Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Seismic analysis of steel moment frames with column-tree connections

Taewan Kim a, Eunjong Yu b,⁎
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kangwon National University, 1 Kangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Kangwon-do 200-701, South Korea
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 222Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea

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

Article history: Column-tree connections are commonly used for steel moment frame buildings in East Asian countries because
Received 2 November 2018 they can reduce labor and construction time. However, a column-tree connection has an inherent issue of splice
Received in revised form 16 October 2019 slip between the stub beams and the mid-portion of the beam. In this study, analytical modeling to account for
Accepted 11 November 2019
slip behavior of the column-tree connection is proposed and examined by comparing sub-assemblage test results
Available online 30 November 2019
and then applied to a nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel intermediate moment frame (SIMF) buildings. In the
Keywords:
nonlinear dynamic analyses, two example buildings that use welded unreinforced flange-welded web connec-
Column-tree connection tions and column-tree type connections, respectively, were designed, and their responses were compared. Com-
Splice slip parison of the analysis results to sub-assemblage test results indicate that a macro model based on the lumped
Weak panel zone plasticity assumption can adequately simulate the behavior observed in test results. The distribution of plastic de-
Steel intermediate moment frame formations among the beam, column, and beam-to-column joint was similar to those of the test results. The non-
Nonlinear dynamic analysis linear dynamic analyses indicated that column-tree connections with a splice slip have positive effects on frames
with a weak panel zone. The splice slip increased the rotational capacity of the assembly and reduced the inelastic
demand of the panel zone because early slips occur at the beam splice before the weak panel zone yields.
Column-tree construction is therefore a viable method for constructing SIMF buildings in areas of low-to-me-
dium seismicity.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [3], while McMullin and Astaneh-Asl proposed a semi-rigid column-

A column-tree connection is one way to construct beam-to-column
(BTC) joints of steel moment frames. In a column-tree system, a portion
of a beam (the stub beam) is welded to the column member at a factory.
The mid-portion of the beam (the link beam) is connected to the stub
beam at the construction site using splice plates and high-tension
bolts. Column-tree connections minimize field welding, which is sus-
ceptible to inclement weather and requires quality control, to stream-
line frame erection at a site.
Column-tree connections are commonly used in East Asian countries
[1], including South Korea. In the United States, column-tree connec-
tions, also called “shop-welded, field-bolted cover plate connections”,
first appeared in the late 1950s with the introduction of structural
welding to the building industry. However, a field-welded BTC-
moment connection has become more popular with development of re-
liable butt-welded beam-flange-to-column-flange connections that
offer satisfactory resistance to cycling loads [2]. Since the 1994
Northridge earthquake, use of column-tree connections has been stud-
ied as a way to avoid field welding. Astaneh-Asl presented a design pro-
cedure for special ductile steel column-tree moment-resisting frames
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tkim@kangwon.ac.kr (T. Kim), eunjongyu@hanyang.ac.kr (E. Yu).
tree connection that reduces the flange splice plate section to accommo-
date ductile behavior [4]. Astaneh-Asl indicated that column-tree
connections have extra failure (or behavioral) modes, including slip-
page of flange bolts, yielding or fracture of flange splice plates, bearing
yield of the bolt holes, and yielding or fracture of flange bolts, in addition
to failure modes of welded BTC moment connections. He reported that
slippage of flange bolts offers beneficial effects by increasing overall
energy dissipation and ductility if failure modes related to brittle
fractures are prevented [3]. In addition to the above research, several
experimental studies have been carried out to identify splice-slip
behavior in column-tree connections [4–11]. Such research indicates
that slips at the splice region occur at about one-half of beam moment
capacity even when the beam splice is designed to transfer the full
strength of the connecting beams [8,9,11]. Sub-assemblage test speci-
mens with a column-tree connection designed as a special moment
frame were able to achieve a 5% story drift ratio without brittle fracture,
which is the qualification criterion required by the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) Seismic Provisions for special steel moment
frames [12]. However, the influence of a column-tree connection,
especially the slip behavior at the beam splices, on the overall seismic
performance of a building has not been investigated in detail.
Use of column-tree connections may change the configuration of a
building's lateral load resisting system. In field-welded construction,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105871
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871
Fig. 1. Schematic of a column-tree connection with a beam splice.
reducing the number of bays of moment resisting frames (i.e., seismic
frames) would be economical because it minimizes expensive field
welding of moment connections. It is therefore typical that only the
frames along the perimeter of a building are designed as “seismic
frames” that resist the entire design earthquake load, while the remain-
ing frames (interior frames) are designated “gravity frames” that use
shear connections and are designed to resist only gravity loads. How-
ever, in a column-tree system, it is not difficult to use moment resisting
connections at all BTC joints because the welding is performed at the
factory. In South Korea all frames are commonly designed as seismic
frames. The difference between the concentrated and distributed seis-
mic frame configurations influences member size and gravity load
ratio of the columns, which may influence the seismic performance of
the building.
This paper investigates the seismic performance of steel buildings
constructed using column-tree connections. We first review the results
of experimental studies on the behavior of column-tree connections and
then build an analytical model to account for slip behavior at the beam
splice. Two low-rise steel intermediate moment frame (SIMF) buildings,
one with distributed seismic frames using column-tree connections and
the other with a concentrated seismic frame using field welded connec-
tions, were designed, and results from nonlinear time history analyses
are compared.
2. Experimental studies on typical column-tree connections
A conventional column-tree connection is shown in Fig. 1. The de-
tails of the BTC joint are similar to those of a welded unreinforced
flange-bolted web (WUF-B) or welded unreinforced flange-welded
web (WUF-W) specified in FEMA350 [13], except for the details of
the access hole. As shown in the figure, the stub beam is connected
with the link beam using splice plates and high-strength bolts at
both the flange and web. The typical length of the stub beam is 600
to 1000 mm.
Table 1
Test results of BTC connections without beam splice slip [5].
PZW
Ratio of panel zone to beam 0.72
strength
Plastic rotation of panel zone (%) 2.3
Plastic rotation of beam (%) 1.3
Normalized maximum moment 1.35
(Mmax/Mpn, beam)
Final failure mode Fracture of beam flange near the groove
weld
Only a few experimental studies have investigated the structural be-
havior of column-tree connections for use in fully restrained moment
connections [5,7–9,11]. Lee and Park [5] tested three column-tree spec-
imens by varying the panel-zone-to-beam-strength ratio, creating weak
(specimen PZW), medium (PZM), and strong panel zones (PZS), as
shown in Table 1. Beam splices of all specimens were designed to resist
the expected beam moment strength, which corresponded to approxi-
mately 1.4 times the nominal yield moment. As a result, no splice slip
occurred except in specimen PZW, which showed minor slippage after
beam yielding. The overall behavior of the test specimens was similar
to those of WUF-W connections. The final failure mode of specimens
PZW and PZM was fracture of the beam flange near the groove weld,
and that of specimen PZS was divot-type pullout failure of the column
flange. As calculated from Table 1, the ratios of panel zone plastic rota-
tion to the sum of the total (panel zone plus beam) were 64%, 59%,
and 27% for PZW, PZM, and PZS specimens, respectively. The normalized
maximum moment, which is the ratio of maximum applied moment to
nominal plastic moment capacity of the beam, ranged from 1.35 to 1.66.
As shown in Table 1, all specimens can develop interstory drifts greater
than 0.02 rad (plastic hinge rotation of 0.01 rad) without strength loss,
which is the ANSI/AISC 341 [12] requirement for connections in an
SIMF. Better deformation capacity was observed when the panel zone
strength was lower than the beam strength. Relationships between ap-
plied shear force and rotation of the test specimens are shown in
Section 3.2, in which the test results are compared with analytical
solutions.
Li [7] tested column-tree connection specimens by varying the
length of the stub beams and the number of high-strength bolts,
which influence the moment demand and capacity of the beam splice.
Dimensions of specimens and a summary of the test results are shown
in Table 2. Three specimens, CTD01, CTD02, and CTD03, have different
stub beam lengths but identical beam splices designed as slip-critical
bolt connections to resist the nominal plastic moment capacity of the
beam section. In specimens CTB and CTF, the beam splice design was
based on the bearing resistance of the high-strength bolts. As a result,
PZM PZS
0.93 1.17
1.7 0.6
1.2 1.6
1.65 1.66
Fracture of beam flange near the groove Divot-type pullout failure of the column
weld flange
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871 3

Table 2
Test results of BTC connections with beam splice slip [7].

CTD01 CTD02 CTD03 CTB CTF

Length of stub beam (mm) 700 900 1100 900 900

Length of flange splice plate (mm) 530 530 530 410 410
Maximum story drift ratio (%) 4.96 4.97 4.97 4.61 4.01
Maximum plastic rotation (%) 4.15 4.16 4.16 3.28 3.27
Stub beam plastic rotation (%) 0.96 1.21 1.37 0.72 0.81
Link beam plastic rotation (%) 1.38 1.05 0.72 1.21 1.02
Panel zone plastic rotation (%) 1.81 1.90 1.99 1.34 1.43
Normalized maximum moment 1.54 1.51 1.53 1.39 1.37
(Mmax/Mpn, beam)
Slip moment (Mslip/Mpn, beam) 0.40 0.51 0.56 0.46 0.47
Final failure mode Local buckling of beam Local buckling of beam Crack of beam flange Fracture of beam Fracture of beam
flange flange weld flange flange

the number of high-strength bolts used for the beam flange connection 3. Analytical modeling of column-tree sub-assemblage
was reduced to 3/4 of those in specimen CTD design. The column and
beam sections were identical for all specimens, and the ratio of panel 3.1. Analytical modeling of BTC joints
zone to beam strength was 0.87, which falls into the weak panel zone
category. The final failure modes were local buckling of the beam top In this section, the analytical modeling of column-tree connections
flange for specimen CTD and fracture of the beam flange for specimens using OpenSees [16] is addressed. The column-tree model proposed in
CTB and CTF, respectively. this study is a macro-type model designed to analyze a whole building
In Li’s tests, bolt slip at the beam splice occurred in all specimens. structure. The macro-type model of a column-tree connection is com-
As can be seen from the normalized maximum moments and the posed of a beam, column, and panel zone. Parameters from previous re-
maximum story drift ratios of specimen CTD in Table 2, no distinctive search for each part of BTC joint model were examined and determined
differences in behavior were observed with variation of the stub from comparison with sub-assemblage tests described in the previous
beam length, although the slip moments and distribution of rotation section. Slip behavior, if present, is accounted for at the end of beam
between the link beam and stub beam showed slight differences. On elements.
the whole, the maximum plastic rotation capacities of the specimens NIST [17] addressed three options to model the panel zone in the
were larger than those of the specimens in Lee and Park [6] and sat- BTC joint: Krawinkler [18], Altoontash [19], and Scissors models. Ac-
isfied the interstory drift requirement for an SIMF, which is 0.02 rad. cording to NIST [17], the Scissors model cannot properly capture panel
Comparing specimen CTD with the PZW in Lee and Park, the total ro- zone kinematics and equilibrium, unlike the other two models. The per-
tational capacity was increased in CTD specimens in spite of the high formances of the Krawinkler and Altoontash models are similar, but the
panel-zone-to-beam-strength ratio. The plastic rotational capacity of Altoontash model is more efficient than the Krawinkler model because
the beam in PZW (1.3%) was almost identical to that of the stub beam it needs fewer nodes and degrees of freedom. The Altoontash model
in CTD03 (1.37%), which failed due to fracture of the beam flange. was implemented as the “Joint2D” element in OpenSees [16]. In this el-
The decrease in panel zone rotation may be attributable to the higher ement, the panel zone is modeled as a parallelogram-shaped panel, with
panel-zone-to-beam-strength ratio (0.87 versus 0.67). Accordingly, adjacent beams and columns connected to mid-points of the edges. The
the increase of total rotational capacity can be regarded as an effect panel zone shear behavior is expressed by a rotational spring at the cen-
of the link beam. The plastic rotation of the link beams was a mini- tral node connected to external nodes using multipoint kinematic con-
mum of 0.72% in CTD03. The ratios of the panel zone plastic rotation straint equations.
to total plastic rotation capacity were 44% to 48% in specimen CTD, In this study, the Altoontash model was selected for analytical
while that in PZW was 64%. modeling of the BTC joint. As shown in Fig. 2, the BTC model consists
Bolt slip in beam splice regions occurred at a story drift of of a panel zone, beam, and column. The nonlinear behavior of the
0.75%–1.0% before yielding at 1.5%–2.0%. The moments at slip oc- panel zone is represented by the nonlinear spring at the central node,
currence were 40%–56% of the nominal plastic moment of the whose mechanical property is expressed using the Hysteretic material
beam section. Considering that WUF-B connections usually begin
to yield at approximately 1.0% story drift, slippage at the beam
splice apparently delays development of rotational demand at the
column facing the beam end, increasing overall plastic rotation ca-
pacity. That is, the splice slip performed like a reduced beam sec-
tion. In addition, the slip had beneficial effects on seismic
performance, increasing the energy dissipation capacity and reduc-
ing the seismic forces. Li and his colleague performed a series of
tests to investigate other issues of column-tree connections, such
as behavior of weak-axis moment connections or composite ac-
tions with concrete slabs [8–11], using specimens with identical
member dimensions. In this study, test results of strong-axis mo-
ment connections [7] were examined for analytical modeling.
The results of Li’s tests [7] are comparable with those of a bolted-
flange-plate (BFP) connection, a prequalified fully restrained moment
connection in AISC 358 [14] in which the flange plate is welded at the
shop, and the BTC joints are assembled by field bolting. Test results
showed that BFP connections had good seismic performance even
though the initial slip generally occurred at a moment in the range of
40% of the ultimate moment capacity [15]. Fig. 2. Schematic of the beam-to-column joint model.
4 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871
Fig. 3. Test-to-predicted ratios of panel zone strength with depth of the column section.
model. The rotational springs connected to the external nodes of the
panel zone represent the nonlinear flexural behavior of the beam and
column elements, which are modeled as elastic along the entire mem-
ber length. The plastic hinges, i.e., the nonlinear springs at the ends of
beam and column elements, are modeled using the modified Ibarra-
Medina-Krawinkler deterioration model with bilinear hysteretic re-
sponse (IMK Bilin) in OpenSees [16]. The strength and deformation ca-
pacity of each element and nonlinear springs are described in this
section.
3.1.1. Panel zone property
A strong column–weak beam (SCWB) is not required in an SIMF
building. Beams in SIMF buildings therefore usually have a larger mo-
ment capacity than columns or panel zones, which means that the
panel zone and the beam near the BTC joint are generally the main
sources of nonlinear behavior. Accordingly, the panel zones need to be
explicitly modeled to account for the effects of panel zone yielding.
Several researchers, including Fielding and Huang [20], Krawinkler
[21], and Wang [22], have proposed relationships between panel zone
shear force and deformation. The formula for shear strength of a panel
zone provided in the AISC specification [23] based on Krawinkler's
equation [21] with slight modification is Eq. (1):
! to define the behavior of the panel zone elements in this study. That
3bcf t 2cf
V p;AISC ¼ 0:60 F y dc t w 1 þ
db dc t w
Fig. 4. Trilinear shear force–shear distortion relationship for panel zones.
Fig. 5. An idealized cyclic backbone curve for the plastic hinge model.
where dc is the depth of the column; tw is the thickness of the panel
zone; bcf is the width of the column flange; tcf is the thickness of the col-
umn flange; db is the depth of the beam framing into the column; and Fy
is the yield strength of the column web.
Krawinkler's equation is based on an idealized trilinear relationship
consisting of elastic stiffness, Ke, followed by two linear post-elastic stiff-
nesses, K1 and K2 [21]. Ke reflects the shear deformation of the panel
zone; the first post-elastic stiffness, K1, accounts for the contribution
of the column flanges to panel stiffness; and the second post-elastic
stiffness, K2, is associated with strain hardening. Based on test results
by Krawinkler et al. [24] and Bertero et al. [25], in which W8 sections
(depth = 203.2 mm) were used for the column member, Krawinkler's
shear strength equation was derived by taking into account the addi-
tional strength provided by the framing components that surround
the panel (contribution of K1) at the maximum allowable shear defor-
mation (four times the shear yield strain, 4γy), which was determined
to control inelastic deformation.
However, an experimental study conducted later reveals that Eq. (1)
overestimates the shear strength of the panel zone when the column
sections are large [26]. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of ratios of actual
panel zone strength of 49 specimens [26] and predictions of the AISC
equation as the depth of the column sections varies. The mean test-to-
predicted ratio for the 6 specimens with W8 sections, including the
Krawinkler et al. [24] and Bertero et al. [25] specimens, was 0.978. How-
ever, the mean of the ratios for the 36 specimens with W14 columns
was only 0.818. The depth of the column sections in Lee and Park's [5]
and Li’s [7] tests was 400 mm, which is similar to the depth of a W14
section (355.5 mm). A modified trilinear shear force–shear distortion
relationship, as shown in Fig. 4 and Eqs. (2)–(6), was therefore used
ð1Þ is, yield shear force, yield strain, and shear strength, Vp, were reduced
to 80% of the values given by Eq. (1).
V y ¼ 0:60F y dc t p ð2Þ
V p ¼ 0:8V p;AISC ð3Þ
pffiffiffi
γ y ¼ F y = 3G ð4Þ
γp ¼ 4γy ð5Þ
γult ¼ 13γy ð6Þ
NIST recommended a value between 0.01 and 0.02 for the strain
hardening ratio α in Fig. 4, which indicates the second post-elastic stiff-
ness. However, a value of 0.03 was used in this study because a BTS joint
model with a small α failed to converge in some steps. In addition, when
the upper bound value of the NIST recommendation (0.02) was used,
the contribution of panel zone deformation was estimated to be
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871
Fig. 6. Combined hysteretic and Gap material model.
relatively large compared with the test results. The ultimate plastic
shear deformation capacity of the panel zone, γult, was set to 12 times
the yield rotation, γy, according to ASCE/SEI 41 [27].
3.1.2. Beam hinge property without splice slip
As described above and shown in Fig. 2, the nonlinear behavior of a
beam was assumed to be concentrated at the end of the beam and ide-
alized using a nonlinear rotational spring. The modeling of hysteretic
behavior of steel components using the nonlinear concentrated hinge,
which is called the plastic hinge, has been studied by many researchers,
including Lignos and Krawinkler [28] and Hartloper [29]. Their proposi-
tions are summarized in PEER/ATC72–1 [30] and NIST [31]. NIST advises
hinge properties be based on the cyclic envelope when using a model
that cannot explicitly capture the cyclic deterioration. The cyclic enve-
lope is composed of 6 parameters: yield moment, My; peak moment,
Fig. 7. Hysteretic behavior of the column-tree connection model without splice slip (PZW).
5
Mu∗; residual moment, Mr∗; pre-peak rotation, θp∗; post-peak rotation,
∗ ∗
θpc; and ultimate rotation, θult, as in Fig. 5.
The expected yield moment strength of the beam, which is denoted
My in Fig. 5, was determined by multiplying the plastic section modulus
by the expected yield strength of the material according to Eq. (7).
My ¼ βZRy F y ð7Þ
where β is the factor that accounts for the strength increase due to cyclic
strain hardening (a value of 1.2 is typically used for standard beams), Z
is the plastic section modulus, Fy is the nominal steel strength, and Ry
provides an adjustment from nominal to expected steel yield strength.
In analytical modeling of sub-assemblage tests in this section, the actual
yield strength of the material obtained from the material test was used
instead of RyFy.
The peak moment Mu∗ for cyclic envelope increases above the effec-
tive yield moment due to cyclic hardening as in Eq. (8).
Mu ¼ 1:15M y ð8Þ
For rotation capacity, NIST provides the equations that determine
the pre-peak rotation capacity, θp∗, and post-peak rotation, θpc
∗
, as func-
tions of beam dimension. Using these equations, a value of 2.45% was
calculated for θp∗. However, a comparison of the values from the equa-
tion and the test results showed significant differences. Specifically,
the plastic rotation capacity of the beams for the PZW and PZM speci-
mens was 1.2% and 1.3%, respectively, before fracture of the beam flange
near the groove welding, as indicated in Table 1. This appears to be be-
cause the equation in NIST [17] is based on various experimental data,
including special moment frames. Data from another test using speci-
mens with weak panel zones showed that the plastic rotation capacity
of beams was much lower than that according to the equation in NIST.
Han et al. [32] proposed an equation to calculate the plastic rotation
6 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

Fig. 8. Hysteretic behavior of the column-tree connection model without splice slip (PZS).

Fig. 9. Hysteretic behavior of the column-tree connection model without splice slip (PZM).
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871
capacity of a beam by least-squares analysis from the test results of 13
post-Northridge WUF-B connections with a weak panel zone:
θp ¼ 0:0175−0:0057V y =V pzMy
where Vy is the panel zone yield strength, and VpzM y is the panel zone
shear force when the connected beam yields (My). The plastic deforma-
tions of the beams for the PZW and PZM specimens using Eq. (9) are
1.4% and 1.3%, respectively. These are much closer to the test results
than those produced by the NIST equation [17]. The equation by Han
et al. [32] was therefore adopted for pre-peak rotation of beams in this
study.
As described above, the plastic hinge spring of the beam was
modeled using a modified Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler deterioration
model with bilinear hysteretic response (IMK Bilin) in OpenSees
[16,33]. This component is capable of simulating the stiffness and
strength degradation with cyclic loading. Cyclic degradation in steel
moment frames generally occurs due to local buckling or lateral-
torsional instabilities. When steel sections prone to such a degradation
mode are used, cyclic degradation can be modeled using parameters
calibrated with actual test results. However, hysteretic behavior of test
specimens by Lee and Park [5] and Han et al. [32] did not show distinct
stiffness and strength deterioration before they failed. Accordingly,
cycle degradation was not considered in the numerical analysis in this
study.
Fig. 10. Hysteretic behavior of the column-tree connection model with splice slip (CTD03).
7
3.1.3. Beam hinge property with splice slip
Slippage at the beam splice might be caused by a bolt slip or yielding
of the flange splice plates. To simulate slip mechanisms precisely, a de-
tailed analytical model that separately includes the stub beam, link
ð9Þ beam, splice plates, and slip elements between them would be needed.
However, such modeling was not adopted in this study as detailed
modeling that includes slip behavior of each components is too compu-
tationally expensive for analysis of entire building structures.
Instead, the plastic hinge model of beams with a splice was modified
to include the effects of slip, using a combination of an IMK Bilin material
and two elastic-perfectly plastic Gap materials that reflect the slip be-
havior in both tension and compression. Fig. 6 shows the moment–
rotation relationship of the combined IMK Bilin and Gap material
models. The properties of the IMK Bilin material and two elastic-
perfectly plastic Gap materials were calibrated to express the observed
behavior.
As summarized previously, previous test results [6,7] showed that
slips occurred at approximately half the nominal plastic moment
strength of the beam. Story shear versus lateral drift hysteresis indicated
that the moment did not increase until story drift reached approxi-
mately 1.0% after the slip occurred. To replicate this moment-slip behav-
ior, the moment strength of an IMK Bilin element at beam-end hinges
was set to half the nominal plastic moment strength of the beam, and
the rest of the strength was provided by the Gap element. From calibra-
tion with the test results, the rotation angle at which the slip ends, θslip
in Fig. 6, was determined to be 0.005 rad, and the rotation angle at
which the slip material yields, θn in Fig. 6, was determined to be
8 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

Table 4
Material properties.

Grade Nominal yield strength Ry

Column SM490 315 MPa 1.2

Beam SS400 235 MPa 1.3

Table 2, and the rotation capacity of the stub beam by Eq. (9) is 1.4%.
A value of 0.7%, which corresponds to the lower bound of test results,
was therefore chosen for plastic rotation of the link beam in analytical
modeling of sub-assemblage specimens in this section and example
buildings in Section 4.

3.1.4. Columns
Because most nonlinear behavior of BTC joints is concentrated on
beams or panel zones in SIMF, the columns generally remain elastic
even when significant nonlinear behavior is observed at the BTC joints.
However, the final failure mode of framed structures is usually creation
of a collapse mechanism in which plastic hinges develop at the column
base. Columns were therefore modeled as nonlinear members using
IMK Bilin elements as the beam elements. The modeling parameters of
the column hinge were estimated by the equation provided in NIST
[17]. Cyclic deterioration was not explicitly but indirectly considered
using the first-cycle envelope as suggested by NIST [31].

3.2. Comparison of analytical solutions with experimental results

Observed hysteretic behavior of the test specimens in Section 2 was

Fig. 11. Plan views of example buildings.
0.015 rad. In addition, the stiffness of the slip material was set to 5% of
the elastic stiffness of the beam from the calibration of analysis results.
The pre-peak rotation of the beam hinge model with splice slip, θp∗ in
Fig. 6, was the sum of the plastic rotations of the stub and link beams.
Of the two values, the rotation capacity of the stub beam was obtained
using Eq. (9), as in a beam without a splice slip.
In CTD01~CTD03 specimens, the sum of the plastic rotations of the
stub and link beams is approximately 2.1–2.3%, as presented in
Table 3
Seismic hazard and design parameters for example buildings (E-W
direction).
Parameter Value
compared with those from our numerical analyses, as shown in Fig. 7
through Fig. 10. Each figure shows story shear versus total plastic rota-
tion curve and moment-deformation plots for the panel zone, beam,
and column. Test results were compared with the analytical solution
only in the story shear versus total plastic rotation curve. In the tests,
two cycles were applied for the same displacement, but only one cycle
is shown in the graphs for brevity. No cyclic degradation was observed
in the tests.
Fig. 7 shows the results of analysis for specimen PZW. The nonlinear
behavior of the specimen came mainly from the panel zone. Because the
panel zone strength was smaller than the beam strength, the panel zone
yielded much earlier than the beam. The maximum shear deformation
of the panel zone exceeded 2%, which is similar to the test results of
2.3% in Table 1. In addition, rotation of the beam in the analysis (1.0%)
was similar to that of the specimen (1.3%).
The analysis results for specimen PZS (Fig. 8) show the opposite ten-
dency to those of specimen PZW. Here, the beam dominated the overall
nonlinear behavior of the specimen, and nonlinear behavior was limited
in the panel zone. In the analysis results for specimen PZM (Fig. 9), the
distribution of deformation was between those of specimens PZW and
PZS, as expected. The deformation of the panel zone was higher than
in specimen PZS but lower than in specimen PZW. The deformation of
the beam showed the opposite tendency.
Although important features of the behavior can be captured in the
analysis results, the distribution of deformations between the structural
components showed some differences compared with the test results.
For example, the maximum plastic rotation of the beam from the anal-
ysis was 1.9%, which is slightly larger than the 1.6% from the test in the
case of PZS. The maximum plastic rotation of panel zone was 1.0%,
which is less than the 1.7% in the test results for the PZM specimen.

SDS 0.535 g Table 5

SD1 0.232 g Member sizes of example buildings.
Importance factor 1.0
Site class SD Type Perimeter frame Interior frame
Seismic Design Category D
C1 G1 C2 G2
R 4.5
Ωo 3 Type 1 W12 × 65 W21 × 50 W12 × 87 W21 × 93
Cd 4 Type 2 W10 × 60 W18 × 46 W12 × 106 W21 × 83
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871 9

Table 6
Properties of structural members.

Member Type 1 building Type 2 building

Interior frame Perimeter frame

Beam Mpe=550.7 kN-m (G1) Mpe=981.2 kN-m (G2) Mpe=454.1 kN-m (G1)
Column Mpe=599.6 kN-m (C1) Mpe=840.1 kN-m (C2) Mpe=392.1 kN-m (C1)
Panel zone Mp, AISC=482.4 ~536.6 kN-m Mp, AISC=759.6 kN-m Mp, AISC=339.6 kN-m
Panel-to-beam-strength ratio 0.87–0.95 0.77 0.75

Fig. 12. Elevation view of the 3-story SMRF analytical model.

The panel zone deformation was underestimated, and beam deforma- PZW (Fig. 7). However, increased deformation at the beam element
tion was overestimated. This appears to be because a high strain- caused by the splice slip relieved the demand on the panel zone, as
hardening ratio for α was used. As mentioned before, this is due to the analysis and test results indicated.
the numerical stability in nonlinear analysis. Comparisons for the remaining specimens are not included in this
The test results and analytical model were compared in a similar paper as they showed similar tendencies. In summary, the macro
manner as for Li’s test, in which a splice slip occurred. Fig. 10 shows model in this study was able to simulate overall behavior of the sub-
the comparison for specimen CTD03. Beam hinges were modeled assemblage test specimens reasonably well, even though the distribu-
using the combined hysteresis and Gap material model shown in tion of deformations among the individual members differed slightly
Fig. 6. Compared with the test results in Table 2, deformation of the owing to the limitations of the lumped plasticity assumption.
panel zone was underestimated somewhat, likely due to the high
strain-hardening ratio. Deformation of the beam, including slip defor- 4. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of intermediate steel moment frames
mation, was overestimated slightly. Slip deformation was included in
addition to flexural yielding in the moment-rotation relationship of 4.1. Design of example buildings
the beam, as the shape of the hysteresis loop indicates. Nevertheless,
the analytical model for the BTC model with a splice slip is capable of In this section, the seismic responses of two steel-framed example
capturing important aspects of the overall behavior. This specimen has buildings based on different design practices are compared. The Type
a weak panel zone, and inelastic deformation was expected to be con- 1 building was designed with concentrated seismic frames and field
centrated at the panel zone, as shown in analysis results for specimen welded connections. The Type 2 building used column-tree connections
and therefore has distributed seismic frames. Each building is rectangu-
Table 7 lar, with four 7.5 m bays and two 6 m bays in the east-west direction
Modeling parameters for backbone curves of structural components in the Type 1 and three 9 m bays in the north-south direction. The plan dimensions
building.
for all floors and roofs are 42 m in the east-west direction and 27 m in
Beam (perimeter frame) the north-south direction. For all buildings, the height of the first story
My Mu∗ Mr∗ θp∗ ∗
θpc θu∗ is 4.5 m, and the remaining stories are 3.5 m high. Resistance to lateral
loads is provided by intermediate moment frames along the east-west
G1 550.7 633.3 165.2 0.0304 0.0125 0.0394
direction and ordinary concentrically braced frames along the north-
Columns (first story, external joint) south direction.
Fig. 11(a) is the structural plan for the Type 1 building, where only
My Mu∗ Mr∗ θp∗ ∗
θpc θu∗
the frames in the perimeter are designed as seismic frames using field
C1⁎ 592.7 751.8 203.8 0.0152 0.1000 0.0733
welding such as WUF-W connections, and the interior frames are pin-
C2⁎ 834.8 1085.2 263.5 0.0196 0.1000 0.0699
connected and designed to resist only gravity loads. Fig. 11(b) is the
Beam (interior gravity frame) structural plan of the Type 2 building, in which all the frames along
Mslip+ Mslip− Mmax+ Mmax− θslip θmax+ θmax− θdrop+
the east-west direction, including the interior frames, are seismic
frames with column-tree connections. It was assumed that the moment
G2 57.1 27.0 154.7 73.1 0.0042 0.030 0.020 0.040
capacity of the beam splice was equal to or greater than that of the
Panel zone (second floor, external joint) connecting beams.
In column-tree connections, the weak axis of the column members is
My Mp γy γp γult
often designed as the moment resisting connection and uses column-
PZ⁎⁎ 364.8 413.8 0.0027 0.011 0.035 web-beam-flange connections. However, in the US and Europe, it is cus-
Units: Moment (kN-m), Plastic rotation (radians). tomary that only strong axis moment connections are used, and
10 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

Table 8
Modeling parameters for the backbone curves of structural components in the Type 2 building.

Beams

Mslip My Mye θslip θy θp∗ ∗

θpc

G1 174.6 349.3 454.1 0.005 0.015 0.0146 0.0512

G2 377.4 754.8 981.2 0.005 0.015 0.0139 0.0728

Columns (first story, external joint)

My Mu∗ Mr∗ θp∗ ∗

θpc θu∗

C1⁎ 450.1 586.2 153.0 0.0220 0.1000 0.0727

C2⁎ 966.1 1256.0 319.6 0.0285 0.1000 0.0717

Panel zone (second floor, external joint)

My Mp γy γp γult

PZ⁎⁎ 287.5 339.6 0.0027 0.011 0.035

Units: Moment (kN-m), Plastic rotation (radians).

Fig. 13. Rayleigh damping.

resistance to lateral loads in the perpendicular direction is provided by

another type of lateral-load-resisting system, such as steel braces or re-
inforced concrete shear walls. In this study, braced frames were used as
the lateral-load-resisting system along the north-south direction for
both buildings, and this study focused on the structural performance
of the buildings in the strong axis (east-west direction) only. A shear
connection (pin connection) was assumed at the beam-to-column con-
nections along the north-south direction.
It was assumed that the example buildings would be constructed in
Seismic Area 1 in South Korea. Seismic hazard and design parameters
for the example buildings are presented in Table 3. The spectral acceler-
ations were estimated based on the Korean Building Code (KBC) [34]
and expressed in the format of ASCE/SEI 7 [35]. The seismic design pa-
rameters are identical to those of ASCE/SEI 7. Note that the KBC does
not impose a height limit for SIMFs, while ASCE/SEI 7 specifies a height
limit of 35 ft. (10.7 m) for steel intermediate frames located in Seismic
Design Category D.
Fig. 14. Spectra of scaled ground motions.
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871 11

The design earthquake force for the example buildings was calcu-
lated using the equivalent lateral load procedure in accordance with
the KBC [34], which is identical to ASCE/SEI 7 [35]. Design of beam and
column members followed AISC 360 [23] and AISC 341 [12]. Steel grades
of SS400 and SM490 specified in the KBC were used for beam and
column members, respectively. Material properties, including the
factor to convert the nominal yield strength to expected yield
strength, R y , are shown in Table 4. The dead and live loads were
4.35 kN/m2 and 2.50 kN/m2, respectively. The fundamental natural
periods of 1.60 s and 1.08 s for Type 1 and Type 2 buildings, respec-
tively, were obtained from an eigen-analysis using a mass value cor-
responding to 1.0D + 0.25 L.
It was assumed that the floor system of both buildings consisted of
80-mm normal weight concrete on 50-mm ribbed-steel decks. A com-
pressive strength of 21 MPa for the concrete and standard shear plate
connection with four 20-mm-diameter ASTM A325M (yield strength
= 660 MPa) high strength bolts and a 6-mm plate were assumed. For
the Type 1 building, the floor slab was assumed to be fully composite
with beams connected by stud bolts. It was also assumed that the com-
posite effect between the floor slab and steel beam section did not exist
for the Type 2 building because it was difficult to apply the stud bolts
due to beam splices.
Table 5 presents the member sizes for the example buildings. C1 and
G1 denote the columns and beams at the perimeter frames,

Fig. 15. Maximum story drift and plastic rotations of structural elements.
12 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

respectively, and C2 and G2 denote those at the interior frames. Larger
columns and beams were required for the perimeter frames in the
Type 1 building compared with those in the Type 2 building. This is a
natural consequence as the perimeter frames in the Type 1 building
were designed to resist entire earthquake loads. Larger columns were
used for the interior frames of the Type 2 building, as expected. How-
ever, the Type 1 building had larger beam sections in the interior
frame than did the Type 2 building, apparently because pin connections
were used. The weight of the steel sections in the Type 1 building was
8% greater than that in the Type 2 building.
The moment strengths of beams, columns, and panel zones of the
two buildings are compared in Table 6. The strength of each member
was calculated using expected strength, which is the product of nominal
yield strength and Ry from Table 4. The expected strength was also ap-
plied to the nonlinear dynamic analyses presented in the next section.
In the Type 1 building, the moment strength of columns was slightly
larger than beam strength. However, in the Type 2 building, beam
strength was larger those of columns for both interior and perimeter
frames. Panel-to-beam-strength ratios of the two buildings showed
considerable differences. In the Type 1 building, the panel zones in the
first and second stories had to be reinforced with 1.8-mm to 3.3-mm-
thick doubler plates to resist design shear forces. As the panel zones in
the Type 2 building did not require doubler plates, the panel-zone-to-
beam-strength ratios were relatively smaller.

Fig. 16. Comparison of nonlinear behaviors between Types 1 and 2 (LA41, MCE).
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871 13

4.2. Analytical model of example buildings
Two-dimensional models for both buildings were established, and
nonlinear time history analyses were performed. In the analysis
model, a perimeter frame and an interior frame, which are indicated
by boxes with dotted lines in Fig. 11, were built separately and con-
nected by axially rigid but pin-connected members, as shown in
Fig. 12. The rectangular boxes at the beam-column joint regions in
Fig. 12 represent the panel zone elements. The BTC joint model used
to model the sub-assemblage specimens in Section 3.1 was applied in
the analysis models of example buildings. The trilinear shear force–
shear deformation relationship shown in Fig. 4 was used for the panel
zone elements.
Modeling parameters of backbone curves for sample structural com-
ponents of Type 1 and Type 2 buildings are presented in Tables 7 and 8,
respectively. The parameters were determined as described in
Section 3.1. The interior frame of the Type 1 building is a composite
gravity frame composed of concrete and a metal deck over steel
beams with shear connection to columns. The parameters for the G2
member in Table 7 include those that account for the composite action
with a concrete slab and slip behavior at the shear tab beam–column
connection, according to Liu and Astaneh-Asl [36,37] and NIST [17]. In
the table, Mmax+ and Mmax− indicate the moment capacity of a compos-
ite beam in positive and negative directions, respectively. Mslip+ and
Mslip− are the moments at slip considering the plastic distribution of
bolt friction forces. θslip, θmax+, θmax−, and θdrop+ are the rotations of

Fig. 17. Comparison of nonlinear behaviors between Type 1 and 2 buildings (LA41, 0.9 g).
14 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871

the beam corresponding to Mslip−, Mmax+, Mmax−, and Mdrop,
respectively.
As mentioned previously, the stiffness and strength degradation of
beam and column members was not explicitly implemented in the anal-
ysis model. Instead, the first cycle envelope and gradual strength drop
after peak moment (Fig. 5) was used, and a post-analysis limit states
check was performed. Slight stiffness degradation was included in the
panel zone model to match the observed hysteretic shape.
The fundamental periods of the Type 1 and Type 2 buildings were
1.60 s and 1.08 s, respectively. Rayleigh damping was used to account
for inherent damping of the structures. The choice of Rayleigh damping
was unavoidable as OpenSees does not support modal damping, which
is recommended by NIST. In this study, by referring to NIST [38] and pre-
vious literature (Cruz and Miranda [39], Charney [40]), coefficients of
Rayleigh damping were carefully adjusted to ensure that the damping
forces at the natural modes considering inelastic period lengthening
did not increase excessively. A damping ratio of 2% was assigned to the
first and third modes of the structure in the linear range. Fig. 13 shows
the damping ratios of the Type 2 building as an example. The damping
ratio at 3.0 s which is the approximate maximum inelastic period esti-
mated from nonlinear time history analysis results did not exceed 5.0%.
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed for three ground mo-
tions. The three ground motions, LA 41, LA 44, and LA 55, presented
by Somerville et al. [41] are shown in Fig. 14.

