1984-Astaneh-CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE Angle Bracing

CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE
ANGLE BRACING
By Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, 1 A. M. ASCE
and Subhash C. G o e l / M . ASCE
ABSTRACT: The behavior of double-angle bracing members subjected to in-plane

buckling due to severe cyclic load reversals is investigated. Eight full-size test
specimens made of back-to-back double angle sections, connected to the end
gusset plates by fillet welds or high strength bolts, were tested under large
amplitude cyclic loading. Some test specimens, designed by current code pro-
cedures showed failures during early cycles of loading. Based on the obser-
vations and analysis of the behavior of test specimens new design procedures
are proposed to improve the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of double
angle bracing members and their connections to withstand severe cyclic loadings.
INTRODUCTION
Behavior of steel frames subjected to strong dynamic loads similar to

those expected during severe earthquakes has been studied extensively
in recent years (5,10,13,16,17,20). These studies have indicated that braced
frames are quite efficient in resisting lateral dynamic loads. Braced frames
possess sufficient stiffness to inhibit large a n d undesirable deformations.
In addition, properly designed braced frames having sufficient ductility
can survive severe earthquakes w i t h o u t collapse.
In recent years, a n u m b e r of investigators h a v e studied cyclic behavior
of bracing members (2,6,7,9,11,14,15,16,19,20,24). These studies d o n e on
tube, wide flange and some other structural shapes, in most cases, have
concentrated only on the behavior of members and the connections are
given very limited consideration. Results of the investigation reported
herein indicate that strength and ductility of a bracing member are strongly
influenced by the details of its connections. By proper design of bracing
members and their connections, one can obtain quite ductile bracing ele-
ments with satisfactory behavior during severe earthquakes.
This paper is based o n an experimental study of the behavior of dou-
ble angle bracing members with end gusset plates subjected to severe
cyclic loading. Two categories of double angle bracing members were
considered: (1) Double angle bracing m e m b e r s buckling in plane of gus-
set plate, Fig. 1(a), and; (2) double angle bracing members buckling out
of plane of gusset plate, Fig. 1(6). This p a p e r reports the study of cyclic
behavior in the first category. The complete study is reported in Ref. 1.
The objective of the study w a s to investigate experimentally the cyclic
behavior of double angle bracing members with end gusset plates. The
emphasis was placed o n study of the hysteresis behavior of bracing
member and ductility of connections to withstand large cyclic defor-
e s t . Prof, of Civ. Engrg. and Environ. Sci., Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman,
Okla. 73019.
2
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109.
Note.—Discussion open until February 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on October 31, 1983. This paper is part of the
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 9, September, 1984. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/84/0009-2036/$01.00. Paper No. 19143.
2038
Downloaded 01 May 2012 to 132.207.118.88. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
FIQ. 1.—(a) In-Plane Buckling Bracing; (b) Out-of-Plane Buckling Bracing
mations. Bolted as well as welded connections were used in the test

specimens.
Experimental Program.—Eight full-scale specimens were subjected to
quasi-static cyclic loading. The test specimens represent double-angle
bracing members in a steel frame. Gusset plates were used for end con-
nections. The angles used were hot-rolled unequal leg angles of A36
steel with the short legs placed back-to-back. Bolts and fillet welds were
FIG. 2.—Details of Test Specimen AB1 with Bolted Connections (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
2037
FIG. 3.—Details of Specimen AW11 with Welded Connections (1 In. = 25.4 mm)
used to stitch the double angles together and to connect the angles to
the gusset plates at the ends.
Design of Test Specimens.—Figs. 2 and 3 show details of the test
specimens AB1 and AW11 respectively. Similar details for other test
specimens are given in Ref. 1. Properties of all test specimens are given
in Table 1. Columns 4 and 5 give effective slenderness ratios with re-
spect to horizontal and vertical axes (x and y, respectively) passing through
center of gravity of the double-angle section. In calculating the tabulated
values of effective slenderness ratio Kx and Ky were assumed 0.5 and
1.0, respectively.
TABLE 1.—Properties of Test Specimens

A2, in
square
inches
Test (square b/t bit Number Design
speci- centi- (K*L)/ (Kyi.)/ short long Type of of philo-
mens Section meters) rx r
y leg leg fastener stitches sophy
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
AB1 2L-5 x 3 x 1/4 3.88 83 57 12 20 Bearing 1 Ultimate
(25) Bolts Strength
AB3 2L-4 X 3 X 3/8 4.97 81 72 8 10.6 Bearing 1 Ultimate
(32.1) Bolts Strength
AB5 2L-4 X 3 x 3/8 4.97 81 72 8 10.6 Bearing 2 Ultimate
(32.1) Bolts Strength
AB7 2L-4 X 3 x 3/8 4.97 81 69 8 10.6 Friction 2 Allowable
(32.1) Bolts Stress
AW9 2L-2-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 5/16 2.30 174 102 4.8 8 Balanced 2 Allowable
(14.8) Weld Stress
AW11 2L-3 X 2 X 1/4 2.38 124 91 8 12 Unbalanced 2 Ultimate
(15.4) Weld Strength
AW13 2L-3 x 2 x 1/4 2.38 124 91 8 12 Balanced 2 Allowable
(15.4) Weld Stress
AW15 2L-2-1/2 x 1-1/2 X 1/4 1.88 171 193 6 10 Balanced 2 Ultimate
(12.1) Weld Strength
2038
All test specimens other than AB5 and AB7 were provided with the
exact number of stitches required by the current AISC Specification (21).
Specimens AB5 and AB7 required only one stitch at midspan, but two
stitches were provided at 1/3 points instead. The size of stitches and the
connecting welds and bolts were selected to meet the minimum require-
ments of AISC Specification (21) and practicality of fabrication.
Design Philosophies.—Design philosophies used in design of con-
nections are indicated in Column 10 of Table 1. Two philosophies were
used. According to the first philosophy, the connections are designed
to develop the tension yield capacity of the member. In the second phi-
losophy, the normal allowable stress is increased by one-third for the
member but not for the connections. These two design philosophies will
be called "Ultimate Strength" and "Allowable Stress" design philoso-
phies, respectively. Both of these philosophies satisfy the requirements
of Section 2312 (j)lG of the 1982 edition of Uniform Building Code (22).
Following one of the aforementioned design philosophies a tension
load was established for design of connections. The connections of spec-
imens AB1, AW9, AW11, AW13 and AW15 were designed according to
current design procedures and the requirements of AISC Specification
(21). A common procedure in design of gusset plates to-date is the ap-
plication of beam theory to evaluate stresses at critical sections of the
gusset plates (3,4). Studies of the behavior of gusset plates under mon-
otonic loading (8,18,25) indicate that a complex state of stress exists in
gusset plates. The use of beam theory may not result in the best ap-
proximation of state of stress, however, it is simple and widely used by
designers.
Fabrication of Test Specimens.—Test specimens were fabricated in a
special jig. Fabrication of specimens started with welding the gusset plate
to the end plates. The end plates with the gussets welded to them were
placed inside the jig and secured by four 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) diameter
high-strength bolts. The angles were cut to size by sawing and placed
on the sides of the gussets. For welded specimens, an experienced welder
completed the fillet welds connecting angles to the gussets and angles
to the stitches. For bolted specimens, the bolt holes were drilled.
Bolted specimens were dismantled and cleaned before the tests. Drill-
ing oil was removed by applying grease solvant liquid and loose mill
scale and rust was removed with a wire brush. As a result, the contact
surfaces of the angles and gusset plates in bolted specimens could be
categorized as "clean mill scale" as per the AISC Manual (12).
Test Set-Up.—The test set-up is shown in Fig. 4. The specimens were
placed in diagonal position inside the four hinge frame and secured to
upper and lower beam by at least ten 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) diam bolts at
each end. A 250K hydraulic actuator is mounted on upper beam of the
four hinge frame. The actuator applies predetermined horizontal dis-
placements to the upper beam. Consequently, the diagonal specimen is
subjected to mainly push-pull loading plus some secondary end mo-
ments. This is a simulation of actual loading of bracing members due to
earthquakes. To support the reaction of actuator, the four hinge frame
is placed inside a support frame.
Test specimens make an angle of 45° with horizontal beams. The axial
load in test specimens was calculated by multiplying the force measured
2039
SIDE VIEW El EVATION
FIG. 4.—Test Set-Up
in the load cell of the actuator by V2 neglecting the small change in 45°
angle during the test. Axial deformations were measured as the average
value of the longitudinal elongation or shortening of the two telescopic
rods parallel to the specimens.
Test Procedures.—During the tests, a cyclic horizontal force was ap-
plied to upper beam of the four-hinge frame by the actuator (Fig. 4).
A typical loading cycle consisted of stretching the specimen up to its
yield point and then compressing it to cause buckling. Compression would
last up to a predetermined level of axial deformation. Upon reaching the
target point in compression the specimen was unloaded to zero load to
start the next cycle.
General deformation history of test specimens is shown in Fig. 5. Due
to limitations of the test set-up, minor deviations were made for some
specimens. These changes did not have a significant effect on overall
behavior of the specimens. More details on deformation history of each
specimen are given in Ref. 1.
Tension
CYCLES
Compression
FIG. 5.™General Cyclic Deformation History of Test Specimens
2040
CYCLES'. • 1st
-5th
-7th
ELASTIC
BUCKLING
FIG. 6.—Buckling Configuration of Specimen AW15 During Cyclic Loading
Effective Length Factor.—The deformed shape of test specimens at

