Cyclic Behaviour of Fully-Rigid and Semi-Rigid Steel Beam-to-Column Connections

  • Iman FaridmehrEmail author
  • Mamood Md. Tahir
  • Mohd Hanim Osman
  • Mohammadamin Azimi


A test program was considered to clarify the cyclic characteristics of eight full-scale unstiffened extended end-plates with variable parameters and one SidePlate moment connection. All specimens were subjected to 2010 AISC seismic provision loading protocol where flexural strengths were identified at each interstorey drift angle. The results showed that all unstiffened extended end-plate failed to develop full inelastic capacity of connected beams and plastic hinges mainly appeared in the connection’s components. On the other hand, the SidePlate moment connection had the capacity to develop adequate interstorey drift angles up to 0.06 rad, indicating that this type of connection possesses sufficient stiffness and strength to be classified as a rigid and full-strength connection. The results also showed that SidePlate possesses considerably more energy dissipation capacity and an equivalent hysteretic damping ratio compared to unstiffened extended end-plate specimens, especially at higher interstorey drift angles.


Steel beam-to-column connection Cyclic behaviour Semi-rigid connection Damage index 



The authors wish to thank the esteemed technical staff of the Structures and Materials Laboratory, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for their cooperation and support in this study. Financial support provided by the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Construction Research Centre (CRC) and SidePlate Company for conducting the experimental work was invaluable, and authors remain obliged.


  1. 358s2, A. A. (2014). Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications (ANSI/AISC 358s2-14). A.I.O.S. Construction, An American National Standard.Google Scholar
  2. 360-10, A. A. (2010). Specification for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10). A.I.O.S. Construction, AISC Committee on Specifications.Google Scholar
  3. AISC Seismic Provisions. (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings A.I.O.S. Construction, AISC committee on Specifications.Google Scholar
  4. Aydın, A. C., et al. (2015). Experimental assessment of the semi-rigid connections behavior with angles and stiffeners. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 114, 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BS EN. (1993). Hot-rolled products in weldable fine grain structural steels (EN 10113-3:1993). BSI British Standards: UK.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, C.-C., et al. (2013). Seismic performance of steel beam-to-column moment connections with tapered beam flanges. Engineering Structures, 48, 588–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Datta, D., et al. (2008). Estimating Park–Ang damage index using equivalent systems. In Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering.Google Scholar
  8. Elnashai, A., et al. (1998). Response of semirigid steel frames to cyclic and earthquake loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(8), 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Houghton, D. L. (2000). Steel frame connection technology of the new millennium: satisfying heightened performance expectations with simplicity and reliability at low cost. In Proceeding of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering 12WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand (January 30–February, 4 2000).Google Scholar
  10. Jennings, P. C. (1968). Equivalent viscous damping for yielding structures. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 94(1), 103–116.Google Scholar
  11. Kukreti, A., et al. (1987). End-plate connection moment-rotation relationship. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 8, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lađinović, Đ., et al. (2011). Seismic performance assessment based on damage of structures, Part 1: Theory. Facta Universitatis-Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering, 9(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, M., et al. (2011a). Cyclic modeling of bolted beam-to-column connections: component approach. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4), 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latour, M., et al. (2011b). Experimental analysis of innovative dissipative bolted double split tee beam-to-column connections. Steel Construction, 4(2), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, S.-S., et al. (2002). Moment–rotation model of semi-rigid connections with angles. Engineering Structures, 24(2), 227–237.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lui, E., et al. (1997). Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames. Engineering Structures, 19(8), 644–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahmoud, H. N., et al. (2013). Hybrid simulation for earthquake response of semirigid partial-strength steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(7), 1134–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Montuori, R., et al. (2017). Influence of connection typology on seismic response of MR-Frames with and without ‘set-backs’. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nguyen, P.-C., et al. (2013). Nonlinear elastic dynamic analysis of space steel frames with semi-rigid connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 84, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oh, K., et al. (2014). Cyclic testing of steel column-tree moment connections with weakened beam splices. International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(3), 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Park, Y.-J., et al. (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), 722–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pazoki, M., & Tasnimi, A. A. (2015). Assessment of the Park and Ang damage index for performance levels of RC moment resisting frames. In Proceedings 7th international conference on seismology & earthquake engineering.Google Scholar
  23. Ramirez, C. M., et al. (2012). Fragility functions for pre-Northridge welded steel moment-resisting beam-to-column connections. Engineering Structures, 45, 574–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saffari, H., et al. (2013). Post-Northridge connections with slit dampers to enhance strength and ductility. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 80, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shahidi, F., et al. (2013). Non-linear behavior of new (FSFN) moment resisting connections in comparison to the existing KBB connections in steel frames. International Journal of Engineering (IJE) Transactions A Basics, 26(10), 1119–1134.Google Scholar
  26. Specifications, A. C. O. (2010). Specification for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10). American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Talebi, E., et al. (2014). Comparative study on the behaviour of buckling restrained braced frames at fire. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 102, 1–12.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yee, Y. L., et al. (1986). Moment–rotation curves for bolted connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 112(3), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zahmatkesh, F., et al. (2016). Numerical study on the structural performance of steel beams with slant end-plate connections. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 13(7), 1360–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussian Federation
  2. 2.UTM Construction Research Centre (CRC), Institute of Smart Infrastructures and Innovative ConstructionUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)SkudaiMalaysia
  3. 3.Forensic Engineering Centre (FEC)Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)SkudaiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations