Seismic behavior of drilled beam section in moment connections

Document Type : Research


1 Department of Construction, Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Civil Engineering Department, K.N.Toosi University of Technology

3 Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, Takestan, Iran


Reduced Beam Section (RBS) and Drilled Beam Section (DBS) are seismic moment resistant frame connections, introduced after 1994 Northridge earthquake. RBS connection has been tested under cyclic loading and showed acceptable performance. In this paper, seismic behavior of Drilled Beam Section (DBS) connection is studied numerically using finite element method. A drilled beam section of a cantilever H-beam has been subjected to cyclic loading at its free end and studied for its optimal shapes. 62 samples of DBS connections have been modeled and studied under cyclic and pushover loadings. Based on the results obtained in this research, the connection shows its positive seismic behavior if the biggest hole is near the column face and its diameter decreases as the holes move away from the column face. In this research the effects of dimensions, position and number of holes are investigated using Von Mises stress and elastic strain criteria under cyclic and monotonic loadings. In this drilled beam the smaller holes shift plastic hinges out of the connection zone.


1. Chen, S.J Yeh C.H., (1994), "Enhancement of ductility of steel beam-to-column connections for seismic resistance", Presented at the SSRC task group meeting and technical section.
2. Moore, K.S, Malley, J.O, Engelhardt M.D, (1996), "Design of reduced beam section (RBS) moment connections", Steel Tips, Structural Steel Education Council. Moraga, CA.
3. Grubbs, K.V, (1997), "The Effect of the Dogbone Connection on the Elastic Stiffness of Steel Moment Frame", a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
4. Rea, D. Clough, R.W, Bouwkamp, J.G., (1969), "Damping Capacity of a Model Steel Structure", Earthquake Engineering Research Center; University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, December, Report No. EERC, 69-14.
5. Plumier, A., (1990), "New idea for safe structures in seismic zone", IASE Symposium, Brussels.
6. Iwankiw, N.R. Carter, C.J., (1996), "The Dogbone: A new idea to chew on modern steel construction", AISC, Vol. 36, No. 4, April.
7. Zekioglu, A. Mozaffarian, H. and Uang, C., (1997), "Moment frame connection development and testing for the city of hope national medical center", Proceedings Structures Congress XV, Portland, American Society of Civil Engineers.
8. Engelhardt, M.D, Winneberger, T. Zekany, A.J, and Potyraj, T.J., (1996), "The dogbone connection Part II", Modern Steel Construction; 36(8), 46-55.
9. Engelhardt, M.D. Winneberger, T. Zekany, A.J, and Potyraj, T.J., (1998), "Experimental investigation of dogbone moment connections", Modern Steel Construction; 35(4), 128-139.
10. ABAQUS, Version 6.11 Documentation. ABAQUS Inc. (2011).
11. Ohsaki, M. Tagawa, H. Pan, P., (2009), "Shape optimization of reduced beam section under cyclic loads", Journal Constructional Steel Research; 65, 1511-1519. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.03.001]
12. American Institute of Steel Construction, (2010), "Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frame for Seismic Applications", Chicago: AISC.
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (2000), "Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frames", Washington DC: October, FEMA-267.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (2000), "Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings", Washington DC: October, FEMA-350.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (1997), "NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", Washington DC: October, FEMA-274.
16. Lee, C.H, Kim, J.H., (2007), "Seismic design of reduced beam section (RBS) steel moment connections with bolted web attachment", Journal Constructional Steel Research; 63, 52 [DOI:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.030]