Cyclic Response and Design Recommendations of RBS Moment Connections

with Deep Column

Chia-Ming Uang, University of California, San Diego
Brandon Chi, Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc., San Francisco

ABSTRACT
Design engineers frequently use deep columns in a steel special moment resisting
frame to control drift. As the Reduced Beam Section (RBS) moment connection is
becoming popular after the Northridge earthquake, recent tests showed that the
deep column is prone to twisting, causing premature strength degradation. The
twisting was caused by the eccentric beam flange force due to significant lateral-
torsional buckling of the beam. In this paper, cycle tests results of three full-scale
RBS moment connections with deep columns are presented. An analytical study
shows that the warping stress is highly dependent on the h / t cf3 ratio. A design
procedure is proposed that can be used to evaluate if column twisting is a concern.

INTRODUCTION
A significant amount of research on Reduced Beam Section (RBS) steel moment connections has
been conducted in the United States since the 1994 Northridge earthquake. This type of
connection is gaining wide acceptance by the design engineers in high seismic regions due to its
robust performance of delivering large plastic rotations. In the seismic design of steel moment-
resisting frames, design engineers often use deep columns to control drift. Nevertheless, the
majority of the testing was conducted using shallow wide flange sections (e.g., W14 shapes).

OBJECTIVES
The first objective of the study was to investigate experimentally the cyclic behavior of RBS
moment connections with deep wide-flange sections. The second objective was to develop
design procedures for this type of connection.

TEST SPECIMENS
A total of three full-scale specimens were tested. Overall dimensions of the specimens and test
setup are shown in Figure 1. Member sizes of the specimens are shown in Table 1. A992 steel
was specified for all beams and columns. The design of the RBS moment connections was based
on the procedure recommended by Engelhardt (4) and the AISC Seismic Provisions (2). Table 2
provides a brief summary of the design data.
The test specimens were constructed by a commercial fabricator. All filler metals were specified

287
to have a minimum Charpy V-Notch impact value of 27 N-m at -29qC. To simulate field
conditions, the beam was installed and the moment connection of each specimen welded with the
column in an upright position. Self-shielded flux-cored arc welding (FCAW) was used for all
specimens. The E70T-6 filler metal was used for making beam flange groove welds, while the
E71T-8 filler metal was used for other field welding.

TEST RESULTS
The standard SAC loading protocol (Clark et al. 3) was used for testing. Figure 2 summarizes
the global response and failure mode of each specimen. Yielding was observed in the panel zone
first. Web local buckling in the RBS region then occurred, which was followed by lateral-
torsional buckling (LTB) and flange local buckling. Response that was not commonly observed
in shallow-column RBS moment connections includes the following. Columns of all three
specimens experienced twisting and out-of-plane bending (see Figure 2). Specimen DC-3
experienced fracture along the k line in the column web.

ANALYSIS OF COLUMN TWISTING PHENOMENON

The twisting of a deep column is caused by two factors. First, RBS beams tend to buckle more
laterally, creating higher torsion in the column. Second, the torsional characteristics of the deep
section tend to produce high warping stress. Figure 3(a) shows the deformed beam of Specimen
DC-2. Figure 3(b) shows that the inclined beam flange force due to LTB imposed not only
weak-axis bending but also torsion to the column. The beam flange force, F, can be estimated by
multiplying the reduced beam flange area by the expected yield strength at section AA. The
force has a transverse component FsinT. This transverse component produces a torsion eyFsinT
in the column. The longitudinal component of the force (FcosT) is also offset from the column
centerline by a distance ex. Therefore, Figure 3(c) shows that the total torsion imposed to the
column is F(excosT+eysinT). Assuming that the column is simply supported for flexure and
torsion at the mid-height of the story (i.e., the assumed inflection point), components of flexural
stresses due to strong-axis bending, weak-axis bending, and torsion can be computed using
elastic theory.

Based on the measurements of LTB amplitude of six RBS moment connection specimens, the
LTB amplitude ( e x ) at 4% drift was estimated to be 0.2 b f , where b f is the unreduced beam
flange width (Gilton et al. 5).

The torsional resistance provided by a wide flange member is the sum of the components due to
pure torsion and warping:

T T p  Tw GJIc  EC w Iccc (1)

where G, J, E, and Cw are the shear modulus of elasticity, torsional constant, modulus of
elasticity, and warping constant, respectively. Ic and Iccc are the first and third derivatives of the
angle of twist with respect to the longitudinal (z) axis of the member. The warping torsion,

288
causing one flange to bend in its own plane in one direction while the other flange bends in the
opposite direction, produces stress (fws) in the flanges. The relationship between fws and T
(Seaburg and Carter 7) is:

EWno E
f ws T (2)
GJa c

where Wno (= hbcf/4) is the normalized warping function at a point at the flange edge,
h d c  t cf , E is equal to IccGac J T , and ac ECw GJ For example, when the torsion is
applied at z = 0.4l, where l is the length of the column, E is computed from I as follows:

(i) for 0 d z d Dl:

ª § · º
¨ sinh ¨ D l ¸
§ ·
« ¸ »
Tl « z ¨ ¨ a ¸ § l · ¸ ac z»
I( z ) (1  D)  ¨ © c ¹
 cosh¨¨ D ¸¸ ¸ sinh » (3)
GJ « l ¨ § l · © ac ¹ ¸ l ac
«
¨ tanh ¨¨ ¸¸
¸
»
«¬ © © ac ¹ ¹ »¼
ª § l · º
« sinh ¨¨ 0.4 ¸¸ »
IccGa c J § z ·« © ac ¹ § l ·»
E sinh ¨¨ ¸¸  cosh¨¨ 0.4 ¸¸ (4)
T © a c ¹ «« tanh§¨ l ·¸ © a c ¹»
»
¨a ¸
«¬ © c¹ »¼
(ii) for Dl d z d l:
ª § ·º
¨ sinh ¨ D l ¸
§ ·
« ¸»
Tl « D ac ¨ ¨ a c ¸¹ z § l · z ¸»
I( z ) l  ac   ¨ © sinh  sinh ¨¨ D ¸¸ cosh (5)
« ¸»
GJ l l ¨ § l · ac © ac ¹ ac ¸»
«
¨ tanh ¨¨ ¸¸
¸»
«¬ © © ac ¹ ¹¼
§ l ·
sinh ¨¨ 0.4 ¸¸
IccGJac © ac ¹ §z l · § l · § z ·
E sinh ¨¨ ¸¸  sinh ¨¨ 0.4 ¸¸ cosh¨¨ ¸¸ (6)
T § l · © l ac ¹ © ac ¹ © ac ¹
tanh¨¨ ¸¸
© ac ¹
Charts are also available to determine the E values (Seaburg and Carter 7).

To gain insight into the warping stress, the torsional constant J is approximated as:

J | 2J f  J w (2  C1 ) J f (7)

where Jf (bcf t cf3 / 3) is the torsional constant of one flange, and Jw [ (d c  2t cf )t cw

3
/ 3] is the
torsional constant of the web. In Eq. (7), C1 is defined as the ratio between J w and J f .
Substituting G = E/2.6 into Eq. 2, the warping stress produced by a unit torsion becomes:

289
 f ws §W ·§ E ·
2.6¨ no ¸¨¨ ¸¸ (8)
T © J ¹© a c ¹
where
Wno hbcf 4 3 § h ·
¨ ¸ (9)
3
J (2  C1 )bcf t cf 3 4(2  C1 ) ¨© t cf 3 ¸¹

Therefore, Eq. 8 can be re-written as:

f ws 1.95 §¨ h ·¸§ E ·
¨ ¸¸ (10)
T 2  C1 ¨© t cf 3 ¸¹¨© ac ¹

The variations of h / t cf3 for some shapes are shown in Figure 4. The h / t cf3 ratio is lower for
shallow (i.e., W12 and W14) sections than it is for the heavier sections, which implies that the
induced warping stress will also be lower. For example, the h / t cf3 ratio is equal to 0.104/cm2
(0.671/in2) for a W14u398 section [Ix = 2497×106 mm4 (6000 in4)]. If the designer chooses a
deep section W27u161 for a comparable moment of inertial [Ix = 2619×106 cm4 (6280 in4)] to
control drift, the h / t cf3 ratio is drastically increased to [3.3/cm2 (21.04/in2)]. Table 3 lists the
components on the right-hand side of Eq.10 for both column sections mentioned above. The unit
warping stress of the deep section is 4.2 times that of the shallow section. Because the h / t cf3
ratio of the deep column is 32 times that for the shallow section, it is obvious from Table 3 that
the factor h / t cf3 is mainly responsible for the much higher warping stress in the column.

DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR DEEP-COLUMN RBS CONNECTIONS

The combined stress ( f un ) in the column flange at the beam flange level comprises the in-plane
bending stress ( f bx ), out-of-plane bending stress ( f by ), and warping stress due to torsion ( f ws ).
The verification procedure presented herein aims to limit the combined stress to the design
yield strength ( IFyn ) of the column (AISC 1994):
f un f bx  f by  f ws d IFyn ( I =0.9) (11)

1. Referring to Figure 3(b), assume that LTB produces an eccentricity e x = 0.2 bbf .
2. Figure 5 shows a typical one-sided moment connection. The inclined angle of beam flange
force due to LTB of the beam is:
§ ·
¨ e ¸
T tan 1 ¨ x ¸ (12)
¨ L ab¸
¨ ¸
©2 2¹

290
3. The beam flange force can be estimated as:
F bbfc t bf Fye (13)
where bbfc is the reduced beam flange width at the narrowest location, and Fye (= RyFyn) is the
expected yield strength. Strength degradation usually occurs at 4% story drift. Therefore,
no strain hardening factor is included in Eq. 13.
4. The torsion produced by F in the column of a one-sided moment connection is [Figure
3(c)]:
T F (e x cos T  e y sin T) (14)
dc b
where e y  a  . For a two-sided moment connection without a concrete slab, the
2 2
torsion in Eq. 14 is contributed by both beams; that is, T computed from Eq. 14 for each
beam is assumed additive. Nevertheless, when a concrete slab is present and can be
counted on to provide lateral bracing for the beam in positive bending, the torsion in Eq. 14
does not have to be doubled because it is only contributed by the beam under negative
bending.
5. The warping stress, fws, is computed from Eq. 2. For a one-sided moment connection, the
torsion is applied at the bottom flange level, and the warping stress is computed at the same
location. This is also applicable to a two-sided moment connection with a concrete slab.
For a two-sided moment connection without the benefit of concrete slab for lateral bracing,
the column torsion contributed by both beams is applied at the mid-depth of the beams, but
the warping stress is still computed at the bottom flange level, where the fbx value is the
highest, in order to combine with fbx and fby in Eq. 11.
6. The in-plane bending moment produces the maximum column moment (Mc) at the beam
flange level. This moment can be computed as the product of the column shear and the
distance from the column inflection point to the beam flange level. (The Mc value is higher
for two-sided moment connections). The strong-axis bending stress, fbx, due to this moment
is:
Mc
f bx (15)
S xc
where Sxc is the elastic section modulus of the column.
7. The out-of-plane bending moment in the column is caused by the transverse component
of the beam flange force (i.e., F sin T ). Applying F sin T at the compression flange
level of the beam, and treating the column as simply supported at two inflection points,
the out-of-plane bending stress, fby, can be computed by beam theory. This stress can be
ignored for two-sided moment connections without slab because the force components
tend to cancel each other out.
8. Check Eq. 11 to see if the combined stress is less than the design stress per Formula
(H2-1) in the LRFD Specifications (AISC 1). If the combined stress is too high, the
designer may consider changing the column size to obtain improved torsional
properties. It was shown in Eq. 10 that h / t cf3 plays the most important role for the value

291
 of warping stress. The selection should be guided to lower the h / t cf3 value. The most
effective way to minimize the torsional problem is to add extra lateral bracing a short
distance outside the RBS region to minimize the amplitude of LTB ( e x ). Experimental
results showed that the maximum bracing force could reach 7% of the compressive
force in the beam flange (Yu et al. 8). For design purposes, it is suggested that extra
bracing be designed for 6% of the expected nominal strength of the beam flange. The
third option to prevent column twisting is to brace the column flange instead of the
beam flange.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on both experimental results and analytical studies, the following conclusions can be made
regarding the deep-column RBS moment connections:
1. Specimens DC-1 and DC-2 achieved 0.03 radian of plastic rotation. For both specimens, the
column flange connected to the beam experienced severe out-of-plane bending or column
twisting. Specimen DC-3 experienced brittle fracture along the k-line of the column just
before reaching 0.03 radian of plastic rotation.
2. Twisting in the deep column is caused by two factors: 1) RBS beams tend to buckle more
laterally, introducing torsion in the column, and 2) the torsional property of deep sections
tends to produce higher warping stress in the column. It was found that the high h / t cf3 ratio
of the deep section was mainly responsible for the higher warping stress.
3. A verification procedure is developed for deep column RBS moment connections. In case
twisting of the column is significant, providing extra lateral bracing near the RBS region is
effective to minimize the torsional problem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through
the SAC Joint Venture. SAC is a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of
California, the Applied Technology Council, and California Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering. This research was conducted as part of Task 7.11 in Phase II of the
SAC Joint Venture. Mr. J.O. Malley was the Project Director of Topical Investigation. Mr. D.
Long of PDM/Strocal donated the fabrication service.

REFERENCES
[1] AISC (1993), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Second
Edition, Chicago, IL.
[2] AISC (1997), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, Second Edition, Chicago, IL, with
Supplement No. 1 (1999).
[3] Clark, P., Frank, K., Krawinkler, H., and Shaw, R., (1997) “Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection,
Testing, and Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimens,”
Report No. SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
[4] Englehardt, M.D., (1998) “Design of Reduced Beam Section Moment Connections,” Proceedings, 1999
North American steel Construction Conference, AISC, pp.1-3 to 1-29.
[5] Gilton, C., Chi, B., and Uang, C.-M. (2000), “Cyclic Response of RBS Moment Connections: Weak-
Axis and Deep Column Effects,” Report No. SSRP-2000/03, Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, CA.
[6] SAC (1997), Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1., FEMA-267A, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, Ca.

292
[7] Seaburg, P.A. and Carter, C.J. (1997), “Torsional Analysis of Structural Steel Members,” Steel
Design Guide Series 9, AISC, Chicago, IL.
[8] Yu, Q.S., Gilton, C., and Uang, C.-M. (2000), “Cyclic Response of RBS Moment Connections: Loading
Sequence and Lateral Bracing Effects,” Report No. SSRP-99/13, Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, CA.

Table 1 Specimen Member Sizes

Specimen Beam Size Column Size Doubler Plate

DC-1 W36u150 W27u146 9.53 mm (3/8 in.)
DC-2 W36u150 W27u194 N/A
DC-3 W27u194 W27u194 15.9 mm (5/8 in.)

Table 2 Summary of Design Data

Specimen Flange M pd V pd Mf V V pz ¦M *
pc
Reduction (kN-m) (kN) ( Z b Fye ) (kN) (kN) *
(%) ¦M pb

DC-1 50 2626 1001 0.90 2359 2780 1.45

DC-2 50 2626 1006 0.90 3097 2804 1.97
DC-3 43 2945 1113 0.92 3173 4236 1.78

Table 3 Comparison of Warping Stress Components

1.95 h § 1 · E f ws § u 10 4 ·
Section Type ¨ ¸ ac (cm) ¨¨ ¸¸
2  C1 t cf3 © cm 2 ¹ T © cm
3
¹
W14u398 0.893 0.104 89.2 0.48 5.00
W27u146 0.808 3.3 315 0.25 21.2

293
 3581 mm (141 in)

5/16 E70T-7
2973 mm 610 mm
Weld steel backing
(117 in) (24 in) to column
E70T-7
Steel backing to remain;
Column for
Lateral Restraint 3/8 Remove weld tabs
30
45
1/4

1905 mm
(75 in)
E71T-8
1" Stiffener Plate
Strong Typ. (A36)
Wall
3/16

1905 mm
(75 in)
5/16

1-1/16" Dia. Holes

W14X370 (Typ) Hydraulic (For 1" Dia. A325 H.S.B.)
Actuator
Strong
Floor 5/8" Plate (A36)

E70T-7
After root is cleaned
5/16 and inspected
(a) Test Setup
30
3/8 E70T-7
Remove steel backing;
Remove weld tabs
(b) Typical Connection Details

Figure 1 Test Setup and Moment Connection Details

4
Moment (MN-m)

2
0
-2
-4
-4 -2 0 2 4
Plastic Rotation (% rad)
(a) Specimen DC-1
4
Moment (MN-m)

2
0
-2
-4
-4 -2 0 2 4
Plastic Rotation (% rad)
(b) Specimen DC-2

294
 4
Moment (MN-m) 2
0
-2
-4
-4 -2 0 2 4
Plastic Rotation (% rad)

(c) Specimen DC-3

Figure 2 Global Response and Failure Mode

x F sinT F (excos Tey sin T )

(c) Forces Acting on Column

ey
F cos T

ex
A A

T

(b) Inclined Beam Flange Force

(a) Deformed Beam at 4% Drift

Figure 3 Eccentric Beam Flange Force to Column

295
 8
W12 Sections
W14 Sections
6 W27 Sections
h/tcf (1/cm2)
W36 Sections

4
3

0
500 1000 1500 2000
Weight (N)
3
Figure 4 Variations of h / t cf with Respect to Weight

ey Assumed
inflection
point
ex
T

a b

dc L/2

Figure 5 Evaluation of Angle T

296