Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

A balanced design procedure for special concentrically braced frame connections

Charles W. Roeder ⁎, Eric J. Lumpkin, Dawn E. Lehman
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are stiff, strong structures that are suitable for resisting large lateral
Received 13 December 2010 loads. Special CBFs (SCBF) are used for seismic design and are designed and detailed to sustain relatively large
Accepted 26 April 2011 inelastic deformations without significant deterioration in resistance. Current AISC Seismic Design Provisions
Available online 14 June 2011
aim to ensure the brace sustains the required inelastic action, but recent research showed that current SCBF
design requirements lead to variable seismic performance, unintended failure modes, and limited
Keywords:
Seismic design
deformation capacity. To improve the seismic response of SCBFs, a balanced design procedure was proposed.
Braced frames The premise of the design methodology is to balance the primary yield mechanism, brace buckling and
Gusset plate connections yielding, with other, complementary ductile yielding mechanisms, such as gusset plate yielding. This balance
Special concentrically braced frames process maximizes ductile yielding in the frame thereby maximizing the drift capacity of the frame. Further,
Ductility the undesirable failure modes are balanced with the yield mechanisms and the preferred failure mode, brace
Inelastic behavior fracture, to ensure that the frame fails in the desired manner. To achieve the objectives of the design
methodology namely maximum drift capacity, and adherence to a desired yield and failure hierarchy, rational
resistance checks and appropriate balance factors (β factors) are used to balance each yield mechanism and
failure mode. These factors were developed, validated, and refined using the measured results from an
extensive test program. An SCBF connection design example to illustrate the application of the balanced
design method and to demonstrate differences from the current AISC design method is presented in an
appendix.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are stiff, strong structures,
which are suitable for resisting wind and seismic loading. CBF typically
are composed of diagonal bracing members connected to the beams and
columns with gusset plate connection. The bracing may be placed in a
number of different configurations and geometries. CBF members are
initially designed assuming truss action, i.e. the members only carry
axial load.
Special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) are employed in high
seismic regions and use a Response Modification Factor, R, to reduce the
seismic design force. During large, infrequent earthquakes, SCBFs must
sustain cyclic, inelastic tensile yielding and compressive buckling
deformation of the brace without significant deterioration of stiffness
and resistance for earthquakes exceeding the reduced design force.
Brace buckling and tensile yield are the primary yield mechanisms of the
system, which permit the frame to sustain the inelastic deformation and
energy dissipation demands needed to provide collapse-prevention
performance.
Although the brace is the primary member in the SCBF system, the
connections play an important role. Gusset plate connections typically
⁎ Corresponding author at: 233B More Hall, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195-2700, United States. Tel.: + 1 206 543 6199; fax: + 1 206 543 1543.
E-mail address: croeder@u.washington.edu (C.W. Roeder).
connect the brace to the other framing members, as shown in Fig. 1,
because they are easier to construct and design than fully restrained
brace-end connections. Design of gusset plate connections to achieve
the design objectives requires significant effort [1], and recent research
has shown that they may not lead to the intended response.
Experimental investigations into modified design methods have
demonstrated small changes can improve the seismic performance of
the system [2]. These improvements can be implemented in practice
using a balanced-design procedure (BDP). Balanced design has been
proposed as a method to control the sequence of yielding and to increase
inelastic deformation capacity in past seismic research (e.g., [3]), but it
has not been widely used in practice because of the complexity and
uncertainty in achieving the required component balancing in practice.
In part, this uncertainty stems from the limited experimental data
available to verify the design method and associated expressions. Here,
this limitation is overcome using a large data set on braced frame system
that simulates modern construction. The resulting BDP is robust and
available for immediate used by practitioners.
This paper develops, presents, and justifies a simple BDP for SCBF
gusset plate connections. The BDP identifies all possible yield mecha-
nisms and failures modes associated with the SCBF system, and balances
their resistances to optimize the seismic performance of the system [4].
The BDP adapts currently accepted design expressions and uses balance
factors (β factors) for each yield mechanism and failure mode to assure
that (1) the primary yield mechanism occurs and is followed by

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.04.016
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772 1761

Fig. 1. AISC gusset plate design; a) geometry, tension, buckling and net section checks; b) welds, free edge buckling, and weld checks; and c) geometry of tapered gusset.

secondary yield mechanisms, and (2) undesirable failure modes are
prevented. To maximize inelastic action and deformation capacity of the
system, the BDP requires: (1) accurate models for predicting the
resistance associated with each yield mechanism and failure mode, and
(2) balance factors (β factors) to assure the proper separation of the
primary and secondary yield mechanisms, to delay all failure modes and
to suppress unacceptable failure modes. To achieve this, a review of
current SCBF seismic design requirements is provided, and recent
research that provides the basis for the proposed BDP is summarized.
The results of this experimental research are then used to develop and
evaluate design expressions and β factors for relevant yield mechanisms
and failure modes. Finally, a design example using the proposed BDP is
provided in the appendix.
Current design method
The premise of the current design method, as specified in the AISC
Seismic Design Provisions [1] is to establish the force demands on the
system and to use the LRFD AISC design provisions [5] to size the brace
and framing members. In this selection, the designer must:
• Satisfy local and global slenderness limits for the brace and other
members.
• Ensure that the tensile brace sustains no more than 70% of the lateral
force demand.
• Design beams in frames with V-bracing and inverted V-bracing to
sustain the vertical unbalanced load that results after brace buckling
occurs.
• Design columns and column splices to resist the minimum of the
amplified seismic load and an amplified maximum force equal to the
product of 1.1Ry and the maximum force the adjacent braces can
transfer to the column.
• Establish the plastic capacity of the brace in tension, Put = RyFyAg,
and compression, Puc = 1.1RyFcrAg to complete the connection
design. In the expression, Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of
the brace, Ry is the ratio of the expected yield strength to the
minimum specified yield strength, Fy, and Fcr is the critical stress
associated with brace buckling.
The gusset plate connecting the beam, column, and brace must be
designed such that its resistance exceeds Put and Puc. Numerous
design checks are needed to achieve this, and Table 1 provides the
equations currently used in this evaluation. A cursory review of the
gusset plate design checks follows:
1. The net section resistance of the brace is evaluated adjacent to the
gusset-to-brace connection and reinforcement is added if it cannot
achieve Put.
2. The length of the brace-to-gusset interface is sized to suppress
block shear for Put.
3. The AISC Uniform Force Method (UFM) may be used to select
gusset plate dimensions (dimensions a and b of Fig. 1a) and to
establish the force or stress demands on the bolts or welds needed
to maintain equilibrium with Put of the brace [5]. The welds or bolts
are then sized to sustain the computed demand.
4. The connection must be designed to either develop a fully
restrained brace connection or allowance must be made for brace
end rotation during buckling. This end rotation capacity is
currently achieved with 2tp linear clearance, as shown in Fig. 1.
5. The thickness of the gusset plate must be sufficient to develop both
Put and Puc. The tensile gusset plate resistance is determined using
the Whitmore width and specified strength of the plate [6]. The
compressive resistance is determined using the Thornton method
which uses an average effective length of the gusset based upon the
centroidal length and the lengths at two ends of Whitmore width,
as shown in Fig. 1a [7]. The effective length coefficient, K, is
commonly taken as 0.65 for corner gussets and 1.2 to 1.4 for
midspan gussets. Edge buckling may also be evaluated.
The design process is rational, however recent research has
demonstrated several shortcomings that have resulted in construction

Table 1
Limit states and corresponding resistance expressions for AISC and balanced design approaches.

