i

1 AISC 342-XX

3 Seismic Provisions for

4 Evaluation and Retrofit of
5 Existing Structural Steel Buildings

FT
6

A
20 R
7
20 D PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT dated April 29, 2020
1, IEW
8

9
AY V

(Not yet) Approved by the

M RE

10
11 AISC Committee on Specifications
IC

12
BL

13
PU

14

15

16 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

17 130 East Randolph Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois 60601
18 www.aisc.org
19

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 ii

20 PREFACE
21 (This Preface is not part of ANSI/AISC 342-22, Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
22 Structural Steel Buildings, it is included for informational purposes only.)
23 These Provisions are based upon past successful usage and advances in the state of knowledge relative to the retrofit
24 of structures subjected to seismic loads. Where required by ASCE/SEI 41, these Provisions are intended to be used
25 in conjunction with the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341.
26 The Provisions are ANSI-approved and have been developed as a consensus document using ANSI-accredited
27 procedures to provide a uniform practice for the seismic retrofit of steel-framed buildings, and also those buildings
28 that may include composite, cast iron, and wrought iron elements. The intention is to provide design criteria to be
29 used in conjunction with ASCE/SEI 41. It is intended that ASCE/SEI 41 adopt these Provisions to replace Chapter 9
30 of that standard. The intention is also to provide design criteria for routine use and not to provide specific criteria for
31 infrequently encountered problems, which occur in the full range of structural design.

FT
32 The Provisions are a result of the consensus deliberations of a committee of structural engineers with wide
33 experience and high professional standing, representing a wide geographical distribution throughout the United

A
34 States. The committee includes approximately equal numbers of engineers in private practice and code agencies,

20 R
35 engineers involved in research and teaching, and engineers employed by steel fabricating and producing companies.
36 The contributions and assistance of more than 50 additional professional volunteers working in task committees are
37 also hereby acknowledged. 20 D
1, IEW
38 The Symbols, Glossary, Abbreviations to these Provisions are an integral part of the Provisions. The Symbols,
39 Glossary, Abbreviations are consistent with those used in ASCE/SEI 41 for ease of adoption by ASCE/SEI 41, and
40 for ease of use with ASCE/SEI 41. A nonmandatory Commentary has been prepared to provide background for the
AY V

41 Provisions. The user is encouraged to consult the Commentary. Additionally, nonmandatory User Notes are
M RE

42 interspersed throughout the Provisions to provide concise and practical guidance in the application of the provisions.

43
IC
BL

44
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 iii

45 SYMBOLS
46 Some definitions in the list below have been simplified in the interest of brevity. In all cases, the definitions given in the
47 body of these provisions govern. Symbols without text definitions, or used only in one location and defined at that
48 location, are omitted in some cases. The section or table number in the righthand column refers to the Section where the
49 symbol is first defined.
50
51 Symbol Definition Section
52
53 Ab Gross area of rivet or bolt, in.2 (mm2) .......................................................................................... C5.3a.2(a)(i)
54 Acf Area of column flange, in.2 (mm2) ....................................................................................................... C4.4a.2
55 Aconn Cross-sectional area of BRB connection, in.2 (mm2)......................................................................... C3.4a.1.b
56 Acore Cross-sectional area of BRB core, in.2 (mm2) ................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b
57 Ae Effective net area of horizontal angle leg, in.2 (mm2) ................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(ii)
58 Ae Effective net area of split-tee stem, in.2 (mm2) ........................................................................... C5.3a.2(b)(iii)
Effective net area of flange plate, in.2 (mm2) ................................................................................... C5.3a.2(c)

FT
59 Ae
60 Ag Gross area of cross section, in.2 (mm2) .................................................................................................... C3.2b
61 Ag Gross area of flange plate, in.2 (mm2) .............................................................................................. C5.3a.2(c)

A
62 Ag Gross area of gusset plate, in2 (mm2) ...................................................................................................... C7.2b

20 R
63 Ag Gross area of horizontal angle leg, in.2 (mm2)............................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(ii)
Gross area of smaller member, in.2 (mm2)........................................................................................C5.3b.3(b)
64
65
Ag
Ag 20 D
Gross area of split-tee stem, in.2 (mm2) ............................................................................................ C5.3a.2(b)
1, IEW
66 Ant Net area subject to tension, in.2 (mm2) ................................................................................................. C7.3b.3
67 Anv Net area subject to shear, in.2 (mm2) .................................................................................................... C7.3b.3
68 As Effective shear area of the cross section, in.2 (mm2) ......................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
69 Bw Effective gusset plate width, in. (mm) ..................................................................................................... C7.2b
AY V

70 E Modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa)............................................................... C2.4a.1.b

M RE

71 Eci Modulus of elasticity of cast iron = 20,000 ksi (138 000 MPa) ..................................................................I3.1
72 Fcr Critical stress, ksi (MPa) ................................................................................................................................I3
73 FcrLB Critical stress of the plate computed using FyLB, ksi (MPa).................................................................. C7.3b.4
IC

74 Fe Elastic buckling stress determined according to Equation I3-4, ksi (MPa) .................................................I3.1
75 Fnv Nominal shear stress for bearing-type connections,
BL

76 given in Specification Section J3.6, ksi (MPa) ............................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(i)

77 Fnw Nominal stress of weld metal, ksi (MPa) ......................................................................................... C5.3a.2(c)
78 Fte Expected tensile strength of bolt or rivet, taken as Fnt,
PU

79 given in Specification Section J3, ksi (MPa) .............................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(iii)

80 Fu Specified minimum tensile strength ..................................................................................................... C3.3a.1
81 Fue Expected tensile strength, ksi (MPa) ....................................................................................................... A5.2a
82 FuLB Lower-bound tensile strength, ksi (MPa) ................................................................................................ A5.2a
83 Fve Expected shear strength of bolt or rivet, taken as Fnv,
84 given in Specification Section J3 ksi (MPa) ................................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(i)
85 Fy Specified minimum yield stress, ksi (MPa) .......................................................................................... C2.3a.1
86 Fye Expected yield stress, ksi (MPa) ............................................................................................................. A5.2a
87 FyLB Lower-bound yield stress, ksi (MPa)....................................................................................................... A5.2a
88 G Shear modulus of elasticity of steel = 11,200 ksi (77 200 MPa) ....................................................... C2.4a.1.b
89 I Moment of inertia about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4) .................................................................. C2.4a.1.b

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 iv

90 Ib Moment of inertia of beam about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4) ....................................................... C5.2a.2
91 Ic Moment of inertia of a column or brace about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4) ...................................... C3.2b
92 K Effective length factor .......................................................................................................................... C3.3a.1
93 KIC Fracture toughness parameter per Table C5.3
94 or by other approved methods, ksi in. ( MPa mm ) ....................................................................C5.3b.3(b)
95 Ke Elastic shear stiffness, kip/in. (N/mm) .................................................................................................... C2.2c
96 Kw Elastic shear stiffness of a stiffened plate wall, kip/in. (N/mm) .............................................................. C6.2c
97 Kθ Rotational stiffness, kip-in./rad (N-mm/rad) ........................................................................................ C5.2a.2
98 L Laterally unbraced length of member, in. (mm) .............................................................................. Table C3.6
99 LCL Length of beam taken between column centerlines, in. (mm) ........................................................... C2.4a.1.b
100 LCL Length of member taken between beam centerlines, in. (mm) .......................................................... C3.4a.2.b
101 Lavg Average unrestrained length of gusset plate, in. (mm) ............................................................................ C7.2b
102 Lc Effective length, in. (mm) .................................................................................................................... C3.3a.1
103 Lc Laterally unbraced length of column, in. (mm) ...........................................................................................I3.1
104 Lcf Length of beam taken as the clear span between column flanges, in. (mm) ................................. C5.4a.1.a(1)

FT
105 Lconn Length of BRB connection, in. (mm) ................................................................................................ C3.4a.1.b
106 Lcore Length of BRB core, in. (mm)........................................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b

A
107 Lee End-to-end brace length, in. (mm) .......................................................................................................... C3.2a
108 Lell Rotational clearance ................................................................................................................................ C7.4a

20 R
109 Lv clear length between supports that resist translation in the direction of the shear force, in. (mm) ............ C2.1
110
111
Lvert
MCE
20 D
Vertical clearance between the brace end and beam flange, in. (mm) ..................................................... C7.4a
Expected flexural strength, kip-in. (N-mm) .............................................................................................. C2.1
1, IEW
112 MCExLTB Expected lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ................. C3.4a.2.a.2
113 MCEy Expected flexural strength about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) .......................................................... C3.4a.2.a.2
114 MCL Lower-bound flexural strength, kip-in. (N-mm) .................................................................................. C2.3b.1
MCLc Lower-bound flexural strength of connection at the face of column,
AY V

115
116 determined in accordance with Section C5.3b.1, kips (N) ............................................................ C5.4a.1.a(1)
M RE

117 MCLxLTB Lower-bound lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) .......... C3.4a.2.a.2
118 MCLy Lower-bound flexural strength about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ................................................... C3.4a.2.a.2
119 MCxLTB Lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis,
IC

120 determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.2 or C3.3b.2 at PUF = 0, kip-in. (N-mm) ................ C3.4a.2.a.2
121 MCy Flexural strength about the y-axis,
BL

122 determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.2 or C3.3b.2, kip-in. (N-mm) ................................. C3.4a.2.a.2
123 Mn Nominal flexural strength, kip-in. (N-mm) .......................................................................................... C2.3a.1
PU

124 Mpce Expected plastic flexural strength reduced for the effect of axial force
125 (compression or tension), kip-in. (N-mm) ............................................................................................ C3.3a.2
126 Mpe Expected plastic flexural strength, kip-in. (N-mm) .............................................................................. C2.3a.1
127 Mpe Expected plastic flexural strength of the section, at the location of the plastic hinge,
128 about the axis of bending defined in Section C2.3a.1, kip-in. (N-mm) .............................................. C2.4a.1.a
129 Mpeb Expected plastic flexural strength of beam at the plastic hinge location, determined in accordance with
130 Section C2.3a at the plastic hinge location, projected to the face of column, kips (N) ................. C5.4a.1.a(1)
131 Mpex Expected plastic flexural strength about the x-axis,
132 determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.2 at P = PUF = 0, kip-in. (N-mm) ........................... C3.4a.2.a.1
133 Mpey Expected plastic flexural strength about the y-axis,
134 determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.2 at P = PUF = 0, kip-in. (N-mm) ........................... C3.4a.2.a.1
135 MpLB Lower-bound plastic flexural strength, kip-in. (N-mm) .................................................................... C3.4b.2.a

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 v

136 MUDx Bending moment about the x-axis,

137 determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.1, kip-in. (N-mm) .......................... C3.4a.2.a.1
138 MUDy Bending moment about the y-axis,
139 determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.1, kip-in. (N-mm) .......................... C3.4a.2.a.1
140 MUFx Bending moment for force-controlled flexure about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ............................ C3.4a.2.a.2
141 MUFy Bending moment for force-controlled flexure about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ............................ C3.4a.2.a.2
142 MUx Bending moment about the x-axis,
143 computed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1, kip-in. (N-mm) ............................... C3.4a.2.a.2
144 MUy Bending moment about the y-axis,
145 computed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1, kip-in. (N-mm) ............................... C3.4a.2.a.2
146 Mx Bending moment about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ........................................................................... C3.4a.2.b
147 My Bending moment about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm) ........................................................................... C3.4a.2.b
148 My(beam) Expected first yield moment of beam, kip-in. (N-mm) ................................................................. C5.4a.1.a(1)
149 Nb Least number of bolts or rivets connecting the top or bottom angle to the beam flange .............. C5.3a.2(a)(i)
150 Nb Least number of bolts or rivets connecting the flange of the top or bottom split-tee
151 to the column flange ......................................................................................................................... C5.3a.2(b)

FT
152 P Axial compressive force, kips (N) ........................................................................................................... C3.2b
153 P Axial force (compression or tension), kips (N) .................................................................................... C3.3a.2

A
154 PCE Expected compressive strength, kips (N) ............................................................................................. C3.3a.1

20 R
155 PCE Expected compressive and tensile strength for a buckling-restrained brace ........................................ C3.3a.1
156 PCE Expected tensile strength of horizontal angle leg, kips (N) ......................................................... C5.3a.2(a)(ii)
157
158
PCL
PG
20 D
Lower-bound compressive strength, kips (N) ...................................................................................... C3.3b.1
Axial force component of the gravity load as determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-3 .............. C3.4a.2.b
1, IEW
159 Pn Nominal axial strength, kips (N) ............................................................................................................... C2.1
160 Pn Nominal compressive strength, kips (N) .............................................................................................. C3.3a.1
161 Pns Cross-section compressive strength, kips (N) ......................................................................................... C3.2b
AY V

162 Pr Required axial compressive strength using LRFD or ASD load combinations, kips (N) ........................ C3.2b
Pr Required axial strength using LRFD or ASD load combinations, kips (N) ............................................. C4.3a
M RE

163
164 PUD Tensile force in the member,
165 determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.1, kips (N) ..................................... C3.4a.2.a.2
166 PUF Axial force (compression or tension) in the member,
IC

167 determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.2, kips (N) ............................................... C2.1
168 Pye Expected axial yield strength, kips (N) ................................................................................................... C3.2b
BL

169 Pye,cf Expected axial yield strength of the column flange, kips (N) .............................................................. C4.4a.2
170 PyLB Lower-bound axial yield strength, kips (N)....................................................................................... C3.4b.2.a
PU

171 Q Force demand, kips (N) or kip-in. (N-mm) ........................................................................................ Fig. C1.1
172 QCE Expected component strength, kips (N) or kip-in. (N-mm) ..................................................................... B2.3a
173 QCL Lower-bound component strength, kips (N) or kip-in. (N-mm) ................................................................ B2.3b
174 QCL Lower-bound shear strength, kips (N) ..................................................................................................... G1.3b
175 QUD Deformation-controlled action caused by gravity loads and earthquake forces,
176 determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.2 .............................................................. G6.4
177 QUF Force-controlled demand, kips (N).......................................................................................................... C7.3b
178 Qy Expected component yield strength, kips (N) or kip-in. (N-mm) ......................................................... C2.3a.1
179 Rn Nominal strength, specificed in the Specification ................................................................................... C4.3a
180 S Elastic section modulus about the axis of bending, in.3 (mm3) .......................................................... C2.4a.1.a
181 Sb Elastic section modulus of beam, in.3 (mm3) ........................................................................................ C5.3a.1

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 vi

182 Sn Nominal diaphragm strength, kip/in (N/mm) .......................................................................................... G1.3a

183 Snb Nominal shear strength per unit length of a diaphragm
184 controlled by out-of-plane buckling, kip/in (N/mm) ............................................................................... G1.3a
185 Snf Nominal shear strength per unit length of diaphragm controlled by connections, kip/in. (N/mm) ......... G1.3a
186 Sx Elastic section modulus of the smaller member taken about the x-axis, in.3 (mm3) .........................C5.3b.3(b)
187 Sy Elastic section modulus of the smaller member taken about the y-axis, in.3 (mm3) .........................C5.3b.3(b)
188 TCE Expected tensile strength, kips (N) ....................................................................................................... C3.3a.1
189 TCL Lower-bound tensile strength, kips (N) ................................................................................................ C3.3b.1
190 TCL Gross section yield strength, kips (N) .................................................................................................. C7.3b.1
191 TCL Block shear rupture strength, kips (N).................................................................................................. C7.3b.3
192 VCE Expected shear strength, kips (N) .............................................................................................................. C2.1
193 VCL Lower-bound shear strength, kips (N) .................................................................................................. C2.3b.1
194 Vn Nominal shear strength, kips (N).......................................................................................................... C2.3a.2
195 VPZ panel-zone shear at the development of a hinge (expected first yield)
196 at the critical location of the connection, kips (N)......................................................................... C5.4a.1.a(1)
197 VPZ Panel zone shear, kips (N) .................................................................................................................... C4.4a.1

FT
198 Vpe Nominal shear strength, Vn, in the absence of axial force, from Seismic Provisions Section F3,
199 with Fye substituted for Fy, kips (N) ..................................................................................................... C3.3a.3

A
200 Vye Expected shear yield strength, kips (N) ................................................................................................ C3.3a.3

20 R
201 Zb Plastic section modulus of beam, in.3 (mm3) ........................................................................................ C5.3a.1
202 a Modeling parameter shown in Figure C1.1 ....................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
203
204
a
a0
20 D
Clear width of wall between vertical boundary elements, in. (mm) ........................................................ C6.2c
Dimension of smaller flange or web thickness that is not welded,
1, IEW
205 including any applicable loss, in. (mm) ............................................................................................C5.3b.3(b)
206 b Modeling parameter shown in Figure C1.1 ...................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
207 ba Distance from the exterior flange face to the resultant tensile force of the bolt or rivet group,
AY V

208 as shown in Figure C5.1 in. (mm) .............................................................................................. C5.3a.2(a)(iii)

bbf Width of beam flange, in. (mm) .................................................................................................... C5.4a.1.a(1)
M RE

209
210 bcf Width of the column flange, in. (mm) .................................................................................................. C4.4a.2
211 bf Width of flange, in. (mm) ................................................................................................................ Table C3.6
212 bt Distance between the nearest row of fasteners in the flange of the split-tee and the centerline of the split-tee
IC

213 stem, as shown in Figure C5.2, in. (mm) .................................................................................... C5.3a.2(b)(iv)

214 c Modeling parameter shown in Figure C1.1 ...................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
BL

215 d Modeling parameter shown in Figure C3.1 ....................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b

216 d Modeling parameter shown in Figure C1.1 .......................................................................................... G1.4a.2
PU

217 d Full nominal depth of member, in. (mm) ........................................................................................ Table C3.6
218 db Depth of beam, in. (mm) ................................................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
219 db Smallest depth of the connecting beams at a panel zone, in. (mm) ...................................................... C4.4a.2
220 dbg Depth of bolt group, in. (mm) ......................................................................................................... Table C5.6
221 dmax Larger binding distance of d1 and d2, in. (mm) ................................................................................ Table C5.7
222 d1 Vertical distance from center of bolt group to top of beam, in. (mm) ............................................. Table C5.7
223 d2 Vertical distance from center of bolt group to bottom of beam, in. (mm) ....................................... Table C5.7
224 e Modeling parameter ............................................................................................................................. G1.4a.2
225 f Modeling parameter .......................................................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b
226 f Resistance immediately prior to fracture ......................................................................................... Table C7.1
227 ftCE Tensile strength of the weld group, kip/in., (N/mm) ............................................................................ C7.4a.1

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 vii

228 ftUD Yield strength of gusset plate, kip/in, (N/mm) ..................................................................................... C7.4a.1
229 g Gap distance between the end of beam and face of column, in. (mm) ............................................ Table C5.7
230 h For rolled shapes, the clear distance between flanges less the fillet or corner radii;
231 for built-up welded sections, the clear distance between flanges;
232 for built-up bolted sections, the distance between fastener lines; and
233 for tees, the overall depth, in. (mm) ................................................................................................ Table C3.6
234 h Clear height of wall between horizontal boundary elements, in. (mm) ................................................... C6.2c
235 havg Average story height of columns above and below panel zone, in. (mm) ..................................... C5.4a.1.a(1)
236 m Component capacity modification factor ................................................................................................ B2.4a
237 me Effective component capacity modification factor due to lateral torsional buckling ......................... C2.4a.1.a
238 mt Component capacity modification factor, m, for column or brace in tension
239 taken from Table C3.3 .................................................................................................................... C3.4a.2.a.2
240 mx Component capacity modification factor, m, for column flexure about the x-axis at PUF
241 in accordance with Table C3.5 ........................................................................................................ C3.4a.2.a.1
242 my Component capacity modification factor, m, for column flexure about the y-axis at PUF
243 in accordance with Table C3.5 ........................................................................................................ C3.4a.2.a.1

FT
244 np Modification factor for connection robustness ................................................................................... C7.4a.1.a
245 r Radius of gyration, in. (mm) ........................................................................................................... Table C3.2

A
246 ry Radius of gyration about y-axis, in. (mm) ....................................................................................... Table C3.6

20 R
247 t Design wall thickness of HSS member, in. (mm) ............................................................................ Table C3.6
248 t Thickness of continuity plate, in. (mm) ......................................................................................... C5.4a.1.a(1)
249
250
ta
tbf
20 D
Thickness of angle, in. (mm) ....................................................................................................... C5.3a.2(a)(ii)
Thickness of beam flange, in. (mm) .............................................................................................. C5.4a.1.a(1)
1, IEW
251 tcf Thickness of column flange, in. (mm) .................................................................................................. C4.4a.2
252 tf Thickness of flange, in. (mm) ......................................................................................................... Table C3.6
253 tf Thickness of flange of the split-tee, in. (mm) ............................................................................. C5.3a.2(b)(iv)
AY V

254 tf,u Thickness of the smaller flange or web, in. (mm) ............................................................................C5.3b.3(b)
tp Total thickness of panel zone, including doubler plates, in. (mm) .......................................................... C4.3a
M RE

255
256 tp Thickness of flange plate, in. (mm) .................................................................................................. C5.3a.2(c)
257 tp Thickness of gusset plate, in. (mm) ......................................................................................................... C7.2b
258 ts Thickness of split-tee stem, in. (mm) .......................................................................................... C5.3a.2(b)(ii)
IC

259 tw Thickness of web, in. (mm) ............................................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b

260 tw Thickness of column web, in. (mm) ........................................................................................................ C4.3a
BL

261 tw Thickness of steel plate shear wall, in. (mm) .......................................................................................... C6.2c
262 w Length of flange angle, in. (mm) ................................................................................................ C5.3a.2(a)(iv)
PU

263 w Length of split-tee, in. (mm) ...................................................................................................... C5.3a.2(b)(iv)

264 ΔC Axial deformation at expected compressive buckling strength, in. (mm) ......................................... C3.4a.1.b
265 Δp Plastic axial deformation, in. (mm) ................................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b
266 ΔT Axial deformation at expected tensile yield strength, in. (mm) ......................................................... C3.4a.1.b
267 bm Deformation ............................................................................................................................................. E3.4a
268 Δy Yield axial deformation, in. (mm) ..................................................................................................... C3.4a.1.b
269 α ASD/LRFD force level adjustment factor, specified in the Specification ............................................... C3.2b
270 αh Post-elastic hardening slope shown in Figure C1.1 ...................................................................................... C1
271 β Compression strength adjustment factor .............................................................................................. C3.3a.1
272 γ Total shear deformation, rad .............................................................................................................. C2.4b.2.b
273 γi Initial shear deformation, rad ............................................................................................................... G3.4a.2

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 viii

274 p Plastic shear deformation, rad ........................................................................................................... C2.4a.2.b

275 γp.pz Permissible plastic shear deformation of the panel zone, rad ............................................................... C4.4a.2
276 y Shear yield deformation, rad ............................................................................................................. C2.4a.1.b
277 θ Total chord rotation, rad .................................................................................................................... C2.4b.1.b
278 θgp Welded gusset plate rotation capacity, rad ............................................................................................... C7.4a
279 θp Plastic chord rotation, rad .................................................................................................................. C2.4a.1.b
280 θp Plastic chord rotation demand, rad .................................................................................................... C3.4a.2.b
281 θp Plastic rotation angle, rad .............................................................................................................. C5.4a.1.a(2)
282 y Yield chord rotation, rad .................................................................................................................... C2.4a.1.b
283 κ Knowledge factor ...................................................................................................................................... A4.1
284 λ Width-to-thickness ratio for the element, as defined in the Seismic Provisions .............................. Table C2.1
285 λhd, λmd Limiting slenderness parameter for highly and moderately ductile compression elements ............ Table C2.1
286 σcr Lower-bound tensile strength of splices made with partial-joint-penetration
287 groove welds, ksi (MPa) ...................................................................................................................C5.3b.3(b)
288 σUF Weld stress demand on splice, ksi (MPa) .........................................................................................C5.3b.3(b)

FT
289 τb Stiffness reduction parameter, as given in Specification Chapter C ........................................................ C3.2b
290 τb Stiffness reduction parameter ............................................................................................................ C3.4a.2.b
291 ω Strain-hardening adjustment factor ...................................................................................................... C3.3a.1

A
292

20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 ix

293 GLOSSARY
294 The terms listed below are to be used in addition to those in the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
295 Some commonly used terms are repeated here for convenience.
296
297 Note:
298 Terms designated with † are common AISI-AISC terms that are coordinated between the two standards development
299 organizations.
300
301 Action. An internal moment, shear, torque, axial force, deformation, displacement, or rotation corresponding to a
302 behavior caused by a structural degree of freedom; designated as force- or deformation-controlled.
303 Applicable building code†. Building code under which the structure is designed.

304 User Note: The applicable building code is the building code under which the evaluation is performed and retrofit is
305 designed; it should not be taken as the building code under which the structure was originally designed.

FT
306 Assembly. Two or more interconnected components.

A
307 Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). Organization, political subdivision, office, or individual legally charged with

20 R
308 the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of this Standard.
309 Base. The level at which the horizontal seismic ground motions are considered to be imparted to the structure.
310
311
20 D
Brace. Inclined structural member carrying primarily axial force in a braced frame.
BSE-1N. Basic Safety Earthquake-1 for use with the Basic Performance Objective Equivalent to New Building
1, IEW
312 Standards, taken as two-thirds of the BSE-2N at a site, as defined in ASCE/SEI 41.
313 BSE-2N. Basic Safety Earthquake-2 for use with the Basic Performance Objective Equivalent to New Building
314 Standards, taken as the ground shaking based on the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
AY V

315 at a site, as defined in ASCE/SEI 41.

M RE

316 Buckling brace. A brace that is permitted to buckle under seismic load.
317 Buckling-restrained brace (BRB). A pre-fabricated, or manufactured, brace element consisting of a steel core and a
318 buckling-restraining system as described in AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings Section F4
319 and qualified by testing as required in AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings Section K3.
IC

320 Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF). A diagonally braced frame employing buckling-restrained braces and
321 meeting the requirements of AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings Section F4.
BL

322 Capacity. The permissible strength or permissible deformation for a component action.
323 Cast iron. A hard, brittle, nonmalleable iron–carbon alloy containing 2.0% to 4.5% carbon. Shapes are obtained by
PU

324 reducing iron ore in a blast furnace, forming it into bars (or pigs), and remelting and casting it into its final
325 form.
326 Chord. See chords and collectors.
327 Chord rotation. General measure of deformation of a beam or column between end points in the plane of a frame.
328
329 User Note: Two examples of chord rotation are shown in Figure C-C1.1 of the Commentary.
330
331 Chords and collectors. Diaphragm members resisting axial forces as part of a complete load path between the
332 diaphragm mass and the lateral-load resisting frame or wall (or between offset lateral-load resisting frames and
333 walls). Collectors are generally aligned with the lateral-load resisting frames and walls, and chords are generally
334 perpendicular to lateral-load resisting frames and walls in buildings with orthogonal layouts.
335 Collector. See chords and collectors.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 x

336 Component. A part of an architectural, mechanical, electrical, or structural system of a building.

337 Concentrically braced frame (CBF). Braced frame element in which component worklines intersect at a single point
338 or at multiple points such that the distance between intersecting work lines (or eccentricity) is less than or equal
339 to the width of the smallest component joined at the connection.
340 Connectors. Screws, bolts, rivets, gusset plates, shear plates, headed studs, and welds used to link components to
341 other components.
342 Continuity plates. Column stiffeners at the top and bottom of the panel zone; also known as transverse stiffeners.
343 Deformation-controlled action. An action that has an associated deformation that is allowed to exceed the yield
344 value of the element being evaluated. The extent of permissible deformation beyond yield is based on
345 component capacity modification factors.
346 Demand. The amount of force or deformation imposed on an element or component.
347 Diaphragm chord. See chords and collectors
348 Diaphragm collector. See chords and collectors.
349 Eccentrically braced frame (EBF). Diagonally braced frame meeting the requirements of the AISC Seismic
350 Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings Section F3 that has at least one end of each diagonal brace connected
351 to a beam with a defined eccentricity from another beam-to-brace connection or a beam-to-column connection.

FT
352 Element. An assembly of structural components that act together in resisting forces, including gravity frames,
353 moment-resisting frames, braced frames, shear walls, and diaphragms.

A
354 Evaluation. An approved process or methodology of evaluating a building for a selected Performance Objective.

20 R
355 Expected strength. The mean value of resistance of a component at the deformation level anticipated for a
356 population of similar components, including consideration of the bias in nominal material strength as well as
357
358
20 D
strain-hardening and plastic section development.
1, IEW
Force-controlled action. An action that is not allowed to exceed the permissible strength of the component being
359 evaluated.
360 Infill. A panel of masonry placed within a steel or concrete frame. Panels separated from the surrounding frame by a
361 gap are termed “isolated infills.” Panels that are in full contact with a frame around its full perimeter are termed
AY V

362 “shear infills.”

M RE

363 In-plane wall. See shear wall.

364 Knowledge factor. Factor used to reduce component strength based on the level of knowledge obtained for
365 individual component during data collection. Refer to ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.4.
366 Linear dynamic procedure. A Tier 2 or Tier 3 response-spectrum-based modal analysis procedure, the use of which
IC

367 is required where the distribution of lateral forces is expected to depart from that assumed for the linear static
368
BL

procedure.
369 Linear static procedure. A Tier 2 or Tier 3 lateral force analysis procedure using a pseudo lateral force. This
370 procedure is used for buildings for which the linear dynamic procedure is not required.
PU

371 Link beam. A component between points of eccentrically connected members in an eccentrically braced frame
372 element.
373 Liquefaction. An earthquake-induced process in which saturated, loose, granular soils lose shear strength and liquefy
374 as a result of increase in pore-water pressure during earthquake shaking.
375 Load path. A path through which seismic forces are delivered from the point at which inertial forces are generated in
376 the structure to the foundation and, ultimately, the supporting soil.
377 Lower-bound strength. The mean minus one standard deviation of the yield strengths, Qy, for a population of similar
378 components.
379 Masonry. The assemblage of masonry units, mortar, and possibly grout or reinforcement; classified with respect to
380 the type of masonry unit, including clay-unit masonry, concrete masonry, or hollow-clay tile masonry.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 xi

381 Nonstructural component. An architectural, mechanical, or electrical component of a building that is permanently
382 installed in, or is an integral part of, a building system.
383 Occupancy. The purpose for which a building, or part thereof, is used or intended to be used, designated in
384 accordance with the governing regulation, building code, or policy.
385 Out-of-plane wall. A wall that resists lateral forces applied normal to its plane.
386 Performance Objective: One or more pairings of a selected seismic hazard level with an acceptable or desired
387 Structural Performance Level.
388 Permissible performance parameters. Limiting values of properties, such as drift, strength demand, and inelastic
389 deformation, used to determine the acceptability of a component at a given Performance Level.
390 Primary component. An element that is required to resist the seismic forces and accommodate seismic deformations
391 for the structure to achieve the selected Performance Level.
392 Profiled steel panel. Steel plate that is formed from a steel coil into a fluted profile with top and bottom flanges
393 connected by web members.
394 Reinforced masonry. Masonry with the following minimum amounts of vertical and horizontal reinforcement:
395 vertical reinforcement of at least 0.20 in.2 (130 mm2) in cross section at each corner or end, at each side of each
396 opening, and at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1.2 m) throughout; horizontal reinforcement of at least 0.20 in. 2

FT
397 (130 mm2) in cross section at the top of the wall, at the top and bottom of wall openings, at structurally
398 connected roof and floor openings, and at a maximum spacing of 10 ft (3 m).

A
399 RequiredResistance. The capacity of a structure, component, or connection to resist the effects of loads.

20 R
400 Retrofit. Improving the seismic performance of structural or nonstructural components of a building.
401 Retrofit measures. Modifications to existing components, or installation of new components, that correct
402
403
20 D
deficiencies identified in a seismic evaluation as part of a scheme to rehabilitate a building to achieve a selected
1, IEW
Performance Objective.
404 Rigid diaphragm. A diaphragm with horizontal deformation along its length less than half the average story drift.
405 Row of fasteners. Two or more fasteners aligned with the direction of load.
406 Secondary component. An element that accommodates seismic deformations but is not required to resist the seismic
AY V

407 forces it may attract for the structure to achieve the selected performance level.
M RE

408 Story. The portion of a structure between the tops of two successive finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost
409 story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the roof structural element.
410 Strength. The maximum axial force, shear force, or moment that can be resisted by a component.
411 Structural component. A component of a building that provides gravity- or lateral-load resistance as part of a
IC

412 continuous load path to the foundation, including beams, columns, slabs, braces, walls, wall piers, coupling
413
BL

beams, and connections; designated as primary or secondary.

414 Structural Performance Level: A limit state; used in the definition of Performance Objectives.
415 Subassembly. A portion of an assembly.
PU

416 Wrought iron. An easily welded or forged iron containing little or no carbon. Initially malleable, it hardens quickly
417 when rapidly cooled.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 xii

418 ABBREVIATIONS
419 The following abbreviations appear within these Provisions. The abbreviations are written out where they first
420 appear within a Section.
421
422 ACI (American Concrete Institute)
423 AHJ (authority having jurisdiction)
424 AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction)
425 AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute)
426 ANSI (American National Standards Institute)
427 ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
428 ASD (allowable strength design)
429 AWS (American Welding Society)
430 BRB (buckling-restrained brace)
431 BRBF (buckling-restrained braced frame)

FT
432 CBF (concentrically braced frame)
433 CJP (complete joint penetration)

A
434 CP (collapse prevention)
435 EBF (eccentrically braced frame)

20 R
436 FR (fully restrained)
437
438 20 D
HSS (hollow structural section)
IEBC (International Existing Building Code)
1, IEW
439 IO (immediate occupancy)
440 IWUF-B (improved welded unreinforced flange—bolted web)
441 LAST (lowest anticipated service temperature)
442 LRFD (load and resistance factor design)
AY V

443 LS (life safety)

M RE

444 PR (partially restrained)

445 SEI (Structural Engineering Institute)
446 WPS (welding procedure specification)
IC

447 WUF (welded unreinforced flange)

448 WUF-W (welded unreinforced flange—welded web)
BL

449
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-1

2 CHAPTER A

3 GENERAL PROVISIONS
4 This chapter states the scope of the Provisions, summarizes referenced specifications, code and standard
5 documents, general requirements, and provides requirements for condition assessment, material properties,
6 and subassembly tests.

7 This chapter is organized as follows:

8 A1. Scope
9 A2. Referenced Specifications, Codes, and Standards

FT
10 A3. General Requirements
11 A4. Condition Assessment

A
12 A5. Material Properties

20 R
13 A6. Subassembly Tests

14 A1. SCOPE 20 D
1, IEW
15 The Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings,
16 hereafter referred to as these Provisions, shall govern the seismic evaluation and retrofit of
17 structural steel, composite, wrought iron, and cast iron components of existing buildings subject to
AY V

18 seismic forces and deformations. The requirements of these Provisions shall apply to existing
M RE

19 components of a building system, retrofitted components of a building system, and new

20 components added to an existing building system.
IC

21 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, hereafter referred to as ASCE/SEI 41, shall
22 be used to compute the force and deformation demands on all primary and secondary structural
BL

23 steel, composite, wrought iron, and cast iron components. Where required by ASCE/SEI 41, these
24 Provisions are intended to be used in conjunction with the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341, hereafter referred to as the Seismic Provisions.
PU

25

26 These Provisions include the Symbols, the Glossary, Abbreviations, and Chapters A through I. The
27 Commentary to these Provisions and the User Notes interspersed throughout are not part of these
28 Provisions. The phrases “is permitted” and “are permitted” in this document identify provisions
29 that comply with these Provisions, but are not mandatory.

30 The strength of existing and new components shall be determined by considering the applicable
31 provisions of Chapters B through K of the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
32 ANSI/AISC 360, hereafter referred to as the Specification. Additionally, the existing and new
33 components shall be evaluated in accordance with the requirements in these Provisions.

34 User Note: The Specification sets forth the overarching procedures to determine the strength of
35 structural steel members and their connections, which are collectively called components in these

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-2

36 Provisions. There are specific instances in these Provisions where an alternate formulation for
37 strength is specified. In such cases, the alternate provides for lower strength than would be
38 obtained from the Specification for the specific action or condition being referenced.

39 A2. REFERENCED SPECIFICATIONS, CODES, AND STANDARDS

40 The following specifications, codes, and standards are referenced in these Provisions:

41 (a) American Concrete Institute (ACI)

42
43 ACI 318-19 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
44 ACI 318M-19 Metric Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
45
46 (b) American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
47

FT
48 ANSI/AISC 360-16 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
49 ANSI/AISC 341-16 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings

A
50 ANSI/AISC 358-16 Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for
Seismic Applications

20 R
51
52
53
54
20 D
(c) American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
1, IEW
55 ANSI/AISI S310-16 North American Standard for the Design of Profiled Steel Diaphragm Panels
56
57 (d) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
AY V

58
59 ASCE/SEI 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings
M RE

60
61 (e) ASTM International (ASTM)
62
IC

63 ASTM A6/A6M Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars,
64 Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling
BL

65 ASTM A36/A36M Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel

66 ASTM A53/A53M Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black, and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated,
PU

67 Welded, and Seamless

68 ASTM A500/A500M Standard Specification for Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel
69 Structural Tubing in Rounds and Shapes
70 ASTM A568/A568M Standard Specification for Steel, Sheet, Carbon, Structural, and High-Strength,
71 Low-Alloy, Hot-Rolled, and Cold-Rolled, General Requirements for
72 ASTM A572/A572M Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium
73 Structural Steel
74 ASTM A1085/A1085M Standard Specification for Cold-Formed Welded Carbon Steel Hollow
75 Structural Sections (HSS)
76
77 (f) ASTM International (ASTM)Withdrawn Standards
78
79 ASTM A7 (1939–1967) Specification for Steel for Bridges and Buildings
80 ASTM A9 (1900–1938) Specification for Steel for Buildings

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-3

81 ASTM A373 (1958–1966) Specification for Structural Steel for Welding

82 ASTM A441 (1963–1988) Specification for High-Strength Low Alloy Structural Manganese
83 Vanadium Steel

84 User Note: Because of these Provisions’ unique application to existing buildings, the requirements
85 herein cite ASTM standard specifications that have been withdrawn, which means that the standard
86 specification is considered obsolete and is no longer maintained by ASTM. Availability of withdrawn
87 standard specifications may be limited. The Commentary provides information regarding alternative
88 sources for information specified in the withdrawn standard specifications of interest to users of these
89 Provisions.

90 (g) American Welding Society (AWS)

91
92 AWS D1.1/D1.1M-2015 Structural Welding Code—Steel
93

FT
94
95 (h) Steel Deck Institute (SDI)

A
96
97 ANSI/SDI C-2017 Standard for Composite Steel Floor Deck-Slabs

20 R
98 ANSI/SDI NC-2017 Standard for Non-Composite Steel Floor Deck

99 A3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

20 D
1, IEW
100 A condition assessment shall be conducted in accordance with Section A4.
AY V

101 Material properties of existing components shall be determined in accordance with Section A5.
M RE

102 Testing of components and assemblies of components shall be in accordance with Section A6.
IC

103 General analysis and design requirements for components shall be in accordance with Chapter B.
BL

104 A4. CONDITION ASSESSMENT

PU

105 1. General

106 A condition assessment of the existing structure shall be performed as specified in this section and in
107 ASCE/SEI 41, Sections 3.2 and 6.2.

108 User Note: ASCE/SEI 41, Sections 3.2 and 6.2 provide requirements for the condition assessment that are
109 in addition to the requirements given in these Provisions.

110 Review of available construction documents shall be performed to identify the vertical and lateral load-
111 carrying systems, components of these systems, and any modifications to these systems, their components,
112 and the overall configuration of the structure. Where such documentation fails to provide adequate
113 information to identify these aspects of the structure, field survey drawings shall be prepared as required by
114 the data collection requirements of ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-4

115 User Note: ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2, indicates that construction documents of interest include design
116 drawings, specifications, material test records, and quality assurance reports covering original construction
117 and subsequent modifications to the structure.

118 A condition assessment shall include the following:

119 (a) Examination of the physical condition of representative components and documentation of the
120 presence of any degradation.
121 (b) Verification of the presence and configuration of representative components, and the continuity of load
122 paths among representative components of the systems.
123 (c) Identification and documentation of other conditions, including neighboring party walls and buildings,
124 the presence of nonstructural components that influence building performance, and prior structural
125 modification.
126 (d) Visual inspection of representative structural components involved in seismic force resistance to verify
127 information shown on available documents.

FT
128 (e) Collection of information needed to obtain representative component properties in accordance with
129 Section A4.4.
130 (f) Collection of information needed to develop the analytical model in accordance with Section B1.1.

A
131 (g) Collection of information needed to select a knowledge factor, κ, in accordance with Section B1.2.

20 R
132
133 20 D
User Note: If coverings or other obstructions exist that prevent visual access to a component, a partial
visual inspection may be performed through the use of drilled holes and a fiberscope, or a complete visual
1, IEW
134 inspection may be performed by removal of covering materials.

135 In addition to the requirements of this section, visual or comprehensive condition assessments shall be
AY V

136 performed in accordance with Sections A4.2 or A4.3, respectively, where required by the data collection
137 requirements of ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2. Components shall be characterized in accordance with Section
M RE

138 A4.4.

139 2. Visual Condition Assessment

IC
BL

140 If available construction documents specify the details of the connections, at least one connection of each
141 type and a portion of each connected component shall be exposed. If no deviations from the available
142 drawings exist, the sample is permitted to be considered representative. If deviations from the available
PU

143 drawings exist, then removal of additional coverings from connections of that type and its connected
144 components shall be performed until the extent of deviations is determined.

145 Where the available construction documents do not specify the details of the connections, assessment of
146 connections shall be conducted in accordance with Section A4.3.

147 3. Comprehensive Condition Assessment

148 In the absence of construction documents, at least three connections of each type shall be identified and
149 each connected component shall be exposed for the primary structural components. If no deviations within
150 a connection type group are observed, the sample shall be considered representative. If deviations within a
151 connection type group are observed, then additional connections of the same type and their connected
152 components shall be exposed until the extent of deviations is determined.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-5

153 4. Component Properties

154 The following characteristics of representative components shall be obtained:

155 (a) Size and thickness of connecting materials, including cover plates, bracing, and stiffeners
156 (b) Cross-sectional area, section moduli, moment of inertia, and torsional properties
157 (c) As-built configuration of connections
158 (d) Current physical condition of base metal and connector materials, including presence of deformation
159 and extent of deterioration

160 In the absence of deterioration of a component, use of documented geometric properties of components,
161 connecting elements, and fasteners is permitted.

162 User Note: Documented geometric properties of components and fasteners can be found listed in
163 publications by AISC, AISI, ASTM, materials manufacturers, and trade associations.

