Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
The Northridge earthquake of January 1994 was the cause of an intense research
program into the behavior of moment connections. Another type of connection, which
is equally important for building lateral support, is the bracing connection. Compared
to the moment connection, there has not been very much research done for this
connection, but there is available some guidance for the design of these connections.
The admissible force distribution for this method is shown in Figures 3 and 4. The
force distribution is called admissible in the sense of the lower bound theorem of limit
analysis because it satisfies equilibrium for the free body diagrams shown in Figures 3
and 4, i.e., the gusset in Figure 3 and the beam and column and Figure 4, with absolutely
no additional forces required anywhere.
Research shows that the force resultants on the gusset edges fall within the regions
shown cross-hatched in Figure 5. Each cross-hatched region on Figure 5 contains the
resultants for six cases in which the connections of the gusset to the beam and columns
were varied from bolted to welded. It can be observed from Figures 3, 4, and 5, that the
UFM captures analytically the experimental behavior shown in Figure 5. While the
UFM is probably the most versatile method, there are several other methods in common
use. These are the Parallel Force Method, Figure 6, the Truss Analogy Method, Figure
7, and the KISS Method, Figure 8. These methods will yield safe but more conservative
(more expensive) designs than the UFM.
Seismic Requirements
For buildings in Seismic Design Category D, the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC, 1997) has special requirements for the design of bracing
connections. The seismic category depends on the seismic zone or ground acceleration
and the importance factor for the building. It can be determined from the local
controlling building code.
There are two kinds of concentrically braced frames for seismic designspecial and
ordinary concentrically braced frames. There are many differences in the design
requirements for these two types of frames, but the requirements for the connections are
the same except as follows: For special frames, the required strength, i.e., design load,
of the bracing connection is the lesser of the following: a) the nominal axial tensile
wat58c.doc/Seismic Design
Page 2
Tensile Strength: The limit states of tensile rupture on the effective net
section and block shear rupture strength must at least equal the required strength, i.e., P
as determined above. If P = RyFyAg, and the brace is bolted to the gusset, this
requirement will necessitate the use of developed fillers or extra plates welded to the
brace section to increase its net or block shear strength above its gross tensile strength.
2.
Flexural Strength: In the direction that analysis indicates the brace will
buckle, the design flexural strength of the connection must equal or exceed the expected
nominal flexural strength 1.1RyMp of the brace about the critical buckling axis. Figure
13 shows what is required when the brace is a wide flange with flange to view in
elevation. This type of brace will usually buckle in the plane of the bracing. The
moment M = 1.1RyMpy must be accommodated in the brace to gusset, gusset to beam,
gusset to column, and beam to column connections. This moment need not be
wat58c.doc/Seismic Design
Page 3
considered simultaneously with the axial force, according to Tremblay (2001), because
of the small post buckling compressive strength of the brace. When the brace is a wide
flange web to view in elevation, it will likely buckle out of the plane of bracing. In
this case, either the gusset and all parts of the connection are designed for M =
1.1RyMpy, or the gusset is detailed to prevent this moment from developing as shown in
Figure 14. As shown in Figure 14, a yield line is allowed to form in the gusset by
keeping the brace to gusset connection at least 2t from a line about which the gusset may
bend unrestrained by the beam or column. When this option is used, the connection
shall have a buckling strength at least equal to the nominal compressive strength of the
brace. Figure 15 shows another interpretation of this yield line requirement.
3.
The design of gusset plates shall consider buckling. This is not a new
requirement (see Whitmore buckling in Figure 10), but because of cyclic loading and
with the critical Whitmore section being at the yield line in Figure 14, Astaneh (1998)
recommends using an effective length factor K = 1.2 rather than the usual value of 0.5 as
recommended by AISC (1994), which was established in static tests by Gross (1990).
Cheng (1999) shows that the K factor of 0.5, when used with the Whitmore section, is
conservative, even for the cyclic loads of seismic design.
Summary
This article points out the requirements for bracing connections in seismic regions.
These requirements are generally intended to increase the ductile response of bracing
connections by making the ductile limit states the controlling limit states by reducing the
likelihood of the brittle fracture limit states controlling the design.
References
1.
wat58c.doc/Seismic Design
Page 4
2.
3.
Astaneh-Asl, H., 1998, Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates, Steel
4.
Astaneh-Asl, H., 1989, Simple Methods for Design of Steel Gusset Plates,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
wat58c.doc/Seismic Design
Page 5
wat58c.doc/Seismic Design
Page 6