Limit state AISC design Balanced design

Resistance (φRn) ϕ Resistance (βRn) β

Whitmore yielding ϕFyBwtp 0.90 βRyFyBwtp 1.0

Brace net section fracture ϕU(RtbFubAnb + FupAgp) 0.75 βU(RtbFubAnb + FupAgp) 0.95
Brace to gusset weld ϕ(0.6)FEXXNwLc(.707)w2 0.75 Same as AISC 0.75
Brace to gusset base metal ϕ(0.6)FuNsLctf 0.75 Same as AISC 0.75
Block shear ϕ{(0.6FuAnv + UbsFuAnt) ≤ (0.6FyAgv + UbsFuAnt)} 0.75 β{(0.6FuAnv + UbsFuAnt)} 0.85
Whitmore fracture ϕFuBwtp 0.75 βFuBwtp 0.85
Gusset plate buckling ϕBwtpFcr 0.90 βBwtpFcr 0.90
Interface welds ϕ(0.6)FEXX[1 + 0.5(sinγ)1.5]2 Lw(.707)w1 ≥ UFM 0.75 2(1.5)β(0.6)FEXX(.707)w1 ≥ RyFytp 0.75
1762 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772
challenges and reduced drift capacity. A new approach for gusset plate
design is needed to remedy these deficiencies.
Experimental studies
An extensive body of research has been performed on gusset plate
connections [8–15]. These connection tests are useful in establishing
and validating basic models for predicting their resistance, but they
are not good indicators of SCBF seismic performance because they do
not simulate the interaction of all of the braced frame components. In
particular, these connection tests neglect the effect of brace buckling
deformation demands on the connection (see Fig. 2a), the significant
inelastic deformation demands on the beams and columns caused by
frame action of the SCBF system (see Fig. 2b), and the inelastic
deformation of the gusset caused by frame action. These differences
are significant, because these effects are needed to capture the full
seismic demands on the gusset plate connection and to accurately
reflect the ductility and inelastic performance of the system.
Experiments that include these effects simulate one or more bays
of an SCBF frame [2,16–23]. A recent research program experimentally
evaluated 28 full-scale, single-bay single-story SCBFs with member
sizes typical of those used in the bottom story of a 3- or 4-story
building (see Fig. 3a) [2,18–20,23]. In addition, six 2- and 3-story full-
scale SCBF frames (see Fig. 3b) were tested at the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) Laboratory in Taiwan to evaluate
a) Brace Buckling Demands on Gusset
b) Local Yielding of Beams and Columns
Fig. 2. Inelastic deformation demands on SCBF systems.
multi-story bracing systems [21,22]. These experiments evaluated a
range of gusset plate connection design parameters including:
• The current AISC design procedures.
• The range of different failure modes possible of SCBFs with gusset
plate connections.
• The impact of different brace cross sections, configurations, and
orientations.
• Different connections (e.g., bolted and welded) between the gusset
plate and framing members.
• Differences in the 2tp linear clearance and alternate clearance
models to achieve brace end rotation.
• The gusset plate thickness and resulting relative strength and
stiffness of the brace, gusset and framing members.
• The impact of gusset plate shape by testing both tapered and
rectangular gusset plates.
These tests realistically simulated the demands on and the
performance of these connections, and the results were used to
develop the proposed BDP [2]. The specimens were subjected to a
cyclic inelastic deformation history based on the ATC-24 testing
protocol [24], although a few tests employed a near-fault inspired
cyclic deformation history. Table 2 summarizes the general test
results. The drift range provided in this table is the total drift range
including positive and negative deflections prior to achieving the
initial failure mode. The drift ranges shown for multi-story frames in
this table are average drift ranges over the height of the structure.
Specimens with HSS in the identifier had rectangular HSS braces, and
those with WF had wide flange braces. Test results presented in [2]
include the first eleven tests and some are reproduced here in brevity
for completion; the reader is referred to that paper for additional
information. When needed results from other tests are summarized
herein. More detailed information about all of the tests can be found in
the original reports (Specimens HSS1–HSS5 [18]; Specimens HSS6–
HSS12 [19]; Specimens HSS13–HSS19 [20]; Specimens HSS20–HSS28
[23]; Specimens TCBF1 [21]; Specimens TCBF2 1–3 [22]).
The research findings have broad implications on the current
seismic design methodology and mechanisms to improve it. Fig. 4
uses the force–drift response curves from specimens that have tested
with a wide range of connection properties to illustrate the diversity
in system performance observed in this research. Specifically,
differences in the measured response result from different controlling
yield mechanisms and failure modes. A few key observations are
provided.
• The current design methodology does not meet the performance
expectations. Specimens HSS-1 and HSS-12 both were designed to
meet current AISC specifications [1], where Specimen HSS-1 used
fillet welds at the gusset plate-beam and gusset plate-column
interfaces and Specimen HSS-12 used a complete joint penetration
(CJP). The interface welds in Specimen HSS-1 failed prior to brace
tearing, as shown in Fig. 4a. Although Specimen HSS-12 achieved
the desired failure mode (brace fracture), the drift was less than
1.5% in tension and far less than specimens design to meet all or part
of the BDP (see Fig. 4b). Specimen HSS-11, which had a large beam
and gusset plate and met current SCBF design methods, failed at
smaller inelastic deformation because the excessive strength and
stiffness of the gusset (encouraged by the current design philoso-
phy) limited the system drift capacity (see Fig. 4e). Specimen HSS11
greatly exceeded the BDP strength design requirements. However,
the BDP is intended to avoid excess overstrength, and hence this
connection meets the requirements of AISC but does not meet BDP
requirements.
• The 2tp linear clearance often results in relatively large, thick gusset
plates. Observations from nonlinear analyses and experiments
showed that a more compact gusset plate can achieve the brace
end rotation demands and reduce construction challenges. Using
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772 1763

a) Single Story Test b) Multi-Story Test

N
200 mm Composite SlabAcuators

W24x94

3.19 m
200 mm Composite Slab

W21x68

3.19 m

W12x106

W12x106
200 mm Composite Slab

W21x68

2.93 m
6.00 m

Fig. 3. Typical test specimens.

those results as a basis, an alternative elliptical clearance method
was developed for corner gusset plates, as indicated in Fig. 5 [2].
Specimens HSS-2 through HSS-8 evaluated variations in the
elliptical clearance distance. Based on those results, a clearance of
8tp was selected. Specimen HSS-5 employed this 8tp elliptical
clearance model and balanced the brace tensile capacity with the
capacity of the gusset plate to permit gusset yielding following brace
yielding. Comparison of Fig. 4a and c shows that this revision
significantly improves connection inelastic deformation capacity
and performance. A 6tp vertical clearance zone, as shown in Fig. 6,
was developed for gusset plates used at the midspan of the beam
and was evaluated in Tests TCBF2-1 and TCBF2-2.

Table 2
Test summary.

Specimen brace type Specimen description Gusset and clearance Failure mode Drift range%

HSS-1 AISC design — fillet welds by UFM. 13 mm–2tp linear Weld fracture 2.8
HSS-2 HSS1 w/fillet weld sized to cap. of plate 13 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.0
HSS-3 BDP — fillet weld sized to capacity of plate 13 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 5.0
HSS-4 BDP — fillet weld sized to capacity of plate 13 mm–9.4tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.8
HSS-5 BDP — fillet weld sized to capacity of plate 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 5.5
HSS-6 BDP — HSS5 except fillet welds reinforced 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.8
HSS-7 BDP — fillet weld sized to capacity of plate 22 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.0
HSS-8 BDP — fillet weld sized to capacity of plate 10 mm–3tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.6
HSS-9 BDP — CJP weld 13 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 3.7
HSS-10 BDP — tapered gusset–fillet welds to plate cap. 13 mm–7tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.5
HSS-11 Heavy beam — fillet welds to plate capacity 22 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 2.6
HSS-12 AISC design — CJP weld 13 mm–2tp linear Brace fracture 3.5
HSS-13 BDP — CJP weld 13 mm–7tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.1
HSS-14 No net section reinf — fillet welds to pl. cap. 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 3.9
HSS-15 BDP — min. block shear–fillet welds to pl. cap. 10 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.1
HSS-17 BDP — tapered gusset–fillet welds to plate cap. 10 mm–9tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.9
HSS-18 BDP — bolted shear pl.–fillet welds to plate cap. 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.2
HSS-20 BDP — bolted end plate 10 mm–7tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.0
HSS-21 BDP — bolted end plate 10 mm–7tp ellipse Bolt fracture 4.2
HSS-22 BDP — tapered gusset — unwelded beam flanges 10 mm–8tp ellipse Gusset tearing 4.0
WF-23 BDP — W6x25 wide flange brace 10 mm–8tp ellipse Weld fracture 5.6
HSS-24 BDP-3/8″ gusset, 6 tp elliptical 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.4
HSS-25 Heavy beam — no net section reinf. — CJP weld 22 mm–6tp ellipse Brace fracture 3.3
HSS-26 Heavy beam — no net section reinf. — near fault 22 mm–6tp ellipse Net section 1.7
HSS-27 No net section reinforcement — near fault 10 mm–8tp ellipse Net section 2.5
HSS-28 BDP — tapered gusset 19 mm–2tp linear Brace fracture 4.7
TCBF1-HSS BDP — two story 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 4.3 Avg.
TCBF1-WF BDP — two story 10 mm–8tp ellipse Brace fracture 6.2 Avg.
TCBF1-T BDP — two story — tapered gusset 20 mm–2tp linear Brace fracture 5.6 Avg.
TCBF2-HSS BDP — three story 10 mm–varies Brace fracture 3.8 Avg.
TCBF2-WF BDP — three story 10 mm–varies Brace fracture 4.9 Avg.
TCBF2-IP BDP — three story — in plane buckling 20 mm–2tp linear Brace fracture. 3.5 Avg.
1764 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772

Fig. 4. Cyclic force–deflection behaviors; a) HSS-1: AISC reference, (b) HSS-12: AISC reference CJP weld, c) HSS-5: rectangular plate meeting BDP method, d) HSS-10: tapered plate
meeting BDP method, e) HSS-11: thick tapered plate and heavy beams, and f) WF-23: wide flange brace meeting BDP method.

• Specimen HSS-1 showed that the use of the UFM for design of the
interface welds is not adequate, and improved performance was
achieved with interface welds designed to suppress weld fracture by
ensuring the weld strength can develop the plastic capacity of the
gusset plate [2,5]. Specimen HSS-5 used welds sized to achieve the
capacity of the plate where Specimen HSS-1 used welds design to
meet the UFM. Comparing the measured responses of Specimens
HSS-1 and HSS-5 (Fig. 4a and c, respectively) shows that weld
damage is reduced and specimen deformation capacity is increased
using the balanced approach.
• Both rectangular and tapered gusset plates are used in practice.
Tapered gusset plates result in similar drift capacity as rectangular
gusset plates (see Fig. 4c, rectangular, and 4d, tapered), but they
sustain more concentrated strain and deformation demands, which in
turn increase the deformation demands on the gusset plate interface
welds. As a result, tapered gussets may have increased weld tearing
compared to rectangular gusset plates at large deformations.
• Experiments show that gusset plate connections must be stiff and
strong enough to develop the expected resistance and deformation
capacity of the brace, but additional strength and stiffness is
detrimental to SCBF performance. Specimen HSS-11 met current
SCBF criteria, but had thicker gussets as commonly occurs with
current design methods. Comparison of Fig. 4e (specimen with thick
gusset plate) to 4c (specimen with thinner plate meeting the BPD)
shows that the additional gusset plate stiffness and resistance
significantly reduced SCBF system deformation capacity.
• Prior research, including that conducted by the authors, shows that
rectangular HSS tubular braces achieve less deformation capacity
than other brace cross sections. For example, Specimen WF-23 was
identical to Specimen HSS-5 except that a wide flange brace was

Fig. 5. Elliptical offset to achieve end rotation [2]. Fig. 6. Midspan gusset plate buckling geometry.
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772
used; in both cases the specimens met the BDP. Comparison of
Fig. 4c and f shows that the specimen with the wide flange brace
provided greater deformation capacity.
These results show that the proposed BDP improved the ductility
and increased the inelastic deformation capacity of SCBF connections,
while significantly delaying the undesirable failure modes.
Balanced design procedure (BDP)
The proposed BDP seeks to maximize yielding in and therefore
deformation of the system while suppressing undesirable failure modes
[4]. The BDP has similarities and differences with current design
methods. Table 1 provides an overview of the relevant resistance
expressions for both the proposed BDP and the current AISC procedure.
As evident in the table, the same yield mechanisms and failure modes are
used for both design procedures. Although there are other similarities,
there are important, fundamental differences in the proposed BDP
method. With both methods, the brace is sized using reduced seismic
loads. Both use the expected plastic strength of the brace (Put and Puc) to
quantify the demand on the gusset plate connections. Slenderness limits
and geometric requirements for all members are retained from the
current AISC Provisions [1]. The most important differences in the two
methods are that 1) the current procedure uses resistance factors to
design and detail the gusset plate where the balance design method uses
balance factors to balance the yield mechanisms and failure modes to
maximize the drift capacity of the system, and 2) the balance factors are
based upon the inelastic deformation provided by the mechanism rather
than predicted strength. In addition, there are differences in some of the
resistance expressions, as shown in Table 1.
The BDP has the objective of developing a connection design
methodology to balance yielding of the brace and the gusset plate and
maximize system ductility. This is accomplished by balancing the
resistances associated with the yield mechanisms, as illustrated in
Eq. (1):
ðPut or Puc Þ ≤ βyield 1 Ry Ryield;1 ≤ βyield 2 Ry Ryield;2 ≤ βyield i Ry Ryield;i :
Eq. (2) is the failure mode balance procedure:
Ryieldmean = Ry Ryield b
· βfail;1 Rfail;1 b
· βfail;2 Rfail;2 and βyield b βfail :
In these equations, Ry is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the
specified yield stress and Ryield and Rfail are the nominal resistance
values of the yield mechanism and failure mode in question,
respectively. The hierarchy of yielding and prevention of undesirable
failure modes is achieved through the use of balance factors called beta
(β) factors as shown within these expressions. These β factors appear
similar to the resistance factors, φ, used in AISC LRFD design [5], but β
factors are based on achieving ductility and inelastic deformation
capacity rather than simply designing to achieve a specified strength
under statistically extreme loads [4]. The failure mode resistance
expressions do not include the material overstrength factors, Ry,
because doing so would increase the likelihood of critical failure
modes and reduce the safety of the connection.
Each yield mechanism and failure mode has its own β factor,
which was established using measured values from specimens that
achieved the target ductility and inelastic performance corresponding
to the specified yield mechanism or failure mode. The subscripts 1, 2,
3, etc. reflect the preferred sequence of yielding hierarchy and
suppressing of specific failure modes within the system. The β factors
are less than or equal to 1, and they are smaller for less desirable yield
mechanisms and failure modes. For example, the preferred yield
mechanism of gusset plate yielding has a βyield value of 1.0 where
undesirable failure modes have βfail values that are smaller than 1.0,
because the consequence of these failures are more severe.
1765
The results from the experimental research programs were used to
establish the β factors. Two sets of β factors (βdesign and βactual) were
computed from the test results. Design β factors, βdesign, were based
on the nominal material properties, while actual β factors, βactual,
were based upon actual material properties measured in coupon tests
as illustrated in Eqs. (3) and (4).
Pnom ½P or Puc nom
βdesign = βd = = ut ð3Þ
Rnom Rnom
Pactual ½P or Puc actual
βactual = βa = = ut : ð4Þ
Ractual Ractual
The βdesign values are appropriate for development of the BDP,
because the design process is based upon nominal material properties.
However, βactual is considered, because differences between βactual
and βdesign illustrate the reserve capacity in the proposed procedure.
The β factors were selected to maximize the inelastic deformation
capacity from the SCBF system, where the deformation capacity is
defined based upon the total drift range prior to initial failure obtained
from the test specimens. It is logical that the β factors will often be
larger than the ϕ factors employed in LRFD design [5], because the
seismic loads for the gusset plate are based upon Put and Puc, which
are much larger than the factored seismic design loads used for
member design. The procedures and data used to establish the
selection of β factors are provided in subsequent text.
Determination of balance factors
The predicted nominal yield and failure resistances, Ryield and Rfail,
and associated β factors for welded connections are provided in Table 1.
Their derivation is presented in this section. Although the resistance
equations for bolted connections are not explicitly described, the same
design principles apply. Several experiments have been completed on
bolted connections, and their performance was variable but sometimes
ð1Þ
quite good. However, the experimental data for bolted connections are
limited and therefore actual beta values were not derived.
Primary yield mechanism
ð2Þ
The primary yield mechanism(s) for SCBF systems are tensile
yielding and compressive buckling of the brace. The values of Put and
Puc are the expected tensile and buckling yield resistances, and therefore
they serve as the mean yield resistance, Ryield mean, in Eqs. (1),(2) and
(3). The general dimensions of the gusset plate (dimensions a and b of
Fig. 5) are selected to be the minimum required to accommodate the
geometry of the brace, the connection length of the brace to the gusset
plate, and the elliptical clearance, rather than those recommended by
UFM and other design provisions for AISC [1].
Secondary yield mechanism: gusset plate yielding
Controlled tensile yielding of the gusset plate is the preferred
secondary yield mechanism. The Whitmore width, Bw, is used to
estimate the maximum nominal stress in these connections [6]. The
method assumes a 30-degree angle relative to the length of the
connection as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 7 shows the deformation capacity
achieved in past experiments as a function of the gusset plate yielding β
factor (relative to the tensile capacity of the brace). This figure compares
the empirically derived beta factors to the measured maximum
deformation in order to derive all of the β factors. It should be noted
that each specimen has multiple variables, and this variability results in
an increase in the scatter in the test results. However, the tests are
expensive, and there are insufficient test data to permit isolation of the
variables and therefore all available data were used in this evaluation.
1766 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772
Fig. 7. Design β factors for Whitmore yielding.
Fig. 7 shows that the inelastic deformation capacity increases as
the β factor for gusset plate yielding approaches 1.0. This is consistent
with recent research results showing that yielding of the gusset
following brace yielding maximizes the drift capacity of the system
[2]. Those results show that excess strength and stiffness of the gusset
reduces the inelastic deformation capacity of the system [2].
The βdesign values in Fig. 7 range from 0.38 to 1.1. Data points that are
enveloped in a square exhibited yielding over more than 50% of the
surface area of the gusset plate; on average these systems achieved
greater deformation capacities than the others. The figure also shows a
trend where smaller β factor reduces the drift range. One specimen
(HSS-15) had βdesign values that exceeded 1.0, but still achieved a frame
drift range of approximately 4.1% without sustaining connection failure.
This occurs because thinner gusset plates reduce the connection
stiffness and strain accumulations at the center of the brace, which
reduces the potential for brace fracture [2]. To encourage Whitmore
yielding of the gusset plate connection after brace yielding, a β factor of
1.0 is recommended.
Brace net-section failure mode
The reduced net area of the brace at the gusset plate joint may lead to
net section fracture and is an issue in seismic design [25]. Rectangular
HSS tubes are commonly used as braces, and Fig. 8 illustrates the net
section adjacent to the brace-to-gusset interface, typical net section
reinforcement and geometry for establishing the net effective area. The
AISC Specification [5] employs a resistance factor, ϕ, of 0.75 using the net
effective area, Ae, where
Ae = UAn
which uses the correction factor U to account for non-uniform tensile
stress due to shear lag, and
x failure are severe and over-strength of the welds had no adverse effect
U = 1−
Lc
A in AISC [1].
Agp Net Section Reinforcement
C.G.
X
Lc
Anb Gusset
Net Section Fracture
Considered at Section A-A A connection design with the BDP, because the procedure encourages
Fig. 8. Net section evaluation for rectangular HSS brace.
Fig. 9. Design β factors for brace net section fracture.
where the variables are shown in the figure. This AISC procedure
typically requires significant net section reinforcement if applied to
SCBF bracing.
Fig. 9 shows that only three (3) specimens had net-section damage
(two sustained net section fracture); 10 specimens did not sustain net
section fracture although they did not have net-section reinforcement
with β factors greater than 1.0. Net-section fracture is preceded by
limited yield deformation. Further, the figure shows that larger β
factors increased system deformation capacity if net-section fracture
is avoided. Nevertheless, net-section fracture is sudden and results in
complete loss of brace resistance and therefore must be avoided. The
tests suggest that net section fracture is more likely to occur when the
brace is subjected to cycles that results in large tensile strains and very
small compressive strains which reflects the demand history that
might be expected with near fault seismic events [23]. The data
demonstrate that the recommended β factor of 0.95 is conservative to
mitigate brace net-section fracture.
While the AISC LRFD ϕ factor is 0.75, a user note exception
provided in the AISC Seismic Provisions permits the use of the
expected tensile strength (RtFu) when evaluating the net section
resistance. This exception is based on engineering judgment rather
than experimental results. The Rt for ASTM A500 HSS tubes is 1.3, and
so this exception implies an equivalent β value of 1.3 0.75 or 0.975.
This research generally supports this practice.
Brace-to-gusset interface failure modes
Welds joining the brace to the gusset plate require consideration of
ð5Þ two basic failure modes. The welds (or heat affected zone) joining the
brace to the gusset may fracture or block shear failure may occur. For the
proposed BDP, the AISC expressions for evaluating the resistance of the
weld and base metal were adopted, as shown in Table 1. Although this
failure mode was not observed in any test, the consequences of weld
ð6Þ
on SCBF performance. Therefore, the β factor for failure of the weld in
the base metal and the filler metal is 0.75, identical to the ϕ factors used
Block-shear failure may occur if the combined shear and tensile
stress demand at the brace-to-gusset interface exceeds the capacity
around the perimeter of the joint. Block-shear resistance is the
summation of the capacity in tension (Ant), region adjacent to the end
of the brace, and shear (Anv), as indicated by the resistance expression
provided in Table 1. Design for block shear frequently controls the
thinner gusset plates. If the block-shear perimeter is shortened, the
plate thickness will be controlled by block shear. Thick gusset plates
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772
Fig. 10. Design β factors for block shear failure mode.
may be required, and the resulting plate may be too stiff and strong to
encourage yielding. Several specimens had βdesign values significantly
larger than the AISC ϕ factor, and block shear fractures or yield lines,
both of which would suggest imminent problems, were not observed.
Fig. 10 shows that ϕ = 0.75 significantly underestimates the block
shear resistance for welded brace-to-gusset connections, and that
βactual is consistently smaller than βdesign value. As a result, a β factor
of 0.85 was conservatively chosen to suppress block-shear failure, and
it is expected that an even larger value may be possible for welded
joints, however the limited test data to date does not permit this
increase at present. Further, only a single equation considering block
shear fracture is employed, since yielding in the gusset is encouraged.
Additional testing is required for bolted brace-to-gusset joints,
because the boltholes may facilitate crack initiation and crack growth
for block shear failure.
Whitmore fracture failure mode
Whitmore fracture must be discouraged, because gusset plate
fracture causes a dramatic loss of lateral resistance. For this evaluation,
the area associated the Whitmore width was again employed, and the
failure mode was evaluated with respect to Put. Tensile fracture depends
on the effective net section and ultimate tensile strength, Fu, of the plate,
as shown in Table 1. Fig. 11 shows that increasing βd values for the
Whitmore fracture failure mode led to larger drift ranges, and Whitmore
fracture did not occur in any test nor were there any indications of
distress or imminent problems with β factors as large as 0.9. Net-section
fracture of the gusset was not sustained in any of the tests conducted to
Fig. 11. Design β factors for Whitmore fracture mode.
1767
date. The resistance factor of ϕ = 0.75 is used to compute tensile
fracture. However for the BDP, a relatively conservative β factor of 0.85
was chosen to calculate the Whitmore fracture resistance based upon
the test results. Additional experimental evaluation is warranted for
bolted brace-to-gusset connections, because boltholes again impact the
potential for crack initiation in the gusset.
Gusset plate buckling
The gusset plate is checked for buckling relative to Puc of the brace.
True buckling of the gusset plate, not out-of-plane bending to support the
end rotation of the brace, concentrates the inelastic deformation and
damage to the connection preventing development of the inelastic
capacity of the brace. The Thornton method is commonly used to evaluate
gusset plate buckling [6,7]. This method uses a 30-degree angle for
establishing the area used for determination of the buckling capacity, and
a average buckling length, Lavg, of the three buckling lengths (L1, L2, L3), as
illustrated in Fig. 1a for a corner gussets and Fig. 6 for a midspan gussets.
An effective length coefficient of 0.65 is proposed for the corner gussets.
For mid-span gussets, a 6tp vertical clearance zone is employed from the
top of the brace to the beam flange, as shown in the right hand portion of
Fig. 6. These clearance models often force the L1 or L3 length into the beam
or column web to cause a negative length as shown in Fig. 6, and those
negative lengths are permitted to be used in calculating the average
buckling length. The TCBF-2 experiments showed that the interior vertical
stiffeners provide stability to the midspan gusset plate connections while
permitting brace end rotation, and the buckling length, L1, in Fig. 6 is
terminated at the vertical stiffener instead of extending it to the beam
with this midspan clearance model. However, a more conservative
effective length coefficient of 1.5 is used for these midspan gussets,
because sideway buckling is possible due to the reduced edge restraint
provided by the bottom flange of the beam. This recommendation is
based upon experimental results and nonlinear analysis [4,22,26]. This
method may also be used with a single stiffener in the midspan gusset, but
midspan connections without vertical stiffeners are not recommended. In
either case, once the Whitmore width and effective length of the gusset
plate are established, the AISC column provisions are used to determine
the critical buckling stress (Fcr) as noted in Table 1.
The proposed BDP encourages thinner, more compact connections,
which usually have shorter effective lengths relative to gusset plates
design to meet the 2tp offset suggested in [1], and buckling is less
likely to control their design. Significant gusset plate deformation was
noted in all experiments, which is prescribed by both AISC and the
BDP design methods, to accommodate the end rotations of the
buckling brace. Fig. 12 shows the βdesign values computed for these
tests. None of the specimens exhibited gusset plate buckling, and
specimens with larger β factors showed somewhat greater inelastic
Fig. 12. Design β factors for gusset plate buckling.
1768 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772
deformation capacity. However, the figure shows that these tests did
not place severe demands on the AISC buckling design provisions, and
therefore the balance factor, β, for gusset plate buckling is 0.9, which
is the same value as the ϕ factor for AISC LRFD compression member
design.
Interface welds
Experiments have demonstrated that welds joining the gusset plate
to beams and columns are important to the ductility and deformation
capacity of the system [18–20]. Current AISC Seismic Provisions require
that these welds be designed to develop the tensile force and
deformation capacities of the brace [1]. The UFM is commonly used to
establish the demands on the weld corresponding to Put of the brace, but
research shows that these welds are subjected to stresses and
deformations much larger than those predicted by the UFM. Further,
crack initiation will occur at larger inelastic deformations [18–20]. The
UFM is an equilibrium method that was originally developed for wind
loading without consideration for inelastic deformation, and it was
adapted to current seismic design by designing for the expected Put
rather than the factored design load. The UFM does not consider the
stresses and strains caused by inelastic rotational demands due to brace
end rotation and the opening and closing moments at the beam-column
intersection and can underestimate the actual demand.
Cracking of the weld and the gusset plate adjacent to the welds must
still be expected after large brace buckling deformations and frame story
drifts [2]. Experiments show crack initiation at about 2% story drift
regardless of the connection design. Experiments show that these cracks
should remain stable, because demand critical weld metal is used and
this limits the rate and length of crack growth. Limited ductile tearing is
not detrimental to the performance and permits larger inelastic drifts
under these conditions. However, complete weld fracture must be
prevented, and therefore the crack length must be controlled. Hence, in
the BDP, the gusset plate interface welds are designed to develop the
expected plastic capacity of the plate rather than Put of the brace. This
design philosophy protects against interface weld fracture prior to brace
fracture, while allowing for yielding and inelastic deformations of the
plate. To accomplish this, a new resistance equation is proposed, as
shown in Table 1. This equation employs the AISC tensile strength of
fillet welds but this capacity is compared to the tensile yield capacity of
the gusset plate, rather than the tensile capacity of the brace, since the
cyclic buckling of the brace induces cyclic yielding as the gusset plate
deforms due to brace buckling end rotation and this demand can result
in weld cracking and failure.
Fig. 13 shows the measured inelastic deformation capacity of SCBF
specimens as a function of the βd for the interface welds. Several key
observations can be made from this figure and observations from prior
research [2,18–23]. Tapered gusset plates suffer greater crack damage
Fig. 13. Design β factors for interface weld failure mode.
than rectangular gusset plates. Rectangular gussets have material
outside of the Whitmore width, which increases the weld resistance
and decreases the strain concentrated at the interface [20]. Wide flange
braces also cause greater damage to the gusset plate welds, because
wide flange braces sustain larger out-of-plane deformation demands
than HSS tubes prior to brace fracture, and this increased deformation
increases the demands on the welds [21–23].
Fig. 13 also shows that specimens with a β value above 0.75, which
is the value of the AISC resistance factor, may sustain excessive weld
tearing. Further, there is not a clear increase in ductility associated
with larger β factors. One specimen (HSS-08) had a βd value below
the 0.75 limit, and it experienced weld tearing that was beyond
acceptable limits (weld tearing N 60%). However, this specimen was
designed with a very tight 3tp elliptical clearance, which does not
meet the proposed BDP elliptical design clearance. The 3tp elliptical
clearance was deemed too small a clearance for the elliptical method,
and thus is not recommended, because the close proximity of the
brace to the interface welds dramatically increases the demands on
the welds. Therefore, for the 8tp elliptical clearance as suggested by
the BDP, a β of 0.75 is adopted for the BDP.
Beam-column connection
The beam-column connection must also be designed. This design
must consider any diaphragm forces that are brought to the braced
frame through this connection. The authors recommend welded-web
welded-flange connections, because they provide better inelastic
performance. However, bolted-web welded-flange and shear plate
(with free flanges) connections have been tested. The inelastic
deformation capacity of these connections was reduced, but the
reduction was smaller than noted from other aspects of the gusset
plate connection design.
Conclusions and design recommendations
A BDP for SCBF gusset plate connections is presented. The procedure
promotes ductility and inelastic deformation capacity of the SCBF
system by balancing the resistances associated with the yield
mechanisms and the primary failure mode, while suppressing undesir-
able failure modes to assure yielding from secondary mechanisms as
well as the primary yield mechanism, and while achieving the desired
failure mode. A coordinated testing program has shown that the BDP can
greatly increase the deformation capacity of an SCBF system [2]. Overall,
SCBFs with rectangular gusset plates designed using the BDP showed an
average 46% increase in drift range when compared with similar
specimens designed to meet the current SCBF specification. The benefit
shown with tapered gusset plates was significant but smaller, because
tapered gusset plates have less reserve capacity and sustain greater
damage than rectangular gussets at a given drift level.
The resistance equations and balance factors (β factors) for the BDP
were presented (see Table 1) and verified using experimental results.
Values for the β factors were developed to encourage gusset plate
yielding by ensuring the plate was not overdesigned but still has
adequate resistance to restrict undesirable failure modes. The values of
the β factor and the current AISC ϕ factors are identical for gusset plate
buckling and the interface welds. However, the design philosophies and
resistance expressions are different in that the BDP sizes the welds
joining the gusset plate to the beam and column to develop the expected
plastic capacity of the plate rather than for Put of the brace by the UFM, as
is required for the current specification. A β factor of 1.0 is
recommended for Whitmore yielding, and 0.85 is recommended for
the gusset plate fracture limit state. A factor of 0.95 is recommended for
net-section fracture of the brace, and a value of 0.85 is recommended for
block shear. These values are larger than the resistance factors currently
used in SCBF gusset plate design, and they are recommended because
they result in increased system ductility while preventing undesirable
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772 1769

failure modes. The β factor of 0.95 for designing brace net-section Appendix A. Design example
reinforcement provides a rational basis for the 0.9 exception provided
for the ϕ factor in current AISC seismic design, and this value is also A design example is presented to illustrate the proposed BDP. As
adopted as part of the BDP [1]. An additional yet equally important part with current design methods, the structural members (brace, beam
of the design procedure is the clearance models for corner and midspan and column) are designed to resist factored loads. The illustration
gusset plats. Two clearance models are proposed: 8tp elliptical and 6tp employs an HSS200x200x12 (HSS8x8x1/2) A500 Grade C rectangular
vertical clearance gusset plate clearances for corner and middle gusset tube for the brace. The brace is oriented at 40° to the horizontal, and it
plate, respectively, because they lead to thinner, more compact gusset is connected to the W24x162 beam and the W14x370 column with a
plates, and permit increased deformation capacity from the system. corner gusset plate as illustrated in Fig. 14a. The beam and column
These clearances delay initiation of interface weld tearing, and reduce members are A992 sections, and plates used in the example are A572
secondary damage to the beam and column and improve construct- grade 50 steel. The brace is connected to the framing elements with
ability of the system. The resulting BDP will improve the deformation two identical corner gusset plates as shown in Fig. 14a. The final
capacity and predictability of the seismic performance of SCBFs. gusset plate design for the BDP is presented in Fig. 14b. The associated
resistance values for each yield mechanism and failure mode are
presented in Table 3. The bold text in Table 3 identifies the controlling
Symbol definitions design criteria for that connection.
Ag and Agp Gross cross-sectional brace area of brace and reinforcing The design procedure is as follows:
plate, respectively
1. Establish the expected yield capacity of the brace. The properties of
Agv Gross area of brace in shear
the brace are Ag = 8653 mm2 (13.5 in2) and rx = 75.9 mm (3.04 in).
Anb Net area of brace
The expected tensile capacity of the brace is: Put = RyFy Ag = 1.4
Bw Whitmore width
(317.2) 8653 = 3843 kN (864 kips).
E Modulus of elasticity 2. Establish the brace-to-gusset connection. Here, a slotted connection
Fcr Critical buckling stress is used with four (4) fillet welds, as shown in Fig. 14b. With E-70 fillet
Fe Euler buckling stress welds and a weld thickness equal to the thickness of the tube or
FEXX Electrode strength 12 mm, the connection length, Lc, is computed using the resistance
Fu and Fy Yield and ultimate strength of steel expression from Table 1:
K Effective length coefficient
L Brace length Put
Lc = ðA:1Þ
Lavg Average buckling length βð0:6ÞFEXX NW ð:707Þw2
Lc Brace-to-gusset connection length 3843
L1, L2, L3 Buckling lengths as defined in Figs. 1a and 5 = = 522 mmð20:6 inÞ
0:75ð0:6Þ483ð4Þ:707ð12Þ
Ns Number of shear planes
Nw Number of welds
Puc and Put Maximum expected capacity of brace in compression and 3. A check of the brace base material is also made using the
tension, respectively connection length of 522 mm: Put b 0.75 (0.6) Fu Ns Lc tf = 0.75
Rn Nominal resistance (0.6) 399.9 (4) 522 (12) = 4509 kN (1013 kips), which is found to
Rt and Ry Ratio of the expected to minimum specified ultimate satisfy the inequality.
tensile and yield stress of steel 4. Size the plate thickness to permit plate yielding after brace yielding
U AISC Shear lag factor and restrict tensile rupture and block shear. The 522-mm
rx Radius of gyration about x-axis connection length is used to establish the Whitmore width, Bw,
tf Brace wall thickness i.e., Bw = 200 + 2 (522) tan30 o = 803 mm, The yield, tensile
tp Gusset plate thickness rupture and block shear requirements establish minimum gusset
w1 Interface weld leg size thickness, tp, follow:
w2 Brace-to-gusset weld leg size Put 3843
x̅ Connection eccentricity tp ≥ = = 12:62 mm ðA:2Þ
βRy Fy Ag 1:0ð1:1Þ803ð345Þ
φ Resistance factor
β Balance factor
βa and βd Actual and design balance factors, respectively Put 3843
tp ≥ = = 12:57 mm ðA:3Þ
βFu Bw 0:85ð448Þ803

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation
under grants CMS-0301792, Performance-Based Design of Concentri-
cally Braced Frames and CMS-0619161, NEESR-SG International
Hybrid Simulation of Tomorrow's Braced Frames. Supplemental
funding was provided by AISC. International testing, fabrication and
collaboration were conducted at the NCREE Laboratory in Taiwan with
Dr. Keh-Chyuan Tsai, Laboratory Director. Frequent advice and
guidance were provided through the research Advisory Group,
composed of Tom Schlafly (AISC), Tim Fraser (CANRON), Walterio
Lopez (Rutherford and Chekene), Larry Muir (CIVES) and Rafael
Sabelli (Walter P. Moore). The advice and financial support of these
individuals and institutions are greatly appreciated.
Put
tp ≤
 ðA:4Þ
β 0:6Fu Agv + Ubs Fu B
3843
≥ = 12:21 mm
0:85f0:6ð448Þ2ð522Þ + 1ð448Þ200Þ
Tensile yielding controls and a 13-mm thickness is chosen.
5. The 8tp elliptical clearance illustrated in Fig. 4 is used to size the
plan dimensions of the plate. This clearance can be derived
graphically or by the approximate theoretical method derived in
[2]. The gusset has a length of a = 1038 mm adjacent to the beam
and b = 737 mm adjacent to the column.
1770 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772

a 6.12 m
b

1028 13 mm Gusset Plate 635

40°

40° 12
12
737
HSS200x200x12 522
Brace
126
64 HSS200x200x12
5.15 m Brace, L=6156 mm
104 14
14
4 mm
Reinf. Plate

457

c d
1947 635 1004 17 mm Gusset Plate 635
40° 34

40° 56 12
28 mm Gusset 12
Plate 732
522
1382 12 522
12
126
HSS200x200x12
30° Brace, L=5637 mm
HSS200x200x12 64
Brace, L=4149 mm
64 7
8 7 16 mm
8 126
Reinf. Plate
17 mm Reinf. Plate
457

457

Fig. 14. Design example; a) frame geometry, b) rectangular gusset by BDP, c) rectangular gusset by current SCBF, and d) tapered gusset by current SCBF.

6. The buckling capacity of the brace can now be established. Using Puc = 1:1Ry Fcr Ag = 1:1ð1:4Þð171Þð8653Þ = 2275 kNð511 kipsÞ ðA:7Þ
the gusset plate geometry and frame the length of the brace, L, can
be established as shown in Fig. 14a.

π2 E π2 ð200; 000Þ 7. The gusset plate must have adequate buckling capacity to resist
Fe =  2 =   = 300 MPað43:2 ksiÞ ðA:5Þ this buckling load. The average length of the gusset is defined using
KL 1ð6156Þ 2
the Thornton method, as illustrated in Fig. 2a.
r 75:9
 Ry Fy
  
1:4ð317Þ
L1 + L2 + L3
Fcr = 0:658 Fe
Fy = 0:658 300 317 = 171 MPað24:6 ksiÞ ðA:6Þ Lavg = = 222 mmð8:75 inÞ: ðA:8Þ
3

Table 3
Final connection resistances.

BDP (rect. gusset) AISC design (rect. gusset) AISC design (tapered gusset)
βRn (kN) φRn (kN) φRn (kN)

Put 3843 3843 3843

Puc 2275 3190 2515
Whitmore yielding 3957 6973 4234
Whitmore fracture 3976 7556 4587
Block shear 4093 6417 3896
Gusset plate buckling 2907 3428 3144
Net section fracture 3906 3883 3879
Gusset plate-to-brace welds 3847 3847 3847
Gusset plate-to-brace base material 4509 4509 4509
 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772 1771

The buckling capacity of the gusset plate is compared with the than the capacity of the gusset plate, and research has shown that this
plastic bucking strength of the brace. The results show that the 13- may lead to premature weld fracture [2]. The difference in the weld
mm plate is sufficient. size is notable; 7 mm for the AISC-compliant design; 14-mm for the
weld design to meet the BDP. Differences are also notable in the net
KLavg 0:65ð222Þ section reinforcement, for which the AISC-compliant net section
= pffiffiffiffiffiffi = 38:5 ðA:9Þ
r 13 = 12 reinforcement is approximately 2.5 times the thicker than the BDP.
The plan geometry of the tapered gusset plate in Fig. 14d is
π2 E π2 ð200; 000Þ comparable to the gusset in Fig. 14b, but the welds joining the gusset
Fe =  2 = = 1332 MPað191:6 ksiÞ ðA:10Þ
KLavg 38:52 to the beam and column are sized to the expected tensile capacity of
r the brace rather than the plastic capacity of the gusset, and premature
weld fracture may occur. The tapered gusset is thicker and provides


345 greater resistance to brace end rotation. The current SCBF gusset
Puc ≤ βðBw Þtp ðFcr Þ = 0:9ð803Þ13 0:6581332 345 = 2907kN ð653kipsÞ
designs result in shortened brace lengths and large connections in
ðA:11Þ which the gusset plate thickness must be increased to satisfy the
buckling limit state. These factors result in stiffer and less ductile
8. The next step is to design the interface welds, i.e., the welds joining connections [2]. It should be noted that edge buckling or edge
the gusset plate to the beam and column, to develop the plastic stiffeners were not considered in these AISC or BDP designs, because
capacity of the gusset plate. Therefore, prior research shows that the measured buckling capacity of gusset
plate connections varies between 0.25 and 8 times the capacity
Ry Fy tp predicted for edge buckling [27].
w1 ≥ ðA:12Þ
2ð1:2Þβð0:6ÞFEXX ð0:707Þ

1:1ð345Þ13
= = 13:37 mm
2ð1:2Þð0:75Þð0:6Þ483ð0:707Þ
The design specifics 14-mm fillet welds on each face of the plate
over the full length of the interface (Fig. 14).
9. The final step is to design the net section reinforcement at the tip of
the slot in the HSS tube. This reinforcement will be placed as a flat
plat attached to each flange as shown in Fig. 14b. The workable flat
area on the top of the brace, upon which the net section
reinforcement is place including the dimension for the fillet
welds, is approximately 146-mm wide. Therefore, a 126-mm
wide plate will be used with 10 mm free on each side to place fillet
welds. The slot in the brace will be cut 5 mm thicker than the
gusset plate thickness for ease of erection, and the length of the
reinforcement will be taken as the same length as the brace-to-
gusset connection (522 mm).
2 [9] Brown VLS. Stability of gusseted connections in steel structures, a dissertation
Anb = 8653−2ð13 + 5Þ12 = 8222 mm ðA:13Þ
2 [10] Cheng JJR, Yam MCH, Hu SZ. Elastic buckling strength of gusset plate connections.
Agp = 126ð4Þ2 = 1008 mm ðA:14Þ
x 67:9
U = 1− = 1− = 0:87 ðA:15Þ
L 522


Put = 3843 ≤ βU Rtb Fub Anp + Fup Agp ðA:16Þ
= 0:95ð0:87Þ½1:3ð400Þ8221 + 448ð1008Þ = 3906kN
The condition is met, and the 4 mm × 126 mm reinforcing plate is
adequate for net section reinforcing.
To serve as a comparison, an AISC-designed rectangular and
tapered gusset plates are also presented in Fig. 14c and d. The
calculations for these SCBF designs are not provided but typical results
are tabulated in Table 3. The balanced design rectangular gusset is
more compact than a comparable rectangular plate designed by the
BDP. More importantly, the connection design is governed by the
Whitmore yielding limit state, which encourages gusset plate yielding
and is beneficial at increasing system deformation capacity. Fig. 14c
shows that the current SCBF criteria results in extremely large and
uneconomical rectangular gusset plate because of the geometric
constraints imposed by the UFM and the 2tp linear clearance model.
The thickness of the plate is almost twice that of the plate designed by
the BDP. Further, the welds joining the gusset to be beam and column
are sized to develop the expected tensile resistance of the brace rather
References
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural
steel buildings. AISC/ANSI Standard 341-08; 2005. Chicago.
[2] Lehman DE, Roeder CW, Herman D, Johnson S, Kotulka B. Improved seismic
performance of gusset plate connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
2008;134(6):890–901.
[3] Prahuangsit D, Goel SC, Hanson RD. Axial hysteresis behavior with end restraints.
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 1978;104(6):883–96.
[4] Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E., and Yoo, J-H. “Improved seismic design of steel frame
connections.” International Journal of Steel Structures, Korean Society of Steel
Construction, 5(2), 141–153, Seoul.
[5] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Steel Construction Manual13th
Ed. ; 2005. Chicago.
[6] Whitmore RE. Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates, a thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the MS degree. Knoxville, Tennessee: University.
of Tennessee; 1952. MS.
[7] Thornton WA. On the analysis and design of bracing connections. Proceedings,
1991 National Steel Construction Conference, AISC, Section, 26; 1991. p. 1–33.
[8] Bjorhovde, R., and Chakrabarti, S.K. Test of full size gusset plate connections,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 111(3), 667–684.
submitted in partial fulfillment of the PhD. Department. of Civil Engineering.
Delaware: Univ. of Delaware; 1998.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994;120(2).
[11] Grondin GY, Nast TE, Cheng JJR. Strength and stability of corner gusset plates
under cyclic loading. Proceedings, Annual Technical Session and Meeting.
Structural Stability Research Council; 2000.
[12] Hu SZ, Cheng JJR. Compressive behavior of gusset plate connections. Structural
Engineering Rep. No. 153. Canada: Univ. of Alberta; 1987.
[13] Rabinovitch JS, Cheng JJR. Cyclic behavior of steel gusset plate connections.
Structural Engineering Rep. No. 191. Canada: University of Alberta; 1993.
[14] Yam MCH. Compressive behavior and strength of steel gusset plate connections, a
thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of Doctor of Philosophy degree. Canada:
University of Alberta; 1994.
[15] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Behavior and design of gusset plate connections in
compression. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;58(5–8):1143–59
Elsevier.
[16] Tremblay R, Archambault RM-H, Filiatrault A. “Seismic response of concentrically
braced steel frames made with rectangular hollow bracing members”, ASCE.
Journal of Structural Engineering 2003;129(12):1626–37.
[17] Uriz P, Mahin S. Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frame
buildings. Proceedings, 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering; 2004. Paper
1639.
[18] Johnson S. Improved seismic performance of special concentrically braced frames,
a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the MS degree. Seattle: University. of
Washington; 2005.
[19] Herman D. Further improvements on and understanding of SCBF systems, a thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the MS degree. Seattle: University of Washington;
2006.
[20] Kotulka BA. Analysis for a design guide on gusset plates used in special
concentrically braced frames, a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the MS
degree. Seattle: University of Washington; 2007.
[21] Clark KA. Experimental performance of multi-story X-brace systems, a thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the MS degree. Seattle: University of Washington;
2009.
1772 C.W. Roeder et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1760–1772

[22] Lumpkin EJ. Enhanced seismic performance of multi-story special concentrically
brace frames using a balanced design procedure, a thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the MS degree. Seattle: University of Washington; 2009.
[23] Powell JA. Evaluation of special concentrically braced frames for improved seismic
performance and constructability, a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
MS degree. Seattle: University of Washington; 2010.
[24] Applied Technology Council. Guidelines for Testing Steel Components, ATC-24.
Redwood City CA: Applied Technology Council; 1992. 57 pp.
[25] Fell BV, Kanvinde AM, Deierlein GG, Myers AT, Fu X. Buckling and fracture of
concentric braces under inelastic cyclic loading. Structural Steel Educational Council;
2006.
[26] Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E., Clark, K., Powell, J., Yoo, J-H, Tsai, K-C, Lin, C-H, and
Wei, C-Y. Influence of gusset plate connection and braces on seismic performance
of X-braced frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 4,
pgs 355–74, Wiley.
[27] Roeder CW, Lehman DE, Yoo J-H. Performance based seismic design of braced
frame connections. Proceedings, 7th Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Long
Beach, CA; March 24–27 2004.