Fig. 18. Comparison of nonlinear behaviors for no-slip vs. splice slip (Type 1, LA41, MCE).
 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871 15

4.3. Incremental nonlinear dynamic analyses Table 9

Maximum and residual drift from MCE-level analysis (%).

To investigate and compare the nonlinear behavior of structural EQ. Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 (with
components before collapse, incremental nonlinear dynamic analyses column-tree
(IDA) using the three ground motions mentioned above were per- connections)

formed. Fig. 15 compares the maximum story drift and the maximum 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
rotations of the beam, panel zone, and column of both buildings with story story story story story story story story story
the increase of ground motion intensity. The ordinate of the figures, Maximum EQ41 2.05 1.76 1.36 1.48 1.45 1.12 1.69 1.62 1.28
Sa, indicates the spectral acceleration of ground motions corresponding EQ44 3.14 2.94 1.95 1.62 1.47 0.79 3.27 3.08 2.18
to the fundamental period of each building. Unlike the beam and col- EQ55 2.70 2.64 2.05 1.35 1.30 0.89 2.12 2.31 1.94
Residual EQ41 0.31 0.19 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.14
umn elements, strength decrease was not explicitly modeled in the EQ44 0.50 0.46 0.33 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.66 0.64 0.67
panel zone elements. Thus, a post-analysis limit state checks for panel EQ55 0.51 0.49 0.37 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.31 0.24 0.26
zone element was conducted. The dotted vertical lines in the graphs in-
dicate the ultimate shear deformation of the panel zone, γult, which was
determined to be 13γy. In all cases, the panel zone reached the limit de- 5. Conclusions
formation before the beam reached the ultimate deformation. In each
case of ground motion, the seismic intensity reaching the limit deforma- Column-tree connections are commonly used in steel moment-
tion of panel zones in both buildings was similar. Thus, it can be con- resisting frame buildings in East Asian countries because they can re-
cluded that the structural performances of both buildings were almost duce labor costs and construction time. The distinct characteristic of
identical. column-tree connections compared with welded beam-column con-
However, distributions of nonlinear behavior between the structural nections is occurrence of splice slip between the stub beams and the
components differ, as expected. In the Type 1 building, deformation of mid-portion of the beam. In this study, a macro analytical model that ac-
the panel zone was larger than those of the beam and column. However, counts for the slip behavior of the column-tree connection was devel-
the contributions from the panel zone and beam in the Type 2 building oped and examined. A comparison between the analysis and test
were similar, as in the test results in CTD01~03. results indicated that a macro model based on the lumped plasticity as-
The hysteretic behaviors at MCE level and the spectral acceleration sumption can simulate the overall behavior observed in test results rea-
of 0.9 g are selected from the results of IDA and compared in detail. Re- sonably well.
ferring to Fig. 14, the spectral accelerations of 0.3 g and 0.4 g correspond Subsequent to modeling sub-assemblage tests, two steel intermedi-
approximately to MCE-level of Type 1 and Type 2 buildings, respec- ate moment frames that use WUF-W connections (Type 1 building) and
tively. Fig. 16 compares the analysis results of Type 1 and Type 2 build- column-tree type connections (Type 2 building) were designed, and
ings for LA41 ground motion at the MCE level. The comparison includes their responses were compared in nonlinear dynamic analyses. Another
the moment versus plastic deformation of panel zones and beams at ex- difference between the two example buildings was the configuration of
terior and interior joints, column base, and base shear versus story drift. a lateral load resisting system. In the Type 2 building, all interior and pe-
Similarly, Fig. 17 compares the behavior for LA41 ground motion at 0.9 rimeter frames were designed to resist an earthquake load. In the Type 1
g, which is 3.0 and 2.25 times the MCE level for Type 1 and Type 2 build- building, only the frames in the perimeter resist earthquake loads, while
ings, respectively. the interior frame was designed to resist gravity loads only.
From comparison of Type 1 and Type 2 buildings in Figs. 16 and Nonlinear dynamic analysis results of examples buildings indicated
17, similar comments can be made. In the case of the Type 1 building, that a splice slip at the column-tree connections has a positive effect
plastic deformation was concentrated in the panel zone. Especially at by relieving deformation demands of other components of the frame
the interior joint, large deformations occurred in the panel zone, but (panel zone and column). Panel-zone deformations in the Type 2 build-
the beam remained elastic. The panel zone and beam share an inelas- ing were lower despite the lower panel-to-beam-strength ratios. In
tic deformation in the Type 2 building. Deformation of the panel zone terms of story drift and inelastic deformation, structural performance
in the Type 2 building was smaller, even though the panel-zone-to- of the Type 2 building was almost identical to that of the Type 1 build-
beam-strength ratio of the Type 2 building was lower than that of ings. In conclusion, column-tree type construction is a viable method
Type 1 building. Early yielding (or slip) of the beam splice before for constructing steel intermediate moment frame buildings in areas
yielding of the panel zone provides an opportunity for inelastic of low-to-moderate seismicity.
deformation in the Type 2 building and relief of shear demand of
the panel zone.
The role of column-tree connections in relieving the deformation de- Declaration of Competing Interest
mands of other components can be seen in Fig. 18, in which column-tree
connections were applied to Type 1 building while the configuration of None.
the lateral load resistance system and the member dimensions (accord-
ingly the natural periods) were unchanged. The maximum story drifts References
were similar, but inelastic deformation was distributed in the model
[1] C.C. Chen, C.C. Lin, C.H. Lin, Ductile moment connections used in steel column-tree
with splice slip. Especially, the inelastic deformation of base column moment-resisting frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (8) (2006) 793–801.
was restrained due to inelastic deformation of beams and panel zones [2] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Recommended evaluation and upgrade
in the splice slip model. criteria for existing welded steel moment frame buildings, Report No. FEMA 351
2000.
Table 9 compares the maximum and residual interstory drifts ob- [3] A. Astaneh-Asl, Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames,
tained from the MCE-level analysis. Residual drift is one of damage mea- Structural Steel Educational Council 1997.
sures in earthquake engineering and affects repair costs of damaged [4] K.M. McMullin, A. Astaneh-Asl, Steel semirigid column-tree moment resisting frame
seismic behavior, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (9) (2003) 1243–1249.
buildings. As in the table, both the maximum and residual drift values [5] C.H. Lee, J.W. Park, Cyclic seismic testing of full-scale column-tree type steel mo-
are lower than typical drift value of 5%, which is specified in FEMA ment connections, Korean Soc. Steel Constr. 10 (4) (1998) 629–639.
356 [42] for steel moment frames, and do not differ much with type of [6] S.P. Schneider, I. Teeraparbwong, Inelastic behavior of bolted flange plate connec-
tions, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4) (2002) 492–500.
structures or earthquake ground motion. Considering the results pre-
[7] R. Li, Seismic Performance of Column-Tree Steel Moment Connections, Thesis for the
sented so far, application of column-tree connections is a feasible option Degree of Master Department of Architectural Engineering, Chungnam National
for SIMF buildings constructed in areas of low-to-moderate seismicity. University, Republic of Korea, 2013.
16 T. Kim, E. Yu / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020) 105871
[8] K. Lee, R. Li, L. Chen, K. Oh, K.S. Kim, Cyclic testing of column-tree moment connec-
tions with various beam splice lengths, Steel Compos. Struct. 16 (2) (2014)
221–231.
[9] K. Oh, R. Li, L. Chen, S.B. Hong, K. Lee, Cyclic testing of steel column-tree
moment connections with weakened beam splices, Int. J. Steel Struct. 14 (3)
(2014) 471–478.
[10] K. Oh, K. Lee, L. Chen, S.B. Hong, Y. Yang, Seismic performance evaluation of weak
axis column-tree moment connections with reduced beam section, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 105 (2015) 28–38.
[11] K. Oh, J. So, H. Ha, K. Lee, Seismic performance evaluation of Korean column-tree
moment connections, Int. J. Steel Struct. 16 (4) (2016) 1287–1298.
[12] ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for structural Steel Buildings, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2010.
[13] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Recommended seismic design criteria for
new steel moment-frame buildings, Report no. FEMA-350 2000.
[14] ANSI/AISC 358, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment
Frames for Seismic Applications, American Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chi-
cago, 2010.
[15] Federal Emergency Management Agency, State of the art report on connection per-
formance. FEMA 355d, Washington DC, 2000.
[16] OpenSees- open system for earthquake engineering simulation. http://opensees.
berkeley.edu.
[17] NIST, Guidelines for nonlinear structural analysis for design of buildings, part IIa –
steel moment frames, NIST GCR 17-917-46v2, prepared by the Applied Technology
Council for the National Institute of Technology and Standards, Gaithersburg, MD,
2017 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.17-917-46v2.
[18] A. Gupta, H. Krawinkler, Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel struc-
tures, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (1) (2000) 145–154.
[19] A. Altoontash, Simulation and Damage Models for Performance Assessment of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Ph.D. dissertation Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, 2004.
[20] D.J. Fielding, J.S. Huang, Shear in steel beam-to-column connections, Weld. J. AWS 50
(7) (1971) 313–326Research Supplement.
[21] H. Krawinkler, Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames, Eng. J.
AISC 15 (3) (1978) 82–91.
[22] S.J. Wang, Seismic Response of Steel building Frames with Inelastic Joint Deforma-
tion, PhD Thesis Department of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,
PA, 1988.
[23] ANSI/AISC 360, Specification for structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2016.
[24] H. Krawinkler, V.V. Bertero, E.P. Popov, Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-Column
Subassemblages, Report No. EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1971.
[25] V.V. Bertero, H. Krawinkler, E.P. Popov, Further Studies on Seismic Behavior of Steel
Beam-Column Sub-Assemblages, Report No. EERC-73/27, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1973.
[26] D. Lee, S.C. Cotton, R.J. Dexter, J.F. Hajjar, Y. Ye, S.D. Ojard, Column stiffener detailing
and panel zone behavior of steel moment frame connections, Structural Engineering
Report No. ST-01-3.2, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota,
2002.
[27] ASCE/SEI, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (41–13)2013.
[28] D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Deterioration modeling of steel components in support
of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, J. Struct.
Eng. 137 (11) (2011) 1291–1302.
[29] A.R. Hartloper, Updates to the ASCE-41-13 Nonlinear Modeling Provisions for Per-
formance-Based Seismic Assessment of New and Existing Steel Moment Resisting
Frames, M.Eng., Thesis McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2016.
[30] PEER/ATC, Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of
tall buildings, PEER/ATC 72-1, prepared by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center (PEER) and Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA,
2010.
[31] NIST, Recommended modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for nonlinear
analysis in support of seismic evaluation, retrofit, and design, NIST GCR 17-917-
45, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the National Institute of Tech-
nology and Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 2017 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.
17-917-45.
[32] S.W. Han, G.U. Kwon, K.H. Moon, Cyclic behaviour of post-Northridge WUF-B con-
nections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (2007) 365–374.
[33] L.F. Ibarra, R.A. Medina, H. Krawinkler, Hysteretic models that incorporate
strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (12) (2005)
1489–1511.
[34] KBC, Korean Building Code-Structural, Architectural Institute of Korea, Seoul, South
Korea, 2016.
[35] ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2016.
[36] J. Liu, A. Astaneh-Asl, Cyclic testing of simple connections, including effects of the
slab, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (1) (2000) 32–39.
[37] J. Liu, A. Astaneh-Asl, Moment-rotation parameters for composite shear tab connec-
tions, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (9) (2004) 1371–1380.
[38] NIST, Guidelines for nonlinear structural analysis for design of buildings, part I –
General, NIST GCR 17-917-46v1, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for
the National Institute of Technology and Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 2017
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.17-917-46v1.
[39] C. Cruz, E. Miranda, Evaluation of the Rayleigh damping model for buildings, Eng.
Struct. 138 (2017) 324–336.
[40] F.A. Charney, Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures, J. Struct.
Eng. 134 (4) (2008) 581–592.
[41] P. Somerville, N. Smith, S. Puntamurthual, J. Sun, Development of ground motion
time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project, Background document, Re-
port No. SAC/BD-97/04 1997.
[42] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA, Prestandard and Commentary for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA, 2000 356.