International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 133–144 | Cite as

Parameters affecting response and design of Steel Moment Frame Reduced Beam Section connections: An overview

Article
First Online:

Abstract

The most crucial parameters that affect the response as well as the design of Steel Moment Frame (SMF) Reduced Beam Section (RBS) connections are discussed. After a brief historical background concerning the development of RBS connections, according to the reviewed literature these highly interdependent parameters are: (a) connection strength, (b) RBS profiles/sizing and location, (c) stiffness of beam, moment frame and connection, (d) use of deep columns and associated instability phenomena, (e) existence of composite floor slabs/lateral bracing, (f) strength and ductility of the column panel zone-beam instability, (g) connection type and (h) column axis orientation. Their effect on the design and the seismic performance of RBS connections is presented and recommendations, for future research required, in order to fully implement and refine the RBS concept in European Standards and Practices, are given.

Keywords

steel moment frames RBS connections ductility seismic response design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANSI/AISC 358-05 (2005). Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Bartley, T. C. and Chambers, J. J. (2008). “State-of-the-art analysis of frames with reduced beam section connections.” Proc. Structures 2008: Crossing Borders, ASCE, Canada, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. Bertero, V. V., Krawinkler, H., and Popov, E. P. (1973). “Further studies on seismic behavior of steel beam-tocolumn subassemblages.” Report UCB/EERC-73-27, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  4. CISC/ICCA (2008). Moment Connections for Seismic Applications. Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Markham, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, C. J. and Iwankiw, N. R. (1998). “Improved ductility in seismic steel moment frames with dogbone connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 46(1–3), pp. 253.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, J. J., Almudhafar, S., and Stenger, F. (2003). “Effect of reduced beam section frame elements on stiffness of moment frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(3), pp. 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, S. L. and Chui, P. P. T. (2000). Non-Linear Static and Cyclic Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections. Elsevier Science Ltd., Kidlington, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, S. J., Yeh, C. H., and Chu, J. M. (1996). “Ductile steel beam-to-column connections for seismic resistance.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 122(11), pp. 1292–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, S. J. (1998). “Effects of floor slabs on the seismic behavior of steel beam-to-column connections with reduced beam section.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 46(1–3), pp. 218.Google Scholar
  10. Chen S. J. and Chao, Y. C. (2001). “Effect of composite action on seismic performance of steel moment connections with reduced beam sections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 57(4), pp. 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, S. J. and Tu, C. T. (2004). “Experimental study of jumbo size reduced beam section connections using highstrength steel.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(4), pp. 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, B. and Uang, C. M. (2002). “Cyclic response and design recommendations of reduced beam section moment connections with deep columns.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(4), pp. 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumonteil, P. (2006). “In-Plane Properties and Modeling of Reduced Beam Sections.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 43(2), pp. 103–109.Google Scholar
  14. Engelhardt, M. D. and Husain, A. S. (1993). “Cyclic-loading performance of welded flange-bolted web connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(12), pp. 3537–3550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engelhardt, M. D., Winnerberger, T., Zekany, A. I., and Potyraj, T. J. (1996). “The dogbone connection: Part II.” Modern Steel Construction, AISC, 36(8), pp. 46–55.Google Scholar
  16. Engelhardt, M. D., Winnerberger, T., Zekany, A. I., and Potyraj, T. J. (1998). “Experimental investigation of dogbone moment connections.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 4 th Quarter, pp. 128–139.Google Scholar
  17. EN 1993-1-8 (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures-Part 1.8, Design of joints. European Committee for Standardizations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. Gilton, C. S. and Uang, C. M. (2002). “Cyclic response and design recommendations of weak-axis reduced beam section moment connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(4), pp. 452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FEMA 350 (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. FEMA 355D (2000). State of the Art Report on Connection Performance. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Grubbs, K. V. (1997). The Effect of the Dogebone Connection on the Elastic Stiffness of Steel Moment Frames. MSc Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  22. Han, S. W., Moon, K. H., and Stojadinovic, B. (2009). “Design equations for moment strength of RBS-B connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(5), pp. 1087–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedayat, A. A. and Celikag, M. (2009). “Post-Northridge connection with modified beam end configuration to enhance strength and ductility.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(7), pp. 1413–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iwankiw, R. N. and Carter, C. J. (1996). “The Dogbone: A new idea to chew on.” Modern Steel Construction, AISC, 36(4), pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
  25. Iwankiw, R. N. (1997). “Ultimate strength considerations for seismic design of the reduced beam section (internal plastic hinge).” Engineering Journal, AISC, 34(1), pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  26. Iwankiw, N. and Mohamadi, J. (2004). “Elastic In-Plane Stiffness for a Circular Cut Reduced Beam Section.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 41(1), pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
  27. Iwankiw, N. and Zoruba, S. (2002). “Steel moment frames: resolution of recent seismic detailing and material shape issues.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58(5–8), pp. 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iwankiw, N. (2004). “Seismic design enhancements and the reduced beam section detail for steel moment frames.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 9(2), pp. 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jin, J. and El-Tawil, S. (2005). “Seismic performance of steel frames with reduced beam section connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 61(4), pp. 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, S. L., Fry, G. T., and Engelhardt, M. D. (2002). “Experimental evaluation of cyclically loaded reduced beam section moment connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(4), pp. 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, K. D. and Engelhardt, M. D. (2007). “Nonprismatic beam element for beams with RBS connections in steel moment frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 133(2), pp. 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kitjasateanphun, T., Shen, J., Srivanich, W., and Hao, H. (2001). “Inelastic analysis of steel frames with reduced beam sections.” The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 10(4), pp. 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, C. H., Jeon, S. W., Kim, J. H., and Uang, C. M. (2005). “Effects of panel zone strength and beam web connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel moment connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(12), pp. 1854–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, C. H. and Kim, J. H. (2007). “Seismic design of reduced beam section steel moment connections with bolted web attachment.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(4), pp. 522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mirgharderi, S. R., Torabian, S., and Imanpour, A. (2010). “Seismic performance of the Accordion-Web RBS Connection.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66(2), pp. 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, K. S., Malley, J. O., and Engelhardt, M. D. (1999). “Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS) Moment Frame Connections.” Steel TIPS, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Mortensen, B., Chambers, J., and Bartley, T. (2008). “Reduced Beam Section Spring Constants.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 45(2), pp. 107–116.Google Scholar
  38. Moslehi Tabar, A. and Deylami, A. (2005). “Instability of beams with reduced beam section moment connections emphasizing the effect of column panel zone ductility.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 61(11), pp. 1475–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pahoumis, D. T., Galoussis, E. G., Kalfas, C. N., and Christitsas, A. D. (2009). “Reduced beam section moment connections subjected to cyclic loading: Experimental analysis and FEM simulation.” Engineering Structures, 21(1), pp. 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plumier, A. (1990). “New Idea for Safe Structures in Seismic Zones.” Proc. IABSE Symposium-Mixed Structures Including New Materials, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 431–436.Google Scholar
  41. Plumier, A. (1997). “The Dogbone: Back to the Future.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 2nd Quarter, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
  42. Popov, E. P., Bertero, V. V., and Chandramouli, S. (1975). “Hysteretic Behavior of steel beam-to-column subassemblages.” Report UCB/EECR-75-11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Ricles, J. M., Zhang, X., Fisher, J. W., and Lu, L. W. (2004). “Seismic performance of deep column-to-beam welded reduced beam section moment connections.” Proc. 5 th International Workshop Connections in Steel Structures V: Behaviour, Strength and Design, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 211–222.Google Scholar
  44. Shen, J., Kitjasateanphun, T., and Srivanich, W. (2000). “Seismic performance of steel moment frames with reduced beam sections.” Engineering Structures, 22(8), pp. 968–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shen, J., Astaneh-Asl, A., and McCallen, D. B. (2002). “Use of deep columns in special steel moment frames.” Steel Tips, Structural Steel Education Council, American Institute for Steel Construction, Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Tremblay, R., Tchebotarev, N., and Filiatrault, A. (1997). “Seismic Performance of RBS Connections for Steel Moment Resisting Frames: Influence of Loading Rate and Floor Slab.” Proc. Stessa 97, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 664–671.Google Scholar
  47. Uang, C. M. and Chi, B. (2000). “Cyclic response and design recommendations of RBS moment connections with deep columns.” Proc. 4 th International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures (Connections IV), Raonake, VA, USA, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar
  48. Uang, C. M. and Fan, C. C. (2001). “Cyclic stability criteria for steel moment connections with reduced beam sections.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127(9), pp. 1021–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, X. and Ricles, J. M. (2006a). “Experimental evaluation of reduced beam section connections to deep columns.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(3), pp. 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, X. and Ricles, J. M. (2006b). “Seismic behavior of reduced beam section moment connections to deep columns.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(3), pp. 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations