COLUMN STIFFENER DETAILING FOR
NON-SEISMIC AND SEISMIC DESIGN
Jerome F. Hajjar is an
Associate Professor in
the Department of Civil
Engineering at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota.
He is on the AISC
Specification Task Com-
mittees on Composite
Construction, Stability,
and Loads, Analysis,
and Systems; he is
leading the editing of the
2005 AISC Commen-
tary; he is on the Building Seismic Safety Council
Provisions Update Committee; and he is the current chair
of the ASCE Technical Administrative Committee on
Metals. He was awarded the 2000 Norman Medal and
the 2003 Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research
Prize from ASCE, and is a registered professional
engineer.
Robert J. Dexter is an
Associate Professor in
the Department of Civil
Engineering at the
University of Minnesota.
He is on the AISC
Specification Task Com-
mittees on Connections
and Materials and the
AISC Technical Ac-
tivities Committee. He
previously worked at
South-west Research
Institute and Lehigh University. In addition to AISC, he
is a member of ASCE, RCSC, and AREMA. He is a
registered professional engineer in several states.
Daeyong Lee is a
Researcher at the Re-
search Institute of Indus-
trial Science and Tech-
nology (RIST) in South
Korea. Prior to joining
RIST in 2003, he was a
Post-Doctoral Associate
at the University of
Minnesota and a Post-
Doctoral Research Fellow
at the University of
Michigan. He is a member of the Research Council
on Structural Connections (RCSC), the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), and the
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES) Consortium, Inc.
ABSTRACT
New alternatives are presented for detailing column
stiffeners in steel moment resisting girder-to-column
connections that avoid welding in the k-area. These
details were evaluated using monotonically-loaded
pull-plate experiments, cyclically-loaded cruciform
girder-to-column connection experiments, and three-
dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis. The
results confirm that existing AISC design equations
for local flange bending (LFB) and local web
yielding (LWY) are reasonable and conservative for
non-seismic design applications and may be
considered for seismic design applications.
However, improved design provisions for LFB and
LWY are presented that correlate better with test data
from this research and the literature. Revisions are
also recommended for panel zone design provisions.
The results also indicate that the welded unreinforced
flange-welded web (WUF-W) prequalified moment
connection can perform well under cyclic loading
provided that the weld metal used in the connection
has a minimum notch-toughness; that unstiffened
columns perform well in the connection region, both
for monotonic and cyclic loading, if the column
section is sufficiently large; and that the alternative
fillet-welded continuity plate and doubler plate
details explored in this research all performed well.
1
 COLUMN STIFFENER DETAILING FOR
NON-SEISMIC AND SEISMIC DESIGN
INTRODUCTION

The 1994 Northridge, California earthquake resulted in the fracture of complete joint penetration (CJP) welds
connecting girder flanges to column flanges in steel moment-resisting connections in a number of steel frame
structures ranging from one to twenty-six stories in height (FEMA, 2000a). These welds fractured due to a
combination of reasons, including the weld metal having low fracture toughness combined with the presence of a
notch from a backing bar and weld defects; the pre-Northridge connection geometry making the CJP welds more
susceptible to high strain and stress conditions; and welding practices that resulted in inconsistent weld properties
(FEMA, 2000a). As a result of these fractures, in the subsequent years there has been a tendency to be more
conservative than necessary in the design and detailing of steel moment-resisting connections both in seismic and
non-seismic zones within the United States. In particular, continuity plates and web doubler plates have often been
specified when they are unnecessary and, when they are necessary, thicker plates have been specified than would be
required according to the applicable specifications. In addition, the welds of the continuity plates to the column
flanges have often been specified as being complete joint penetration welds, even though the use of more
economical fillet welds may have sufficed.

The design criteria for the limit states applicable to continuity plate and doubler plate design for non-seismic
conditions are provided in Section K1 of Chapter K of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 1999a). There are
additional, more stringent provisions in the requirements for Special Moment Frames (SMF) in the AISC Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (1992). However, the 1997 and 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC,
1997a, 1999b, 2001a, 2002) removed all design procedures related to continuity plates, requiring instead that they be
proportioned to match those provided in the tests used to qualify the connection.

As part of the SAC Joint Venture research program, preliminary post-Northridge seismic design guidelines and two
advisories were published (FEMA, 1995; FEMA, 1996; FEMA 1999) that pertained to these column reinforcements
in seismic zones. For example, the guidelines called for continuity plates at least as thick as the girder flange that
must be joined to the column flange in a way that fully develops the strength of the continuity plate, i.e., this
encouraged the use of CJP welds. However, more recent seismic guidelines (FEMA, 2000a) have reestablished
design equations to determine whether continuity plates are required and, if so, what thickness is required.

Recent research has revealed that excessively thick continuity plates are unnecessary. El-Tawil et al. (1999)
performed parametric finite element analyses of girder-to-column joints. They found that continuity plates are
increasingly effective as the thickness increases to approximately 60% of the girder flange. However, continuity
plates more than 60% of the girder flange thickness brought diminishing returns.

Furthermore, over-specification of column reinforcement may actually be detrimental to the performance of

connections. As continuity plates were made thicker and attached with highly restrained CJP welds, they sometimes
contributed to cracking during fabrication (Tide, 2000). Yee et al. (1998) performed finite element analyses
comparing fillet-welded and CJP-welded continuity plates including heat input of the weld passes. Based on
principal stresses extracted at the weld terminations, it was concluded that fillet-welded continuity plates may be less
susceptible to cracking during fabrication than if CJP welds are used.

The objectives of the research summarized in this paper are to reassess the design provisions for column stiffening,
including both continuity and doubler plate detailing, for non-seismic and seismic design conditions, and to
investigate new alternative column stiffener details. The project includes three components: monotonically-loaded
pull-plate experiments to investigate the need for and behavior of continuity plates (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et
al., 2003), cyclically-loaded cruciform girder-to-column joint experiments to investigate panel zone behavior and
local flange bending (Lee et al., 2002, 2004), and parametric finite element analyses (FEA) to corroborate the
experiments and assess the performance of various continuity plate and doubler plate details (Ye et al., 2000).

2
Throughout the project, new doubler plate and continuity plate details were investigated to explore economical
detailing and minimize welding along the column k-line region, as per the recommendations of the AISC advisory
for the k-line region (AISC, 1997b). New column stiffener details that were investigated included: continuity plates
that were half the thickness of girder flange and that were fillet-welded to the column; doubler plates that were fillet-
welded to the column flanges; and doubler plates that were offset from the column flanges by several inches to serve
as both doubler and continuity plates. In addition, several unstiffened column specimens were analyzed and tested
to verify where stiffeners are not required in steel connection design.

BACKGROUND

The present AISC (1999a) non-seismic provisions that govern the design of continuity plates are based on three limit
states: local web yielding (LWY), local flange bending (LFB), and local web crippling (LWC). Local web
crippling is not discussed in this paper, as it rarely controls continuity plate design for typical W14 column sections
(Dexter et al., 1999; Prochnow et al., 2000). A provision to restrict LWY of column sections was first defined in the
1937 AISC Manual (AISC, 1937). The provision remained the same until after the research of Sherbourne and
Jensen (1957) and Graham et al. (1960), which was focused on investigating column web and flange behavior in
moment-resisting frame connections and updating design specifications related to stiffener connection design. The
outcome of the research generated guidelines for the use and sizing of continuity plates, which were first used in
various forms in the AISC Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Specifications (e.g., AISC, 1989). This equation, as
shown below, is still used in the current AISC LRFD non-seismic provisions for the limit state of local web yielding
(AISC, 1999a):

Ru < φ R n = φ (5k + N ) Fyc tcw for interior conditions (1)

Ru < φ R n = φ (2.5k + N ) Fyc tcw for end conditions (2)
where:
φ = 1.0
Ru = required strength
Rn = nominal strength
k = distance from outer face of flange to web toe of fillet
N = length of bearing surface (typically taken as the thickness of the girder flange)
Fyc = minimum specified yield strength of the column
tcw = thickness of column web

The current non-seismic design equation for LFB is also based on the research work of Graham et al. (1960), in
conjunction with limit load and buckling analyses of Parkes (1952) and Wood (1955). The equation is a result of
using plastic yield line analysis to fit the experimental results regarding local flange bending of the tests and lower
bound approximations of dimensions of common girder and column combinations of the time. A modified form of
the LFB equation from Graham et al. (1960) is currently used in the LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999a). The design
strength of the column flange for the local flange bending limit state is given as:
2
φ Rn = φ 6.25tcf Fyc (3)
where:
φ = 0.9
tcf = thickness of the column flange

The AISC (1999a) provisions corresponding to Equations (1) through (3) require that the design strength of the
column flanges and webs for these limit states exceed the concentrated transverse force applied by the girder flange
across the column flange. The design of continuity plates should also conform to Section K1-9 of AISC (1999a).

Since the research of Graham et al. (1960), several researchers have examined the behavior of moment-resisting
connections with and without continuity plates, and have recommended various methods of sizing continuity plates.
Hajjar et al. (2003) provide a summary of significant past conclusions from researchers regarding continuity plate
design.

3
The demands, Ru, for the above two limit states (i.e., LFB and LWY) are based on the forces delivered to the column
flanges in the connection. Several possibilities exist for the calculation of these demands, including (but not limited
to):

Ru = Fyg Agf (4)

Ru = 1.8 Fyg Agf (5)

1.1R yg Fyg Z g + Vg a
Ru = (6)
0.95d g

Ru = 1.1R yg Fyg Agf (7)

where:
Fyg = specified minimum yield stress of the girder
Agf = area of one girder flange
Ryg = ratio of expected yield strength of girder to specified minimum value
Zg = girder plastic section modulus
Vg = shear force in girder at plastic hinge location
a = distance from column face to girder plastic hinge location
dg = girder depth

Equation (4) is typically used for non-seismic design, representing the nominal yield strength of one girder flange.
Equation (5) was included in the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992). The 1.8 factor includes a strain-
hardening factor of 1.3 to account for the probability of having strength much greater than the minimum specified
value and for the increase in strength after significant yielding, and another factor of 1.4 (1.4*1.3 ≈ 1.8) that is
related to the assumption that the full plastic capacity of the girder is carried by a force couple of the flanges only.
This factor of 1.4 is the approximate upper bound ratio of the girder plastic section modulus, Zg, to the flange section
modulus, Zgf (Bruneau et al., 1998). Although the stress state in the girder flange is not uniaxial, the girder flange
demand predicted by Equation (5) can be put in perspective by comparing to the maximum possible uniaxial tensile
strength of A992 steel. Equation (5) predicts stresses in the flange of 90 ksi for Fyg of 50 ksi, well above the likely
tensile strength of A992 steel. For example, a survey of more than 20,000 mill reports from (Dexter, 2000; Dexter
et al., 2001; Bartlett et al., 2003) showed that A992 steel has a mean tensile strength of 73 ksi. The 97.5 percentile
tensile strength was 80 ksi, and the maximum value reported was 88 ksi.

Equation (6) is included in AISC Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c). This equation, or slightly modified forms of
it, has been widely used for the design of column stiffeners in steel moment connections (FEMA, 2000a). Equation
(7) was presented by Prochnow et al. (2000) to provide a more realistic representation of the girder flange force in
steel moment connections, mostly for use in assessment of the pull-plate experiments (Hajjar et al., 2003).

