0 2 1.5
[ Ion!
NA - NOI available I
Table 3.5: Plate Material Tensile Properties I
Plate Tbickness Fy (ksi) F. (ksi) % Elon gation
Il, in. (CR3) NA NA NA I

5/8 in: (CR2 & CR5)
5/8 in:· (CR2 & CR5)
62.0
57.8
81.0
81.0
34.0
80.5
I
3/4 in:· (CR4)
3/4 in:· (CR4R)
48.8
57.5
73.2
77.3
33.8
31.0
I
Properlies obtamed from mill test report
··Properties obtai ned from coupon tests I
I
78
I
I
I~
(T
I Table 3.6: Weld Material Properties

E70T-6 E70T-6 E7lT-S E7lT-S
I CVN@O°F
Typical
21-54
Required
20 min.
.
Typical
NR
Required
20 min .
.
. (ft-Ibs)
I CVN@-20°F
21 - 35 20 min.
.. 50 - 200 20 min.
..
. (ft-Ibs)
F)' (ksi) 62.0 - 76.0 5S.0 min.
.. 60.0 - 65.0 58.0 min.
..
I F. (ksi) 72.0 - 89.0 70.0 min.
.. 72.0- 80.0 70.0 min.
..
.. ~
I % Elongation 23 - 32 22 min.
ReqUirement as per SAC Recommended SpecificatIOns (FEMA, 2000e)
28 - 31 22 min.
"Requirement as per A WS A5.20-95 (AWS, 1995)

I
I Table 3.7: Tested Weld Material Properties (E70T-6 Only)
E70T-6* E70T-6
I 5/64 in. wire

CRJ C R4 CR2
3/32 in. wire
CRJ CR4R CRS
CVN@O°F 2.6 2.0 34.3 44.3 33.0 33.0
I (fl-Ibs)
CVN@70°F
(ft-lbs)
19.3 2.3 54.3 73.3 58.7 53 .7
I F)' (ksi)
F. (ksi)
% Elongation
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.5
79.5
25.0
50.0
72.5
56.0
78.2
53 .5
75 .5
NA NA 23 .0 27.5 26.0
I *These CVN lests were performed on specimens machmed after the experlmenl from the welds
that did not fracture in these cruciform joints. Specimen CRI was subjected to 20 cycles at strains
reaching 3 to 4% strain at nearby girder flange strain gages, and Specimen CR4 was subjected to
I 2 cycles at strains reaching 1 to 2% strain at nearby girder flange strain gages. although the welds
are presumed to be overmatched and therefore should only be strained in the elastic range.
I
I
II
I
79
I
I
I
Table 3.8: Summary of Parameters used for CJP Welds I
CRI CR4 CR2 CRJ CR4R CRS
Electrode Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln

I
Manufacturer
Trade Name NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305 NR-305
I
AWS Designation E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6 E70T-6
Electrode Type FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s FCAW-s I

Electrode Diameter
(in.)
5164 5164 3/32 3/32 3/32 3/32
I
Power Supply Miller Miller Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln
Maxtron
450
Inverter DC-600 DC-600 DC-600 DC-600
I
Wire Feeder Miller Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln
Voltage
S-64
28.5 -
LN-25
29 -
LN-IO
26 -
LN-IO
26 -
LN-10
26 -
LN-IO
26 -
I
(V) 29.5 30 28 28 28 28
WFS
(ipm)
380 380 280 280 280 280
I
Current 430 - 330 - 470 - 470 - 470 - 470 -
(A)
Preheat
460
150min
380
150 min
500
50min
500
50min
500
50min
500
50min
I
(OF)
Interpass
(OF)
150 min 150 min 50min 50 min 50min 50min
I
Electrode Extension 1 1 1 I 1 1
(in.)
Travel Speed 10- 10 - 10- 10 - 10 - 10 - I
(ipm) 15 15 15 15 15 15
I
I
I
I
I
80
I
I
I
I 900
45.0
I a;
;I; 700
~
800
40.0
o 35.0
I '.5600
.
.!!.
31 .1 %
c:
300 .!!
..
;;
§500 c:
I ~
:;; 400
&
23.6 % 25.0 ~
u
o
20.0 '0
u 15.2%
I 0 300
~
E 200
15.0
~
:> . • 10.0
z
I 100
0.6 %
5.0
o 0.0
I o 10
Axial Str••• (ltsl)
20 40
I Figure 3.1: Seismic Girder-Column Combinations Meeting SCWB Criterion -

50 ksi Columns
I 900
41 .5% 45.0
800
I a;
;!; 700
~
o
34.9 %
- 35.0
..
I '.5600
.5500
.!!.
27.4 %
30.0 §
~
~ 25.0 ~
I :;; 400
&
u •
u
o
20.0 '0
~
'0 300 150
I ~
z
Ii 200
11 .0%
10.0
I
"
100 5.0
o 00
o 10 20 40
I Axial Str... (ltsl)
Figure 3.2: Seismic Girder-Column Combinations Meeting SCWB Criterion -

I 65 ksi Columns
81
I
I
I
350 70
I
.
_300 • • • • • ____ e • • _ ................. _ ...... _... DNumber
60 I
: -
........... ............. . .. • %of Tolal
-
~
0
:;
.Eo
250
D % ofSeWB ...... - ...... 50
WI
c:
I
0
"c:0 40:;
'""c:
:;;
200 c:
:;;
E
0
I
0
E 150
0
'0
30 0
-
0
~
I
~
100 20
1:
E
z"
50 10 I
0
0 10 20 40
0
I
AxI.1 Stress (ksl)
Figure 3.3: Seismic SCWB Girder-Column Combinations Requiring Doubler Plates -

50 ksi Columns
I
350 r-----------------------------------------------~ 70 I
;0
:~
300 ·j DNumber
. % Total
60
I
'0250 0 % seWB
:;
.Eo
"~200 40~
:!!o I
c:
:;;
'"c:
:;;"
~ 150
E
o
30 0
-
o
I
o -.t
D
~ 100
E
20 I
z"
_ _L -L -__________
10
I
o ~ O
o 10
AxI.1 Stress (ksl)
20 40
I
Figure 3.4: Seismic SCWB Girder-Column Combinations Requiring Doubler Plates -
65 ksi Columns I
82
I
I
I
-
I - - Act as bolh
45' beveled r doubler plale and

conllnuity plate
I doubler Plal~ Approx. 7/8" gap \
ApproXJmalely
r---2J3 width of girder--.,
I Heavy fillel ----../

welds Heavy fillet ----../
welds
flaige
Full penetration welds J
I (a)
,
(b) (c)
I Figure 3.5: Doubler Plate Details: (a) Beveled, Fillet-Welded Doubler (Detail!), (b)
Square-Cut Fillet-Welded Doubler (Detail 11), (c) OfTset (Box) Delail
I
I
I
r Interior Moment
Fr~~e Joint
I ...... "
I . ..... " . .. - .... - .. :
I 1
I " h. ,., h.
" h. n
"
I Figure 3.6: Typical Moment Frame Elevation Showing Interior Joint and Specimen
Idealization
I
I
I
83
I
I
I
Load pin
I
I
I
85.50· 1•.1 1 - - - -140.00·
1 - - - - -144.00·- - + - - ---11 11-- - Approx. 132·- -- ' I
144.00·
•
171 .00·
I
W24x94 72.00·
85.SO·
W14x176
W24x94
I
Two 77-klp
Two 77-klp
actuators
actuators
I
Load pin
I
Figure 3.7: Typical Cruciform Specimen With Basic Dimensions
I
I
I
~f"'"i1 ~~"'bt-~0 I
A...------.:-<0
• I
I
I
I
Figure 3.8: SAC WUF-W Moment Connection Details [after (FEMA, 20ooa)]
I
84
I
II
I
I 40000 r-------------------~--------------------_,
I 30000
20000
I c
~ 10000
I -
;g.
c
~
o
0 .........•.•• ·····r· ··_·· ······T················ . ... ..••••• ,. ,.
~
I
] · 10000
~
·20000
I -30000
I ~oooo ~----------------------~------
-0.03 -0.02 ·0.Q1 o
______________~
001 002 0.03
Plastic Shear Deformation (rad)
I Figure 5.50: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation. CR4

40000 - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -______________________- ,
I 30000
I 20000 '
I
.. ·~-······r··- ............... .., ......... _ .. ,.
I
I · 20000 '
· 30000 r
I ~oooo ~-------------- ______ ~______________________- J
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 003
I Plastic Rotation (rad)
Figure 5.51: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4
I
183
I
I
I
;
1
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.52: Fracture of East Top Flange, CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
Figure 5.53: Fracture of West Top Flange, CR4
I
184
I
I
v"
I
I r
' 3/8"
~
E70H
" CJp T&B flaflOO
I II
I:S:l. r
+1/16
~
~~ 5116V
E71T-8
" overlap I\aflOO cui
PL 112" )( 5" x 19 1/2"
-,- 0 0 min
I <> 14.50" ~
~
114 "
11. V
45"
/ E70T· 1 shear
tab 10 column
r I~
I 2-718" 0 A325 erection bolts
15116" 0 holes
-~
'-h0 -
2.50" ..L
,.... 0.375"
~
0 r-
" CJP E71T-8
~ E71T-8
5116V
'--::::>
I ~ 2.00"
''v E71T-8
aIr-arc back.vp bar
5116 V " back-jlOUgO
I
mon ovenap nange cut
I V "
I Figure 3.9: Typical Welded Moment Connection Details
I
I
I
I
I
I
85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3.10: Top Flange Weld With Reinforcing Fillets I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3.11: Bottom Flange Reinforcing Fillet Weld I
86
I
I
I ,T
,'T1
I <C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 3.12: Access Hole and End of Web Groove Weld Showing Overlap of Shear Tab
lnto Access Hole
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I :I 0
t 3- 1/S"
~jl-1T-=-~-~-;-~f~LHOle
Drill 1" 0
I 1-3/4" 3D·
I 3/4"
7/S"
I
I Figure 3.13: Access Hole Dimensions
87
I
I
I
v I
I
I I
1"- I
~
~ ,...
I-- f- ,~
'"
l
I
,.:. c:
)(
•
--
I:!
N
0
l"-
w i
'"
I
I
)(
•
~
...J
Q.
I I I
A I
J
v
I
<I-tt ~ 0 o r
I
I
I '"'"
<>
I
~ <>
~
I
/ \
<-* ~ O o ~ I
.1
'"'"
•
)( ~
.. .~ I
-
N
I:! M ~
N
•
)(
-,.:.,... I
'"
ill 0
I
...J
Q. W
A
Figure 3.14: Specimen CR2 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Details

I
88
I
I
-------------------
c-- Pl 1/2" x 5" x 12 5IS" r-

E70T· 1 A / 1" comer clips
T & 8 plates
~
:!1
ao
c
E70T· 1
T & 8 plates /
...... Pl 112" x 12 112" x 36"
~
~
l/I
CIl
i", A 1>1" 1" typo
typ o
-0
E70T-1 1111 6 I J
g <> <
;>
3'
00
" X
'" "
n 0 V \ E70T-1~ 11116 V
~ 5116 1'- " E70T.1
CIl 5116 v
c. ;:;
31SI'-
~ Pl1l2" x 5" x 12 5IS"
I-" 31Sv E70T·1
"S·
IlO Pl1 12" x 12 112" x 36" ~ ~
0 (both s ides ) Section A·A

"!:!.
~
ii> W1 4x176
I
V
1\ I
I I
I
" I
r;
•<0
.::::::' .
'~
(:\
I
'"
)(
f-•
~
N
~
!!!
'"
....0W
I
Z
-.
aX
CO
1/)<0
-'~
CI.;:: I
I I I
I
1\
<,- 0
o r I
I
•
I/)
")(
I
>
I / ' t\
":;:
I
<I- V
0 0
I
10
/ ~
I
'"
,CO"
)(
- ~(:\ "
N
:;:
iO~
N
~.c
CO ~
:)(_
0u:;
~
f-•
I
in ....
0
-'
Cl.1
w
I
"
Figure 3.16: Specimen CR5 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Details I
90
I
I
-------------------
..,
riO'
.,c
,. r-- ~
...;.. PL 314" x 117/8" x 36"

both sides. offset from web
A A
E70T·1 /
,
I~. ~
-..l
en PL 314" x 11 7/8" x 36"

."
'"~r
() 0 o t
t--'.!..
"
.
318"
\
...:>
()
CJP
E70T·1 ~ <
;:0 30· < ;:>
~ 318"
'D 0 214"
,
~
~ 0 o \ J
n
~
W24x94
OJ
0
)(
'-'
0
.0
C
<T
...,
...,
or
'-
Section A·A
'-
n W14x176
0
...
~
E.
en
I
Chapter 4 I
I
Test Setup and Instrumentation I
I
This chapter is composed of three parts; test setup, loading history, and
instrumentation. For test setup, the configuration of load frame assembly is described, I
followed by a description of the loading system using four MTS hydraulic actuators. The
loading history used for SAC Phase 2 was adopted in this test program and is explained I
in this chapter. The description of the instrumentation includes a discussion of the
various groupings of strain gages and their intended functions, and the locations of the I
linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs). A detailed list of strain gage locations,
based on a defined coordinate system, is included for reproducibility of the I
instrumentation.
I
4.1 Test Setup
The load frame assembly used for the present research was previously designed
I
for testing conducted at the University of Minnesota during Phase I of the SAC program
(Hajjar et aI., 1998b, Leon et aI., 1998). It consists of a system of members designed to
I
transfer the shear forces from the top column pin to the laboratory strong floor. A second
major component of the system is the 600 kip MTS hydraulic testing machine, to which
I
the top pin is connected. While the MTS system was not used to apply axial loads to the
columns in these experiments, this configuration was re-used to avoid additional design
I
and fabrication. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the features of the load frame . Shear is
transferred from the load pin in bearing against CI5x40 channel sections, which, in turn,
I
transfer the forces through the system of W24x I 04 sections to the W30x99 columns. The
W8x31 diagonal members carry the forces from the columns to floor beams attached to
I
the concrete lab floor. Each pair of2 in. holes on the strong floor is rated for 100 kips of
I
92
I
I
I
I load. High-strength threaded steel rod (grade B2), 1.5 in. diameter, was used to attach all
components to the floor. All rods were fully pre-tensioned to prevent slip in the system.
I The load frame was designed to carry 300 kips of horizontal shear with a maximum
horizontal deflection of 0.25 in. at the top (Hajjaret a!., 1998b).
I Braces were also attached to the diagonal load frame members to restrict the out-
of-plane movement of the girders due to lateral-torsional buckling (see Figure 4.3).
I These braces were placed approximately 95 in. from the column face . This is in
accordance with the AlSC Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1997), Section 9.8, which limits
I the unbraced length of beams in steel moment-resisting frames to 2500r/ FJ • For the
W24x94 section, this limiting unbraced length is 99 inches.
I The large load pins placed at the top and bottom of the column sections were
I designed to allow free rotation of the column ends during loading, simulating inflection
points at the mid-beight of the columns of each story. The pins (see Figure 4.4) were
I fabricated from 3 in. thick plate material and solid 9 in. steel dowels. A previous analysis
of the pin assemblies showed the effects of load pin friction to be negligible (Hajjar et aI. ,
I 1998b).
Loading was applied to the girder tips by four MTS hydraulic actuators. Each
I actuator is capable of 77 kips at a stroke of +/- 6.0 in. The actuators were attached to the
girders by brackets consisting of a W I Ox I 00 stub welded to a bolted end plate (see
I Figure 4.5). The brackets were designed as slip-critical, extended end-plate moment
connections. The bottoms of the actuators were attached to beams tied to the laboratory
I strong floor.
Quasi-static, anti-symmetric, cyclic loads were applied to the girder tips. Section
I 4.2 details the applied load histories. A displacement controlled, master/slave loading
control system was used. One actuator on the East girder received the master
I displacement signal, which sent an inverted master signal to one of the West actuators.
The second actuator on each girder was slaved orr the first using displacement control to
I avoid twisting of the beams. Loading rates of 0.01 in/sec were used through the 3.0%
interstory drift cycles and were increased to 0.02 in/sec for the first two cycles of 4.0%.
I
93
I
I
I
Increased rates of up to 0.16 in/sec were used for any remaining cycles to expedite I
testing.
I
4.2 Loading Hi tory
The SAC Phase 2 loading history (SAC, 1997) was used to ensure results could I
be compared to numerous other tests conducted during the SAC investigations. This load
history differs from that specified in the 1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997), I
Appendix S, which includes the requirements for qualifying cyclic beam·to·column tests.
The AISC load history is based on the ATC·24 protocol (ATC, 1992), commonly used I
prior to the Northridge earthquake. Other load histories are permitted, however, if they
can be shown to induce demands of equal severity on the tested connection. Supplement
I
No. I to the Seismic Provisions (AISC, I 999b) states that the SAC loading protocol is
considered an acceptable alternative to the ATC·24 protocol. The SAC Phase 2 load
I
history differs from previous loading protocols (e.g., ATC·24) in that it is based on the
interstory drift angle instead of plastic rotation levels. This is consistent with recent
I
FEMA guidelines for seismic construction (FEMA, 2000a), which now qualify
connections based on required interstory drift as opposed to required plastic rotation.
I
The loading history adopted in this test program is based on specified levels of
interstory drift. The drift angle, B, is defined as the lateral story displacement, liS/in),
I
divided by the story height, lis/of)' As discussed in the previous Section 4.1, however, the
specimens are loaded by applying displacements to the tips of the girders. Thus, the
I
interstory drift angle is related to the applied beam tip displacement, "uP' by the following
relation:
I
(4.1) I
where:
I
Lg = girder length between loading point and column face
de = column depth
I
I
94
I
I
I ~
I Table 4.1 and Figure 4.6 give the prescribed loading history. The length
(L g + del2) is 140 in. for all specimens. This value is used to calculate the prescribed tip
I displacements at each drift level in Table 4.1. As an alternative to increasing the drift
level to 5.0% following the two cycles at 4.0%, the SAC protocol allows for additional
I cycles at 4.0% until failure of the specimen or significant strength degradation occurs
(SAC, 1997). This alternative was adopted for the present investigation. Anti-symmetric
I loading was applied to the cruciform specimens to simulate the effects of lateral loading
on an interior connection. Thus, the tip displacements given in Table 4.1 were applied in
I equal magnitudes and opposite directions to the two girders of each specimen. Prior to
the 0.375% cycles, elastic cycles of 0.1% and 0.25% drift were conducted to verify
I instrumentation.
I 4.3 Instrumentation
II Extensive instrumentation, including strain gages and linear variable differential

transformers (LVDTs), was used to gather information about specimen behavior in
I critical regions. The majority of the instrumentation was concentrated in and around the
connection region of the specimens. Specific targeted regions included the panel zones
I (both the doubler plates and column webs, if accessible), girder flanges near the CJP
welds, column flanges (both the interior and exterior faces), continuity plates, and girder
I webs near the bottom access holes. The instrumentation plan satisfies the minimum
requirements of the SAC Protocol (SAC, 1997), and augments it in most cases.
I 4.3.1 Strain Gages
I The strain gages were divided into six categories to identify the particular
functions of the gages. These categories included: panel zone (PZ group), girder flange
I (GF group), column flange (CF group), column flanges for specimens without continuity
plates (CFN group), continuity plate (CP group), and girder web (GW group).
I Depending on the specimen and data acquisition channel limitations. not all groups were
used on every specimen. For example, specimen CR), with continuity plates, does not
I have any CFN group gages, and is the only specimen with CP group gages.
95
I
I
I
Both uniaxial strain gages and three-element rosettes (45°/90° configuration) were I
used . High elongation uniaxial gages and rosettes were used wherever strains were
expected to exceed I % based on preliminary finite element analyses (Ye et al. , 2000). I
lntegrallead wire gages, manufactured by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd., were used
for both high elongation and general purpose. I
Figures 4.7 through 4.21 illustrate the locations of all gages. The naming scheme
for the gages identifies the location of the gage relative to the laboratory (in terms of four I
quadrants: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest), the gage group to which it
belongs, the type of gage, and a unique gage number. Table 4.2 outlines this I
nomenclature. For example, a designation of lie j g/JI indicates a high-elongation gage
in the Northeast quadrant of the specimen, which is part of the girder flange group. I
The PZ group gages include all strain gage rosettes in the panel zones. The basic
panel zone gage layout consists of eight strain gage rosettes distributed in the panel zone I
(e.g., see Figure 4.7). Additional rosettes are provided on the stifTened specimens,
consisting of three rosettes oriented diagonally in the panel zone (e.g., see Figure 4.13) as I
per SAC minimum panel zone instrumentation requirements (SAC, 1997). An exception
is Specimen CR3, which has two sets of the three diagonal rosettes, and no eight-rosette I
configuration. This was necessary to fulfill the channel requirements of the continuity
plate gages on this specimen. The panel zone gages are used primarily to capture the I
strain distribution in the column web and doubler plates as loading progresses, and to
capture the high shear strains observed at the center of panel zones. I
The GF gage group includes a number of uniaxial gages placed near the toe of the
girder-to-column CJP welds, as well as gages located away from the column face. Four I
gages are placed at the extreme fiber of each girder flange to measure the high strains
expected in the connection region (see Figures 4.17 and 4.19). Three additional gages are
I
placed on the inside face of one bottom flange near the weld to measure differences in
strain through the girder flange thickness. Gages located 13 in. from the column at the
I
center of the beam flange are used to calculate strain-based moments for verification of
the load-based moments (see Figure 4.17).
I
I
96
I
I
I.:
I The CF group consists of uniaxial gages placed on the outside face of the column
near the beam Oanges, as well as gages place 12 in. above and below the connections
1 (see Figures 4.18 and 4.19). The gages near the girder Oanges are intended to capture
high strains associated with localized kinking of the column Oanges in this area, and to
1 illustrate the distribution of strain along the height of the column near a girder-to-column
weld. Those gages placed above and below the connections are used for calculation of
1 strain-based column moments. These values are for comparison to load moments
determined by a statics analysis of the specimen and actuator loads.
I The CFN gage group is intended to investigate LFB behavior by characterizing
the strain distribution on the inside face of columns near the concentrated forces
I delivered by the girder Oanges. It consists of rosettes and uniaxial gages located along
theoretical and predicted yield lines (from finite element analyses). Figure 4.20
1 illustrates the typical gage pattern used on Specimens CRI, CR2, and CR5. This layout
is similar to those used in the pull-plate experiments (Prochnow et aI., 2000a). ote that
I the diagonal "b" channel of the rosettes is not used in this gage group.
The CP group of Specimen CRJ consists of21 uniaxial gages placed on one pair
I of continuity plates (see Figure 4.21). These gages provide a picture of the strain
I distribution along the length and width of the continuity plates, and are used to determine
whether the plates have yielded across the full, unc1ipped width. This criterion was used
by Prochnow et al. (2000a) to define a continuity plate limit state.
I The GW group present on Specimens CRI, CRJ, and CR4 (and CR4R) consists
I of three rosettes placed on the East girder web (e.g., Figure 4.7). These gages attempt to
characterize the Oow of shear force in the connection boundary region and identify
I localized strain concentrations near the access hole. It is known that the shear stress
distribution does not follow tradi tional beam theory near the connection (Lee et aI., 1997;
I Hajjar et aI. , 1998b; Leon et aI. , 1998; Ye el aI. , 2000).
I 4.3.2 Linea r Va riable Differential Transformers

Several Linear Variable Differential Transformers (L VDTs) were used for
I displacement measurements on the specimens. These were grouped similar to the strain
97
I
I
I
gages, based on location and function. Four LVDTs are used to measure the rotation of I
the girders, denoted as the GR group. Two are used to measure panel zone deformation
(PZR group). Up to five LVDTs are used to measure column flange bending near the I
bottom flange of one girder (LFB group). Finally, two are used to measure lateral
deflection at the top of the load frame. All LVDTs were manufactured by Schaevitz and I
have displacement ranges of +/- 0.1 in., +/-0.5 in., and +/- 1.0 in. Figures 4.22 through
4.24 illustrate the LVDT locations. I
The four L VDTs in the GR group are placed in the center of each beam flange to
measure rotation in the plastic hinge regions of the girders (see Figure 4.22). Each is I
attached to the face of the column and to the beam flange at a distance of 12 in. from the
column face, representing a plastic hinge length of dgl2. Small threaded steel blocks are I
tack-welded to the column flange and beam flange to facilitate attachment of the LVDTs.
The two panel zone LVDTs in the PZR group are placed diagonally in the panel I
zone, and are attached at the corners (see Figure 4.22). These LVDTs measure the
average shear distortion ofthe panel zone. They are attached to the specimen by small I
threaded blocks tack-welded to the column web.
The LFB group LVDTs are placed on the column flange near the bottom girder I
flanges to measure column flange deformations relative to the column web centerline.
For Specimens CRl, CRZ, and CR5, five LVDTs are placed as shown in Figure 4.23. I
For Specimens CR4 and CR4R, however, only four LVDTs are placed. The illustration
of the LVDT placement for Specimens CR4 and CR4R is presented in Figure 4.24. The I
LFB group LVDTs were anchored to the web centerline as opposed to the other column
flange because the compressive force on the opposite flange offsets some of the
I
displacement produced by the tensile force on the flange of interest.
Two LVDTs are also used to measure the lateral deflection of the load frame
I
assembly (see Figure 4.25). The first is attached to the center of a W24x 104 crossbeam
at a height corresponding to the centerline of the top pin. This LVDT measures the
I
overall deflection of the load frame. A second LVDT is placed between the crossbeam
and the top pin to measure any relative displacement between the top pin and the load
I
I
98
I
I
·'; r
I frame. The summation of the two LVDT measurements represents the total lateral
•I
displacement of the top of the test specimen relative to the laboratory floor.
4.3.3 Specimen Coordinate System and Gage Locations

A coordinate system was established to define the position of all strain gages in
terms of an x-y-z coordinate space. Five axes were used to identify the gage locations
I based on the orientation of the specimens in the laboratory (see Figure 4.26). The two x-
axes (X ••"h and Xs.uth) run perpendicular to the girders of the specimens. The z-axes (z.ast
I and z,.w ) run parallel to the girders. The y-axis is parallel to the column. The origin of
this coordinate system is the centroid ofthe column cross section at the level of the
I extreme fiber of the girder bottom flanges . Three of the five axes are needed to identi fy
each unique gage location.
I Tables 4.3 through 4.8 show the coordinates of all strain gages on the tested six
specimens. All values are in inches.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
99
I
I
I
Table 4.1: General Specimen Loading History I
Load Level () No. Cycles fl,in (in.)
I 0.00375 6 0.53 I
2 0.005 6 0.70
3
4
0.0075
0.0 1
6
4
1.05
1.40
I
5
6
0.0 15
0.02
2
2
2. 10
2.80 I
7 0.03 2 4.20
8 0.04 2 5.60 I
Table 4.2: Defi nitions of Strain Gage Label Nomenclature
I
Gage Location Gage Group Gage T ype I
ne = Northeast cf= column flange g = general purpose gage
se = Southeast cfn = column fl ange (unstifTened) gr = general purpose rosette I
nw = Northwest cp = continu ity pl ate II = high-elongation gage
sw = Southwest gf= girder fl ange IIr = high-elongation rosette I
gw = girder web
pz = panel zone
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100
I
I
r
I Table 4.3: Specimen CRI Strain Gage Locations

y
GF Gages x"""" Z... I PZ Gages x"""" y Z_I
I ne_1gf_h
ne_2gf_h
ne_3gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.87
9.87
9.87
ne_ 1pz_gr
ne_2pz_hr
ne_3pz_hr
0.65
0.65
0.65
2.15
7.15
12.15
5.00
2.50
0.00
I ne_4gCh
ne_5gCh
ne_6gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.88
0.88
0.88
9.87
9.87
9.87
ne_4pz_hr
ne 5pz Qr
0.65
0.65
17.15
22.15
0.00
0.00
ne_7gf_h 0.00 24.31 9.87 PZ Gages x_ y Z_I
I ne_8gf_h
ne_9gf_h
2.25
3.50
24.31
24.31
9.87
9.87
nw_1pz_hr
nw_2pz_hr
0.65
0.65
12.15
12.15
2.50
5.00
ne_10gf..9 0.00 0.00 21 .37 nw 3pz or 0.65 22.15 5.00
I ne 11gfg 0.00 24.31 21 .37

CF Galles x- y Z-I
GF Gages x_ y Z_ I ne_1cf..9 6.56 -11 .56 8.37
I sw_1gCh
sw_2gCh
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
9.87
9.87
ne_2cf...Q
ne_3cf...Q
6.56
6.56
-5.56
-1.56
8.37
8.37
sw_3gf_h 3.50 0.00 9.87 ne_4cf_h 6.56 0.44 8.37
I sw_4gf_h
sw_5gCh
sw_69Ch
0.00
2.25
3.50
24 .31
24.31
24.31
9.87
9.87
9.87
ne_5cf...Q
ne_6cf..9
ne 7cf a
6.56
6.56
656
2.44
644
35.87
8.37
8.37
8.37
I sw_7gf..9
sw 8gf_g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.31
21 .27
21 .37 CF Gages
nw_1cCg
x.....
6.56
y
-11 .56
Z_I
8.37
y Z_I nw 2cf 0 35.87 8.37
I GF Gages 6.56
Xnorth
nw_ 'gCh
nw 2gf h
3.50
3.50
0.00
24.31
9.87
9.87 CF Gages x._ y Z_I
se_ 1cf...Q 6.56 -11 .56 8.37

I GF Gages
se_1gCh
x_
3.50
y
0.00
Z-I
9.87
se_2cf_ h
se 3cf _1l
6.56
6.56
0.44
35.87
8.37
8.37
se 2gf h 3.50 24.31 9.87
I CFN Gages x...... Y Z-I
CF Gages
sW_1cf...Q
x.......
6.56
y
- 11 .56
Z_I
8.37
ne_1cfn..9 2.50 -11 .56 6.30 sw 2cf Q 6.56 35.87 8.37
I ne_2cfn..9r
ne_3cfn..9r
2.50
2.50
-5.56
-1.56
6.30
6.30 GWGages x ....... y Z-I
ne_ 4cfn..9r 2.50 0.44 6.30 s9_1gw_hr 0.26 1.88 12.87

I ne_5cfn..9 r
ne_6cfn_gr
3.75
5.00
0.44
0.44
6.30
6.30
se_2gw_hr
se 3gw_gr
0.26
0.26
3.25
12.15
9.62
9.62
ne_7cfn..9 5.81 -7.56 6.30
I ne 8cfn.9 3.56 -3.56 6.30
I
I
101
I
I
Table 4.4: Specimen CR2 Strain Gage Locations I
GF Gages XnO<1h y z... t PZ Gages x_ y z-.
ne_ lgCh
ne_2gC h
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
9.24
9.24
ne_apz_9r
ne bpz hr
0.45
0.45
22.15
12.15
5.00
0.00 I
ne_3gC h 3.50 0.00 9.24
ne_4gf_h
ne_5gCh
0.00
2.25
0.88
0.88
9.24
9.24 nw cpz r 0.45
y
2.15
Z...I
5.00 I
ne_6gf_h 3.50 0.88 9.24
ne_7gf_h
ne_8gf_h
0.00
2.25
24.31
24.31
9.24
9.24
PZ Gages
se_ 'pz_gr
se 2pz hr
x......
1.95
y
2.15
7.15
z_,
5.00
2.50
I
ne_9gf_h 3.50 24.31 9.24 1.95
ne_ ,Ogf....9
ne Ilgf_g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.31
20 .74
20.74 PZ Gages x.....
1.95
V
12.15
z_
2.50
I
sw_ 'pz_hr
x_
GF Gages
sw_lgf_h
sw_2gf_h
0.00
2.25
V
0.00
0.00
Zwnt
9.24
9.24
sw_2pz_hr
sw_3pz.Jlr
sw_3pz_hr
1.95
1.95
1.95
12.15
22.15
12.15
5.00
5.00
0.00
I
sw_39C h
sw_ 4gf_h
sw_5gf_h
3.50
0.00
2.25
0.00
24 .31
24 .31
9.24
9.24
9.24
sw_4pz_hr
sw 5pz _9r
1.95
1.95
17.15
22.15
0.00
0.00 I
sw_6gf_h 3.50 24.31 9.24 CF Gages Xnofth y z_,
swJgf....9
sw 8gf_g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.31
20.74
20.74
ne_ lcf.Jl
ne_2cf.Jl
6.36
6.36
-11.56
-5.56
7.74
7.74
I
ne_3cf.Jl 6.36 -1.56 7.74
GF Gages
nw_'gC h
Xnorth
3.50
y
0.00
z...,
9.24
ne_ 4cf_h
ne_5cf.Jl
6.36
6.36
0.44
2.44
7.74
7.74
I
nw 2gf h 3.50 24.31 9.24 ns_6cf.Jl 6.36 6.44 7.74
GF Ga es
ne 7cf _9 NA NA NA
I
3.50 0.00 9.24 CF Ga es
3.50 24.31 9.24 6.36
NA
-11 .56
NA
7.74
NA I
CFN Gages Xnofth 'Y ZMIt
ne_ lcfn....9
ne_2cfn....9r
2.50
2.50
- 11 .56
-5.56
6.30
6.30
CF Gages
se_ lcf.Jl
x......
6.36
y
-11 .56
Z ... I
7.74 I
ne_3cfn....9r 2.50 -1.56 6.30 se_2cC h 6.36 0.44 7.74
ne_4cfn....9r
ne_5cfn.Jlr
ne_6cfn.Jlr
2.50
3.75
5.00
0.44
0.44
0.44
6.30
6.30
6.30
se 3et_g
CF Gages
NA
x......
NA
y
NA
z...,
I
ne_7cfn.Jl
ne Betn_9
5.61
3.36
-7.56
-3.56
6.30
6.30
sw_lcf_g
sw 2cf_g
6.36
NA
- 11 .56
NA
7.74
NA I
I GW Gages
nw Igw hr 0.26
y
I .BB 12.24 I
I
102
I
I
I.::
I GF Gages Xnorth V_
. . S eClmen CRJ StraIn. Gage L ocatJons
T a bl e 45
Z.... I CF Gages x..... V 2 ..s,
1 ne_1gf_h
ne_2gCh
ne_3gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11
9.11
ne_1cf-l/
ne_2cf-l/
ne_3cf_g
6.33
6.33
6.33
-11 .56
-5.56
-1 .56
7.61
7.61
7.61
ne_4gCh 0.00 O.BB 9.11 ne_4cCh 6.33 0 .44 7.61
I ne_5gf_h
ne_6gCh
2.25
3.50
O.BB
O.BB
9.11
9.11
ne_ 5cf-l/
ne_6cf-l/
6.33
6.33
2.44
6.44
7.61
7.61
ne_7gf_h 0.00 24 .31 9.11 ne 7cf g NA NA NA
1 ne_BgCh
ne_9gf_h
2.25
3.50
24 .31
24 .31
9.11
9.11 CF Gages x..... V Z_ t
ne_10gCg 0.00 0.00 20.61 nw_1cf_g 6.33 -11 .56 7.61
I ne 11gf_g
GF Gages
0.00
x.....
24.31 20 .61
Z_t
nw 2cf _g
CF Gages
NA
x .....
NA NA
z ...,
V V
1 sw_1gf_h
sw_2gC h
sw_39Ch
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11
9.11
se_1cf_g
se_2cCh
se 3cf _g
6.33
6.33
NA
-11 .56
0.44
NA
7.61
7.61
NA
sw_4gf_h 0.00 24.31 9.11
1 sw_5gf_h
sw_69Ch
2.25
3.50
24.31
24.31
9.11
9.11
CF Gages
sw_1cCg
X SlXlth
6.33
_V
-11 .56
%...,
7.61
sw_7gf-l/ 0.00 0.00 20 .61 sw 2cf g NA NA NA
I sw Bgf g 0.00
x __
24 .31 20.61
GWGages x..... V 2 ...,
GF Gages y ZWH' ne_ 1gw_hr 0.26 1.BB 12.11

I nw_1gCh
nw 2gf h
3.50
3.50
0.00
24.31
9.11
9.11
ne_2gw_hr
ne 3gw_gr
0 .26
0 .26
3.25
12.15
B.B6
B.B6
I GF Gages
se_1gf_h
x_
3.50
y
0.00
Z.alt
9.11
CP Gages
cp1
x_
5.75
y
24.31
2 ...,
5.55
se 2gf h 3.50 24.31 9.11 cp2 4.50 24.31 5.55
I PZ Gages Xnorth V 2 .. "

cp3
cp4
3.50
5.75
24.31
24.31
5.55
4.BO
ne_1pz-l/r 1.79 22.15 5.00 cp5 4.50 24.31 4.BO
I ne 2pz hr 1.79 12.15 0.00 cp6 3.50 24.31 4.BO
I
I PZGar
nw 1ez r
x.....
1.79
~
2.15
z.... t
5.00 I
cp7
cpB
cp9
2.25
5.75
3.50
24.31
24.31
24.31
4.BO
1.50
1.50
I PZ Gars
x ..... ~ 2 .. "
I
cp10
cp11
2.25
5.75
24.31
24.31
1.50
-5.55
I se 1 ~z r
PZ Gages
1.79
X aouth
2.15
y
5.00
2""'"1
cp12
cp13
cp14
3.50
-3.50
-5.75
24.31
24 .31
24 .31
-5.55
5.55
5.55
I sw_3pz_gr
sw 3pz hr
1.79
1.79
22.15
12.15
5.00
0.00
cp15
cp16
cp17
-2.25
-3.50
-4 .50
24.31
24 .31
24 .31
-4.BO
-4 .BO
-4.BO
cp1B -5.75 24.31 -4 .60
I
103
I
I
I
Table 4.6: Specimen CR4 Strain Gage Locations I
GF Gages Xnorth y 2 .... PZ Gages X'O\IUl y 2 Nlt
ne_1gf_h
ne_2gC h
ne_3gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11
9.11
se_1pz-fjr
se_2pz_hr
se_3pz-fjr
3.17
3.17
0.42
2.15
12.15
2.15
5.00
0.00
5.00
I
ne_4gf_h
ne_5gCh
ne_6gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.88
0.88
0.88
9.11
9.11
9.11
se 4pz hr
PZ Gages
0.42
X.outh
12.15
y
0.00
z .... t
I
ne_7gC h
ne_8gCh
ne_9gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
24.31
24.31
24.31
9.11
9.11
9.11
sw_1pz-fjr
sw 2pz gr
3.17
0.42
22.15
22.15
5.00
5.00 I
ne_10gf-fj 0.00 0.00 20.61 CF Gages x..... y Zooo,
ne 11gf 9 0.00 24.31 20.61 ne_1cf-fj
ne_2cf_g
6.33
6.33
-11 .56
-5.56
7.61
7.61
I
GF Gages x.outtl y z_, ne_3cf-fj 6.33 -1 .56 7.61
sw_ 1gC h
sw_2gf_h
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11
ne_4cCh
ne_5cf-fj
6.33
6.33
0.44
2.44
7.61
7.61
I
sw_39C h 3.50 0.00 9.11 ne_6cf-fj 6.33 6.44 7.61
sw_4gf_h
sw_59C h
0.00
2.25
24.31
24 .31
9.11
9.11
ne 7cf 9 6.33 35.87 7.61
I
sw_69C h 3.50 24.31 9.11 CF Gages x_ y z_,
sw_7gf-fj
sw 8gr~g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.31
20.61
20.61
nw_1cCg
nw 2cf ,g
6.33
6.33
-11 .56
35.87
7.61
7.61 I
GF Ga es x.....
3.50
3.50
0.00
24.31
9.11
9.11
CF Ga es
59_1 cf-fj
se_2cCh
x.ou,"
6.33
6.33
-11 .56
0.44
7.61
7.61
I
GF Gages
se_1gf_h
x_
3.50
y
0.00
Zoos,
9.11
se 3ct
CF Gages
6.33
x. ....
35.87
y
7.61
z_. I
se 2gf h
PZ Gages
3.50
x.....
24.31
y
9.11
z ... t
sw_1cf-fj
sw 2cf Q
6.33
6.33
-11.56
35.87
7.61
7.61 I
x.outh z ...t
ne_1pz-fjr
ne_2pz_hr
ne_3pz_hr
3.17
3.17
3.17
2.15
7.15
12.15
5.00
2.50
0.00
GWGages
se_1gw_hr
se_2gw_hr
0.26
0.26
y
1.88
3.25
12.11
8.86
I
ne_4pz_hr 3.17 17.15 0.00 se 3gw_gr 0.26 12.15 8.86
ne_5pz_gr
ne_6pz-fjr
3.17
0.42
22.15
2.15
0.00
5.00
I
ne 7pz hr 0.42 12.15 0.00
PZ Gages X ... orth y z_, I

nw_1pz_hr 3.17 12.15 2.50
nw_2pz_hr
nw_3pz-fjr
nw 4pz Qr
3.17
3.17
0.42
12.15
22.15
22.15
5.00
5.00
5.00
I
I
104
I
I
I
I Table 4.7: Specimen CR4R Strain Gage Locations
z ... , x......
GF Gages Xnorth V PZ Gages y Z_t
I ne_1gf_h
ne_2gf_h
ne_3gCh
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11
9.11
se_1pz.Jjr
se_2pz_ hr
se_bpz_hr
3.17
3.17
0.42
2.15
7.15
12.15
5.00
2.50
0.00
I ne_4gCh
ne_5gf_h
ne_6gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
0.88
0.88
0.88
9.11
9.11
9.11
se cpz_gr
PZ Gages
0.42
X.outh
2.15
y
5.00
Z ....... I
I ne_7gf_h
ne_8gf_h
ne_9gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
24.31
24.31
24.31
9.11
9.11
9.11
sw_1pz_hr
sw_2pz_hr
sw_3pz.Jlr
3.17
3.17
3.17
12.15
12.15
22.15
2.50
5.00
5.00
ne_10gf_g 0.00 0.00 20.61 sw_3pz_hr 3.17 12.15 0.00
I ne 11gf_g 0.00 24.31 20.61 sw_4pz_hr

sw_ 5pz.Jlr
3.17
3.17
17.15
22.15
0.00
0.00
GF Gages x...... v Z_t sw aQZ_gr 0.42 22.15 5.00
I sw_1gf_h
sw_2gCh
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
9.11
9.11 CF Gages x_ V Z-t
sw_3gf_h 3.50 0.00 9.11 ne_ 1cf.Jl 6.33 -11 .56 7.61
I sw_4gf_h
sw_ 5gf_h
sw_6gf_h
0.00
2.25
3.50
24 .31
24.31
24 .31
9.11
9.11
9.11
ne_2cf.Jl
ne_3cf.Jl
ne_ 4cf_h
6.33
6.33
6.33
-5.56
-1.56
0.44
7.61
7.61
7.61
I sW_7gf.Jl
sw 8gf_g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24 .31
20.61
20.61
ne_ 5cf.Jl
ne_6cf.Jl
ne 7dg
6.33
6.33
NA
2.44
6.44
NA
7.61
7.61
NA
GF Gages x..... , Z_t
I
V
nw_1gCh 3.50 0.00 9.11 CF Gages x""", y Z_t
nw 2gf h 3.50 24 .31 9.11 nw_ 1cCg 6.33 -11 .56 7.61
nw 2cf Cj NA NA NA
I GF Gages
se_1gf_h
x-
3.50
y
0.00
Z-t
9.11 CF Gages x...... y Z_t
se 2gf h 3.50 24.31 9.11 se_1cf.Jl 6.33 -11 .56 7.61
I PZ Gages XnOlth y Zoo..
se_2cCh
se 3cf_g
6.33
NA
0.44
NA
7.61
NA
ne_1pz_gr 3.17 22 .15 5.00
I ne_2pz_hr
ne_apz.Jlr
3.17
0.42
12.15
22 .15
0.00
5.00
CF Gages
sw_ 1cf_g
x-
6.33
V
-11 .56
Z_t
7.61
ne bpz hr 0.42 12.15 0.00 sw 2cf_g NA NA NA
I PZ Gages x._ y Z_t GW Gages x_ y z... t
nw_1pz.Jlr 3.17 2.15 5.00 ne_1QW_hr 0.26 1.88 12.11
I Inw cpz gr 0.42 2.15 5.00 ne_2QW_hr

ne 3gw Qr
0.26
0.26
3.25
12.15
8.86
8.86
I
I
105
I
I
x __
Table 4.8: Specimen CRS Strain Gage Locations I
GF Gages v z ... t PZ Gages x-th V Z .. I'
ne_1gLh
ne_2gf_h
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
B.B9
B.B9
ne_1pz_gr
ne 2pz hr
1.22
1.22
22.15
12.15
5.00
0.00 I
ne_3gLh 3.50 0.00 B.B9
ne_4gLh
ne_5gLh
0.00
2.25
0.88
0.88
B.B9
B.B9 1.22
y
2.15 5.00 I
ne_6gLh 3.50 0.88 B.B9
ne_7gLh
ne_BgLh
ne_9gLh
0.00
2.25
3.50
24.31
24.31
24.31
B.B9
B.B9
B.B9
PZ Gages
se_ 1pz-ljr
se 2pz hr
x......
1.22
1.22
y
2.15
7.15
z.."
5.00
2.50
I
ne_10gf-lj
ne 11gf_g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.31
20.39
20.39 PZ Gages
sw_1pz_hr
Xo_
1.22
v
12.15
z...,
2.50
I
x....... v z...,
GF Gages
sw_1gLh
sw_2gf_h
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.00
B.B9
B.B9
sw_2pz_hr
sw_3pz-ljr
sw_3pz_hr
1.22
1.22
1.22
12.15
22.15
12.15
5.00
5.00
0.00
I
sw_3gf_h 3.50 0.00 B.B9 sw_ 4pz_hr 1.22 17.15 0.00
sw_4gf_h
sw_5gf_h
0.00
2.25
24.31
24.31
B.B9
B.B9
sw 5pz_9r 1.22 22.15 0.00
I
sw_6gLh 3.50 24.31 B.B9 CF GaQes x-th V z...,
sw_7gf-lj
sw Bgf g
0.00
0.00
0.00
24 .31
20.39
20.39
ne_1cf-lj
ne_2cf-lj
6.25
6.25
-11 .56
-5.56
7.39
7.39
I
ne_3cf-lj 6.25 -1.56 7.39
GF Gages
nw_1gf_h
Xnorth
3.50
y
0.00
Z_"I
B.B9
ne_ 4cf_h
ne_5cf-lj
6.25
6.25
0.44
2.44
7.39
7.39
I
nw 2gf h 3.50 24.31 B.B9 ne_6cf-lj 6.25 6.44 7.39
GF Gages x_ v z_,
ne 7cf_g NA
x.....
NA NA
z_. I
se_1gf_h 3.50 0.00 B.B9 CF Gages v
se 2gf h 3.50
x __
24 .31 B.B9 nw_1cf-lj
nw 2cf~
6.25
NA
-11 .56
NA
7.39
NA I
CFN Gages
ne_1cfn-lj 2.50
v
-11 .56
Zoo..
6.66 CF Gages x._ y Zoo..
I
ne_2cfn-ljr 2.50 -5.56 6.66 se_1cf-lj 6.25 -11 .56 7.39
ne_3cfn-ljr 2.50 -1.56 6.66 se 2cf h 6.25 0.44 7.39
ne_ 4cfn_gr 6.66 se- 3cf- Q NA NA NA
ne_ 5cfn-ljr
ne_6cfn-ljr
2.50
3.75
5.00
0.44
0.44
0.44
6.66
6.66 CF Gages Xo_ v z_,
I
ne_7cfn-lj -7.56 6.66 sw_ 1cf_g -11 .56
ne Bcfn..9
5.50
3.25 ·3.56 6.66 sw 2cf ..9
6.25
NA NA
7.39
NA I
I
I
106
I
I
------------------- o {
MTS Cross head
Top Load Pin

Assembly
W24x104
..,
crQ'
..,cto
-..
~
t'"
(j)
(j)
x
0
(j)
(j)
x
0
184.50·
.,0.
0 M
~
M
~
...,
~
0
-' '"tTl
co
<
171 .00·
148.63·
~
o·
"
~
:T
CIl 27 .00·
"0 13.50·
0
-"'"
0
:;'
Strong Floor 80.00·
- Bottom Load
Pin Assembly
280.00·
380.00·
I
1-- - - - - 120.00"- - - - ---+1
I
==
W 30x99 W24x104
-= F
W30x99
I
f-- 38.00"---j I
== C15x40,
",,=-
Top Load
~::
Pin
80.00·
"<t
0
~
)(
-r
19.00" /
I
"<t
N N
-L
~ ~
I
-
== =;=
14.00"-
W30x99
I
W 30x99
= =
W24x104
= =- I
Figure 4.2: Top View of Load Frame and Load Pin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 4.3: Lateral-Torsional Buckling Bracing
I
108
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 4.4: Bottom Load Pin Assembly
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 4.5: Actuator Bracket Showing Connection to Girder and Top of Actuator
109
I
I
I
0 ·05 1-------------;~~::;;:;;;_--1
I
Continue 4.0% dnlt
0.04 cycles to failure
I
0.03
:0 0.02
~
I
•
~ 0.01
<
€
o
0 I
~ ·M1
i!
i -0.02
I
-0.03
-0.04
I
-O.05 +-------~------~------~------~------~------~-J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
I
Cumulative Cycles
Figure 4.6: General Specimen Loadi ng History: Dri ft Level vs. Cumulati ve Cycles I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110
I
I
------------------- .,. f
..,
ciQ'
.,,.c I
~
:..,
II 4@2.S" _I i no2E.JIc.i
I' ! I ! V ow_3pz.JI.!J
East Girder West Girder East Girder

V V West Girder
V
~ r--' ne 4Pl_hr
~ '+
+I + P'.t .1ne_lpz hrJ
I 4@S" I , .._:!gw.JIrl :
.- r-
g: -< 1lW_1pz_t1!l
)----- +' 1 .25~ i

rL
I
t-.- -- - .- - ----J~T
rI " - 29'"- hr[ !I
/ ' V::
r -t
!
t--
nw_2Pl_hr
1.875L
1.25
!
t=# ;
i
i
J-t-
1.._19"'_hrl
"\ t=h. ;
. .....
J-t-
I
i
r----...
'l e- ;I r - -..... '----,
........
I 3. 5" I'--- r------ ~ no_2pl_hrJ
4.5" 71 General purpose '-......j ne_1pl.JlfJ
Nole GW rosettes are
71 High-elongation roselIe
located on side
! !
oppo5Ite shear tab
I " Rosette on opposite I
(South face 01 web) I ;, High-elongalion roselIe i
I on opposite side i
i I
"1
ciQ"
....
.,=
00
II 4@2.5"
,I i
.."
§
I' ! i
!!. I ne_ apz.-9r
~
::s East Girder West Girder East Girde; " \ West Girder
C!>
§
I' ~ I'
P-
~ +I +I
~I
08_bpz_hr
O
:;. 4@5" I
P- i i i
...
C!>
~I - i. V-
_.-
r'~ t-._ ._._. - _ ._ ._._ .- t-L.t--._._ .-
_ ._.- . /
:E
C!>
I I
tv
<:T i i i i
-
S-
O>
2
3
.I
i I
IT
'-, ~
~. 875" .I
i
C-
~
I
'----, ~ I nw_'gw_h~
-
C!>
::s
.::to, 1 -"I nw_CPZ-Of
0 4.5"
::s
...
0' Nots. GW roselles are
located on aide
I
i
I
Vl opposite shear tab /I General purpose res .H. !
"C
C!>
0
(North face of web) i 71 High-elongation rose He !
I I
3"
C!> i i
::s
()
~
I ,_'~
I
I
I
I \ \ \1\\ ,/
_ ._._ i\ \. \ \I
I \
\,
\' I
'\
I
I
I :! •
jV
~ 1
I .,
~
"E
C3
I
I
$
~
.~
~
.,
<ii I "!!
! i
I ~
i
hl-t---I---+-l r
.li .~
'"
'" '"
I
- --_. ._0_0-
I
I iii
J I-+-·_·_,-·_·-tl \.
"0 T
c5 I
I <ii
'"
w I!I
I
Figure 4.9: Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR2
I
113
I
I
..,
riO·
..,...
=
I
-
~
:? ,
II
4@2.S- _J
! I
'"
§
!!.
S'
:>
East Girder West Girder East Girder West Girder
(1)
§ ~ '.+-
0. .+-
I I 4 @ S-
9.
a.
.., _. __._._+ 1.2S !-tJ I
1-- _._-
.
(1)
1-'-
I
~
ro
a"
i i
...... 1.2S ~ i
:>
t/>
~ 1875L ,-t-
§ :>l e-
(1)
:>
~
I 3. 5-
eo· 4.5- 71 General purpose rose••
:> 71 Hlgh·elongabon rose
0'
Note GW roselles are I I
.., hxated on side
opposite shear tab I iI
til
"0 (North face of web) I
ro
0 I i
3·
(1)
I w-_, i '-_--'-'
:>
()
~
I
I ~
Ql
~
I
!
~
'E ~
~~' a I
I .;
;;;
w'"
,
.;
I
_L s'
I
\ ~ -+\-.-i-·--t-IJ L
\ \
1\ \
I - -_._-
\
._._._.-
I ~
II>
'E
~ -+-·--j-·_·-tl \.
a :
I ;;;
Ql
:!:
i
I
i
I
I
II
I -
\
\
\
\
'-'-'-+--'<-li-t--+-Ii!- -+--t-l!--t-_.-.-._.-
\
I
I
I
VI
I
Figure 4.1 1: Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR3
I
115
I
I
..,
....
riO'
I
-'"
I
~
Note PZ rosel18. were
N II 4 ~ 2.5" -1 placed In this configura' oon i
II on both sJdes of column web
i
'"~ ~{]
pnor to wekhng of double
!!.
pia'" IW)PZ';
0 East Girder West Girder East Girder / West Girder

'"
n
~
------
;:;:: ~
;::->
Cl. +I I....
I 4@5"
+ ~~:':~~
~ .._4pz:_hr
0 1.._3gw-llf :
:;'
Cl.
125
-t1I. , I V I
'".... -_.
'I - r-l-I _.- ---< '>- - - --~;~ ./ i
I
~----
~ 1.._2uw_tvt i
0- n
--'"
a'
i i
i ". I
i
~. ~
1.25~
'" 1.875L ; I--if"" I--if""
2 ;, C-- ;1 ,.--
' .... "--0
3 - ........
.-
n
I 3 5" I'"--- ........
0'-'", 4.5"
r- /I Genefol purpose
,.
'i ne_6pz-",
"_3pzJY
I
'....0'"
-
71 Htgh-elongahon l'OIel
Note GW rosettes .re I I
k:Jcated on SIde
en opposde shear lab ! " RoMn. on oppottte i
"0 (Sou"' lace d web) I ;, I
High-ek:lllgabOn rosel Ie
'"3'
n i on opposrte IJde i
I i
''(')""
::0
~
_.. - ,
........
-.J
I ""
I
I ~
Q)
"E
~
I
i
i
~
N
-,~
a.
a N
I iii
~
i
\
i
'"
r / ;.
w
~ -+~---!-----~
I \ \
\ \
I --.-.
\
"\.
._._._.-
I .
~
"0
J -+-----i-----t-I ~
~
!
a
I iii
~
Q)
I
i
i
i"
I ~
..
~ ~
I 'aj ~ ~
~
Q)
1S~~1
llI ~l~
I
~I I
I I
Ij ~
~ ~
I I
~~ i~ :§.
t J,~J,J, :
f
iii ~ ~
, ' Q) N -
~ ~
f
:I:
J,
~ fI<~\\~!-----t-1 r 1/'iJ r;;
I
-
"'"""
._._- ~
\
\
\\:
'"
\ / /
/
-_._._--
1/ /
I I
I ~
Q)
J -+----1----+-1 ~
"E I
a I
i
I iii
'"
w !
I
I
Figure 4_13: Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR4
I
117
I
I
..,
~.
.
.,c
-....
f'
II
1
4@2.5· J
Note PZ rosettes were
placed In Ihls conftguralI<lO
on both aides of column web
." II ! 1
~ prior 10 weI<fing 0/ doobIer
!!.. pia'"
N
.."
0
East Girder
......
West Girder
,---
East Girder
~
§ \'
0-
Cl +I - r-
~
I
-+I
a.., 1.25 - ~ :... i
4@5·
i I
i
--- 1 ... I 1--
~
-
I I -- -< !
'"
a-
ffi
00 I I I
S' 1.25 I I
0>
~
~ 1.87 5L :>I
.:
.:::t: T
3 :>l e:- o
"'"g0 · f
4.5-
3 5·
I- /I General PlX'POM
"0' I
71 High·elongabon rote tt.
., Note GW 1'058118' are
lOcated on .ide
..,
Vl oppo:s.te thear cab
(North lace 0/ web)
I
I
, ~He on opposIte lido
~. I " ~""" <OMn.

.
3 I
on opposite sde
"
()
;:0
....
;:0
... _..:._----
,.,
I '"
I
I
I
I \ \ \\\ 1/
\ \ \ \\
I - ------+"'<-~~-\-\-~--I---+---+------- ---
\ \'
\ \,
I
t
I
~ I
I Q; ~
I
I I §
ji
'E N'
~
(3 !!; , ! ~
u; I !
I
!
~ i
\ ~ H\--I----+-I r/
~
" "
I \ \
\
- ----. 1\ ._---
\
I \.
~ I-+-----I-----tl \.
I ~
"
'E I
(3 I
I u;
'"
w
I
i
I
I
Figure 4.15: Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR4R
I
119
I
I
I
I
--
"0
Q) ¥' ~ ~ ~
~ a~ i
IV
i
.I
I
~ Iii a ..,
1
N'"
1 . ~ ~
~
. 1
.,Ii.
!
c;;
m ~! ~~ I N1 N
~ ~
Sl Sl I
•
!-----+-I r ~/;:.
W
11 I
'\ \ ~ II I I
\ \ \ 1\ \ ~ I
\ \, \ \\
- ._._._-
I
-_._-
\ \
\, \1
"E
- JI-+-----I---+-I t
Q)
I
I
ac;; I
'i:
Q)
I
i I
i
~ ~
:
I
--
"0
Q)
~I
N1 I !i!.
-~ I
a ~ I
,
e! E
i c;; ~I
I
~
:;1
c
\
Q)
'i:
~H-- ,-'----+-1
I
r ./~
~
" "
j
:I:
I
- --.-. \ ._._._.-
I
\
\ I
-- ~ I-+----,----t-Jl
"0
Q)
! I
a I
;;;
m
w
J
J
i
I
I
Figure 4.16: Doubler Plate lnstrumentation for Specimen CR5
I
120
I
I
I~
I
I EAST
I
I -,-----i-- 0
ne_9gf_h
ne_8gf_h
I 13" typo neJgf_h

1.5" typo
I se_2gf_h I
I
1"
I NORTH SOUTH NORTH
I
1
I B
I
I
I
WEST
I Top of Top Flange Bottom of Bottom Flange
o
I !Z?<
General purpose gage
High-elongation gage
III High-elongation gage -
I both sides
I Figure 4.17: Location and Labels of Girder Flange Strain Gages for All pecimens
121
I
I
I
I
I
i .... 1.5" typo
o
0 o
I
12" ty p.
I
1
I
I
NORTH sOUTH NORTH I
0
I
4"
0
8 2@2"
I
0
0
4" I
0 0 0 0
6"
I
I
West Girder East Girder
I
o
-
General purpose gage
General purpose gage - both sides
I
~
-
High-elongation gage
High-elongation gage - both sides
I
Figure 4.18: Location of Column Flange Strain Gages for All Specimens
I
I
122
I
I
I
I
I o o
I
I
I
I NORTH SOUTH NORTH
I
I 6
0
~
I nw_1gf_h
sw_1gCh
sw_2gf_h
I sw_3gf_h 0 0 ne_3gf_h 0
I West Girder East Girder
I Figure 4.19: Strain Gage Labels for Girder and Column Flanges of All Specimens
I
I
I
I
123
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
NORTH SOUTH
I
~- 5" -<
Ine 5cfn....Qrl I
-'-1
3.75"
>-2.5" ,ne_
6cfn
l\ I
Ine_ 4cfn_g~
I
•
2" , 717171
.;", 71 71 ~t I ne_3cfn....Q~
71 Ine 8cfn....Q1 71 Ine 2cfn....Qrl

• 4"
t
<:,
71
•
4"
,
I ne 7cfn....Q1
<:,
71
V
I
<:, <:,
6"
~
I- :- 2.25"
0
I ne_1cfn....Q1
I
2.25"- i-- '\ A I
I
o General purpose gage
East Column Flange IL General purpose rosette
I
,
Figure 4.20: CFN Group Strain Gages for Specimens CR1 , CR2, and CRS
I
I
124
I ~
I
A
,
I 1.25"
~
EAST
I 1.25"
--
1" :+-
~
-4 2.25" ..
I +
CPi Cl\
•
t ICPt
I V 0 J-
I 0.75" A
0 ~
CP4 CPS CP6 CP
0 PI3 PI4
0.75"
0.75"
I 1"-
I 0 "
I 1.5" A
, CP8
NORTH
CP9 CF l(
SOUTH
I
I 1.5"
0.75" Ie PIS PI6CP17 P 8
I , CPl1
0
C 12 0 0 [J
/
I • ""
I Top of Top Flange
WEST
I ~
o General purpose gage
I _ General purpose gage - both sides
I Figure 4.21 : Continuity Plate Instrumentation for Specimen R3
I
125
I
I
I
I
I
1" LVDT
I
connected to
centerline of
girder flange
I
1---- 10" - -+I GR1
I
o I
West Girder East Girder I
1/2" LVDT ---1---.... I I
o
I
PZR1 PZR2
GR4 12" typo GR2
I
I
I
I
Figure 4.22: Girder and Panel Zone LVDT Placement for All Specimens
I
I
I
126
I
I
I ~
I
I l-
e
~
l-
e
~
•
~
•
o
I
~
I 1
<
c
.2
II
I CI)
I
I
I
I
I I-
CI)
UJ
~ 0
I • , II)
CD
u.
I • ..J
I
o
I
I
I Figure 4.23: Column Flange LVDT Placement for pcclmens RI. CR2. and CRS
127
I
I
I
I
f-
f-
o I
~
(I)
W
~
o I
N
ell
u..
...J ~c I
.2
.,
t>
(I) I
I
::
'i
.,
'0
I
co.
=.,
0)-';:
"'0>
f-c
0",
I
.>"".,
...J
~'E
~
I
0 '0,
o
I
~
ell
I
u..
...J
<
o 01
I
I
Figure 4.24: Column Flange LVDT Placement for Specimens CR4 and CR4R I
128
I
I
--- ... _--------------
MTS Cross head
Load Frame LVDT 2 -
Attached to Top of Pin Top Load Pin
Assembly
Load Frame LVDT 1-
'!j Attached to Crossbeam
riO-
.......
e
Column Tied to
N Strong Floor
III
r0
.,
0-
tv
.,"rJ
ID
3
C>
r
~
-l
"'"
;;;
""3
'"
;:
o
Strong Floor
I
I
Column Cross Section West Girder East Girder
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 4.26: Specimen Coordinate System
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
130
I
I
·
.,• .
' I
I Chapter 5
I
Summary of Test Results
I
I Tests of six cruciform specimens, including one repeated test of Specimen CR4
(i.e., Specimen CR4R), have been completed. This chapter describes the loading
I histories applied to each specimen and the global cyclic performance of the specimens.
Test results presented in this chapter include the plots ofload vs. stroke and moment V5.
I all rotation components. The failure mechanisms of each specimen are also discussed.
I 5.1 Applied Loading History
I As discussed in Chapter 4, an anti-symmetric loading pattern was applied to the

six cruciform specimens to simulate the effects of lateral loading on an interior steel
I moment-resisting connection. These specimens were loaded by applying displacements

following the SAC Phase 2 cyclic loading protocol (SAC, 1997) to the tip of each girder.
I After comp leting the two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift outlined in SAC (1997), as
discussed in Chapter 4, additional cycles at the same interstory drift level were applied
I until the specimen failed or until the specimen showed a significant degradation in
strength. In this section, the complete loading histories directly applied to the East girder
I of each specimen are described. In Figure 5. I, the number of 4.0% interstory drift cycles
that were completed before the specimen failing or achieving significant strength
I degradation are compared.
I 5.1.1 Loading History of Specimen CR t

A total 0[50.5 cycles were applied to Specimen CRI , including initial elastic
I cycles. One elastic cycle at 0.1% drift and one at 0.25% drift were first conducted to
check instrumentation. A second elastic cycle was then conducted at 0.1% drift after
I
131
I
I
I
some instrumentation adjustments. Figure 5.2 shows the applied displacement history of I
the East girder of Specimen CR I in terms of the interstory drift angle.
I
5.1.2 Loading History of pecimen CR2
A total of 50 cycles were applied to Specimen CR2, including initial elastic I
cycles. Two elastic cycles at 0.1% drift and two at 0.25% drift were first conducted to
check instrumentation. Figure 5.3 shows the applied displacement history of the East I
girder of Specimen CR2 in terms of the interstory drift angle.
I
5.1.3 Loading History of pecimen CRJ
A total of 46 cycles were applied to Specimen CR3, including initial elastic I
cycles. One elastic cycle at 0.1% drift and one at 0.25% drift were first conducted to
check instrumentation. Figure 5.4 shows the applied displacement history of the East I
I
5.1.4 Loading History of Specimen CR4
Due to premature CJP weld fracturing, the test of Specimen CR4 was terminated I
after one-half cycle at the 2.0% interstory drift level. A total of 26.5 cycles, including
initial elastic cycles, were applied to this specimen. One elastic cycle at 0.1% drift and I
one at 0.25% drift were conducted prior to beginning the prescribed loading history.
Figure 5.5 shows the applied displacement history of the East girder of Specimen CR4 in I
terms of the interstory drift angle.
I
5.1.5 Loading History of pecimcn CR4R
A total of 46 cycles were applied to Specimen CR4R, including initial elastic I
cycles. One elastic cycle at 0. 1% drift and two at 0.25% drift were first conducted to
check instrumentation. One more elastic cycle at 0.375% was applied between 3.0 %
I
drift and 4.0% drift to check the four MTS hydraulic actuators. Figure 5.6 shows the
applied displacement history of the East girder of Specimen CR4R in terms of the
I
inters tory dri ft angle.
I
132
I
I
I
I
II I : p
.,.J
I
5.1.6 Loading History of Specimen CRS
I A total of 41 cycles were applied to Specimen CR5, including initial elastic
cycles. One elastic cycle at 0.1% drift and one at 0.25% drift were first conducted to
II check instrumentation. Figure 5.7 shows the applied displacement history of the East
I
5.2 Summary of Specimen Performance
I The general behavior of six specimens may be summarized in terms of various
,I load and deformation parameters. Tables 5. 1 through 5.6 list the peak loads and
moments of the East and West girders at each drift level for the six specimens. The peaks
during the first cycle of each drift level are used for consistency. Positive loading is
I defined as tension in the East girder actuators and compression in the West actuators, i.e.,
I downward displacement of the East girder tip and upward displacement of the West
girder tip. In Tables 5.1 through 5.6, the moments are also normalized by the nominal
plastic moment strength, Mp, of the W24x94 girder section (Mp = 254 in J x 50 ksi =
I 12,700 kip-in.).
I The deformation components of primary interest include connection rotation

(total and plastic), girder rotation (total and plastic), and panel zone rotation (total and
I plastic). The calculation of these quantities from the actuator and LVDT data is
described in Appendix A. Additional plots of specimen behavior not included in this
I chapter may be found in this appendix.
I 5.2.1 Performance of Specimen CRI

Specimen CRI was distinguished by the use of no column stiffeners (i .e., doubler
I plates and continuity plates). Based on experimental research conducted by Ric1es et al.
(2000b) and computational research by Mao et al. (2001), a strong correlation between
I panel zone strength and resistance to the development oflow cycle fatigue fracture in
steel moment connections has been reported. Thus, in order to investigate the effects of a
I weak panel zone on seismic connection behavior and ductility, the panel zone of this
133
I
I
I
specimen was designed to be relatively weak, i.e., ,p.R.lRu = 0.83 for the panel zone I
yielding limit state according to the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997).
Specimen CR I completed the SAC loading history (SAC, 1997) up to 4.0% drift I
without noticeable strength degradation. After completing the two cycles at 4.0% drift
required by the SAC protocol (SAC, 1997), additional 4.0% drift cycles were applied I
until the specimen failed. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the moment vs. interstory drift for the
East and West girders of Specimen CRI, respectively. Figures 5.10 through 5.15 I
illustrate the performance of Specimen CRI in terms of the various plastic rotation
components. The test was stopped during the 20th cycle at 4.0% drift due to excessive I
strength degradation in the East girder following fracture. Table 5.7 documents the key
events observed during testing of Specimen CRI , including the progression of yielding I
and fracture.
Prior to any cracking in this specimen, substantial yielding of the panel zone and I
beam flanges occurred, first initiating during the 0.75 % drift cycles. Moderate yielding
in the column flanges was also evident due to kinking of the column flanges at the level I
of the girder flanges. Some girder web yielding occurred, but full-depth plastic hinges
did not form . Refer to Table 5.7 for the progression of yielding. I
The East girder sustained a low-cycle fatigue (LCF) rupture in the bottom flange
during the 15 th cycle at 4.0% drift. This LCF rupture first became visible during the 11 th I
cycle at 4.0% drift. It originated in the center of the flange base metal at the toe of the
girder-to-column reinforcing fillet weld, and was visible across approximately 2/3 of the I
flange width before becoming unstable. Figures 5. 16 through 5.18 illustrate the flange
fracture. Low-cycle fatigue cracking also became visible in the West girder bottom I
flange at the toe of the reinforcing fillet weld during the 11th cycle at 4.0% drift, but did
not become unstable prior to the end of the test. This rupture was of a similar size to the
I
East bottom flange crack when the East flange ruptured completely, and continued to
grow in a stable manner during the final five cycles at 4.0% drift. Following testing, LCF
I
cracking was also discovered in the top flanges of both girders. Cracks existed both in
the girder flanges at the CJP weld toes and at the faces of the column flanges .
I
I
134
I
I
I ··:
lCJ
I First cracking was noted during the 4th cycle at 4.0% drift. It consisted of a small
crack originating at the bottom edge of the West shear tab . The top edge of the East
I shear tab was the next to crack during the 8 th cycle at 4.0% drift. The top edge of the
West shear tab also began to crack during the latter half of this cycle. By the time the
I East girder bottom flange fractured, all four ends of the shear tab welds (top and bottom
corners of both girder webs) had developed cracks that reached lengths of approximately
I I in. Following the LCF rupture in the East bottom flange, the shear tab weld crack in
this location propagated to approximately half the girder depth by the 18th cycle at 4.0%
I drift. LCF cracking also occurred in the access holes during the last several cycles at
th
4.0% drift. It was first noted during the 16 cycle at 4.0% drift in both West girder
I access holes. Following the test, a LCF crack was also noted in the East top access hole.
Figures 5.19 and 5.20 illustrate typical web weld and access hole cracking.
I Specimen CR1 exhibited excellent energy dissipation capacity, as is evident from
the hysteresis loops of connection plastic rotation shown in Figures 5.10 and 5.11. A
I comparison of Figures 5.12 and 5.13 with Figure 5.15 reveals that plastic rotation was
dominated by panel zone yielding. This was expected based on the weak panel zone
I philosophy adopted for design of this specimen discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 . The panel
zone behavior is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. Both girders slightly exceeded their
I nominal plastic moment capacities, as shown in Table 5.1.
I 5.2.2 Performance of Specimen CR2
I Specimen CR2 was distinguished by the use of a one-sided fillet-welded doubler

plate and by the use of no continuity plates as shown in Figure 3. 14 in Chapter 3. The
I panel zone of this specimen was also designed to be relatively weak, i.e., ,p.,R.IR.= 0.76
including the doubler plate, calculated according to the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions
I (AlSC, 1997). In addition to the effects of a weak panel zone on seismic connection
behavior and ductility, potential adverse effects of the doubler plate detail on the
I unstiffened column flange deformation were investigated in this test.

Specimen CR2 completed the SAC loading history up to 4.0% dri ft without
I noticeable strength degradation. Figures 5.21 and 5.22 show the moment vs. interstory
135
I
I
I
drift for the East and West girders of Specimen CR2, respectively. Figures 5.23 through I
5.28 illustrate the performance of Specimen CR2 in terms of the various plastic rotation
components. The test was stopped after completion of the 18 th cycle at 4.0% drift due to I
excessive strength degradation in the West girder following fracture. Table 5.8
documents the key events observed during testing of Specimen CR2, including the I
progression of yielding and fracture .
Due to the weak panel zone, Specimen CR2 exhibited yielding in the panel zone I
st
at an early stage of the loading history. The panel zone started to yield during the 1
cycle at 1.5% drift, and was fully yielded at 3.0% drift, as shown in Figure 5.29. This I
relatively weak panel zone coupled with moderately thin column flanges also caused
relatively large local flange deformation in the column. However, in spite of large I
inelastic cyclic deformation of the doubler plate and column flanges, no clear damage
was observed in the fillet welds connecting the doubler plate to the column flange by the I
th
completion of the test at the 18 cycle of 4.0% drift.
The primary failure mode of Specimen CR2 was low-cycle fatigue fracturing in
I
the West girder top flange. The crack located in the West girder top flange was observed
on the girder-flange-side toe of the CJP weld . The initial visual indication of this crack
I
occurred during the 2nd cycle at 3.0% drift. This crack began to propagate significantly
around the center of the girder flange during the II th cycle at 4.0% drift as shown in
I
Figure 5.30. However, the first cycle where this crack had a discemable effect on the
moment-interstory drift curves was the 14th cycle. The crack became unstable and a
I
brittle fracture occurred during the 17'h cycle, as shown in Figures 5.31 and 5.32. On the
other hand, a visual indication of a possible crack in the East girder top flange was
I
observed at the girder-flange-side toe of the CJP weld during the 1st cycle at 4.0% drift.
However, this crack did not propagate significantly prior to the West girder top flange
I
fracturing at the 17th cycle of 4.0% drift.
I
During the application of the 4.0% drift cycles, other cracks were also observed at
the top and bottom edges of the fillet welds connecting the shear tab to the column flange I
and of the CJP welds connecting the girder web to the column flange. The cracks in the
shear tab occurred first at the top and bottom edges of the fillet welds on the East shear I
136
I
I
I -0'~
I tab during the 5th cycle at 4.0% drift, while the top and bottom edge cracks on the West
shear tab were observed during the 7th cycle and 9 th cycles, respectively. The maximum
I initial crack length was approximately 1.0 in. at the top edge of the East shear tab. In
spite of the repeated large column flange local defonnation originated by the relatively
I weak panel zone strength, the cracks in both shear tabs did not extend significantly prior
to the West girder top flange fracturing at the 17 th cyc le of 4.0% drift.
I Specimen CR2 exhibited excellent energy dissipation capacity, as is evident from
I the hysteresis loops of connection plastic rotation shown in Figures 5.23 and 5.24. A
comparison of Figures 5.25 and 5.26 with Figure 5.28 reveals that plastic rotation was
I dominated by panel zone yielding. The panel zone behavior is discussed in detail in
Chapter 6. Due to the large panel zone defonnations, both girders had peak moments just
I below their nominal plastic moment capacities during the 151 cycle of 4.0% drift, as
shown in Table 5.2.
I 5.2.3 Performance of Specimen C RJ
I Specimen CR3 was distinguished by the use of fillet-welded doubler plates and by
the use of fillet-welded 1/2 in. thick continuity plates as shown in Figure 3. 15 in Chapter
I 3. This test was intended primarily to show that a fillet-welded continuity plate detail can
perfonn adequately in cyclic loading applications. In addition the efTects of a weak
I panel zone on seismic connection behavior and ductility were investigated. For this
purpose, the panel zone of this specimen was designed to have a capacity-to-demand ratio
I of rp.,R.lR. = 0.86, including the doubler plate, calculated accordi ng to the 1997 AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997).
I Specimen CR3 completed the SAC loading history up to 4.0% drift without
noticeable strength degradation. Figures 5.33 and 5.34 show the moment vs. interstory
I drift for the East and West girders of Specimen CR3, respectively. Figures 5.35 through
5.40 illustrate the perfonnance of Specimen CR3 in tenns of the various plastic rotation
I components. The test was stopped after completion of the 16th cycle at 4.0% dri ft due to
excessive strength degradation in the East girder following fracture. Table 5.9 documents
I
137
I
I
I
the key events observed during testing of Specimen CR3, including the progression of I
yielding and fracture.
Specimen CR3 exhibited yielding in the panel zone at an early stage ofthe I
loading history. The panel zone started to yield during the 1st cycle at 1.5% drift, and
fully yielded before achieving 3.0% drift. This weak panel zone, coupled with I
moderately thin column flanges, caused significant column deformations around panel
zone area, as shown in Figure 5.41 . However, through the completion of the test at the
I
16th cycle of 4.0% drift, no clear damage was observed in the fillet welds connecting the
doubler plate to the column flange and in the fillet welds of the continuity plates.
I
The primary failure mode of Specimen CR3 was low-cycle fatigue fracturing in
the East girder bottom flange. The crack located in the East girder bottom flange was
I
observed on the girder-flange-side toe of the CJP weld. The initial visual indication of
this crack occurred during the 2nd cycle at 3.0% drift. This crack began to propagate
I
significantly around the center of the girder flange during the 9 th cycle at 4.0% drift and a I
visible significant crack opening was observed during the 11th cycle as shown in Figure
5.42. This crack grew steadily and the girder flange fractured through its whole flange I
width during the 15 th cycle at 4.0% drift as shown in Figure 5.43 . On the other hand,
visual indications of possible cracks in the East and West girder top flanges were I
observed at the girder-flange-side toe of the CJP weld during the 2nd cycle at 3.0% drift
and 1st cycle of 4.0% drift, respectively. These cracks opened significantly during the I
13 th cycle at 4.0% drift. However, no fracturing in the top girder flanges occurred by the
end of the test. I
Other cracks were also observed at the top and bottom edges of the shear tab
during the application of the 4.0% drift cycles. The cracks in the shear tab occurred first I
at the East shear tab bottom edge and at the West shear tab top edge during the 2nd cycle
at 4.0% drift. Cracks at the top edge of the East shear tab and at the bottom edge of the I
West shear tab were also observed in the following cycle (i.e., 3rd cycle at 4.0% interstory
drift). Due to the repeated large column deformation, the cracks in the West shear tab I
propagated up to 2 in. through both the fillet and the CJP welds during the 9th cycle at
I
138
I
I
1', &;
LIl
I 4.0% drift. The maximum crack length in the East shear tab was 1 in. after completing
the 10'h cycle. However, these cracks did not extend significantly prior to the East girder
I bottom flange fracturing at the 15'h cycle of 4.0% drift.
I Specimen CRJ e)(hibited excellent energy dissipation capacity, as is evident from

the hysteresis loops of connection plastic rotation shown in Figures 5.35 and 5.36. A
I comparison of Figures 5.37 and 5.38 with Figure 5.40 reveals that plastic rotation was
dominated by panel zone yielding. Both girders slightly exceed their nominal plastic
I moment capacities during the I" cycle of 4.0% drift, as shown in Table 5.3. The panel
zone behavior is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
I 5.2.4 Performance of Specimen CR4
I Specimen CR4 was distinguished by the use of a detail in which two doubler
plates were welded to the column flange using CJP welds, with each plate offset away
I from the column web by a distance equal to two-thirds of the half-flange width of the
girder. This stiffening detail , shown in Figure 3. 17 in Chapter 3, is similar to the web
I doubler plate detail shown in Figure -9.3 (c) of the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC, 1997). Unlike the other specimens, a relatively strong panel zone is provided
I meeting the requirements of the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). i.e., a
capacity-to-demand ratio of ¢.R,IRu = 1.07, including the doubler plates.
1 The test of Specimen CR4 was stopped after one-half cycle at 2.0% due to brittle
fracture of three girder flange welds. Table 5.10 documents the key events observed
I during testing of Specimen CR4, including the progression of yielding and fracture.
Figures 5.44 and 5.45 show the moment vs. interstory drift for the East and West girders
I of Specimen CR4, respectively. Figures 5.46 through 5.51 illustrate the performance of
Specimen CR3 in terms of the various plastic rotation components.
I The top flange of the West girder was completely severed at the end of the 1.5%
I drift cycles. The top flange of the East girder and bottom flange of the West girder
completely fractured during the first quarter-cycle at 2.0% drift. These weld fractures,
I however, initiated as early as the 1.0% drift cycles, based on analysis orstrain gages near
139
I
I
I
the girder flange welds. The East top flange was the first to show indications of cracking I
in the strain gage data during the first quarter cycle of the second cycle at 1.0% drift. The
West top flange first showed indications of cracking in the strain gage data during the I
third quarter-cycle of the third cycle at 1.0%. The bottom flange of the West girder gave
no indications of cracking prior to the first quarter-cycle at 2.0%. However, first visible I
cracking was discovered in both flanges of the West girder after the [ SI cycle at 1.5%.
The three flange fractures are shown in Figures 5.52 through 5.54. I
Some yielding had occurred prior to the flange fractures. Moderate yielding of
the girder flanges was visible, initiating during the 0.75% dri ft cycles. Some yielding of I
the panel zone occurred as well, first visible during the 1.0% cycles. Minor web yielding
and cracking at the edges of shear tabs also occurred, but was a result of deformation I
induced by the flange weld fractures near the end of testing.
Specimen CR4 exhibited poor ductility and energy dissipation due to the I
premature fractures of the flange CJP welds. Very limited connection plastic rotation is
evident in Figures 5.46 and 5.47. The girders accounted for most of the inelastic I
deformation in this specimen (see Figures 5.48 and 5.49). As shown in Figures 5.50 and
5.51, the panel zone of Specimen CR4 showed little inelasticity. Both girders did not I
reach their nominal plastic moment capacities prior to fracture, as shown in Table 5.4.
The investigation of the premature weld fractures is described in detail in Appendix B. I
5.2.5 Performance of Specimen CR4R I
Specimen CR4 had three of its four complete joint penetration (CJP) weld
fracturing in a brittle manner at an early stage of the SAC loading history. As shown in I
Table 3.7 in Chapter 3, Charpy V-Notch tests performed after the experiment on the as-
deposited E70T-6 weld metal in Specimen CR4 had an average fracture energy of2 ft-Ibs I
at O°F and 2.3 ft-lbs at 70°F, substantially less than recommended in FEMA 350 (2000a).
In order to investigate the performance of this connection detail and the

I
importance of weld toughness, a new specimen, CR4R, was constructed having identical
detailing and girders generated from the same heat as those in Specimen CR4. However,
I
a new lot ofE70T-6 weld wire was used . As discussed in Chapter 3, this lot of weld wire
I
140
I
I
I was obtained from Edison Welding Institute (EWI) and was a lot of wire that they had
previously characterized for the SAC project. The Charpy V-Notch test results from as-
I deposited weld metal for this new E70T-6 weld wire was 33 ft-Ib at O°F and 58.7 ft-Ib at
70°F, as shown in Table 3.7.
I Specimen CR4R completed the SAC loading history up to 4.0% interstory drift
I without noticeable strength degradation. Ailer completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory
drift, additional 4.0% drift cycles were applied until the specimen failed. Figures 5.55
I and 5.56 show the moment vs. interstory drift for the East and West girders of Specimen
CR4R, respectively. Figures 5.57 through 5.62 illustrate the perfonnance of Specimen
I CR4R in tenns of the various plastic rotation components. Table 5. 11 documents the key
events observed during testing of Specimen CR4R, including the progression of yielding
I and fracture.
Low-cycle fatigue cracks began to fonn during the 4.0% drift cycles, including:
I (I) shallow surface cracks along the weld toes of the girder flange welds; and (2) an edge
crack at the East girder flange tip. The first surface crack, shown in Figure 5.63, was
I clearly observed during the 2nd cycle of 4.0% drift along the toe of the CJP weld in the
West girder top flange. The second surface crack was observed during the 5'h cycle of
I 4.0% drift at the toe of the CJP weld in the East girder top (lange. Fortunately, the depths
of these two surface cracks were very shallow and so the connection strength was not
I significantly decreased by these cracks. The edge crack appeared at the north tip of East
girder top flange during the 2nd cycle at 4.0% drift. This edge crack grew dramatically
I during the 12'h cycle and finally fractured the girder flange during the 13'h cycle. The
shapes of the fracture in the East girder top flange are shown in Figures 5.64 and 5.65.
I The West girder top flange and East girder top flange buckled locally during the
I 9'h cycle at 4.0% drift, whereas local buckling on the East girder bottom flange was
observed during the 10'h cycle. The connection strength was not affected significantly by
I this local flange buckling.
The test was tenninated at the beginning of the 13'h cycle at 4.0% interstory drift
I due to the fracture in the East girder top flange and to extensive lateral-torsional buckling
141
I
I
I
in the West girder, as shown in Figure 5.66. While the West girder exhibited some mild I
lateral bending and buckling throughout the experiment, particularly during the 4.0%
drift cycles, the lateral-torsional buckling did not become significant until the 12th cycle I
at 4.0% drift. A preliminary assessment of the better performance of this test relative to
the original CR4 specimen would seem to indicate the importance of weld toughness in I
connection performance, as well as rule out the geometry of this detail as a causal factor
in the fracture ofthe original CR4 test. I
Specimen CR4R exhibited excellent energy dissipation capacity, as is evident
from the hysteresis loops of connection plastic rotation shown in Figures 5.57 and 5.58. I
A comparison of Figures 5.59 and 5.60 with Figure 5.62 reveals that the contribution of
panel zone yielding in connection plastic rotation was less significant as compared with
I
the other specimens. This is because a relatively strong panel zone was designed for
Specimen CR4R, i.e., a capacity-to-demand ratio of t{J.,R j Ru = 1.07, including the doubler
I
plates, as per the 1997 AJSC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). The panel zone behavior
is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. Both girders exceeded their nominal plastic moment
I
capacities by approximately 20%, as shown in Table 5.5.
I
5.2.6 Performance of Specimen RS I
Specimen CRS was distinguished by the use of the smallest column section and
doubler plates that were 7/ 16 in. backside-beveled and fillet-welded to the column I
nanges, as shown in Figure 3.16 in Chapter 3. This stiffening detail follows the web
doubler plate detail (b) shown in Figure C-9.3 of the 1997 AJSC Seismic Provisions I
(AJSC, 1997). This test was intended primarily to verify the AISC local nange bending
(LFB) limit state for non-seismic and seismic design applications. Thus, continuity plates I
(transverse stiffeners) were eliminated from Specimen CRS, even though they are
required as per the non-seismic AISC LRFD Specification (AlSC, (999), i.e., tPR,.IRu = I
0.84. Note that this ratio is even smaller, i.e., tPR,.IRu = 0.47, when using the demand
outlined in the 1992 AlSC Seismic Provisions (AlSC, (992) for the LFB limit state. I
Because a smaller column section was intentionally chosen for the study of the LFB
I
142
I
I
I~ CJ
I limits, Specimen CRS does not meet the Strong Column-Weak Beam criterion as per the
1997 AlSC Seismic Provisions (AlSC, 1997). This test was also intended to show how
I the connection detailed with a relatively weak panel zone strength and relatively thin
flanges coupled with the omission of continuity plates could perform in cyclic loading
I applications. For this purpose, the panel zone of this specimen was designed to have a
capacity-to-demand ratio of M j Ru = 0.8S, including the doubler plates, calculated
I according to the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions CArSC, 1997).
Specimen CRS completed the SAC loading history up to 4.0% drift without
I noticeable strength degradation. Figures S.67 and S.68 show the moment vs. interstory
drift for the East and West girders of Specimen CRS, respectively. Figures S.69 through
II S.74 illustrate the performance of Specimen CRS in terms of the various plastic rotation
components. The test was stopped after completion of the II th cycle at 4.0% drift due to
I excessive strength degradation in the West girder following fracture. Table S. 12
documents the key events observed during testing of Specimen CRS, including the
I progression of yielding and fracture.
Due to the weak panel zone, Specimen CRS exhibited yielding in the panel zone
I at an early stage of the loading history. The panel zone started to yield during the 1st
cycle at I.S% drift, and fully yielded during the application of3.0% drift cycles. In
I addition, due to the smaller section of the column coupled with the weak panel zone,
relatively large column deformations were observed around the joint area as shown in
I Figure S.7S .
I The primary failure mode of Specimen CRS was low-cycle fati gue fracture in the
West girder top flange. The crack located in the West girder top flange was observed in
I the middle of the CJP weld instead of the toe of the CJP weld, where initial cracks of the
other specimens were usually observed. The initial visual indication of this crack
occurred during the 1st cycle at 4.0% drift. This crack began to propagate significantly
I around the center of the girder flange CJP weld during the Sth cycle at 4.0% drift as
I shown in Figure S.76. With the increasing number of interstory drift cycles, this crack
grew significantly, and finally the girder flange fractured through the whole flange width
I during the 7th cycle at 4.0% drift as shown in Figure S.77. Visual indications of possible
143
I
I
I
cracks in the other three girder flanges were observed at the toe of the CJP weld during I
the 2nd cycle at 3.0% drift. However, no signjficant crack opening and fracturing in these
girder flanges occurred prior to tbe fracturing in the West girder top flange during the 7th I
cycle at 4.0% drift.
Cracks at the top and bottom edges of the shear tab were observed at earlier stages I
of the interstory drift cycles. The cracks occurred first at the top and bottom edges of the
West shear tab during the application of2.0% drift. The initial cracks in the East shear I
tab were observed at its top edge during the application of 3.0% drift. However, these
cracks did not extend significantly prior to the West girder top flange fracturing at the 7th I
cycle of 4.0% drift. After completion of the 4th cycle of 4.0% interstory drift, the
maximum crack lengths were 3/4 in. at the bottom edge of the East shear tab and 112 in. I
at the bottom edge of the West shear tab.
Specimen CRS exhibited good energy dissipation capacity, as is evident from the I
hysteresis loops of connection plastic rotation shown in Figures 5.69 and 5.70. A
comparison of Figures 5.71 and 5.72 with Figure 5.74 reveals that plastic rotation was I
dominated by panel zone yielding. The panel zone behavior is discussed in detail in
Chapter 6. Both girders exceeded their nominal plastic moment capacities by I
approximately 10% during the 1st cycle of 4.0% drift, as shown in Table 5.6.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
144
I
I
I .' .~
f
'0
I Table S.l : Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR I

East Girder West Girder
I Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp
0.375+ 24.9 3281 0.26 -24.3 -3204

I 0.375' -25. 1 -33 13 -0.26 25.2 3329
-0.25
0.26
0.5+ 33.4 4406 0.35 -32.5 -4286 -0.34
I OS -33.2 -438 1 -0.35 33.8 4464 0.35
0.75+ 50.2 6629 0.52 -48.0 -6339 -0.50
I 0.75' -48.9 -6454 -0,51 50,9 671 2 0.53
1.0+ 61.6 8134 0.64 -58.0 -7653 -0.60
I 1.0'
1.5+
-59.0 -7784
9567
-0.6 1
0.75
61.6
-66.3
8130
-8757
0.64
72.5 -0.69
I IS
2.0+
-68.9
82.4
-9088
10882
-0.72
0.86
73.0
-77.3
9636
-10201
0.76
-0.80
I 2.0'
3.0+
-80.1
89.3
- 10579
11789
-0.83
0.93
81.9
-86.0
10816
-11345
0.85
-0.89
I 3.0'
4.0+
-92.1
99.3
- 12 156
13 109
-0.96
1.03
92.6
-96.9
12219
- 12794
0.96
- 1.01
4.0' - 100.9 - 13322 - 1.05 99.6 13147 1.04
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
145
I
I
I
Table 5.2: Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CRl I
Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MIMp
I
0.375+ 21.3 2809 0.22 -21.3 -2813 -0.22
0.375' -22.3 -2945 -0.23 2 1.4 2828 0.22 I
0.5+ 28.4 3748 0.30 -28.5 -3761 -0.30
OS -29.6 -3904 -0.31 28.5 3767 0.30 I
0.75+ 42.3 5578 0.44 -42.5 -5607 -0.44
0.7Y
1.0+
-44.5
54.6
-5874
7213
-0.46
0.58
43 .1
-54.7
5695
-722 1
0.45
-0.57
I
1.0'
1.5+
-58. 1
68.6
-7668
9053
-0.60
0.7 1
56.5
-68.2
7459
-9005
0.59
-0.7 1
I
IS
2.0+
-70.9
74.3
-9365
9806
-0.74
0.77
69.2
-74.2
9129
-9794
0.72
-0.77
I
no
2.0'
3.0+
-79.6
84.8
-10504
11198
-0.83
0.88 -85.5
10160
-11285
0.80
-0.89 I
3.0' -86.9 -1 1474 -0.90 85 .0 11223 0.88
4.0· 91.1 12023 0.95 -91.4 -12068 -0.95 I
4.0' -95.4 - 12598 -0.99 92.6 12228 0.96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
146
I
I
II Table 5.3: Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR3
I I Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp
0.375+ 21.6 2847 0.22 -20.9 -2754 -0.22

I 0.375" -22.4 -2954 -0.23 21.2 2794 0.22
0.5+ 28.8 3806 0.30 -28.3 -3734 -0.29
I OS -30.0 -3954 -0.31 28.1 3707 0.29
0.75+ 42.8 5652 0.45 -41.9 -5528 -0.44
I 0.75"
1.0+
-44.7 -5898 -0.46 42.3 5579 0.44
56.8 7498 0.59 -54.3 -7 173 -0.57
I 1.0·
1.5+
-58.8
74.4
-7760
9818
-0.61
0.77
57.3
-71.6
7564
-9447
0.60
-0.74
I IS
2.0+
-78.3
80.8
-10333
10659
-0.8 1
0.84
75.7
-78.6
9987
-10370
0.79
-0.82
I 2.0·
3.0+
-86. 1
92.7
-11364
12241
-0.89
0.96
83.4
-93. 1
11013
- 12293
0.87
-0.97
3.0· -95.7 -12627 -0.99 94.2 12431 0.98
I 4.0+ 101.5 13391 1.05 -102.5 -13531 -1.07
4.0· -104.9 -13849 -1.09 105.2 13880 1.09
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
147
I
I
I
Table S.4: Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR4 I
Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp
I
0.375+ 23.1 3045 0.24 -22.3 -2949 -0.23
0.37Y -22.5 -2967 -0.23 22.7 2998 0.24 I
0.5+ 30.8 407 1 0.32 -29.9 -3952 -0.3 1
OS
0.75+
-30.0 -3962 -0.31 30.2 4001 0.32 I
46.2 6 103 0.48 -44.7 -59 10 -0.47
0.7Y
1.0+
-44.9
61.6
-5927
8135
-0.47
0.64
45.7
-58.9
6052
-7794
0.48
-0.6 1
I
1.0'
1.5+
-59.3
82.6
-7829
10909
-0.62
0.86
61.0
-81.1
8076
-10679
0.64
-0.84
I
IS
2.0+
·84.1
57.2
-11103
7552
-0.87
0.59
76.6
-57.6
10231
-761 1
0.8\
-0.60 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
148
I
I
I Table 5.5: Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR4R
I Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
. (kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
M/Mp
0.375+ 23.1 3054 0.24 -22.4 -2960 -0.23

I 0.37Y -23.9 -3154 -0.25 22.4 2959 0.23
0.5+ 30.7 4049 0.32 -30.2 -399 1 -0.3 1
I OS -31.7 -4190 -0.33 29.8 3939 0.31
0.75+ 45 .8 6045 0.48 -45.4 -5987 -0.47
I 0.7Y
1.0+
-47.8 -6305 -0.50 45.1 5950 0.47
60.5 7983 0.63 -59.8 -7900 -0.62
I 1.0·
1.5+
-63.7
84.4
-8408
11144
-0.66
0.88
60.3
-83.2
7956
-10989
0.63
-0.87
I IS
2.0+
-89.3
96.5
- 11791
12737
-0.93
1.00
86.8
-94.5
11462
-12479
0.90
-0.98
I 2.0·
3.0+
-98.1
104.4
- 12946
13784
-1.02
1.09
95.2
-104.6
12570
-13804
0.99
-1.09
3.0· -107.8 -14235 - 1.12 105.6 13942 1.10
I 4.0+ 114.3 15089 1.19 -114.7 -15139 - 1.19
4.0· -I 17.3 -15478 -1.22 114.3 15087 1.19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
149
I
I
I
Table 5.6: Summary of Peak Loads and Moments for Specimen CR5 I
Drift
Cycle (%)
Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp Load
(kips)
Moment
(kip-in)
MlMp
I
0.375+ 20.4 2691.047 0.21 1893 -19.2 -2537 -0.20
0.37Y -20.8 -2743.64 -0.21603 19.5 2568 0.20 I
0.5+ 26.9 3552.1 41 0.279696 -26.4 -3491 -0.27
OS -27.9 -3682.08 -0.28993 25.8 3408 0.27 I
0.75+ 40. 1 5289.797 0.4165 19 -39.4 -5203 -0.41
0.75-
1.0+
-42. 1
52.8
-555 3.8
6970.734
-0.4373 1
0.548877
38.6
-52.6
5089
-6945
0.40
-0.55
I
1.0'
1.5+
-56.6
74.7
-7466.77
9863.39 1
-0.58793
0.776645
51.6
-74.6
6806
-9848
0.54
-0.78
I
IS
2.0+
-77.5
84.9
-10230.5
11204.02
-0.80555
0.882206
73.5
-84.9
9704
-11205
0.76
-0.88
I
2.0'
3.0+
-84.5
93.7
-1 1148.3
12364.17
-0.87782
0.973557
80.4
-93.0
10606
-12277
0.84
-0.97 I
3.0- -98.8 -13040.7 -1.02682 94.9 12525 0.99
4.0+ 103.9 13720.27 1.080336 -103.0 - 13592 - 1.07 I
4.0- -107.7 - 142 16.3 -1.1 1939 105.0 13824 1.09
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
150
I
I
rz>
I ,~.
I Table 5.7: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CRI
Drift Cycle Location/Description

I 1"@0.75%
Minor yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes; minor panel
zone yielding in center of Nortb side of web
I I" @ 1.0% Moderate panel zone yielding in both sides of column web
I I" @ 1.5%
Moderate girder flange yielding; minor local yielding on outer face of
column flanges at level of girder flanges
I 1"@ 4.0%
Complete panel zone yielding; significant column and girder flange
yielding, minor local yielding at edges of shear tabs
I 4"h @ 4.0% Initial fracture at bottom edge of West shear tab (length < 0.5 in.)
I S"h@4.0% Remaining three shear tab edges cracked
Visible LCF crack at toe of reinforcing fillet welds in center of East and
I II"h @ 4.0%
West bottom flanges
Complete fracture of East bottom flange, LCF crack in West bottom
15"h @ 4.0%
I flange continues to grow in stable manner
Crack at bottom edge orEast shear tab growing following flange
17"h@4.0%
I fracture, moderate local buckling of West bottom flange
Crack length at bottom edge of East shear tab reached approximately
IS"h@ 4.0%
half the girder depth
I 20"h @4.0% Test stopped due to excessive strength degradation in East Girder
I
I
I
I
I
lSI
I
II
I
Table 5.8: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR2 I
Drift Cycle LocationIDescription
Minor yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes

I
1" @ 0.75%
1" @ 1.0% Moderate yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I
l" @ 1.5%
Moderate panel zone yielding in doubler plate (South) and column web
(North); minor local yielding on outer face of column flanges at level of
I
girder flanges
1"@ 2.0%
Moderate local yielding on outer face of column flanges at level of I
girder flanges
1" @ 3.0% Complete panel zone yielding I

2nd @ 3.0%
Visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of CJP welds in center
of West top flange; minor local flange buckling at East bottom flange
I
1"@ 4.0% of East top flange; visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of
reinforcing fillet welds in center of West bottom flange
I
3'd @ 4.0%
Visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of reinforcing fillet
welds in center of East bottom flange I
Initial crack at top edge of East shear tab (length < 1.0 in.); initial crack
5th @ 4.0% at bottom edge of East shear tab (length < 0.5 in.); moderate local flange
buckling at all girder flanges
I
7th @ 4.0% Initial crack at top edge of West shear tab (length < 1.0 in.)
I
9th @ 4.0% Initial crack at bottom edge of West shear tab (length < 0.5 in.)
I
Significant LCF crack opening at toe ofCJP welds in center of West top
1Ith @ 4.0%
flange
I
17 th @ 4.0% Complete fracture of West top flange
I
18 th @ 4.0% Test stopped due to excessive strength degradation in West girder
I
I
152
I
I
I~
I Table 5.9: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR3
Drift Cycle LocationfDescription

I I" @0.75% Minor yielding in all girder flanges beyond CIP weld toes
I 1"@1.0% Moderate yielding in all girder flan ges beyond CIP weld toes
I I" @ 1.5%
Moderate panel zone yielding in both doubler plates; minor local
yielding on outer face of column flanges at level of girder flanges
I 1"@2.0%
Significant panel zone yielding in both doubler plates; moderate local
I 1"@3.0%
Complete panel zone yielding; minor local flange buckling at East top
flange and West bottom flange
Visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of reinforcing fillet
I 2
nd
@3.0% welds in center of East bottom flange; Visible indication of an initial
LCF crack at toe ofCJP welds in center of East top flange
Visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of CIP welds in center
I 1"@4.0%
of East top flange; minor local flange buckling at East bottom flange;
moderate local flange buckling at East top flange and West bOllom
flange
I 2nd@4.0% Initial crack at bottom edge of East shear tab; lnitial crack at top edge of
West shear tab
I 3rd @4.0%
Initial crack at top edge of East shear tab; Initial crack at bottom edge of
West shear tab
I 9 th @4.0%
Significant LCF crack opening at toe of reinforcing fillet welds in center
of East bollom flange; maximum crack lengths at top and bollom edges
of West shear tab (2 and 1.5 in., respectively)
I IOth@4.0%
Maximum crack lengths at top and bottom edges of East shear tab (0.25
and I in., respectively)
I 15 th @4.0% Complete fracture of East bottom flange
I 16th @ 4.0% Test stopped due to excessive strength degradation in East girder
I
I
153
I
I
I
Table S.10: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR4
I
Drift Cycle Location/Description
1" @ 0.7S% Minor yielding in girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I
ISl@ 1.0% Minor panel zone yielding visible near center of North doubler plate
I
2nd @ 1.0% Initial cracking in center of East top flange weld (from strain data) I
3'd @ 1.0% Initial cracking across width of West top flange weld (from strain data) I
1" @ 1.5%
Moderate beam flange yielding; visible yielding in both doubler plates;
cracks visible in East and West top flanges across entire flange width I
2nd @ 1.5% Complete fracture of West top flange
I
Complete fracture of East top flange; complete fracture of West bottom
1" @2. 0%
flange; test stopped after half-cycle
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
154
I
I
I Tab le 5.11: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR4R
Drift Cyc le Locationmescription

I 1"@ 0.75% Minor yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I I"@ 1.0% Moderate yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I I"@ 1.5% Minor panel zone yielding in both doubler plates
I 1"@3.0%
Moderate panel zone yielding in both doubler plates; minor local
I 1"@ 4.0%
Significant panel zone yielding; moderate local yielding on outer face of
column flanges at level of girder flanges
I 2nd @4.0%
Initial LCF crack along toe ofCJP welds in West top flange; Initial edge
crack at the North tip of East top flange
I 3'd@4.0% Initial crack at bottom edge of East shear tab (length < 0.25 in.)
5th @4.0%
I Initial LCF crack along toe of CJP welds in East top flange
9th @4.0% Moderate local flange buckling at East top flange and West top flange
I
IOth @ 4.0% Moderate local flange buckling at East bottom flange
I 12th@ 4.0% Significant edge crack opening at the North tip of East top flange
I 13 th @ 4.0%
Test stopped due to the fracture of East top flange and to the extensive
lateral-torsional buckling of West girder
I
I
I
I
ISS
I
I
Table 5.12: Progression of Yielding and Fracture in Specimen CR5 I
Drift Cycle LocationlDescription
ISI@ 0.75% Minor yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I
1S1@ 1.0% Moderate yielding in all girder flanges beyond CJP weld toes
I
lSI @ 1.5%
Minor panel zone yielding in doubler plates; minor local yielding on
outer face of column flanges at level of girder flanges
I
1S1@ 2.0%
Moderate panel zone yielding in doubler plates; moderate local yielding
on outer face of column flanges at level of girder flanges ; initial crack at I
top edge of West shear tab (length < 1/8 in.)
2nd@ 2.0% Initial crack at bottom edge of West shear tab (length < 1/8 in.) I
ISI@ 3.0%
Significant local yielding on outer face of column flanges at level of
girder flan ges; initial crack at top edge of East shear tab (length < 1116 I
in.); Complete panel zone yielding
2nd @ 3.0%
of East top flange; visible indication of an initial LCF crack at toe of I
reinforcing fillet welds in center of East bollom flange and West bollom
ISI@ 4.0%
flange
Visible indication ofan initial LCF crack in the middle ofCJP welds in
I
West top flange
rd
3 @ 4.0% Initial crack at bollom edge of East shear tab (length < 112 in.)
I
4Ih@ 4.0% Crack length at boll om edge of East shear tab « 3/4 in.); crack length at
bottom edge of West shear tab « 112 in.)
I
5Ih @ 4.0% Significant crack opening in the middle ofCJP welds in West top flange I
7'h@ 4.0% Complete fracture of West top flange I
II'h @ 4.0% Test stopped due to excessive strength degradation in West girder
I
I
I
156
I
I
I~
1'-'.",
<p
4>-
I
18
I ..
.!! c:
16 r-
~.2
I on; 14
~'O
't: 1!
----.,. r-
.,
oo
0", .;
-
I -&:
~
.!
=~
-
~ " 12
.0° '"
; 10
~
I
~
..
>!:'"
I ~-
.. Ii
-g.g
-'E
8
-, •
--
..
.!!
0 .'"
- 6
__ 0
. ~
I E'"
0:;
(,)
~&:
0.:
0 4
'.
-
o~ I.
I z
2
o
I CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 CR4R
Figure 5.1: Number of Completed 4.0% lnterstory Drift Cycles without Significant
CR5
I Strength Degradation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
157
I
I
I
5,----------------------------------------------. I
4
3
I
I
~
I
~ -1
~
i3
;;' -2
co
I
w
-3
-4
I
-5
0 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 I
Load Step
Figure 5_2: Displacement History of Specimen CRI I

5,----------------------------------------------,
4
I
3
I
I
I
I
-5 ~------------------------------------------------~
I
o 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000 32000 36000 40000 44000
Load Step I
Figure 5_3: Displacement History of Specimen CR2
I
158
I
I
I~
I 5 .---------------------------------------------~
4
I 3
I
I ~
-E ·1
I c:;
.
;i
w
·2
·3
I ~
I ·5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000 32000 36000 40000 44000
Load Step
I Figure 5.4: Displacement History of Specimen CR3
5 .---------------------------------------------~
I
I 3
I
·r· 1
I
I ·3
I ·5L---------------------------------------------------
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
I Load Step
Figure 5.5: Displacement History of Specimen CR4

I
159
I
I
5 I
4
3
I
~
c:
'C
0
2
I
~
£
I!!
•
:5
~
0 I
'2 ·1
i3
.. ·2 I
" ·3
w
-4
I
·5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 2()()()() 24000 28000 32000 36000 I
Load Step
Figure 5.6: Displacement History of Specimen CR4R I

5r-------------------------------------------------
4
I
3
I
II
I
I
·5 L-__________________________________________ ~
I
o 4000 8000 12000 16000 2()()()() 24000 28000 32000 36000 4()()()() 44000 48000
Load Step
I
Figure 5.7: Displacement History of Specimen CRS
I
160
I
I
I ~
I 2~ .---------------------------------------------,
I 15000
1~
I .,.C
"-
~
~
5000 I
e:
I ~
~
.
~
o I··
"(3
I
~
·5000 r
...
to
w .1~
I ·15000
_________________________________--1
I
.2~
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 002 0 03 004 0 OS

Interstory Drill (rad)
I Figure 5.8: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR 1
I 2~ ----------------------~----------------------_.
15000
I .,.C 1~
"-
I ~
.&
E
5000
-I
o ,.
~
~
.
"~
(3 ·5000
....
~ · 1~ ·
I
· 15000
.~ ----------------------------------------~
o 004
I -005 -0.04 -0.03 -0 02 -001 001 002 003 0.05
Interstory Drill (rad)
Figure 5.9: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder. RI

I
161
I
I
I
20000
I
15000
I
10000
:? 5000
I
Q.
~
.
C
E
0 I
0
~ -5000
-10000
I
-15000
I
-20000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 I
Plastic Rotation (rad)
Figure 5_]0: Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRI I

20000
15000 .
I
10000 I
:?
Q.
5000 t
I
~
. ,.... __..
-I
C 0 ",' -. ."' .
E
0
~ -5000
-10000 l
,
-15000
-20000
r
I
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
I
-0.04
Figure 5.11 : Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRI

I
162
I
I
I
'I 20000
I 15000
10000
I '2
'T
5000
a.
I 2-
c 0
~
I ~ -5000
-10000
I -15000
I -20000
-0.03 -002 -001 o
Plastic Rotation (rod)
0.01 002 003
I Figure 5.12: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerl ine, CRI
I 20000 ----------------------------------------------~
15000
I 10000
I
,.
I
I -10000
-15000
I -20000 ------------------------~------------------------
I -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 001 002 003

Figure 5.13: West Girder Plastic Rotalion Relative to Column Centerline, CRI
I
163
I
I
I
4~ r---------------------~~--------------------_.
i
I
I
.... ····r···· ..... ..... ...1'. • .. - - --- -
I
-2~
I
~~ --------------------------~------------------------~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure 5.14: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation, CRI I
40000 r-----------------------~----------------------_,
I
2~ 1 I
I
I
-2~
I
-3~
~~ ~---------------------------------------------"
I
-0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
I
-0.03
Figure 5.15: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR I

I
164
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I Figure 5.16: Low-Cycle Fatigue Fracture of East Bottom Flange, Rl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 5.17: East Bottom Flange Fracture Following Test, CRI
165
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
J
Figure 5.18: East Bottom Flange Fracture Surface After Testing, CRI
,
I
II
I
I
I
I
t
Figure 5.19: Typical Beam Web-to-Column Weld Cracking, CRI
I
166
I
I
I w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .. .......
I Figure 5.20: Typical Low-Cyc le Fatigue Cracking of Access Hole
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
t
167
I
I
I
2~ ----------------------~--------------------_,
I
15000 I
I
_ 1~
c
~ I
-~
;g. 5000
::I;
.
~
I
"i5
w
.
'Wi
-5000
-1~
t
t
-15000 I
-2~ ~----------------------~----------------------~
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01
Interstory Drift (rad)
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 I
Figure 5.21: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR2 I.
2~
15000
----------------------------------------------_,
I
C 1~ I
~
;g. 5000 .
C
~
~ 0 ·-----··---r------··---( .•• ---
I
~
"i5" -5000 t
i
~ -1~ I I
-15000 I I
-2~ ------------------------------------------------~
o
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01
Figure 5.22: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CR2
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
I
I
168
I
I
h '"
D
I ..."
II
CJ
20000
II 15000
Mp
10000
I
l. . .- - - . .
C 5000
~
I £
'ECI>
E
0 r........ . ..r o •••••• • • • • • •, . . . . •• •• - - •• • •• ," .. -,_.. ... ,_............
I
0
::Ii -5000
-10000
I -15000
Load increase following West
___
-I
top flange fracture
-20000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~======::::=... __.J
-0.04 ·0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 5.23: Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR2
II 20000 ----------:---;:::=;~~;:;;;;~~~~l
15000
I
I :?
Q.
5000 '
I -.
~
c:
E
o
a r- ············r········ . "r··---- .......- ...
::Ii ·5000 '
I -10000
M.
I
-15000 •
-20000 ------------------------~----------------------~
o
I -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 5.24: Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR2

I
169
I
I
I
2~ ---------------------------------------------,
I
15000
I
I
.................,.- ....... - .. . ·······1 ........ . ....... . I
· 1~
I
· 15000
I
J
. 2~ __________________________________________.....J
-0.03 ·0.02 ·0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03

Figure 5.25: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 I
2~ ~-------------------~---------------------_.
15000
I
I
C
'l
E
5000
I
.~
-C 0 f
I
:IE ·5000
·1~ I I
· 15000
·2~
I
o
I
-0.03 -002 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Figure 5.26: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2
I
170
I
I
....
.~
I
i 4~ r-----------------------------------------------~
II 3~
I
I I O r····· ······· ···r·· .......... "r""-' . .• .. . . • . . • -.' ---•. , •• -.- .....,
I -2~ •
t
I ~~ ~----------------------~--------------------~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.Q1 0.02 0.03
I Figure 5.27: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR2
I 3~
i
I ...... . .... .... ,-
o ···················r· "," -, '.
t
,-
! -1~ I
I - 2~ I
I ~~
o
I -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
Pla.tlc Rotation (rad)
0.Q1 002 0.03
.'
Figure 5.28: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2
171
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.29: Panel Zone Yielding and Column Local Flange Deformation, CR2
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
Figure 5.30: Significant Crack Opening in West Top Flange, CR2
I
172
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I Figure 5.31: Fracture in West Top Flange, CR2
I
1
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.32: Complete Failure of West Top Flange, CR2
I
173
I
I
I
20000
I
15000
I
10000
C
6.
a I
~ r
E
~0
I
..,-
~
-"
c; -5000
I
.
OJ
w -10000
-15000 I
-20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01
Int.,story Drift (,ad)
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 I
Figure 5.33: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR3 I
20000 ~,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
15000
I
I
-~
c: I
oI
I
~
-15000
-20000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--l
-005 -0.04 -003 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Interstory Drift (,ad)
Figure 5.34: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CRJ
174
I
I"
I 2~ r-----------------------~--------------------~
I
1~ '
I
I ,.
i -1~
t -15000
I -2~ --======='----~-----------.-I
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01
0.02 003 004
I Figure 5_35: Plastic Rotation of East Girder, CR3
I 20000 -----,r.=~~~~~---------~
Load Increase followIng East
bottom flange fradure
I
I
I
4 .,,"
I
I -2~
o
I -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01
0.02 003 0.04
Figure 5.36: Pl astic Rotation of West Girder, CR3

I
175
I
I
I
20000 r------------------------o------------------------, I
15000
I
10000
:E 5000
I
Q.
~
.
C
E
0 .... _. ----------r-------- .. -._-_ ... ------ ----- .- I
o
~ -5000
j
-10000
-15000 t
-20000 ~----------------------~----------------------~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Plastic Rotation (,ad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure 5-37: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRJ I
20000 r-----------------------~-----------------------,
15000
I
10000 I
C
6.
~
c
5000
I
.. 0 ... --------- .. -----(-------------------,- ----- ----- - - .. _-- _____ -1------_·---------·-
I
0· - •• -- - •••••••• --
E
o
~ -5000
-10000
I
I
-15000
-20000 ~----------~-----------'
o
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01
0.01 0.02 0.03
I
I
176
I
I
I D
-I
40000 r---------------------------------------------~
I
I 30000 f
20000
I e-
X 10000
~
I C
~
:Ii
0 f····· ... ··r····· ......... 'y'" •.•• ••. • ,....... .., ••.•••.•••.....•• _
.' ~ -10000
{!.
-20000
I -30000
_______________________ J
I ~oooo ----------------------~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o

0 .01 0.02 0.03
I Figure 5.39: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CRJ
I 40000 - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -____________-,
30000
I 20000 .
e-
I X
~
10000 .
l ot······ . . · .... .. . . _. .. .,. - .. . . ...... ...... ,.
I :Ii
~ · 10000 f
{!.
I -20000 I
-30000
I
I
~oooo ~
' ----------------------~--------------------~
j ·0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o

0.01 0.Q2 0.03
Figure 5.40: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRJ
I
, 177
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Figure 5.41: Panel Zone Yielding and Significant Column Deformation, CR3
I
I
I
I
I
CR3
I
E/B
I
I
Figure 5.42: Crack Opening in East Bottom Flange, CR3
I
178
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4.0%
- 15
I •
•
I Figure 5.43: Fracture in East Bottom Flange, RJ
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
179
I
I
I
20000 r----------------------------------------------, I
15000
I
10000 I
£"
a.
~
I
a_···(····· .. -···r·· •••••• -r........ I
1
I
-15000 I
-20000 ~----------------------------------------------~
.{).05 '{).04 -0.03 .{).02 .{) 01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 004 0.05 I
Inlerslory Drift (rad)
Figure 5.44: Moment VS. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR4 I
20000
15000
~---------------------------------------------,
I
.
.,.C 10000 i
-
~5000
c I
~
~ 0 r ········,·····---T-- _.- -
.
~
"E I
i3 -5000
..
Wi
~ -10000 ,
I
-15000
-20000 ~------------------------------------------~
I
.{) 05 '{).04 .{) 03 '{)02 .{).01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 005
Inlerslory Drift (rad) I
Figure 5.45: Moment VS. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4
I
180
I
I
20000
•
,
I 15000
!
M.
Progressive fradure of
10000
'C: t--:"------ Easllop flange
I .
V- (1 .5% and 2 0% cycles)
"2
~
5000
I')
I ~
.
'E
E
0 ........•. ----, .... _. _._y. ..... ....... ~.--- . .. , _._,. ... - . ,.. ... . ..
0
::E .
I
·5000 f
·10000 I'
M.
I ·15000
I ·20000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
I Figure 5.46: Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4
I 20000 ----------------------~--------------------_;
15000
M.
I 10000
r-1 ProgreSSNe fracture of
West top Hooge (1 .5% eyde.)
I
I :5
~
Q.
5000 I
,.
C
. 0 ··-------·····r'········----·. . -··· "I"" • ··-----1---
I E
o
::E ·5000
I ·10000 I
·15000 Fracture of Wesl bonom flange
I (lSI cycle 812.0%)
·20000 ~----------------------------------------------~
·0.04 -0.03 ·0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 5.47: Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4

I
18 1
I
I
I
20000 ,---------------------~--------------------_,
I
15000
I
10000
I
.............., .............. · ..r··············· I
I
-10000
-15000 I
-20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure 5.48 : East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4 I
20000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
15000 I
I
10000 I
I
-~
c:
..... --,...................,.... ..
I
::e -5000 I
-10000 r I
I
-15000 I
-20000
o 0.01 0.03
I
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.02
I
182
I
I
••
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 5.54 : Fracture of West Bottom Flange, CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
185
I
I
I
20000
I
15000 I
I
10000
:5
Q.
~ 5000
1:
~
:Ii
~
0 t ...• • .. I
GO
"C;
~
.
1ii
-5000
I
w -10000
-15000
I
-20000
-005
----------------------------------------~
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
I
Figure 5.55: Moment VS . [nterstory Drift for East Girder, CR4R I

20000 -----------------------------------------------,
I
15000
I
I
~
GO
"2
c; -5000 '
I
1ii
GO
~ -10000 • I
-15000 I I
-20000
o
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -002 -001 0.01
Inters tory Drift (rad)
0.02 003 0.04 0.05
I
Figure 5.56: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CR4R
I
186
I
I
I
I 20000 ~----~~~~~==~--------------~
I
10000 ,
I '2 5000
~
I ~
E
~
0 ········· ··· ..r .. ······· .. · •••. ,.. • •.•••••• , •••• u u ••• , . . . . . . . . . . . .
I ::I< -5000
I
I -20000 -------------------------------------------------
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 004
I Figure 5.57: Plastic Rotation of East Connection, R4R
I 20000
15000
----------------------~~--------------------_,
l
I 10000
I '2
"T
"-
~
5000
c 0 r····--_··_-_··,··· .. ,.
I ~
::I< -5000
I -10000
I
-0.03 -0.02 -001 o 002 0.03 004
Figure 5.58: Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4R

I
187
I
I
I
20000 ~------------------------------------------------.
I
15000
I
10000
:E 5000
I
Q.
-.
~
c: o ···················r···_·····,,··· ···- ...... ..-... ---r----.---·-------··
~
I
~
:IE -5000
I
-10000
-15000 , I
-20000 ~------------------------~------------------------~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure 5_59: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R I
20000 --------~--------------~-----------------------.
I
15000 I
10000 I
:E
Q.
~
5000 t
I
.
'E
E
o
0 -------.. ... ... ----,------....... ------, -- - ---_... .- ---- -- -•.. -,.----------------.. ,-... -.-- .......... .
I
:IE -5000
-10000
I
I
-15000
-20000 _____________________ ~ ____________________....J
o
I
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Figure 5_60: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R
I
188
I
I
I~ \
oJ:
I 40000 r-------------------------~------------------------~
I 30000
20000
I :s-a. 10000
I
~
I c
~
:IE
o .........•... ._.,...............
3o
I ....
-10000
-20000
I -30000
I
40000 L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03

I Figure 5.61: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4R
I 40000 r-------------------------~------------------------,
30000
I 20000
:s-a.
I ~
c
10000
o f·········· ·········r .....•- ", ..

~
I :IE
~ -10000 t
....
I -20000 •
~
I
-30000
40000 ------------------------~----------------------~
o
I ·0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Figure 5.62: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R
I
189
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Crack on West Girder Top Flange, CR4R
I
-- .:-
•
• I
-: ..
.. I
.-;.: .
#
t
., ~ . .
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.64: Fracture of East Girder Top Flange, CR4R
I
190
I
I
Figure 5.65: Crack following Bevel of the Base Metal at East Girder Top Flange. R4R
Figure 5.66: Lateral-Torsional Buckling in the West Girder, CR4R
191
I
20000 I
15000
I
10000
C
~
;g. 5000
I
'E.,
~
~
E
0
0 .. --' ___ 0,-- --.•••.. "1- ••• _•••• _-
I
"E"
(3
~
co
w -10000
-5000
I
-15000 I
-20000 L-______________________ ______________________
I
~ ~
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure 5.67: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR5 I
20000 - - - -- ------------------------------------------,
15000
I
C 10000 I
~ I
;g.
~
5000
I
J 0 ~ ..........., ..........•." ......... ""-...../ /..... - /.
~
~ -5000 I I
~
I I
GO
~ -10000
-15000
-20000 ~----------------------~----------------------~
I
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Interstory Drift (rad) I
Figure 5.68: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CR5
I
192
I
I
I :,
~
I I
______ ___________
20000 I Load Increase following West
top flange fracture
I 1~ ~t ________ ~M~P~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

10000
I
I -
c o .--------------r------------- ----------. ·t···· · ·· .. ..... ,.. -
.. . . ... _,.... - .......
~
o
I ::E -5000
I
-10000
-1~ I ~ ____________ ~~;:~~~~~==~~~~~~~M;P~~ Load Increase folk:lwlng West

top flange fracture
____ ~
I -20000
-0_04 -0 _03 -0.02 -0_01 o 0.01 0.02 0_03 0.04
I Figure 5_69: Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR5
I 20000
I 10000
I :?5OOO
Q.
B-
e 0 i·······
I ~
::E -5000
I -10000
Mp
I -15000 I
-20000
o 0_01
I -0_04 -0.03 -0.02 -0 _01
0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 5_70 : Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRS

I
193
I
I
I
20000 I
15000 '
I
10000
C 5000
I
X
~
'E 0 .... -_._--.......,..... ... ",- . 0. . - •• ~.-.---- .1 .. . ...-_ • • ••••••••.
I
~
" ·5000
· 10000
I
· 15000 I
· 20000 ~-----------'--------------'
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure 5.71: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 I
20000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
15000 I I
10000 , I
C
X
~
5000 ·
I
c
. 0 f .••• u.... -- T ·0'
8
" ·5000
I
· 10000
I
· 15000 I
·20000 ~--------------------- __________________.....J
I
-0.03 -0.02 ·0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
Plastic Rotation (rad) I
I
194
I
I
40000 ,-------------------------------------------------,
I 30000
20000
I c
X 10000
~
I .
C
E
o ------------------·r--·· ... ,.................. .
o
I
:IE
~
~
-10000 I
-20000
I -30000
I
~oooo L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ______________________ ~
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03

I Figure 5.73: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation, CR5
I 40000 -------------------------------------------------,
30000
I 20000
c
I !c
10000 t
~ 0 f' .................( •......... . ... ~.
I o
:IE
~ -10000
~
I -20000 I
I -30000 '
~oooo ------------------------~----------------------~
o 0.01 0.02 0.03
I -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
Figure 5.74: Panel Zone Plastic ROlalion Relative 10 Column Centerline, CR5
I
195
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.75: Panel Zone Yielding and Significant Column Defomlation, CR5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
196
I
I
I~ ,~,
,"".
I
I
I
I
•
•
I
I . '. .. . -
. .. .....
I
"
~ ~
I ;'· :'
.... .' ~..'.. . .
~
• # )
' Jy'"
~ .. '• • • .!I.'> ' , ' .<~_
. 1'_,., . .
...... . 10. "M,;l.
~.!
I Figure 5.77: Fracture in West Girder Top Flange, CR5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
197
I
I
I
Chapter 6 I
I
Analysis and Discussion of Test Results I
I
The results of the cruciform tests are compared and further analyzed in this
cbapter. A description of the finite element modeling of these specimens conducted by I
Ye et al. (2000) is presented, followed by a comparison of the global computational
results to the experimental results of the five specimens. The panel zone behavior of I
these specimens is analyzed in terms of the average shear deformation and localized
strain responses. Progression of panel zone yielding is further analyzed for each I
specimen based on the measured strain and LVDT readings. Panel zone behavior in its
elastic range and effects of large panel zone deformation on connection performance are I
also discussed. The shear force vs. deformation responses of the panel zone are
compared to the current AISC Seismic Provisions for panel zones (AlSC, 1997). I
A second model of post-elastic panel zone behavior is then developed from the
original Fielding and Huang model (1971) and modified based on the experimental I
results. The application of this modified Fielding and Huang model is evaluated through
comparisons with the selected 49 past test results, including the five cruciform specimens I
tested in the present research. Required panel zone thicknesses determined from the
AISC Provisions (1992, 1997), the modified Fielding and Huang model , and the SAC I
Recommended Seismic Design Criteria (FEMA, 2000a) are also compared and the
differences are discussed. I
In order to provide a panel zone design strength corresponding to the
experimental results, it is proposed that the AISC (1997) panel zone equation should be I
scaled down. To investigate this recommendation, a new methodology for scaling the
panel zone design strength and associated demand based on the experimental resu lts is I
198
I
I
I
I,
I explored. The results presented in this chapter call into question several aspects of the
A1SC (1997) panel zone design criteria.
I The LFB behavior of the five specimens (other than CR4) is discussed in detail in
Section 6.4, and the results are compared to the yield mechanism limit state criteria
I developed by Prochnow et al. (2000a). In order to investigate the effects of column

stiffening detail on the strain distributions in girder flanges, strains in the longitudinal
I direction of the girder were also compared among the five specimens in ection 6.5.
Finally, Section 6.6 provides a summary comparison of the relative performance of the
I six cruciform experiments.
I 6.1 Comparison of Experim ental Behavior and Finite Element
I Analysis
Finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted on the five cruciform specimens for
I comparison to the experimental results. A detailed discussion of the models and results
can be found in Ye et aI. (2000). For computational efficiency, half of each specimen
I was modeled, using the mid-plane of the girder and column webs as a plane of sym metry.
The nominal dimensions of all shapes were used to construct the models.
I Eight-node solid elements were used in the connection region, while two-node
beam elements were used for the portions of girders and columns expected to remain
I elastic. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 illustrate features of a typical model. Four layers of solid
elements were used through the thickness of the girder flanges, girder webs, and column
I webs. Three layers were used through the thickness of the column flanges. Smaller
element sizes were used in the connection regions in areas of expected high stress and
I strain gradients. The welds connecting the girder flanges and web to the column, as well
as all stiffener welds, were explicitly modeled. Meshes were refined until convergence
I was seen in the results (Ye et aI., 2000). A typical mesh consisted of24,31 0 elements
and 88,342 nodes.
I The boundary conditions and loading of the models represented those used in the
experiments. The column was pinned at the bonom and roller-supported at the top,
I allowing for vertical translation. A displacement controlled, anti-symmetric load history

199
I
I
I
was applied to the ends of the girders. For computational efficiency, monotonic
displacements were applied to the girders at the same drift increments as used in the
I
experiments and specified by the SAC Protocol (1997). The quasi-static, cyclic loading
of the tests was not modeled.
I
The yield and tensile strength properties used in the models from Ye et al. (2000)
were taken from mill report data. The shape of the stress-strain curve was based on a
I
study by Frank (FEMA, 2000c), and is shown in Figure 6.3. Referring to this figure, the I
actual mill yield and tensile strengths, Fyand Fu , were used in place of the statistical
values of 1.09Fyn and 1.45Fyn , where Fyn is the nominal yield strength of the steel (i.e., 50 I
ksi). The static, nonlinear analyses were conducted accounting for both material and
geometric nonlinearity. The results from the FEA are plotted for comparison to the I
experimental behavior. In this section, only global quantities are compared. These
include load vs. interstory drift, moment vs. connection plastic rotation, and load vs . I
panel zone shear deformation.
Figures 6.4 through 6.8 show comparisons between the experimental and I
computational load vs. interstory drift for the five specimens. The experimental curve is
a skeleton curve based on the peak positive loads in the East girder. The peak loads from I
the first cycle at each drift level are used. In all cases, the FEA results are plotted to an
interstory drift level of 4.0%, corresponding to the maximum experimental drift. These I
plots reveal a good correlation between the experimental and computational results.
Nonlinearity was observed earlier in the tests than predicted by the numerical analysis, I
possibly due to residual stress effects, which were not modeled in the FEA. The loads
from the FEA are also somewhat under-predicted at larger drift levels (i.e. , 3.0 and 4.0% I
drift). This is primarily due to the effects of cyclic strain hardening which were also not
modeled in the monotonic analyses. I
Figures 6.9 through 6.13 show comparisons of experimental and computational
moment vs. connection plastic rotation for the five specimens. Experimental skeleton I
curves were determined in the manner described above. All specimens show a
reasonable correlation between the experiment and FEA results . At 4.0% drift, the total I
200
I
I
I
1=,...
'1
II connection plastic rotation is predicted within a maximum error range of 15% (CR 1),
14% (CR2), 15% (CR3), 16% (CR4R), and 17% (CR5), respectively.
II Figures 6.14 through 6.18 compare the experimental and computational panel
zone shear deformation for the five specimens. These plots show girder load vs. panel
I zone shear deformation. Experimental skeleton curve loads were determined from the
average of the East and West girder end loads at the drift peaks. Again, data from the
I first peak at each drift level is used to construct the curves. These five figures show that
the elastic stiffness of the panel zone was underpredicted by the FEA in all cases.
I Despite the differences in elastic behavior, Figures 6.14 through 6.18 show that the finite
element model predicted the inelastic panel zone behavior of the five specimens well,
I with the exception of Specimen CR5. At 4.0% drift, the panel zone deformations were
predicted within a maximum error range of2% (CRI), 10% (CR2), 3% (CR3) 12%
I (CR4R), and 25% (CRS), respectively. Only two specimens (i.e., Specimens CR3 and
CR4R) slightly passed the predicted panel zone shear deformation at 4.0% drift.
I
6.2 Panel Zone Behavior
I Chapter 5 presented the general behavior of the five specimens (other than CR4).
This section further discusses the observed behavior of the panel zone in terms of stress
I and strain distributions, global and local deformation characteristics, and their potential
effects on connection performance. The behavior presented is useful in providing insight
I into the pros and cons of the present AISC design procedures available for panel zones.
The panel zone instrumentation was discussed in Section 4.3 .
I
6.2.1 Progression of Panel Zone Yielding
I Figures 5.14, 5.27, 5.39, 5.61, and 5.73 showed the global moment vs. panel zone
I shear deformation responses of the five specimens. As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1, this
weak panel zone design philosophy was adopted for all tests to allow for investigation of
the design criteria, and to thoroughly test the column stiffening details. The associated
I deformations also allow for an investigation into the effects of large panel zone
I
201
I
I
I
distortions on moment connection performance, and provide further information on I
general panel zone behavior.
Figures 6.19 through 6.23 show the progression of panel zone yielding in I
Specimen CRI through the 4.0% drift cycles. As discussed in Chapter 5, the flIst visible
yielding initiated during the 0.75% drift cycles, but the yielding was very localized. I
Widespread yielding was flISt visible during the 1.0% drift cycles (See Figure 6.19). The
panel zone was essentially fully yielded during the 3.0% drift level (See Figure 6.22). I
Figure 6.23 shows the panel zone following the test.
Specimen CR2 through the 4.0% drift cycles. The first visible yielding initiated in the
column web during the 1.0% drift cycles, and widespread yielding was first visible in I
both column web and doubler plate during the 1.5% drift cycles (See Figure 6.24). The
panel zone significantly yielded during the 2.0% drift cycles (See Figure 6.25) and I
finally, was fully yielded during the 3.0% drift level (See Figure 6.26). Figure 6.27
shows the panel zone yielding during the 1st cycle of 4.0% drift. I
Figures 6.28 through 6.31 show the progression of panel zone yielding in
Specimen CR3 through the 4.0% drift cycles. The panel zone behavior of Specimen CR3 I
was similar to that of Specimen CR2. The first visible yielding initiated in the panel zone
during the 1.0% drift cycles, and widespread yielding was first visible in doubler plates I
during the 1.5% drift cycles (See Figure 6.28). The panel zone was fully yielded during
the 3.0% drift cycles (See Figure 6.30). Figure 6.31 shows the panel zone yielding I
during the I $I cycle of 4.0% drift.
Specimen CR4R through the 4.0% drift cycles. Due to the relatively stronger panel zone,
the [lrst visible yielding in the panel zone initiated later than the other four specimens. I
The panel zone slightly yielded in the doubler plates during the 1.5% drift cycles (See
Figure 6.32). Significant yielding was observed during the 3.0% drift cycles (See Figure I
6.34), but the panel zone was not full y yielded. Figure 6.35 shows the panel zone
yielding during the 1st cycle of 4.0% drift.
I
I
202
I
I
I-
I Figures 6.36 through 6.39 show the progression of panel zone yielding in
Specimen CRS through the 4.0% drift cycles. Moderate yielding was observed in the
I doubler plates during the 2.0% drift cycles (See Figure 6.37). This panel zone
significantly yielded during the 3.0% drift cycles (See Figure 6.3 8) and fully yielded
I during the 4.0% drift cycles. Figure 6.39 shows the panel zone yielding during the III
cycle of 4.0% drift.
I
6.2.2 Panel Zone Behavior in the Elastic Range
I As panel zone deformation is a shearing phenomenon, the present AISC (1993,
1997, I 999a, 200 I) provisions for panel zone strength (Equation 2.1) are based on an
I assumption of pure, uniform shear deformation. While the shear is not truly uniform in
the panel zone region, this approach has been believed to be sufficient in predicting the
I onset of global panel zone behavior, especially in the elastic range.
The assumption of pure shear in the panel zone is investigated by comparing the
I strain histories of the two rosettes in the elastic range, as shown in Figures 6.40 through
6.49. Figures 6.40, 6.42, 6.44, 6.46, and 6.48 show the strain history of the rosette
I located in the center of the panel zone (gage ne_3pz_hr. see Figure 4.7), while Figures
6.41 6.43,6.45.6.47, and 6.49 show the strain history for the rosette in the bottom East
I comer of the panel zone (gage ne_lpzp, see Figure 4.7). All of these plots are
presenting data through the 0.75% drift cycles. The 45° diagonal gages on the rosettes
I are designated the "b" channels (e.g. ne_lpzJrb). If pure shear exists at the strain gage
location, only this diagonal channel will read a strain. The horizontal and vertical
I components of strain are zero in a location of pure panel zone shear. Note that
"horizontal" refers to the direction along the girder length, and "vertical" refers to the
I direction along the column height. The "a" gages (e.g., ne_lpzpo) denote the
horizontal channel of the rosettes, and the "c" gages (e.g., ne_lpzJrc) denote the vertical
I rosette channels.
I As Figures 6.40, 6.42, 6.44, 6.46, and 6.48 show, it can be assumed that the center
of the panel zone is under a state of nearly pure shear stress. Only the diagonal gages
I show significant cyclic strain variations through the 0.75% drift cycles. Specimens CR2
203
I
I
I
and CR3 show some strain variations in the horizontal and vertical gages, but the I
variations are very small and thus negligible. Figures 6.41 , 6.43, 6.45, 6.47, and 6.49, on
the other hand, show very different behavior at the corner of the panel zone. Clearly I
shown by the plots are the effects of the concentrated girder flange force delivered to the
panel zone near the gage location. The horizontal component of strain is approximately I
equal in magnitude to the diagonal component in most of the five specimens. This
horizontal strain is due to the concentrated girder flange force, and represents the effects I
of LWY near the girder flange. As shown by Prochnow et aI. (2000a) and Ye et aI.
(2000), however, the L WY strains drop off rapidly from the point of load application. I
Figures 6.50 and 6.51 show the elastic shear stress contours in the panel zone of
Specimen CRI at the 0.375% and 0.5% drift levels, respectively. The rosettes, placed as I
shown in Figure 4.7, with symmetry assumed about the column and girder centerlines,
were used to map the stresses over the entire panel zone. The figures show that shear I
stresses are fairly uniform over most of the panel zone, but decrease substantially at the
corners. I
In summary, the stress and strain state within the panel zone was dominated by
shear. In the elastic range, fairly uniform shear stresses existed throughout most of the I
panel zone, with a rapid drop towards the corners. Most of the panel zone also
experienced an essentially pure state of shear, with one exception to this observation I
occurring at the corners of the panel zone near the concentrated girder flange forces.
Significant horizontal strains were inducf!d by these flange forces, representing the strains I
governing the L WY limit state. These horizontal strains became negligible by the mid-
height location of the panel zone, and did not affect the global shearing behavior. An I
important finding from this research is that this pattern of stress was consistently
exhibited in panel zones of a specimen having no doubler plates, in specimens with one- I
sided and two-sided fillet-welded doubler plates, and in a specimen with an offset doubler
plate detail. This behavior is consistent with and corroborates similar findings reported in
I
past experimental and computational research, e.g., Krawinkler et al. (1971), Ye et al.
(2000).
I
I
204
I
I
I
I 6.2.3 Effects of Large Panel Zone Deformation
One effect of the large panel zone distortions evident in Figure 6.23 is the kinking
I that occurs in the column flanges at the level of the girder flanges . As discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3, this phenomenon has been repeatedly ob erved (KrawinkJer et aI.,
I 1971 ; Popov et aI., 1986; EI-Tawil et aI., 1998; Choi et aI., 2000; Ye et aI., 2000) and
hypothesized to affect connection perfonnance (Roeder and Foutch, 1996; SAC, 1996;
I Choi et aI., 2000; Ricles et aI., 2000a). Figure 6.23 showed the defonned profile of the
column following testing of Specimen CR I . The kinks in the column flanges near the
I comers of the panel zone are clearly visible. Figure 6.52 shows a closer view of the
column flanges near one of the Specimen CR I girder flanges following testing. ote the
I concentrated yielding in the column flange at this location. Yielding through the
thickness of the column flanges indicates evidence of plastic hinge fonnation . The
I fonnation of this plastic hinge was accounted for in the post-yield panel zone strength
models discussed in Chapter 2. The Fielding and Huang (1971) model explicitly
I incorporates the plastic capacity of the column flanges, while the Krawinkler model
(1978) was based on a rotational spring representation of these hinge locations.
I The strain gages placed along the column height near the East girder bottom
flange funher illustrate the concentrated defonnation at this location. Figures 6.53
I through 6.62 show the longitudinal strain profiles in the column flange near the East
girder bottom flange under tensile and compressive girder flange loading, respectively.
I Refer to Figures 4.14 and 4.15 for the names and locations of the strain gages. Figures
6.53 through 6.62 show very large strain gradients in the vicinity of the girder flange.
I Strains near the girder flange due to the large panel zone deformation are several times
larger than the nominal flexural strains in the column. At 4.0% drift, strains of
I approx.imately 7000 fiE exist at the level of the girder flange and drop to approximately
I 600 flE at a location 12 in. below the bottom flange in Specimens CRI and CR2. The
other specimens also show similar strain patterns following the column flanges, but th
I variation is somewhat smaller. This is particularly true when the bottom girder flange is
in tension for Specimen CRJ, which has a continuity plate, and Specimen CR4 , with the
I offset box detail , although the strain gradients in these columns pick up again when the
205
I
I
I
girder flange goes into compression. These strains due to kinking of the column flanges
are further discussed in the context of local flange bending in Section 6.4.
I
The potential detrimental effects of these kinking deformations in the panel zone I
are due to the demands such deformations place on the moment connections. Large panel
zone deformations are a stable energy dissipation mechanism. However, this mode of I
deformation becomes undesirable if it reduces the performance of the moment
connections. The moment connections are also relied upon to provide substantial energy I
dissipation through girder plastic hinge formation. Not only can a weak panel zone
prevent development of the full plastic capacity of the girders, but the resulting I
deformations have also been thought to accelerate failure of the girder-to-column
connection. I
Experiments by Krawinkler et al. (1971) revealed the effects of excessive panel
zone distortion. The kinks in the column flanges caused local deformations in the girder I
flanges, which led to low-cycle fatigue cracking of the copes and girder flange-to-column
flange welds. Analyses by Lee et al. (1997) showed the effects of panel zone I
deformation on the elastic stress state at the girder-to-column connection. The column
bending (i.e., kinking) associated with panel zone deformation caused an increase in local I
deformation of the girder flanges, and focused a significant portion of the girder shear
force into the flanges. Furthermore, because shear deformations in the panel zone are I
opposite those in the girder web at a location removed from the connection, a restraint
condition at the column face is created that further increases the redistribution of forces I
into the girder flanges. Computational studies by Chi et al. (2000) and Mao et al. (200 I)
also predicted the effects of large panel zone deformations. Chi et al. (2000) showed that I
flange weld toughness demands dramatically increased for the case of weak panel zones,
this being at least partially attributable to kinking of the column flanges adjacent to the I
welds. The study by Mao et al. (2000) showed that the deformations in a weak panel
zone increase the potential for ductile fracture at the ends of girder web-to-column I
groove welds and cause a local prying effect in the girder flange welds. Experiments by
Ricles et al. (2000a) confirmed the earlier onset of cracking in the web groove welds of I
specimens with weak panel zones.
I
206
I
I
~
,~
I 00
t '
I Test results of the five specimens were consistent with the observations above.
As presented in Chapter 5, first cracking often occurred at the top or bottom edges of the
I shear tab in most of the specimens, although ultimately low-cycle fatigue cracking in the
girder flanges was the prevalent mode of connection failure. It may be reasonable to
I assume then, that the large panel zone deformation and the associated kinking of the
column flange did contribute to the failure of the specimen. However, because
I significant cracking associated with strength degradation did not initiate until the 4.0%
drift cycles in most specimens, it cannot be concluded that the weak panel zone caused
I premature failure of the connection. To the contrary, the test results clearly show that,
when properly detailed, good connection performance can be achieved even in the
I presence of the demands due to a weak panel zone. The onset of low-cycle fatigue may
have been delayed further, however, had a stronger panel zone been provided.
I
6.2.4 AISC Panel Zone Provisions
I This section further explores the issue of panel zone yielding in the context of
AISC design provisions. The current AISC strength provisions for seismic panel zone
I design (AISC, 1997) recognize a significant post-elastic strength contributed by the
boundary elements of the panel zone. This is primarily governed by the thickness of the
I column flanges. To restate, the design shear strength is given by:
I (2.1)
I where:
R. = nominal panel zone shear strength
I ¢V = resistance factor = 1.0 [modified from 0.75 by AISC (2001)]

Fyc = minimum specified column yield stress
I bel =column flange width

lel= column flange thickness
I de = column depth
dg = girder depth
I Ip = panel zone thickness
207
I
I
The post-elastic contribution (given by the second term in parentheses) increases
I
with the square of the column flange thickness. Thus, this term becomes large for
heavier columns, especially those without panel zone reinforcement. This results in an
I
increase in recognized strength for the five specimens beyond the AISC nominal shear
yield panel zone strength ofO.6Fycdclp of 39.4% (CRI), 17.1 % (CR2), 11.9% (CR3),
I
9.3% (CR4R), and 8.0% (CRS) . Note that tp includes the thickness of doubler plates. I
The above post-elastic contributions result in design strengths (i.e., ¢,R.) of 903 kips
(CRI), 824 kips (CR2), 935 kips (CR3), 1163 kips (CR4R), and 924 kips (CR5), using I
the minimum specified yield strength of 50 ksi . These strengths increase to 945 kips
(CRI), 890 kips (CR2), 1075 kips (CR3), 1322 kips (CR4), and 1085 kips (CRS) when I
the measured yield strengths (See Table 3.4) are used. (The measured yield strengths
used throughout Chapter 6 are the dynamic yield strengths, i.e., the 0.2% offset yield I
strengths.) In contrast, the nominal yield strengths (0.6Fycdclp ) were 648 kips (CRI), 704
kips (CR2), 836 kips (CR3), 1064 kips (CR4R), and 856 kips (CR5), respectively, using I
nominal material properties.
As discussed in Section 3.3.3 .1, the panel zones of the cruciform specimens were I
not designed such that ¢,R. ~ R•. Rather, a weak panel zone design approach was used to
ensure all panel zones exceeded the design deformation of 4Yy implied by Equation 2.1. I
As such, a comparison of the five specimen's behavior to the AISC provisions involves
comparing the experimental shear forces carried by the panel zones to the predicted I
forces (i.e., ¢,R. = 945 kips in the case of Specimen CRI when the measured yield
strength is used) at the deformation level of 4 Yy. The experimental panel zone shear
I
forces were calculated from the following :
V = M,OI -V
I
(6.1 )
dg '
where:
F
I
Vpz = experimental panel zone shear
M,o' = total moment at the column face = P,o,Lg
I
I
208
I
I
,'-
, P,., = absolute value of the sum of actuator loads
, Lg = girder length to column face

V. = column shear
I The fIrSt term of Equation 6. 1 is the sum of the girder flange forces delivered to the
connection region, and the second is the column shear. The column shear, V., is
I calculated from statics on the specimen dimensions of Figure 3.7, resulting in the
expression:
I V = P,.. (L, +dJ 2)

• L ~.~
•
I where:
L. = column height measured between load pin centerlines
I
Combining Equations 6.1 and 6.2 yields the final expression for calculating the
I experimental panel zone shear force:
I V
I"
=P.
"" d
(!2, (L. +d./2))
L. (6.3)
I Skeleton curves of panel zone shear forces in the fi ve specimens were developed
using Equation 6.3, and the actuator load data from each interstory drift level. The first
I positive and negative peak at each drift level was used to generate the curve data.
Figures 6.63 through 6.67 show the skeleton curves, along with the experimental data and
I the AlSC (1997) shear capacities from Equation 2.1 using both nominal and measured
material propert.ies (see Table 3.4). The measured yield strengths of the column web are
I used. The horizontal axis is normalized by the shear yield deformation, 1)'0 equal to
FI"3G. Measured yield strength values are used for the normalization. Positive shear
I corresponds to positive loading, defined previously as downward displacement of the

East girder tip.
I A predicted curve can be generated from Equation 2.1, using the same bi-linear
approximation adopted by Krawinkler (1978). The first portion of the curve is defined by
I
209
I
I
the elastic stiffness, and is valid to general shear yielding of the panel zone (Vy =
0.6Fycdclp ) :
I
K=
dV
• -dy =dIG
C p
(0 < y$ JY) (6.4) I
where: I
K. = elastic panel zone stiffness
G = shear modul us of elasticity = 11,150 ksi I
The second portion of the curve is defined by the post-elastic stiffness, and is valid to a I
shear deformation of 4 JY. This deformation level was selected by Krawinkler (1978) as a
limit to avoid excessive panel zone deformation. The shear force at this point (i.e., 4JY) is I
that given by Equation 2.1 . This post-elastic stiffness, K", is:
K
dV bc/{~G
=-=~"'-- (6.5)
I
P dy d,
I
Potential shortcomings of the current design methodology have been discussed in
other research, dating back to the original publication of the model by Krawinkler (1978).
I
The small member sizes from the tests used to develop Equation 2.1 were noted, and
caution was suggested when extrapolating the results to larger columns. The finite
I
element study by EI-Tawil et al. (1998) indicated the present provisions underestimate
the panel zone shear strength when the column flanges are very thick. The finite element
I
models of the five specimens in the present research yielded predicted panel zone
strengths at a deformation of 4yy averaging approximately 80% of the shear given by
I
Equation 2.1 eYe et ai., 2000). This is consistent with the experimental results of the five
specimens.
I
In order to evaluate the current AISC (1997) panel zone provisions, the curves
developed by Equations 6.4 and 6.5 are ploned for each specimen and compared with the
I
experimental data in Figures 6.63 through 6.67. Both the nominal and measured yield
strengths of the column web are used in the equations. It is evident from these figures
I
that the panel zone design shear strength given by Equation 2.1 is significantly
I
210
I
I
I '·
I overestimated. For example, at 41), the shear carried by the panel zone in Specimen
CRI, the specimen with the thickest column flanges , was approximately 700 kips even
I though Equation 2.1 predicted 903 kips for the W 14x283 column (See Figure 6.63) using
nominal material properties; the discrepancy is more severe using the measured yield
I strength for the strength prediction. While the A1SC (1997) nominal shear capacity of
903 kips was eventually reached in this specimen, it did not occur until a deformation of
I over II rY. corresponding to the 4.0% interstory drift cycles. This suggests that a re-
evaluation of the present design provisions for panel zone is warranted. Thus, in the
I following section, an alternate model for predicting the post-elastic strength of the panel
zone is developed.
I
6.3 Alternate Model for Post-Yield Panel Zone trength
I As discussed in Chapter 2, significant strength beyond general yielding of panel
zones was also noted by Fielding and Huang ( 1971 ). Using symmetry at the mid·height
I of the panel zone, a frame consisting of two fixed-base cantilevers (representing the
column flanges) connected by a rigid link at the top was used by Fielding and Huang
I (1971) to model the post-elastic stiffness of the joint region (See Figure 2.1 a). In this
section, in order to develop an alternative design equation to the present Al C provisions
I (1997) for panel zones, the Fielding and Huang (1971) model is modified to better model
I the panel zone post-elastic behavior. Design application of this modified Fielding and
Huang (1971) model are verified through comparisons with the experiments from the
I present research and with results of other tests that exceeded the deformation of 4JY in the
panel zones.
I 6.3.1 Modified Fielding and Huang Model
I While modeling the effect of the column flanges in the original Fielding and
Huang (1971) model is reasonable, the boundary conditions do not reflect the behavior
I observed in numerous tests. Figure 2.1a implies hinging of the column flanges at mid-
height of the panel zone, and bending deformations of the flanges with curvatures
I opposite of the typically observed deformations. In the revised model, shown in Figure
211
I
I
I
6.68, the fixed bases of Figure 2.1a are replaced with pin supports, and the rigid link is
replaced with an infinitely rigid member. The pinned ends represent the inflection points
I
seen at mid-height of deformed panel zones, and the infinitely rigid girder represents the
restraint imposed on the panel zone by the columns above and below the panel zone.
I
This revised model is essentially a restatement of the Fielding and Huang (1971) model,
and gives the same stiffness, as will be shown below. Plastic hinges are assumed to form
I
at the tops of the flange cantilevers (i.e., at the corners of the panel zone), consistent with
experimental observations. The model also predicts the reverse curvarure bending
I
deformation typically exhibited by panel zones.
The elastic lateral deflection of the frame shown in Figure 6.68 is expressed as:
I
t. = .!.( dV/ J (6.6)
I
2 3£11
where: I
t. = lateral deflection = I·dy
dV/ = incremental panel zone shear force carried by colwnn flanges
I
1= height of frame model =d/ 2
£ = modulus of elasticity
I
Ij = moment of inertia of individual colwnn flange
I
Substituting Wdy) for the deflection, 6., d,J2 for the height, I, and bcl J/ 12 for the column
flange moment of inertia, II, into Equation (6.6) and rearranging results in the post-yield
I
panel zone stiffness of the modified Fielding and Huang model:
dV 2£b<ll~
I
K = -I= - +-'"- (6.7)
p dy d2
• I
The stiffness given by Equation 6.7 implies that the additional shear force carried by the
panel zone following the shear yielding is resisted entirely by elastic bending of the I
column flanges.
Equation 6.7 is equivalent to the original Fielding and Huang ( 1971) post-yield I
stiffness given previously by Equation 2.5, following substitution of the expression for
I
212
I
I
I~
•
I the flange moment of inertia. Like Krawinkler (1978), this model is assumed herein to be
valid up to a shear deformation of 4JY. Beyond this deformation level, significant
I inelasticity will develop in the column flanges (i.e., column flange kinking), and Equation
6.6 is no longer valid. Assuming a maximum deformation of 4yy, the ultimate shear
I strength of the panel zone can be expressed by the following (from Krawinkler, 1978):
=vY 3Kp)
I R,
(1+ - K
,
(6.8)
I In the proposed new panel zone strength model, the elastic stiffness (See Equation
6.4) is used without any change. Substituting Equations 6.4 and 6.7 into Equation 6.8,
I and replacing E with 2.6G yields a new ultimate strength criterion for panel zones:
I R, = 0.6Fycde l p ( 1+ -15.6bcfl~)
=--,,"--"-
1
(6.9)
d , del p
I Equation 6.9 is similar in form to the AISC panel zone provisions (Equation 2.1),
and can also be plotted as a bi-linear curve. In Figures 6.69 through 6.73 , the panel zone
I strength curve developed by Equation 6.9 is plotted along with the AISC model
(Equation 2.1, developed from Equations 6.4 and 6.5) and the experimental data for each
I specimen. Both the nominal and measured yield strengths of the column web are used in
Equations 2.1 and 6.9. These figures reveal that Equation 6.9 more accurately captures
I the post-yield strength at 4JY than does the current A1SC equation. Compared to the
predicted post-yield strength increase of39.4% (CRI), 17.1% (CR2), 11.9% (CR3), 9.3%
I (CR4R), and 8.0% (CRS) in Equation 2.1, Equation 6.9 predicts an increase of 17.5%
(CRI), 5.3% (CR2), 3.3% (CR3), 2.6% (CR4R), and 1.9% (CRS), respectively.
I Despite the improvement, Equation 6.9 still over-predicts the panel zone shear
strength at the design deformation of 4yy , especially for Specimens CR3 and CR4R. It is
I clear that part of the discrepancy is the assumed yield strength of the panel zone (Vy =
0.6Fycticlp ), i.e. the panel zone shear force at 1JY in Figures 6.69 through 6.73 . These
I figures show that yielding of the panel zone begins at loads below this value (V,.=
O.6Fycticlp ). The SAC State of the Art Report on Connection Performance (FEMA,
I
213
I
I
2000b) discussed the differences between the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) and the
Krawinkler (1978) derivation (Equation 2.6). The use of the 0.6 factor on shear yield
I
strength as opposed to 0.55 results in a 9% difference between the nominal panel zone
yield strengths. While the use of 0.6F~ can be reasonably argued for other shear
I
applications, this appears unconservative when applied to panel zones. The use ofO.55F~
may be more appropriate in this case (FEMA, 2000b).
I
Two modifications to Equation 5.9 are now presented. First, 0.6Fyc is replaced
with 0.55Fyc to more accurately reflect the onset of yielding in the panel zone. Second,
I
the 15 .6 factor in the post-yield term is conservatively rounded down to 15. This was I
also done upon adoption of the Krawinkler formula (Equation 2.6) by the UBC code
(1988), which rounded the factor of3.45 to 3. The revised model is now given as: I
15bcfl~)
R, = 0.55Fycd,1p ( 1+---"'
2-'-"-
d, d,1p
(6.10)
I
Figures 6.74 through 6.78 compare the experimental data to Equation 6.10 and the
AISC model (Equation 2.1) using both the nominal and measured yield strengths of the I
column web. The post-yield strengths at 4r~ are slightly underpredicted in Specimens
CRI, CR2, and CRS when the nominal yield strengths are used, but the differences are
I
very small and negligible. The shear strength at the onset of panel zone yieldjng is still
overpredicted in all cases when the measured yield strengths of the column webs are
I
used, but is more closely approximated than using Equation 2.1. Thus, the modified
Fielding and Huang (1971) model of Equation 6.10 may be a more rational procedure for
I
determining the design strength of panel zones for seismic applications.
Table 6.1 summarizes the predicted strengths of the panel zones of the five
I
cruciform tests using the AISC (1997) provisions (Equation 2.1) and Equation 6.10 using
both the specified minimum yield strengths and the coupon tensile test results. Also
I
tabulated are the percent increases beyond yield incorporated in each equation. In all
cases, Equation 6.10 results in a smaller panel zone resistance. For those specimens with
I
thinner column flanges and column web reinforcement (e.g., Specimen CR5), Equation
6.10 predicts very low post-yield strengths. Evaluation of the post-yield strength term in
I
Equation 6.10 is evaluated further below.
I
214
I
I
I:
1 6.3.2 Verification of Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Eq uation 6.10)
1 An analysis of past connection test data was conducted to evaluate Equation 6.10
relative to the current AISC provisions (Equation 2.1). Test data from the following
1 sources are included in this analysis: Fielding and Huang (1971), Krawinkler et al.
(1971), Bertero et aI. (1973), Becker (1975), Popov et al. (1986), Ghobarah et aI. ( 1992),
1 Tsai et al. (1995), FEMA (1997b), Choi et aI. (2000), Lee et aI ' (2000), and Ricles et al.
(2000a). A total of 49 tests, including the five cruciform specimens tested in the present
1 research, that exceeded the design deformation of 4)'y in the panel zones were included, as
the experimental shear force at this deformation level is required for the comparison.
1 Tables 6.2 and 6.3 tabulate the relevant parameters from all tests included in the
following analysis. The reported yield stress is the coupon yield stress, or otherwise the
1 dynamic yield stress from the mill reports.
The collection of tests represents a wide range of parameters. Nominal steel yield
1 strengths of 36 ksi and 50 ksi are included, with a range of measured column yield
strengths from 31.4 ksi to 60.0 ksi. Column sizes range from W8 sections to W21
I sections, while girder sizes range from WI 0 sections to W36 sections. Several tests were
stiffened with doubler plates and/or continuity plates, and some haunched, cover-plated,
1 and end-plate connections are also included. Panel zone thicknesses range from 0.245 in.
to 3.27 in., and column flange thicknesses range from 0.398 in. to 2.845 in. Most tests
1 conducted prior to the Northridge earthquake included compressive column axial loads,
while none of the post-Northridge tests were axially loaded. With the exception of the
1 tests by Fielding and Huang (1971) and Becker ( 1975), the girders of the specimens were
cyclically loaded.
1 To determine the experimental shear force in the panel zones at 4yy. the girder
I loads or moments at this deformation level were first required. Most test results reported
panel zone behavior in one of two forms. Moments and loads were generally either
1 plotted against total panel zone deformation, YP" or against panel zone plastic rotation,
8p.pz. If the total panel zone deformation was reported, the loads or moments at 4)'y could
I be obtained directly. If panel zone plastic rotation was reported, the plastic rotation
215
1
1
I
corresponding to a total deformation of 4ry had to first be computed. The panel zone
shear yield deformation, r,.. was calculated as Fy....,;..J3G. where Fy.•.,b is the column web
I
yield strength taken from mill reports. or coupon tests when available (Table 6.3). The
equation relating 4JY to an equivalent Bp.pz was adapted from Hajjar et aI. (1998b) and
I
Leon (\983). This equation is given as: I
B _ I [3r yL, (L, - d, )
P.F - (L, +d,/2) L,
(6.11 )
I
Equation 6. 11 converts a shear deformation into an equivalent connection rotation due to I
panel zone shear deformation. By using 3ryin the equation, the plastic rotation due to a
shear deformation of 4JY is computed (i.e., 3JY is the plastic shear deformation associated I
with the total deformation of 4JY).
From the design deformation of 4JY or the associated Bp.pz, the moments or loads
I
were scaled off of the appropriate plots of moment or load vs. panel zone deformation or
rotation. For those cyclic tests exceeding 4JY in both loading directions, the average
I
moment or load was used. The values of moments or loads during the first excursion to
4JY were recorded. When 4JY occurred between loading peaks, an equivalent skeleton
I
curve was constructed between peaks, and the moments or loads were interpolated. Thus,
this method does not account for cyclic strain hardening which often occurs in
I
subsequent cycles to deformations beyond 4JY. One exception to this procedure was the I
testing by Fielding and Huang ( 1971). In this case, panel zone shear stress, ' I'" was
directly reported. I
From the known moment or load at a panel zone deformation of 4ry, the
experimental panel zone shear force, Vp:, at this deformation was calculated. The same I
procedure used to calculate the experimental shear forces for the five specimens tested in
the present research was used for the analysis of past test data. Recall Equation 6.1: I
V = M ,a< -V
F d
•
'
(6.1)
I
I
216
I
I
Column shear was calculated from the dimensions of the test specimens. In tenns of
loads and moments, Equation 6.1 can be transfonned, respectively, in:
I V
P:
=p
''''
(!:.LJLg+dcl 2))
dg Lc
(6.3)
V = M (_I _(Lg + dcl 2)) (6.12)

P: ''''d g LLg c
I Equation 6.3 was also used in Section 6.2.4 to detennine the experimental panel zone
shear force of the five crucifonn specimens tested in the present research.
I For haunched or cover-plated connections, the depth of the haunches and

thickness of the cover plates were included in the effective girder depth. Because
I Fielding and Huang (1971) directly reported panel zone shear stress, the experimental
shear force was calculated as Tp,A cw , where Acw is the column web area. The reported
I shear stress took the effects of column shear into account. No column shear was present
in the tests by Becker (1975) because the test configuration modeled comer joints.
I Predicted panel zone strengths, R., were calculated using Equation 2.1 (AISC,
1997) and the proposed Equation 6.10. No resistance factors were included (¢ = 1.0). For
I the calculation of panel zone strengths, measured material properties were used (mill
reports, or coupon tests when available), instead of the specified minimum yield
I strengths. Table 6.4 presents the test-to-predicted ratios (VpI R.) for the selected tests
using both Equations 2.1 and 6.10. Also tabulated are the increases beyond yield
I incorporated in each equation. These post-yield contributions are defined in each

equation by the second tenn in parentheses, and represent the effects of the panel zone
I boundary elements (primarily column flanges) following panel zone yielding. As Table
6.4 shows, the modified Fielding and Huang model of Equation 6.10 better predicted the
I panel zone shear strength for the group of tests analyzed. The mean test-to-predicted
ratio was 1.060, as compared to a mean of 0.856 for the AISC provisions (Equation 2.1).
I The standard deviations for both methods were comparable. In all cases, however, a
lower strength increase beyond yielding is predicted by Equation 6.10.
I
217
I
I
I
An important observation arises when comparing the test-to-predicted ratios of
tests with WI4 and larger columns to those with WI2 and smaller columns. For those
I
tests with WI4 and larger columns, the mean test-to-predicted ratio is 0.812 for Equation
2.1 and 1.012 for Equation 6.10. When tests with WI2 and smaller columns are
I
considered, the mean test-to-predicted ratio increases to 1.005 for Equation 2.1 and 1.226
for Equation 6.10. This suggests that the AISC provisions (Equation 2.1) are satisfactory
I
for smaller columns and somewhat unsatisfactory for larger columns. Recall that these
provisions were developed from the results of testing by Krawinkler et al. (1971) and
I
Bertero et al. (1973) on W8 column sections. Equation 6.10, on the other hand, was more
accurate in its prediction of the panel zone strength of larger columns and appears
I
somewhat conservative for smaller columns. These results suggest that the modified
Fielding and Huang model of Equation 6.10 better predicts panel zone behavior in joints
I
with member sizes commonly used in current seismic moment frame construction.
A resistance factor was also calculated for Equation 6.10 using the data from the
I
group of 49 tests and the procedure given by Equation C-AS-4 in the Commentary to the I
AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999a). The referenced equation computes an
approximate resistance factor based on the mean and nominal resistances, the coefficient I
of variation of the resistance, and a reliability index. A reliability index of 2.6 was
selected, consistent with the typical value specified for members (AISC, 1999a). Using I
the mean test-to-predicted ratio of 1.060 and corresponding coefficient of variation equal
to 0.160, a resistance factor of 0.86 was calculated. I
6.3.3 Comparison of Panel Zone Thicknesses I
To compare the panel zone design criteria as determined by the AISC provisions
(Equation 2.1), Equation 6.10, and the SAC panel zone design procedure (Equation 2.7), I
required panel zone thicknesses based upon nominal material properties were calculated
for several girder-to-column connection configurations using the three methods. These I
girder-to-column combinations include the five connections tested in the present
research. I
218
I
I
I
.,
• The SAC panel zone design procedure (FEMA. 2000a) was outlined in Chapter 2
(See Equation 2.7). Rather than consisting of a computation of the design strength, this
• method attempts to balance the onset of yielding in the girders and panel zone. The panel
zone deformation at the ultimate strength of the girders is not explicitly addressed.
• According to the SAC Recommended Seismic Design Criteria (FEMA, 2000a), the SAC
method may require moderately thicker doubler plates for connections with thick column
• flanges when compared to the current AISC (1997) panel zone requirements (Equation
2.1).
• In the previous two sections, the comparison of AISC (1997) and the modified
Fielding and Huang model (Equation 6.10) was independent of any demand calculations.
• However, for the Equation 6.10 to be compared to the AISC provisions (AlSC, 1992,
1997,200 I) and to the SAC procedure, the panel zone demand had to be incorporated so
•I as to calculate its required thickness. For this purpose, the demand given by AlSC (1997)
and modified by Supplement Nos. I and 2 (AISC, I 999b, 200 I) was adopted for the
calculation of the required panel zone thickness for the application of AlSC (1997),
•
Equation 6.10, and SAC (Equation 2.7). This demand is presented in Equation 3.6.
Additionally, the demand cap specified in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AlSC,
•
1992) was used with Equation 2.1 for comparison of all results to a pre-Nonhridge
specification. The AlSC (1992) demand cap is given as:
•
0.9L¢. M p
R• = d -v
C
(6.13 )
I
•I
where:
Ru = panel zone demand
rp" = resistance factor for bending = 0.9
Mp = nominal girder plastic moment capacity
I The resistance factor on panel zone shear strength in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions
was specified as 0.75 . Thus, this value was substituted in place of !/Iv = 1.0 in Equation
I 2.1 for calculations of required panel zone thicknesses according to the 1992 Seismic
•I Provisions (AlSC, 1992).
219
I
I
In Table 6.5, three distinct groups of girder-to-column connection configurations
are included. The first group consists of the five cruciform (i.e., interior joint) specimens
I
described in this work, while the second group includes three typical exterior joint
combinations tested in both phases of the SAC program (FEMA, 1997b; Lee et a1., 2000).
I
The final group consists of ten interior and ten exterior combinations. Within each group
of ten, five girder sizes are included - one from each nominal depth between W24 and
I
W36, inclusive. The chosen girders represent the smallest size in each depth category
that meets the seismic flange compactness criteria of 521,JFy (AISC, 1997). For each
I
girder, two column sections were chosen. The first was selected to represent a large
column requiring little or no panel zone reinforcement (i.e., no doubler plates), while the
I
second column was selected such that relatively thick doubler plates were required. With
the exception of cruciform Specimen CR5, all combinations meet the SCWS criterion
I
presented in Chapter 3 for an axial load of zero. Column shear. Ve, was calculated from
statics based on the specimen dimensions and the development of the maximum girder
I
moment corresponding to the specified demand. For the final group of combinations,
calculation of column shear was based on the dimensions of the cruciform specimens in
I
this work. I
In the case of the SAC panel zone provisions (Equation 2.7). the required
thickness was directly computed. For the 1992 and 1997 AISC seismic provisions, and I
Equation 6.10, the required panel zone thickness was computed by setting My = Ru for
the respective cases and solving the resulting expression for the thickness, (p. The I
resistance factor. ¢.. was taken as 1.0 for Equation 6.10. While a resistance factor of 0.86
was previously calculated for this equation. a value of 1.0 was used for these panel zone I
thickness calculations to be consistent with AISC (1997). As discussed in Chapter 2,
Supplement No. 2 to the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC. 200 I) increased the I
resistance factor from 0.75 to 1.0. The commentary to Supplement No. 2 (AISC, 2001)
states that the resistance factor was set to 1.0 "because ¢is typically applied to systems to I
assure that they remain elastic. In this case [seismic panel zone design], it is known that
yielding will occur." I
220
I
I
I
I :",
I Table 6.6 presents the results in terms of the required panel zone thicknesses
determined by each of the four cases. The table reveals that the panel zone strength
I model proposed herein (Equation 6.10) requires thicker panel zones than the 1997 AISC
Seismic Provisions [using the demand specified by Supplement No. 2 (AISC, 200 I )], the
I SAC procedure (FEMA, 2000a), and the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions [using the
demand cap specified by Equation 6.13] . This is because the panel zone yield strength
II and post-yield stiffness were decreased in Equation 6.10 as compared with Equation 2.1
even though the demand, presented in Equation 3.6, remained without any change. The
I decrease of panel zone yield strength and post-yield stiffness in Equation 6.10 can be
clearly observed in Figures 6.74 through 6.78 for the five specimens tested in the present
I research. The relationship between demand and capacity in the panel zone design will be
further discussed in the following section. In addition, in the following section, the panel
I zone demand and capacity of the five cruciform specimens tested in the present research
will be scaled for the design application of the modified Fielding and Huang model of
I Equation 6.10.
In addition to the above findings for Equation 6.10, it should be noted that the
I SAC and 1997 AISC required thicknesses that were generally similar, even for columns
with thick flanges. In fact, the AlSC (1997) thicknesses are often higher than the SAC
I requirements. The required thicknesses as determined by the 1992 AISC Seismic
Provisions are generally lower than the AlSC (1997) and SAC values. While the
I resistance factor of 0.75 included in AlSC (1992) is lower than the resistance factor of
1.0 specified in Supplement No. 2 of the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 200 I),
I the demand cap given by Equation 6.13 is lower than the demand given in the
Supplement No. 2 (AlSC, 200 I). However, while the 1992 AISC provisions yield
I thinner panel zones, the thicknesses are sufficiently close to suggest that weak panel
zones designed prior to the Northridge earthquake were generally not a result of the
I demand cap given by Equation 6. 13. It is likely then, that the applicable load
combinations used with AISC (1992) resulted in significantl y lower demands, and thus
I weaker panel zones, than did the cap (Equation 6.13). As discussed in Chapter 2, the
1992 AlSC Seismic Provisions were intended to provide the same level of safety as the
I
221
I
I
I
1991 UBC code (See Section 2.1.1). It was the UBC code that first adopted the
Krawinkler panel zone model (based on Equation 2.6) in 1988 (UBC, 1988).
I
The results shown in Table 6.6 have several implications. Considering the
modified Fielding and Huang model (Equation 6.10), it was previously shown that this
I
procedure better predicts panel zone shear strength at the design deformation of 4]). than
does the current AISC provisions (A ISC, 1997) for a wide range of experiments. This
I
analysis was independent of a specified demand . When calculating required panel zone I
thickness (which necessitates specifying a demand), however, Eql1ll:tion 6.10 is more
conservative than both AlSC (1997) and SAC (FEMA, 2000a) for the same demand. If it I
is assumed that the AlSC (1997) and SAC (FEMA, 2000a) procedures result in adequate
panel zone designs, Equation 6.10 would require a lower demand to yield similar panel I
zone thicknesses. While Equation 6.10 appears to better model the shear-deformation
behavior of panel zones, further study is needed to identify an appropriate combination of I
capacity and demand for panel zones in seismic application.
I
6.3.4 ca ling of Panel Zone Design Capacity and Demand
To further consider the interrelationship of capacity and demand in panel zone I
design, panel zone thicknesses for the five cruciform specimens tested in the present
research were re-designed using the modified Fielding and Huang model (Equation 6.10) I
and nominal material properties, and these are compared in Table 6.7 with the values
selected for the experimental study. The demand from AISC (1997) and modified by I
AlSC (200 I) was used for these calculations. The re-designed panel zone thicknesses
clearly show larger values in all cases. I
There were two primary reasons for these differences. First, as described in
Section 3.3.3.1 , a pz / Pg of 1.0 was targeted for the panel zone design of the cruciform I
specimens tested in the present research instead of strictly satisfying the 1997 AISC
provisions (Equation 2.1 ). This design approach resulted in a panel zone capacity-to- I
demand ratio equal to 0.83 (with the application of Equation 2.1) for Specimen CR I, as
shown in Table 3.3. In other words, for a given panel zone demand, the panel zone I
capacity would have increased by 110.83 = 1.205 limes the original capacity calculated if
222
I
I
I
I' T
I Equation 2.1 had been used for the design of the Specimen CRI panel zone. Had
Equation 2.1 been used for the panel zone design of Specimen CRI without any changes
I in the demand, a thickness of Ip = 1.63 in. would have been recommended given the
configuration of Specimen CRI, as shown in Table 6.6
I The second reason causing the differences between the panel zone thicknesses
selected for the tests and those re-designed using Equation 6.10 is the use of the different
I equation of panel zone strength (i.e., Equation 6.10 versus Equation 2.1). For the panel
zone design of the five cruciform specimens tested in the present research, as shown in
I Equation 3.15, the panel zone strength equation from the AISC (1997) provisions
(Equation 2.1) was partially incorporated into the calculation, while the re-designed panel
I zone thicknesses in Table 6.7 were obtained exclusively from the application of Equation
6.10 in conjunction with the seismic demand of AISC (1997, 2001). The differences in
I panel zone capacity between Equation 2.1 and Equation 6.10 can be clearly observed in
Figures 6.74 through 6.78 for the case of the five specimens tested in the present
I research. The differences between these two equations is partially from the different
coefficient related to nominal yielding of the panel zone (0.55 for Equation 6.10 versus
I 0.6 for Equation 2.1), but even more so to the magnitude of the post-yield strength term,
as shown in Table 6.4. The difference in the post-yield strength term is exhibited by the
I difference in the post-elastic slope between the two equations.
The results shown in Figure 6.74 to 6.78 show first that the slope of Equation 6. 10
I tends to be more appropriate for columns with thicker flanges (e.g., Specimen CR1),
while the slope of Equation 2.1 tends to be more appropriate for columns with thinner
I flanges (e.g., Specimen CR5), although other parameters of the column and girder may
also influence this difference. Rectifying this difference would increase the complexity
I of the resulting equation, but would refine the strength estimates such as those outl ined in
Table 6.4. However, Figures 6.74 to 6.78 exhibit that a more substantial increase in
I accuracy of the panel zone strength may be obtained through a scaling of the nominal
panel zone yield strength, i.e., the strength at which the elastic zone terminates. Scaling
I down the panel zone capacity and demand is thus investigated here so as to formulate a
I 223
I
I
new panel zone equation corresponding to the behavior of the five cruciform specimens
tested in the present research.
I
Using the modified Fielding and Huang model (Equation 6.10), a method scaling
panel zone capacity corresponding to the actual test results is introduced. This
I
methodology is schematically explained in Figure 6.79 for the case of Specimen CRI. In
this figure, the panel zone shear capacity in Equation 6.10 corresponding to 4Yy (rp,R. =
I
1073 kips) is scaled down by the scale factor of (a = 71111073 = 0.663), where 711 kips I
is the panel zone strength obtained in the experiment at a panel zone deformation of 4Yy
(with nominal material properties used to compute 4Yy). The general form of scaled panel I
zone capaci ty is then :
(6.14)
I
where:
I
a = panel zone capacity scale factor
I
This scale factor was also computed for the other four specimens; these values are shown
in Table 6.8. This scale factor varies from 0.652 (Specimen CR2) to 0.858 (Specimen
I
CR4R). It should be noted that the test specimen designed using the larger rp,R j Ru value
results in a larger scale factor.
I
In order to apply Equation 6.14 for the panel zone design of other new girder-to-
column connections, the demand (Ru) should also be scaled by using the same factor, a,
I
if it is assumed that the column thickness resulting from Equation 6.10 are appropriate as I
shown in Table 6.6 (as discussed in the prior section, the demand may need to be further
modified given the thicker panel zones already being required from Equation 6.10 and, I
therefore, Equation 6.14). If the demand is not scaled, the decreased capacity (Equation
6.14) combined with the original demand (Ru) will result in thicker panel zones that are I
not justified based upon the test results in this research. Using a scaled panel zone
capacity (Equation 6.14) and a corresponding scaled demand, the panel zone capacity I
curve more closely corresponds to the experimental results, and the panel zone thickness
224
I
I
I
I·
I would be the same as the Ip as Table 6.6. The methodology introduced above can
similarly be used to evaluate the current panel zone design provisions (AISC, 1997,
I 200 I) based on the experimental results and to estimate the appropriate demand for the
selected panel zone capacity. As discussed above, a scaled version of Equation 6.10 for
I columns with relatively thin flanges coupled with a scaled version of Equation 2.1, all
coupled with an appropriate demand assessment, would result in the most reliable and
I accurate prediction of panel zone size.
I 6.4 Local Flange Bending

The pull-plate tests conducted by Prochnow et al. (2000a) extensively studied the
I local flange bending (LFB) limit state. As discussed in Chapter 2, this research
concluded that the present AISC provisions for LFB are satisfactory for non-seismic
I design. Extension of this conclusion to seismic design was one focus of the five
cruciform specimens tested in the present research. This section discusses the LFB yield
I mechanism defined by Prochnow et al. (2000a), and compares the results of the five
specimens to this yield mechanism and the pull-plate experimental results.
I In the pull-plate tests, the LFB yield mechanism was defined by a limiting column
flange separation, measured between the column flanges at the edges of the pull-plates
I (representing girder flanges) . For the limit, flange separation of Y. in. was chosen. This
value was chosen based on the allowable variation in member cross sections as per
I ASTM A6 (1998b). These provisions al low the flanges of wide-flange sections to be out
of square by a maximum of Y. in. (Prochnow et aI., 2000a).
I For purposes of the cruciform experiments, however, the above yield mechanism
I is modified slightly. Due to the reverse cyclic loading in girders, one column flange is in
tension while the other is in compression at the same girder flange level (i.e., top or
I bottom girder flange level). The compressive force tends to offset some of the flange
separation caused by the tensile force on the opposite column flange . As discussed in
I Section 4.3.2, the LVDTs used to measure the column flange deformation were anchored
to the column web centerline to avoid the offsening effects of the compressive flange
I forces (See Figures 4.19 and 4.20). For the cruciform experiments, then, the limiting
225
I
I
I
flange separation is redefined as a limiting flange deformation. This limiting deformation
is taken as one-half the pull-plate separation value of 1/4 in, as the deformation of only
I
one flange is measured. Thus, the LFB yield mechanism for the present experiments is
defined as a column flange deformation of 1/8 in at the location of the girder flanges .
I
In the pull-plate tests (prochnow et aI., 2000a), three demand levels were
considered to analyze the LFB yield mechanism, representing non-seismic and seismic
I
demands. These were presented in Chapter 2:
(2.12)
I
R. = Fn Arf (non-seismic)
R. = 1.8Fn Arf (seismic) (2.13) I

where:
(seismic) (2.14)
I
F YI = minimum specified yield strength of girder flange
Agf= girder flange area
I
Ry = ratio of expected yield strength to minimum specified value = 1.1 for A992 steel
I
In this experimental study, however, only Equations 2.13 and 2.14 were considered for
the seismic application.
I
Using the measured yield strength of the W24x94 girder (See Table 3.4), the
seismic demand from Equation 2.14 is approximately 486 kips for Specimens CR I, CR2,
I
CR4R, and CRS, and is approximately 521 kips for Specimens CR3. Using the nominal
strength of 50 ksi for A992 steel, these demands become 480 kips for all specimens, i.e.,
I
55 ksi on the gross area. This stress is reasonable in comparison to typical yield I
strengths. For example, a survey of more than 20,000 mill reports from 1998 (Dexter.
2000; Bartlett et al.. 200 I; Dexter et aI. , 2001) showed that A992 steel has a mean yield I
strength of 55.8 ksi. The 97.5 percentile yield strength was 62.3 ksi , and the maximum
value reported was 65 ksi . I
Equation 2.13 yields a demand of 722 kips for Specimens CRI . CR2. CR4R, and
CRS and a demand of 775 kips for Specimen CR3 using measured material properties. I
Using nominal properties. Equation 2.13 yields a demand of 714 kips in all cases, i.e., 90
I
226
I
I
I
I ksi on the gross area This value is clearly greater than any yield strength value. In fact,
the mean ultimate strength in the 1998 data was 73 .3 ksi , with a 97.5 percentile ultimate
I strength was 80.0 ksi, and the maximum ever reported was 88 ksi . Therefore, an A992
girder flange is incapable of producing a demand as high as Equation 2. 13.
I However, assuming all the moment in the girder is carried by these flange forces ,
the demand of 480 kips corresponds to a moment of approximately 11,700 kip-in (or
I approximately 92% of the nominal plastic capacity of the girder section) and the demand
of714 kips corresponds to a moment of approximately 17,350 kip-in (or approximately
I 137% of the nominal plastic capacity of the girder section). The assumption that the full
moment is carried by only girder flanges is thus somewhat conservative. The true
I moment at the development of the 480 kip flange force is likely at or above the nominal
plastic capacity of the section.
I For purposes of comparing LFB data from the five specimens to the yield
mechanism limit deformations, flange deformations at the 4.0% drift level are examined
I since this drift level represents the maximum moment demand on the columns. At this
drift level, the corresponding girder moments were approximately 103% (CR I), 95%
I (CR2), 105% (CR3), 119% (CR4R). and 108% (CR5) of Mp. The moment resulting from
development of the demand given by Equation 2.13 was not reached in the five tests.
I However, it is also recognized that the derivation of Equation 2.13 (Bruneau et aI. , 1998)
is partially accounting for the multi-axial stress state that may be entering the column
I flange from the girder flange.
In addition, assuming all the moment in the girder is carried by the flange forces,
I the range of flange forces at the 4.0% inlerstory drift level would be between
approximately 500 to 600 kips. The actual forces in the girder flanges would be
I somewhat lower, as some moment is transferred through the welded web. Nevertheless,
these forces correspond well with the 450 kip nominal pull-plate force that was often
I used as the target demand (from Equation 2.13) for assessing the results of the pull-plate
experiments. and facilitates comparison between the two sets of experiments used in this
I research.
I
227
I
I
I
Figures 6.80 through 6.85 show the strain distributions on the inside face of the
column flange near its web in the longitudinal direction, for the case of the specimens
I
with no continuity plates or offset doubler plate detail, i.e., Specimens CRI , CR2, and
CRS. The strains for the tensile and compressive load peaks are plotted from the fust
I
cycle at each interstory drift levels as a function of position on the column flange. Refer
to Figure 4.20 for the location of the strain gages. From Figures 6.80 through 6.85, it is
I
clear that a complex state of stress exists inside face of the column flange near its web I
due to a concentrated girder flange force.
Considering tensile flange loading (Figures 6.80, 6.82, and 6.84), the longitudinal
strain changes rapidly from compression directly underneath the girder flange to a nearly
I
uniform tensile strain beginning 6 in. below the flange, indicating a high, localized strain I
gradient. Strains due to LFB dominate the observed behavior near the concentrated
girder flange loading, especially for Specimens CR I and CR2, even though these strains
are superimposed with the column flange strains due to the bending of the column and
the deformation of the panel zone. I
The column flexural strains are of a larger magnitude than the strain due to local
flange bending beyond the gage 6 in. below the girder flange, and can explain the I
relatively constant strain in this region. Specimen CR5 (Figure 6.84) showed relatively
large flexural strain distribution beyond the gage 6 in. below the girder flange. This was I
expected since it was the weakest column member among the five specimens. In spite of
the large flexural bending in the column flange, localized strain distributions due to LFB I
having even larger strains were also observed around the girder flange levels in Specimen
CRS . I
Using the elastic section properties of the column and statics on the test
configuration for the applied actuator loads at 4.0% interstory drift, bending stresses in I
the region 12 to 6 in. below the girder flanges were calculated fo r the comparison with
the measured strain readings. These calculated column bending stresses and the I
corresponding strains are summarized in Table 6.9. For Specimen CRI , the bending
stress range of22 to 24ksi existed in the region 12 to 6 in. below the girder flanges. This I
corresponds to the strain range of750 to 820 !lE. This value is comparable to the
I
228
I
I
I
I measured strains of approximately 600 1-1& in the case of Specimen CR 1. The
corresponding strain ranges of 1020 to 1120 ~ and 1550 to 17001-1& were provided for
I Specimens CR2 and CR5, respectively, as compared to measured values of 680 to 1060
~ in Specimen CR2 and 1310 to 2200 1-1& in Specimen CR5.
I As shown in figures 6.80, 6.82, and 6.84, local flange bending had linle influence
on the column flange beyond approximately 6 in. from the girder flanges. Strains
I obtained in the pull-plate tests (Prochnow et a1., 2000a) exhibited similar behavior, with
the exception that no flexural stresses were present in the column stubs. Instead of
I approaching the flexural strain levels, longitudinal strains in the pull-plate tests
approached zero between 4 and 12 in. from the concentrated force, depending on the
I specimen. However, since this is relatively far from the girder flange, it is not believed to
significantly influence the outcome of the pull-plate test. The similarity between the
I strain distributions near the girder flanges of the pull-plate test and the cruciform test
supports the use of pull-plate tests for investigation of local flange bending and other
I localized phenomena.
The peak longitudinal strain in the column flange was variable between the
I specimens, and no consistent trend was observed between the magnitudes of the peak
I longitudinal strain (other than being opposite in sign) when the girder flanges were in
compression versus in tension. However, the results clearly indicate that, at least on the
I level of localized strain, local flange bending may be induced both by tensile and
compressive concentrated girder flange forces .
I Figures 6.86 through 6.91 show the strain distributions in the transverse direction
of the inside face of the column flange at the location directly opposite of the East girder
I bonom flange. Refer to Figure 4.20 for the location of the strain gages. Not only are the
strains smaller in the transverse direction than the longitudinal direction, they also do not
I exhibit any well-defined trends. This indicates that transverse column flange bending
due to LFB could not be well captured by strain data.
I More significant at this location are the longitudinal strains along the transverse
direction of the column flange (See Figures 6.92 through 6.97). These strains are often
I relatively uniform, especially for Specimen CR I, in both tensile and compression loading
229
I
I
I
cases, and approximately one order of magnitude larger than the transverse strains. The
high strains at this location are due primarily to localized bending of the column flange
I
due to panel zone deformation, and are offset somewhat by the column flexural strains.
Section 6.2 discussed this kinking phenomenon resulting from the large panel zone
I
distortions. The measured strain data indicates that the longitudinal column flange
deformations due to panel zone yielding, coupled with the concentrated girder flange
I
forces, dominated the strain behavior in the transverse direction for Specimens CRI and
CR2. For Specimen CRS (See Figures 6.96 and 6.97), no significant strain variation was
I
observed when increasing the interstory drift level for both the tensile and compressive
loading cases. This is because the bending in the column flange occurred about a point
I
approximately 2 in. below the girder flange level , instead of at the girder flange level, as
already shown in Figures 6.84 and 6.85.
I
The complexity of the strain distributions discussed above does not lend itself I
well to any strain-based yield mechanism criteria for LFB. Prochnow et al. (2000a)
reached similar conclusions with respect to the pull-plate tests. Interactions between the I
strains due to the two-way local flange bending deformations, strain due to high panel
zone deformation, and strain due to column flexure create a state of stress that is difficult I
to interpret. The displacement-based criteria presented below is thus much more useful
in capturing the limitation of LFB. I
For Specimen CRI and CRS, column flange out-of-plane displacements are
shown as a function of distance in the longitudinal and transverse directions in Figures I
6.98 through 6.101 (longitudinal) and Figures 102 through 105 (transverse), respectively.
In these figures, displacements under both tensile and compressive girder flange loading I
are shown. The displacements were measured by LVDTs placed as shown in Figure
4.23 . The figures show the flange deformation profiles from the peak of the first cycle at I
each inters tory drift level peak.
The flange displacement data indicates that only slight local flange bending I
occurred in Specimen CRI and CR5 (unfortunately, the corresponding LVDTs on
Specimen CR2 did not produce reliable results and are not discussed here). At the I
location of the girder flange level, the maximum column flange displacements at 4.0%
I
230
I
I
I
I interstory drift were 0.032 in. in Specimen CR I and 0.061 in. in Specimen CR5.
Specimen CRS is analogous to the pull-plate specimen 2-LFB, having the same column
I size and detailing and rough equivalence between the girder flange and the pull-plate, as
well as between the materials used. The maximum out-of-plane displacement of the
I column flange in the pull-plate specimen 2-LFB was 0.055 in., which is reasonably close
to the 0.061 in. measured in cruciform Specimen CR5. It is recognized that there are
I numerous differences in the loading and stress distributions between these two types of
test specimens. For example, as explained above, the two values compared above were
I not assessed at precisely the same demand level. In addition, in the pull-plate specimens,
a relatively greater share of the out-of-plane displacement resulted from stretching in the
I web, which is not subjected to uniform tension in the cruciform tests. Nevertheless the
demand levels corresponded fairly well, and the favorable comparison in the measured
I
, out-of-plane displacement between the two types of specimens further supports the use of
pull-plate experiments to study local phenomena like local flange bending.
The measured displacements in cruciform Specimens CR I and CR5 correspond to
just 26% of the assumed yield mechanism limit of 1/8 in. flange displacement in case of
II Specimen CRI and to 49% of the limit in case of Specimen CRS. While Specimen CRI
meets the seismic criteria for not requiring continuity plates, Specimen CRS does not
I even meet the non-seismic criteria (the non-seismic strength to demand ratio was
approximately 0.84). Yet the flange displacements in Specimen CRS are not significant.
I
, This conclusion further supports the conclusion from the pull-plate testing that the
present AlSC non-seismic design criteria for continuity plates are reasonable but
conservative. The fact that the displacement did not increase after cyclic loading in the
cruciform test indicates that these non-seismic criteria are sufficient for seismic loading
I as well, as far as local flange bending is concerned.
I Column flange displacements as a function of distance in the transverse directions

at the girder flange level (See Figures 102 through 105) also showed similar comparisons
I observed above between Specimen CRI and Specimen CR5. In summary, both
specimens did not reach the yield mechanism limit defined in this research . A fairly
I sharp displacement gradient is evident in both Specimen CR I ( ee Figures 6.98 and 6.99)
231
I
I
I
and Specimen CR5 (See Figures 6.100 and 6.10 I), as the displacements approach zero at
a location of approximately 12 in. from the concentrated flange force . This is consistent
I
with the assumed yield line mechanism presented by Graham et al. (1960) and discussed
by Prochnow et al . (2000a).
I
Figure 6.106 illustrates the assumed yield line pattern from Graham et al. (1960).
Fixed boundaries (i.e., edges with zero displacement) are assumed at a location of 6tel
I
from the concentrated force, corresponding to 12.42 in. for the W 14x283 column (tel =
2.07 in.) and 6.54 in. for the WI4xl45 column (tel= 1.09 in.). The displacement
I
gradients seen in both the longitudinal and transverse directions are evidence of the two-
way column flange bending occurring.
I
The displacement profiles for Specimen CRI (Figures 9.98, 9.99, 9.102, and I
9.103) show a similar shape to those obtained in a pull-plate experiment (Prochnow et a1.,
2000a). In addition, the displacement magnitudes in Specimen CRI closely match the I
values obtained in the stiffened pull-plate specimen (Specimen I-LFB). Thus, the large,
unstiffened Wl4x283 column of Specimen CRI behaved similarly to the much smaller I
W14xI32 stiffened specimen [Specimen l-LFB tested as a part of the pull-plate research
(prochnow et aI. , 2000a)]. The figures also reveal that transverse and longitudinal I
deformations under tensile and compressive flange loading were similar. This is further
evidence that LFB may be caused by compressive concentrated forces in addition to
,I
tensile forces.
The LVDT column flange displacement data from 6 in. above the girder flange 1
(LFB 1 from Figure 4.23) are not shown in Figures 6.98 through 6.10 I because it is
believed this location is influenced strongly by panel zone yielding. In other words, a I
significant portion of the displacement measured at this location is believed to be due to
shear deformation of the column web to which the LVDT is attached. I
Using the present AISC (1993 , I 999a) LFB formula given by Equation 2.9, the
resistance, Rn , of the WI4x283 column flange is 1205 kips for Specimen CRI and 334 I
kips for Specimen CRS, using nominal material properties. This is far larger than the
seismic demands given by both Equation 2.13 (714 kips using nominal properties) and i
Equation 2.14 (480 kips using nominal properties) for the case of Specimen CRI. For
I
232
I
I
I
I Specimen CR5, however, the capacity is only 47% of the seismic demand given by
Equation 2.13 and 70% of the Equation 2.14, using nominal properties. It should be
I noted that both specimens showed good seismic performance over the 2 nd cycle at 4.0%
drift, as explained in Chapter 5. The test results of the five cruciform specimens tested in
I the present research thus indicate that the seismic demand given by Equation 2.14 may be
more appropriate for the LFB design using the capacity presented in Equation 2.9.
,I What can also be stated based on the five cruciform specimens tested in the
present research is that it is possible to achieve a desired connection behavior with a
I completely unstiffened column. Specimen CRJ, which was stiffened with 112 in. thick
(about half of girder flange thickness) continuity plates, completed 14 cycles of 4.0%
I drift without significant strength degradation in the connection. This test results are in
agreement with other recently conducted tests (Ricles et aI., 2000a), and supports the
I reestablishment by SAC (FEMA, 2000a) of design criteria for continuity plates, as

opposed to a proscriptive requirement that continuity plates be used in all connections.
I
6.5 Stress Distribution in Girder Flange
I Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the fracture of welded components in steel
moment-resisting connections has left many questions about the correlation between the
I quality assurance and notch toughness of the girder flange groove welds and the
performance of these connections. Stress and strain concentrations near the column web,
I and stress triaxiality in the girder flange, are often cited as potential causes of the poor
j performance of the steel moment connections. Extensive finite element analyses have
been carried out in order to understand the complex stress distribution in the middle of
the girder flange near the column flange face .
I In this experimental study, the distributions of strains in the longitudinal direction
I in the girder flanges were investigated. In Figures 6.107 through 6.116, longitudinal
strain distributions on the top side of the West girder top flange near the column flange
I face are presented. Similar strains are presented in Figures 6.117 to 6.126 for the bottom
side of the East girder bottom flange. The strains for the tensile and compressive load
I peaks are plotted at the peak of the first cycle at each interstory drift levels as a function
233
'I
I
I
of position on the girder flange. Refer to Figure 4.17 for the location of the strain gages.
In Figures 6.107 through 6.126, strain data from only one side of the girder flange are
I
reflected about the centerline of the girder to increase the clarity of the plots.
In all five specimens, the maximum longitudinal tensile strains in the middle of
I
West girder top flange are within the range of20,000 to 27,500 IlE at the 151 cycle of 4.0%
I
drift. Similarly, the maximum longitudinal tensile strains in the middle of the East girder
bottom flange are within the range of 10,000 to 33,000 at the 151 cycle at 4.0% drift.
Significant strain gradients along the girder flange width were not observed up to the
I
0.75% drift cycle in the specimens. I
When considering the West girder top flange, Specimens CR3 and CR4R showed
relatively low strain gradients up to the 4.0% drift cycle as compared with the other three I
specimens. The strain gradients of the East girder bottom flange for Specimens CR3 and
CR4R were either lower or comparable to the other three specimens. It is believed that
the trend towards having lower strain gradients in Specimens CR3 and CR4R girder
I
flange are primarily due to the column stiffening provided by those details . As shown in I
Figures 3.15 and 3.17, Specimen CR3 column was reinforced by including doubler plates
and continuity plates, and Specimen CR4R column was reinforced by two doubler plates I
located 2 in. away from the column web. These results reaffirm that the half-thickness
continuity plates and the offset doubler plate detail performed well as column stiffeners I
to mitigate local flange bending.
Specimens CR I, CR2, and CR5 on the other hand did not have continuity plates, I
which could explain the greater girder flange strain gradients in these specimens, both
with the girder flange in tension and compression. This would lend some support to the I
use of continuity plates. However, there is no evidence that these high strain gradients
were detrimental to the performance of the connection. For example, as indicated in I
Chapters 3 and 5, Specimen CR 1 had low notch toughness [far less than the FEMA
(2000a) requirements] , yet the high strain gradient did not cause a brittle fracture . The I
strain gradient was worse in the West girdertop flange of Specimen CRI than in
Specimen CR2, whereas Specimen CRI did not require continuity plates and Specimen I
CR2 did, based upon the seismic girder demand . Therefore some of the variation in the
I
234
I
I
.
""
,_,
I
I strain gradient among the different specimens may be somewhat random, based upon
local residual stresses, etc.
I 6.6 Comparison of Results and Discussion of Continuity Plate and

I Doubler Plate Detailing
This section provides a summary comparison of the results between the six
I cruciform experiments conducted in this research. These specimens had a full range of
column stiffening details and yet all performed comparably. Specimen CR I had no
II stiffening at all. Specimen CR2 had no continuity plates [although they were required to
satisfy seismic demand criteria as per AISC (1992») and featured an innovative doubler
I plate detail, with a single-sided doubler plate in which a square cut (rather than beveled)
doubler plate rested on the column fillets, slightly offset from the column web, and was
I fillet-welded to the column flanges. Specimen CR3 also fearured this doubler plate
I detail, but had two doubler-plates as well as continuity plates, although these were only
approximately half the thickness of the girder flange and were fillet-welded to the column
I flanges and the doubler plates. The recommended seismic design criteria from FEMA
(2000a) require continuity plates having the full thickness of the girder flange in case of
I interior moment connections, and that are groove-welded connections to the column
flanges. Specimen CR4R included the offset doubler plate detail. Specimen CR5
I contained fillet-welded doubler plates, similar in detail to Specimen CR2 but with
beveled sides, on both sides of the web. While it contained no continuity plates,
I continuity plates were required even as per non-seismic design criteria (AISC, 1993,
1999a).
I Figure 5.1 compared the cycles at 4.0% interstory drift before achieving
significant strength degradation for the six specimens. Specimens CRI, CR2, CR3, and
I CR4R were subjected to 14, 16, 14, and 12 cycles, respectively, before significant
strength degradation occurred. Because of the small sample size, it cannot be determined
I that there is any significance to the variation in number of cycles in the range from 12 to
16 cycles, so it is assumed that these specimens performed approximately equally well.
I
235
I
I
I
The fact that Specimen CR2 and CR3 performed approximately equally well
indicates that the continuity plates in specimen CR3 did not noticeably improve the
I
performance relative to Specimen CR2. Consequently, the seismic criteria for continuity
plates for the limit state oflocal flange bending (AlSC, 1992, 1997) are somewhat
1
conservative. As discussed further in Section 2.4 and Section 6.4, the girder flange
demand typically used for assessment of seismic demand for local flange bending may be
I
excessive. The fact that Specimen CR3 performed well also indicates that if continuity
plates are used, it is not necessary to use full thickness continuity plates that are groove-
I
welded to the column flanges. Also, the comparable performance of Specimen CR4R I
relative to Specimen CR3 shows that the box detail is equally effective as continuity
plates in providing column flange bending resistance. These findings were also I
indicated by the pull-plate tests (Prochnow et al., 2000a), and it is now verified that cyclic
loading does not affect these conclusions. I
The fact that thinner continuity plates are recommended also means that smaller
fillet welds are required to attach the continuity plates to the column, as compared to I
using thicker continuity plates. For example only 3/8 inch fillet welds were required for
Specimen CR3. The smaller welds pose a much less significant risk of causing k-line I
cracking.
In fact, it is not clear if the continuity plates must be fully developed . The
stretching of the continuity plate in the girder flange direction must remain compatible
I
with the stretching of the column web, so even if there was yielding of the fillet welds, I
the displacement would be limited. Furthermore, only localized yielding was observed in
the continuity plates only at their comers near k-area of the column. This is shown in I
Figures 6.127 to 6.138, which show the strains oriented along the length of the two
continuity plates. The strain gage locations are shown in Figure 4.21 , and in each plot the I
strains are shown across the width of the continuity plate at specific locations along the
length of the continuity plate. The largest strains have peak magnitudes less than twice I
the magnitude of the yield strain. In addition, these peak strains are occurring only in the
very late loading stages and are generally only near the column web in the lines of gages I
that are closest to the column flanges.
236
I
I
I
I
I These specimens also featured a range of doubler plate details. Yet these
variations had no significant impact on the performance of the connections in these tests.
I Therefore it cannot be concluded that any of these details are advantageous, and the most
economical details should be recommended. This was also supported by the pull-plate
I tests.
Specimen CRS was the most substantially underdesigned cruciform specimen
I with respect to local flange bending - the resistance-to-demand ratio was only 0.84 for
non-seismic demand as per AISC (1993, I 999a), and it equaled 0.47 for seismic demand
I as per AISC (1992). Specimen CRS completed the SAC loading history (SAC, 1997)
with more than two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift; therefore it is possible that the non-
I seismic demand criteria are sufficient even for seismic loading., although there is
insufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
t Although the performance of Specimen CRS was adequate, the number of cycles
before significant strength degradation in this specimen was distinctly smaller than for
I the other specimens (except Specimen CR4). This could be an adverse effect of the small
column or the lack of continuity plates. On the other hand, it cannot be concluded that
I this distinction is significant because it is not known how much variability is expected for
low-cycle fatigue failures such as these. Furthermore, Specimen CR5 met the FEMA
I performance requirement of two cycles at 4% interstory drift, therefore this potential
adverse effect may not be significant with respect to the ability to meet the minimum
I performance requirements.
Specimen CRS was analogous to the pull-plate test 2-LFB in Prochnow et aI.
I (2000a, 2000b) and Hajjar et a!. (2002). These two different types of tests exhibited
similar column flange displacement, and similarities in the strain distributions. These
I findings support the use of pull-plate tests to investigate local flange bending and other
t localized phenomena.
All specimens except Specimens CR4 and CR4R had inadequate panel zone
strengths as per the current AISC panel zone provisions (1997), yet showed very good
I energy dissipation capacities. The weak panel zones and associated kinking of the
column flange did nothing noticeable to harm the performance of the connection in these
I
237
I
I
I
tests. Also it is not clear whether these doubler plate welds need to develop the shear
capacity of the doubler plates. There must be compatibility between the shear
I
deformation of the doubler plate and the web of the column. Therefore, even if the
doubler plate welds were to begin yielding in shear, their distonion would be limited.
I
With respect to the primary mode of failure, all specimens exhibited ductile
response, failing by low-cycle fatigue (LCF) in the girder flanges, with the exception of
I
Specimen CR4, which exhibited premature brittle fractures in the girder flange-to-co lumn
welds. As explained in detail in Appendix B, Specimen CR4 was unintentionally
I
prepared with very low toughness weld metal, having an average of 2.0 ft Ibs at O°F and
2.3 ft Ibs at 70°F. In contrast, the FEMA guidelines (FEMA, 2000a), require 20 ft Ibs at
I
O°F and 40 ft Ibs at 70°F. This was the only test that did not satisfy the connection I
prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without
significant strength degradation (FEMA, 2000a). I
Specimen CR4R was essentially a replicate test except that the batch of weld
metal used met the FEMA guidelines (FEMA, 2000e). In contrast to the performance of I
Specimen CR4, Specimen CR4R not only performed acceptably according to the FEMA
requirements, it performed as well as any of the specimens. This result is an example of I
the imponance of weld metal notch toughness in achieving good performance of groove-
welded connections. I
Specimens CR4 and CR4R both had the unique offset doubler detail given by
Figure C-9.3 (c) in the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997). This detail was I
intended to resist both panel zone shear and local flange bending, and these specimens
would normally require continuity plates in addition to web doubler plates. The fact that I
this detail performed well in Specimen CR4R indicates that the detail itself was probably
not a factor in the fracrure that occurred in Specimen CR4. I
Specimens CR4 and CR4R also had a relatively stiff panel zone, considering the
two 3/4-in. thick doubler plates in addition to the column web. This was done to assure I
that the panel zone stiffness and strength would be adequate, because it was felt [based
upon repons in the literature (Benero et al., 1973») that this detail may not be as effective I
as a doubler plate that was not offset from the column web. The test results do not
238
I
I
I
.-
''''
I
~
b.
I support this conclusion. Figures 6.139 and 6.140 show the shear strain at the center of
both sides of the colwnn web and on each doubler plate in Specimen CR4R at the peak of
I the first cycle at each interstory drift level (see Figures 4.14 and 4.15 for the rosette
locations). The shear strain compatibility is excellent during the loading stages in which
I the connection response is approximately linear. This indicates that the column flange on
the WI4xl76 was able to transfer the girder flange force uniformly to both the colwnn
I web and the doubler plates, as also evidenced by the relatively uniform strains seen in the
results for Specimen CR4R in the prior section. After significant yielding occurs during
I the 1.5% interstory drift cycles, the shear strains deviate on either side of the colwnn web
due to a variety of complex behavioral phenomena. However, the shear strains on the
I doubler plates remain bounded by the colwnn web strains, and continue to increase well
into the yielding region. Thus, the results show that the doubler plates were engaged and
I effective throughout the experiment. In addition, like the detail itself, the relatively high
stiffness of the panel zone in these specimens was also not likely to have been a factor in
I the fracture of Specimen CR4.
Following the fracture in Specimen CR4, it was found that the previously tested
I Specimen CRI also had relatively low notch toughness, an average of 2.7 ft Ibs at OaF
and 19.3 ft Ibs at 70°F. This is interesting because Specimen CRI performed well,
I experiencing 14 cycles of 4.0% drift before significant strength degradation. Specimen
I CRI had no colwnn stiffening at all. Continuity plates would not be required, even for
seismic design. However, doubler plates would be required since the capacity of the
I colwnn web was approximately 20 to 25% less than the demand provided by the girder,
depending on the design equations used.
I If the difference in the column stiffening between Specimens CR I and CR4 is not
a factor in the fracture of Specimen CR4, then the better performance of Specimen CR I
I shows that the marginal difference in notch toughness between this specimen and
Specimen CR4 is sufficient to resist fracture. Thus these two experiments have
I potentially closely bounded the actual minimum notch toughness required for good
groove weld performance. Also, the feasibility of using no column stiffening at all in
I appropriate circumstances has been tested under a likely worst-case susceptibility to
239
I
I
I
brittle fracture through Specimen CRt. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that
continuity plates are necessary for good performance under all circumstances.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
240
I
I
I
.~
...
.<>
I L'I
I Table 6.1: Panel Zone Strengths and Post-Elastic Strength Increases Using AISC (1997)
an dM od'fi
I IedF'Ie Id'109 an dH uan ( 197 1)E~quatlOns
.
Equation 2.1 Equation 6.10
I Test
Specimen
Equation 2.1
R, (kips)"
Equation 6.10
R, (kips)
Post-Elastic
(%)
Post-Elastic
(%)
& CRI
CR2
903 (945)
824 (890)
694 (725)
678 (732)
39.4 (39.4)
17.1 (17.1)
16.8 ( 16.8)
5.1(5.1)
I CR3
CR4R
935 (1075)
1163 (1322)
790 (909)
1000 (1136)
11.9 (11.9)
9.3 (9.3)
3.2 (3.2)
2.5 (2.5)
I CRS
Numbers 10
924 (1085) 798 (937) 8.0 (8.0)
parenthesIs are calculated from coupon tensIle test results.
1.8 (1.8)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
241
I
I
I
Table 6.2: Connection Member Sizes and Joint Type for Tests Used to Evaluate Panel
Zone Provisions
I
Test Designation Colu mn Gird er (s) Joint Type I
Fielding and Huang WI4x l 84 W24xl60 Exterior
a
Krawinkler et al.: A-I
Krawinkler et al .: A-2
Krawinkler et al .: B-2
Bertero et al .: A-3
8WF24
8WF24
8 WF67
8 WF24
10 B 15
10 B 15
14 B 22
10 B IS
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
,
Bertero et al.: B-3
Bertero et al .: B-4
S WF67
S WF67
12 WF 27
10 WF 29
Interior
Interior
I
Becker: I WI4x6 1 WI4x61 Exterior
Becker: 2 W I4x61 WI4x61 Exterior I
Popov et al .: 2 IS" built-up WISx40 Interior
Popov et al .: 3 19" built-up IS" built-up Interior I
Popov et al .: 4 19" built-up IS" built-up Interior
Popov et al.: 6
Popov et al .: 7
19" built-up
W21x93
18" built-up
WISx71
Interior
Interior
I
Popov et al. : S
Ghobarah et al .: CB-I
W21x93
WI4x43
WISx71
WI4x3S
Interior
Exterior
I
Ghobarah et al. : CC-3
Tsai et al. : TH2
WI2xS7
WI4xl59
WI6x40
W21xS3
Exterior
Exterior
I
FEMA: EERC-PNI Wl4xl76 W30x99 Exterior
FEMA: EERC-PN2 Wl4xl76 W30x99 Exterior I
FEMA: EERC-PN3 WI4xl76 W30x99 Exterior
FEMA: EERC-ANI W l4x l 76 W30x99 Exterior I
FEMA: USCD-I Wl4xl76 W30x99 Exterior
FEMA: USCD-2
FEMA: USCD-3
Wl4xl76
WI4xl76
W30x99
W30x99
Exterior
Exterior
I
FEMA: UCB-PN I
FEMA: UCB-RN2
WI4x257
Wl4x257
W36xl50
W36xl50
Exterior
Exterior
I
FEMA: UCB-RN3 Wl4x257 W36xl50 Exterior
I
242
I
J
I
I <
I T able 6.2 (continued): Connection Member Sizes and Joint Type for Tests Used to
Evaluate Panel Zone Provisions
I Test Designation Column Girder(s) J oint Type

FEMA: UCB·ANI WI4x257 W36xl50 Exterior
I FEMA: UTA-4 W14x257 W36xl50 Exterior
Choi et al.: SP-9.1 W14x176 W30x99 Exterior
I Choi et al.: SP-l0.1

Choi et al.: SP-IO.2
W14x257
W14x257
W30xl24
W30xl24
Exterior
Exterior
I Lee et al .: SP-3.l
Lee et al.: SP·3.2
W14x120
WI4xl20
W24x68
W24x68
Exterior
Exterior
I Lee et al .: SP-4.1
Lee et al.: SP-4.2
W14x 145
W14x145
W30x99
W30x99
Exterior
Exterior
Lee et al .: SP-5.l
I Lee et al.: SP-7.2
W14x176
WI4x257
W30x99
W36xl50
Exterior
Exterior
Ricles et al.: LU-Tl W14x311 W36x 150 Exterior
I Ricles et al.: LU-T2 WI4x3 11 W36x150 Exterior
Ricles et al.: LU-T4 W14x311 W36x 150 Exterior
I Ricles et al.: LU-C I
Ricles et al.: LU-C2
WI4x398
W14x398
W36xl50
W36xl50
Interior
Interior
I U.ofMinnesota: CRI
U.ofMinnesota: CR2
W14x283
W14x193
W24x94
W24x94
Interior
Interior
I U.ofMinnesota: CR3
U.ofMinnesota: CR4R
W14x176
W14x176
W24x94
W24x94
Interior
Interior
I U. ofMinnesota: CR5 W14x145 W24x94 Interior
I
I
I
I
243
I
I
I
Table 6.3: Parameters for Tests Used to Evaluate Panel Zone Provisions
I
Fy.",.b Ip leI bel d, de Axial
Test Designatio n
Fielding and Huang

(ksi)
31.4
(in)
0.84 1.378
(in) (in)
15.66
(in)
24.72
(in)
15.38
(YIN)
Y
I
Krawinkler et aI.: A-2
41.0
41.0
0.245
0.245
0.398
0.398
5.82
5.82
10.0
10.0
7.93
7.93
Y
Y
I
Krawinkler et aI.: B-2
Bertero et aI.: A-3
47.0
44.7
0.575
0.495
0.933
0.398
8.29
5.82
13.72
10.0
9.0
7.93
Y
Y I
Bertero et aI.: B-3 47.0 0.575 0.933 8.29 11.96 9.0 Y
Bertero et aI.: B-4 47.0 0.575 0.933 8.29 10.22 9.0 Y I
Becker: 1 40.6 0.875 0.645 9.995 13 .89 13.89 N
Becker: 2 40.6 0.375 0.645 9.995 13. 89 13.89 N I
Popov et aI .: 2 49.0 0.5625 0.625 8.25 17.9 18.0 Y
Popov et aI.: 3 49.0 1.0625 1.25 8.5 18.75 19.125 Y I
Popov et aI.: 4 49.0 1.0625 1.25 8.5 18.75 19. 125 Y
Popov et aI.: 6
Popov et al. : 7
49.0
60.0
0.6875
0.955
1.25
0.93
8.5
8.42
18.75
18.47
19.125
21.62
Y
Y
I
Popov et aI.: 8
Ghobarah et al. : CB- l
60.0
52.2
0.955
0.305
0.93
0.53
8.42
7.995
18.47
14.1
21.62
13 .66
Y
Y
I
Ghobarah et al. : CC-3
Tsai et aI. : TH2
47.3
56.6
0.515
0.745
0.81
1.19
12.125
15.565
16.01
21.43
12.53
14.98
Y
N
I
FEMA: EERC-PN I 49.5 0.83 1.31 15.65 29.65 15.22 N
FEMA: EERC-PN2 53.5 0.83 1.31 15.65 29.65 15.22 N I
FEMA: EERC-PN3 56.0 0.83 1.31 15.65 29.65 15.22 N
FEMA: EERC-AN1 56.0 0.83 1.31 15.65 31.275 15 .22 N I
FEMA: USCD-I 51.2 0.83 1.31 15.65 29.65 15.22 N
FEMA: USCD-2 51.2 0.83 1.31 15 .65 29.65 15 .22 N I
FEMA: USCD-3 51.2 0.83 1.31 15.65 29.65 15.22 N
FEMA: UCB-PN1
FEMA: UCB-RN2
53 .5
53.5
1.175
1.175
1.89
1.89
15.995
15.995
35.85
45.6
16.38
16.38
N
N
I
I
244
I
I
I
I~ .
I I
Table 6.3 (continued): Parameters for Tests Used to Evaluate Panel Zone Provisions
Fye tp tel bel dg de Ax ia l

I Test Designation
(ksi) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (YIN)
FEMA: UCB-RN3 53 .5 1.175 1.89 15.995 35.85 16.38 N
I FEMA: UCB-AN 1
FEMA: UTA-4
50.0
53 .5
1.175
1.175
1.89
1.89
15.995
15.995
44.85
37.85
16.38
16.38
N
N
I Choi et aI.: SP-9.1

Choi et aI.: SP-IO.1
57.0
59.0
0.83
1.175
1.31
1.89
15.65
15.995
29.65
30.17
15.22
16.38
N
N
I Choi et aI.: SP-IO.2

Lee et aI.: SP-3 .1
59.0
49.8
1.675
0.59
1.89
0.94
15.995
14.67
30.17
23.73
16.38
14.48
N
N
Lee et aI. : SP-3 .2 49.8 0.59 0.94 14.67 23.73 14.48 N
I Lee et al.: SP-4.1 48.3 0.68 1.09 15.5 29.65 14.78 N
Lee et aI.: SP-4.2 48.3 0.68 1.09 15 .5 29.65 14.78 N
I Lee et al.: SP-5.1 51.3 0.83 1.3 1 15.65 29.65 15.22 N
Leeet al .: SP-7.2 44.2 1.175 \.89 15.995 35.85 16.38 N
I Ricles et aI.: LU-T I

RicJes et aI.: LU-T2
49.2
49.2
1.41
1.41
2.26
2.26
16.23
16.23
35.85
35.85
17 .12
17. 12
N
N
I RicJes et aI.: LU-T4

RicJes et al. : LU-C I
49.2
54.0
1.41
3.27
2.26
2.845
16.23
16.59
35 .85
35 .85
17.12
18.29
N
N
I RicJes et aI. : LU-C2

U. ofMinnesota: CR I
54.0
52.3
3.27
1.29
2.845
2.07
16.59
16.11
35.85
24.31
18.29
16.74
N
N
U. ofMinnesota: CR2 54 1.515 1.44 15.7 1 24.3 1 15.48 N
I U. of Minnesota: CR3 57.5 1.83 1.31 15.65 24.31 15.22 N
U. of Minnesota: CR4R 56.8 2.33 1.3 1 15.65 24.3 1 15.22 N
I U.ofMinnesota: CR5 58.7 1.93 1.09 15 .5 24.3 1 14.78 N
I
I
I
I
245
I
I
I
Table 6.4: Panel Zone Strength Test-to-Predicted Ratios
I
T est Designa tion
Vp/R. Vp/R. Post-Elastic Post-Elastic
Fielding and Huang

(Eqn.2.1 )
0.781
(Eqn. 6.10)
1.0 II
(Eqn. 2.1)
0.279
(Eqn.6.10)
0.078
I
Krawinkler et al.: A-2
0.996
0.904
1.208
1.095
0.142
0.142
0.028
0.028
I
Krawinkler et al. : B-2
Bertero et al. : A-3
0.946
0.913
1.220
1.051
0.305
0.070
0.104
0.014 I
Bertero et al.: B-3 1.020 1.322 0.350 0.136
Bertero et al.: B-4 1.091 1.413 0.409 0.187 I
Becker: 1 0.645 0.743 0.074 0.017
Becker: 2 0.740 0.911 0.172 0.040 I
Popov et al .: 2 1.090 1.241 0.053 0.009
Popov et al.: 3
Popov et al.: 4
0.929
0.923
1.082
1.075
0.10.5
0.105
0.D35
0.D35
I
Popov et al.: 6
Popov et al.: 7
1.l06
0.708
1.330
0.805
0.162
0.057
0.054
0.014
I
Popov et al.: 8
Ghobarah et al .: CB-I
0.713
1.062
0.811
1.264
0.057
0.115
0.0 14
0.022
I
Ghobarah et al .: CC-3 1.142 1.450 0.231 0.058
Tsai et al .: TH2 0.835 1.080 0.276 0.077 I
FEMA: EERC-PNI 0.803 1.016 0.215 0.048
FEMA: EERC-PN2 0.790 1.000 0.215 0.048 I
FEMA: EERC-PN3 0.740 0.936 0.215 0.048
FEMA: EERC-AN I
FEMA: USCD-I
0.715
0.776
0.901
0.982
0.204
0.215
0.043
0.043
I
FEMA: USCD-2
FEMA: USCD-3
0.826
0.809
1.045
1.024
0.215
0.215
0.043
0.043
I
FEMA: UCB-PNI
FEMA: UCB-RN2
0.789
0.783
1.008
0.981
0.248
0.195
0.065
0.040
I
I
I
246
I
I
1-;
0"
I Table 6.4 (continued): Panel Zone Strength Test-to-Predicted Ratios
Vp,IR. Vp,IR. Post-Elastic Post-Elastic

I Test Des ignation
FEMA: UCB-RN3
(Eqn.2.1)
0.789
(Eqn.6.10)
1.008
(Eqn.2.1 )
0.248
(Eqn . 6.10)
0.065
I FEMA: UCB-ANI
FEMA: UTA-4
0.832
0.781
1.044
0.994
0. 199
0.235
0.042
0.059
I Choi et aI. : SP-9.1

Choi et al .: SP- IO.l
0.844
0.748
1.069
0.967
0.2 15
0.295
0.048
0.092
Choi et aI.: SP- IO.2
I Lee et aI.: SP-3.1
0.688
1.068
0.851
1.338
0.207
0.192
0.065
0.038
'.I Lee et a1.: SP-3.2

Lee et aI.: SP-4.1
Lee et aI.: SP-4.2
Lee et aI.: SP-5.1
1.090
1.017
0.986
0.9 10
1.365
1.272
1.234
1.152
0.192
0.185
0.185
0.2 15
0.038
0.034
0.034
0.048
Lee et al.: SP-7.2 0.921 1.178 0.248 0.065
'I Ricles et al.: LU-TI

Ricles et aI.: LU-T2
0.807
0.798
1.040
1.028
0.287
0.287
0.091
0.091
I Ricles et aI.: LU-T4

Ricles et aI.: LU-CI
0.851
0.729
1.096
0.879
0.287
0.188
0.09 1
0.075
I Ricles et a1. : LU-C2

U.ofMinnesota: CR I
0.783
0.752
0.944
0.981
0.188
0.394
0.075
0.168
U. ofMinnesota: CR2 0.787 0.956 0.171 0.051
I U. ofMinnesota: CR3 0.711 0.840 0.119 0.032
U. of Minnesota: CR4R 0.697 0.812 0.093 0.025
i
l U.ofMinnesota: CRS 0.764 0.885 0.080 0.018
I Mean
Standard Deviation
0.856
0.132
1.060
0.170
I
I
I
247
I
I
I
Table 6.S: Girder-Column Combinations for Panel Zone Thickness Calculations
I
Identification InteriorlExterior Column Girder(s)
CRI Interior Wl4x283 W24x94 I
CR2 Interior WI4xl93 W24x94
CR3, CR4R Interior WI4xl76 W24x94 I
CRS Interior WI4xl45 W24x94
SAC-I
SAC-2
Exterior
Exterior
WI4xl20
Wl4xl76
W24x68
W30x99
I
SAC-3
I-I
Exterior
Interior
W14x257
WI4x257
W36xl50
W24x76
I
1-2 Interior WI4xl76 W24x76 I
1-3 Interior WI4x311 W27x94
1-4 Interior WI4x211 W27x94 I
1-5 Interior WI4x342 W30xl08
1-6
1-7
Interior
Interior
WI4x257
WI4x398
W30xl08
W33x130
I
1-8
1-9
Interior
Interior
WI4x311
Wl4x426
W33x130
W36xl50
I
1-10
E-l
Interior
Exterior
Wl4x370
Wl4xl59
W36xl50
W24x76
I
E-2
E-3
Exterior
Exterior
Wl4xlO9
Wl4xl76
W24x76
W27x94
I
E-4
E-5
Exterior
Exterior
Wl4xl20
Wl4x211
W27x94
W30xl08
I
E-6
E-7
Exterior
Exterior
W14x132
Wl4x233
W30xl08
W33xl30
I
E-8
E-9
Exterior
Exterior
Wl4xl59
Wl4x257
W33xl30
W36xl50
I
E-IO Exterior Wl4xl93 W36xl50
I
I
248
I
I
I~ ~
I ~ Table 6.6: Required Panel Zone Thicknesses
Required Panel Zone Thickness, tp (in.)

I Identification
Equation 6.10 AISC (1997) SAC (Eqn. 2.7) AI C(l992)
CRI 2.11 1.63 1.80 1.42

I CR2 2.45 2.05 1.94 1.82
CR3, CR4R 2.5 1 2.13 1.98 1.90
I CRS 2.61 2.27 2.04 2.03
SAC-I 0.92 0.75 0.71 0.66
I SAC-2 1.1 7 0.93 0.90 0.81
SAC-3 1.56 1.21 1.23 1.05
I I-I 1.76 1.33 1.47 1.14
1-2 2.02 \.68 1.59 1.48
I 1-3 2.01 1.51 1.69 1.29
1-4 2.36 1.96 1.84 1.72
I 1-5 2.17 1.63 1.79 1.39
1-6 2.46 2.01 1.92 1.75
I 1-7 2.45 1.84 2.06 1.57

1-8 2.78 2.24 2.20 1.95
I 1-9
1-10
2.73
2.94
2.08 2.26 1.78
2.03
2.34 2.36
I E-I
E-2
1.01
1.09
0.78
0.92
0.81
0.84
0.68
0.81
I E-3
E-4
1.21
1.30
0.96
1.11
0.95
1.00
0.83
0.98
I E-5
E-6
1.28
1.42
0.98
1.21
1.00
1.07
0.85
1.07
I E-7
E-8
1.49
1.65
1.17
1.40
1.17
1.26
1.01
1.23
I E-9
E-IO
1.64
1.78
1.29
1.49
1.29
1.37
1.12
1.31
I
249
I
I
I
Table 6.7: Comparison of Panel Zone Thicknesses
I
Panel Zone Thickness, tp (in.)
CRl CR2 CR3 CR4R CRS I
Used fo r
1.29 1.5 15 1.83 2.33 1.93
Experimental Study
Re-designed Using
2.11 2.45 2.51 2.51 2.61
I
Equation 6.10
I
Table 6.8: Scale Factor, Ct, for Panel Zone Capacity Corresponding to Test Results I
Specim ens
CRI CR2 CR3 CR4R CRS I
Predicted Panel
Zone Capacity at
4Yy = Panel Zone
1073 1074 1074 1074 1075 I
Demand (ki ps)
Target Panel Zone
Capacity at 4yy
I
711 700 764 922 829
Based on
Experiments (kips) I
Scale Factor, Ct 0.663 0.652 0.711 0.858 0.771
I
Table 6.9: Column Bending Stresses and Corresponding Strains in the Region 6 to 12 in. I
Below the Girder Flange
Specim ens I
CRI CR2 CRS
Range of Stress (ksi) 22 - 24 30 - 32 45 - 49 I
750 - 820 1020 - 1120 1550 - 1700
Range of Strai n (Ilf:)
I
I
I
250
I
•
I ~
.n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.1: Typical Cruciform Specimen Finite Element Model [after (Ye et a1., 2000)]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.2 : Typical Cruciform Connection Region Modeling [after eYe et aI., 2000)]
I
251
I
I
I
I/)
I/)
!!!
I
U5
I
1.09Fyo I
o I
I
8.73cyn 86.2cyo Strain I
Figure 6.3: Stress-Strain Curve for A992 Steel [after (Ye et aI., 2000)]
I
I
120,----------------------------------------------,
I
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I
I
"~ 60
~
~
i3
I
40 ------ ------------------------------------ -.-- -- -------
I
20 -- ------------------------------------------- ------------
I
o~------~---------------- __----------------~
o 0.01 002 003
Intarstory Drift (rod)
0.04 0.05
I
Figure 6.4: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CRI
I
252
I
I
I
I 120r-----------------------------------------------,
I 100
I ------------,-- ~
-- ~:::::----~
..... - ....
I
I
I
I O ~------__----------------------------------~
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 004 005
Inte.-tory Drift (MId)
I Figure 6.5: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CR1
120 r-------------------------------------------------,
I
100 •• - -. - - - - - - ••• - ••••• - - ••••••• • •
I
I ...3 60 - ---------
I
oJ
~
~
(3
40 •• ---- --- -.- ••••• - •••• - •••••••• -------
I 20 --- -------- ••. - .•.......••••••••••• -- ••• -
I
o ~------------------------------------------~
I o 0.01 002 003

Int• .-tory Drift (rod)
00<1 005
Figure 6.6: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CRJ
I
253
I
I
I
120,------------------------ -----------------------, I
100 -------------------- ~
--~--__- ~~~
--~
--~
--~
--~--~--~--~-- ----------- I
.a.
2.
80 -------------- - ------------------------------------------- I
."
2:
...J
60 ---------- I
~
ij
40 ------ --- - - ------_.------_. ---- --- -- ------ --- ------ - .--- -- I
20 -- --- ------------ -- ------ ---- - - - - ----- -- --- -- -- - - - - --- - --- I
o~------~--------~------~--------~------~
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
I
Int.... tory Drift (rod)
Figure 6.7: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift. Specimen CR4R I
120,-------------------------------------------------,
I
100 -- - -- - - - -- --- -- - - --- --- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- -- - -- -
I
80 ------------------
i
2.
."
I
2: 60 ------------
I
...J
~
•
l!
ij
40 - -- -- -- - -- ---- -- - --- - - - --- -- - - - -- - -- - - --- - ---- - --- - -- - -- -- -
I
I
o~------~--------~------~--------~------~
o 0_01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Inters tory Drift (rod) I
Figure 6.8: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Load vs. Drift, Specimen CR5
I
254
I
I
I
.'I
.,
16000 ,-----------------------------------------__-,
------- .. -----._._--------._----- --- ---- ... - ......... - .......... ..
12000
I C
l 10000
:!!.
~
j
~
I ~-
f 6000
I i3
.aoo ---------------------------------
I 2000
o ~---------------------------------- ----~ __
I o 0.005 001 0015 002 0025 003 0035
Connection Pintle RotatJon (tad)
I Figure 6.9: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Connection Plastic Rotation,

Specimen CRI
16000 ,--------------------------------------------,
• 14000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -
I 12000 -------------- -- - -------------

C
1
I E.
~
c
10000
~ 8000
I ::IE
~
•
1!
6000
i3
I 4000
2000
I O ~----__----~----------------------------~
o 0.005 001 0015 0.02 0025 003 0035
I Connection PI.stic Rotation (rad)
Figure 6.10: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Connection Plastic Rotation,
I Specimen CR2
255
I
I
I
16000 I
14000
I
12000
;:
6. 10000 I
-..
~
c
E
0
8000
I
~
~
..
'l! 6000
C;
4000
I
2000 I
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Connection Plastic Rotation (rad)
0,025 0.03 I
Specimen CR3 I
16000
14000
I
12000 I
;:
l10000
-.
~
c
I
E 8000
I
0
~
..
~
'l! 6000
c;
4000
CR4R (FEA-Mill)
- - CR4R (Experimental
I
2000
0
I
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 003
Connection Plastic Rotation (rad)

I
Specimen CR4R
I
256
I
I
I n
I 1~ r-----------------------------------------__- ,
I 14000
12000 ---. ~
- --~
-----:::::::
-- -~ - --~
- --- :..:..:....;
--- -=- -- - ~
- - - -------
I S
I>. 10000
~
E
•
I I
8000
•
~
~
1!
I 5
4000 -------- ------- ----- ------- ----- ------r-'- .~.":":":~~~'-;
I 2000
I 0
0 0.005 001 0.015
Connection Plntlc Rotation (rad)
0.02 0025 003
I Figure 6.13: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Connection Plastic Rotation,

Specimen CRS
120 r-----------------------------------------------~
I
100 ---------------------------------- ----
I
80 ~
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.-z : ;;::::::::;:
- -~
-- =.- =---
- - --::::":'
- -- -
I i
~
."
•
.3
I •
~
1!
5
40 --- ---------------.------ .---- - -------------------------
I 20 ----.-.-.---.---.
I O ~----------------------------------------~
o 0.005 001 0015 002 0025 0.03 0035
I Pln.' Zona She .. Oolo""ollon (rad)
Figure 6.14: Comparison of Experi mental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation, pecimen
I CRI
257
I
I
120,------------------------------------------------, I
100 ...................................••............•........
I
I
I
I
I
o~----------------------------------------~
o 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Panel Zone She.. Deformation (rad)
I
Figure 6.15: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation, Specimen
CR2 I
120.--------------------------------------------------,
I
100 ...............•......•.•..................
I
..
~
Co
I
."
:! 60 • •• ••• •••••••••••..••••••.••.••••• • .••..••••••••..•••••
..J
~
C>
:g
C)
I
20 ....................................... -
-CR3 (FEA·Mill)
CR3 (E riment.1
I
o~------------------------------------------~
I
o 0.005 001 0.Q15 0.02 0.025 0.03 0035
Panel Zone She.r Deformation (rod)
I
CRJ
I
258
I
I
I ~
••
'1
120 r - - -- ------------ -------------------------- -- - - --,
I 100 ················
I ~
!.
80 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
..,
I :!
.
..J
~
'l!
60 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••
c;
I
I 20
I 0 ~------------~--------------------------------4
o 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0025
Panal Zona Sha" Oafonnation (rod)
003 0.035
I Figure 6.17: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation, Specimen
CR4R
120 r - - -- -------------------------------------- - - -- -,
I
100 ......................... .
I
.- 80 •••••
I Q.
..,~
:! 60 ••••••.••••.•.•••.••••.•••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••.••
I
..J
;;
'l!
I " 40 .......•••.•.•••••......•••••••.•..••.••••.•••••••••..•.
20
I O ~----~----~------~----~----------------~
o 0.005 0.01 0015 0.02 0.025 003 0.035
I Panal Zona Shea, Oafonnation (rod)
I CRS
259
I
I
I
I
I - I
I
'.
~,
I
I
-
)
,f I
I
'1
Figure 6.19: Specimen CRI Panel Zone (1 .0% Drift)
I
I
,
" , f" I
' . .• ~ ~::. J
.. .
~ ,,:- .-
I'!
~\!
" .
" " - ... .. - •

r~
... .~ '1 I
;r " ::: , ,
1-'; ' - "
it,,:..
~,. :
• ,f r':.t
,:;
I
~\.i-
..
• ,1\
'1
,' '" I.,
• f i ."..::'""".'\"
;;-
co_
o
. '_ , '
'I
,I
•
I
.<:-- • ,t
I
ru. I
Figure 6.20: Specimen CRI Panel Zone
I
260
I
I
I :'"
'"I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.21 :
I
I
I -.
I
-.
I
I )
I .~
I ,
Figure 6.22: Specimen CRI Panel Zone (3 .0%
I
261
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.23: Specimen CRI Panel Zone (Following Test)
I
I
I
I
262
I
I
I na
I
I
•
I , ,,.. :,
\
. ,., I
I
V'
.~,.
,'I'
•
l •
I , . .t :
I
I
I r 11111\ 1, •
Figure 6.24: Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (1.5% Drift)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
..A'
I
263
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
264
I
I
I ~~.
,.
""
I
I
I .. • ," I •
': .,' :-
I ....
J .:r,·-
~. I
.
'.;- .. .. . \... --
~----.:... .
~ '
\
.
I
I
I d
J
, ._ .~ t .
Figure 6.28: Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (1.5% Drift)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I .. • ""'\

I
265
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
266
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.32: Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (1 .5% Drift)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :... ..
.J -' _.. '
I • f .'~"""'"
Figure 6.33: Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (2.0% Drift)
I
267
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
268
I
I
I .,
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I - """"-.........
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..,-
...IL.
I
269
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Figure 6.38: Specimen CRS Panel Zone (3.0%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. _ "' L
Figure 6.39: Specimen CRS Panel Zone (4.0% Drift)
I
I
270
I
I
1~rr--------------~----------------------------~
- ne_3pz_hra (horizontal)
- ne_3pz_hrb (diagonal)
I 1000
- ne 3pz hrc (vertical) 1'1
I
I
I
I -1000
I -1500 -'-----------------------------------------------'
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Load Step
I Figure 6.40: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRI (Panel Zone Center)
I 15OOrr--------r------------------------------~
- ne_1pz-9ra (horizontal)
- ne_1pz-9rt:> (diagonal)
- - ne 1 z rc vertical
1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
I
C 500 .---------- .. _---- .. _------- - .. -
I "£
•e
I ! 0 ~ IJJvWJvWNJ -
~ -500 - - - - - - - - • - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - • - - - - - - - -
I ·1000 - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - • - - - .. _. - - - _ .. - - - - - - - - - •• -
I -1500 -'----------------------------------------------'
o
I 1000 2000 3000 4000
Load Step
Figure 6.41: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRI (Panel Zone Comer)
I
271
I
I
1~rr--~------~--~----------------------------,
-ne_3pz_hrb (diagonal)
I
___ ~~ _3p~ _~r~~~_rt!':"!)______________ ____________ _
1000
I
I
I
I
-1000 - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- --- - - - -- - - -- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - -- -- -
I
-1~ -'---------------------------'
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
load Stap
~ 6000 7000 8000 9000
I
Figure 6.42: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR2 (Panel Zone Center)
I
1500 fh;;;-;;;;-;:;;;Tt;;;;;;.;;;t;iil-----------i
-ne_1pz.Jlra
"9_ '~'_-"'U (diagonal) I
1000 ~~~~ --- - ------ - -- -- ---- ---- - --- - -- --------
500
I
C'
~
!
~
u 0
I
!
-
e
I:
I II -500
I
-1000 ----------------------------------------
I
-1~ -'---------------------------'
I
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
load Stap
I
Figure 6.43: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR2 (Panel Zone Comer)
I
272
I
I
I:: I.T>
"-
I 1500
•I
- ne 3pz hrc (vertical)
1000 ---- - --- - ------ - ------- --.- - ---- -.- - - - - ---- ---_ ...... ----_ ... ---
I
C
l•
e
":[
500
0
nnnn·nnn ·nn~· n · ~. n··~· ~ ~u II
c:
f
'I u; -500 ------------------- - - - - - -- - -- - - - --
I
•
il -1000 ... ---------- -------- ------------ - -------- ------_ ... ----- -_ .........
I -1500
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Load Step
I Figure 6.44: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRJ (Panel Zone Center)
1500
II -
-
ne_1pz-ljra (horizontal)
ne_1pz-ljrb (diagonal)
ne 1pz-9rc (vertical)
~
il 1000 ------------------ - - - ------- - - - . - -

I
I
C
~
•e
500
·nnn~nA~~ ~.~~, . • -
,. , n
- - - '- - -
II "
:[
c:
e-
0
~ ~ IW
101
~ . ~ -
-"-
'.I -
<II -500 ----------------- \001 - -101 --1/ -- - - -- - ------ - --
-1000 --
--- ... ---- ... ------ ------------- _ ...... _ ... -- ---- -- -----_ ...... -_ ...... -- -_ ...
-1500
o
I 1000 2000 3000 4000
Load Stop
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Figure 6.45: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRJ (Panel Zone Comer)
I
273
I
I
I
1~~----------------------------------------~
- ne_3pz_hra (honzontal)
I
1000
ne 3pz. hrc Cverticall
~---~------------- ----- ....... --------------------------- - --- I
I
I
I
-1000 ------------------------- ------------ --- .------------
I
.L..________________________________________----"
I
-1~
o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Load Step
Figure 6.46: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR4R (Panel Zone Center) I
1~r-------------~---------------------------.
I
I
1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
c ~
£.
e
I
E"
c: I
~ -~
I
-1000 - ------- -------------- ---------------------------- -
-1~ . l -________________________________________---l
I
o 2000 4000
Load Stap
8000 8000 10000
I
Figure 6.47: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CR4R (panel Zone Comer)
I
274
I
I
I~
I 1~rr--~--~~~--~-----------------------------'
I 1000
I
I .E
~
I U) -500 ------------------------------------
I -1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I _1~L-----------------------------------------------~
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Load Step
5000 6000 7000 8000
I Figure 6.48: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRS (panel Zone Center)
1500
I -
-
ne_1 pZ.-Qra (horizontal)
ne_1pz.-Qrb (diagonal)
ne 1DZ arc (vertical)
1000 ----- -- -- -- - -_. - - - ----- ---- - -- .-- -- -----+----- --- -- -
I ~
,..
--- -
"
~ -
£ ----; -------- ~ I
I ~
•e
...
E 0 - ~ T--~
I c:
-
~
U)
-~ -
\oJ
- - - - -. ... - - - -- -
I -1000 ---------------.---------- - -- -
...
- - - -
I -1~
o 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
I
1000 2000
Load Step
Figure 6.49: Elastic Strain History of Specimen CRS (Panel Zone Comer)
I
275
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(a) (b) I
Figure 6.50: Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.375% Drift in Specimen
CRI for (a) Positive Loading Direction, and (b) Negative Loading Direction I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(a) (b)
Figure 6.51: Elastic Panel Zone Shear Stress Contours at 0.5% Drift in Specimen CRI
I
for (a) Positive Loading Direction, and (b) Negative Loading Direction
I
276
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 6.52: Close-up View of Column Flange Yielding and Kinking due to the
Concentrated Girder Flange Force (Specimen CR I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
277
I
I
I
8000 rr~~~----------------------------------'
-+-0.375%
I
...... 0.50%
7000 - ....... 0.75%
...... 1.00% I
6000 - -+-1 .50%
-&-2.00%
-1>-3.00%
-&-4.00%
I
I
2000
I
1~ [j
------~
-------~
--- ~~~ I
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -2 o 2
Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (In.)
4 6 8 I
Figure 6_53: Longitudinal Strains in CRI Colwnn Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
Tension) I
o~~~~~
-1000 - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- - ---
I
-2000 I
"2
~ -3000
WI
e
I
.!:! -4000
oS
c:
.,:s -5000
-+-0.375%
- ...... 0.50%
I
....... 0.75%
-6000 _ ...... 1.00%
-+-1 .50% I
-&-2.00% __________________________ )...._~
_<L _ _____________ _
-7000
-1>-3.00%
-&-4.00% I
~ooo-14~====~------------------------------~
-12 -10 -8 -6 -2 o 2 4 6 8
Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (in.'
I
Figure 6.54: Longitudinal Strains in CRI Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
Compression)
I
278
I
I
I ~ rr====~~----------------------------------.
-+-0.375%
...... 0.50%
I 7000
6000
- ..... 0.75%
..... 100%
. ..... 1.50%
I £5000
.s
........ 2.00%
-.0- 3.00%
...... 4.00%
e
I .l! 4000
!.
c
~3000
I ."
2000 .------------- ••••
I 1~ [j
.. .. .. --
-.--~
---- ~~~~
I -14 -12 -10 -8 -2 o 2

Dislance from Bottom Glrd.r Fling. Iiong Column (In.)
4 6 8
I Figure 6.55: Longitudinal Strains in CR2 Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
Tension)
o
I -1000
I -2000 - •• - - - - - - - - - -
I
I -+-0.375%
- ...... 0.50%
..... 0.75%
I -8000 . ..... 1.00%

-+-1 .50%
........ 2.00%
-7000
I -8000
-.0-3.00%
L~......
==4=.00%
==~________________________________________~
-14 -12 ·10 -8 -6 ·2 o 2 4 6 8
I Disiance from Bottom Glrd.r Fllnge along Column (In.)
Figure 6.56: Longitudinal Strains in CR2 Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
I Compression)
279
I
I
I
8000
-+-0.375%
...... 0.50%
I
7000 - ...... 0.75%
6000
...... 1.00%
- -+-1 .50%
I
-&-2.00%
-""'3.00%
....... 4.00% I
I
2000 I
1~ ~~------~
-- ~
------- - I
-14 -12 -10 -4 -2 o 2 4
Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (in.)
6 8
I
Tension) I
-10~ ~~-~
--------~
- ~ I
-2000 I
c -3000
S
e
.!!-4ooo
I
£.
c
S
., -5000
-+-0.375%
- ...... 0.50%
...... 0.75%
I
_ ..... 1.00%
-6000
-+-1 .50%
-&-2.00%
I
-7000
-..... 3.00%
....... 4.00%
~-14~====~------------------------~
I
-12 -10 -4 -2 o 2 6 8
Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (in .)
I
Compression)
280
I
I
I
1--
I &oorr=====r==========----------------------,
-+- 0.375%
....... 0.50%
I 7000
6000
....-0 75%
....... 1.00%
- -+-1 .50%
I £5000
S
-9-2.00%
.......... 3.00%
-<>-4.00%
2
I .!! 4000
.s.c:
.,~ 3000
I 2000 --- - --------------- -
I 1000
o
I -1 4 -12 -10 -2 o 2
Distanc. from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (In.)
6 8
I Figure 6.59: Longitudinal Strains in CR4R Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
Tension)
I
I -2000 --- ----------
I
I -+-0375%
- ....... 0.50%
..... 0.75%
I ~ _ ....... 1.00%
-+-1 .50%
-9-2.00%
-7000
1 .......... 3_00%
-<>-400%
~~==~------------------------~
-14 -12 -1 0 -8 ~ -2 o 2 4 6 8
I Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (In .,
Figure 6.60: Longitudinal Strains in CR4R Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
1 Compression)
281
I
1
&OO rr==~~--------------------------------'
....... 0375%
__ 050%
I
7000 . -+-075%
6000
-+-'00%
. ....... 150%
I
-9-200%
........ 3.00%
"-4.00% I
I
2000 I
I
· 14 ·12 ·10 ·2 o 2
Ol.taneofrom Bottom Girdor Flange Iiong Column (in.,
4 6 8
I
Figure 6.61: Longitudinal Strains in CRS Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
Tension) I
I
·2000 I
:5-3000
1:
e
.!!-'looo
I
S.
c
.,'£ ·5000
..... 0.375%
. __ 0.50%
....... 0.75%
I
~ooo . --- 1.00%
....... 1.50%
-9-2.00%
I
·7000 ........ 3.00%
-8000 L~--
===4='0===-
0% ________________________________________J
~ ·2 o 2 4 6 8
I
·14 ·12 · 10
Distance from Bottom Girder Flange along Column (In.,
Figure 6.62: Longitudinal Strains in CRS Column Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in
I
Compression)
282
I
I
I
I
I 1400
1200
• , I I I , , I
-("---1
, ---,. - - - ,•
---,----'----r---'---~----r---'---~-
, I , I
I 1000 - - ;v,R~ ; -lIA5.k1ps (M~asured fy). " - _ • ~ - -. _: •.
..
Co
800 - -;lI,RII "-903.Jdps (Nomlnal~y)_ - C- - -~ - --
• , I t , , I
---~---i---~----~---~--~
. .
I
600
~
. 400
---i----'----r---~---~----r---'-
", I I • I
.
, I
---,----~---!---~----~---!---
,
e - - -7---~----r---T---~----r---~
,___.! ___ , I I • , • I
...
0 ___ J ___ ____ ____ ___ __ ____ ___ i ___ ____
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
_
.
_
!
_
200 I • I • • • I , I , ,
I
~
•
CD 0 - - -i----:----~---i---~----~--- ~----~·--i---~~ --~---f
.c
<II
,
___ J ___ ____ L ___ J ___ ____ L __ ___ ____ ___ J ___ ____ .
L ___ J __ _
•c:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-200 I , I I I I
0 I I
___ J ___ . ' . ___ I.. __ J ____ , ____ '- __
I I ,
.J ___ _ ..... Experimental
I N
.
'i
c:
IL
-400
-600
,"
,,
___ J ___ . , . ___ I..
.,
___ J ____ I _ _ _ _ '- _ _ _ J _ _ _
,,
,, ~ __ _
• - Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy)
- ~ - - - - -Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy)
I
~ __ lI ___ ~
I ____ , ~ ___ J __ _
-800
I -1000
-1200
_
___
_ _____
4
~
____ '
___ ~
___ . . . . . . .
___ J __ ~ ____
_-l _ _ _ _
~
~
__ ~
_ _ _ .. _ . . . . . _ • •
--.
~
I -1400
-14 -12 -10 -2 6 o 2 4 8 10 12 14
Nonnallzed Sh.ar O.fonnatlon (y I y,)
I Figure 6.63: Panel Zone Behavior versus A1SC Design Equation 2.1, CRl
1400
.
I 1200
,
·--,---~----r---'
• I • t t l ,
. -.. -, . ---r---' . - . - r---,,
"--, ~
. ,,
•r
.. -
1000 --;vRv =flOidps (M....ur.d Fy)-:- - - - ~ . " - .
I ..
Co
800
600
--;vRv io'~24'1ps (Nomlnaf'Fy)
- .. - ~ - .....,- .. - .. :. - - .. 7.. - - .:- - - - ~ .. -.. 4, - rV ~
';-'
' - -, . -.. ~ . -. -: -..... :... --... -

: ~ - , • - -: - . -- -
~
.e , I
,
, I I ,
,
.
I , , .,
,
I
I ...
0
.
~
400
200
--"1-"··,·"··r-·-l--·~-"-·r-
.. _ .. .! ... __ I .
· ,
I I
__ .. !. .. __ 1. .......' ••• _!. • _
I , ,
,
I
,
---i·--~·---r·--T
-.... .:. .......' ... - -. .......... ..
. '. _
,
CD
.c
.
0 ---i----;·---~·--i·---i--·-~---
. . , ·-·1---~~---i- . -1 . -·-r-- . t .... •
I <II
c:
~
-200
-400
___ J ___
__ .. J_ ••
I
~_
~_
,
,
.....
.. _.~
~_
I
.... l ___ .. ' ___ .L_ ..
___ j
.
I
__ .. ~
.
I
... _
,
.. L
I
__
...' ... __ \. .. _ . . . . . . .' . _ ....... ___ 1 _ .. ..
..... Expenmental
. -Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy)
I .
'i
c:
IL
-600
___ J • • __ , ___ I.
- .. ~ .. :-- - ~ -~.
. -~____4
-' ~ ~
- . - - Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy)
-- '-----,
-800
, I ' I I : '
__ • • _ ... .. _I. _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _ _ .. ___ .. _ .. _l __ .. _ . _ . . . _l . . . . . __
-1000
~._ ~ ~ ~ ._~_ _~. ~_
I -1200
-1400
_ _ . . . . _ _ ... _ _ _ _ I. .. _ _
,
~ ___ ~_.
"
_ _ ... _ _ _ . . . . . _l _ _ . _ . . . . . __ •
"
__ .~ __ .. _ ... _ •• 0 __ •
I -1 4 -12 -10 -2
Normaliz.d Sh.ar O.fonnatlon (y / y,)
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 6.64: Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2.1, CR2
I
283
I
I
I
1400
1200
•
- -;vRV "r07Sl<lps (Po1.-asureaFyY - --; - - - -:- - - -r - - -: - -- -,- ---;- --; - --
,
I I I I I I I
I
.
1000
800
- - - , - - - -:--- - r - - - 1----:- -. -;..---~- ~--i- -- T---'· - --;..--- T
I
Co
;g. 600 ---~----:----:----~----:----:----~ ~---;~---:--.-~---
II
e0
...
400
200
, I
I
---~---~---·r---7---~----r---1
"
, I I
I I
I
,
"
, ,
I
I
---I----r---i---~----r---
" I ,
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
•
I
I
---i---~----r---1---~----r--- --~----r---i---~----r---
~ , , ,
to
II
~
.
If)
0::
-200
0 - - - i - - - + ---r ---i - - - -,- - - - r---
___ J ____ •I ____ IL ___ JI ____ II ____
I I I I I
I
~
I
_____
,
--- -i - - -- j- - - - i - - - ,- - - - r --- T - - -
~
I ____ L ___ J ___ ~
I ____ IL ___ J I
0 ___ JI ____ I, ____ ~ ___ JI ___ ~ ____ ' I ___ _
L __ ~ ........ Experimental
I
N -'100
--Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy)
.
: I : : : : I
"i
0::
-600 - - -,, - - - -,-
I
- - -,
I
~
- -,
I
- - - -,-
,
- - -,
•
- ,-
,
- - - ....... EQuation 2.1 (Measured Fy) --
II. , I , " ' I I I I ,
-800 ___ ~ __ _ -;- __ - ::.: __ l . I' - ~ - ~ - - - -;- - - -~ - - - l - - - ~- - -~ - - -! - --

-1000
· 1200
___ .. _r . _1 _ _ _ _ \... _ _ _ "
---~---~----~---~---~----~--
"
___ _
~---~---_\....--.- ,
-~----~---, , ,
I
-1400
-14 -12 -10 .a ·2
Normalized Shear Defomation (y I
o 2 4
r,)
6 8 10 12 14 I
Figure 6.65: Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2.1, CR3
I
1400 •
1200
1000
__ ~ ~~~ ~_~_1~~ _~!~._ ~~O.~i~~I_ ~y') _~ ___ , _ ~
__:. ___ :_ _ _ _.___: ____ :____ i _ I
• I , , I I , " I
.-
Co
;g.
800
600
---~----:----~---~---~----~---~-
I I
I
, ,
I
I I ,
"
- - - i - - . -,- - - - ,- - - .. i - - - " - - - - " - - - I
I I
~----r---;---~----~---!---
, I I I I
I ,
- - -...
I
.. - T - ... - ','" - - -
I • ,
t .. - - ;: - - -
I
. 400 ---i----:----~---i---~----~---l
I I
,
,
__ J ____ ~ ___ ~---~-_--~-_-l---

I
!!
...
0
...
~
200
0
- - - .!I - - - .'.
•
,
- - - '.
•
- - - .!, - - - .', - - - -
- - - i - - - -j - - - - r ---i - - - -,- - - - r -. -
t. _ _ _
,
,
--~---i---~----r-----
--- -1- - - - r --- 1. - • .,- - .. - r, --- i - - -

, , , ,
I
~
..
If)
___ J. ___ ' ___ .L ___ J. ___ ' ____ L __
,
\ ___ ____ L ___ l ___ ____ L ___ l __ _
I
~
~
·200 , ,
0::
0 ___ J ____ ' ____ L ___ J ____ ' ____ L __ .J __ _ ...... Experimental
N -'100 , , , , - Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy)
,
.
"i
0:: .QOO
___ J ____ ' ____ L ___ J ____ , _ _ _ L_ .J __ _
....... EQuation 2.1 (Measured Fy)
II.
.Q()()
_ __
,
~_.
t
- --~. -- -:----~ --. ~

, ,
,
: -- - ~ --,
I ,
__ ' _ _ _ _ L ___ J _
I I
,
_ _ _ _ L_
,
,
_~
~ ___ .' ____ L
___ ~ ____ ~
__ I ___
__ I _ _ _
~
~
____ L ___ • .
_ _ _ _ L _ _ _ • • __
I
-1000 ,
: ~
· 1200
-1400
: I
---~------------~---
: •
- - ;.;;.-' I
-14 -12 -10 .a ·2 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Normalized Shear Deformation (y I y,) I
Figure 6.66: Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2. 1, CR4R
I
284
I
I
I~
I 1400
1200 ,- ,.
I 1000
800
---~----,----('"---!---,:----;..---",- ",-
•• ;I/Rl£ .=_!lL4J<ipll (Nominal,Eye)_ -.- - - -, - 1-;"--
------~-- ~----;----
_.- -::-:-; ____: ___ .:- _ - - ; - - -
... -
a • • I , r. I I , , ,
I ..
B.
~
600
400
---1---Y---:----~----:----;_---,
I
I
I
---i---~----r---T---~----r---1
, I I ,
I
I
-:--- :----f----:· ...... ;..---f .......
• ,
~----r---i---~---
I
, ,
. r---T---
•
I
,
...
0
200
___ J ___ I I
~ ____ "
~ ___ J ___ ~ ____ l___ I I _'_. __ ~ ___ J ___ ~ ____ ~ ___ ! __ _
I ."
, , I I t I . , . ' I
~
, , I I I I I " I
.t:. 0 ---i---~----~---i---~----~--- ---~ ---~---t---~----~---i---

..
Ul
c:
-200
___ J ___
I
~
I
____ L ___
,
I
~
I
___ J t ____ L _ _ _ _
t I I
.1I "
____ L ___ l ___
Experimental
~ ____ IL ___ ! __ _
I ___ JI ___ . '" ____ L ___ J ____ I' ___ .L __ __ _

I .....
0 ~
N -400
'i : : : : : : : -Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy)
c:
:. ~OO -_.. ----'- ---, --_. -;--'-d
,
,
,
I
---, - "- --
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- Eauation 2.1 (Measured Fy) - --
, , I I I
___ J ____ , ____ '- ___ J ____ I _ _ .J _.-' .'-_ . , ___ .1 _ _ _ _ 1... _ _ _ 1 _ _
~OO
~
_
'
-
I -1000 - - -
I , .
~ . . . . ..1- _ . ~ ~ __ • ~ ___ .... _ • ~

.....
,:;......0lIl
1 I I ,
... __ __ '_" _ ......... _ ~ .... _~
,
I
....
,
_.L.. . --• --..

-1200 -.o---~ .. ---~---.---
I -1400
-14 -12 -10 -8 ~ -4 -2 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I
Normalized She.r DeformaUon (y I y,)
Figure 6_67: Panel Zone Behavior versus AISC Design Equation 2.1, CRS
I
I
I
I -- ---Plane
--- - of-- -
symmetry
I
I
I (a)
Figure 6_68: (a) Net Shear Forces Acting on Panel Zone Showing Deformed Shape, and
(b)
I (b) Modified Fielding and Huang Model for Post-Elastic Panel Zone Behavior
•I 285
I
1400
1300
, .
··---------r--------- - -l-----------1-----------~------ ---- - -
,
,
. I
I
, , I I
1200 .......... -- .......... - - - - .. - - - - - .. i"" - - - - - ........ -; -- .... - -- .... - - .,---- .. - ... -- .. -
,
.a. 1000
1100 -----------~--------- - -~-----------~-----------~------ ------
___________ L __________ .J_________
,
J_________ ___________ _
,
~
..
~
I!
0
900 I
....
IL
~
800
.c
.
CIl
c
700
600
,
I
0
N 500 ---------~-- -- - - -- - ---
.....
"i
c 400
300
---r--------- - - , -----------,
• ,
I Experimental
: ........
- - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - - •••• - - - ' -Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy) --

.
. -Equation 2.1 (Nominal Fy) I
........ _ .. _ ~ ........ _...... _ .. _ ~ _ ...... __ ........ _1 - Equation 6.9 (Nominal Fy)
200
100
__ ___________ :_. _________ J' -___ Equation
~
, I •
6.9 (Measured
• __________ Fy) _
_ ________
,
I
•
0
0 2
Normatized Shear Deformation (y I y,)
3 4 5
I
Figure 6.69: Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and
Equation 6.9, CRI I
1400
1300
1200
.
,
·- .. ·_--- .. --r-----------, ..
,, ,
,
-----------;-----------1-----------------------~------ ------
,
.,------
I
___________ L ________ _ __ !, ___________ J ____ • ______
.
,eo 1000
~
1100 I
___________ L ________ _ __ J ________ .. __ J . .

I
,
I
,
I
I
I
____
~
,
I
I
______ ___ _ _ _
__________ _ I
• 900
___________ L ___________ l
, ,
__________ J ' ______ . . . ___ _
I!
0
..•
IL
~
800
700
I
.c
CIl
•c
~ 500
600
I
.....
"i , I : ......- Experimental
c 400 ----r-----------,-----------,
300
, ,
.. .......... ~ .. .... ................ ~
, - Equation 2.1 (AtSC)
.................. ~ ...... Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy) .. .
.... . .............. ~ ...................... i................ .... . -; - Equation 6.9 (NomInal Fy)
I
200
'- EQuation 6.9 (Measured FyJ
100
0
, ,
.. - - _ ...... ~ .. - -- - - - - - .... ! ... - - .--~- .. ------------ -----
I
0 2 3 4 5
Normalized Shear Deformation (y I y,)
I
Equation 6.9, CR2
286
I
I~
I 1400
·• .. -.... .• ....... .• ...... --
1300 -- ---------r-- · ---1--··
· . . ------,-. . ----- .... -- .___
~--.- ~-
I, 1200 --------- .. -r--··

___________ •L_______ __..:_____
eo -~ .... ..
_. _____ ... ___ _
I
!
~
•
I!
1100
1000
900
:.
- ~---- ~. ==========
...
a 800
.
I
~
1 700
III
•c 600
I ......
oS
c
500
400 r
.. , ............. .
I
- - - .... - ..... - - , ... - - - - ......
300 r"'-··""-- •
--,----- ....
I 200
100 ------.--~
·•
--- ---r .. -------- ....
--
..... .
'!:--------
.. ~ ........
I 0
0 1 2 3
Nonn.lind Shu, Defonn.tion (y I y,)
4 5
I Figure 6.71: Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and
Equation 6.9, CR3
I 1400
1300 .. -------- . ;; -- -~~::::;::;::;;;;
1200 ~ ------~-.-.------ ..
I i 1000
1100 r~===:=====;=::=+
______ J_._ .. __ .. ____ _
.... J ..
~ •
• 900
I I!
...
0
..•
~
800
700
I
L
III
•c 600
oS 500 --- - -- ---,-----------1·· . . · . ------ ., - . -----
"i
--- -,----------- ,---------_. Expenmental
I c ...... I --
400
..." -Equation 2 1 (NomInal Fy)
300 - -- --- r ---. -- --- --, -- ---- -- --- --Equallon 2 1 (Measured Fy)
200
________ •f. -- - --. -- -- i• __ __ ___ _ __ _-EquatIOn 6 9 (Nom,"al Fy)
I 100
0
____
• - - Equation 6 9 (Measured Fy)
• __ .10 .. ___ . . . . . . . . . " .................. _ ••• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • -._
I 0 2
Norm.llzed She., Deformation (y I y,)
3 4 5
I Equation 6.9, CR4R
287
I
I
I
1400
1300
,
.
-----------r---------- 1-·---------,·----------~----·--···
. . I
1200 -----------i-----------l---·-------~---------- 1 . . ---- · I
1100
j 1000 y--- ---------------------_ ....
:!!.
•I!
...
0
900
800
,-
•
I
..•
~
--------~----------
•
..
.,
~
.c
700
600 I
~ 500 -~-----------,-----------,--- ·
I
____ we.
..
"i
c 400
....... E>cpenmental
0..
300 · . -Equation 2.1 (Nom,nal Fy)
r---- .... ""'''--1----- ------ - Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy) .
,
200
100
.......... -_ .. r• ........ -- .......... T• --_ ........ ---- - Equation 6.9 (NOI1IInal Fy)
I
0
0 2
Nonnlllzed Shea, Delonnotion (y /y,)
3 4 5
I
Figure 6.73: Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to A[SC (1997) and
Equation 6.9, CR5
1400
1300
1200
----------r--
•
·,
•
· .
.
................. 'I ....................... , .. .................. .. -," .................... ..
-----------r-----------'!------ ----1 -------- .....:---

I
•
I
______ •• _L ____ .....
1100
•
j 1000
_________ L ___________ J __
• •
....
:!!.
•I! 900 --------- .... • .....
~ ~ -,
...
0
~
.. 800
700
I
.,
.2
•c
0
N
600
500 - ,.
.
I
..
"i
c 400
I
- ... 1
0..
300 · .
••••• r--- . . . . . . . . . , ••
.
aa . . . . . ~
200 ·
····· .. ·r·-- ......... , ...... --------
100
0
I
0 1 2 3 5
Nonnallzod Shu, Delonn.tion (y I y,)
Figure 6.74: Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to A[SC (1997) and
I
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CRI
I
288
I
I
I, ,
II '., 1400
1300
,
----- --- --- r- ---- -- -- _a, - - -- ------ -,- - - - - - - - - ---,----- .------
, , I
___________ ___________ l ___________ l ___________ ______ _____ _
I
I
~
I I ~
I
1200
..
I I I ,
___________ L ___________ J ___________ J. __ • _______ ,
~. _____ _____ _
1100 , , ,
, ,
_____ ______ l ___________ J __________ • J _
,
_ ________ .' ___ • • ______ _
I .!!- 1000
~
GO 900
,
_________ eel. __________
,
,
,
J ___ __ ______ J __ _
::::: :::::~
- ~ --- - -~
' -::::~:::
-: :-:--~
- --~- --~--:::
l!
...
I ~
0
..
~
GO
800
700
- -- ::::
'"..
c:
600 - .., - - - - - -- - - - - .... - - ------- - .... -- - - - - --
,
-
I ....•
N
0
c:
500
400
--r-----------~-----------
"
..-----------~-----··-----
300
I 200
100
t 0
0 1 2 3
Normalized Shear Deformation (y / yy)
4 5
I Figure 6,75: Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to A1SC (1997) and
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR2
'I 1400
1300
1200
,
I •
-----------r-----------,-----------,------·----~------ ----
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
j
..
'I
----------- r-----------l-----------~-----------~------ ------
..
j , , ,
___________ L___________ J __________ J __________ J ________ _ _
1100
.!!- 1000 -----------l~:-:-~-~-~-~---------~'--~~~-~-~-~~~----------~-:-:-:-:-~-~-~-

~
..l!
I ...
0
...
~
900
800
700
I
~
, ,
'"c:
GO 600 --~-- -.------,-----------~-----------~------------
....•
0
N 500
, I
--r-----------,-----------,-----------~----------
, I
-I
, , - Experimental
c: 400 ----r---- -------,-----------
- Equalion 2.1 (Nom,nal Fy)
, ,
300 ------r--- ----- - · - 1 <- - - Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy)
, , -Equation 6.10 (Nominal Fy)
200 --- -- - - i - - - - -- - - ---1--- - -- - - -0-
,
100
______ woo !. _________ ow! - - - -
, , _0- ____ ,_ E uation 6.10 Measured F )
-
I 0 1 2 3 4 5
, Normalized Shear Deformation
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR3
289
h I yy)
-I
I
1400
1300
,
-------- --- r - ------- - --
,
T - ------- -0 -
,
- - -
I
1200
1100
I
a
Ii
.Eo 1000 ~'~.~-~
-~--~-~-~-~~-~'---------
----------~--------~'------------
:!!.
II
I!
0
II.
900
800
:---~-~-~-~-~-~-~-;-~-~;~-~--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-
~ -----~-----------j-------- ,
~-~-~-j:~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~-~-~-:r-
--~------------
..•
~
,
.s:;
'".c
700
600
-----------~-----------~-----------~-----.------
- - --- - - - - ---- .. --- - - - -- - -- .. - - - - -- - - - - --.. -- - - -- - - - --

~
, ,
J
.•
.5
c
II.
500
400
- ---r----------- ..
•
, ,
I
-----------~-----------~------------
----- r ---- --- --. -,- -- - - - - - - - -,

,-
: ~ Experimental
Equation 2,1 (Nominal Fy)
300 -- - -- - ~- - - --- - - -- -; - -- --- - - - - - ~- Equation 2.1 (Measured Fy)
200
100
________ ~ ___________ ~ ___________ ~ -
________ w_~ww
•
____ • ___ .!_ ••• _._._ •• JI -
•
E _ uation
____
,
Equation 6.10 (Nominal Fy)
•• _ _ •6,10 Measured
________ F
• ____
I
_ I
0
0 2 3
Normalized Shear Deformation (y I y,)
4 5
t
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CR4R I
1400
1300
1200
,
• ,
---·----·-·r-----·-----,-----------,-----·-----~--
,
I
,
---w-------r-----------;----------------
I
"
I
,
I
,
------~------------
t
..
, ,
1100
___________ l _________ __ 1 __ _________ J ___________
___________ ~:~~--~-;-~-~-~-~-~-t;~
, - ~--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-jj~
, ___________ _
, _ ~_~__~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_', ___________ _
I
.Eo 1000
.
:!!.
I!
0
900 ----=-- - -~
---- ------l e-:::: - =====~
- ---,------ ---- I
.
II.
~
II
.s:;
800
700
'"..c 600
, I
...
N
0
500 --r---------- ~----- ..... -~.-.----.---.,-------- .
-I
c , : - - Expenmental
400 ----·r-----------,-----------
II. , , - Equation 2,1 (Nominal Fy)
300 - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ---Equalion 2,1 (Measured Fy)
200 _______ or -----__ ---_.; _________ ._ -Equation 6.10 (Nominal Fy)
--- E ualion 6,10 (Measured F
100 -----.----~---------.-~------- .. --~.-.--.-----~-.--.-- '----
0
I
0 2 3 4 5
Nonn.llzed Shear Defonnation (y I 1,)
Modified Fielding and Huang Model (Equation 6.10), CRS
290
,
j
I
I"
I 1200
1100
I .-
1000
900
__ Scplln.a Factor· __
CapaCity
Scaling
t ;vRv, It (711/1073,
Q.
B. 800
•t!
....0 700 -_-~l~:~'e~ , -,-_-, ----,-.-,-_-:.-.-,,; -,--:,--, -------~ --,-.-.--.--.. -
.•
I
~
.c 600 ",
'"•co 500 - . - - - ..r - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - ,
t ......
~
co
400
300 -
, -
- Experimental (Ip: 1.29 In ,
- Equation 6.10 (lp:2.11 in )

- - - - .. ., ............. - ....... ... ,' ............ - .... - ... r - - - - - - • - ... - - ., - • - • - - • - - - ... -
t 200
100 ---------,----.---
,
---,--- .. r .. ---- ---,-----
,
... ___ ......... J .............................. ..... '", ..... ........................................................... J ........... ...
, ,
________
I o~----------------~----------------
o 2
Nonnaliz.d Shear DefonnatJon (y I y,)
3 4
~
5
I Figure 6.79: Schematic Explanation for Scaling of Panel Zone Capacity, Specimen CR1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
291
I
I
I
4~ r-------------------------------------~--~~n I
-+-075%
3000 - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -'-1 .00%
_+_1 .50%
I
~2 . 00%
C
l
2~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<>-3.00%
J
~
Jo!
oS
1~ ---------- -- -------- ----
I
. o~~~~---~
---- ~
--- ~
----~
----.~
----~
-- -,-- -----
c:
l
a
- 1~
-2~ L -__________________________________________----.J
t
I
,
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Dlltance Below Bottom Girder Flange (In.'
Figure 6.80: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CR I Column Flange Near Web
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)
~ r---------------------------------~
1 -+-
~0~. 37=5=%~
1
3000 - --- - ------------------------------- ---------- -'-100%

..... 0.50%
-+-075%
I
C 2~ -- - - ----------------
-+-1 .50%
~2 . 00%
- - - - - - - - - - - - . -<>- 3 00%
I
'£
e
Jo!
~400%
I
oS
c:
.'£ °r I
--- ~~~~--'. -------
-1~ -----------------
I
-2~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I
Diltance Below Bottom Girder Flange (In.,
Figure 6_81: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CRI Column Flange ear Web
I
(Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
292
I
I
I
I ...~
~
,)
.~
I 4000 r--------------------------------------r~~~
-+-0.375%
....... 0.50%
I ....... 0.75%
3000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....... 1.00%
-+-1 .50%
I '2 2000
~
~2 . 00%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...... 3.00%
..... 4.00%
•e
t E
u
c:
1000 --------------- ---- ---
.,~
j o ~ - -,- -- - --- - r - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - , - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - -
I -1000 ---- --- - --- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - ---
-2000 L -______________________________________________
I
~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance Below Bottom Girder Flange (in.)
I Figure 6.82: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CR2 Column Flange Near Web
I 4000 r--------------------------------------r~~~
-+-0.375%
....... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
I 3000 - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - -- - • -- - - • - • - - - ••••••• - - - - - -- - - • - • - ....... 1.00%

-+-1 .50%
~2 . 00%
'2 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - •••• - • - - - • - • - - - - - -- - - • - - - -- ••••• - •• - . ...... 3.00%
I iJ,~ ~ ..... 4.00%
\1 - ---------
., 0 ~ •• -.r-------,------.-,-- -----,-- -- --,- --- --
t -1000 --- ----- -.----- ------ .. ....
II' -2000 L-____________________________________________ ~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
II Olstance Below Bottom Girder Flange (in .,
Figure 6.83: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CR2 Column Flange Near Web
I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
293
I,
I
I
«OOr---------------------------------~~~=n
-+-0.375%
I
___ 0.50%
3000
....... 0.75%
•• • ••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• -+- 1.00%
-+-1 .50%
I
c
~
....... 2.00%
-"-3.00% I
e
.!! 1000
~
••
I P~~~~~
t
~ ~
en 0 - - - - - - ., • - - - - - - -,. - - - - - - - ., - - - - - - - -t- - ____ - - ,. - - - - - _ - -t· - - - - - - -
i
·1000 •••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• - •.•••••••.••••••••••••.••••
I
.2000 L.._ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---1
o 2 4 6 8
DIsblnc. Below Bottom Girder Flange (In.)
10 12 14
I
Figure 6.84: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CRS Column Flange Near Web
I
4000 ~------------------~--~ -+-0.375%
---0.50%
I
....... 0.75%
I
3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' -+-100%
-+-1 .50%
....... 2.00%
C 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' -"-3.00%
~
eu•
..... 4.00%
I
!c
1000
II
.,~ -- - -.,- --... -.. -
-- ----
I
.2000 L..____~ &------------__________________________~ I
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Disblnc. Below Bottom Girder Flang. (In.)
I
Figure 6.85: Longitudinal Strain on Inside Face of CRS Column Flange Near Web
I
294
I
I
I-
I 500 r---------------------------------------------~
I
I f .~ ::::::·:·::·:: ~u:
I 9-
So
Sc: -1000 -+- 0.375% ••••.•••••••••.•.••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••
I <II ....... 0.50%

..... 0.75%
--1 .00%
-1500 ..... 1.50%
I -&-2.00%
......-3.00%
-&-4.00%
.2000 ~==='__ ________________ ___.J
I o 2 3 4
Distance from Center of Web (In.,
5 6
I Figure 6.86: Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR I Column Flange at Location of

Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)
i 2000 rr~~~r---------------------------------------_,
-+-0.375%
....... 0.50%
..... 0.75%
I 1500 -+- 1.00%

....... 1.50%
-&-2.00%
c ......-3.00%
I S
e..
1000 ·1 -&-4.00%
!
I
j ~
o ......... , ......... , ........ , .. ~~= - - . . . . .. ....
I .500 L -________________________________________
-..........0
~
o
I
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dista nce from Center of Web (in.)
Figure 6.87: Transverse Strain on Inside Face ofCRI Column Flange at Location of
I Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
295
I
I
..
I
soo ,---------------------------------------------, I
o ---------r---------r--- ~~~
I
c
~ -SOO ----------------- -- ------- ---
I
f
!l
E. I
.
~
~ -1000 -+- 0.37S% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...... O.SO%
.....0.7S%
-+-1 .00%
J
-lS00 -+-1 .S0%
-e-2.00%
........ 3.00%
-<>-4.00%
I
-2000 ~~~::::!.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.J
o 2 3 4
Distance from Center of Web (In.)
S 6 I
Figure 6.88: Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR2 Column Flange at Location of
I
2000 rr------~----------------------------------------~
-+-0.37S%
...... O.SO%
..... 0.7S%
I
-+-1 .00%
i
,
1500
-+-1 .50%
-e-2.00%
c ........ 3.00%
~ 1000 -<>-400%
•e
!l
E.
.
~ soo ------------------------ ---- -- I
I
-SOO L-____________________________________________ ~ I
o
I
2 3 4 S 6
Distance from Center of Web (in.)
Figure 6.89: Transverse Strain on Inside Face ofCR2 Column Flange at Location of
Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
I
296
I
I
...
I
I ~ r---------------------------------------~
I o ---------r - - - - - - - - - r - - - --: ::-::::

- -~- ,-;-,;- ;-,~-;:::
. :::::::::~
I
t ....... 0 375% - - - • - - - - - - - - - - •
I
..... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
- - 1.00%
....... 1.50%
I -9-2.00%
-6--3.00%
-+-4.00%
-2000
I o 2 3 4
Oi."'nc. from Center of W.b (In.,
5 6
i Figure 6.90: Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CRS Column Flange at Location of
I
2000
....... 0.375%
..... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
I 1~ - - 1.00%
....... , .50%
-9-2.00%
C -6--3_00%
I ~ 1000
Ii
.!!
-+-4.00%
.§.
I c
~
en
I - -- ".
I o 1 2 3 4 5 6
I Ol."'nco from Conter of Web (In.'
Figure 6.91: Transverse Strain on Inside Face ofCRS Column Flange at Location of
I Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
297
I
I
..
1000 ,------------------------------------------------, I
500 ----- - -- - --- - ------ --- - -- - - - - --- - -- -- --- ---- - - - --- -- --- - --
I
J
-+- 0.375% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t
-2500
-+-0.50%
....... 0.75%
-+-1 .00%
I
-3000 --+-1 .50%
-3500
-8-2.00%
......... 3.00%
-<>-4.00%
I
~OOO ~======~--------------------------------------~
o 2 3
Distance from Center of Web (In.)
4 5 6 I
Figure 6.92: Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face of CR I Column
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)
j
4000
3500
n--:--::-::::::;-,----------------------;:-------------------,
-+-0.375%
-+-0.50%
-'-0.75%
I
3000
2500
-+- 1.00%
..... 1.50%
-8-2.00%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 6 I
c ......... 3.00%
:s 2000 -<>-4.00% u ________ u u __ _________ u u u u u u _ • ____ _
I
~
~
_
,
_
,
.
-
e
u 1500 - - - - - - __ - - - • - u u __ u u ~_ _~• ..:..;
u - .,:,,:
e: u~ ' ::
u __ u u~_ u u __ u
I~
-
~
1000 I
- - - - . - - - . - - --- - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - - - -. - - -- - - - -.-- - - - - -
.
i
500 - - - - -
o --- ----- -, ----- --- - r - u _t::-_-~! . :::::;;::?"". _ ~_ - - __ - u __
·500
I
u ______ u u u u ________ ----- --------.--.- •• -.---- ••••• • •
•1000 L -______________________________________________ ~
o 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from Center of Web (in .)
I
Figure 6.93: Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face of CRI Co lumn
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
I
298
I
I
I
I ,~ r------------------------------------------------,
500 ---.--------------.-
I o .... -----,. .. ------- .. ,.
I C
~ -,~
..
·500
e
I
,
.!! -'500
.5-
c:
~ -2~ ....... 0.375% .• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - •
., --- 0.50%
,
-2500 ...... 075% -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
..... , .00%
-3000 ....... ,.50%
....... 2.00%
-3500 -6-300%
-e-400%
I
-4~
0 , 2 3 4 5 6
Ol.tlneo f,om Conto, of Web (In.)
I Figure 6.94: Longitudinal Strai n in Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCR2 Column
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)
4~ rr~~~r---------------------------------------,
I 3500
....... 0.375%
--- 0.50%
...... 0.75%
I 3000 ..... ' .00%

....... ' .50%
2500 1....... 2 00%
c -6-300%
I .e
~
u
2~
'500
1-e- 4 oo% 1-- .--- - •
~f---"-.
' ---<~:o .. -
Ic:
I ~
.,
,~
--~..-,..'~--.
500
I o .. -------c - •• - - • - • - " •• - -~.~- ;- ;-;;...;;;-;;; ~-~~:;;; ;.- .;.~-~.~

. ;;;
. •. --:
.. ;
--
; .. ::.
•• • .. - • - •
I
-500 - - - .. - - -- - - - - -- •.•••• - •• -.- -- - - -- - -. - -- - - -- - - ---- -- --. -.-
_,~ L -______________________________________________~
o , 2 3 4 5 6
I Ol.tl ne. f,om Conto, of Web (In.)
Figure 6.95: Longirudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCR2 Column
I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
299
I
I
I
1~ r---------------------------~----------------~ I
500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - --J-~-~-~~~~::~~~;-~-i
- -------- I
o ---------1""- ••• . . ···r ------ - .,. - - - - - - -
c
~ -1~
-500
I
~
I
,
.!! -1500
S
"
.,~-~
-+- 0.375% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
___ 0.50%
-2500 ___ 0.75% - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - ---
..... 1.00%
-3000
-3500
-+- 1.50%
-&-2.00%
-o!>- 3.00%
+-4.00%
~~====~------------------------------~
a
o 2 3
Dil"'nco from Ctlnter of Web (in.,
4 5 6 I
Figure 6.96: Longitudinal Strain in Transverse Direction on lnside Face ofCR5 Column
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) I
4~
3500
-+-0.375%
___ 0.50%
___ 0.75%
I
3000
2500
..... 1.00%
-+-1 .50%
1-&-2.00%
I
c -o!>- 3.00%
~
~
u
2~
1500
+-400%
I
1
"
.,~ 1000 ---------
~:::::::
-- ---- .. --. I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6~"-'-~- -:..:.-.:.
--:.:-::.-------- ---
I
500
o --- .... - -r"' ... • .,-
-500
-1 ~
-------- ---
I
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dil"'nco from Conter of Web (in.,
I
Figure 6.97: Longitudinal Strain fn Transverse Direction on Inside Face ofCR5 Column
Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
I
300
I
I
I·'
..,
n
007
..... 0375%
1- - 050%
I
006
1-- 075%
'.... 100%
- oos
i .... 1 50%
I C 004
~u 003 •.....••••••. ~ 4 00%
-&-2 00%
....... 300%
I.
I I•
go
" 0.01
u:
I
,
c:
§ 0
o
o -001
-002
-003 L -______________________________________________~
I o 2 4 6 8 10 12
Dillanc. olong Column from Locotion of Bottom Girder Fling. (I n.'
14
I Figure 6.98: Specimen CRI Col umn Flange Displacemenl Along Column Length
I 0.03 , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,
0.02 ....................................................... ,
I ~
001
E
t ~
~ -001
Q.
is -002
I ";'" -0 03
ii:
c:
. . ••••. .• • • • • • • ••• • • • • - - 0375%
1__ 0 50%
I·
E -0 04 . •• • • •• • • • . . • •• • • • •• •• . ••• •• •• •• •• •• ••• •• •• • 0 75% I
I
1 _ _
to -O.OS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• ••••••••
1. . . . 1 00%
.....1 50%
-&-2 00%
-006 ••••••••••• . •••••••••••••••••••••• - •••••••
I -007 L
____________________________________________~I=~
==4
=.=00%==~
.......300%
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I Distance I iong Column from Locl tlon of Bottom Gird.r Flan ge (In.)
Figure 6.99: Specimen CR I Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
301
I
I
I
0.07
-+-0.375%
...... 0.50%
I
0.06
0.05
-+-0.75%
--1.00% I
-..
:§.
c
E
0.04
-+-1 .50%
-&-2.00%
........3.00%
I
... 0.03 -&-4.00%
•
.
D.
.
is 0.02
CD
c
• 0.01
I
ii:
c
"
E
'0
o ~.01
0 -------,- ------- I
~ . 02 f
~. 03
o 2 4 6 8
Distance along Column from Location of Bottom Girder Flange (In.)
10 12 14
I
Figure 6.100: Specimen CRS Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
(Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) I
0.Q3 , - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - ---,
0.02 -- -- - --- - - -- - -- --- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - --- - - -- - - - - ------

I
-•
~
c
0.01 - - -- -- - - -- --- --- - -- -- - -- -- -- - - - --- -- - -- -- --
I
E
co
:: -0.01
..
D.
is ~ . 02
I
•
CD
; ~.03
ii:
c
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- 0.375%
-+-0.50%
I
E ~ . 04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- 0.75%
o
"
'0
~. 05
__ 1.00%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - -+-1 .50%
-&-2.00%
t
~ . 06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........ 3.00%
-0.07 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _~==:=.J -&-4.00% I
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance along Column from Location of Bottom Girder Flange (In.,
Figure 6.101: Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Along Column Length
I'
I
302
I
I
0.07
I g
0.06
"IE 0.05
I •E
•u
i 0.04
•
I is
..•g>
ii:
0.03
-+-0.375%
...... 0.50%
I
c:
E 0.02 ...-0.75%
~
"0 ...... 1.00%
0
-+-1 .50%
I 0.01 ...... 2.00%

-6-3.00%
~4 . oo% I
H.··HH· ••••• H : ••
i
0
I 0 2
Transverse Distance from Column W eb Centerline (In.)
3 5
I Figure 6.102: Specimen CRI Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column

Length (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension)
0
I .{l.01
-+-0.375%
..... 0.50%
...-0.75%
............. ;:~~~.~
.... ~
:
.-.-.===:
.~ .....
:
I -.5 ...... 1.00%
-+-1 .50%
_.~
- ~H~. ~
HH_~
- ==
.~
i .{l.02 ...... 2.00% ________ ._ •• ••• ___ __
•E -6-3.00%
•u
I i
is•
.{l.03
~4 . oo%
_______ • ___ ••• __ H _ ••••••• _ • _ _ _ • __ • __ •• ____ •• __ • _ _".".
_
•g> .{l.04
I ...!!c:
§ .{l.05
I "0
0
.{l.06
I .{l.07
0 1 2 3 4 5
I Transverse Distance from Column Web Centerline (In.)
Figure 6.103: Specimen CRI Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column

Length (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
I
303
I
I
I
0.07 I
-.E
0.06
I
~ 005
.
E
i
•u
0.04
I
•
C
•g' 003
•
iL
~ r---::-:::::::-1
-+-0.375%
.••. _. _. _ •.. - - -- I
...... 0.50%
c:
~ 0.02
0
0
-...0.75%
-+- 1.00%
I
0.01 =::
-+- 1.50%
~:~~ _.. _..... _.___ :... . :~:...~
.~. :..._:..:.~..:..:.:.:.::.-_=_--=
-~. 9 ....
I
0
........ 4.00% I •
0 1 2 3
TransvI,..' Olatance from Column Web Centerline (In.)
4 5
I
Figure 6.104: Specimen CR5 Co lumn Flange Displacement Transverse to Column
Length (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) I
-0.01 -"'0.75%
I
I
-+- 1.00%
? ....... 1.50%
C -0.02 -ti- 2.00% •.• - - - • - - - - - •
•E
.. ......... 3.00%
i
•
C
u
-0.03
........4.00%
I
•g' -OO4
•
iL
c:
I
~ -0.05
0
0
-0.06
I
-007
I
0 2 3 4 5
TranlVlrl8 Distance from Column Web Centerline (In.,
Figure 6.105: Specimen CR5 Column Flange Displacement Transverse to Column

I
Length (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression)
304
I
I
I
I "':
~
I J
~-- Free Edge
I Yield Lines - - "
I Column Flange
• ' ---y--
I b,j2 - k J
I Girder Flange
I ' - - - - Fixed Boundaries

~------- 12Iif~------~
I
I Figure 6.106: Assumed Yield Line Pattern in Column Flange Due to LFB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 305
I
I
I
XOOOr_-----------------------------------r~~~
-+-0,375%
..... 050%
I
_________ ....- 0 75%
2~ - -----
-+- 1.00%
-+-1 ,50%
I
20000 - - -6-2,00%
...... 3,00%
...... 4,00% I
I
~ ---- I
I
_~L---------------------------------------J
.. ~ -3,5 -25 -1,5 05
Otatanc. from C41nter of Glrd.r F~ng. (In.)
2,5 35 4,5
I
Figure 6_107: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) I
~r_----------------------------------.-~~
I
-+-0375% 1
.... 050% I
o - - •• - - .... -- ., - - - - - • - .... - - ........ -," ........ .......... ,. ........ -.-.- ........
~ ~ ....-075%
-+- 100%
.. I
...•
-+-1 ,50%
-----.:.----- •.. • • -6-2.00%
• • ...... 300%
-- ~-- .
~----~8~------~--------~--~
9 8 ~
- .t ...
• 0'
-<>-400%
I
~
...--
().
......
~
I
-20000 • - ~-- •.. --- .
-2~ -
9
- ------- ---------- -- -- - - - - --- ---- ----------- - ---

I
~L-------------------------------------~
" .5 -3,5 -2 . ~ -1 5 ~.5 05 1,5 2.5 3 ,~
I
DI,tanc' from Center of Glrd.r Fling. (In.)
Figure 6.108: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRt West Girder Top Flange near
I
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression)
306
I
I
I
I
I xooo r-------------------------------------~--~~
- - 0375%
.... 050%
I 25000 -------------------- - ---'-,..- - - - - -- 075%

...-1 00%
...- 1.50%
I 20000 --------- ----- --- -9-200%
, c -6-300%
~e 15000 ....... 4 00%
u
! 10000
~
I .
~
5000 --------- --- - ------- •• - -
I o -----~
-5000 L -__________________________________ ~
I -4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 5 -0.5 0.5 1.5

Oi.tanci from Cent.r of Girder Fling. (in.,
2.5 35 45
I Figure 6.109: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRl West Girder Top Flange near
Column Flange (Girder Flange in Tension)
5000 r-----------------------------------~----
I - - 0375%1
-.- 075%
o 50%
I
100%
-+- 1 50%
.5000 - - - • • • - - . ~
. -~.':":.- .:--:-":
- -~. ~....--..-:C
..~- -:-.-~-:-
- . -9-200%
c -6-300%
I ~
eu
-10000
....... 400%
E
I ~ -15000
:s
II)
I -20000
-25000 • - - • - - ••• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - . - - - - • - - ••• - ••• - - • - • - •• - •
I -30000
-4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 05 1.5 2.5 35 45
I Dlol3nc. from c.ntar of Girder F"'ng. (In.'
Figure 6.110: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRl West Girder Top Flange near
I Column Flange (Girder Flange in Compression)
, 307
I
I
~ r-----------------------------------------~--~_,
..... 0.375%
___ 0.50%
I
25000 .•• ....-0.75%
20000 . . . . . . . . . . . . '"'"- .••.•••..

...... 1.00%
..... ...... 1.50%
I
". -&-2.00%
I
,
c ...... 3.00%
................ ...... 4.00%
~ 15000
e 10000
.!!
S
c:
~ 5000 ••••.••........••.••••.•..•......
'"
o .... ;is. r " . ; I
·5000 . • ...... .
I
-10000 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
-4 .5 -35 ·2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5
Olalanc. ',om Cente,
2.5 35 4.5
0' Glrde, Flange (In.) I
Figure 6.111: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRJ West Girder Top Flange near
5000 ~------------------------------------~--~~
..... 0.375%
o ----,-----,~--
,.
___ 050%
-,.-~--~.---~- .. --- r-- •• ....-0.75%
I
...... 1.00%
c
-5000
..... 150%
•••• -&-2.00%
...... 3.00%
I
__ 4.00%
~•
E
eu
-10000 .....!':.7••:::.7•.~.__ . . ............... • .......... .
I
-; -15000
~
'"
I
-20000
-25000
.~ ~----------------------------------~
*I
-45 ·3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
Olalance 'rom Center of Glrde, Flange (in.)
Figure 6.112: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRJ West Girder Top Flange near
I
308
I
I
I
I: ~I
I ""
3~ r---------------------------------------r-~~~
-.-0.375%
HH___ HU___ U_____ . . .-

__ 050%
I 25000 -- -- -- - -- - - -- --
o
e u _ _
- B
_ _ __
__ 1.00%
"
__ 1.50%
0.75%
2~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -e- 2.00%
I C
L5000
......... 3.00%
...... 4.00%
e
I u
E
~1~
'S
I
."
5000
I o ---- ~--'- - .--'- ~-----

-5000 ~--------------------------------------~
I -4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 -ll.5 0.5

Distance from Center of Girder Flange (in .)
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
I Figure 6.113: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R West Girder Top Flange near
5000 r--------------------------------------.--~~
I o
-.-0.375%
__ 0.50%
---- ~ ---'---- - '-- ~ --'----~--. -- .--- _ ....... 0.75%
HH/ .___ H___ ~_ H__ H_ : : : __

__1 .00%
I -5000 u __ u
-+-1 .50%
- -e-2.00%
c ......... 3.00%
I ~e -10000
E
u
- - - - ~:'-'
0-
- -:...:,.
H ~'F'"" - ;-.,:-",, - -=:
- -::::; -~ - -
- ~t=:::--:=:-",, - -,--~'i'O-:~ - - - --
- ,;...:
.....,
...... 4.00%
I c -15000
:s
."
- - - - ;~:
- :::;:,~~-::::
- -:=-: - -~
- -...:.: - -~
- -:.=.--: ,:.-:.:,
-...-
- - ~......::::~~
- - ::;
-20000 - -- - -- - --- - - ---- - -- - -- - --- - - - -- -- - ---- - ---- -- --- - -
I -25000 - -- - - - --- -- -- -- -- - --- -- --- -- -- - ---- --- --- - - - - - ---
I,
,I
I
-3~ L -____________________________________- '
-4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 -0.5 0.5

Distance from Center of Girder Flange (In.)
Figure 6.114: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R West Girder Top Flange near
1.5 2.5 3.5 45
309
I
I
I
30000 r---------------------------------------~--~~ ...... 0.375%
...... 0.50%
I
25000 -----.------.--------- .------ .. - .... ------.------ ....-075%
..... 1.00%
...... 1.50%
I
20000 • - - - - - - - - -', :.'~
- -;.::. - -----~-_"_
' 'c:.
- ;:..; - :-..:-..:.
- -:..:-~- - - - - - - - - - •• - -e-2.00'lo
C -6-3.00%
I
1
~4 . 00%
15000
.2
.s 10000
c • - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - •. - - - -" - - - - - - - - . - - I
'i...
5000 I
o ---- .-.--
I
-5000
-4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 ·0.5 0.5 1.5
Distance from Canter of Girder Flange (in.,
2.5 3.5 4.5
I
Figure 6.115: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR5 West Girder Top Flange near
Colwnn Flange (Girder Flange in Tension) I
5000 ,--------------------------------------,--77.==
...... 0.375%
...... 0.50'10 I
-t=:>' -- -- -:=~.~:
-5000
...... 150%
- - . -- .• -. -e-2.00'lo
I
-6-3.00%
~4 . 00%
I
I
·20000
-25000
I
~L-------------------------------~
-4.5 ·3.5 ·2.5 ·1 .5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
I
Distance from Center of Girder Flange (in.)
Figure 6.116: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR5 West Girder Top Flange near
I
Colwnn Flange (Girder Flange in Compression)
I
310
I
I
I ...·t>
~
.,D
,
I 3~ r------------------------------------------r--~~
-+-0.375%
..... 0.50%
I 30000
2~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....... 0.75%
...... 1.00%
____________________________________ • ___ • ____ • _____ -+-1 .50%
I
...... 2.00%
......... 3.00%
£20000 • - - _ . ...... 4.00%
,!;
~
I .!:! 15000
.s
"
S10000
I
II)
I o -----,-----,-----~-----r-----r-----'--- --~----- T- ----
I _~L---------------------------------------~
~ .5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 .(l.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
Distance from Center of Girder FI.nge (In.)
I Figure 6.117: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI East Girder Bonom Flange near
Colwnn Flange (Girder Flange in Tension)
I ~ I----G-~==::~~=========:==========:;==::~-<>o---_r~~~%l
e
8 e -+- 0.375%
..... 0.50%
o ---- r ---- 1 --- ~ - , ---- l ow ....... 0.75%
I
...... 1.00%
-5000 ---- ~ --- ....... 1.50%
...... 2.00%
......... 3.00%
I i'
,!;
e
1 -1~
·10000 ...... 4.00%
'I "
~ -20000
I -25000
-30000
I -3~ L-______________________________________---'
~.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 .(l.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
I DI_tance from Cent.r of Girder Flange (In.)
Figure 6.118: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRI East Girder Bonom Flange near
311
I
I
3~ r---------------------------------------r-~~~
-+- 0.375%
___ 0.50%
I
30000
25000
...- 0.75%
.... 1.00%
....... 1.50%
I
-&-2.00%
£20000
~
........ 3.00%
....... 4.00% I
e
.!:!1~
s.c I
~10000
I
II)
5000
o
.5000 L-____________________________________----'
I
-4.5 · 3.5 ·2.5 ·1 .5 -D.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
Dista nce from Cente r of Girder Flange (In.)
3.5 4.5
I
Figure 6.119: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR2 East Girder Bottom Flange near
5000 r-------------------------------------------r-+-
--~0.737=S~%~
o · ... l ····· ... .. ·r .... ' .. !.......... r' . :t ..... ___ 0.50%
...- 0.75%
I
.... 1.00%
.5000 •.•.••• .•......••.•...•.•............••. . ...... ....... 1.50%
-&-2.00%
I
~ ~ ... ~. ........3.00%
I
.... 8 •..
~ ·10000 ..... 4.00%
e
.!! ·15000
S.
c
~ ·20000
fI)
I'
·25000
·30000 ••..•......•••.•....•.
I
.35000 L-______________________________________ ~
I
-4.5 ·3.5 ·2.5 ·1 .5 -D.S 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
Distance from Center of Girde r Flange (in.)
Figure 6. 120: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR2 East Girder Bottom Flange near
I
312
I
I
I
I
I~
35~ r-----------------------------------------r-~~~
-+- 0375%
--0 50%
I 30000
25~
075%
-+-1 00%
- - - - - - - - - •••• _. -+-1 SO'll.
I C 20000
g
-&- 200%
- - - ...... 300%
.........00%
•e 15~
I !c
u
10~
.,g
I ~
o
--------
I -5~
-10000 L -________________________________- - '
I -4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 -0.5 0.5 1.5

Diltance from Center of Girder Flange (In.,
2.5 3.5 4.5
I Figure 6.121: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRJ East Girder Bottom Flange near
I 5~ r-----------------------,-~~
..... 0375%
__ 0 SO'll.
- - - - ...... 075%
I -+-1 00%
. ..... 150%
-&-200%
cg -10000 ...... 300%
I •e
....... 400%
.l! -15~
.5.
I g
c
., -20000
I -25~
-30000 - - - - - - - - .• - - - - - - • - - - • - - • - - •
I -35~ L--______________________________________--.J
-4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 5 -05 0.5 15 2.5 35 45
I Distance from Center of Girder Flange (in.)
Figure 6.122: Longirudinal Strain on Specimen CRJ East Girder Bottom Flange near
313
I
I
I
3&00 r---------------------------------------~~==~
_ 0.375%
I
... 0.50%
30000
9 0
...-0.75%
"'-100%
"'-1 .50%
I
I
-e-2.00%
...... 3.00%
---- -------- -...-..-=-: -8-400%
I
-&00 L -__________________________________ ~
I
-4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 .5 -0.5 0.5 15
Diatanci from Cenler of Girder Fllnge (In.)
2.5 3.5 45
I
F igure 6.123: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R East Girder Bonom Flange near
5~ .-------------------------------------~--~~
a - . - - ••_ _ ...
...... 0.375%
"'0.50%
.....-...' _ ..... ' .... ...- 0.75%
' •.-;.;'~-o;.'__....""""~.===-.-.;.:.;.;'
I
"'-1 .00%
. _1 .50%
-e-2.oo%
I
C' ...... 3.00%
~ ·10000
~
.l! -1&00
- -8-4.00%
I
!.
c:
~ -20000 I
'"
-25~ -- --.. -
I
.30000 .. -------- .... - .......... -----------. - .... -- .. '
-3&00
I
-4 5 ·3 5 -2 5 ., 5 -0.5 0.5 15 2.5 3.5 4.5
Distance from Center of Girder Fllnge (in.)
Figure 6.124: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR4R East Girder Bonom Flange near
I
314
I
I
I
I
I 35000 r-------------------------------------.-~~~
-+- 0.375%
.... 050%
30000
I 25000
....- 075%
___ 100%
___ 150%
-&-2.00%
I £ 20000
1: -----------.--:,-::-:
-~
- .- -.---'
:.- ' '--.-=. --.:.:., .----------
...-300%
....... 4.00% :.: .
e
I 9. 15000
.5.
c:
"S 10000
I
."
~-
8
5000
I o -..a;;:;; -: - i
-5000
I -4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1 5 -05 0.5 1.5

oiablne. from Conter of Girder Fllnge (In.)
25 35 45
I Figure 6.125: Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CRS East Girder Bottom Flange near
5000 r--------------------------------------,--~~
I o ---. - ---.-. -~-. -~----
-+- 0375%1
.... 050%
. - ....- 075%
___ 100%
I -5000 . -+- 1.50%

....... 200%
c ...-300%
"S
I ~
-10000
9. -15000
....... 400%
.5.
I c:
"S
If)
-20000
I -25000
-
------ ... ---- .. __ .. .............. ---_ .. _-- ............... .
-30000
I -35000 I.-____________________________________..J
-4.5 -35 -2.5 -1 .5 -05 05 15 2.5 35 45
I o iSbine. from Center of Glrd.r Fllnge (in.)
Figure 6.126 : Longitudinal Strain on Specimen CR5 East Girder Bottom Flange near
315
I
I
I
3000 ,------------------------------------ ------------, I
2000 ••••••••••••••.••••••.••.•••...•••••.•••••••••...•••••.•.•
I
!~--~!:!~ . I
'C
ie
'000 •••••••.•••••••• •••••••• .. no. __
:- ~
u t I i
o -- - -- - - - -,- - -- -- --- -, -- - - --- -.,. - - - - - - --.,. -- - - - -- - .,. - --- -- --
I
1c 1 2 3 4 5
~ ...... 0.375%
.. ·1000 .... 0.50%
...... 0.75%
I
...... ' .00%
·2000 ...... ' .50%
-&-2.00%
......... 3.00%
I
-&-4.00%
.3OOO~====~----------------------------~
Di,"'nce from Center of Column (In.)
I
Figure 6.127: Strain Distribution (Strains CP3 to CPI) in Specimen CR3 Continuity
Plate (East Top Flange in Tension) I
3000 ~~~7.T--------------------------------------,
...... 0.375%
.... 0.50%
...... 0.75%
I
2000 ...... 1.00%
....... 1.50%
-&-2.00%
I
'C 1000 ......... 3.00%
~
Iiu
-&-4.00%
I
· · · .--.=~.
o .........•.... -...................... . .... -..........• .
1c
~ ~
~
.. ·1000 ..- . - - . . . . - ............ ·- 7 I
-2000 .•••..•.••••••••••••.•...•••.••..••.•.•.• - ••. • •••..•.•• I
.3000 L-________________________________________ ~
I
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from Center of Column (in.)
Figure 6.128: Strain Distribution (Strains CP3 to CPl) in Specimen CR3 Continuity
I
Plate (East Top Flange in Compression)
316
I
I
I
I:
'"
I ~ r-----------------------------------------~
I 2000 ----------------------------------.--- -------------------
1 C
:s
e
1000
---------------------~p~
--~---~~~-~~!~~~!-
I !i
.§.
c
a _·-------r---------r------- --,--------- ,----------,-------""1'; •
2 3 4 5
:s ...... 0.375%
I CI) -1 000 ___ 0.50%

-.-0.75%
..... 1.00%
I -2000 -'- 1.50%

-9-200%
........ 3.00%
__ 400%
I -~~====~----------------------------~
Diltance from Centsr of Column (In.)
Figure 6.129: Strain Distribution (Strains CP7 to CP4) in Specimen CRJ Continuity
I Plate (East Top Flange in Tension)
3000
I ...... 0.375%
___ 0.50%
-'-0.75%
2000 ..... 1.00%
I 1000
....... 1.50%
-9-2.00%
c ........ 3.00%
I :s• __ 4.00%
I
Ie
0 ---------r---------r- ~~~
-- ~
----'~
--- ~l.~
--' ~~~
- ~
----~
-.-~ .
CI) -1000 - :- ==-~
- - - - -- - . - ••. -- - - . - -- - G: ... . .----<.>---~~-,....,.-()
I -2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - ... - - - - • - - - - - .. - - - - .• - •• - - - - -
I o 1 2 3 4 5 6
I Distance from Center of Column (in .,
I 317
I
I
~oo ,------------------------------------------------, I
2000 - --- - ---- - - - - ---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - --
I
_
c
1000
I
i
u
§. I
1 2 3 4 5
c
~ .... 0.375%
en -1000 ... 0.50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - -
....... 0.75% I
..... 1.00%
-2000
.... 1.50%
-&-2.00%
..... 3.00%
I
...... 4.00%
-~~==~------------------------------~
Distance from Center of Column (In.)
I
Figure 6.131: Strain Distribution (Strains CPIO to CP8) in Specimen CRJ Continuity
~oo n-~~~----------------------------------------,
.... 0.375%
"'0.50%
....... 0.75%
I
2000 ..... 1.00%
.... 1.50%
-&-2.00%
I
'2 1000 ..... 3.00%
~
e
u
o
...... 4.00%
-- -- -----r---------r-~~~
- ~I~~~~ -
I
§.
c
~
en -1000
I
-2000 - - -- - -- - - - - ------ - - -- - - - --- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - ---- - -- - - - -
I
-3000 L-______________________________________________
o 1 2 3 4 5
~
6
I
Distance from Center of Column (in.)
Figure 6.132: Strain Distribution (Strains CPIO to CP8) in Specimen CRJ Continuity
I
318
I
I
I
I~
I ~OO r---------------------------------------------~
I 2000 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I C
1000 •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• » ••
I i
E
u
o - -- ------r - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - .,- - - - - - - - - *,* - - - - - - - - *,* - - --
1 2 3 : 4 5 ~
~~ ~
c:
I l.. ·1000
-+- 0.375%
...... 0.50% -- -- -- - •• -- • -- •• -- • -- - •• .:==-~-='
....... 0.75%
••:-:c
:=
. -=-:
••:7. -~- .. =-=-
. - -.: - :
-EI
.
...... 1.00%
I ·2000
-+-1 .50%
-&-2.00%
-b-3.00%
....... 4.00%
I -3000 L.:::::==!..--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.J
Olltance from Center of Column (In.)
I Figure 6.133: Strain Distribution (Strains CP I2 to CPII) in Specimen CRJ Continuity

Plate (East Top Flange in Tension)
3000 rr-~~7.T--------------------------------------,
I -+-0.375%
....... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
2000 ..... 1.00%
I -+- 1.50%
-&-2.00%
........................;;:::~:=::::::::::-=:::
" .::::
..~...;;:::.
o
C 1000 -b-3.00%
I l
e
.1! o
....... 4.00%
--------·r-·-------~------
.
. -f- -----.. -,'._.'-
~
.
.s.c:
I ~
.. ·1000 - ••••••• -- •••• - ••• --.-.- ••••.••••••••••..••••.••••••••••
I ·2000 ..••.... - .•••....•. - ........••••.•..•...... - ..•••••..••••.
I .3000 L-______________________________________________ ~
o 2 3 4 5 6
I Oiltance from Center of Column (in.)
Figure 6.134: Strain Distribution (Strains CPI2 to CPII) in Specimen CR3 Continuity
I Plate (East Top Flange in Compression)
319
I
I
I
3~ r---------------------------------------------, I
2~ ......... . ........•..............................•.......•
I
'2
~
1~ •..••.••.•.••..•.•.•....•••..•
. ~. I
e.
!c:
o ---------,.-
1 2
.. ~ ~,
3
.... - - - - - -,- - .. - . - - - -,- - -
4 5
- -- I
~ ..... 0.375%
'" · 1~ "'0.50% •••••••.••••••..••..••••.••••••••••.••••••.•..
... 0.75%
-+-1 .00%
I
·2~
..... 1.50%
-&2.00%
.....-3.00%
I
L!
=
~ == 4=
. 00%
==~__________________________________________~
·3000
Ol,"nca from Can .. r of Column (in.' I
3000 ~~~~----------------------------------~
..... 0.375%
"'0.50%
... 0.75%
I
-+-1 .00%
..... 1.50%
-&2.00%
.....-3.00%
I
a
1.... 4.00%
---------,.---------,.---------~ --,----- ....,...... '!' I

o
u~· --~·~·~·~
·~·~
··
~·~·~·~·~
·· ~
··~·D
c I
·2~ .••.......••...•••...•.••....
6
I
O--------------____ ~D
.3000 L -____________________________________- - J
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
I
Ol,"nca from Cantor of Column (In.,
Figure 6.136: Strain Distribution (Strains CPI3 to CP14) in Specimen CRJ Continuity
I
320
I
I
I
I~
,'"
I 3000 r------------------------------------------------,
I 2000 - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - --- -- -- --- - -- . - -- --- - - - - - - - -• --- - . -
I c
~
1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - .• -
e
il J 0 ~ ~.~~:~-~ -- ---. -- -; 1----- f -s--. --;1· - -- ~. -- --5- -- -- --~ .
!I
I
., -1000 ...... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
...... 1.00%
____ __ __ __ _ __ __ ____ __ __ 9 & __________ 0
I -2000 -+-1 .50%

-&-2.00%
...... 3.00%
-<>-4.00%
I -xoo ~~==~------------------------------~
Distance from Center of Column (In.)
I Figure 6.137: Strain Distribution (Strains CPI5 to CPI8) in Specimen CRJ Continuity
Plate (East Top Flange in Tension)
3000 ..-~~~----------------------------------------,
I ....... 0.375%
...... 0.50%
....... 0.75%
2000 ...... 1.00%
I
C 1000
I "S
•e
I"
I c
"S'" -1000 - - - - - -. - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - . - -. - - - - - - - -. - - - --
I -2000 - ------ -- - ----- .---. ----- --- - --- - ---- --- - ---- - ------ - - ----
I -3000 L -______________________________________________ ~
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
I Distance from Center of Column (in .'
Figure 6_138: Strain Distribution (Strains CPI 5 to CPI8) in Specimen CR3 Continuity
I Plate (East Top Flange in Compression)
32 1
I
I
I
I
I
'2 -10000
~
e
u -15000
I
!c
~ -20000 I
..
II)
~
!
II) -25000
~ CR4R Column Web (North)

I
-30000 --- CR4R Column Web (South)
I
-35000
o
....... CR4R Doubler Plate (North)
..... CR4R Doubler Plate South
.t:::::======~
0.01
__________
0.02 0.03 004
~
0.05
I
Intoratory Drift (%)
Figure 6.139: Shear Strain Variation in Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (East Bottom
Flange in Tension) I
35OOOtr=~~==~=====i----------------------1
I
~ CR4R Column Web (North)
....... CR4R Column Web (South)
30000 ....... CR4R Doubler Plate (Nonh)
___ CR4R Doubler Plate South
'2 25000
~
I
•
g20000
!c I
S 15000
..
II)
!
~
I
II) 10000
5000 - .-.
I
o 001 002 003 004 005
I
Intoratory Drift (%)
Figure 6.140: Shear Strain Variations in Specimen CR4R Panel Zone (East Bottom
Flange in Compression)
I
322
I
I
I
I
I " Chapter 7
I
I Summary and Conclusions
I
7.1 Research Summ ary
I This repon summarizes the findings of research that is pan of an AlSC-sponsored
project to reassess the non-seismic and seismic design provisions for column stiffening,
I and to study the performance of new alternatives for stiffener detailing. The other
components of this project are documented in Prochnow et al. (2000a, 2000b), Ye et aI.
I (2000), Dexter et aI. (200 I), and Hajjar et aI. (2002).
A total of six cruciform girder-to-column joint subassemblages were fabricated
I and tested in this project. Five joint subassemblages were originally designed and
fabricated for an investigation into the provisions for detailing of column stiffening.
I However, due to premature brittle girder fracturing in Specimen CR4, a cruciform
specimen with similar detailing (i.e., Specimen CR4R) was fabricated and tested. The
I panel zone (PZ) and local flange bending (LFB) provisions given by AISC (1993,1997,
I 999a, 200 I) were the limit states targeted in this study, with the local web yielding
I (L WY) limit state being investigated primarily in the corroborating re earch (prochnow
et aI., 2000a, 2002b; Ye et aI., 2000; Dexter et aI., 2001 ; Hajjar et aI., 2002). The doubler
I plate and continuity plate details provided on the specimens were selected to avoid
welding in the potentially low-toughness k-area of column sections, and to provide
I economical alternatives to the traditional groove-welded stiffeners.
I A literature review was conducted to document the background of the current

panel zone design equations contained in the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997). The
I history of these design provisions was presented, followed by a collection of opinions and
recommendations related to panel zone and doubler plate design from various
I
323
I
I
I
researchers. The trend towards stronger panel zones and conservatism in design
following the Northridge earthquake was noted.
I
A parametric study of stiffening requirements was undertaken to identify potential
test configurations for the cruci form specimens. The final specimen matrix was selected
I
after consideration of several factors, including the significant parameters related to the
stiffener design, and correlation with past research, including the pull-plate testing by
I
Prochnow et aI. (2000a) and finite element research by Ye et al. (2000). The original five
cruciform specimens feature a range of column sizes and stiffening details to investigate
I
the panel zone and LFB provisions, as well as to evaluate the performance of the various
column stiffener details.
I
Specimen CRI featured an unstiffened WI4x283 column to investigate the panel
zone provisions for columns with thick flanges (i.e., those with large predicted post-yield
I
strengths), and the cyclic LFB behavior. This test developed significant plastic rotation,
the majority coming as a result of panel zone shear deformation. Specimen CRI
I
exhibited minimal local flange bending deformation in the column. Failure of Specimen
CRI consisted of a low-cycle fatigue rupture in East girder bottom flange. As was
I
typical of the failure mode of every specimen (other than CR4), low cycle fatigue cracks
formed at the girder-flange-side toe of the girder flange-to-column weld and grew
I
increasingly deep until the flanges fractured. This specimen completed 14 cycles at 4.0% I
interstory drift without significant strength degradation.
Specimen CR2 represented a moderate-sized interior connection with a single- I
sided doubler plate. Verification of the LFB criterion outlined in the 1992 AlSC Seismic
Provisions (AlSC, 1992), e.g., Equations 2.9 and 2.13, was the primary objective. This I
specimen requires continuity plates as per AISC (1992). The test results, however,
conflrmed that the current AISC LFB provisions are adequate and conservative when I
using Equation 2.13 for assessing the seismic demand on the column flange, and that
continuity plates are not always necessary in steel moment-resisting connections. I
Specimen CR2 exhibited local flange bending deformation in the column flange , but it
was less than the proposed limit of 1/8 inch out-of-plane displacement. The maximum I
total plastic rotation in this connection was similar to that of Specimen CRI , and the
324
I
I
I
I
I plastic rotation was also dominated by panel zone shear deformation. This specimen
completed 16 cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without significant strength degradation.
I Failure of Specimen CR2 consisted of a low-cycle fatigue rupture in West girder top
flange .
I Specimen CRJ represented a moderate-sized interior cOMection with both

doubler plates and continuity plates. It was primarily intended to show the applicability
I of fillet-welded 112 in. thick continuity plates (equal to approximately half of the girder
flange thickness) in steel moment-resisting cOMections. The panel zone strength
I provided was similar to Specimen CRI . The amount of maximum total plastic rotation in
Specimen CRJ was also similar to those of Specimens CRI and CR2. and was also
I dominated by panel zone shear deformation. This specimen completed 14 cycles at 4.0%
interstory drift without significant strength degradation. Failure of Specimen CRJ
I consisted of a low-cycle fatigue rupture in East girder bottom flange .
Specimen CR4 featured a WI4x 176 column stiffened with an offset doubler plate
I detail. This detail was intended to stiffen both the column web and column flanges.
thereby acting as both doubler plates and continuity plates. This test was stopped during
I the 2.0% interstory drift cycles following brittle fracture of three out of four of the girder
flange-to-colUfM flange complete joint penetration welds. and the specimen exhibited
I limited plastic deformation. Initial cracking at 1.0% drift was captured by strain gage
data. and the first visible indications of cracking were evident in the 1.5% interstory drift
I cycles. The premature failure did not allow the performance of the stiffener detail to be
evaluated.
I An examination of the weld fractures experienced by Specimen CR4 was
conducted to understand and explain the occurrence of the failures . Specimen CR4 was
I unintentionally prepared with very low toughness weld metal. an average of 2.0 ft-lbs at
OaF and 2.3 ft-Ibs at 70°F. In contrast, the FEMA guidelines (FEMA. 2000e). require 20
I ft-Ibs at OaF and 40 ft-lbs at 70°F. This was the only test that did not satisfy the
I cOMection prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift

without significant strength degradation .
I
325
I
I
I
Due to the premature brittle fracturing in Specimen CR4, an additional specimen
with similar detailing (i.e., Specimen CR4R) was fabricated, and notch tough weld metal
I
was used for the girder flange groove welds of Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CRS.
The provided panel zone strength of Specimen CR4R satisfied the current A1SC Seismic
I
Provisions (1997, 2001). This specimen completed 12 cycles at 4.0% interstory drift
without significant strength degradation. The better performance of this test relative to
I
Specimen CR4 indicates the importance of weld toughness in connection performance.
Failure of Specimen CR4R consisted ofa low-cycle fatigue rupture in the East
I
girder top flange. Due to the stronger panel zone, as compared with the other specimens,
relatively small panel zone shear deformation was observed even though the amount of
I
maximum total plastic rotation in Specimen CR4R was similar to those of Specimens
CRI, CR2, and CR3. Specimen CR4R was subjected to 12 cycles at 4% drift before
I
experiencing significant strength degradation. Specimen CR4R performed almost as well I
as specimens CRI, CR2, and CR3, which were subjected to 14, 16, and 14 cycles before
significant strength degradation, respectively. Because of the small sample size, it cannot I
be determined whether there is any significance to the variation in the number of cycles
in the range from 12 to 16 cycles, so it is assumed tharthese specimens performed I
equally well.
These specimens had a full range of column stiffening details and yet all I
performed comparably. Specimen CRI had no stiffening at all. Specimen CR2 had no
continuity plates [although they were required to satisfy seismic demand criteria as per I
A1SC (1992)] and featured an innovative doubler plate detail, with a single-sided doubler
plate in which a square cut (rather than beveled) doubler plate rested on the column I
fillets , slightly offset from the column web, and was fillet-welded to the column flanges.
Specimen CR3 also featured this doubler plate detail, but had two doubler-plates as well I
as continuity plates, although these were only half the thickness of the girder flange and
were fillet-welded to the column flanges and the doubler plates. Present seismic design I
criteria require continuity plates having the full thickness of the girder flange and that are
groove-welded connections to the column flanges . Finally, Specimen CR4R included the I
offset doubler plate detail.
I
326
I
I
1,,<
-.j
I The fact that Specimens CR2 and CR3 performed equally well indicates that the
present seismic demand criteria for continuity plates are somewhat conservative. The
I fact that Specimen CR3 performed well also indicates that if continuity plates are used, it
is not necessary to use full thickness continuity plates that are groove welded to the
I column flanges . Also, the comparable performance of Specimen CR4R relative to

Specimen CR3 shows that the box detail is equally effective as continuity plates in
I providing column flange bending resistance. These findings were also indicated by the
pull-plate tests and corroborating finite element analyses for monotonic loading
I (Prochnow et aI., 2000a, 2000b; Ye et aI., 2000; Dexter et a1., 2001; Hajjar et a1 .• 2002).
and it is now verified that cyclic loading does not affect these conclusions.
I The fact that thinner continuity plates are recommended also means that smaller
fillet welds are required to attach the continuity plates to the column, as compared to
I using thicker continuity plates. For example. only 3/8 inch fillet welds were required for
Specimen CR3 . The smaller welds pose a much less significant risk of causing k-line
I cracking.
These specimens also featured innovative doubler plate details, while Specimen
I CRI had no doubler plate at all. Yet these variations had no significant impact on the
performance of the connections in these tests. Therefore it cannot be concluded that any
I of these details are advantageous, and the most economical details should be
recommended. This was also supported by the results of the pull-plate tests and
I corroborating finite element analyses (prochnow et aI., 2000a, 2000b; Ye et aI., 2000;
Dexter et a1., 200 I; Hajjar et aI., 2002).
I Specimen CRS represents the smallest column section tested (W 14x 145), and it
I included fillet-welded doubler plates and no continuity plates. It was primarily intended
to investigate the panel zone provisions for columns with thin flanges. and to evaluate the
I AlSC LFB provisions for seismic design (Equations 2.9 and 2.13) as well as non-seismic
design (Equations 2.9 and 2.12). The panel zone strength was again similar to Specimen
I CR I. Specimen CRS exhibited significant local flange bending deformation in the

column. however the deformation was less that the proposed limit of 118 inch. This
I specimen completed 6 cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without significant strength
327
I
I
I
degradation. Failure of Specimen CR I consisted of a low-cycle fatigue rupture in West
girder top flange.
I
Specimen CRS was the most substantially underdesigned cruciform specimen
with respect to local flange bending - the resistance-to-demand ratio was only 0.84 for
I
non-seismic demand as per AISC (1993, 1999a), and it equaled to 0.47 for seismic
demand as per AISC (1992). Specimen CR5 completed the SAC loading history (SAC,
I
1997) with more than two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift; therefore it is possible that the
non-seismic demand criteria are sufficient even for seismic loading, although there is not
I
enough evidence to support this conclusion.
Although the performance of Specimen CR5 was adequate, the number of cycles
I
before significant strength degradation in this specimen was distinctly fewer than for the
other specimens (except Specimen CR4). This relate to having an adverse effect of the
I
small column or the lack of continuity plates. On the other hand, it cannot be concluded
that this distinction is significant because it is not known how much variability is
I
expected for low-cycle fatigue fai lures such as these.
The fact that these low-cycle fatigue failures are not significantly affected by the
I
column stiffening seems inconsistent with finite element analyses showing an increase in
stress or strain concentrations in the girder flange-to-column welds associated with
I
excessively weak panel zones or insufficient continuity plates (EI-Tawil et aI., 1998; I
Ricles et al., 2000). However, a majority of these analyses have been monotonic, i.e. the
cyclic reversal of the load was not modeled. The effect of any stress and strain I
concentrations is likely to be diminished by plastic shakedown within the high
concentration regions. I
The stress and strain concentrations exhibited in these monotonic analyses may be
significant when it comes to brittle fracture, which usually occurs in the first few plastic I
cycles. However, provided the welds and base metal have sufficient toughness, brittle
fracture is avoided and the failure mode becomes low-cycle fatigue after numerous cycles I
of plastic rotation. The important performance parameter becomes the number of cycles
at a particular level of plastic rotation. I
328
I
I
I
I
I Specimen CRS was analogous to the pull-plate test 2-LFB in Prochnow et al.
(2000a, 2000) and Hajjar et al. (2002). These two different types of tests exhibited
I similar column flange displacement, and similarities in the strain distributions. These
findings suppon the use of pull-plate tests to investigate local flange bending and other
I localized phenomena.
An analysis of the results of these six tests was conducted to better understand
I panel zone behavior and local column flange bending under cyclic large connection
deformation. The panel zone behavior of each specimen was compared with predictions
I of the current AISC (1997, 200 I) seismic panel zone provisions and with a model
(Equation 6.10) modified from that proposed by Fielding and Huang (1971). In order to
I provide a panel zone design capacity corresponding to the experimental results from this
research, as well as when comparing to panel zone strength results from past research, the
I panel zone strength equation of AISC (1997, 2001) in general needs to be scaled down.
For this purpose, a new methodology was introduced for scaling down the panel zone
I design strength as well as the corresponding panel zone demand. The LFB behavior of
Specimens CRI, CR2, and CRS was also analyzed and compared to the results and
I recommendations from Prochnow et al. (2000a). The effects of different column
stiffening details on the strain distributions in the longitudinal direction in the girder
I flanges was assessed as well.
I 7.2 Conclusions and Recomm endation
I Based on the experimental results of six full-scale interior steel moment-resisting

connections, classified as Welded Unrein forced Flange-Welded Web (WUF-W)
I connections as per FEMA (2000a), and which include several new alternatives for
column stiffener details, several conclusions and recommendations are made below.
I Conclusions regarding the non-seismic behavior of column stiffeners may be found in

Prochnow et al. (2000a, 2000b) and Hajjar et al. (2002).
I 7.2.1 Conclusions
I
329
I
I
I
I. When properly detailed and welded with notch-tough filler metal, the Welded
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web (WUF-W) moment connections can perform
I
adequately under large quasi-static cyclic loads even though relatively weak panel
zone strengths are chosen, as compared with the AISC (1997) panel zone
I
provisions. Specimens CRI , CR1, CRJ, CR4R, and CRS completed the SAC
loading history up to 4.0% interstory drift cycles without noticeable strength
I
degradation. After completing the two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift required by
the SAC protocol, an additional 12 (CRI), 14 (CR1), 12 (CRJ), 10 (CR4R), and 4
I
(CRS) cycles, respectively, were applied to the specimens before significant
strength degradations were noted. The primary failure mode of these five
I
specimens was Low-Cycle Fatigue (LCF) crack growth and eventual rupture of
one or more girder flanges .
I
2. Achieving a required minimum Charpy V-Notch (CVN) toughness in the
I
complete joint penetration (CJ?) girder flange-to-column flange welds is critical
for good connection performance. Specimen CR4 was unintentionally prepared
I
with very low CVN weld metal , much lower than the FEMA guidelines' I
requirement. This was the only test that did not satisfy the connection
prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift
without significant strength degradation.
I
3. Application of the four new alternative column stiffener details (i.e., fillet-welded
I
doubler plate; fillet-welded doubler plates and fillet-welded 112 in. thick I
continuity plates; groove welded offset doubler plates; and fillet-welded doubler
plates that were backside-beveled) in steel moment-resisting connections was I
successfully verified. No cracks or distortion was observed in the welds
connecting these stiffeners to column flanges before their girder flange rupturing. I
Additionally, no cracking occurred in the k-area of the column in these four
column-stiffened specimens. I
330
I
I
I
I ,~
'"o
I 4. The measured maximum column flange defonnation due to the concentrated
girder flange force in the unstiffened specimens ranged from 26% of the assumed
I yield mechanism limit of 1/8 in. flange defonnation in the case of Specimen CRI .
to 49% of the 1/8 in. limit in the case of Specimen CR5 . Specimen CR5 was the
I most substantially underdesigned specimen for local flange bending - the

resistance-to-demand ratio was only 0.84 for non-seismic demand as per AlSC
I (1993. I 999a). and it equaled to 0.47 for seismic demand as per AISC (1992).
Specimen CRS met the requirements for two cycles at 4.0% drift; therefore it is
I possible that the non-seismic demand criteria are sufficient even for seismic
loading. At a minimum. the test results imply that. under the application of the
I corresponding seismic demand (AISC. 1992; FEMA. 2000a). the AISC LFB
strength equation (AISC 1993. 1999a) is adequate and conservative.
I
5. Continuity plates may not be necessary in many steel moment connections. and
I design provisions similar to those in AlSC (1992) or FEMA (2000a) penniuing
the design. or lack of inclusion. of continuity plates. are recommended for
II reintroduction into the AlSC Seismic Provisions. Specimens CRI . CR2. CR4R.
and CRS. none of which had continuity plates (although Specimen CR4R
I included the offset doubler plate detail). showed very ductile connection behavior
even though only Specimen CR1 met the seismic requirements of AlSC (1992)
I and FEMA (2000a) with respect to continuity plates for the limit state of local
flange bending. While continuity plates reduced the strain gradients in the girder
I flanges. the results from this research show that for a wide range of column
sections and doubler plate detailing. strain gradients and strain magnitudes well
I above the yield strain did not prohibit the specimens from achieving the
I connection prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0%

interstory drift without significant strength degradation. This was even the case
I for one specimen that had notch toughness in the weld metal that was
significantly below the FEMA guidelines ' requirement. If continuity plates are
I required. fillet-welded continuity plates that were approximately half of the girder
331
I
I
I
flange thickness perfonned well. The offset doubler plate detail can also function
effectively as continuity plates while simultaneously serving as web doubler
I
plates.
I
6. The effect of the column stiffening on the local flange defonnation and the
perfonnance of the groove weld was similar in the crucifonn and pull-plate tests
I
perfonned in this research, and was corroborated well by the finite element
analyses (Prochnow et aI., 2000a, 2000b; Ye et aI., 2000; Dexter et aI., 200 I;
I
Hajjar et aI., 2002). In view of the relative economy of pull-plate tests, they
proved to be reasonable test specimens for investigation of local flange bending
I
and other localized phenomena when the focus was on non-seismic response.
I
7. The modified access hole (see Figure 3.13) chosen for this experimental study
showed very good perfonnance under large repeated cyclic connection
I
defonnations. In the five specimens that failed by LCF, no low-cycle fatigue I
cracking occurred at the toes of these modified access holes prior to significant
LCF cracking elsewhere in the connection. I
8. Within this limited number of tests conducted in this research, correlation I
between the panel zone strength and fracturing of the shear tab welded to the
column flange at its top and bottom edges was not observed. Instead, fracturing I
in the shear tab edges seems to be more directly affected by local buckling andlor
low-cycle fatigue cracking in the girder flanges under large connection I
defonnations. It should be noted that local buckling in the bottom girder flange,
for instance, might increase the inelastic demand in the top girder flange, which I
may affect the shear tab edge.
I
9. In all the five successful tests, the seismic perfonnance of the panel zones was
stable and ductile. The analyses ofthe panel zone elastic and inelastic behavior I
indicated significant energy dissipation in this region for Specimens CRl , CR2,
I
332
I
I
I
"
I and CR3. Relatively mild energy dissipation was observed in Specimens CR4R
and CR5 even though the measured maximum amount of the connection total
I plastic rotation was similar in all cases. The smaller panel zone energy
dissipation in these two specimens were mostly caused by the design of a stronger
I panel zone in the case of Specimen CR4R, and by the larger column flange
yielding around each girder flange in the case of Specimen CRS.
I
10. The panel zone strength equation included in AlSC (1997) was evaluated based
I on the five successful test results, as well as on a comparison with the 44 past
experimental tests. This equation was found to significantly overpredict the panel
I zone strength at both the point of nominal yielding of the panel zone (i.e.,
achieving a panel zone shear strain of ]).) and, for columns with relatively thick
I flanges, in the post-elastic range up to a panel zone shear defonnation level of 4])..
I II. An alternate model estimating the panel zone post-elastic stiffness was developed
I from a newly assumed panel zone behavior at its ultimate state, and modified
based on the five experimental results so as to more accurately capture the post-
I yield panel zone strength at 4yy than does the current AISC (1997) equation.
Based on a comparison with 49 past experimental results. including the five
I successful specimens of this research. a modified Fielding and Huang model

(Equation 6.10) was found to be more accurate in its prediction of the panel zone
I strength of W 14 and larger columns. and was shown to be somewhat conservative

for smaller columns. A resistance factor of approximately 0.85 was computed for
I use with this panel zone strength equation. However. an assessment of the
appropriate corresponding seismic demand would be warranted before adopting
I this equation.
I 12. In order to provide a more accurate assessment of panel zone strength

corresponding to the panel zone behavior seen in the experiments in this research.
I the panel zone strength equation for the design of steel moment-resisting
333
I
I
I
connections needs to be scaled down. For this purpose, a new methodology,
which properly scales the corresponding panel zone design demand as well as the
I
panel zone strength, was introduced. This methodology may be used to evaluate a
selected panel zone equation (e.g., Equation 2.1 or Equation 6.10) based on past
I
experimental results, and can provide an appropriate demand for a selected panel
zone strength resulting.
I
7.2.2 Recommendations for Future Research
I
I. It is possible that continuity plates are not necessary in a much wider range of
I
connections than are presently believed. The seismic demand in particulru:
appears to be conservative. More tests should be performed on a wider range of
I
specimens without continuity plates to further verify this possibility.
I
2. It is possible that it is not necessary to size fillet welds to fully develop the
continuity plates or doubler plates. These plates cannot exhibit deformation
I
incompatible with the underlying column. More tests with underdesigned fillet
welds should be performed to investigate this possibility.
I
3. The proposed panel zone strength model (i.e., the modified Fielding and Huang
I
model) given by Equation 6.10 should be further evaluated as an alternative to the
current design equations included in AISC (1993 , 1997, I 999a, 2001). An
I
analysis of past test data indicates that Equation 6.10 better predicts the shear I
strength of panel zones at a design deformation of 4Yy, particularly for columns
with thick flanges . A further scaling down of Equation 6.10 may also be I
warranted for achieving a more accurate assessment of yielding in the panel zone.
For columns with thinner flanges, the panel zone strength given in A1SC (1997), I
Equation 2.1 , is appropriate, if it is first scaled down appropriately. Thus, further
research on these strength equations is warranted. In addition, when computing I
required panel zone thicknesses for seismic demands, Equation 6.10 results in
334
I
I
I
I-
I thicker panel zone than both AISC (1997) and FEMA (2000a). Thu , funher
consideration should be given to an appropriate demand for the use in as e ing
I panel zone strength uSing Equation 6.10. Similarly, if the panel zone thlckne e
resulting from AISC (1997) are deemed adequate. then the corre pondlng seismic
I demand should also be caled down if Equation 6.14 or a scaled-down trength
from AISC (1997) is adopted.
I
4. Weld toughness criteria should be recon idered, accounting for the Inherent
I variability in CVN toughness measurements. Funhcr research should thus be
conducted to characterize the statistical toughness distnbu!lons of several
I common electrode clas ifications used in ei mic construc!lon (e.g., E70T-6,
E70TG-K2, and E71 T- ). Te ts should be conducted under a wide range of
I welding parameter, conditions, and eqUipment. Future welding con umable
recommendations for eismic construction should take into a count more
I comprehen ively the re ulting statistical variability of the panicular electrodes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
335
I
I
I
Appendix A I
I
Calculation of Specimen Deformation and Rotation
Quantities
I
I
This appendix describes the procedures used to calculate the various specimen
rotation and defonnation quantities. The quantities of interest include interstory drift,
I
total connection plastic rotation (which includes the contributions from the girders and
panel zone), girder rotation (total and plastic), panel zone defonnation (total and plastic),
I
girder plastic rotation relative to the column centerline, and panel zone plastic rotation
relative to the column centerline. Results from the sections that follow are discussed in
I
Chapter 5 as they relate to specimen perfonnance.
I
A.I Rotatio n and Defo rmation from Disp lacement Data
The LVDTs placed on the girders and in the panel zone were used to detennine
I
the total girder rotation of the plastic hinge region and the total panel zone shear
defonnation, respectively. Refer to Figure 4.18 for the placement of the LVDTs.
I
Actuator stroke data was used to calculate the interstory drift of the connections. As
presented in Section 4.2, the interstory drift levels were specified in the loading protocol
I
used during testing (SAC, 1997). Girder moments were calculated using the actuator I
load data as the load multiplied by the girder length to the column face .
The interstory drift was calculated from the girder tip displacement data as: I
(4.1)
I
where:
(} = interstory drift angle
I
336
I
I
I
I
I Allp = actuator tip displacement
L, = girder length between loading point and column face
I de = column depth
I The girder lengths, L were 131 .63 in., 132.26 in., 132.39 in., 132.39 in., and 132.61 in.
"
for Specimens CRI, CR2, CR3, CR4 (and CR4R), and CRS, respectively. The quantity
I (L, + dcl2) is a constant 140 in. for all specimens. The load vs. stroke data (see Figures
A.I through A.12) was used to generate moment vs. interstory drift plots for the East and
I West connections of all specimens. Figures A.13 through A.24 show the moment vs.
interstory drift behavior of all specimens.
I The total girder rotation relative to the column in the plastic hinge region was
calculated from LVDTs placed on the top and bottom flanges of the specimen girders.
I Figure A.25 illustrates calculation of the girder rotation from the L VDT displacements.
Referring to Figure A.25, the girder rotation was calculated as:
I 8 JArl+lAsl (A. I)
, d'
I where:
8, = total rotation of the girder plastic hinge region
I AT = horizontal displacement of top flange L VDT
As = horizontal displacement of bottom flange LVDT
I d ' = depth between top and bottom flange L VDTs
I The value of d' for the East and West girders of Specimens CRI and CR4 was 27.4375
in. For the other specimens, 29.5 in. was used for the value of d '. Figures A.26 through
I A.37 illustrate the moment vs. girder rotation behavior of all specimens.
The total panel zone shear deformation was calculated from two diagonal L VDTs
I placed in the panel zone (see Figure 4.18). Referring to Figure A.38, the shear
deformation of the panel zone was calculated as (from Krawinkler et aI., 1971):
I Ifl,I+lflll ~b'l +h'l (A.2)
r", = 2 b'h'
I 337
I
I
=
I
where: I
rpz = average total panel zone shear deformation
6" 62 = displacement of diagonal L VDTs
I
b ' = width of panel zone between LVDT connection points
h' = height of panel zone between L VDT connection points
I
The values of (b ', h) for Specimens CRI, CR2, CRJ, CR4, CR4R, and CRS were (10.0
I
in., 22.0 in.), (S.O in., 22.5 in.), (S.O in., 16.75 in.), (10.0 in., 22.0 in.), (9.0 in., 22.0 in.),
and (S.5 in., 23.0in.), respectively. The values of(b', h) are slightly different each other
I
because of different column stiffening detail and location of strain gauges. Figures A.39
and A.44 iUustrate the total moment vs. panel zone shear deformation behavior for all
I
specimens. The total moment was calculated as the sum of the individual girder
moments.
I
A.2 Calculated PIa tic Rotation and Deformation Quantities
I
Using the total rotation and deformation quantities calculated in Section A.I , the I
connection plastic rotation, plastic rotation of the girders, and plastic deformation of the
panel zones were determined by subtracting the elastic components of all quantities. In I
the case of total connection plastic rotation, the elastic components were determined by a
regression analysis of the elastic behavior. For girder and panel zone plastic I
deformations, the elastic components were calculated using assumed models from
mechanics of materials. I
The plastic connection rotation of the specimen was determined by subtracting the
elastic eomponent from the total interstory drift at each load step. The elastic slope was I
determined from a regression analysis of the elastic portion of the load vs. interstory drift
data. The first half-cycle at 0.375% drift was used. The resulting slopes were S63,000 I
kip-in/rad for Specimen CRI , 746,000 kip-in/rad for Specimen CR2, 765,000 kip-in/rad
for Specimen CRJ, SIO,OOO kip-in/rad for Specimen CR4, 800,000 kip-in/rad for I
Specimen CR4R, and 715,000 kip-in/rad for Specimen CR5. These slopes were used to
338
I
I
I
I
I calculate an elastic drift component at each load step. Figures A.45 through A.56 show
the resulting connection plastic rotations, Bp.COM , for the East and West connections of all
I specimens. These plastic rotations include contributions from the girders, columns, and
panel zones.
I The plastic girder-to-column rotation, IIp.g, was determined by subtracting the
calculated rotation due to elastic flexural deformation within the assumed plastic hinge
I region, L~, from the total girder rotation given by Equation A. l. The length of the plastic
hinge was assumed equal to half the girder depth, or approximately 12 in. The elastic
I girder rotation in the hinge region was calculated as (from Hajjar et al., 1998b):
PL.l2L6 - L. )
I B
-.r
= 2E1
6
(A.3)
where:
I B•., = elastic rotation of girder plastic hinge region
P = applied girder tip load
I E= Young' s modulus of steel
= girder moment of inertia = 2700 in4
I I,
I Figures A.57 through A.68 illustrate the resulting plastic girder rotation measured relative
to the column face.
I The plastic shear deformation of the panel zone, ]'pop was determined by
subtracting the calculated elastic component of deformation from the total deformation
I calculated by Equation A.2. For purposes of elastic shear deformation computation, the
panel zone was treated as a body in pure shear. The elastic deformation of the panel zone
I was calculated as:
I GA""
(A.4)
I where:
r•.pz = elastic panel zone deformation
I P,.. = total girder tip loads (East and West girders)
339
I
I
I
dg = girder depth
Le = column length between pin centerlines
I
G = shear modulus of elasticity I
Acw = column web area = del"",
I
Figures A.69 and A.74 show the moment vs. plastic panel zone shear deformation
behavior for all test specimens. I
A.3 Plastic Rotations Relative to the Column Cen terline I
The plastic rotations and deformations reported in Figures A.57 through A. 74 are
not directly comparable quantities. The plastic girder rotations are measured relative to I
the column face instead of the column centerline, and the plastic shear deformations of
the panel zones are not converted into an equivalent rotation. In this section, the data of I
Figures A.57 through A.74 are converted to plastic rotations relative to the column
centerlines, such that the rotation values can be directly compared. I
The plastic girder rotations were converted to rotations relative to the column
centerline by scaling the results by the ratio of the girder length, Lg , to the distance to the I
column centerline. This is expressed as:
L' )
I
OCL - 0 (A.5)
p.g - p.g ( Lg + d) 2
where:
I
O;'~ = plastic girder-to-column rotation relative to the column centerline
I
Figures A.75 through A.86 show the plastic girder rotation behavior as computed by I
Equation A.5.
The plastic panel zone shear deformations were converted to plastic shear I
rotations using a procedure from Leon (J 983 ). The expression is given as:
O CL = 1 [r p.", L, (Le - d. ) rp.",dgde] (A.6)

I
PoP' (L, + d)2 ) Le 2Le
I
340
I
I
I
I where:
B~", = plastic panel zone rotation relative to the column centerline
I The terms in brackets represent the girder tip deflection due to plastic panel zone
deformation, which is then converted to a plastic rotation by the first term of Equation
I A.6. Figures A.87 and A.92 illustrate the plastic panel zone rotations for all specimens as
computed by Equation A.6.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
341
I
I
1SO I
100 -------:- -------:--------:- ---- -;---- -~
- ~;i-' ------- I
so .... _ . . . . . . '- ......... _ . . . . . 1...... _ ......
I
o
I
,,
-so - - ----.,----- ... -,-------
I
fi. ,b;~
_______ ,,__.tJ- ------~,-- ,
-100 .," ..... ---,-------
I
-1SO
-8 -4 -2 o 2
Girder Tip Displacement (In)
4 6 8 I
Figure A.I: Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CRI I
1SO
I
100 , ,
-------~-------~---.-
I
I
11 -SO -------,.----
, ...... "'I
I
~
-100 --------,
.1. ______ ! ______ . ! ____ ·_·
, , ,
,
I
-1SO
I
-8 -4 -2 o 2 4 6 8
Girder Tip Displacement (in)
Figure A.2: Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CRI

I
I
342
I
I
I
I 1SO
I 100 ,, , .'
.. _ ......... ... I................. I .... ............ ' .............. ....' .......... _ .. ..
---- ~
--:::
. ~'"'j
I so ...... ____ •1.. ..........
I o ....... - .. ----_ ....
, .
I -so .. .,...... ., .....
I -100 ------,-_ .... _-
I -1SO
-8 -2 2 o 4 6 8
Girder Tip Dllplacemant (In)
I Figure A_3: Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CR2
I 1SO
100 -------t-------- ·, . .,........

I
.............. '-• .......... .. -'-• .... .... ..
I
I .
., ..... --_ ..
I -100 •
,
..t . . . . . . . . • --,--
I -1SO
-8 -2 2 o 4 6 8
I Girder Tip Dllplacamant (In)
Figure A.4: Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR2

I
343
I
I
I
1SO I
100 , ,,
- - - - - - .1. __ ........ ,.',. ............... ' .... ..
I
so ------~-.-----~---
I
, ,
o ... -1----"'
, . . ·.,--
,,
---- .
I
·SO
I
· 100 ,!~J""'!Z:;:.::;:;;;;:~~-:~
... -~- , .
.. -.-.,.--- ... ,------.,- .
I
-1SO
·2 o
2 4 6 8 I
Figure A.S: Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CRJ
I
1SO
I
100 .
.............. ,'w .............................. ' ..
I
----.--~-------,---.--
•
----·-1-------
I
,
I
-100 -------,. .
-------
I
· 1SO
I
·2 o 2 4 6 8
I
Figure A.6: Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CRJ
I
344
I
I
I
I 150
,
I 100 ........... r
,
__ '.
I
_ .......................................' ..................
• ,
~_
,
... ...
-...... , ......
~
,
I .
."
50 - - - ----~-
, ______ ,'______ -~-------~---
....o ,, ,
I £.
£
0 .................. "'t"" ................. "'t- ............... -1-'" ,-
0(
, ,
I w
.
to ·50 .................. -r ................. -,. .............. -,_ ...
- --~-----.-~----.--,---
,
,
................. :.................. :- ........ .. -. __ ._----."'_
, ... _. , ,
-I··
, .. -
I -100
,
, ,
,
·t .. ··~~ .....
I
- 150
-2 o 2 6 8
Girder TIp Displacement (In)
I Figure A.7: Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR4
150
I ,
100 ... ... ......... ," ............ _,_ ............. _,_"'" ........ j_"
, ,
n ....... ..
I i .............. '- .............. ,................ -' .............. .. .. .. .. -- ... ...... -

E 50 ~- -~- -~-
I ."
.
.3 ,
~
o o .............. t"" ............ -1- .... .. ...... -1- .. ..
ii
I .
.3
0(
';; -so -------r- .... ----,- , --
:E
I -------t-------.---,I • ____ ' _______ __ .. _ _ _ _ _I ___ _
~
-100 I
,
I
I -150
.a -2 o 2 4 6 8
I Figure A.S: Load

Girder TIp Displacement (In)
VS. Stroke for West Girder, CR4
I 345
I
I
I
1SO I
100 - - -- -- -'. - - - - -- . '...... ... - - - - .'. - - - - - - .'. - --
, , , I
I
"~
so _______ L. ______ , _____ _
I
, ,
~
s•
~
o ---.---~-------~--- , - - -;-- ---- -"'1-- -- ---
I
-.:l•" -so
<
I
, ,
-100 -------'--L
- J:::::~
., - - -----,-------0;
I
-1SO
-2 o 2
6 8 I
Figure A_9: Load VS. Stroke for East Girder, CR4R
I
1SO
I
100 ... - - - - - ,
'. - - - .. - - ,
- I.
.
Q.
B. SO
I
"3
...J
~ •
I
S 0 - ... - - ......... to ... ... ... - - ... -1- - - -
,
--•
11
<"
-so
I
~
-100
,
-.------ ....... - ,
"
I
-1SO
I
-4 -2 o 2 6 8
I
Figure A.IO: Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR4R
I
346
I
I
I
I 150
I 100 · . .
- .. - _ .. - .. ,- _ ....... _ ................. _ .... -,_ ........ ..
•
I - - - - - _.1.. __ • ___ .' _ _ .. ___ oJ ........... .
I - ....... - - -~
·
- _ .. _ .... -1- - -
•
I ,-•
I -100 -------~~ ----AI•
I -150
..a -2 o
GIrder TIp Dllplacement (In)
2 4 6 8
I Figure A.l1: Load vs. Stroke for East Girder, CR5
150
I
100
,
-------r-------;-- .
.. ----,----- .
I •
•
-------I..- . . -----~--
I
I
I -100 -------,- ~~
I -150
..a o 2 4 6 8
I
-2
GIrder TIp DIsplacement (In)
Figure A.12: Load vs. Stroke for West Girder, CR5

I
347
I
I
I
20000 I
,
• ,--
15000 -----~-----,-- --r-----~ ----,.
I
10000
5000
I
a ~- .. ---
I
- -5000
.::• -10000 I
-15000
___ ."' __ . . . . .J __ • __ .J _ _ _ _ _ -' .... __ .J ..
I
-20000
~ . 05 ~. 04 ~03 ~ .02 ~ .01 0.00
Int.rstory Drift (rsd)
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 I
Figure A.13: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder. CRt I
20000
I
-~~
15000 ---- - r------r----·'---"'-, ,
10000
.
. --- - .. - ---- ..... ---- .. - ..
AV
____
I
5000
•
, I
a <
I
-:=. -5000
.. _-- .. -' .. _-- .. -'-----