the instant of first buckling could be approximated by the elastic buck-
ling curve, with fixed end conditions, according to the following formula:
y = -(l-coS— (1)
Fig. 6 shows the agreement between the measured deformations of

specimen AW15 and the shape of the elastic buckling curve given by
Eq. 1. Similar curves were obtained for all specimens other than AB7.
Specimen AB7 buckled in a rather unusual configuration with four points
of inflection. The deformed shape of the specimen AB7 at the instant of
first buckling is shown in Fig. 7. When buckling during the second cycle,
the specimen showed the same configuration again. Nevertheless, dur-
ing third buckling, the member reverted to the usual configuration with
only two points of inflection at 1/4 points.
The closeness of the deformation of test specimens and elastic curve
suggested that the elastic curve may be used in calculation of effective
length factor for practical design purposes.
Considering elastic buckling, the effective length factor can be ob-
tained from the following equation, Ref. 10:
K = —. (2)
2u.
Points of Inflection
FIG. 7.—Buckling Configuration of Specimen AB7 During First and Second Cycles
2041
FIG. 8.—Actual Test Specimen and the Simplified Model
in which \x = the connection stiffness defined by the following equation:
t a n 11 \ W member
1 = -2 ,«,, and , - ^ ^ T T 0)
M- (Ngusset V'T /
For practical analysis, the non-rectangular gusset may be replaced by a
rectangular gusset as shown in Fig. 8. After such replacement, the bend-
ing stiffness of the gusset plate can be expressed as:
EI„
(S),'gusset (4)
The effective length factors for test specimens were calculated using
Eqs. 2-4 and they were very close to 0.5.
Initial Buckling Load.—Initial buckling load of test specimens is plot-
ted in Fig. 9 along with the values obtained from column formulas of
1.0-
——-i~£d£6-3
<
o 0.8 •
> j
rAISC
w
0.6-
E& . J G
AW13^ V
0.4- AB1 Awll*
^ o
O a 0.2-
AW!5«
AW 9
0.0- _ _ j _ _ 4 _ — * f —
40 80 120 160 200
EFFECTIVE SLENDERNESS RATIO K !_/r
FIG. 9.—First Buckling Load for Test Specimens
2042
AISC Specification (21) without the factor of safety. The following for-
mulas of AISC Specification were used.
r f^Vi KL
Per = Qs 1.0 =- Py (for — *C'C (5)
L 2Q J 2 r
it2EA ( KL
and Pcr = —— (for — > C'c (6)
KL
The curve shown by dashed line in Fig. 9 is plotted by using Qs =

0.804 which is applicable to specimen AB1 only. The solid line curve
corresponds to the value of Qs equal to 1.0 and is applicable to all other
test specimens.
Fig. 9 shows that for welded specimens the initial buckling load is
quite close to that obtained from Eqs. 5 and 6. However, the initial buck-
ling loads for specimens AB1 and AB3 were considerably less than the
corresponding values obtained from AISC formulas. Single angle buck-
ling is considered as the main reason for this deviation. Due to the loose-
ness of snug-tight bolts in these specimens, each angle could slip and
buckle almost independent of the other angle. Therefore, the expected
buckling strength of built-up double angle section could not be reached.
Specimen AB7 attained extraordinarily large buckling load during first
cycle. This is attributed to the unusual buckling configuration as shown
in Fig. 7, which resulted in a much smaller effective length as noted
earlier.
Cyclic Buckling Loads.—One of the major characteristics of bracing
members subjected to cyclic loading is significant decrease in buckling
AW9 AH13
E7V-I74 KL7F-124
A,-0.23l In. A„.0.206 in. A y -0.231 in.
Py-108.1 kips Py-99.96 klpa Py=88.36 kips
Note: I in.-25.4 u . 1 kips- 4.448 k«
FIG. 10.—Hysteresis Loops for Welded Specimens during First Two Cycles
2043
FIG. 11.—Hysteresis Loops for Specimen AW13
load from first to the second cycle. This phenomenon has been observed
by a number of investigators studying cyclic behavior of steel struts (2,
6, 10 and 23). Fig. 10 shows hysteresis loops for the first two cycles of
four welded specimens. The decrease in buckling capacity from first to
second cycle was larger for stocky bracing members, i.e. AW11 and AW13
compared to the more slender members, specimens AW9 and AW15.
Similar reductions in buckling capacity were observed in bolted specimens.
As cyclic loading continued the buckling capacity of bracing members
further decreased. However, decrease of buckling load in following cycles
was not as large as from first to second cycle. Fig. 11 shows hysteresis
loops recorded for specimen AW13. The loops indicate a sharp decrease
FIG. 12.—Local Yielding in Gusset Plate of Specimen AW12

2044
FIG. 13.—Deformation of Specimen AB5: (a) Torsional Behavior; (b) Severe Yield-
ing in Gusset Plates
in buckling load from first cycle to the second cycle and a gradual de-
crease in the remaining cycles.
Local Buckling.—With the exception of specimen AW15, severe local
buckling occurred in the back-to-back legs of all other specimens in the
plastic hinge area. A detailed analysis of the behavior of plastic hinge
and state of stress at the hinge, Ref. 1, indicated that back-to-back legs
of in-plane buckling specimens experienced large alternating stresses
ranging from yield in tension to yield in compression during each cycle.
The outstanding legs of these members generally remained under ten-
sion and the compressive stress, if any, seldom reached yield level. As
a result, the outstanding legs are much less susceptible to local buckling
than back-to-back legs, even though the b/t ratio of outstanding legs
may be larger than the b/t ratio of the back-to-back legs.
Gusset Plates.—Stretching welded specimens to the yield load of the
angles caused some local yielding in the gusset plates during first cycle
(Fig. 12). During later cycles no such yielding was observed from the
whitewash coating.
Local yieldings are attributed to stress concentration in the gusset plate.
Such local yieldings had no apparent effect on the cyclic behavior of the
members.
In bolted specimens AB1, AB3 and AB5 severe out-of-plane torsional
deformation was observed at large compressive displacements [Fig. 13(a)].
This caused considerable yielding in the gusset plates [Fig. 13(b)]. De-
spite severe yielding, none of the gusset plates fractured. The cause of
such torsional deformation in these three specimens is related to slip-
2045
FIG. 14.—Rotation of Angles at Midspan of Specimen AW13
page of snug-tight bearing type bolts which led to single angle type of
behavior. No-slip friction bolts were used in connections of specimen
AB7. This specimen did not show any torsional deformation.
Stitches.—Number of stitches used for each specimen are given in Ta-
ble 1. All welded specimens had two nominal stitches at 1/3 point. The
stitches performed well and no yielding was observed in the stitch areas.
Spacings of stitches were sufficient to ensure overall buckling. However,
in all welded specimens single angles between the two stitches rotated
and displaced as seen in Fig. 14. The deformations are related to un-
symmetric bending of single angles in post buckling region. To prevent
such deformation, a much smaller spacing of the stitches would have to
be selected than what is required by the AISC Specification (21).
Bolted specimen AB1 failed in connection during eighth cycle as will
be further reviewed later in this paper. Due to premature failure of this
specimen, it was not possible to evaluate performance of the stitch at
midspan.
Bolted specimens AB3 and AB5 were designed and fabricated similarly
with the only difference in the number of stitches. Specimen AB3 had
one stitch at midspan whereas specimen AB5 had two stitches at 1/3
points. The comparison of the cyclic behavior of these two specimens,
Figs. 15 and 16, clearly demonstrates the negative effect of the stitch at
midspan.
Specimen AB3 developed severe local buckling at midspan during fifth
cycle of deformation and during sixth cycle one of the angles fractured
through the edge distance of the bolt hole at midspan [Fig. 15(b)]. Spec-
imen AB5, despite local buckling in midspan hinge, could resist sixteen
cycles of deformation. It then fractured through the tip of the locally
buckled area at midspan [Fig. 16(a)].
on
4B
FIG. 15.—Midspan Plastic Hinge in Seventh Cycle: (a) Specimen AB5; (6) Spec-
imen AB3
All bolted specimens buckled upward toward the heels of back-to-back

legs. Therefore, there was no experimental observation of behavior of
bolted bracing members buckling toward the toes of the back-to-back
legs.
Connection of Angles to Gusset Plates by Fillet Welds.—In welded
specimens, fillet welds connecting back-to-back legs of angles to gusset
plates withstood cyclic loading without any sign of yielding or fracture.
Ductility of connections in all welded specimens was satisfactory with
the exception of specimen AW11 which showed premature failure at
connection of angle to the gusset plate. In this specimen, when axial
load reached yield load during second cycle, a crack was observed in
outstanding leg of one of the angles adjacent to fillet weld connecting
angle to the gusset plate. The crack grew rapidly during following cycles.
During eighth cycle the outstanding leg of the angle was completely sep-
arated from gusset plate as shown in Fig. 17.
The cause of failure is analyzed in detail in the original report, Ref. 1,
and is not repeated here. The analysis indicated that eccentricity of cen-
troid of angle normal to the gusset plate, ex in Fig. 18, plays a major role
in causing such failure. The eccentricity ex, which is significant in angles
connected by short leg, causes a bending moment which acts in a plane
parallel to the outstanding leg. This bending moment, which may be
called out-of-plane bending moment, is different from the in-plane bending
2047
FIG. 16.—Failure at Midspan Plastic Hinge: (a) Specimen AB5 in Fifteenth Cycle;
(6) Specimen AB3 in Eighth Cycle
moment which acts in plane of gusset plate and is the result of eccen-
tricity ey also shown in Fig. 18. In current practice, some designers elim-
inate in plane bending moment by using balanced welds. However, out-
of-plane bending moment cannot be eliminated by such balancing.
Therefore, stresses due to out-of-plane bending moment should be con-
sidered in design of connections.
Analysis of the behavior of connection revealed that out-of-plane
bending moment created large strains at the point of crack initiation in
specimen AWll. It was found that in order to reduce such strains, length
of weld line along the outstanding leg must be increased. Using bal-
anced weld in connection of angle to gusset results in increased weld
length on outstanding leg which in turn will reduce stresses and strains
caused by out-of-plane bending. Therefore, the use of balanced weld
eliminates in-plane bending moment and indirectly increases strength of
connection to resist out-of-plane bending. Test results support the pre-
vious statement, because the only welded speciman failed in connection
was specimen AWll which had unbalanced weld whereas all other
welded specimens having balanced well behaved quite satisfactorily.
Application of simple beam theory, Ref. 1, indicated that in order to
prevent failures similar to that in specimen AWll, length of fillet weld
connecting outstanding leg to the gusset plate should be at least twice
the width of the outstanding leg.
2048
\
ii'r:
FIG. 17.--Propagation of Crack in Specimen AW11
Connection of Angles to Gussets by Bolts.—Specimen AB1 was the

first bolted specimen to be tested. During seventh cycle of loading, back-
to-back leg of one of the angles fractured at net section of first bolt, Fig.
19, and during eighth cycle fracture occurred at a section just above all
the bolt holes and one of the angles separated from the gusset. This
fracture resembles block shear failure observed in coped web of beams
(12), however, the nature of failure mode, its cause, and stresses in-
Connect
FIG. 18.—Eccentricities ex and ey in Connection of Angles with Gusset Plates

2049
FIG. 19.—Fracture at Edge Distance of First Bolt during Sixth Cycle, Specimen
AB1
volved are quite different from that of block shear failure. Analysis of
failure given in Ref. 1 and causes premature fracture in parts of net sec-
tion leading to total failure. One logical way of preventing such failure
is to reinforce the net section at first bolt hole such that the section be-
comes stronger than gross section of the member. This results in for-
mation of plastic hinge in the gross section. Experiments on welded
specimens as reported earlier in this paper had indicated that if plastic
hinge forms in gross section, the only expected damage is local buckling
of back-to-back legs during late cycles, which does not result in pre-
mature failure of connection.
FIG. 20.—Reinforcement of Net Section
2050
FIG. 21.—Yield Envelopes for Gross, Net and Reinforced Net Section of Speci-
mens AB3, AB5, and AB7 Made of 2L-4 x 3 x 3/8
Net section can effectively be reinforced by welding a plate to the back-

to-back legs of both angles as shown in Fig. 20.
The proposed concept of reinforcing the net section was used suc-
cessfully in design of specimens AB3, AB5 and AB7. Plastic hinges at
the ends of these specimens formed outside the reinforced zone in the
gross section. The whitewash coating of specimens showed no sign of
yielding within the reinforced zone.
To obtain the geometry of reinforcing plate, the bending moment-axial
load interaction curves for the section can be used. The interaction curve
for a double angle section of 4 x 3 x 3/8 is given in Fig. 21. The 4 x 3
X 3/8 angles were used in specimens AB3, AB5, and AB7. The inter-
action curves shown in Fig. 21 are the locus of points with values of
bending moment and axial load, causing first yielding within the net
section, gross section and reinforced net section as indicated in the fig-
ure. Also shown in Fig. 21 is a typical load condition developed at the
end hinges of bolted specimens during cyclic loading. To ensure for-
mation of plastic hinge in gross section, the interaction curve for rein-
forced net-area must be larger than that of the gross area. For practical
design application, provided that detail of Fig. 20 is used, one can select
reinforcing plates such that the area and moment of inertia of reinforced
net area become larger than corresponding value of the gross area.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A total of eight full size double angle bracing members were tested
under severe cyclic loading. Based on the experimental observations, the
2051
test data and the analysis of the behavior, the following conclusions and
recommendations are drawn regarding the design and behavior of in-
plane buckling double-angle bracing members.
1. Double-angle bracing members buckling in plane of gusset plate

and designed according to current procedures and specification (21) may
not have sufficient ductility to survive severe earthquakes.
2. The deformed shape of almost all test specimens was close to the
deformed shape of an axially loaded column with fixed end connections.
As a result, the effective length factor K can be approximated by 0.5.
3. Three plastic hinges generally form in a bracing member. One hinge
forms at midspan and the other two at the ends of angles just outside
the gusset plate.
4. The first buckling load of bracings with welded connections were
quite close to the values per AISC formulas (21) without factor of safety.
5. The buckling load capacity of bracing members decreases during
cyclic loading. The decrease is most significant from first cycle to the
second cycle.
6. The eccentricity of the centroid of single angle normal to the gus-
set plate causes out-of-plane bending of angles in the connection region.
The effect of this eccentricity should be considered in design of angle to
gusset-plate connections. The possibility of such failures must be inves-
tigated and the necessary reinforcement be provided. Design criteria are
proposed in this paper to prevent such failures in the welded and bolted
connections. For welded connections it is recommended that balanced
weld be used and length of weld connecting outstanding leg to gusset
plate be at least twice as the width of outstanding leg. For bolted con-
nections it is suggested that the net section be reinforced such that plas-
tic hinges at the ends of member form outside the net section in the
gross section of double angles.
7. The gusset plates of test specimens remained mostly elastic indi-
cating sufficiency of current gusset design procedures for the type of
gusset plates used in this study.
8. The forces in the stitches were minimal. Therefore, the nominal
stitches can be used for in-plane buckling double-angle bracing members.
9. The stitch spacing according to AISC Specification (21) is adequate
to prevent single angle buckling between the stitches before overall
buckling of bracing member.
10. Local budding occurs in the back-to-back legs in plastic hinge areas.
The b/t ratio of the back-to-back legs is suggested not be exceed the
limits permitted in Part 2 (plastic design) of AISC Specification (21).
11. Bolted stitches should be avoided at midspan where the plastic
hinge forms.
12. Current design procedures consider only the axial tension force as
the design force for end connections. It is suggested that the combined
effect of axial forces and the bending moments induced in post-buckling
region should be considered in the design of bolted connections.
In summary, a rational design philosophy for connections should in-