FEMA (2000c) discussed the results of the research conducted by the SAC Joint Venture. The continuity plate
requirements presented were essentially the same equations as the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992). FEMA
(2000c) thus concluded that it was appropriate to return to the requirements of the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC, 1992).

Hajjar et al. (2003) show that there is some consensus that continuity plates may be fillet-welded and may not
always be required in non-seismic connections. However, there is a prevailing consensus that continuity plates are
generally required for connections in seismic zones, although there are differing conclusions on the required width
and thickness of the plate, on the type of weld that should be used to connect the stiffener to the column flange, and
on whether very thick column flanges always require continuity plates. These prevailing trends are explored in this
research.

4
The current AISC Seismic Provisions for the panel zone (PZ) design (AISC, 2002) include two design equations.
The first, based largely on research by Krawinkler et al. (1971) and Krawinkler (1978), specifies the shear strength
of the panel zone and the second places a limitation on panel zone slenderness:

 3bcf tcf2 
φv Rv = φv 0.6 Fyc d c t p  1 +  (8)
 d g d ct p 
where:
φv = 1.0
dc = column depth
tp = panel zone thickness
bcf = column flange width

t ≥ ( d z + wz ) / 90 (9)

where:
t = column web or doubler plate thickness; or total thickness if doublers are plug welded
dz = panel zone depth
wz = panel zone width

In Equation (8), the term in parentheses accounts for the post-yield strength of the panel zone, as proposed by
Krawinkler (1978).

General procedures for the seismic panel zone design demand calculation are described in AISC (2002). The
general formula can be given as:

1.1R yg Fyg Z g + Vg a
Ru = ∑ − Vc (10)
girders 0.95d g

where:
Vc = shear force in the column

This equation represents a modified approach from AISC Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c) by using φv = 1.0 and
removing the factor of 0.8 from the girder moments. While Equations (8) and (10) are commonly used at present,
Lee et al. (2002, 2004) summarize a wide range of specification provisions that have been proposed in the past for
computing panel zone design strength and demand.

After the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake, a number of experimental and computational studies were
conducted to further understand the role of panel zone shear deformation in seismic connection performance
(FEMA, 2000a). Based on observations of the seismic behavior of pre-Northridge Welded Unreinforced Flange-
Bolted Web (WUF-B) moment-resisting connections, and experimental and computational studies of several pre-
and post-Northridge moment connection details, several conclusions regarding the effects of large panel zone shear
deformation were drawn. First, panel zone yielding is stable under large inelastic cyclic loads and is thus potentially
an excellent seismic energy dissipater. Nonetheless, excessive panel zone deformation can lead to localized column
flange kinking, which may increase the potential for Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) fracturing in the girder flange-to-
column flange groove welds (Krawinkler et al., 1971; Krawinkler, 1978; Popov et al., 1986; Roeder and Foutch,
1996; El-Tawil et al., 1999; El-Tawil, 2000; Mao et al., 2001; Roeder, 2002). Second, large panel zone shear
deformation in the connection also increases the inelastic stress and strain demands in other locations such as the
edges of the shear tab (Mao et al., 2001; Ricles et al., 2002). Third, panel zone flexibility can significantly influence
global stiffness and seismic response of the moment frame, and thus should be considered in frame analyses when
flexible panel zones are used (e.g., Charney and Johnson, 1986; Liew and Chen, 1995; Biddah and Heidebrecht,
1998; Schneider and Amidi, 1998; Biddah and Heidebrecht, 1999).

5
As a consequence of these conclusions, the panel zone design demand and capacity included in the 1997 AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997a) were modified in AISC (1999b, 2001) to provide a panel zone strength and
stiffness level sufficient to prevent excessively weak panel zones. The AISC (2001a) provisions were retained in the
2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002). A stiffer panel zone forces most of the yielding in the connection
region into the girder and thus causes a plastic hinge to form in the girder if the Strong Column-Weak Beam
(SCWB) criteria (AISC, 2002) are satisfied.

Many specimens tested after the Northridge earthquake and satisfying the prequalification requirements of AISC
(2002) have shown good cyclic performance and higher ductility using a wide range of panel zone strengths. The
few recently tested specimens that have had weak (i.e., under-designed) panel zones have also performed
satisfactorily (e.g., Choi et al., 2000; Wongkaew et al., 2001). The panel zone deformations of these specimens
were much larger than 4γy (where γy is panel zone shear yield strain), which was assumed by Krawinkler (1978) as
the panel zone shear deformation at which the ultimate shear strength of the panel zone was developed in a joint.
Nevertheless, those specimens completed the SAC loading history (SAC, 1997) up to the 4.0% interstory drift cycles
without significant strength degradation.

DESIGN OF PULL-PLATE TEST SPECIMENS

A substantial parametric study was conducted (Prochnow et al., 2000) to assess appropriate girder and column
combinations for the pull plate tests. The pull plate was chosen to represent a W27x94 girder flange. Using the
girder minimum specified yield strength of 50 ksi, the girder flange demands were approximately 375 and 450 kips
from Equations (4) and (7) for non-seismic and seismic design, respectively. Using these demands, a range of
column sections were identified as being on the cusp of the LWY and LFB limit states, as defined by Equations (1)
and (3), respectively. Finite element models of the proposed pull-plate test setup were then analyzed and compared
for these sections to identify likely failure modes in the specimens (Ye et al., 2000).

Table 1 summarizes the ratios of the design strength to required strength for the limit states of LWY and LFB using
the three different girder flange demands from Equations (4), (7), and (5) and, for the design strengths, nominal
dimensions from AISC (1995) as shown in the table, and a column nominal yield strength of 50 ksi. Note that AISC
(1995) did not distinguish between design and detailing k-dimensions, but the values from AISC (1995) are close to
the corresponding new design k-dimensions discussed in AISC (2001b). As seen in Table 1, within the test matrix,
only the W14x159 satisfies the limit states of LWY and LFB for non-seismic design [i.e., using Equation (4)], and
none of the sections satisfy these limit states using the larger values for demand.

Figures 1 and 2 show the typical details of one of the pull-plate specimens used in this research (Prochnow et al.,
2000; Hajjar et al., 2003). The pull-plate specimens consisted of a three-foot-long section of a column with pull
plates welded to both column flanges. The pull-plates were ¾ in. by 10 in. in section, approximately the same as
the flange of a W27x94 girder. None of the girder-to-column combinations satisfy the strong column-weak beam
criteria from AISC (1997a, 2001a, 2002), as the overriding objective was to impart a large flange force onto a
relatively weak column section so as to test the extreme limits of the associated limit states.

Nine pull-plate specimens were tested based on these column sections:

1. Specimen 1-LFB: W14x132 without continuity plates, with 1/2” thick doubler plates, examined LFB
2. Specimen 2-LFB: W14x145 without continuity plates, with 1/2” thick doubler plates, examined LFB
3. Specimen 1-LWY: W14x132 without any continuity or doubler plates, examined LWY and LFB
4. Specimen 2-LWY: W14x145 without any continuity or doubler plates, examined LWY and LFB
5. Specimen 3-UNST: W14x159, without any continuity or doubler plates, examined LWY and LFB
6. Specimen 1-FCP: W14x132, with full-thickness (3/4” thick) continuity plates and CJP welds
7. Specimen 1-HCP: W14x132, with half-thickness (3/8” thick) continuity plates and fillet welds
8. Specimen 1B-HCP: repeat of 1-HCP to verify results
9. Specimen 1-DP: W14x132, with doubler plate box detail with 3/4” thick doubler plates

Three doubler details were tested in this research (see Figure 3). Specimens 1 and 2 included a new doubler plate
detail in which beveled doubler plates were fillet-welded to the column flange to avoid welding in the column k-line

6
(Detail I, Figure 3). The doubler plates stiffened the web of the two specimens in order to isolate local flange
bending as the governing limit state. The fillet weld sizes were chosen to satisfy both the strength requirement (i.e.,
full development of the doubler plate in shear) and geometric requirements as outlined in AISC (1999c).

Specimens 3 through 5 were unstiffened connections that looked at the interaction between LWY and LFB.
Specimens 6 through 8 tested connections either with full-thickness continuity plates and CJP welds, replicating
details often seen in current practice, or half-thickness continuity plates with fillet welds. Specimen 8 repeated the
experiment of Specimen 7 to help verify the results of this economical continuity plate detail. The continuity plates
all had ¾” clips, and for Specimens 7 and 8, the fillet weld along the web was terminated an additional ¾” from the
toe of the clip to help mitigate stress concentrations near the column k-line.

Specimen 9 included no continuity plate, but rather two doubler plates placed out away from the column web, as
shown in Detail III, Figure 3. These plates thus act both as continuity and doubler plates, and in this detail it is the
intent that two doubler plates would always be used. This detail provides an economical alternative to connections
that require two-sided doubler plates plus four continuity plates.

The CJP welds joining the pull plates to the column sections were made using the self-shielded FCAW process and
E70T-6 filler metal. The E70T-6 wire had a diameter of 0.068 in. The filler metal used for the pull-plate specimens
had a measured ultimate tensile strength of 77 ksi, and Charpy V-Notch (CVN) values of 63.7 ft-lbs at 70°F and
19.0 ft-lbs at 0°F. Figure 2 shows the detail of the girder tension flange-to-column flange connection. Continuity
plates and web doubler plates were fillet-welded using the 100% carbon dioxide gas-shielded FCAW process and
E70T-1 filler metal with a 0.0625 in. diameter. For Specimen 6, CJP welds were used to join the continuity plate to
the column flanges, and for Specimen 9, CJP welds were used to join the web doubler plate to the column flanges.
These CJP welds were also made with the gas-shielded FCAW process and E70T-1 filler metal.

All plate material of the same thickness and columns with the same sizes were produced from the same heats. Table
2 presents a comparison of the average values of the coupon test results and the mill reports, as well as key
measured dimensions of the actual cross sections tested [Prochnow et al. (2000) presents details of coupon
specimens]. The columns were made from A992 steel, and the girders from A572 Gr. 50 plate. Along the column
k-lines, the hardness values (Rockwell B-scale) were shown to range from 78 to 90 for the W14x132, from 86 to 96
for the W14x145, and from 75 to 81 for the W14x159. Measured notch toughness in the k-line region for the three
specimens ranged from 100 to 200 ft-lbs at 70°F for all column sections.

A high strain rate of 0.004 sec-1 was used, which approximates the strain rate from seismic loading at about a 2
second period. The high strain rate increases the yield strength of the materials and increases the probability for
brittle fracture, thereby testing the specimens under more severe conditions.

ESTABLISHMENT OF FAILURE CRITERIA FOR LOCAL FLANGE BENDING

AND LOCAL WEB YIELDING LIMIT STATES

Before testing began, connection failure criteria were developed for the LWY and LFB limit states. The primary
indicator of failure was whether the weld fractured prematurely. In these experiments, none of the welds fractured
prior to the pull plate fracturing, so secondary failure criteria were established based on excessive deformation to
identify problematic limit states.

For each specimen, the column section was examined for failure at non-seismic and seismic girder demand load
levels, Ru , of 375 kips and 450 kips calculated as per Equations (4) and (7), respectively. The pull-plate load of 450
kips (which corresponds to approximately 1.5% specimen elongation) was used as the primary target for demand
(Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al., 2003).

The connection was classified as failing by LWY if at 450 kips the strain in the column k-line directly under the
pull-plate was greater than 3.0%, or the strain in the column k-line was greater than the yield strain for the entire
5k+N area. The connection was defined as failing by LFB if at 450 kips the separation of the two column flange
tips on the same side of the web and located at the column centerline was greater than ¼ in. The LFB failure

7
criterion was based on the permissible variations in cross section sizes ASTM (1998), which specifies that the
flanges of a W-shape may be up to ¼ in. out-of-square.

PULL-PLATE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Table 3 summarizes the pertinent test results, including loads and specimen elongations when the specimen failed
and when the different failure criteria were exceeded. Nominal strengths are computed using nominal material
properties and the nominal section dimensions given in Table 1. Actual design strengths are calculated using the
measured dimensions and material strengths given in Table 2.

Prochnow et al. (2000) show that none of the specimens had strain levels exceeding 3% in the column web directly
under the pull-plate at a load level of 450 kips, and only the unstiffened W14x145 specimen (2-LWY) had strain
values greater than yield for the entire 5k+N region, as seen in Figure 4, which shows the strain distributions along
the k-line of the column web. The W14x145 exhibits these higher strains relative to the W14x132 because
measurements showed that the specific W14x145 section used in the test actually had a thinner web than the specific
W14x132 section (see Table 2). There is no tolerance on web thickness in ASTM A6; the tolerance is only on the
weight per foot (ASTM, 1998). The strain distribution also shows a much steeper gradient for the W14x132 (1-
LWY) than the other two unstiffened sections. This gradient is likely due to its thinner column flange. The thicker
column flanges of the W14x145 and W14x159 act to distribute the load more evenly into the column web.

Equation (1) for LWY assumes a constant distribution of stress equal to the column web yield strength across the k-
line for a distance 5k+N. Prochnow et al. (2000) and Hajjar et al. (2003) show both the experimental and finite
element strain distributions in the column web in the direction of loading of Specimens 1-LWY, 2-LWY, and 3-
UNST. The rectangular stress block inherent in Equation (1) for LWY only approximates the actual nonlinear stress
distribution predicted both in the experiments and nonlinear analyses. Hajjar et al. (2003) thus propose a new
equation for the LWY limit state that provides a more accurate representation of the nominal strength of this limit
state. However, the simpler equation currently in AISC (1999a), Equation (1), was compared both to the pull plate
results in this research and to past work by Graham et al. (1960) in Prochnow et al. (2000) and was found to be both
reasonable and conservative for the non-seismic loading exhibited in these pull plate tests.

Figure 5 shows the separation of the flanges near the tips of the flanges along the column length for all nine
specimens. The W14x132 unstiffened and the W14x132 with doubler plates on the web (1-LFB) both failed this
LFB criterion. By comparing the specimens without continuity plates but with web-doubler plates (1-LFB and 2-
LFB) to those with no stiffeners at all (1-LWY and 2-LWY), it can be seen that a significant portion of the flange
separation is due to web deformation, as confirmed by the finite element results of Ye et al. (2000) and experimental
observations (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al., 2003). In the case of the W14x145 (2-LWY and 2-LFB), which
has a stiffer flange and, as it turns out, a thinner web, half of the flange separation is due to web deformation.

The derivation of Equation (3) is based on the research of Graham et al (1960). Failure of their pull plate specimens
was determined based upon fracturing. This is an unreliable failure mechanism for comparison with LFB
predictions because it is based upon the toughness of the weld and base metal; the weld metal in particular was
likely to be less tough than those used in the current pull-plate tests. Prochnow et al. (2000) thus show that the
scatter in the test-to-predicted ratio of both the results of Graham et al. (1960) and in the current work is significant.
Therefore, a new nominal strength equation for local flange bending has been derived in this work based upon a
procedure similar to that used by Graham et al. (1960), in which a plastic yield mechanism in the flange is assumed.
Prochnow et al. (2000) conducted a substantial parametric study of the range of yield mechanism parameters
exhibited in typical girder-to-column connections, and thus simplified the proposed new local flange bending
nominal strength equation to [see Prochnow et al. (2000) for details of this derivation]:

( 2
)
Rn = 2t gf k + 5.9tcf Fyc (11a)

where:
tgf = thickness of girder flange

8
Using the mean values minus one standard deviation of tgf and k for common column-girder combinations simplifies
this equation to:

( 2
Rn = 0.8 + 5.9tcf Fyc) (11b)

when using units of kips and inches (Prochnow et al., 2000; Hajjar et al., 2003). Table 4 exhibits the predicted
(using both nominal and measured properties as listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, without a φ factor) and
experimental strengths using the LFB yield mechanism reported in Table 3 and Equations (3) and (11b). The test-
to-predicted ratio of Equation (11b) is consistently closer to 1.0 than Equation (3), and the standard deviations are
similar. Prochnow et al. (2000) show even more dramatic results when comparing to the test results of Graham et al.
(1960). However, it should be emphasized that Equation (3) was compared both to the pull plate results in this
research and to past work by Graham et al. (1960), and Equation (3) was found to be both reasonable and
conservative for the non-seismic loading exhibited in these pull plate tests.

The results of the stiffened specimens (1-HCP, 1B-HCP, and 1-FCP) showed that, at least for monotonically loaded
connections, a half-thickness continuity plate was adequate to avoid web yielding and flange bending. Results such
as Figures 4 and 5 show a significant difference between the unstiffened and stiffened specimens. In particular, the
specimens with fillet-welded half-thickness continuity plates (1-HCP and 1B-HCP) are well below the LWY and
LFB failure criteria.

The failure criterion for the continuity plates was complete yielding across the full-width section of the plates at 450
kips. The full-width section of the continuity plates was defined as the area just outside of the ¾ in. clips. Hajjar et
al. (2003) show that neither Specimen 1-HCP nor 1-FCP fully yielded across the width of the continuity plates, and
therefore both were still capable of resisting load and had not failed. The half-thickness continuity plate fillet welds
also did not fracture, thus validating the integrity of this detail.

Specimen 1-DP, the box detail, also performed well. Strains in the doubler plate and web did not exceed yield for
the entire 5k+N region, and neither the LWY nor the LFB limit states were breached. However, the doubler plates
used in Specimen 1-DP were rather thick, based on the observation of Bertero et al. (1973) that the doubler plates
are less effective when they are moved away from the web. Equations (1) and (3) predict that two 3/32” doubler
plates would be required to mitigate the LWY and LFB limit states, respectively [using Equation (4) to compute
girder flange demand], whereas 3/4” thick plates were used in the specimen. Thus, further research is required to
determine an appropriate sizing procedure for the box detail. Note also that the backing bars used for the CJP welds
of the doubler plates were not removed (and would not normally be removed for this detail), and the welds
performed well in this test.

DESIGN OF CRUCIFORM TEST SPECIMENS

A total of six full-scale, girder-to-column cruciform specimens were tested in this research program. A Welded
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web (WUF-W) connection detail was used; this is a pre-qualified steel moment
connection detail in FEMA (2000a). The original connection topologies were selected mainly based on a parametric
study of panel zone stiffening requirements and on using sizes that would highlight specific aspects of the column
limit states being investigated in this research (Lee et al., 2002). In particular, a relatively shallow girder depth (and
thus a relatively large flange force) and relatively weak column panel zone were used so as to: 1) create specimens
with different characteristics from the large body of tests that have deeper girders and stronger panel zones, for
which a base of results has to some extent already been established; and 2) generate large strains in the connection
region and thus create severe tests for the limit states being investigated in this research. The test matrix is outlined
in Table 5. Due to unexpected premature brittle failure of girder flange-to-column flange welds in one of the five
cruciform specimens (i.e., Specimen CR4), one additional specimen was replicated with new base metal and weld
consumables and retested. This new specimen was identified as Specimen CR4R. Lee et al. (2002, 2004) document
the brittle failure of Specimen CR4 in detail.

As shown in Table 5, all three doubler details of Figure 3 were tested in this experimental study. One continuity
plate detail was also tested, in which the plate thickness was approximately equal to half the girder flange thickness,

9
and the plate was fillet-welded to both the column flanges and doubler plates. The size of the fillet welds needed for
both doubler and continuity plate details were calculated using procedures given in the AISC Design Guide No.13
(AISC, 1999c). A 5 in. wide plate, which is slightly larger than half of the girder flange width, was selected in
compliance with the requirements of t b = 1.79 Fy E and b ≥ bgf 3 − t p 2 contained in AISC (1999a). In
addition, 1 in. clips were provided to avoid interference with the fillet welds connecting doubler plates to the column
flanges. One completely unstiffened specimen with a W14x283 column (Specimen CR1) was also tested to verify
the cyclic response of a specimen without continuity plates and doubler plates. In addition, Specimens CR2 and
CR5 had no continuity plates although continuity plates were required as per AISC (1992) for Specimen CR2 and as
per AISC (1992, 1999a, 1999c) for Specimen CR5. These specimens were used to examine the response of a
column flange subjected to the LFB limit state under cyclic loading.

As one focus of the cruciform tests is to investigate the design provisions for panel zones and column stiffeners and
to test new stiffening alternatives, the panel zones were designed with the intent to exceed the shear deformation of
4γy, where γy is the panel zone shear yield strain. The design shear deformation level of 4γy was suggested by
Krawinkler et al. (1971) and Krawinkler (1978) and is implied in the AISC non-seismic and seismic panel zone
design equations (AISC, 1999a; AISC, 2002). Designing the specimens with relatively weak panel zones ensures
that all column stiffening details are rigorously tested through large localized cyclic strains, and provides a means
for evaluating the strength of the panel zone at the level of design deformation.

It is also desirable, however, to ensure the panel zones are strong enough to allow for development of the plastic
moment strength of the girders. This is necessary to develop large girder flange forces, thereby placing high force
demands on the column flanges and continuity plates. To meet this balance of girder and panel zone strength, a
method of estimating the relative strengths was used for the design of panel zones in this experimental study. The
quantity of most interest for the purpose of the panel zone design was the ratio of nominal panel zone strength (Pz)
to nominal girder strength (Pg). These strengths were calculated as the total girder tip loads required to reach the
strength level under consideration, and are given in Lee et al. (2002, 2004).

A baseline value of Pz/Pg equal to 1.0 was targeted for the design of the panel zones. This implies that the panel
zone strength (at an average shear distortion of 4γy) is achieved at the same time the girders reach their plastic
moment capacities. By selecting this ratio, the intent is to achieve the goals of exceeding both plastic moment Mp in
the girders and shear distortion of 4γy in the panel zones.

Table 6 presents the design strength-to-demand ratios using nominal material properties for the LFB, LWY, and
panel zone limit states using various methods of demand calculations, i.e., using Equations (4) through (7) for LFB
and LWY and Equation (10) for panel zone yielding. Note that the design strengths for LFB and LWY are the
design strengths of the column shape alone and do not include the column reinforcement, if any. Also shown in
Table 6 are the column-girder moment ratios calculated from the 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002),
assuming no axial compression in the column. As mentioned above, panel zone strengths are based on the AISC
Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997a, 1999b, 2001a, 2002), with a resistance factor of φv = 1.0, while the LFB and
LWY strengths are based on the AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999a). Table 6 shows that Equation (5) and
Equation (6) provide similar demand values for these specimen sizes.

As with the pull-plate specimens, it was anticipated during specimen design that the box detail may be less than
fully effective, based on the results of Bertero et al. (1973). Thus, the doubler plates provided were approximately
30% thicker in Specimens CR4 and CR4R than those of Specimen CR3, which has the same member sizes. The
capacity-to-demand ratios given in Table 6 reveal that the panel zones of most of the specimens are weak.

Typical connection topologies for the cruciform specimens are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Specimen CR1 represents
a relatively large, unreinforced interior connection with a relatively weak panel zone. It is intended primarily to
study the panel zone strength provision for thick column flanges. The relatively thick column flange of 2.07 in.
coupled with the unreinforced panel zone results in a post-elastic panel zone strength contribution of approximately
40% in Equation (8), representing a high, yet typical value. This specimen meets the Strong Column-Weak Beam
(SCWB) criteria of the 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002), also shown in Table 6. No continuity plates
are needed as per the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) [i.e., using Equation (5)] or the AISC Design

10
Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c) [i.e., using Equation (6)] (see Table 6). Specimen CR1 is also intended to show that
continuity plates are not necessarily needed for all seismic moment connection details.

Specimen CR2 represents a moderately-sized, reinforced interior connection with a single-sided doubler plate. It is
intended primarily as a verification of the LFB criteria of the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the
AISC Design Guide No. 13 (AISC, 1999c). This specimen is also intended to confirm that continuity plates are not
always needed for seismic moment connections. A relatively weak panel zone, similar to Specimen CR1, is
provided. A square-cut fillet-welded doubler plate detail (Detail II, Figure 3) is utilized; this detail was deemed by
the fabricator to be more efficient to fabricate than Detail I. Note that welding across the top and bottom of the
doubler plate is not done in Detail II. The SCWB moment ratio is close to unity in Specimen CR2. The presence of
the doubler plate and thinner column flanges reduces the value of the post-elastic panel zone strength contribution in
Equation (8), but it is still a moderate magnitude of approximately 17%.

Specimen CR3 represents a moderately-sized, reinforced interior connection with both doubler plates and continuity
plates. This is the second test of doubler plate Detail II (Figure 3). Specimen CR3 requires continuity plates as per
the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC Design Guide No. 13 (1999c), and is intended to
show that a fillet-welded continuity plate detail using a continuity plate that is approximately half as thick as the
girder flange can perform satisfactorily in cyclic loading applications. The nominal strength of this continuity plate,
computed as:

2φt Pn = 2φt Ag Fy = 2 [( 0.9 )( 50 )( 0.5 )( 5.0 − 1.0 )] = 180 kips

was approximately 30% less than the required strength:
1.8 Fyg Agf − φ ( 6.25 ) tcf Fyc = 1.8 ( 50 )( 9.07 )( 0.875 ) − 0.9 ( 6.25 )(1.31) ( 50 ) = 232
2 2
kips

(The nominal strength is approximately equal to the required strength with a φ factor of 1.0 used for local flange
bending). The value of 1.0 in the above parenthesis accounts for 1 in. clip in the continuity plate. The SCWB
moment ratio is lower than unity in this specimen. The panel zone strength is similar to Specimens CR1 and CR2.
Because of the thinner column flanges and heavier panel zone reinforcement as compared with the above two
specimens, the predicted post-elastic strength of the panel zone is reduced to approximately 12%.

Specimen CR4 (and CR4R) represents a moderately-sized, reinforced interior connection with relatively heavy
panel zone reinforcement using the box (offset) detail and no continuity plates in a situation in which continuity
plates would be required according to the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC Design Guide
No. 13 (AISC, 1999c). The panel zone design is just below the design strength from AISC (2002). As with
Specimen CR3, this specimen does not meet the SCWB criteria of AISC (2002) for the case of no axial
compression. The thick doubler plates result in a low post-elastic panel zone strength contribution, just below 10%.

Specimen CR5 represents the smallest column section tested, with fillet-welded doubler plates and no continuity
plates. Doubler plate Detail I (Figure 3), the back-beveled fillet-welded detail, is tested in Specimen CR5. This
specimen requires continuity plates as per the non-seismic (AISC, 1999a) and is well below the LFB limit states for
seismic design (AISC, 1992, 1999c), but no continuity plates were used. While tested cyclically, the non-seismic
details of this specimen (i.e., lack of continuity plates) were intended to investigate the LFB design criteria of the
AISC LRFD Specification (1999a) as well as to provide further evidence that continuity plates may not be required
in all seismic moment connections. The panel zone strength is similar to Specimens CR1, CR2, and CR3. Because
a smaller column was needed to breach the non-seismic LFB limits, the SCWB moment ratio is much lower than
unity in Specimen CR5. A low post-elastic panel zone strength of approximately 8% is expected in this specimen.

The weld details were as recommended in FEMA (2000a) for the prequalified Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web
(WUF-W) connection, as modified in connections tested by Ricles et al. (2002). Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the
typical connection welding details used to fabricate the specimens in this experimental study [represented by the
details for Specimens CR1 and CR3, respectively; all specimen details are presented in Lee et al. (2002, 2004)]. All
welding was done with the Flux-Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) process. The welding was done in two stages, with
shop welds made at the fabricator and field welds made in the Structural Engineering Laboratory at the University of
Minnesota by experienced erection welders. E70T-1 (Lincoln Outershield 70) wire with 100% carbon dioxide gas

11
shielding was used for all shop welding, including the shear tab welding to the column flange, the welding of the
doubler plates, and the welding of the continuity plates (see Figure 7). The notch toughness of the E70T-1 wire is
required by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995) to be 20 ft-lbs at 0°F and, according to the Lincoln Electric product family
literature, the typical values for Outershield 70 are 28 ft-lbs at 0°F. The shear tab was welded to the column flange
using 1/4 in. fillet welds on each side of the plate, although this deviated from the recommended WUF-W
connection welding details, which require Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) groove welds at this location.

The field welds were made with the self-shielded FCAW process. The girder flange-to-column flange CJP groove
welds were made in the flat position with E70T-6 (Lincoln Innershield NR-305) wire. Welds made with E70T-6
wire are required by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995) and AISC (2002) to have notch toughness of 20 ft-lbs at -20°F and
40 ft-lbs at 70°F. FEMA (2000a) has recommended minimum notch toughness requirements at two temperatures,
20 ft-lbs at 0°F and 40 ft-lbs at 70°F. According to the Lincoln Electric Company product family literature, the
typical values for NR-305 are 21 to 35 ft-lbs at -20°F and 21 to 54 ft-lbs at 0°F.

For the first two specimens that were fabricated (i.e., Specimens CR1 and CR4), 5/64 in. diameter NR-305 wire was
used for girder flange-to-column flange CJP groove welds. However, this wire and the weld procedures were
subsequently found to produce weld metal with only 2 to 3 ft-lbs at 0°F and 2 ft-lbs (Specimen CR4) to 19 ft-lbs
(Specimen CR1) at 70°F that did not meet the FEMA (2000a) or AISC (2002) recommended minimum notch
toughness requirements (Lee et al., 2002, 2004). For this reason, for the remaining specimens, it was decided to use
a lot of NR-305 weld wire with 3/32 in. diameter that was previously characterized by the Edison Welding Institute
(EWI) and was known to have good notch toughness (Lee et al., 2002). This particular lot of 3/32 in. diameter NR-
305 wire was used for the CJP welds in Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5. In addition, different welding
equipment and procedures were also used for the remaining specimens (details are reported in Lee et al., 2002,
2004). All CJP welds were ultrasonically tested by a certified inspector in conformance with Table 6.3 of AWS
D1.1-2000 (AWS, 2000) for cyclically loaded joints.

The out-of-position field welds, including the CJP welds connecting the girder web to the column flange and all
reinforcing fillet welds were made with 0.068 in. diameter E71T-8 (Lincoln Innershield NR-203MP) wire for
Specimens CR1 and CR4, and 5/64 in. diameter E71T-8 (Lincoln Innershield NR-232) wire for the other specimens
(see Figure 6). Welds made with E71T-8 wire are required by AWS A5.20 (AWS, 1995) to have notch toughness of
20 ft-lbs at -20°F. According to the Lincoln Electric Company product family literature, the typical values for NR-
203MP are 50 to 200 ft-lbs at -20°F and the typical values for NR-232 are 20 to 69 ft-lbs at -20°F.

The shear tab was designed to extend approximately 0.25 in. into the top and bottom access holes and acted as the
backing bar for the CJP welds of the girder web to the column flange. This extension acted as a short runoff tab,
allowing the weld to extend the full depth of the girder web. Ricles et al. (2002) recommended that these runoff tabs
of the vertical web weld be ground smooth, which is labor intensive. Since it was felt that this might not be
necessary, these runoff tabs were not ground smooth in the specimens tested in the present study.

As shown in Figure 6, 5/16 in. reinforcing fillet welds were placed under the top girder flange backing bar and
below the back-gouged region under the bottom girder flange. Supplemental fillet welds were also provided
between the shear tab and girder web, with 5/16 in. fillet welds being placed along the full height of the shear tab
using the E71T-8 wire.

The weld access holes for the test specimens were designed based on the research of Mao et al. (2001) and Ricles et
al. (2002). This weld access hole or similar details are now required for many of the prequalified steel moment
connections outlined in FEMA (2000a), including the WUF-W connection. Lee et al. (2002, 2004) illustrate the
dimensions of the access hole used in this experimental study.

Material testing was performed on all wide-flange shapes and available stiffener plates used for the test specimens.
All rolled sections were fabricated from A992 wide-flange sections, and A572 Grade 50 steel was selected for all
stiffener materials. Lee et al. (2002) present detail of the coupon specimens and locations from which they were cut.
Table 7 summarizes the tensile test results (average values of the coupons are shown) and mill certificate values for
the W-shapes. Lee et al. (2002, 2004) present similar properties for the stiffener plates.

12
In order to verify the material properties of the girder flange-to-column flange CJP groove welds, one weld test plate
was made as per Figure 2A of AWS A5.20-95 (AWS, 1995) for Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 at the time
of the connection welding. CVN specimens were also made for Specimens CR1 and CR4. These CVN specimens
were machined from one of the girder flange-to-column flange groove welds that showed no signs of fracture after
the test. The test results, which followed ASTM E23 for the CVN test and ASTM E8 for the tensile coupon test, are
presented in Lee et al. (2002, 2004). Specimens CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 satisfied the minimum requirements
recommended by FEMA (2000a), i.e., filler metals providing CVN toughness of 20 ft-lbs at 0°F and 40 ft-lbs at
70°F. However, only the CJP welds in Specimen CR2 satisfied the supplemental requirements in FEMA (2000b) of
the minimum filler metal yield strength of 58 ksi.

Figure 8 shows a schematic of the test setup. The load pins placed at the top and bottom of the column were
designed to allow free rotation of the column ends during loading, simulating inflection points at the mid-height of
the column in a steel moment frames. Four bracing members, not shown in Figure 5, were attached to the diagonal
load frame members to restrict the out-of-plane deformation of the girders due to lateral-torsional buckling.

Quasi-static, anti-symmetric, cyclic loads were applied to the girder tips by using four MTS hydraulic actuators, i.e.,
two actuators for each side. Each actuator was capable of 77 kips at a stroke of +/- 6.0 in. The SAC (1997) loading
history was applied to ensure results could be compared to numerous other SAC girder-to-column tests conducted,
in which six cycles were applied at each interstory drift level of 0.375%, 0.5%, and 0.75%, and four cycles were
applied at 1.0% interstory drift level, and two cycles were applied at each interstory drift level of 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%,
and 4.0%. Further cycles at 4.0% interstory drift were then applied until specimen failure to provide information on
low cycle fatigue response of these connections.

CRUCIFORM TEST RESULTS

All specimens, excluding Specimen CR4, completed the SAC (1997) loading history up to 4.0% interstory drift
without noticeable strength degradation. The plots of moment versus total plastic rotation for two representative
connections (West Connections of Specimens CR2 and CR5) are presented in Figures 9 and 10. After completing
the two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift required by the SAC (1997) protocol, additional 4.0% interstory drift cycles
were applied until each specimen failed. Specimens CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4R were subjected to 14, 16, 14, and
12 cycles, respectively, before significant strength degradation was noticed. It cannot be determined that there is
any significance to the variation in number of cycles in the range from 12 to 16 cycles. Thus, it can be assumed that
these four specimens performed equally well. Specimen CR5 also performed satisfactorily, completing six cycles at
4.0% interstory drift even though the this specimen was significantly under-designed for the limit states of local
flange bending and panel zone yielding as per AISC (1992, 1997a, 1999a, 2001, 2002) (see Table 6).

In these five successful tests, the primary failure mode was low cycle fatigue cracking and rupturing near the girder
flange-to-column flange boundary region. Visible cracking in the connections typically first occurred at the top or
bottom edge of the shear tab in the 3.0% interstory drift cycles in some specimens, but the connections suffered no
strength degradation until the girder flanges were locally buckled or until the low cycle fatigue cracks in the girder
flange were significant after several 4.0% drift cycles. Except for Specimen CR5, the initial girder flange cracks in
these specimens originated in the center of girder flange width (in both the top and bottom flanges in the various
specimens) at the toe of the girder-to-column fillet welds that reinforced the topside of the CJP welds. The major
crack in Specimen CR5 was observed in the middle of the CJP welds instead of at the toe of the CJP welds. Details
of the progression of failure in each specimen are given in Lee et al. (2002).

Specimen CR5, reinforced by doubler plate Detail I (back-beveled fillet-welded detail), satisfactorily completed the
SAC (1997) loading history. Specimens CR2 and CR3 showed better cyclic connection performance, when
compared with the test results of Specimen CR5, with the doubler plate Detail II (square-cut fillet-welded detail),
although the column flanges and panel zones in general were stronger in these specimens, which more likely
contributed to the difference in performance. In addition, the comparable performance of Specimen CR4R relative
to Specimen CR3, which consisted of the same girder and column sizes, showed that the doubler plate Detail III
(box detail) can also provide a similarly ductile connection performance and is equally effective in functioning as
continuity plates. This finding was also indicated in the pull-plate tests, and the cruciform tests verify that cyclic
loading test does not change those conclusions. Within the limited number of experiments, it has been found that

13
the above three different variations had no significant impact on the cyclic connection performance. Thus, it cannot
be concluded that any of those details are more advantageous. Instead, the most economical detail should be
recommended.

The continuity plates of Specimen CR3 were heavily instrumented and largely showed strains below yield for the
full loading history. At 4.0% interstory drift, some yielding was just beginning on the continuity plate near the 1 in.
clip (see Figure 7). Note that because of the clip, this cross section of the continuity plate has reduced area relative
to the remainder of the continuity plate, which remained elastic.

While the multi-axial strain state in a continuity plate is complex, these results imply that the plastic moment may be
achieved in the girder without significantly yielding the continuity plate. The fact that this specimen performed well
provides two important conclusions. First, when continuity plates are used, it should not be necessary to use full
thickness continuity plates that are groove-welded to the column flanges. Second, the use of smaller fillet-weld
sizes is feasible for attaching thinner continuity plates to the column flanges. For Specimen CR3, only 3/8 in. fillet
welds on each side were required to connect the 1/2 in. continuity plates to the column flanges, and 5/16 in. fillet
welds were required to connect to the doubler plates (see Figure 7). Fillet welds, especially relatively small fillet
welds such as these, pose a less significant risk of causing k-area cracking in the column due to the lower restraint
and resultant tensile residual stress. It is thus proposed that it may be sufficient to design the continuity plate size
and associated fillet welds using procedures given in the AISC Design Guide No.13 for both non-seismic and
seismic design (AISC, 1999c). The pull-plate tests also support these conclusions.

Present AISC LRFD specifications (AISC, 1999a) explicitly require that the fillet welds develop the full strength of
the continuity plate. This implies that the welds are required to essentially remain elastic when the plate is fully
plastified. In this way, it is assured that the fillet welds are not the weak link in the column details. Although the
fillet welds in these test specimens were designed for this criterion, the fact that the continuity plates are not fully
plastified across their gross section indicates that the fillet welds need not necessarily develop the full plastic
capacity of the continuity plate. This issue often arises when continuity plates are sized greater than they need to be
for LFB, to use a particular standard thickness for example or to accommodate a weak axis connection. In these
cases the continuity plate will clearly not be yielded and the welds need not develop the plate but rather need only to
provide strength greater than the difference between the demand and the LFB capacity of the flanges without
continuity plates.

In order to understand the complex stress and strain distributions and force flows near the girder-to-column junction,
the distributions of strains in the longitudinal direction of girder flanges near the CJP welds were also investigated
(Lee et al., 2002). In all five successfully tested specimens, the maximum longitudinal tensile strains measured in
the middle of West girder top flanges were within the range of 19,000 to 26,500 µε at the first peak of 4.0%
interstory drift. Similarly, the maximum longitudinal tensile strains in the middle of the East girder bottom flange
were within the range of 10,000 to 33,000 µε at the first peak at 4.0% interstory drift. Figure 11 shows typical strain
gradients in the East girder bottom flange in Specimens CR2 and CR3, without and with a continuity plate,
respectively. In Figure 11a, three-dimensional nonlinear static finite element results from Ye et al. (2000) are shown
for interstory drift levels of 2.0% and 4.0%. At 4.0% interstory drift, the computed strains agree fairly well with the
measured strains. However, the computed strains were somewhat higher than measured strains at 2.0% interstory
drift.

Although the peak strain levels are approximately the same, Specimens CR3 and CR4R [not shown in the figure; see
Lee et al. (2002)] showed relatively lower strain gradients along the girder flange width at higher drifts as compared
with the other three specimens. It is believed that the trend towards having lower strain gradients in Specimens CR3
and CR4R girder flanges is primarily due to their column stiffening details. These results reinforce that both the
half-thickness continuity plates (in case of Specimen CR3) and the box (offset) doubler plate detail (in case of
Specimen CR4R) are effective as column stiffeners to mitigate the local flange bending in column flanges.

However, while the general trends in the results are as discussed above, Figure 11 shows that the actual difference in
strain gradients between a specimen with and without a stiffened flange may often be subtle. In addition, while
Specimens CR1, CR2, and CR5 did generally have greater girder flange strain gradients, there is no evidence that
these high strain gradients were detrimental to the performance of the connection. For example, Specimen CR1 had
low notch toughness [far less than the FEMA (2000a) requirements], yet the high strain gradient did not cause a

14
brittle fracture. In addition, the strain gradient was worse in the West girder top flange of Specimen CR1 than in
Specimen CR2 [not shown in the figure; see Lee et al. (2002)], whereas Specimen CR1 did not require continuity
plates and Specimen CR2 did, based upon the seismic girder demand. Therefore, some of the variation in the strain
gradient among the different specimens may be somewhat random, based upon local residual stresses, etc., and this
research indicates that having a strain gradient in the girder flange does not necessarily precipitate premature
fracture.

LOCAL FLANGE BENDING AND LOCAL WEB YIELDING CRITERIA FROM CRUCIFORM TESTS

While the pull-plate tests investigated both the LFB and LWY limit states, the investigation of both non-seismic and
seismic design criteria for LWY was limited with the cruciform tests. As shown in Table 6, the selected five
cruciform specimens satisfied all the LWY design criteria considered in this research program, as would be
customary for girder-to-column cruciform connections. In the pull-plate tests, the LFB yield mechanism was
defined by limiting the column flange separation, measured between the column flanges at the edges of the pull-
plates (simulating the girder flanges). A flange separation limit of 1/4 in. between the two flanges was established
for the non-seismic design. In the cyclic cruciform experiments, this limiting deformation was taken as one-half the
pull-plate separation value of 1/4 in., as the deformation of only one flange measured. The measured maximum
column flange displacements in Specimens CR1 and CR5 were thus compared with a limit of 1/8 in. Specimen CR1
developed relatively small column flange deformations up to 4.0% interstory drift cycles (just 26% of the 1/8 in.
limit), as was expected from the large LFB design strength/demand ratios presented in Table 6. In Specimen CR5,
an unexpectedly low maximum column flange deformation (49% of the 1/8 in. limit) was measured during 4.0%
interstory drift cycles even though Specimen CR5 did not even meet the non-seismic LFB design criteria. These
tests thus indicate that the LFB strength predicted by Equation (1) (AISC, 1999a) may be suitable for use for seismic
design as well.

With respect to seismic demand, Specimen CR5 was the most substantially under-designed cruciform specimen with
respect to LFB. As shown in Table 6, the design strength-to-demand ratio was only 0.84 for non-seismic design
demand as per the AISC LRFD Specification (1999a), and it equaled to 0.47 and 0.46 for the seismic design
demands within the 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1992) and the AISC Design Guide No. 13 (AISC,
1999c), respectively. However, Specimen CR5 performed satisfactorily up to 4.0% interstory drift cycles without
any damage induced by the lack of LFB mitigation. Therefore, at a minimum, observation of the five successful
cruciform tests and the pull-plate tests indicated that the seismic demand given by Equation (6) (AISC, 1999c) is
adequate and conservative for determining seismic LFB demand when the capacity presented in Equation (3) is
used. Equation (6) provides a more rational basis for calculation of the required force than does Equation (5) (both
equations often yield similar values). Table 6 indicates that both Specimens CR2 and CR5 would require continuity
plates if Equation (3) is used in conjunction with Equation (6) (using nominal properties). Placing a reduction factor
of 0.85 on Equation (6), particularly for use with interior connections, would change these values to 0.94 and 0.54
respectively, putting Specimen CR2 just over the cusp of breaching the LFB limit state.

Use of Equation (6) with a reduction factor of 0.85 for interior connections, coupled with Equation (3) to compute
strength, also compares favorably when compared to other test results. For example, Specimens C1 and C3 from
Ricles et al. (2002), which each had two W36x150 (50) girders framing into a W14x398 (50) column (for Specimen
C1) and a W27x258 (50) column (for Specimen C3) using the WUF-W connection with no continuity plates,
performed adequately through the SAC (1997) loading history. Their ratio of LFB strength to demand using
Equation (6) with a reduction factor of 0.85 was 2.32 and 0.76, respectively. Thus, Specimen C1 clearly should not
need continuity plates. Specimens CR2 from this work and Specimen C3 (Ricles et al., 2002) could also both go
without continuity plates, thus showing even the proposed 0.85 factor on Equation (6) would often be conservative.

PANEL ZONE CRITERIA FROM CRUCIFORM TESTS

All the WUF-W specimens shown in Table 6 had inadequate panel zone strengths as per AISC (1999b, 2002). In
spite of the weaker panel zones, however, these specimens (excluding Specimen CR4) showed stable, ductile panel
zone response. The first three specimens (Specimens CR1, CR2, and CR3) developed more than 10γy of panel zone
shear deformation during the 4.0% interstory drift cycles, while the other two specimens developed more than 6γy

15
(Specimen CR4R) and approximately 8γy (Specimen CR5) maximum panel zone shear deformations at the same
interstory drift level. The analyses of the panel zone elastic and inelastic behavior indicated significant energy
dissipation in this region for Specimens CR1, CR2, and CR3. Relatively mild energy dissipation was observed in
Specimens CR4R and CR5 even though the measured maximum amount of the connection total plastic rotation was
similar in all cases. The smaller panel zone energy dissipation in these two specimens were mostly caused by the
design of a stronger panel zone in the case of Specimen CR4R, and by the larger column flange yielding around
each girder flange in the case of Specimen CR5.

Lee et al. (2002, 2004) show that Equation (8) over-predicts the panel zone shear strength at the design deformation
of 4γy for the five cruciform test specimens and a number of tests from the literature. A new panel zone shear
strength equation is derived in Lee et al. (2002) and is shown to compare well with 49 tests from the literature:

 15bcf tcf3 
Rv = 0.55Fyc d c t p  1 + 2  (12)
 d g d ct p 
A resistance factor of 0.85 is recommended for use with the equation (Lee et al., 2002, 2004). Equation (12) will
tend to yield lower panel zone nominal shear strengths as compared to Equation (8). Thus, if it is assumed that the
AISC (2002) and FEMA (2000a) procedures result in adequate panel zone designs, use of Equation (12) should also
include adoption of a lower panel zone required shear force (i.e., panel zone shear demand) to result in similar panel
zone thicknesses as AISC (2002). Lee et al. (2004) discuss an alternative recommendation for computation of panel
zone shear demand that permits panel zone shear deformation up to 8γy. Lee et al. (2002, 2004) also document that
observation of the yielding in the joint region at the higher interstory drift levels indicated that it is more realistic to
calculate the panel zone design demand directly at the column face for connections that have weaker panel zones,
without considering the moment increments due to the girder shear force at the assumed girder plastic hinge
location.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented the results of a combined experimental and computational research program investigating
non-seismic and seismic response and design of column stiffening details. The limit states of local flange bending,
local web yielding, and panel zone yielding were studied in detail, and several alternative and economical column
stiffening details were investigated that avoid welding in the column k-line region. Conclusions from this research
include the following:

• Specimens CR1, CR2, CR3, CR4R, and CR5 completed the SAC (1997) loading history up to 4.0% interstory
drift cycles without any significant strength degradation in the connections, and ductile failure modes were
observed in all specimens. The primary failure mode of these five specimens was Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF)
crack growth and eventual rupture of one or more girder flange-to-column flange E70T-6 Complete Joint
Penetration (CJP) groove welds. Visible cracking in the connections typically first occurred at the top or
bottom edge of the shear tab in the 3.0% interstory drift cycles in some specimens, but the connections suffered
no strength degradation until the girder flanges were locally buckled or until the low cycle fatigue cracks in the
girder flange were significant after several 4.0% drift cycles. The weld access hole detail chosen for this
experimental study showed good performance under repeated large cyclic connection deformations. No LCF
cracking occurred at the toe of the weld access hole prior to significant cracking occurring elsewhere in the
connection, particularly at the toe of the CJP welds of the girder flange to the column flange.
• These experimental results showed that, when properly detailed and welded with notch-tough filler metal, the
WUF-W steel moment connections can perform adequately under large quasi-static cyclic loads even though
relatively weak panel zones and low local flange bending strengths were chosen as per the current design
provisions and recommendations (AISC, 1992, 1997a, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2001a, 2002; FEMA, 2000a). The
pull-plate tests also support this conclusion. None of the E70T-6 CJP welds in the pull-plate tests fractured
despite plastic deformation, even when the flange tip separation was over ¼ in, indicating that column stiffener
details may have little influence on the potential for brittle weld fracture provided the weld is specified with
minimum CVN requirements and backing bars are removed.

16
• Specimen CR4 was unintentionally prepared with E70T-6 weld metal that had Charpy V-Notch (CVN) values
that were much lower than the minimum requirements of FEMA (2000a). This was the only test that did not
satisfy the connection prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift level. The
premature brittle failure of this specimen reconfirmed that achieving the required minimum CVN toughness in
the girder flange-to-column flange CJP welds is critical for good performance in the prequalified steel moment
connections. Note that these low toughness welds occurred despite the certification of the filler metal, and that
the certification is only required annually, unlike the way that each heat of steel is tested.
• Application of the alternative column stiffener details (i.e., back-beveled fillet-welded doubler plate detail;
square-cut fillet-welded doubler plate detail; groove-welded box doubler plate detail; fillet-welded 1/2 in. thick
continuity plates) in the WUF-W steel moment connections was successfully verified. No cracks or distortions
were observed in the welds connecting these stiffeners to column flanges before the rupturing of the girder
flange-to-column flange CJP welds. Additionally, no cracking occurred in the k-area of the columns in these
column-stiffened specimens.
• From the results of the pull-plate tests and analyses, it was determined that the AISC non-seismic design
provisions for local web yielding and local flange bending are reasonable and slightly conservative in
calculating the need for column stiffening. However, new design equations are also proposed in this research
for the limit states of local flange bending and local web yielding in connections consisting of wide-flange
girders framing into wide-flange columns with fully-restrained connections. When compared to experiments
both from this research and past work, both equations provide superior test-to-predicted ratios as compared to
current provisions. Broadening the range of experimental tests to include a wider range of section sizes and
loading configurations would strengthen the assessment of these new equations.
• For the cruciform specimens, the measured maximum column flange deformation due to the concentrated girder
flange force in the unstiffened specimens ranged from 26% of the assumed yield mechanism limit of 1/8 in.
flange deformation in the case of Specimen CR1, to 49% of the 1/8 in. limit in the case of Specimen CR5.
Specimen CR5 was the most substantially underdesigned specimen for local flange bending – the resistance-to-
demand ratio was only 0.84 for non-seismic demand as per AISC (1999a), and it equaled to 0.47 for seismic
demand as per AISC (1992). Specimen CR5 met the requirements for two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift.
Continuity plates may thus not be necessary in many interior columns in steel moment connections, and design
provisions similar to those in AISC (1992) or FEMA (2000a) permitting the design, or lack of inclusion, of
continuity plates are recommended for consideration for reintroduction into the AISC Seismic Provisions (note
however that further research may be warranted to investigate the behavior of deep columns and other pre-
qualified connection details for the limit state of local flange bending). Specimens CR1, CR2, CR4R, and CR5,
none of which had continuity plates (although Specimen CR4R included the offset doubler plate detail), showed
ductile connection behavior even though only Specimen CR1 met the seismic requirements of AISC (1992) and
FEMA (2000a) with respect to continuity plates for the limit state of local flange bending. Specifically, it is
recommended that the provisions for LFB strength of AISC (1992, 1999a) [Equation (3)] be adopted for seismic
design, and that the calculation for LFB demand according to AISC (1999c) [Equation (6)] is conservative and
may be adopted for use; reducing this LFB demand by a factor of 0.85 for interior connections is also
recommended for consideration.
• For a wide range of column sections and doubler plate detailing, strain gradients and strain magnitudes well
above the yield strain in the girder flanges did not prohibit the specimens from achieving the connection
prequalification requirement of completing two cycles at 4.0% interstory drift without significant strength
degradation. This was even the case for one specimen that had notch toughness in the weld metal that was
significantly below the requirements in the FEMA (2000a, 2000b) guidelines. These results indicate that the
column reinforcement detailing may not have a significant effect on the potential for brittle fracture at the girder
flange-to-column flange weld. Note that this is contrary to previous finite-element analyses reported in the
literature using theoretical fracture criteria that have predicted a significant effect of using or omitting
continuity plates.
• If continuity plates are required, fillet-welded continuity plates that were approximately half of the girder flange
thickness performed well. The results showed that only minor local yielding occurred in these continuity plates
in part of the most stressed cross sections at peak drift level and that these strains were not sufficient to cause
cracking or distortion in the continuity plate or to change the strain gradients in the girder flange substantially.
Since continuity plates do not significantly yield, it may not be necessary to size the welds large enough to
develop the continuity plate. Rather the weld and the plate may only need to be designed for the difference
between the demand and the capacity of the column shape without the continuity plate.

17
• The offset doubler plate detail was also found to function effectively as continuity plates while simultaneously
serving as web doubler plates.
• In all the five successful cruciform tests, the seismic performance of the relatively weak panel zones was stable
and ductile, and the panel zones exhibited good energy dissipation. While the plastic moment was achieved in
the five WUF-W specimens tested in this work, no full-depth girder plastic hinge formation was observed up to
the 4.0% interstory drift cycles. With the weaker panel zones in these five specimens, a major portion of the
girder yielding was observed near the girder flange-to-column flange boundary area even in Specimens CR1
and CR2, which satisfied the Strong Column-Weak Beam (SCWB) criteria of the 2002 AISC Seismic
Provisions (AISC, 2002). The girder webs yielded only locally at the higher interstory drift cycles, just before
the low cycle fatigue fracturing in the girder flange-to-column flange groove welds occurred in all specimens.
Observation of the yielding in the joint region at the higher interstory drift levels indicated that it is more
realistic to calculate the panel zone design demand directly at the column face for connections that have weaker
panel zones, without considering the moment increments due to the girder shear force at the assumed girder
plastic hinge location.
• The AISC seismic panel zone shear strength equation from the 2002 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2002)
[Equation (8)] overestimated the panel zone shear strengths in the WUF-W specimens tested in this work when
compared with the experimental panel zone responses at 4γy of shear deformation, which is implied in Equation
(8) as the design shear deformation of the panel zone. A new panel zone design shear strength equation is thus
presented and compared to the results from this work and to other experiments from the literature that have a
wide range of panel zone characteristics. The new equation provided a more accurate prediction of panel zone
strength. A resistance factor of 0.85 is recommended for use with the equation. If used with the panel zone
shear demand of AISC (2002), the new equation likely provides thicker panel zones than the design procedure
of AISC (2002). Future work should be conducted to investigate more comprehensively the corresponding
panel zone shear demand that is best used in conjunction with the proposed equation.
• These experimental results indicate that, with improved connection detailing and notch-tough weld material,
more than 4γy may be assumed as the acceptable maximum panel zone shear deformation in prequalified steel
moment-resisting connections, even in the presence of higher stress and strain demands due to weaker panel
zones. Lee et al. (2004) present a new panel zone shear demand equation for use with the WUF-W and similar
connections that are to be designed with weaker panel zones.
• Within the limited number of WUF-W experimental study, a strong correlation between the panel zone strength
and fracturing of the shear tab welded to the column flange at its top and bottom edges was not observed.
Instead, fracturing in the shear tab edges seems to be more directly affected by girder flange local buckling,
LCF crack opening in the girder flanges, or both, under large connection deformations. Local buckling in the
bottom girder flange, for example, can increase the inelastic demand in the top girder flange, which may cause
the initial crack at the shear tab top edge.

As a result of this study, the following additional research is recommended. First, these conclusions should be
validated for deep columns. Second, continuity plates with undersized fillet welds should be tested to confirm that
the weld need not develop the full continuity plate strength. Third, because of the possibility of obtaining brittle
weld metal despite the fact that weld certifications show adequate toughness, a study should be conducted to fully
characterize the typical variability in the CVN and other properties of the weld. An evaluation of the need for lot
testing should be performed. Consideration should also be given to use of filler metals with a distribution of CVN
such that there is a sufficiently small probability of not meeting the minimum required values, and therefore lot
testing may not be required. Finally, the local flange bending and local web yielding criteria, if they are to be
adopted, should be validated for a wider range of concentrated loading cases found in typical practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. and by the University of
Minnesota. In-kind funding and materials were provided by LeJeune Steel Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Danny’s Construction Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Braun Intertec, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nucor-Yamato
Steel Company, Blytheville, Arkansas; Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio; and Edison Welding Institute,
Cleveland, Ohio. Supercomputing resources were provided by the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute. The
authors thank S. C. Cotton, S. D. Ojard, and Y. Ye for their extensive research contributions to this project. The

18
authors also thank T. V. Galambos, P. M. Bergson, and J. C. Nelson of the University of Minnesota, L. A. Kloiber
of LeJeune Steel Corporation, and the members of the external advisory group on this project for their valuable
assistance.

REFERENCES

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1937). A Manual for Architects, Engineers and Fabricators of
Buildings and Other Steel Structures, Third ed., AISC, New York, New York.
AISC (1989). Manual of Steel Construction – Allowable Stress Design, Ninth ed., AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (1992). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (1997a). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (1997b). “AISC Advisory on Mechanical Properties Near the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and Interim
Recommendations, January 10, 1997,” Modern Steel Construction, AISC, Chicago, Illinois, February, p. 18.
AISC (1999a). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago,
Illinois.
AISC (1999b). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings - Supplement No. 1, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (1999c). Stiffening of Wide-Flange Columns at Moment Connections: Wind and Seismic Applications, AISC
Design Guide No. 13, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (2001a). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings - Supplement No. 2, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (2001b). “AISC Advisory on Changes to T, k, and k1 Dimensions for W-Shapes, February 14, 2001,” AISC,
Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (2002). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1998). “ASTM A6/A6M: Standard Specification for General
Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling,” ASTM, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
American Welding Society (AWS) (1995). Specification for Carbon Steel Electrodes for Flux Cored Arc Welding,
AWS A5.20-95, AWS, Miami, Florida.
AWS (2000). Structural Welding Code – Steel, AWS D1.1-2000, AWS, Miami, Florida.
Bartlett, F.M., R.J. Dexter, M.D. Graeser, J.J. Jelinek, B.J. Schmidt, and T.V. Galambos (2003). “Updating
Standard Shape Material Properties Database for Design and Reliability,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 40, No.
1, 1st Quarter, pp 2-14.
Becker, R. (1975). “Panel Zone Effect on the Strength and Stiffness of Steel Rigid Frames,” Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Bertero, V. V., Krawinkler, H., and Popov, E. P. (1973). Further Studies on Seismic Behavior of Steel Beam-
Column Subassemblages, Report No. EERC-73/27, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Biddah, A. and Heidebrecht, A. C. (1998). “Seismic Performance Moment-Resisting Steel Frame Structures
Designed for Different Levels of Seismic Hazard,” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 597-627.
Biddah, A. and Heidebrecht, A. C. (1999). “Evaluation of the Seismic Level of Protection Afforded to Steel
Moment Resisting Frame Structures Designed for Different Design Philosophies,” Canadian journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 26, pp. 35-54.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C., and Whittaker, A. (1998). Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 1st Ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, New York.

19
Charney, F. A. and Johnson, R. (1986). “The Effect of Panel Zone Deformations on the Drift of Steel Framed
Structures,” Proceedings of the Fourth ASCE Structures Congress ’86, ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
Dexter, R. J., Hajjar, J. F., Cotton, S. C., Prochnow, S. D, and Ye, Y. (1999). “Reassessment of Design Criteria and
New Alternatives for Column Transverse Stiffeners (Continuity Plates) and Web Doubler Plates: Interim Report,”
Report No. ST-99-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Dexter, R. J. (2000). “Structural Shape Material Property Survey,” Final Report to Structural Shape Producer's
Council, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Dexter, R. J., Hajjar, J. F., Prochnow, S. D., Graeser, M. D., Galambos, T. V., and Cotton, S. C. (2001). “Evaluation
of the Design Requirements for Column Stiffeners and Doublers and the Variation in Properties of A992 Shapes,”
Proceedings of the North American Steel Construction Conference, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
El-Tawil, S., Mikesell, T., Vidarsson, E., and Kunnath, S. (1998). Strength and Ductility of FR Welded-Bolted
Connections, Report No. SAC/BD-98/01, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
El-Tawil, S., Vidarsson, E., Mikesell, T., and Kunnath, S. K. (1999). “Inelastic Behavior and Design of Steel Panel
Zones,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 183-193.
El-Tawil, S. (2000). “Panel Zone Yielding in Steel Moment Connections,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 37,
No. 1, pp. 120-131.
Engelhardt, M. D., Shuey, B. D., and Sabol, T. A. (1997). “Testing of Repaired Steel Moment Connections,”
Proceedings of the ASCE Structures Congress, Kempner, L. and Brown, C. (eds.), Portland, Oregon, April 13-16,
1997, pp. 408-412.
Engelhardt, M. D. (1999). “Design of Reduced Beam Section Moment Connections,” Proceedings of the AISC
North American Steel Construction Conference, Toronto, Ontario, May 19-21, 1999, AISC, Chicago, Illinois.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1995). “Interim Guidelines: Inspection, Evaluation, Repair,
Upgrade and Design of Welded Moment Resisting Steel Structures,” Report No. FEMA-267, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (1996). “Interim Guidelines: Advisory No. 1,” Report No. FEMA-267A, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (1999). “Interim Guidelines: Advisory No. 2,” Report No. FEMA-267B, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000a). “Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings,” Report No.
FEMA-350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000b). Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame
Construction for Seismic Applications, Report No. FEMA 353, FEMA, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000c). “State-of-the-Art Report on Connection Performance,” Report No. FEMA-355D, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Graham, J. D., Sherbourne, A. N., Khabbaz, R. N., and Jensen, C. D. (1960). Welded Interior Beam-to-Column
Connections, Bulletin No. 63, Welding Research Council, New York, New York, pp. 1-28.
Hajjar, J. F., Dexter, R. J., Ojard, S. D., Ye, Y., and Cotton, S. C. (2003). “Continuity Plate Detailing for Steel
Moment-Resisting Connections,” Engineering Journal, AISC, in press.
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1971). Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-Column
Subassemblages, Report No. EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Krawinkler, H. (1978). “Shear in Beam-Column Joints in Seismic Design of Steel Frames,” Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 82-91.
Lee, D., Cotton, S., Dexter, R. J., Hajjar, J. F., Ye, Y., and Ojard, S. D. (2002). Column Stiffener Detailing and
Panel Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections, Report No. ST-01-3.2, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

20
Lee, D., Cotton, S. C., Hajjar, J. F., Dexter, R. J., Ye, Y., Ojard, S. D. (2004). “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Moment-
Resisting Connections Reinforced by Alternative Column Stiffener Details. I. Connection Performance and
Continuity Plate Detailing. II. Panel Zone Behavior and Doubler Plate Detailing,” Engineering Journal, AISC,
submitted for publication.
Liew, J. Y. R. and Chen W. F. (1995). “Analysis and Design of Steel Frames Considering Panel Joint
Deformations,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 10, pp. 1531-1539.
Mao, C., Ricles, J. M., Lu, L., and Fisher, J. W. (2001). “Effect of Local Details on Ductility of Welded Moment
Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 9, pp. 1036-1044.
Parkes, E. W. (1952). “The Stress Distribution Near a Loading Point in a Uniform Flanged Beam,” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 244A, pp. 417-467.
Popov, E. P., Amin, N. R., Louie, J. J. C., and Stephen, R. M. (1986). “Cyclic Behavior of Large Beam-Column
Assemblies,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 9-23.
Prochnow, S. D., Dexter, R. J., Hajjar, J. F., Ye, Y., and Cotton, S. C. (2000). Local Flange Bending and Local Web
Yielding Limit States in Steel Moment-Resisting Connections, Report No. ST-00-4, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ricles, J. M., Mao, C., Lu, L., and Fisher, J. W. (2002). “Inelastic Cyclic Testing of Welded Unreinforced Moment
Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Roeder, C. W. and Foutch, D. A. (1996). “Experimental Results for Seismic Resistant Steel Moment Frame
Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 6, pp. 581-588.
Roeder, C. W. (2002). “General Issues Influencing Connection Performance,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 420-428.
SAC (1997). Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing, and Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests
and Other Experimental Specimens, Report No. SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
Schneider, S. P. and Amidi, A. (1998). “Seismic Behavior of Steel Frames with Deformable Panel Zones,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Sherbourne, A. N. and Jensen, C. D. (1957). Direct Welded Beam Column Connections, Report. No. 233.12, Fritz
Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Tide, R. H. R. (2000). “Evaluation of Steel Properties and Cracking in k–area of W Shapes,” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 128-134.
Wongkaew, A., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovic, B. (2001). Development of Improved Details for Unreinforced
Welded Steel Moment Connections, Report No. UMCEE 01-20, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Wood, R. H. (1955). “Yield Line Theory,” Research Paper No. 22, Building Research Station.
Ye, Y., Hajjar, J. F., Dexter, R. D., Prochnow, S. C., and Cotton, S. C. (2000). Nonlinear Analysis of Continuity
Plate and Doubler Plate Details in Steel Moment Frame Connections, Report No. ST-00-3, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Yee, R. K., Paterson, S. R., and Egan, G. R. (1998). “Engineering Evaluations of Column Continuity Plate Detail
Design and Welding Issues in Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections,” Welding for Seismic Zones in New
Zealand, Aptech Engineering Services, Inc., Sunnyvale, California.

21
 Table 1: Nominal Dimensions and Normalized Design Strengths of Pull-Plate Specimens (Unstiffened)

Column W14x132 W14x145 W14x159

Nominal tcw 0.645 0.680 0.745

Dim. tcf 1.030 1.090 1.190
k 1.688 1.750 1.875
Non- LWY 0.79 0.86 1.01
seismica
LFB 0.80 0.89 1.06
a
1.1Ry LWY 0.66 0.72 0.84
LFB 0.66 0.74 0.89
a
Seismic LWY 0.44 0.48 0.56
LFB 0.44 0.50 0.59
a
The values in the table are the ratio of φRn/Ru, which show the percentage of the flange force the column can
resist. Equations (4), (7), and (5) were used to determine Ru based on non-seismic, 1.1Ry, and seismic girder
flange demands, respectively, while Equations (1) and (3) were used to calculate φRn for LWY and LFB,
respectively.

Table 2: Material Properties and Measured Dimensions of Pull-Plate Specimens

W14x132 W14x145 W14x159

(flange/web) (flange/web) (flange/web) Pull-plate HCPa FCPa DPa DP
Boxa
Coupon
Yield
49.2/54.4b 58.2/59.4 51.1/ 55.2 48.2 50.0 46.0 56.2 46.5
(0.2%
offset)
Mill
53.0 57.0 53.5 51.2 61.3 51.2 57.0 51.2
Yield
Coupon
69.4/70.3 74.1/75.1 71.5/71.8 72.5 72.2 72.5 73.8 72.5
Tensile
Mill
70.5 73.5 72 72.1 80.4 72.1 71.0 72.1
Tensile
tcw 0.657 0.646 0.745 - - - - -
tcf 0.998 1.073 1.187 - - - - -
bcf 14.73 15.50 15.57 - - - - -
k 2.000 2.000 2.250 - - - - -
a
HCP = half-thickness continuity plates, FCP = full-thickness continuity plates, DP = doubler plate, DP Box =
doubler plate box detail.
b
All units in this table are kips and inches.

22
 Table 3: Experimental Test Results and Nominal and Actual Design Strengths of Pull-Plate Specimens

1B-HCP
3-UNST
1-LWY

2-LWY

1-HCP

1-FCP
1-LFB

2-LFB

1-DP
Ultimate Load /
523 k 519 k 519 k 520 k 520 k 526 k 548 k 551 k 527 k
Specimen
Elongation
4.7% 4.2% 3.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.1% 4.3% 5.5% 2.6%
Load /Specimen
471 k 483 k 514 k
Elongation at --- --- --- --- --- ---
LWY YM 1a
2.2% 1.6% 3.2%
Load /Specimen
500 k 437 k 496 k
Elongation at --- --- --- --- --- ---
LWY YM 2b
3.3% 1.4% 2.7%
Nominal φRn for
LWY 296 k 323 k 377 k
Equation (1)
Actual φRn for
LWY Equation 384 k 413 k 493 k
(1)
Load /Specimen
412 k 410 k 463 k 490 k
Elongation at --- --- --- --- ---
LFB YMc
1.1% 1.2% 1.9% 2.5%
Nominal φRn for
LFB Equation 298 k 334 k 398 k
(3)
Actual φRn for
LFB Equation 276 k 377 k 405 k
(3)
Load /Specimen
Elongation at
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Continuity Plate
YMd
Load at 0.6%
Specimen 379 k 382 k 381 k 276 k 274 k 365 k 383 k 387 k 399 k
Elongation
Load at 1.5%
Specimen 437 k 426 k 443 k 435 k 433 k 435 k 459 k 454 k 479 k
Elongation
a
LWY YM 1 = local web yielding yield mechanism 1 = strain at the column length centerline in the k-line
is above 3%
b
LWY YM 2 = local web yielding yield mechanism 2 = strain in the entire 5k+N region of the k-line is
above the yield strain
c
LFB YM = local flange bending yield mechanism = flange tip separation is over ¼ in.
d
CP YM = continuity plate yield mechanism = strain in the full-width region of the continuity plate is
above the yield strain

23
 Table 4: Comparison of Local Flange Bending Failure Loads

Equation (11b), kips

Equation (11b), kips

Ratio with Equation

Ratio with Equation

Ratio with Equation

Ratio with Equation

Load Predicted by

Load Predicted by

Load Predicted by
Load Predicted by
Equation (3), kips

Equation (3), kips

Yield Mechanism

(11b) (Measured)
Test-to-Predicted

Test-to-Predicted

Test-to-Predicted

Test-to-Predicted
(11b) (Nominal)

(3) (Measured)
LFB Failure or
Column Shape

(3) (Nominal)
(Measured)

(Measured)
Load, kips

(Nominal)

(Nominal)
Specimen

1-LWY W14x132 412 332 353 306 328 1.24 1.17 1.35 1.26
2-LWY W14x145 463 371 362 419 442 1.25 1.28 1.11 1.05
3-UNST W14x159 490 443 458 450 465 1.11 1.07 1.09 1.05
1-LFBa W14x132 410 332 353 306 328 1.23 1.16 1.05 1.25
Never
2-LFBa W14x145 reached ¼ 371 362 419 442 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
in. displ.
Mean 1.21 1.17 1.22 1.15
Standard
0.068 0.086 0.14 0.12
Deviation
a
Two ½ in. thick doubler plates added to column web

Table 5: Test Matrix of Cruciform Specimens

CR4
CR1 CR2 CR3 CR5
and CR4R
Girder W24x94 W24x94 W24x94 W24x94 W24x94

Column W14x283 W14x193 W14x176 W14x176 W14x145

Doubler Plate Detail III
None Detail II Detail II Detail I
(DP) Box (Offset)
DP Thickness NA 0.625 in. 2 @ 0.5 in. 2 @ 0.75 in. 2 @ 0.625 in.
Continuity Plate
None None Fillet-welded None None
(CP)
CP Thickness NA NA 0.5 in. NA NA

24
 Table 6: Nominal Capacity/Demand Ratios of PZ Yielding, LFB and LWY Limit States

∑ M *pc PZ LFB φRn/Ru LWY φRn/Ru

Specimen ∑ M *pb φvRv/Ru
Eq. 4a Eq. 5a Eq. 6a Eq. 7a Eq. 4a Eq. 5a Eq. 6a Eq. 7a
3.04 1.69 1.64 2.51
CR1 1.50 0.72 2.38 1.32 1.29 1.97
(3.38)b (1.88) (1.82) (2.78)
1.47 0.82 0.80 1.22
CR2 0.99 0.66 2.20 1.22 1.19 1.82
(1.63) (0.91) (0.89) (1.36)
1.22 0.68 0.66 1.01
CR3 0.89 0.74 2.51 1.39 1.36 2.07
(1.36) (0.76) (0.73) (1.12)
CR4 1.22 0.68 0.66 1.01
0.89 0.93 3.19 1.77 1.73 2.64
(&CR4R) (1.36) (0.76) (0.73) (1.12)
0.84 0.47 0.46 0.70
CR5 0.73 0.74 2.34 1.30 1.27 1.94
(0.93) (0.52) (0.51) (0.78)
a
Equation used to calculate demand, Ru
b
Values in parentheses reflect use of φ = 1.0

Table 7: W-Shape Tensile Properties for the Cruciform Tests

(CR3 & CR4 Column)

(CR3 & CR4 Column)

Girders Except CR3)

Girders Except CR3)

W24x94 flange (All

W24x94 web (All

(CR4R Column)

(CR4R Column)
W14x283 flange

W14x193 flange

W14x176 flange

W14x176 flange

W14x145 flange
W24x94 flange

(CR1 Column)

(CR1 Column)

(CR2 Column)

(CR2 Column)

(CR5 Column)

(CR5 Column)
W14x283 web

W14x193 web

W14x176 web

W14x176 web

W14x145 web
(CR3 Girder)

(CR3 Girder)
W24x94 web

Coupon Test Results

Fy,dyn 50.6 59.7 54.3 60.0 50.7 52.3 50.1 54.0 55.2 57.5 54.3 56.8 56.6 58.7
(ksi)
Fy,st 46.4 55.0 NA NA 47.8 48.8 46.4 49.8 51.8 53.6 NA NA 52.9 54.8
(ksi)
Fu 69.2 74.1 72.3 76.0 73.1 72.6 72.2 72.4 76.6 76.1 73.8 74.3 77.2 77.2
(ksi)
E x 103 28.3 29.5 NA NA 28.2 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.5 29.8 NA NA 29.1 29.4
(ksi)
Esh 535 272 NA NA 636 572 572 479 564 486 NA NA 507 500
(ksi)
Y/T 73.1 80.6 75.1 78.9 69.1 72.0 69.4 74.6 72.1 75.5 73.6 76.4 73.3 76.1
(%)
% 30.7 25.0 34.5 83.5 31.3 29.7 31.8 28.0 29.0 27.1 34.0 34.0 27.0 26.1
Elong.
Mill Test Results
Fy 50.0 NA 54.0 54.5 57.0 55.0 57.5
(ksi)
Fu 68.5 NA 73.5 74.0 76.0 72.0 76.5
(ksi)
% 27.5 NA 22.0 25.5 25.0 27.0 21.5
Elong.

25
 36in.

W14x132
column

3/8in. thick
E70T-1 5in. continuity plate
1 3/8 x 5 x 12-5/8
4 3/4 in.
18in. 3/8in. gap
3/4in.

10in.
25in.
18in.

3/4in.

16in.

Figure 1: Typical Pull-Plate Specimen with a Half-Thickness Continuity Plate, Fillet Welded to the Column Flange
and Web

E70T-6 E71T-8
Remove backing 30 1-1/2in. air-arc back-up bar
bar +1/16in. 5/16 min back-gouge
3/8in.
-0 in. overlap flange cut

3/8in.
3-1/8in.
1in. column flange
Tack weld to hold
90 deg. alignment 3/4in. dia.
grind out tack weld drilled hole
when all welding is 3/4in.
completed

girder
flange

Figure 2: Typical Pull Plate-To-Column Weld Detail

26
Figure 3: Doubler details: (a) back-beveled fillet-welded doubler (Detail I), (b) square-cut fillet-welded doubler
(Detail II), (c) box (offset) doubler (Detail III)

2.25%

2.00%

1.75%

1.50%
1-LWY
Web Strain

1.25%
2-LWY
1.00% 3-UNST
1B-HCP
0.75% 1-HCP
0.50% 1-FCP
1-DP
0.25%
0.18%
0.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location from centerline of column length, in.

Figure 4: Strain Distribution from the Pull-Plate Experiments Along the Column k-line at 450 kips

27
 0.40

0.35
1-LWY
0.30 1-LFB
Displacement, in.

2-LWY
0.25
3-UNST
0.20 2-LFB
1B-HCP
0.15 1-HCP
0.10 1-DP
1-FCP
0.05

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Location from centerline of column length, in.
Figure 5: Column Flange Separation from the Pull-Plate Experiments Along the
Column Length at the Outboard Flange Edge at 450 kips

Figure 6: Typical Connection Details used for Cruciform Specimens (Specimen CR1)

28
 Figure 7: Typical Connection Details Used for Cruciform Specimens (Specimen CR3)

MTS Crosshead
Top Load Pin
Assembly

W24x104
Load Frame
W30x99
W30x99

184.50"
31

W
8x

8x
W

31

Two 77-kip Two 77-kip

Actuators 171.00" Actuators
148.63"

27.00"
13.50"
Strong Floor 80.00" Bottom Load Pin
Assembly
280.00"
380.00"

Figure 8: Experimental Test Setup for Cruciform Specimens

29
Figure 9: Moment Versus Total Plastic Rotation for Specimen CR2 (West Connection)

Figure 10: Moment versus Total Plastic Rotation for Specimen CR5 (West Connection)

30
(a)

(b)

Figure 11: Longitudinal Strain on East Girder Bottom Flange near Column Flange CJP Weld (Girder Flange in
Tension): (a) Specimen CR2, (b) Specimen CR3

31