I
,
-10000 -'
-15000 ~!i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ '
. -- - --.-----~---.-'--.--~-----~-----
-20000
• I
~05 ~ . 04 ~03 ~. 02 ~ . 01 a 0.01 002 0.03 004 0.05
Inters tory Drift (rsd) I
Figure A.l4: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder. CRt
I
348
I
I
I
I 20000 r-------~---r--~--~----~------~------_,
,
I 15000 -- -"·r-""''''' r .......... ' - - - - - , . - - - .. .,- .. _ .. _.,-
I -j
c:
I o -----1'"-- 1
, ...... '" '1 - ........
I -•
0:1 -10000
I -15000
I -20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -001 0.00
Inters tory Drift (rad)
0.01 0.02 003 004 oos
I Figure A.15: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR2
I
20000
, , ,
15000 -----r-----r-----'-----,-----,-----, . - ,
I ___ ._____ ._____ ,_____ .__
~~~:::2
I ,
I ~(;
-~• -5000
I -10000
__ ~ _____ J _____ ~_ ..
..... _-
_~ __
-15000 , ,
I -20000
-O.OS -0.04 -003 -002 -001 o 001 002 003 004 oos
I Inters tory Drift (rod )
Figure A.16: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for West Girder, CR2
I
349
I
I
I
20000 I
15000
10000
- - - _ .... - - - - - r - - - - - T - - - - - T - - - - -, - - - - -., - - - - -., - - - - -., - - - - - -'. - - - --
I
5000 I
,,
~
.
'E
o ----"1-----;-----
,
I
C3 -5000
.
'li
w -10000
I
-15000
,
_____ L _____ L _ _ _ _ _ l _____ ..l _____ J _____ J _____ ..I _____ .J ____ _
, I
-20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00
Int.rstory Drift (rad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 I
Figure A_17: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CRJ I
20000
15000
,
., .
I
10000 I
5000
o -----t-----t---- ----1-----.,-----
,
I
, ,
-;;
-5000 I
~ -10000
_____ L _____ ~ _____ , _____ .J _ _ _ _ ~ _____ J _ _ _ _ _ J _____ .J ____ _

,
I
-15000
-20000
I
-005 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.Q1 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Int.rstory Drift (rad) I
Figure A_IS: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CRJ
I
350
I
I
.,
I
I 20000
, , ,
I
15000 -----~-----r-----r-----T-----'-----,-----,-----~-----~ --
.',
,
10000 -- _ ... - ,,.. - ---- ,. - -_ ...... ~ ... ---- .. ----- ......... - --., ... --~-----,-----,-----
,
I -. 5000
"E , , ,
I .
o
:IE
~
t!
o -----r-----t'-----t"-----T--
, , , -- ,-----'--- . . ·1-----'-----
• I , ,
a -5000
I 10
~
·10000
_____ L _ _ _ _ _ I.. _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _
, ,
I · 15000
_____ L _____ ... _____ 1 _____ ! _____ .J. • ..... J _____ .J .... __ • .J_
, ,
,
,
·20000
I -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
I Figure A.19: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder, CR4
20000
I 15000
I c
~
10000
g
I -."
E
5000
o o ...... '1 ... """'I- .. ........
I .
:IE
~
t!
a -5000
• • _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ _
j
I :> -10000 ----_1.._--_ .. 0._---_1..
,
_ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _ ~
, _____ ~ _____ ~ _____ .J _____ .J ..
-15000 , ,
I -20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 004 0.05
I Interstory Drift (rad)
Figure A.20: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4
I
351
I
I
I
20000 I
-----.-----.-----:--- -·-----'-----2'~-~-~-~-~-$-~-~~~~~
15000
10000
I
5000 .. --- . -----~-----,-
I
,
o -----r------r-- ----"1-----"1---
, , .....
I
.
Ul
-5000
-10000
,.
I
-15000 I
-20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01
0.02 003 0.04 0.05 I
Figure A.21: Moment vs. lnterstory Drift for East Girder, CR4R I
20000
15000
I
10000 - --- -,.--- --, - ....... -, ... I
5000 -, I
o --..,-----..,---_
, ..
-5000
I
!
:>0 -10000
I
-15000 -- .
I
...1 ... - - - -
-20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.05
I
-0.05 -0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure A.22: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR4R
I
352
I
I
<.;:>
I ·..()
1 20000
,
,
1
I I , I I , I
15000 -----I"-----I"-----r-----T-----'-----,-----,-----
10000 --- - -,.-- --- r--- -- t --- --. -- - --
1 5000 -----,.--- - - ,. ----- t ----
1 o
, ,
-- ---r-----t-----
, ----;-----.,-----
,
. - _ . - - - - _ ... - - - _ .... - - --
1 ~
••
w -10000
I -15000
1 -20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.Q1 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
I Figure A.23: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for East Girder. CR5
I 20000
15000
,
--r-----I"-----,.-----,-----,--- -,-
.
-,-----,---- ,-----
I 10000
.
----- ~ ----- ~ ----- . ----- .
I 5000 -----.-.---.-----,---~~~
o
I -5000 ~~---.-----.-----.-
I !
;> -10000 ---_.1_---_ .... --- _.. ____ _
____ _ L _____ .1. _ _ __ _ .I.. ___ _ _ _ _ . I . ____ .1 _ _ _ _ _ ..1 _ _ _ _ _ . . . ___ _
I
o j ____ • .,1 .
-15000 •
-20000
I -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure A.24: Moment vs. Interstory Drift for West Girder, CR5
I
353
I
I
I
I
Jo4-- ll r
I
I
I
d'
I
I
I
Figure A.25: Illustration of Girder LVDT Placement and Measurement of Rotation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
354
I
I
I
I 20000
----r---- ,,.---- , ---1"---- "'-- --.,.- ---, -._-,- --- ,-- --,-- --,-- --
I , . . ,
I 15000
10000
,
r -
I "2
~
5000
~ ,
I c
•E
o
0 ---1----~----~----~----
, I • I
,
~ -5000
I -10000 ...
---_ , _--'"---_
, , ... --~----~----~----~----~----
I -15000
____ ~
,
____ I
~
•
____ L ____ L ____
I I
'
~ ____ J_
____" ~
I
. __ J ____ I
~
"
____ I
~ ____ ~. __ _
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03
I Figure A.26(a): East Girder Total Rotation, CRI
20000
I 15000 ---"I---~----r- --'·---,- ---,.---,---- '--·-r----- -~----~
I 10000 ---~----,----~---"I---~---
I "2
~
~
5000 ---~---~----~---"I---~----~---"I-
c 0
•E
I ~
o
-5000
------- r-
- ~~
----";1;
-- ~
I -10000 ---~---~---- .. --_~
___ J ___ .
~
_ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ .. _--~-
_ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ J _ _ _ "
_ _ _ _ .."
~ ___ J ___ ~ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ J ___ ~
,
____ .. ___ , __ _
-15000
I
I • I I
-20000
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 002
I Rotation (rad)
Figure A.26(b): East Girder Total Rotation, CRI (Re-scaled)

I
355
I
I
L ___________________ _
I
20000 I
: ~~1l - ---------
15000 ----.--.-~----~-----~----.----~
, ,
I
10000 ,
----~----~----~-----~----~-- ,
____ ! ____ J ____
, I
~
,
,
_____ ~
I
__ _ I
, •
----I----,----~-----r-
I •
I
_ .... , .. ___ oJ .... _ ...... .. .. ....
~
I
-10000 ,
-15000 --- -; ----~----.- - .~

,- ~ -
I
-20000
-003 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.Q1 0.02 0.03 I
Rotation (rad)
Figure A.27: West Girder Total Rotation, CRt I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
356
I
I
.-L>
I <D
oZl
oJ
I 20000
I
I I I I
15000 ----r----r----r----r----'----,----~----~----,----~---- ~.---
10000 ~~ -------
I c 5000
~c
I •E
0 ----o.----r----
, , -, -- --- .. ----~---- ...o----
o
::Ii -5000
I -10000
I -15000
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
Rotation (rod)
I Figure A.28: East Girder Total Rotation, CR2
I 20000
15000
, ,
,
.,
o
I I I , , I
0
I
,
----r----r----'----,----,----,----~----,----~----~---- ,----
I 10000
I 5000
o ----r----r---------
, , , t
I -5000
o
o
I -10000 .. _--_ ......... __ ..

____ l ____ I. ____
,
____ ! ____ l
,
____ ..I ____ J . _
,
• ..1 ____ ..1 __ • ..1. _."' ___ _
I
~
-15000 o
-20000
o
I -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03
Figure A.29: West Girder Total Rotation, CR2
II
357
I
I
I
20000 I
----r-- --r--· -.,.---- f---·'--- -, .. -_ .. ---- ,--- - ,-- --..,-- .... ..,----
I ' I . I I • •
15000
•
•
,
•
~
I
10000 .. ---,. -- --,.-- --,-- --, .... --, - .. ----..,---- ... ----
•
:ssooo I
a.
e'i:
.
E
0 I
~ ·5000
·10000
I
·15000 "
J
____ L ____ L ____ L ____ ! ____ J _ _ _ _
,
~ ____ ~
,
____
,
~ ____
,
~ ____ ~
,
,
____ ~----
I
·20000
-0.03 -0.02 .().01
Rotation (rad)
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.30(a): East Girder Total Rotation, CR3 I
20000
15000 ..... .. ~ ,,
I
10000 ...... _ ...... _ -rOo" - - , - - .... , - - - - ..... - I
5000
I
o
·5000
I
·10000 I
• ___ L ____ L ____ L ____ l ____ ' ____ ____ J
.
~ ___ J _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ j _ __ ~ ___ _
·15000 ,
·20000
I
.{).04 -0.03 .() 02 -0.01 o 0.01 002
Rotation (rad) I
Figure A.30(b): East Girder Total Rotation, CR3 (Re·scaled)
I
358
I
I
I ,
I 20000
15000 - - .... 1"" r ........ f'''''''' .. ,. ........ ", .... . .... .,,
I
.. _ .. ,. .. - ....
~::rI
10000 ---- ... ----,.---- .. --.~~---
I 5000
. -.-- ...., -....

I o ---- ,. . ----t---_
, . .., . ~-
·5000 ... _-- ..... _-

I -10000 ----1.---- .. --- ................ ,
J_
, ,
I . 15000 ____ L ____ L __ I _ _ _..i_
·20000
I -0.03 -0.02 -001 o
Rotation (rad)
0.01 0.02 003
I Figure A.31: West Girder Total Rotation, CRJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
359
I
I
I
20000
I
15000 --·-r·---r·- . . -..... -.. -~-
• . --., ................. - . .
--" ...... ., .... --., .... .,----.,-
10000
I
5000 ._- -,.--- ... - .. - - ......... ,-- ....... ---1-·-- .. -· ....... · .. ·- I
........ -..
o . .. .. ---t"-- ·-·
, .....
, ,
- t - ....... •
'.
-;----~----~.-
' I
-5000
-10000
I
,
-15000 , ,
___ .. 1. __ • • 10.. _ _ _ I. _ . . . . l
,
__
I
-20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03
I
Figure A.32: East Girder Total Rotation, CR4
I
20000
15000 ,----.,----, ---,--- ,----,

•
J
10000 - - .. -~--- -r"'-"-"- ---t"''''--''--
I
.. --~-
.• . --,. , ,---
, ..... ----.,--
,
I
I
-10000 --. I
,
-15000
____ L __ . . . l __ .. _I.. ...
,- --- --
-20000
I
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 001 002 0,03
Rotation (rod)
Figure A_33: West Girder Total Rotation, CR4

I
360
I
I
I
I
I 20000
I 15000
•I
10000
~ .. -,..--- ~ .-- ... ~-.-- .
---- ~ ----r---- · ---

.. ., .... --- ....
• • •
.. _--_ ............... _-
t -10000
I -15000 ~----~-.--j- .
... -j--.-
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Rotation (rad)
001 002 003
I Figure A_34: East Girder Total Rotation, CR4R
I 20000
15000 ---,.----,.----r----'-- .. _,-- ,- .. ..,.. .. .. .,
I 10000 ----,.--- ... ----.----.---
I C
X
5000
; -•
E
c:
E
0
0 ---- -----t---- •-----
,,
:E -5000
I -10000
-15000
I -20000
-0,02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
I
-0.03
Rotation (rid)
Figure A.35: West Girder Total Rotation, CR4R

I
361
I'
I
I
20000 I
,
15000
I
----,.---~r """r-"--r--
10000 ........ ,. ........ r
•I
........ r ......
...... ----..,----
t
,
-15000
~ ...... ---~----~.-.-~- --j •• --
I
-20000
~. 03 ~. 02 ~ . 01 o
Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03
I
Figure A.36: East Girder Total Rotation, CRS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
362
1
I
I
20000
,
I
I I , I I ,
15000 ,
----~----r----r·---t----f----~----~----~----~--- ,----~-~--
10000
----"----"----·-··-·----·- rJlJ~
-" ~
-"----
I C 5000 .. - - - .......... r - - - - ...... - - .
~
,,
I ~
c:
•E
0 ---- .... ---r---· ..
o
2i -5000 .. --_ .. _-- ... --_ ...... -.
I -10000 ---_ .. _--_ .. _-- -
... ... -.~--- . .. -- .
~
-15000 .-
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Rotation (rad)
0.01 002 0.03
i Figure A.37(a): West Girder Total Rotation, CRS
I 20000
15000 ,----, ,
10000
I C
~
~
5000
c: 0
•
~
2i -5000
-10000
I -15000
-20000
I -002 -001 o 001

Rotation (rad)
002 003 004
Figure A.37(b): West Girder Total Rotation, CR5 (Re-scaled)

I
363
I
>
I
j
J
I
I
h'
I
r
,
I
Figure A.38: Illustration of Panel Zone Shear Deformation Measurement
[after (Krawinkler et aI., 1971)] I
j
I
f
I
I
I
I
364
j
I
40000
, ,
I 30000
20000
------~-------r- -----,-------,--·---·r---·-·~---
I
I E
•
~
a
~ -10000
I o
I-
-20000
1 -30000
............ ..l _ ............
I
~
I
,
...... _ .. .. _1_ .... _ .. _ ..
'
0
.a ..... __ .. _ L.
I I
0
.... _ .. _ .. .I .. _ .......... I. _ .... _ .. ..
I -40000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
Shear Oefonnatlon (rod)
a 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
I Figure A.39(a): Panel Zone Total Shear Deformation, CRI
I
40000
I . , , ,
30000 ........ ... ,.""" - ......... - ...... , ...... - ......... .. ....... , .......... .,...... • - r
I 20000
s-a.
I -&
E
c
•
10000
l ~
3
{!
-10000
I
,
-20000
-30000 .. - .... - -'- - - - • J_

'e_ ~ ... ___ ,______ .. __ ... _I. .... ____ .... _
~
o 0
-40000
-0.01 a 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 005
I
-0.04 -0.03 -O.Q2
Shear Oelonnatlon (rad)
Figure A.39(b): Panel Zone Total Shear Deformation, CR I (Re-scaled)

I
365
i
I
I
40000 ~----r-----r-----r---~r---------~----~-----' I
, , ,
-., - - - - ., - -
30000
I
- - - - - -..,- .. - - - - - r .... - - _ .. -1- ........
20000
I
,
------'"f----
I
-20000 ------'.
I
-30000 -------'------
, . .1,-- - - .,', , ,
----~------~-------~--
, i
~oooo L -________ ~~ ________ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ___________"
~ . 04 ~.03 ~ . 02 ~. 01 o
Shear Deformation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
I
Figure A.40: Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR2 t
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
1
366
i
I
I
40000
,
.. ..
I 30000
20000
------~-------r----·--,-------,··· ---~- ---~----
I c
X 10000
I -"
;g,
c:;
E
o
o ------ .... ---
:E
Iio -10000
....
-20000
-30000 .. .......... ..J .............. " ............ • 1• .... .. ...... ~ ..

--- ~ .... -----
I -40000
-0.04 -003 -0.02 o
She.. Oefonnotlon (<ad)
0.02 003 0.04
I Figure A.41: Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR3
40000
I 30000
,
------,-------r-------,-------,--·---·~----·-~--·----r ------
I 20000 ------,-------~-------,----.--~-
c
I X 10000
,
----·-~-------·-------I----- ,
-~
-
;g,
c
"
E
o
0 --- - - -.. ,. -------r·------I-
,
,
:E
!i -10000 --- .... -.-- ..... ~- .
~
-20000 ............ ~ .. - .... - .. - ........ - .. - .t __ .... _ .... _ _."'. .. .. - -_ ............. --
- .......... -' .......................... .. _,- ...... ...... ..I .......... _ ................ ~ .......................... ..
-30000
I -40000
o
I -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -O.Q1 0.01 0.02 003 004
Sh.or o.ronnoUon (<ad)
Figure A.42: Panel Zone Total Shear Deformation, CR4

I
367
I
I
40000
o
-,----·.·r-- .......
, 0
I
30000 • - .. - - - -,- - .......... r ............... ,.
20000 ................... - ................ r .............. _,
I
I
o o
------~-------t----
o
----1---
o
. ---r--
,
.... ·-
,
.. _ _ . . . . . . -1_ .. _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
-20000
_ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 __
o
I
-30000 t
-40000
-0.04 -0.03 -002 -0.01 o 0.01
She.. DeformatJon (rod)
002 0.03 004 I
Figure A.43: Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CR4R I
40000
30000 ........ ""_ .............. r ...... ..

I
20000 I
c
X
~
C
•~
10000
0
I
:I
~ -10000
~
t
-20000 ------~,... - ..... -~-----
-30000 .' .- _~ ______ J
,
_______ ~
-40000
I
-004 -003 -0.02 -001 o 001 0.02 003 004
Shea, DeformatJon (rod)
I
Figure A.44: Panel Zone Total Shear Defonnation, CRS
368
I
J
I
....
20000
, , ,
I 15000
10000
- - - - - - -, - - - - - - - f - - - - - - -,- - - - - - -, - - - - -
C 5000
~
B-
e 0
•e
0
~ -5000
I -10000
I -15000
.1. _ _ _ _ _ _
,
,
.J ____ • _.f.. _ _ _ _ _ _ J ___ • __ .1.
, • I I
-20000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Plasllc Rol<lllon (",d)
Figu re A.4S: Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRI
I
20000
15000 -,- - r-----
I 10000
C 5000 ------..,----
~
B- ,, -
e.
E
0 ------""1---
0
~ -5000 -------0---
-10000 --- ----'-- -.-

_ _ _ _ _ _ ..1 ____
.'-. __ ..t. _____ ..
,
I
-15000
-20000
t -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -O.Q1 0 001 0.02 0.03 004
, Figure A.46: Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRI

Plastic Rol<ltlon (",d)
369
I
I
I
20000
t
........ - .. -,- .. .. .. .... ...,, --
I
15000 ~
M.
10000
I
'C
X
~
'i:
•E
0
:Ii
5000
-5000
--_ .. - - ... ------
------;-----
,
. . ----1----
.-
,
.... -1- ..
,
-10000 ---'.--- '---- ~~---.
I
-15000 --..1-----
, -_ ....., _-----'---- ~ .........
I
I
-20000
-0.04 .{I.03 .{I.02 .{I 01 o 0.01 0.02 003 0.04
Pla. tic Rotation (rod)
Figure A.47: Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR2

t
20000
15000
,
---- --.. . ---- --r--- .. ---,-- ----, I
-
M.
10000 ------ ... ----
t ...... -,
-, -
,
-10000
-15000 ------------ .... -'- ,
-20000 L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ___L_ _ _ _ __ ' __ __ ' __ _....J
.{I.04 .{I.03 .{I 02 .{I 01 o

Figure A.48: Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR2

0.01 0.02 003 0.04
t
370
I
J
I
...
o;p
I "
"
I
, 20000
15000
10000
,
- - - - - • "'I - - - - - - -
IA
t I I
r - - - - .. - .,- - - - .. - .. .., ...... - -
,
.. -- ---- . . ---- ---r -- -.--
---.,- - ----,.-------
,
,
i ~ 5000
I ~
-•
c:
E
0 ., .
0
I ~ ·5000
· 10000 .-
I · 15000 ------"'.
,
................... ___ ., •
Fracture of East bottom f\ange I

.. _ .. _ _ .. .J, _ .. _ ..
:
~ .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ ..
I
.J .. .. .. .. .. I- _ ...... _
(15'" c:ydo of • .0%)
I ·20000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Plastic Rotation (.ad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 004
I Figure A.49: Total Plastic Rotation of East Girder, CRJ
I 20000
15000 - - - ...... ~
,
Load Increase follOWing East
bottom "ange fracture
.. - -'; p. .... .. _ .. -
~ - .,- .. - _ .... r ••
,
--,
I 10000
I
, ·5000
o ------"1------
,
-...
,..
. ......
.. -----
j -10000 ------ .... ----- ., . - -

IA.
I · 15000 .....• "....... . . . . . •'
... .20000 L..._ _ _ _ ___________ _ _ _ _ _....J
•I
~ ~
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 003 0.04

Figure A.SO: Total Plastic Rotation of West Girder, CRJ
I 371
•
I
20000 t
I
I I I "
15000 - - - - - - ""I - - - - - - - " - - - - - - -,- - - - - - -., - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - ., - - - - - - ,.. - - - - - -
Mp
I I I , I
ProgresSive fracture of
10000 - - - -- -~ - --- - - - ~ - - - --- -:- . - - - - - ~ - -~ East lOp nanga
C 5000 - - -
,
- - -
, ,
,
.., -
o
-
,
- - - -
V~
-
I ""'"7'~
I
I ,
.. - - - - - -
,
-1- - - - - - - 1- - - -I
I
- - - -
(1 .5% and 2.0% cydes)
- - .., - - - - - - - .. - - - - - -
j
~
I} __ _r------- "1-------,. -- ----
0 0
~ , ,
c.
E
0 ------~-------t-------.------ , ,
,
o 0
0
,
I
~ -5000 ------~-------~-------,------ -.~-- ----~-------~ ------
I
-10000
-15000
- - - - - - ... - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ J ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ tI
- - - - - .. -
o
- - - -
_______ I• _______
- _1- _
0
_______. .
______
o
ry'____ ___ .... ______
,
,
,
_______
~ L __
~
~
0
0
_____ __ I.
Mp
0
,
~ __ _ ,
-20000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 J
Figure A_51: Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4 I
20000
15000
I I
-,-------r-------.-------,-----·-,.------,-------,..-------
Mp
I , I I I
I
10000
ProgreSSIVe fracture of
Wes"op nanga (1 .5% cycles) --
J I
C 5000
I
~
~
.
c
E
o
~
0
-5000
...... ~-
,
- - - - - - t - .. - - - - -1-
"
,
r- - - - - - - .,-- - ----r------
,
-10000
____ . . . ..J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. ___ .. ___ '_ ..
i
-15000 -1 F~S~f::~~~) nange
./
r------: ------': ------:------- ---

0
-20000
, , , ,
I
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Plastic Rotation (rad) i
Figure A.52: Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4
372
I
I
I 20000
Frxture of eo.. lOp flange
, 13th de 014 0%
I 15000
10000
----- .... -- M~ --
t .. - ....
I ;: 5000
,
...... ---,. .... _--
6.
,,
I ~
1:
•E
0 .. .. .. r- ----~ .-----~- ... -..
:i
I -5000
, -15000 -------'----- ,,
t ____ _
I -20000 ~----------~----~----------------~----~----~
-{).04 -<1.03 -<102 -<101 o 001 002 003 004
PI.sllc Rotallon (rad)
t Figure A.S3: Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4R
____
I 20000
15000
r---------~----~----~----~-- --~----~
I
, ;:
6.
-•
~
10000
5000
0
- - - ..... .. ..,-
-- -"
- .... _...... ,-- - - - - -
,,
...... _-
I
c:
E ,
0
~ -5000 --- ___ -4_
--
I -10000 - - - -- - ~- -
.......... , --
i -15000 .. -oJ • .. -
-20000 L __________-======_~
o
I -{).04 -<1.03 -<1.02 -<101
001 002 0.03 004
Figure A.S4: Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4R

I
373
I
I
t
20000
:, ILoad """ease followmg We.. ~
top flange fracture
J
,
15000
10000
---·--~-------r-------r-------~-------
/of,
------..,-------,---
I
,
,
t
,
o ------.-------
•, I
-10000 _._--- t
-15000
Load Increase follOlNlng West
top nange fradure
I
-20000
.{).04 .{).03 .{).02 .{).01 o
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 I
Figure A.55: Total Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CRS I
2oooo ,----;----~--~--~----~~~~==~==~
15000 --,-
/of,
',-
I
10000 ------,------
, I
I
,
5000 ------ .... ------- ~
,
o ------ ~ ------- ------.,- --- -
-5000 ------~-
-15000
______ ~ ______ ~
,
____ • __ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _______ ~ ______ J _______ L _____ _ -I
o
I
.{).02 .{) 01 0.01 0.02 0,03 0.04
PI.stic Rotation (rad)
Figure A.56: Total Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CRS

I
374
I
I
I
20000
,
, , ,
I 15000
10000
----~----r-·--r·---r----'----,----,----,----,--.-,
----,..---.,.- .. - .. -
.. -- ,._._
.-
l C
X
5000 -,-
~
I c
•
0 -,, .. -_ ........ --.,-_ ............ _...
~
:i -5000
I -10000 .. .... .. .......
I -15000
~ ___ ..I
e
_ .... "
---
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Plastic Rotation ( .... d)
001 002 003
I Figure A.57(a): East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR I
I
20000
,
15000 .,, .... ,., ,. ...... l'
I 10000 -~---~----,.---,---~----,..--
I c
X
5000 --------.--~--"-~
-----.-;- ;j~
~
c 0 -,- .-.
I •
~
:i -5000
--- . ----~~~
I -10000 ---~---~----~- -~---~----~---~-- ..... ..'
___ J ____ , __ ....... _ • • ___ ... ____ __ . J _

,-
I -15000
~
-20000
o
I -0.05 -004 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 002
Plastic Rotation (.... d)
Figure A.S7(b): East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR 1 (Re-scaled)

I
375
I
I
t
20000
_~_...~~:=ir\.,~'II . _., ...... _. , _.....

I
' . I I
15000 .-- -r-- --f
,
- . - - , - - .... , - - - - " - - - - , -
10000 -, -
5000 ----,.-- --,.- --- ... -- --.-- J

,
, ,
o ----~-
, ---r----:---- r--
,
1 ---...;----
, ..... ----
I
-5000 ---_ .... -_ ---...
-10000
I
-15000 I
-20000
-{I.03 o 0.01 002 0.03
PI •• tic Rotation (<ad)
Figure A.58: West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRI I

I
I
I
"
I
I
I
376
I
J
I
I
I 20000
...•
I 15000 , .. _., .. -
10000
I C 5000
~
I ~
'C
•E
0 .. ----"'1- ....
o
. --
I
~ -5000
-10000 ------~ .. -~--.-
-15000
-20000
-0 03 -002 -0.01 o 001 002 003
Pilltic Rotation (MId)
I Figure A.59: East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR2
I 20000
-.-
15000 • •
I 10000
I 5000
o ---- •.. ----t------

•
, -- ,
-5000
-10000
-15000 ,-- ~ ___ • .J_
-20000
I -0.03 -002 -0.01 0

Plastic Rotation (nld)
001 002 003
Figure _60: West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR2
377
I
I
f
20000 I
-,
15000
I
10000
C 5000
1
, • • • . , - _ • • .., • • - - . . , . . . . -
I
X
g
c
II
~
0 -- ,.. ----,.---
,
, -- ....
, ---'1---- ..
I
~ -5000
-10000
I
-15000 -, ; -
-20000
~03 ~02 ~01 o 0.01 002 003
Plastic Rotation (rid)
Figure A.61(a): East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3 I

20000
15000 ._.,.---- ..
•,
- .. _.,- .... , .
I
10000 .- I
C
X
5000 --. I
~
c.. 0
,
w
E
0
~ -5000
-10000 .... ....

~
-15000 , - .........
-20000
002
I
~04 ~ . 03 ~02 ~01 0 001
Plastic Rotation (rid)
Figure A.61(b): East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3 (Re·sca1ed)
378
I
I
I .-
I 20000
f
10000
I 5000 ·
___ .. ! ____ ~
. .......t
.
,
,
J
o · ,.
........ T - ...... , .... - ...,. _ .. - - , ,- -
., ,
.. -r .... · · ' .. · ....
I -5000
-10000 ----~----~ .. ---~-

.. po -
,
•
. . . . . . . . . ..
,
-15000 ·, .,,
___ . ! ____ J ____ .,J
, .
___ • __ ~_L ____ ~ ___ _
., .
...... l ........ J __ .....
,
I -20000
-Q.03 o 0.01 002 0.03
I
Figure A.62: West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
379
I
I
I
20000 i
15000 ---r--- __ r-_"" -r --- .. ToO .... _ , . - - - - . , - _ .. - , - .. _ - , - - .... , _ . . . . . , - - _ .....
10000 . ---- ... -_ ... .,-- ...
'2
'i
5000 _ .. _- ,. ........ ,.- ..... . - -- . ~----.----
t
2-
c
•
0 ---- .. I
----t----~----r----·---
, . , , ,,
-1- .. - - .. - - - - . , · .. • ..... - - .. •
,I
~
:IE -5000
-10000 .. " ........ "' ...................... -' . . . . . . . .1 ...... ...

I
-15000
~_._~ ____ ~._._",._._", ___ ,,"' ____ ..l __ .. J ____ J ___
,, . J . . . . . . .J __ .. .J . . . ", ..
-20000
.(l.03 .(l.02 .(l.01 o
PI.ltlc Rotation (rad)
0.01 0.02 003 I
Figure A_63: East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4
I
20000
15000 .. -,.----r----r-·- -,.--

,
• -- ,----., ----,- ---., ....... ,- . --.,----~- . I
10000 I
..........
'2
'i
2-
5000
,
~-
I
c 0 , , ,
...... - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - - . t .. -----1----'"
, ---;--
•E
o
:IE -5000
•
I
-10000
.. , .... ....1 _ _ _ _ .... _ _ _ ..1 __

.- i
-15000 ,
-20000
.(l.03 .(l.02 .(l.01 0 0.01 0.02 003
Pilltic Rotation (rod) I
Figure A_64: West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4
380
I
I
I
j 20000
, ,
I 15000 --··r----~----r----r----'----~--
10000 - --or -- - - .. - - - - .. - - - - T --
I C
~
5000 - ---1"'---- r---- . ----
E
c: 0
·· .
---- .. ----1"---- .. ---
.
,
,
-1 -- ..,----1-- . -~----.
•E
o -_ .. _--_ ............ _ ..
:IE -5000 -- --- .. ---- . . .... - .... ----
___ _ ~ ____ L ____ ~ __

-10000
,
II -15000 ----~ .... - .10._ .. - .. ~ -- l~1:;;;:j:::::::~~~-~--:--.J ___ . J . __ • .J __ .. • oJ. _ _ _ ~ ___ _
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
PI •• tlc Rotation (nld)
0.01 0.02 0.03
t 20000
Figure A.65: East Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4R
I 15000
I 10000
I C
~
E
5000
•
.
••
c: 0 .
---- .. -- - -1"---- - ----,
. , ...... - ........ - "1- ........ - - _ ..
•
I •E
o
:IE -5000
I -10000
-15000
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 003
I PI •• tlc Rotation (nld)
Figure A.66: West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4R

I
381
I
I
20000 i
15000
I
10000
C 5000
I
&.
~
.
c
E
0 ---··----t---- ·
•
•
I
o
:E -5000
-10000
I
-15000 . I
-20000
~03 ~02 ~ . 01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03 I
t
PI.stlc Rotation (rod)
Figure A.67: East Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
382
I
'I
1-;
I 20000
I
, , , I
15000 ----~----r----r----T----T----~----,----,----,----,----~.---
10000
I C 5000
:::::::::::::::::::::---~~
--------~
---
~
,,
I ~
~
•E
0 ----~----r----~----
o
I :IE -5000
-10000
t -15000
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
PI.stic Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 003
I Figure A.68(a): West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS
I 20000
,
15000 ----r----r----r- --,----,----,- _a,
o
I 10000
I c
~
~
5000
~ 0
I •
Ii:IE -5000
I -10000
I
____ ~ ____ L ____ ' ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ._~_
-15000 o ,
-20000
I -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01

PI.stic Rotation (rad)
0.02 0.03 004
Figure A.68(b): West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS (Re-scaled)

I
383
I
I
40000 t
30000 ,
-- 4 -~-- - ·r----r----l·---~----'----'+---~----'----'----~----
I
20000
'2
X 10000
I
-.
E.
c:
E
0
0 -r -- .------t
,,
, I
:IE
:50
...
-10000
-20000
I
-30000
___ .L. ____ L . __
~
.1, ___ .1, ____
!
~
,
_ _ _ _ -' _ _ _ _ .I _ _ _ _
"
J ____ -' ____ ..1 _ _ _ _ ..1. _ . _
I I
t
-40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.69(a): Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation, CRI I
40000
I
30000 - - -., - - - -,- - - -,.. - - -., - - - -,. - - -.... - - - ., -- -,..-- -., -- -~----,..---,---
20000 I
'2
X
E.
C
10000
I
o
"IS
:IE
----1--
,
• .... - - - 1
,
j
'-
:5 -10000
__ 1__ .1.. _ _ _ ..
~
-20000 I
I
_ _ _ .J _ _ _ _ I ____ L. ___ J _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ ___ J ____ ' • • • 1.. __ J ___ ..I. _ . L ___ l __ _
-30000
~
I I , I
,
,
,
, I I ,
-40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04
I
Figure A.69(b): Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation, CRI (Re-scaled)
I
384
I
I &'" 40000
•
•
I
I I I I I I I '
30000 ----~----r----r----r----l----'----,----,----,----,---- ,----
•
20000
'C
6. 10000
I -•
~
c
eo o ,
t - - - 1 - - - -
~ ,
~ -10000 .. - - -
I {!
-20000 --"----- ---_ .. _--
,
I ____ IL ____ L ____ L ____ ~" ____ ~ ____ ~
,
____ I
~ ____ I
~ ____ j I _ _ _ _ j I __
I -40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Plastic Shear Deformation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03
I Figure A,70: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Defonnation, CR2
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
385
I
I
I
40000
" ,
----r----r----r----r----'----,-- -.,----.,----,---- .. ----,..
30000
20000
I
.. ", .... I
-.
c
E
o
o
I
~
j ·10000
:=
· 20000
I
·30000 -'---_.1.
-40000
.o.03 .o02 .o 01 o
Pla.Ue Shear DeformaUon (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.71: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CRJ I
40000
30000 _ .. - - r " " - -r--- -,.----,----. -- .... ~----.., ----.,- I

e-
20000 I
X
-.
E
c
10000
o
I
E
o
:f
i · 10000 ... _-- ..... _--_ .....
:=
·20000
I
· 30000
-40000
.o 03 .o.02 .o.Q1 o 0.01 002 0.03
Pilltle Shear Deform.Uon (rod)
Figure A.72: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4

I
I
386
,
I
.....
•'f!>
,-
I 'r,
a 40000
--- -, ----,- - - - ,----p-- - , - - -~-:-~-::;~~~~ .... --

I 30000
20000
----.,----
----..,-----.----
I '2
~ 1oooo
I -
~
c
..
~
0 ---- ,. . ----t----
,
,,.. · . - . . . _--- ... ---- ........
::I
~ -10000
I {:.
-20000
,
_ _ _ _ 1. _ _ _ _ 1. _ _ _ _ 1.
I -30000
, ,
____ L ____ L ____ L
,
I -40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01
PI.stlc Shear Deformation (rod)
0.02 0.03
I Figure A.73: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR4R
40000
,
1 "
----r----r----r----'----,----,--
, , , I
--,---- . . ----
~t
30000 -~----,----,-
•
20000 .,---- ...........
I '2
I ~ 10000
-
~
c
.. 0
E
I o
::I
~ -10000
{:.
_ _ _ _ I. _ _ _ _ .. _
,
L ___ _
II -20000
____ L ____ L ____ L ____ .....

,
J.... _ ~
-30000
I -40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
I PI.stic She.r Deformatio n (rod )
Figure A.74: Panel Zone Plastic Shear Deformation, CR5

I
387
I
I
20000
I
,
15000
I
- - _.,. ... _ ...... r'" _ ... - r _ ... _ .. r .......... 1 _ ... - ... , ... - - -"I'" ...... , - ........ , ............ - ........ ..,
, ,
10000 ... - - - .. - - - - " . - _ .... r " - - - r " " -_-....,"""".J..

'2
X
5000 ---- .. ---- . --- -~ - I
B-
e.
E
o
0 ,
,----~----~----~-.-- , ,
I
:IE -5000
-10000
I
-15000
____ L ____ L ____ L ____ l ____ 1 ____ ~ ____ , ____
~ ~ ____ ~ ____ j
, ____ j ___ _
I
I
-20000
-0,03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0,03
Figure A.75(a): East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Colwnn Centerline, CRI
I
20000
15000 ...... , ...... -1- ...... r _ .... l

,
"
-,---',.---,---,---
,
,
, -,.---,---,----,.---,---
I
10000 --,---~---- .. ---,---~---- .. -- I
'2 5000
I
- .... ~ . . . . . . . , - . . .. .... .. .. ..... ... - -I
X
B-
e. 0 --------1---
, --~---.- .. -
E
~ -5000
---.---~--'~~ff; I
-10000 _ .... ...... -'- ............... ......
~
,
~ -'.
___ J . __ -' ____ L ___ J _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ L ___ J ___ -' _ _ _ ... ___
, ~ ___ _' ____ ... ___ ~ __ _
I
-15000 , ,
-20000
I
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02
I
Figure A.75(b): East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI (Re-
scaled)
I
388
I
I
I
I 20000
,o .. ... ..
I .. .. - ...
10000 ~.-- . . . -- .. -- .... . . --- , "\- .. -- .......
I -- .. - ... ----.., ... _-
I -- -- o'"-- -- t0 -- --
o
~ ---- ,- - ' 1 .. "1- ...........
I ""'- .. _..
I -15000 .1 ____ ............
I ·20000
-0.03 -002 -001 o 0.01 002 003
PI •• tic Rotation (rid)
I Figure A.76: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 389
I
I
I
20000
I
15000 ----,.----r----r----r----'----'"I----,-----.-- -,---- .. ----,----
•
. I
--- .. --_ ... ---- .. ----
10000
......... -,. -- _ ... ,. .............. _ ... _.....

I
C 5000
X
;g,
c 0 ----,,----1'"--- .. ---- t ..... -----;-_ ..... ---- I
•E •
o
:IE -5000
I
.I. _... _,
-10000
-15000
____ L ____ L ____ L •
.--~--, .. ~----~--
I
-20000
-0.03 -002 -0.01 o 0.Q1 0.02 0.03
I
Figure A.77: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2
Plastlc Rotatlon (<ad)
I
20000
I
15000
10000
.1
C
X
;g,
5000 ____ ,. ___ - .. ----. ----f . .
I
.---- .;
c
•E
o
0 ----~----r---- , t .
I
:IE -5000
-10000
I
. .
-15000
_ . _ .10. ____ L __ . . . L .. ___ .I.. ___ i .
"-.
I
-20000
-003 -{).02 -{).01 0
Plastlc Rotation (rad)
0.01 002 0.03
I
Figure A.78: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2
390
I
I
I
,
I 20000
,
I 15000
10000
----r----r--.-,.----,----,-.--,----,----,----,· •. _., .... ....
- -- -r"--- -,. - - - -,. - - - - .. - - --
I - ,-
I
I -10000 ---_&._--_ .. _---,--
I -15000
____ L ____ '- ___ ... L
,
I -20000
-003 -0_02 -0.01 o
0.Q1 002 003
I Figure A.79(a): East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRJ
I 20000
15000
I 10000
I c
~
~
5000
c 0
I •
~
::E -5000
I -10000 ---_&._--_&.--_.&..
. . --1..--- _.. ___

1
.1,. _ _ _ _ , ____ ,
-15000 , ,
, .
-20000
I -0.04 -003 -002 -0.01

PI.stic Rotation (rod)
o 001 002
Figure A_79(b): East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRJ (Re-
I scaled)
391
I
I
20000 I
--,----.,-----.-- ....
I
• , , I
15000 --~.,..-- - - , . - - - - t ........ ,. - -
10000
'C
X
5000 I
~
1:
"E
0 .. -. I
- ~ ---- t
I I
I ,
-- -- . . -- -
~
I "
I
t - ~ ----1---- ~ ----
• I
~ ·5000
·10000 ..
•
I
·15000
____ L ____ .
~ .
____ L ____ • ____ l ___ _ ~ ____ ~ ____ 4 ____ 4 ____ 4 ____ ~
I
·20000
.0.03 .0.02 o
Plastic Rotltlon (rad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.SO: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
392
I
,,',
I ,-
I 20000
--- -r. ---- ,,. ---- r----'----,----

.
I 15000 , ---- , ----,----,----,-_ . .... -- _~
"--1...}'.-.. ' ...

10000 - - - .. r- - --,. - - - - ,. .. -- .. , - - . - , - - - - ...
I C 5000
1/-. ,
,
- ~ --
I
'
I
,"
fI
,,
- ~- ---~- -~-----
X , • , I •
B-
1/---- -
, I I I I
I e
~
0 - - - ...... .. - -
.
~----
,.. - .. - - t .. - - - . - - -
I
,
,
-~-
I ,
. , . ....
-- ~ ----~---.~-
' I
I I
~ -5000
I· -10000 -
•I -15000
-20000
.... .... L ........ L .. __ ..
-0.03 -0.02
~ ____ I. .. _ .... l .. _ .... .I .. _ .... J ........ .I ........ .I_ ...... .I . . . . . . . ..I ........
-0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03

PI •• Uc Rotation (rod)
I Figure A.S1: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4
I
20000
........ r ........ r " " .... r ........ , ........ , .. ...... ., ......... .,..
,
.. ... ., .. ...... ., ........ ., ........ ., .........
15000
I 10000 ,.
. .....
I C
X
B-
5000
, .
e
•
0 ---- - .. - -- •r---- -• .. --- t --
,,
.. - 4 - --- 1-- -- ---
. --..,- ......... . .
I &
~ -5000 -- .... " .. _--_ .. --- . . --- .. _- -_ ....
I -10000
-15000
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.Q2 0.03
I PI.sllc Rotallon (rod)
Figure A.S2: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4
I
393
I
I
20000 I
--.,---.,-
I
15000
10000 - - ... - r - ....... , . - - - - . - - - - - ~ _ ...
'C
X
5000 I
~
'l:
•E
0 ---- ,.. ----t----
, .., --- ... -_ ........... ..,
I
o
~ -5000 .-
,
---- .... - ........... . .
-10000 -"
I
-15000 I
-20000
-0.03 -0.01 o
Pintle Rotation (.ad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.83: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R
I
20000
15000 ,- .
I
10000 I
5000
o -, --..,--
I
-5000 I
-..
-10000
I
-15000 I~~~;i~:::~~- ~ . . . -_ . 4 . __ .. "' . . . . . . . ..1. __ .1 .. _ ....
-20000
I
-003 -002 -001 0 0.Q1 0.02 003
Plutie Rotation (.ad)
I
Figure A.84: West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Colwnn Centerline, CR4R
I
394
I
I
I 20000
I 15000 ----. ----., ----, ----, ---- '~

-~
,
- -;-~'i-~
- §§j~F
_ ... ., .... -.",
10000 ---- r - ...... r""" - ............ - .. ---- ...... _-- ........

I 5000 .........................
I -j
c: o ---- ,.. .. ---r---- ,.. ·
,, ,
I
-5000
,
'- - -........ ~----""'.
I ·15()(X)
,
----'"-.---'"----
I -20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 001 002 003
PI.stlc Rotation (rad)
I Figure A.8S: East Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
395
I
I
I
20000 I
• • • I , I
15000
10000
----r----r·---r----r----f----~----,----,----,----,----,----
o
. ---,.---- r- ---r---- ' --- . ,
o
---,---- ... --- ... ----

I
o 0 0
5000 I
o - - - - . - - - - - r"- - - - .. ----t
o
I
-5000
-10000 -- .. - .. --_ .. _ .. _ .. " ---

,"
o
o
,
~----~-
0
-_ .... _---
I
-15000 , --
_~ ____ J ____ J ____ j ____ ~ o ___ _
I
-20000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
Plastic Rotation (r.ad)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.86(a): West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5 I
20000
15000
o
----r----r----r----'--- ,----,----,----,----,---- . . ---- . . -
I
o
10000 I
-- ... ---
'2
~
5000
I
-..
~
c
E
0
0
I
:IE -5000 --_ . ----
-10000
o ____ L ____ L ____

----~----~----~----~----~---- ....
o
o
---- I
__ ._L ~
I
-15000 o
-20000
-0.01 o 0.01 0.02
-0.02
Plastic Rotallon (r.ad)
0.03 0.04
I
Figure A.86(b): West Girder Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRS (Re-
scaled)
I
I
396
I
~
I ,-r,
c..
t~,
I 40000
I
, , I , ,
30000 ,
----r----r----r----T----,----'----,----,----~----~---- ~---
20000
I
c
I •E
o
:Ii
o
~ -10000
I ....o
-20000
____ L ___ 1- _ _ _ _ ..
, ,
___ ... _
I -30000
____ ~ ____ L ____
,
~
,
____ , ____ ! ____ ~I ____ ~
,
____ J ____ J" ____ j ___ J",
t
I -40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o 0.01 0.02 0.03
PI •• tlc Rotation (nad)
I Figure A.87(a): Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI
I 40000
30000
"
---,----'----r---'----,---""T'---,----,-- ,
-,----,---,----,.- -,---
I 20000
'i:
I 6.
-•
~
c:
10000
o .. -, .... - ..,- - - .. r- .. - ..
I
E
~
3 -10000
:=
I -20000 ,'. - '" ..
, ,
I ,
...... ~ _ . . . . . , . __ .1.. . . . . . . . . _ .. __ ._ .. _ .... _ .. _ "' ...... _,_ _ _ L. _ .... J .... .. ~ . . . . . . . I.. ...... 1 .... _
-30000
-40000
o
I -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
PI.stlc Rotation (nad)
0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure A.87(b): Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CRI (Re-
I scaled)
397
I
I
I
40000 I
I I I
•
I
,----.,----.,----
30000
20000
•••• ,.-- - -r---- r - ---,.--- - T - - - -.,.-- - - , - - - - , -
I
'C
X 10000 I
-
2-
c
..
~
0 - . ----1-
I
~
i! ·10000
~
·20000
I
· 30000
.
____ L ____ L . __ .10. ____ t ____ , ___ • .1_
. ,• __ .J• ____ .I ___ _ oJ __ __ ..J. __ _
I
-40000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 o
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A.88: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR2 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
398
I
I
.-
I .o,
I
, ,
I 30000
20000
----'----'----'----'- ~
--'--~
.' ~~
I .......
,,
I o .. , .....
i ·10000 --.
I ::.
·20000 ...........
,
-_.
I -30000
•• _.~ • • __ 4 . ___ ~
I -40000
-003 -0.02 -001 o 001 002 003
Pla.tlc Rotation (rod)
I Figure A.89: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR3
I 40000
30000
I 20000
I ---- .. ---- .. -- .... .........
I 1 i
o
-10000
.--~----,. ... .. ...... . "'1
•
......... "1 • • •
::.
I -20000
,
,
........ . ~-
.. - .... -.. ... "....... __ ......... _.. .; ....

I -30000 ----~----~ -~
-40000
I -0.03 -0.02 -001 0

Pla.tlc Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 003
Figure A.90: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4
I
399
I
I
I
40000 I
-, ... _,---- ...
30000
20000
I
c
~ 10000 --- -,..--- ...... _-- .. ---- .. ... ....................... - ............ - ...... ... I
-
~
c
•E
o
0
------.-"1------
, ,
,
I
:l
~ -10000
~
-20000 ---- ... ---- ... ---.~---
I
-30000
, , ,
____ L ____ L. _ _ _ _ ,, __ _
, c~~;:::::;::~~:-
~ ____
' ~ ____
-
, ,,
J_~ __ ~
,
____ ~
,
____ ~
I
___ _
I
-40000
~. 03 ~ .02 ~ . 01 o
PlasUc Rotation (rod)
0.01 0.02 0.03 I
Figure A_91: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR4R I
40000
30000
,
----,. ----r----r·_·-r,
......... .,
I
20000 ,
, I
c
~ 10000
~
c:.. ,
, ,
I
0 ,
---------~----
, ., -~----~---- , ... ----
E
~
i
~
-10000 I
,
-20000
, ,
.........
____ L ____ L ____ 4 ____ 1 ____ ' ____

~
~ ____ ~ ____ J ____ J ____ ~ ____ j_

I
-30000 , • t,
I
I
-40000
~. 03 ~. 02 ~ . 01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Plastic RotaUon (rod)
I
Figure A.92: Panel Zone Plastic Rotation Relative to Column Centerline, CR5
I
400
I
I
I~ I.)
'"
I Appendix B
I
I Failure Analysis of Specimen CR4
I As a result of the weld failures occurring in Specimen CR4, a forensic
I investigation was conducted to determine the causes of the unexpected fractures. Brittle
weld fracture was not an anticipated failure mode for the specimens, as notch-tough
I E70T-6 weld consumables were used for the flange welds. This material is
recommended by SAC for new seismic construction (FEMA, 2000d), and was
I successfully used in the pull-plate experiments (Prochnow et aI., 2000a), although

different wire diameters and production lots were used for the cruciform and pull-plate
I tests. The SAC specified minimum Charpy V -Notch toughness (CVN) criteria is 20 ft-Ib
at OaF and 40 ft-Ib at 70°F. A study for SAC by Johnson (FEMA, 2000d) showed that
I the tested lots of E70T -6 generally met these toughness levels. The welds deposited for
the pull-plate tests achieved CVN levels of 19.0 ft-Ib at OaF and 63 .7 ft- Ib at 70°F. This
I toughness was sufficient to prevent weld failure even when column flange separations
exceeded Y. in., and pull-plate strains near the weld exceeded 5.0%.
I Strain histories in the girder flanges allow the progression of the cracking to be
documented. Sudden drops in strain near the weld toes indicate likely crack propagation
I as load is shed from the cracked area and redistributed. Figure 8.1 shows the strain in the
East girder top flange during the 1.0% drift cycles. Refer to Figure 4.13 for the locations
I of the referenced strain gages. The first indication of cracking in Specimen CR4 is
shown in Figure 8.1 , gage ne_7gf_h, located in the center of the flange , during the
I second cycle at 1.0% interstory drift. The lack of a strain drop in any other gage
indicated the crack was localized in the center of the flange at this point. No global load
I drop was measured at this stage. The next indication of cracking occurred during the
third cycle at 1.0% in the West girder top flange (see Figure B.2). In this case, all four
I
401
I
I
I
strain gages across the flange showed a strain drop, indicating a crack across most or all
of the flange width. Again, no measurable load drop was noted. Neither bottom flange
I
exhibited any indications of cracking at this drift level.
Girder loads during the 1.0% drift cycles corresponded to average moments of
I
approximately 8,000 kip-in., or 63% of the nominal plastic moment capacity (Mp =
12,700 kip-in). Comparison with the nominal yield moment of the W24x94 girder, equal
I
to 11,100 kip-in, indicates elastic behavior in the girders at this deformation level. The
global load vs. deformation behavior remained essentially linear through these drift
I
cycles. Calculated extreme fiber girder stresses of36 ksi at the face of the column are
associated with the moment of 8,000 kip-in. measured during the 1.0% cycles. While
I
some minor localized yielding is indicated by the strain data of Figures B. l and B.2,
strains in the welds due to applied loads at this drift level were likely elastic, as the yield
I
strength and cross-section of the welds is larger than the flange base metal. The localized
yielding can be explained by high tensi Ie welding residual stresses in the region of the
I
strain gages. These self-equilibrating residual stresses in the welds and base metal result I
in an early onset of localized yielding and stress redistribution under the applied loads.
Thus, fracture of the welds likely initiated at applied stresses at or below the 50.6 ksi I
yield strength of the girder flanges and the nominal 58 ksi yield strength of the welds.
Propagation of the fractures during the 1.5% and 2.0% drift cycles is shown by I
the strain data of Figures B.3 through B.5. ote that the bottom flange of the West girder
fractured suddenly, giving no indication of cracking prior to complete fracture. The I
bottom flange of the East girder did not fracture. The somewhat different behavior of the
bottom flanges relative to the top flanges may have been caused by removal of the I
bottom flange backing bars and placement of reinforcing fillet welds. This process can
remove many weld discontinuities associated with the root pass of the CJP welds. Final I
fracture of the West top flange occurred during the second cycle at 1.5% drift, while the
East top flange and West bottom flange were completely severed during the first cycle at I
2.0% drift.
A typical fracture surface is shown in Figure B.6 after removal from the girder I
flange. The corresponding surface on the face of the column is shown in Figure B.7.
402
I
I
I
1:- ..0
'-'
I~ Figure B.8 shows a closer view of typical fracture surface details. The blocky, planar
nature of the surface is typical of a cleavage fracture. Brittle behavior is often
I characterized by cleavage, which consists of fracture planes through the grains of the
material (Fisher et al., 1997). Cleavage fractures generally occur in the presence of very
I little ductility. This is consistent with the loads and associated stresses at first cracking
discussed above.
I Ductile behavior, on the other hand, is characterized by a fibrous fracture surface

appearance. The mechanism of ductile fracture is the initiation, growth and coalescence
I of voids within the steel on a microscopic scale (Fisher et al" 1997). A ductile fracture
surface usually has a smooth, silky appearance, as opposed to the shiny, faceted
I appearance of cleavage fractures. A large amount of plasticity is also usually associated

with ductile fracture behavior. Clearly this was not the case with the fractures of
I Specimen CR4.
Following removal from the girder flanges, the fracture surfaces were sectioned
I for polishing and etching of the weld cross-sections and further analysis of the surfaces.
Two weld macro-sections were cut from each of the three fractures to examine the bead
I sizes, heat affected zones (HAZ), and fusion of the welds. The remaining sections of the
fractures were prepared for analysis by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Figure
I B.9 shows the typical sectioning of one fracture. The single unfractured flange weld (the
East girder bottom flange) was removed from Specimen CR4 for CVN and chemical
I analyses. An unfractured flange weld from Specimen CRI was also removed for a
comparison of properties. Both specimens were welded with the same spool of E70T-6
I consumable.
Figures B.1 0 through B.12 show weld macro-sections taken from each of the
I three fractured welds. All three sections reveal a large-grained weld bead structure. The
sections from the top flanges (Figures B.1 0 and B. ll) also have reinforcing fillet welds
I placed on the beam side of the backing bar. This weld is not required by the SAC
WUF-W design guidelines (FEMA, 2000a), but was placed by the welder in addition to
I the required reinforcing fillet weld between the backer and column. These welds were
I made with an E71T-8 electrode. Note the contrast in grain structure between the two
403
I
I
I
types of weld. The bead sizes and stagger were checked against AWS DI.I-2000
requirements (A WS, 2000), and were found to be in compliance. The size of the HAZ is
I
within typical values, and the fusion appears adequate. Note the small lack of fusion
(LOF) defects between the weld passes in Figure B. I I. Small LOF defects such as these
I
are common in welded construction, however, and are not an indication of poor welding.
One notable feature of the E70T-6 bead structure is the minimal grain refinement. Grain
I
refinement occurs when subsequent weld passes remelt and reheat the prior pass. This
form of heat treatment can improve the local notch toughness of the refined region
I
(Miller, 1997). Aside from the coarse-grained structure, however, the weld macro- I
sections did not exhibit any atypical or unacceptable features.
Figure B.13 shows a macro-section taken from the unfractured East bottom flange I
of Specimen CR4. The features of this section do not reveal any visual differences in
weld structure between the fractured and unfractured welds of this test. A macro-section I
was also cut from Specimen CRI for comparison. It is shown in Figure B.14. The
features of this macro-section are similar to those taken from CR4. One main difference I
is an increase in grain refinement in the CRI weld. The HAZ is also slightly larger in the
case of the CRI macro. The bead sizes and fusion all appear similar to the fractured I
welds of Specimen CR4, however. Note the low cycle fatigue (LCF) crack that had
initiated at the toe of the CJP weld in the CRI macro, and the LOF and slag inclusion I
between the backing bar and root pass (see Figure B. I 4). Both macro-sections shown in
Figures B.13 and B. 14 were taken near the center of the respective welds. I
The fracture surfaces were further analyzed visually and using an SEM to identify
the typical weld discontinuities present and to confirm the brittle nature of the failures. I
Several LOF defects and slag inclusions were discovered on the surfaces, but ultrasonic
testing of the welds prior to testing had not discovered any rejectable indications using I
AWS DI.I-2000 ultrasonic inspection criteria for cyclically loaded structures (AWS,
2000). Most discontinuities visible on the fracture surfaces were small and typical of I
welded moment frame construction. Using the radiographic inspection acceptance
criteria contained in A WS (2000), however, a few visible discontinuities would be I
classified as rejectable. The failure analysis conducted by Barsom et al. (2001) has also
I
404
I
I
I '~
.
.~
."
..;
'n
I discovered the presence of numerous cracks within the fractured welds, They are
believed to be a result of hydrogen-assisted cracking. Figures B.15 through B.17 show
I typical surface features of the welds . Figure B.15 shows an LOF defect and slag
inclusions at one edge of the West girder top flange weld. Figure B.16 shows slag
I inclusions along the backing bar of the West girder top flange. Figure B.17 shows an
LOF defect at the center of the West bottom flange weld, above the reinforcing fillet
I weld. This is a typical LOF location, as it is directly below the access hole where the
weld passes must be stopped and started. These weld discontinuities are further
I discussed below in the context of a basic fracture mechanics analysis of the welds.
An SEM was used to look more closely at the fractured surfaces. All scanning
I electron microscopy was conducted in the Institute of Technology Characterization
Facility at the University of Minnesota. The typical fracture surfaces of the welds
I revealed their brittle nature on the microscopic level. Figures B.18 and B.19 show the
typical cleavage appearance of the E70T-6 weld fractures . To contrast, Figure B.20 is an
I SEM image from one of the fractured reinforcing fillet welds placed with E71T-8
electrodes. These reinforcing welds exhibited the void growth and coalescence typical of
I ductile failure . All images are at the same magnification of 5000x. This provided
confirmation that all E70T-6 weld fractures were brittle in nature.
I In addition to the examinations of the fracture surfaces, material investigations
were also conducted. Results of the CVN testing of Specimens CR I and CR4 are
I presented in Table B.I. An independent material testing facility conducted all CVN
testing. The CVN values of approximately 2 ft-Ibs are on the lower bound of any
I measured toughnesses. Measured toughness of the E70T-4 welds often used prior to the
Northridge earthquake typically ranged between 5 and 20 ft-lbs at room temperature
I (Fisher et aI., 1997).
I It should be noted that the samples removed from the specimens were strained
during testing, and were not standard A WS test plate CVN samples. The effect of pre-
I strain on weld CVNs is not documented, but it is believed to reduce toughness to some
extent. It is well known that the toughness of rolled sections decreases with prestrain
I (Kaufmann et aI., 200 I), but no similar studies have been performed on prestrained weld
405
I
I
I
samples. To obtain an estimate of the effect of strain on weld toughness, Charpy samples
were cut from one of the pull-plate specimens tested by Prochnow et aI. (2000a). These
I
welds were also E70T-6, but were made using a different diameter electrode (0.068" as
opposed to 5/64" used for the cruciform tests). Table 8.2 compares the toughnesses
I
determined from the unstrained A WS test plate to those from the strained pull-plate
specimen. The same spool of wire used for both the test plate and the pull-plate
I
specimens. Note that the toughness of the strained samples was actually higher than the
test plate CVNs at both temperatures. This indicates that factors other than prestrain have
I
a more significant effect on weld toughness. Thus, while there may have been some
reduction in toughness during testing of Specimens CR I and CR4, it is very unlikely that
I
the degradation was such that the welds would have met the SAC minimum toughness I
requirements (FEMA, 2000a) prior to testing.
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) may be used to analyze fractures I
when plasticity is limited. Basic LEFM involves a comparison of an applied stress-
intensity factor at a crack location, K, to the resistance of the material, Ke. If the applied I
stress intensity exceeds the material resistance, fracture is predicted. This methodology
was first developed by Irwin (1957) following World War II. The applied stress-intensity I
factor is related to the applied stress, crack size, and crack geometry. The basic formula
is (8arsom and Rolfe, 1987): I
(8.1)
where:
I
Fe = crack shape factor
F, = free-surface factor = 1.12 for a surface crack, 1.0 for a buried crack
I
Fw = finite-width correction factor
Fg = stress-gradient factor = 1.0 for uniform stress
I
a = nominal stress on gross section remote from the crack
a = characteristic crack size
I
The correction factors are used to modify the theoretical stress-intensity solutions for
I
typical crack geometries. They have values generally on the order of 1.0. For surface
I
406
I
I
I :~'-0
,.",
, ,
I cracks, the characteristic crack size is equal to the depth of the crack. For buried cracks,
the total crack depth is twice the characteristic value (i.e., a is equal to half the crack
I depth). The stress-intensity factor has units ofksi-" in or MPa-"m.

The material resistance, or critical stress-intensity factor, is related to the
I toughness of the material and is often correlated to CVN toughness using the following
empirical relationship (Barsom and Rolfe, 1987):
I Kd = 12.2../CVN (B.2)
I where:
N = dynamic fracture toughness (units ofksi-"in)
I CVN = Charpy toughness (units of ft-lbs)
I This empirical correlation is valid only for lower-shelf toughness behavior (i.e., brittle
I materials) and represents the material resistance under the very high strain rates
associated with CVN testing. If used as an estimate of Kc , Equation B.2 yields a
I conservative estimate of the material resistance at a given temperature because of the

strain rate effects. Much lower strain rates are encountered during earthquakes and quasi-
I static testing of beam-column connections. Under these lower strain rates, the brittle-to-
ductile CVN transition curve shifts to lower temperatures. Because the observed
I fractures were brittle, however, it is reasonable to assume the weld material exhibited
lower-shelf behavior at the tested strain rates. Thus, Equation B.2 should provide an
I acceptable estimate of Kc for Specimen CR4.

Two types of flaws common in welded moment frame construction are now
I analyzed using the procedure outlined above. These are center cracks and buried penny-
shaped cracks. The center crack solution can be used to analyze the effects of the
I backing bar notch and weld root discontinuities on a top flange CJP weld with a
reinforcing fillet weld under the backer. Figure B.21 illustrates the application of the
I LEFM idealization to a backing bar notch (Fisher et aI. , 1997). Assuming uniform tensile
stress (Fg = 1.0), Equation B.I reduces to:
I
407
I
I
(8.3)
I
where:
F.. = finite width correction = ~sec 11lJ (B.4)

I
2W
W = half the width of the idealized plate (see Figure B.21) I
Equation B.4 is known as the secant or Fedderson approximation of the flllite width I
correction factor. The free-surface factor, F" is taken as 1.0 in this case because the top
and bottom edges of the crack are contained within the welds. The crack shape factor, Fe, I
is also 1.0 because the crack is continuous across the width of the flange. While the
assumption of uniform stress and the geometry of Figure B.21 is a rough approximation, I
the validity of the solution given by Equation B.3 for this application has been verified by
fatigue crack growth rate tests (Fisher et aI., 1997). I
The buried, penny-shaped (circular) crack solution is applicable to a wide range
of buried discontinuities within a weld (Fisher et aI., 1997). For this case, Equation B.I I
becomes:
(8.5)
I
where:
Fe = 211r"" 0.64 for a penny-shaped crack
I
0 = radius of the circular crack I
For typical buried flaws that are small in comparison to the flange width (e.g., a/W < 0.1),
F", can be taken as 1.0. The free-surface factor, F" is 1.0 for buried flaws, and again
I
assuming uniform stress, F, is taken as 1.0. An elliptical crack shape correction factor
formula can be used for non-circular flaws, but 0.64 will always be conservative because
I
it is the lower bound of the crack shape correction factor (Fisher et aI., \997). I
Using 2 f't-Ibs as the weld toughness from the CVN tests of Specimen CR4,
Equation B.2 yields an estimate of Ke equal to 17 ksi--lin. For the top flange welds, I
assuming no root flaws or weld root penetration, 20 is equal to the backing thickness of
I
408
I
I
I 0.375 in. and 2W is approximately 1.0 in. based on the size of the reinforcing fillet weld
(see Figure 8.21). The finite width correction factor (Equation 8.4) then becomes 1.1,
I and assuming a stress equal to the yield stress of the girder flanges (50 ksi), Equation B.3
predicts an applied stress intensity factor of 42 ksi--.Jin at yielding of the girder flanges.
II This is substantially greater than the estimated resistance of 17 ksi--.Jin. Thus, fracture of
the top flange welds due to the presence of the backing bar notch alone is predicted at
I applied stresses below 50 ksi . This is consistent with the initiation of the observed
fractures at a moment below the yield moment of the girders.
I For the bottom flange welds, the LOF defect at the center of the West bottom
flange weld (Figure B.17) is treated as a penny-shaped crack. The maximum dimension
I of this discontinuity is approximately 0.5 in.; thus the radius a is taken as 0.25 in.
Assuming stresses at yield, Equation B.5 yields 28 ksi--.Jin as an estimate ofthe applied
I stress-intensity factor. This is also larger than the estimated resistance of 17 ksi--.Jin and
fracture ofthe welds is again predicted at flange stresses below 50 ksi .
I For comparison, Equation B.2 predicts a critical stress-intensity factor of 54
I ksi--.Jin for Specimen CRI (using 19.3 ft-lbs of toughness at room temperature). This is
larger than the predicted applied stress-intensity factors for both the center crack and
I penny-shaped crack solutions. Thus, the welds of Specimen CRI would be predicted to
tolerate discontinuities similar to those discovered in the welds of Specimen CR4 without
I fracture to stress levels beyond yield.

Because the weld toughness of Specimen CR4 was so low, a detailed
I investigation of the location of fracture initiation is not required . Typical discontinuities

of acceptable size as per A WS D 1.1-2000 (A WS, 2000) are likely to cause fracture when
I only 2 ft- lbs of toughness is provided in the weld. Maximum tolerable flaw sizes can be
calculated by replacing K with Kc in Equations B.3 and B.5, and solving for the
I corresponding critical flaw size, a. Using 17 ksi--.Jin for Kc, Equation B.3 yields a value
of 0.037 in. for the critical flaw size. The finite width correction, F"" was conservatively
I taken as 1.0. This critical size represents the maximum depth before fracture is predicted
of a crack continuous across the flange width, and is much smaller than the thickness of
I any typical backing bars (e.g., such as those left in place at the top girder flanges in the
409
I
II
I
WUF-W connection). Again u ing 17 ksi- in for K r , Equation B.5 YIelds 0.090 in. for I
the cntical flaw size, a. ThIS is equivalent to a buried circular crack with a cntlcal
diameter of 0.18 in. In both ca es the tress was assumed equal to 50 ksi. I
The radiographic inspection acceptance criteria for cyclically loaded structures
contained in A WS D 1.1-2000 were u ed to compare the calculated critical flaw sizes to I
the allowable sizes as per A WS (2000). Radiographic criteria are useful for this purpose
becau e maximum flaw sizes are directly specified. In contrast, ultrasonic criteria are I
presented in terms of a defect rating in decibels, which cannot be directly correlated to an
observed discontinuity size. For a 7/8 in. groove weld, the maximum dImension of any I
permined discontinuity is 0.28 in. (A WS, 2000). This is significantly larger than the
cntical crack dIameter of 0. 1 in. calculated using Equation B.5. Thu , acceptable I
discontinuilles as per A WS (2000) are predicted to cause fracture in the welds of
SpecImen CR4. I
In addition to the CVN testing of the welds, chemical analyses of the welds of
Specimens CRI and CR4 were performed. Table B.3 presents the chemistries of the I
flange welds and also show typical data from the producer. The lot of 5/64" diameter
E70T-6 wire used for the two specimens was produced in 1999. The table reveals that I
the chemIstry of the welds is sImilar to the producer's data from thl year. Thus. does
not appear that an anomalou lot of E70T-6 was to blame, although it was impossible to
1\
I
draw any firm conclusions Since the electrode question was all consumed, precluding
funher evaluation.
In
Ole, however, the differences in chemistry between the 5/64" data I

from 1999 and the other selected data from the producer. The manganese content
reponed for the 19995/64" wire is approximately half that reponed for both the 3/32" I
wire from 1999 and the 5/64" wire frol11 2000. It was confimled that the chemistry of the
5/64" diameter E70T-6 was adjusted at some point in 1999 to more closely match the
I
3/32" diameter composition (Miller, 200 I). It is unclear what. if any. effect thI S dIfferent
chemIcal composition has on the typical toughness of welds produced from thIS
I
electrode. The welds produced for the AWS Cenificate of Conformance testing using the
5/64" diameter E70T-6 from 1999 met the minimum toughness reqUIrement of 20 ft-Ibs
I
at -20°F (LlIlcoln Electric Co., 1999).
I
410
I
I
':';
I C>
>..)
I Finally, the equipment settings and Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS)

were reviewed in an attempt to explain the low toughness measured in both Specimens
I CRI and CR4, The WPSs were supplied by the fabricator and were based on
recommended parameters from the wire manufacturer, A check of the recommended
I parameters confirmed that the WPS was appropriate for the E70T-6 consumable used for
the flange welds,
I Table 8.4 compares the settings from the WPS to the ranges recorded during
welding of the test specimens, All values recorded for Specimen CRI were within the
I allowable 10% variation from the WPS, The recorded wire feed speed (WFS) and
voltage for Specimen CR4 was within range, however the amperage was low, WFS is
I preferred over amperage for the monitoring of constant voltage welding procedures
because amperage for a given WFS can vary depending on several other parameters such
I as polarity, electrode diameter, electrode type, and electrode extension (Blodgett et aI. ,
1999), Note that different equipment was used for the welding of the two specimens,
I The welder and spool ofE70T-6 were the same for both.
The cause of the low amperage recorded for Specimen CR4 is not definitively
I known, but several possibilities exist. First, one or more of the readouts may have been
incorrect if, for example, the equipment was not properly calibrated. A second potential
I explanation is that the WFS may have been incorrectly set at a lower value. This is a
possibility, as the wire feed unit had both a low- and high-range setting. If set on low-
I range, the desired WFS of 380 ipm would have actually been 190 ipm. Finally, very
large electrode stickouts (ESO), incorrect polarity settings, or incorrect mode settings
I (i,e" constant current as opposed to constant voltage) could have affected the welding
parameters. However, the effects of these settings are such that it is very unlikely they
I would have a substantial effect on amperage. Tentative conclusions point to the WFS
range setting as the most likely explanation of the low amperage recorded during welding
I of Specimen CR4 (Miller, 2001). The observed voltage and amperage ranges from Table
8.2 have been reproduced using a WFS of 190 ipm (Miller, 200 I).
I Even accounting for these potential procedural differences, there is still no firm
explanation for the low toughness measured in both tests. The amperage differences may
I
411
I
I
I
well explain the toughness differences at 70°F, but not the fact that neither specimen met
the SAC minimum toughness requirements of20 ft-Ibs at O°F and 40 ft-Ibs at 70°F.
I
Recall that Specimen CRI was welded within all WPS parameters and still did not meet
the minimum toughness requirements at either temperature. No definitive conclusions
I
explaining the low toughness of the welds of both specimens can be made from the
investigation reported herein.
I
Following is a summary of the results of the investigation into the failure of I
Specimen CR4. The weld fractures were brittle in nature and occurred as a result oflow-
toughness welds. Measured CVNs of the E70T -6 weld metal were similar to values I
recorded for E70T-4 welds following the Northridge earthquake. Examinations of the
fracture surfaces did not reveal any atypical defects. Basic LEFM calculations predict the I
fractures of Specimen CR4 based on the CVN data, and both the observed and allowable
(A WS, 2000) weld discontinuities. Had the SAC minimum specified toughness (FEMA, I
2000a) been provided, the welds would almost certainly not have failed in a brittle
manner in the presence of the observed discontinuities. There is no indication that the I
box doubler plate detail contributed to the fractures. The procedural differences (e.g. ,
recorded amperages) between Specimens CRI and CR4 may explain the room I
temperature toughness difference, but the reasons for the overall unacceptable toughness
of the welds of both tests are unclear. Weld chemistries from the two specimens were I
consistent with typical data from the producer, casting some doubt on the possibility of a
bad lot of wire as the explanation. Further investigations were conducted by Barsom et I
al. (2001).
Based on these results, further evaluation of the present weld toughness criteria is I
suggested. It is believed that the SAC requirements (FEMA, 2000a) for minimum
toughness are adequate, provided they can be consistently met. The acceptable results of I
Specimen CRI, despite toughness below the specified minimums, are encouraging in this
regard. Toughness is an inherently variable material property, particularly in a non- I
homogeneous material such as a weld. For this reason, the toughness requirements
should be treated as a lower-bound value and not an average. This can be accomplished
I
412
I
I
I
I ...
I either through strict quality assurance, or specification of welding consurnables that have
lower-bound toughness consistently above the SAC minimums (FEMA, 2oo0a).
I The former is the approach required by the SAC Recommended pecifications

and Quality Assurance Guidelines (FEMA, 2000e). These Recommended Specifications
I require toughness testing on each production lot of the specified filler metal. However,
upon approval of the engineer, this requirement may be waived and the consumable
I manufacturer's certification testing may be used to verify the material 's suitability
(FEMA,2000e). This testing need only be conducted once per year on a single
I production lot of the particular electrode. As described above, the 5/64" diameter
E70T-6 produced in 1999 had been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the
I minimum 20 ft-Ibs at -20°F (Lincoln Electric Co., 1999) required by the A WS

certification test (A WS , 1995). Alternatively, specification of higher toughness
I consumables (e.g., E7IT-8) that consistently meet minimum requirements may be a more
reliable means of insuring welds of sufficient toughness.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
413
I
I
I
Table B.l: Comparison of Measured and Required CVN Toughness From Cruciform
Tests I
CVN T est T emp.
O°F
Specimen CRI
2.7 ft-lb
Specimen CR4
2.0 ft- lb
Required"
20 ft-lb
I
70°F 19.3 ft-lb 2.3 ft-lb 40 ft-lb
Required CVN toughness from SAC recommended gUIdelines (FEMA, 2000a)
I
I
Table B.2: Comparison of A WS Test Plate and Strained Pull-Plate Specimen CVNs I
CVN Test Temp. AWS Test Plate P-P Specimen Required"
O°F 19.0 ft- lb 38.7 ft-lb 20 ft-lb I

63 .7 ft-lb 66.0 ft-lb
70°F 40 ft-lb
Required CVN toughness from SAC recommended guidelines (FEMA, 2000a) I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
414
I
I
I
I~
'"
IZ,
I Table B.3: E70T-6 Weld Chemistry From Specimens CRI and CR4, and Consumable
Producer's Typical Data
I Component
Specimen
CRJ
Specimen
CR4
5/64 in.
1999'
3/32 in.
1999'
5/64 in.
2000'
C(%) 0.065 0.078 0.06 O.OS 0.07
I Mn(%) 0.71 0.62 0.62 1.26 1.63
P(%) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.009
I S(%) 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003
I Si (%)
Ni(%)
0.20
0.01
0.26
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.23
0.02
0.27
0.02
I Cr(%)
Mo(%)
0.Q3
0.02
0.Q3
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
<0.01
0.03
0.02
I Cu(%) 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

AI (%) 0.90 1.03 O.SI 1.19 0.97
I V(%) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Ti(%) 0.13 O.IS NR NR NR
I N(%) 0.045 0.026 NR NR NR
Data from Wlre manufacturer' s annual AWS Certificate of Conformance reports
I
Table B.4: Welding Parameters From Specimens CRI and CR4
I Parameter CRI CR4 WPSlRecommended
I Voltage (V)
Wire feed speed (ipm)
2S.5 - 29.5
- 3S0
29.0 - 30.0
- 3S0
2S
3S0
I Amperage (A) 430 - 460 330 - 3S0 480

Est. heat input (lcJ/in)" 52 - 77 41 - 62 30 - SO'
I Recommended heat mput from FEMA (2000d)
"Based on recommended travel speed range of 10 - 15 ipm
I
I
415
I
I
I
0.20% , - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - ,
I
000%
I
c
£ -0.40%
-le_2gCh
-ne_7gCh
I
II)
- n e_8gf_h
-060%
- ne_ggf_h I
-080% --------- I
-1.00%
--
(; - - ... -il -!il --8 --- -- -'" -.- 5i- -iii (;
I
(;
N iii (;• 5! li!
(; 0 0
N
0
Data Point
I
Figure B.l: Strain History ofCR4 East Top Flange During 1.0% Drift Cycles
I
0.00% , -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - ,
Cracking acrolS width
I
of flange
-0.10%
I
-0.20%
-nw_2gCh I
- ,w_4gf_h
-
-
sw_Sgf_h
.w_6gf_h
I
I
I
-060%
--
(; (;
N
(;
'" ..
(;
5i - ... '" g -8 -- -- -- -• -'" -iii
li!
(; ;; 0 0
N ~
;; ;;
I
Data Point
Figure B.2: Strain History ofCR4 West Top Flange During 1.0% Drift Cycles
I
416
I
I
I-
I 0.20% r-::::-----------------,r-------,
1.5% _+-.. 2.0%
000% \ ...... _-------------
I -0.20%
\
I--j--------------- Final lracture
I -040% -r--------- ----- oll1."go
-se_29Ch
c -0.60%
I ~
en -0.80%
- n e_7gl_h
-
-
ne_BgI_h
ne_9gf_h
I -1.00%
-1 .20% ---- ------.------•

\ '
I -1.40% ------- ------. 7 -;/.--·---
IFlango nearly Itvored I
-160% .L-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--1_ _ _ _ _- I
I 1 501 1001 1501 2001

Dab Point
2501 3001 3501 4001
I Figure B.3: Strain History ofCR4 East Top Flange During 1.5%.2.0% Cycles
I 0.00% r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - -- -,
1.5% 2.0'4
-0.20% ------------------.
I -0.40% - - - • - - - - - .. - - .. - - - - • - - - - - - - • - - -
I c
-0.60%
IFinallracture I
___ • __ •• loll1an98 11-_
- _- rrw
- .- :2:-:-
91
_,-
h-'
~ (\! l- s w_4QCh
I en
-080% -- .. ---.---.-- ~ l
!
I'-- -
..... l-
sw_SQCh
sw.6gCh
b ..... 1~-vII ""'""-J
I -1 .00%
\;
-1 .20%
I -1 .40% .L-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....I...._ _ _ _ _.J
I 1 501 1001 1501 2001

Dab Point
2501 3001 3501 4001
Figure B.4: Strain History ofCR4 Wesl Top Flange During 1.5%.2.0% Cycles
I
417
I
I
2 SO% r--------------,--------, I
1.5% 2.0%
----- ---- -/'<. - =-----;-,....,.-Jl-.,--,
200%
I •\
I
Complete fracture I
of nange
\
I I
---~--l~!~~ ~--
1.SO%
_ ~ ____ J __. ________ -nw_1gLh

I
c -sw_1gf_h
~
en
0.50%
-sw_2gf_h
-sw_3gf h
I
000% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- L.....:JI
-;;;;;Jj
I
-O.SO% ------- .... ----- U I
-1 .00% -'-_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'-_ _ _ _ _.....J
S01 1001 1S01 2001

Data Point
2S01 3001 3S01 4001
I
Figure 8.5: Strain History of CR4 West Bottom Flange During 1.5%,2.0% Cycles
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8.6: West Top Flange Fracture Surface From Specimen CR4
I
418
I
I
1'°
I
I
I
I , "
I ."-'
I ~ -1 ..1 "
,
I -_ . . --
--
I
I Figure B.7: West Top Flange Fracture Surface at Co lumn Face from Specimen CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.8: Close-up View of Specimen CR4 Fracture Surface Features Near Center of
I Flange
419
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.9: Typical Sectioning of Fracture Surfaces for Investigation I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.10: Fractured Weld Section From East Top Flange of Specimen CR4 I
420
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure B.11: Fractured Weld Section From West Top Flange of Specimen CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.12: Fractured Weld Section From West Bottom Flange of Specimen CR4
I
421
I
I
I
I
I
Column
Flange I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.13: Weld Section From East Bottom Flange of Specimen CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.14: Weld ection From Top Flange of Specimen CRI I
422
I
I
tZ>
I ~,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure B.IS: LOF and Slag Inclusions in Specimen CR4 West Top Flange
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure B.I 6: Slag Inclusions Above Backing Bar in Specimen CR4 West Top Flange
423
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.17: LOF in Center of Specimen CR4 West Bottom Flange
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.18: SEM Photo Showing Cleavage Planes on Fracture Surface of
Specimen CR4 I
424
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.19: SEM Photo Showing Brittle Cleavage Behavior of Welds of
I Specimen CR4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B.20: SEM Photo Showing Ductile Fracture ofE71T-8 Fillet Welds of
I Specimen CR4
425
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8.21: Ulustration of LEFM Application to Backing Bar Notch
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
426
I
I
1.0
I References
I
I American Institute of Steel Con truction (A1SC) (1959). A Manual/or Architects,
Engineers, and Fabricators 0/ Buildings and Other Steel Struclllres, Fifth ed., AISC,
ew York, ew York.
I AISC (1978). Manual a/Steel Constnlction- Allowable Stress Design, Eighth ed., AI C,
ew York, ew York.
I AISC (1992). "SeismiC Provisions for Structural Steel Building ," Al , Chicago,
IllinoIs.
I AIS (1993). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification/or Structural Steel
Buildings, Second ed., Al C, Chicago, lllinois.
I Al C (1995). Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual/or Struclllral Steel Buildings,
Second ed., AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
I Al C (1997). " Seismic Provi sions for tructural Steel Buildings," AI , hicago,
I Illinois.
AISC (1999a). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification/or Struclllral Steel
I Buildings, Third ed., Al C, hlcago, Illinoi .
AISC (1999b). "Seismic Provi ions for Structural Steel Building (1997) Supplemem
I ' 0 . I," AISC, Chicago, ILlinois.
Al C (I 999c). Stiffening a/Wide-Flange Columns at Moment Connecllons ' Wind and
I Seismic Applications, Steel De ign Guide Series 13, AISC, Chicago, illinOiS.
Al C (2001). "Seismic Provi ions for Structural Steel Buildmgs (1997) Supplement
I No. 2," AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC Dimension Advisory (2001). "Changes to T, k and k/ Dimension for W- hape ,"
I February 14,2001, AISC, hicago, illinOIS.
AIS k-line Advisory (1997). "A ISC AdVisory Statement on Mechantcal Propenie
I ear the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and Interim Recommendation January 10, 1997,"
Modern Steel Construction, February, p. I .
I
427
I
I
I
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1995). "Minimum De ign Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures," A SUASCE 7-95, ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
I
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1994a). "ASTM E -94a:
Standard Test Methods for Ten ion Testing of Metallic Materials," ASTM,
I
Con hohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (1994b). "ASTM E23-94a: Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact
I
Testing of Metallic Materials," ASTM, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (1997). "ASTM A370-97a: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
I
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products," ASTM , Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (1998a). "ASTM A992/A992M : Standard Specification for Steel for Structural
I
Shapes For Use in Building Framing," ASTM , Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (1998b). " ASTM A6/A6M : Standard Specification for General Requirements for
I
Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling," ASTM, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. I
Applied Technology Council (A TC) (1992). "Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of
Components of Steel Structures," ATC-24, ATC, Redwood City, California. I
American Welding Society (A WS) (1995). "Specification for arbon Steel Electrodes
for Flux Cored Arc Welding," AW A5 .20-95, A WS, Miami , Florida. I
A WS (2000). "Structural Welding ode - Steel," A WS D 1.1-2000, A WS, Miami ,
Florida. I
Barsom, J. M., and Rolfe, S. T. (1987). "Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures -
Applications of Fracture Mechanic ," Second ed., Prentice-Hall , Englewood Cliffs, ew I
Jersey.
Barsom, J. M., and James V. Pellegrino (2001). "Failure Analysis ofa Welded Moment- I
Resisting Interior Connection," Report to AISC, Barsom Consulting, Ltd., Pittsburgh,
PA.
I
Bartlen, F. M., Dexter, R. J., Graeser, M. D., Jelinek, J. J., Schmidt, B. J., and Galambos,
T. V. (200 I). "Updating Standard Shape Material Properties Database for Design and
Reliability, " Engineering Journal. AISC, submined for publication.
I
Becker, R. (1975). "Panel Zone Effect on the Strength and Stiffness of Steel Rigid
Frames," Engineering Journal. AISC, Vol. 12, No.1, pp. 19-29.
I
I
428
I
I
I '.
'0
I Benero, V. V., POpov, E. P., and Krawinkler, H. (1972). "Beam-Column

Subassemblages Under Repeated Loading," Journal o/the Structural Dil'ision, ASCE,
I Vol. 98, o. ST5, pp. 1137-1159.
Bertero, V. V., KrawinkJer, H., and Popov, E. P. ( 1973). "Funher Studies on Seismic
I Behavior of Steel Beam-Column Subassemblages," Report o. EERC-73/27, Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
I Bjorhovde, R. , Goland, L. l ., and Benac, D. J. (1999). "Tests of Full-Scale Beam-to-

Column Connections," Southwest Research Inst itute, San Antonio, Texas.
I Blodgett, O. W., Funderburk, R. S., Miller, D. K. , and Quintana, M. A. (1999).

"Fabricators' and Erectors' Guide to Welded Steel Construction," lame F. Lincoln Arc
Welding Foundation. Cleveland, Ohio.
I Bruneau, M., Uang, C., and Wittaker, A. (1998). " Ductile Design of Steel Structures,"
McGraw-Hili, lew York, New York.
I Carter, C. 1. (1999) . "Column Economy Considering Stiffening Requirements."

Structural Engineering in the 21" Century. Proceedings of the ASCE Structures
I Congress, Avent, R. R. and Alawady, M. (eds.), ew Orleans, Louisiana, April 18-21,
1999, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, pp. 552-555.
I Chi. W.-M., Deierlein. G. G .• lngraffea. A. (2000). "Fracture Toughness Demands in

Welded Beam-Column Moment Connections," Journal 0/ Structural Ellgineering,
ASCE, Vol. 126, o. I, pp. 88-97.
I Choi, J.-H .• Stojadinovic, 8., and Goel, S. C. (2000) . " Development of Free Flange
Moment Connection," Repon No. UMCEE 00-15. Depanment of Civil and
I Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Dexter, R. J. and Melendrez, M. 1. (2000). "Through-Thickne s Propenies of Column

I Flanges in Welded Moment Connections," Journal o/Structural Engilleering, ASCE.
Vol. 126. No. I. pp. 24-31.
I Dexter, R. J. (2000) . "Structural Shape Material Propeny Survey." Final Report to

Structural Structural Shape Producer's Council, University ofMlIlnesota. Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
I Dexter, R. l ., Hajjar, l. F., Prochnow, S. D., Graeser, M. D. , Galambos, T. V., and
Cotton, S. C. (2001). "Evaluation of the Design Requirements for Column Stiffeners and
I Doublers and the Variation in Properties of A992 Shapes," Proceedings of the 'onh
American Steel Construction Conference, Fon Lauderdale, Florida, May 9-12, 2001,
AISC, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 14-1 - 14-21.
I
429
I
I
I
EI-Tawil, S., Mikesell, T., Vidarsson, E., and Kunnatb, S. (199 ). "Strength and
Ductility of FR Welded-Bolted Connections," Repon TO. SACfBD-98/0 I, Applied
I
Technology Council, Redwood ity, California.
EI-Tawll, S., Vidar on, E., Mikesell, T., and Kunnath, S. (1999). "Inelastic Behavior
I
and De 'gn of Steel Panel Zones," Journal o!StruclUral Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
0. 2, pp. 183-193 . I
Federal Ernergency Management Agency (FEMA) ( 1995a). "Steel Mornent Frame
Structures: Interirn Guidelines," Repon o. FEMA 267 (SAC-95-02), SAC Joint
Venture, Sacrarnento, California.
I
FEMA (1995b). "Steel Moment Frarne Structures: Background Repons," Repon
FEMA 28 (SAC-95-09), SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
TO. I
FEMA (1997a). "Interim Guidelines Advisory No. I," Repon
(SAC-96-03), SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
o. FEMA 267 A I
FEMA (1997b). "Connection Test Summaries," Repon
SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
o. FEMA 289 (SAC-96-02), I
FEMA (2000a). "Recommended Se ismic Design Criteria for New Moment-Resisting
Steel Frame Structures," Repon o. FEMA 350, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento,
I
California.
FEMA (2000b). "State of the An Repon on Connection Performance," Repon No.

I
FEMA 3350, SAC Jomt Venture, Sacramento, California.
I
FEMA (2000c). "State of the An Repon on Base Metals and Fracture," Repon o.
FEMA 355A, SAC Jomt Venture, Sacrarnento, California.
I
FEMA (2000d). "State of the An Repon on Joining and Inspection," Repon o. FEMA
355B, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
I
FEMA (2000e). "Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for
Steel Moment-Frame Con truction for Seismic Applications," Repon No. FEMA 353,
SAC Jomt Venture, Sacrarnento, California. I
Fieldmg, D. J., and Huang, J. S. (1971). "Shear in Steel Beam-to-Column Connections,"
Weldmg Journal. A WS , Vol. 50, o. 7, Research Supplement, pp. 313-326. I
Fisher, J . W. , Dexter, R. J., and Kaufmann, E. J. (1997). "Fracture Mechanics of Welded
Structural Steel Connections," Repon '0. FEMA 288 (SAC 95-09), SAC Jomt Venture, I
Sacramento California, pp. 3-1 - 3-30.
I
430
I
I
1-;
I Ghobarah, A., Korol, R. M., and Osman, A. (1992). "Cyclic Behavior of Extended End-
Plate Joints," Journal o/Slmclllral Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, o. 5, pp. 1333-1353.
1 Graham, J. D., Sherbourne, A. ., Khabbaz, R. ., and Jen en, C. D. (J 960). " Welded
Interior Beam-to-Column Connections," Welding Re earch Council, Bullelln '0. 63, pp.
1 1-2 .
Hajjar, J. F., Leon, R. T. Gustafson, M. A., and Shield, C. K. (1998a). " eismie
1 Response of Composite Moment-Resisting Connections. 11: Behavior," JOllrnal 0/

Slrllclllral Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No.8, pp. 877-885.
1 Hajjar, J. F., Leon, R. T. , Gustaf: on M. A., and Shield, C. K. (199 b). "Full- cale
Cyclic Experiments of Composite Moment-Resisting Frame Conneclion ," Repon o.
ST 9 -02, Department of Cml Englneenng, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
I Minnesota.
lIajjar, J . F., Dexter, R. J., Ojard, S. D., Ye, Y., and COllon, S. C. (2002) . .. onllnuity
1 Plate Detailing for Steel Moment-Resisting Connections," Engineering Journal, AI C,
submitted for publication.
I Irwin, G. R. (1957). "AnalYSIS of Stresses and Strain ear the End of a rack
Traversing a Plate," Journal 0/ Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 24, pp. 361 -364.
Iwankiw, N. (1999). Personal communication, June 24, 1999.
1 Kaufmann, E. J., Xue, M., Lu, L. W., and Fisher, J. W. (1996). "AcllJevlng Duclile
BehaVior of Moment Connection - Pan I," Modem Sleel Conslruclion , Vol. 36, '0 . I,
1 pp. 30-39.
Kaufmann, E. J., Merrovich, B., Pen e, A. W., and Fi her, J. W. (200 I). "!:.ffeet of
1 Manufacturing Process on k-Area Properties and Service Perfonnance," Pr ecdlngs of
the onb American Steel Construction Conference, Fon Lauderdale, Florida, May 9-12,
200 I, AISC, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 17-1 - 17-24 .
I Kawano, A., (1984). "Inela tic Behavior of Low-Rise Steel Frame Based on a Weak
Beam-to-Column Connection Philosophy to Eanhquake Motion," Proceedings of the
1 Eighth World Conference on Eanhquake Engineering, San Francisco, alifornia. Vol. 4,
pp. 519-526.
1 Krawinkler, H. (1978). "Shear in Beam-Column Joints in eismic DeSign of tee I

Frames," Engineering JOIJrnal, Al C, Vol. IS, No. 3, pp. 82-91.
1 Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1971). "Inelasllc Behavior of tee I
Bcam-to-Column Subas emblages," Repon o. EERC-71 I7, Eanhquake Engmcenng
Re earch Center, University of ahfornla, Berkeley. California.
1
431
I
1
I
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1975). "Shear Behavior of Steel Frame
Joints," Journal o/the Strllclllral Division. ASCE, Vol. 101 , '0. STII , pp. 2317-2335.
I
Lee, S., and Lu, L. (1989). "Cyclic Tests of Full-Scale Composite Joint
Subassemblages," Journal o/Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 115, 0. 8, pp. 1977-
I
1998.
Lee, K.-H., Goel, S. c., and Stojadinovic, B. (1997). "Boundary Effects in Welded Steel
I
Moment Connections," Report No. UMCEE 97-20, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. I
Lee, K.-H ., Stojadinovic, B., Goel, S. C., Margarian, A. G., Choi, J., Wongkaew, A.,
Reyher, B. P., and Lee D.-Y. (2000). "Parametric Tests on Unrein forced Connections,"
Report No. SACiBD-OOIOI, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
I
Leon, R. T. (1983). "The Influence of Floor Members on the Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column JOints Subjected to Severe Cyclic Loading." University of
I
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
I
Leon, R. T., Hajjar, J. F., and Gustafson , M. A. (1998). "Seismic Response of Composite
Moment-Resisting Connections. I: Perfornlance," Journal o/StnlcllIral Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 124, No . 8, pp. 868-876. I
Lincoln Electric Co. (1999). Certificate of Conformance for Innershield
(E70T-6), Lincoln Electric Co., Cleveland, OhIO. August 6, 1999.
R-305
I
Mao, C., Rlcies, 1. M., Lu, L.-W., and Fisher, J. W. (2001). " Effect of Local Details on
Ductility of Welded Moment Connections," JOli/"llal o/Structural Engineering, ASCE, I
Vol. 127 o. 9, pp. 1036-1044.
Miller, D. K. (1997). "Welding ofSeisnllcally Resistant Steel Structures," Report '0. I

FEMA 288 (SAC 95-09), SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California, pp. 2-1 - 2-124.
Miller, D. K. (2001). Personal commUnication to R. J. Dexter, June 15, 2001. I

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (1994). Recommended
Provisions lor Seismic Regulations lor Nell' Bllildings and Other StrucllIres, Report o.
I
FEMA 223. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
EHRP (1997). Recommended Provisions/or Seismic Regulations lor New Buildings

I
and Other Structures, Report o. FEMA 302, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, D.C.
I
I
432
I
I
Peters, J. W., and Dri coil, G. . (1968). "A Study of the Behavior of Beam-to-Column
Connections," Report '0. 333.2, Fritz Engineenng Laboratory, Lehigh Umversny,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Popov, E. P. (1999). Personal communication to J. F. Hajjar, March 24,1999.
I Popov, E. P., Amin, . R., Louie, J. J. ., and Stephen, R. M. (1986). " ycllc Behavior
of Large Beam-Column Assemblies," Engilleering Journal, AI C, Vol. 23, '0. I, pp.
I 9-23 .
Popov, E. P. (1987). "Panel Zone Flexibility In Seismic Moment Joint ," Journal 0/
I COllstnlctional Steel Research, Vol. 8, pp. 91-118.
Prochnow, S. D., Dexter, R. J., Hajjar, J. F., Ye, Y., and Cotlon, . C. (2000a). "Local
I Flange Bending and Local Web Yielding LimJ! States in Steel Moment-Resisting
Connections," Report '0. ST-OO-4, Department of Civil Engincering, Umver nyof
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
I Prochnow, S. D., Ye, Y., Dexter, R.. J., Hajjar, J. F., and Cotton, S. (2000b). "Local
Flange Bending and Local Web Yielding Limit States in Steel Moment-Re Istlng
I onnections," Connections in Steel Structure IV, Roanoke, Virginia, OClober 22-24,
2000.
I Ricles, J. M., Mao, C., Kaufmann, E. J. , Lu, L.-W., and Fishcr, J. W. (2000a).
"Development and Evaluation of Improved Details for Ductile Welded Unrein forced
Flange Connections," SAC BD 00-24, AC JOint Venture, acramento, California.
I Ricles, J. M., Mao, C., Lu, L., and Fisher, J. W. (2000b), "Ductility Analy I of Welded
I Unrein forced Beam-to-Column Moment Connections," ProceedJ/lgs o/U.S.-Japall

Workshop on Seismic Fracture issues ill Steel Structures, San Franci co. alifornla.
I Ricles, J. M., Mao, C., Lu, L., and Fi her, J. W. (2002). "Inelastic yclle Te ting of
Welded Unreinforced Moment Connections," Journal 0/ Structural Engllleering. ACE,
Vol. 128, 0.4, pp. 429-440.
I Roeder, C. W., and Foutch, D. A. (1996). "Experimental Re ult for Seismic Re IStant
teel Moment Frame Connections," Journal a/Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122,
I '0. 6, pp. 581-5 8.
Roeder. C. W. (1997). "An Evaluation of Cracking Observed In teel Moment Frames,"

I Proceedings of the ASCE Structures ongre s, Kempner, L., Brown, . (eds.), Ponland,
Oregon, April 13-16, 1997, ACE, lew York, ew York., pp. 767-771.
I
433
I
I
I
Roeder, C. W. (2000). "Connection Perfornlance State of the Art Report," University of
Washington, Seanle, Washington.
I
Roeder. C. W. (2002a). "GeneralIs ues Influencing Connection Performance," Journal
a/Structural Ellgilleerillg, ASCE, Vol. 128, 0. 4, pp. 420-428.
I
Roeder, C. w. (2002b). "Connection Performance for Seismic De ign of teel Moment
Frame," Journal o/Struclllral Engilleerillg, ASCE , Vol. 128, 0.4, pp. 517-525.
I
SAC JOint Venture (SAC) (1996). "Technical Report : Experimental Investigations of
Beam- olumn Subas emblages," Report o. SAC-96-01 , SAC Joint Venture,
I
Sacramento, California.
SAC (1997). "Protocol for Fabrication, In pecllon, Testing, and Documentation of

I
Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimen ," Report No.
SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California. I
Schneider, S. P., Roeder, C. W., and Carpenter, J. E. (1993). "Seismic Behavior of
Moment-Re isting Steel Frames: Experimental Study," Journal o/SIn/ctural I
Engilleering. ASCE, Vol. /19, No.6, pp. 1885- 1902.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (1988). Recommended Lateral I

Force Requiremellls, Fourth ed., Seismology Committee, SEAO , San FrancIsco,
California.
I
Sherbourne, A. '., and Jensen, C. D. (1957). "Direct Welded Beam Column
Connections," Report. No. 233.12, Fritz Laboratory, Lehigh UniversllY, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. I
Stojadlnovlc, B., Goel, S. C., Lee, K.-H. , Margarian, A. G. , and ChOl, 1.-11. (2000).
"Parametric Tests on Unreinforccd Steel Moment Connections," Journal o/Strllctural I
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. I, pp. 40-49.
Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) Task Group (1998). "SSRC Technical I
Memorandum No.7: TensIOn Testing," SSRC, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Tide, R. H. R. (2000). "Evaluation of Steel Properties and Cracking in 'k' - area ofW
I
Shapes," Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, 0.2, pp. 128-134.
Troup, E. W. (1999). "Effective Contract and Shop Drawings for Structural Steel,"
I
Proceedings of the AISC 'ational Steel Construction Conference, Toronto. Ontario, May
19-21, 1999, AISC, Chicago, illinois, pp. 37-1 - 37-15.
I
I
434
I
I
1.0
1 T ai, K. C., and Popov, E. P. (198 ). "Steel Beam-Column Joint In ei mic Moment
Resi ting Frames," Repon o. UCBfE ERC-88/ 19, Eanhquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
I Tsai, K. C., Wu, S., and Popov, E. P. (1995). "Experimental Perfonnance of clsmlc
Steel Beam-Column Moment JOints," JOlll'llal ofSlI1lcltlral Engineering. AS , 01.
I 121 , '0. 6, pp. 925-931.
Unifonn Building Code (UBC) (1988). Uni/orm BlIilding Code. International

1 Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
Web tel', D. (2000). "Repon on the Change in Model Material Propenie U ed for
I ABAQUS Finite Element Analy is," Depanment of Civil Engineenng, UnI vers ity of
MInne ota, MinneapolIs, Minne ota.
I Xuc, M., Kaufmann, E. J., Lu, L.-W., and Fisher, J. W. (1996). "Achieving Ductile
Behavior of Moment Connections - Pan II," Modern Steel Constrllction, Vol. 36, 0.6,
pp. 3 -42.
1 Ye, Y., Hajjar, J. F., Dexter, R. D., Prochnow, S. C., Conon, S. . (2000). " onlinear
Analysis of Continuity Plate and Doubler Plate Details in Stcel Moment Frame
I Connections," Repon No. ST-00-3, Dcpanmcnt of Civil Engineenng, UniverSity of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1 Yee, R. K., Paterson, . R. , and Egan, G. R. (1998). "Enginecring Evaluation of

Column Continuity Plate Detail Design and Welding I sues in Welded teel Moment
Frame Connections," Welding for Seismic Zones in ew Zealand, Aptech EngIncenng
I SerVices, Inc., Sunnyvale, California.
1
I
I
I
I
I 435
I
I
I :;,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Column Stiffener Detailing and Panel Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Column Stiffener Detailing and Panel Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

I\lSC ElR Lbr.ry

II\\n \11\ \\ 1\\1\\~

i Daeyong Lee, ean . Cotton, Robert J. Dexter,

I components: finite element analyses to investigate the performance of various column

t primarily on reporting the results of the cyclically-loaded cruciform tests.

I In addition, it was determined that in order to provide a more accurate assessment

I The report concludes with a series of specific conclusions related to column

I Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Braun lntenec, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Edison

, University of Minnesota Structures Laboratory. Supercomputing resources were

I Group, M. Engstrom, Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, J. Fisher, Lehigh University, M.

I Electric Company, S. Rolfe, University of Kansas, and W. Thornton, Cives Engineering

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x

I 3.3.3.2 Fillet-Welded Doubler Plate Design ...................................................69

I 4. Test Setup and Instrumentation ...................................................................... 92

I 4.1 Test Setup .............................................................................................................. 92

I 4.3.2 Linear Variable Differential Transformers .................................................. 97

I 5. Summary of Test Re ults ................................................................................. 131

I 5.1 Applied Loading History .................................................................................... 131

I 5.1.2 Loading History of Specimen CR2 ............................................................ 132

I 5.1.4 Loading History of Specimen CR4 ............................................................ 132

I 7.2.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 329

I A. I Rotation and Deformation from Displacement Data ......................................... 336

I Appendix B. Failure Analysi of Specimen CR4 ......................................... .40 I

3. 1 Seismic Girder-Column Combinations Meeting SCWB Criterion -

65 ksi Columns ...................................................................................................... 81 I

I 4.11 Doubler Plate instrumentation for Specimen CRJ ................................................. 115

I 4.15 Doubler Plate Instrumentation for Specimen CR4R ............................................... 119

I 4.21 Continuity Plate lnstrumentation for Specimen CR3 ............................................. 125

I 4.25 Load Frame LVDT Placement ................................................................................ 129

I 5.32 Complete Failure of West Top Flange, CR2 .......................................................... 173

J 5.47 Plastic Rotation of West Connection, CR4 ............................................................. 181

I 5.53 Fracture of West Top Flange, CR4 ......................................................................... 184

I 5.57 Plastic Rotation of East Connection, CR4R ................................................ ........... 187

I 6.18 Comparison of Experimental and FEA Panel Zone Deformation,

I 6.19 Specimen CRI Panel Zone (1 .0% Drifi) .................................................................260

I 6.25 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (2.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 263

I 6.27 Specimen CR2 Panel Zone (4.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 264

i 6.29 Specimen CRJ Panel Zone (2.0% Drifi) ................................................................. 265

I 6.54 Longitudinal Strains Profile in CRI Column Flange

'"' (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ........... .................................................. 279

,I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ....... ................................. ..................... 280

I 6.69 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and

i 6.70 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to AISC (1997) and

I 6.71 Comparison of Experimental Panel Zone Behavior to A]SC (1997) and

I 6.87 Transverse Strain on Inside Face of CR I Column Flange at Location of

I Bottom Girder Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ................................. 297

I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 298

I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) .......................................................... 299

I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................ ................................. 299

I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ... ....................................................... 300

I Flange (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ................................................. 300

I (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension} .................................... .................................. 301

I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 301

i, (Bottom Girder Flange in Tension) ...................................................................... 302

I (Bottom Girder Flange in Compression) ............................................................. 302

I 6.128 Strain Distribution (Strains CP3 to CP I) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate

-I 6. 131 Strain Distribution (Strains CP I 0 to CP8) in Specimen CR3 Continuity Plate

I A.36 East Girder Total Rotation, CRS ............................................................................ 362

I A.37(b) West Girder Total Rotation, CR5 (Re-scaled) .................................................. 363

I [after (Krawinkler et aI. , 1971»)ofFlange ............ ................................................ 364

I A.66 West Girder Plastic Rotation, CR4R. .................... ................................................ .38 1

I A.68(a) West Girder Plastic Rotation, CRS ................................................................... .383