clude three major criteria: (1) Excessive local yielding should be avoided
in the connection and stitch areas; (2) the strength and ductility of con-
2052
nections should be sufficient to withstand large post buckling defor-
mations; a n d (3) the yield capacity of connections should n o t be less
than that of the bracing member.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The investigation w a s sponsored b y the American Iron a n d Steel In-

stitute u n d e r project 301A. The authors are thankful to Mr. Walter H .
Fleischer, Mr. Albert C. Kuentz, and other members of the task force
for the encouragement t h e y provided in carrying out this research. The
authors would also like to thank Professor Robert D. H a n s o n for his
valuable suggestions. The conclusions a n d opinions expressed in this
paper are solely those of the authors a n d do n o t necessarily represent
the views of the sponsors.
APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES
1. Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C , and Hanson, R. D., "Cyclic Behavior of Double

Angle Bracing Members with End Gusset Plates," Report No. UMEE82R7,
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Mich., Aug., 1982.
2. Black, R. G., Wenger, W. A., and Popov, E. P., "Inelastic Buckling of Steel
Struts Under Cyclic Load Reversals," Report No. UBS/EERC-80/40, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., 1980.
3. Blodgett, O. W., "Design of Welded Structures," J. F. Lincoln Arc Welding
Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, 1966, pp. 5.9-27.
4. Fisher, J. W., and Sturik, J. H. A., "Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and
Riveted Joints," John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y., 1974, pp. 241-249.
5. Ghanaat, Y., "Study of X-Braced Steel Frame Structures Under Earthquake
Simulation," Report No. UBC/EERC-80/08, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.,
1980.
6. Gugerli, H., and Goel, S. C , "Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Steel Bracing Mem-
bers," Report No. UMEE 82R1, Department of Civil Engineering, The Univ.
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Jan., 1982.
7. Higginbotham, A. B., and Hanson, R. D., "Axial Hysteretic Behavior of Steel
Members," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST7, July,
1976.
8. Irvan, W. G., Jr., "Experimental Study of Primary Stresses in Gusset Plates
of a Double Plane Pratt Truss," Univ. of Kentucky Engineering Experiment Sta-
tion Bulletin, No. 46, D e c , 1957.
9. Jain, A. K., and Goel, S. C , "Hysteresis Models for Steel Members Subjected
to Cyclic Buckling or Cyclic End Moments and Buckling," Report No. UMEE
78R6, Department of Civil Engineering, The Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Mich., Dec, 1978.
10. Jain, A. K., Goel, S. C , and Hanson, R. D., "Hysteresis Behavior of Bracing
Members and Seismic Response of Braced Frames with Different Propor-
tions," Report No. UMEE 78R3, Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., July, 1978.
11. Kahn, L. F., and Hanson, R. D., "Inelastic Cycles of Axially Loaded Steel
Members," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST5, Proc
Paper 12111, May, 1976.
12. Manual of Steel Construction, 8th ed., American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, 111., 1980.
13. Nilforoushan, R., "Seismic Behavior of Multistory K-Braced Frame Struc-
tures," thesis presented to the Univ. of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, Mich., in
1973, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
2053
14. Nonaka, T., "An Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Analysis of a Bar Under Repeated
Loading," International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1973, pp.
569-580.
15. Popov, E. P., "Inelastic Behavior of Steel Braces Under Cyclic Loading," Pro-
ceedings, Second U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Stan-
ford University, Stanford, California, Aug. 22-24, 1979, pp. 923-932.
16. Popov, E. P., Takanashi, K., and Roeder, C. W., "Structural Steel Bracing
Systems: Behavior Under Cyclic Loading," Report No. UBC/EERC-76/17, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1976.
17. Roeder, C. W., and Popov, E. P., "Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames for
Earthquakes," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST3, Proc.
Paper 13619, Mar., 1978, pp. 391-412.
18. Sheridan, M. L., "An Experimental Study of the Stress and Strain Distri-
bution in Steel Gusset Plates," presented to the University of Michigan, in
1953, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
19. Shibata, M., Nakamura, T., Yoshida, N., Morino, S., Nonaka, T., and Wak-
abayashi, M., "Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Steel Braces Under Repeated Axial
Loading," Proceedings V World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, I
aly, 1973, pp. 845-848.
20. Singh, P., "Seismic Behavior of Braces and Braced Steel Frames," Report No.
UMEE 77R1, Civil Engineering Department, The Univ. of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich., July, 1977.
21. Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Errection of Structural Steel for Build
ings, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1978.
22. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whit-
tier, Calif., 1982, p. 137.
23. Walker, A. C , ed., Design and Analysis of Cold-Formed Sections, Halsted Press,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1975, pp. 64-72.
24. Wakabayashi, M., Matsui, B., and Mitani, I., "Cyclic Behavior of a Re-
strained Steel Brace Under Axial Loading," Proceedings IV World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, New Delhi, India, Jan., 1977, pp. 3181-
3187.
25. Whitmore, R. E., "Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates,"
Univ. of Tennessee Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 16, May, 1952.
APPENDIX II.—-NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this yaper:
A = cross-sectional area;
b = overall w i d t h of one leg in unequal leg angles;
C'c = column slenderness ratio dividing elastic and inelastic
buckling, modified for the effect of b/t ratio C'c equals
to(2-n2E)/FyQ5;
C.G. = center of gravity;
E = m o d u l u s of elasticity of steel (29,000 ksi);
EI = flexural stiffness, product of the m o d u l u s of elasticity
a n d the m o m e n t of inertia;
W /gusset = rotational stiffness of gusset plate;
(bl IL, ) m e m ber = b e n d i n g stiffness of bracing member;
= eccentricity parallel to x-axis;
y = eccentricity parallel to y-axis;
= specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel used;
h = width of gusset plate;
I = m o m e n t of inertia about axis of bending;
2054
Ig = m o m e n t of inertia of gusset plate;
K = effective length factor for a prismatic member;
KL/r = effective slenderness ratio;
Kx = effective length factor for buckling about x-axis;
Ky = effective length factor for buckling about y-axis;
L = length of the member;
Lg = length of gusset plate m e a s u r e d along the centroid of
the bracing;
M = bending m o m e n t ;
My = yield m o m e n t ;
P = axial load;
Py = plastic axial load equal to profile area times specified
minimum yield stress;
Qs = axial stress reduction factor w h e r e width-thickness ra-
tio of unstiffened element exceeds limiting values given
in Section 1.9.1 of AISC Specification (21);
r = radius of gyration;
rx = radius of gyration about x axis;
ry = radius of gyration about y axis;
t = thickness of the leg in angle;
vm = lateral displacement at midspan;
x = distance from origin along the x axis;
y = lateral displacement;
A = axial deformation;
Ay = axial yield deformation; a n d
(A = connection stiffness.
2055

1984-Astaneh-CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE Angle Bracing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1984-Astaneh-CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE Angle Bracing

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

1984-Astaneh-CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE Angle Bracing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CYCLIC IN-PLANE BUCKLING OF DOUBLE

ABSTRACT: The behavior of double-angle bracing members subjected to in-plane

Behavior of steel frames subjected to strong dynamic loads similar to

mations. Bolted as well as welded connections were used in the test

TABLE 1.—Properties of Test Specimens

FIG. 4.—Test Set-Up

FIG. 5.™General Cyclic Deformation History of Test Specimens

FIG. 6.—Buckling Configuration of Specimen AW15 During Cyclic Loading

Effective Length Factor.—The deformed shape of test specimens at

Fig. 6 shows the agreement between the measured deformations of

in which \x = the connection stiffness defined by the following equation:

EFFECTIVE SLENDERNESS RATIO K !_/r

FIG. 9.—First Buckling Load for Test Specimens

The curve shown by dashed line in Fig. 9 is plotted by using Qs =

Note: I in.-25.4 u . 1 kips- 4.448 k«

FIG. 12.—Local Yielding in Gusset Plate of Specimen AW12

All bolted specimens buckled upward toward the heels of back-to-back

FIG. 17.--Propagation of Crack in Specimen AW11

Connection of Angles to Gussets by Bolts.—Specimen AB1 was the

FIG. 18.—Eccentricities ex and ey in Connection of Angles with Gusset Plates

FIG. 20.—Reinforcement of Net Section

Net section can effectively be reinforced by welding a plate to the back-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Double-angle bracing members buckling in plane of gusset plate

In summary, a rational design philosophy for connections should in-

The investigation w a s sponsored b y the American Iron a n d Steel In-

1. Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C , and Hanson, R. D., "Cyclic Behavior of Double

The following symbols are used in this yaper:

You might also like