FT
164 A5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

A
20 R
165 1. General

166 20 D
Material properties shall be based on available construction documents, test reports, manufacturers’ data,
1, IEW
167 and as-built conditions as required by these Provisions and as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 3.2.
168 Where such documentation fails to provide adequate information to quantify material properties or
169 capacities of assemblies, such documentation shall be supplemented by sampling and testing of in-place
170 materials, mock-up tests of assemblies, and assessments of existing conditions, as required by these
AY V

171 Provisions and as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.

M RE

172 User Note: Material properties typically of interest include properties related to: yield stress, tensile
173 strength, deformability, and notch toughness.
IC

174 Where permitted by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2, default material properties shall be determined in
BL

175 accordance with Section A5.2. Where default material properties cannot be determined in accordance with
176 Section A5.2, where materials testing is required by these Provisions, or where materials testing is required
PU

177 by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2, testing to quantify properties of in-place material shall be in accordance with
178 Sections A5.3 and extent of testing shall comply with the requirements of Section A5.4.

179 The material properties of steel reinforcement and concrete in composite members shall be determined in
180 accordance with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.2.

181 2. Default Material Properties

182 User Note: Default values for material properties are used without the need for material sampling and
183 testing only where specifically permitted by these Provisions or ASCE/SEI 41. Otherwise, material
184 properties are determined by sampling and testing of in-place materials, and subsequent analysis of the test
185 results, in accordance with Sections A5.3 and A5.4 of these Provisions and ASCE/SEI 41.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-6

186 2a. Structural Steel Materials from 1901 and After

187 Structural steel materials in components of buildings constructed in 1901 and after shall be classified based
188 on year of construction, the applicable standard specification and material grade and, if applicable, shape
189 group in accordance with Table A5.1. The default lower-bound and default expected material properties for
190 structural steel are permitted to be determined as follows:
191 (a) Where available construction documents identify material by standard specification, and the standard
192 specification for the year of construction is listed in Table A5.1, default lower-bound material
193 properties for structural steel, FyLB and FuLB, shall be taken in accordance with Table A5.1, where FyLB
194 is the lower-bound yield stress and FuLB is the lower-bound tensile strength. Default expected material
195 properties, Fye and Fue, are permitted to be determined by multiplying default lower-bound values by
196 the applicable factor taken from Table A5.2, where Fye is the expected yield stress and Fue is the
197 expected tensile strength.

User Note: The values for default lower-bound properties listed in Table A5.1 are not always the

FT
198
199 same as specified minimum values as specified in the corresponding standard specification. Table A5.1
200 includes lower-bound values that are generally greater than specified minimum values.

A
20 R
201 (b) Where the available construction documents identify material by a standard specification that is not
202
203 20 D
listed in Table A5.1, default lower-bound material properties are permitted to be taken as the specified
minimum properties in accordance with the standard specification. Default expected material
1, IEW
204 properties are permitted to be determined as Fye =1.10 FyLB and Fue = 1.10 FuLB.
205 (c) Where the available construction documents identify material by standard specification, the standard
206 specification is not listed in Table A5.1, and the standard specification is permitted in the Seismic
AY V

207 Provisions for use in structural steel seismic force-resisting systems, the default lower-bound material
208 property is permitted to be taken as the specified minimum property in accordance with the standard
M RE

209 specification. Default expected material properties are permitted to be determined as Fye = Ry FyLB and
210 Fue= Rt FuLB, where Ry and Rt are as specified in the Seismic Provisions.
IC

211 User Note: The Ry and Rt factors specified in the Seismic Provisions are not the same as the factors
listed in Table A5.2. The factors Ry and Rt from the Seismic Provisions are applied to specified
BL

212
213 minimum values, whereas the factors in Table A5.2 are applied to default lower-bound values.
PU

214 (d) Where the available construction documents specify minimum yield stress and minimum tensile
215 strength, default lower-bound material properties are permitted to be taken as the values specified by
216 available construction documents. Default expected material properties are permitted to be determined
217 as Fye =1.10 FyLB and Fue=1.10 FuLB.

218 2b. Structural Steel Materials from Before 1901, Wrought Iron Materials, and Cast Iron Materials

219 Default lower-bound material properties, FyLB and FuLB, for cast iron, wrought iron, and pre-standardized
220 structural steel are permitted to be taken in accordance with Table A5.3. Default expected material
221 properties are permitted to be determined as Fye =1.10 FyLB and Fue=1.10 FuLB.

222 2c. Weld Metal

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-7

223 1. Default Lower-Bound Tensile Strength

224 The default lower-bound tensile strength for weld metal shall be taken as the specified minimum
225 tensile strength of weld metal, which is permitted to be determined as follows:
226 (a) Where available construction documents indicate the filler metal classification strength,
227 that value is assumed to be the specified minimum tensile strength for the weld metal.
228 (b) Where filler metal classification strength is unknown, 60 ksi (415 MPa) is assumed to be
229 the specified minimum tensile strength for the weld metal for construction dated in 1980
230 and earlier, and 70 ksi (485 MPa) is assumed to be the specified minimum tensile
231 strength for the weld metal for construction after 1980.
232 2. Default Lower-Bound Charpy V-Notch Toughness
233 The default lower-bound Charpy V-notch toughness for weld metal shall be taken as the minimum
234 notch toughness of the weld metal, which is permitted to be determined as follows:

FT
235 (a) Where available construction documents indicate the filler metal is classified with a
236 minimum Charpy V-notch toughness, that value is assumed to be the minimum notch

A
237 toughness of the weld metal.

20 R
238 (b) Where the available construction documents specify that the weld is a demand critical
239
240 20 D
weld, 40 ft-lb (54 J) at 70F (21°C) is assumed to be the minimum notch toughness of
the weld metal.
1, IEW
241 (c) Where no evidence is available that the filler metal is classified with a minimum
242 specified Charpy V-notch toughness, 10 ft-lb (14 J) at 70F (21°C) is assumed to be the
243 minimum notch toughness of the weld metal.
AY V
M RE

244 2d. Rivet Material

245 The default lower-bound tensile strength for rivet material shall be taken as the specified minimum tensile
IC

246 strength of rivet material, which is permitted to be determined as follows:

(a) Where available construction documents indicate the standard specification type and grade of rivet, the
BL

247
248 specified minimum tensile strength of the rivet material is taken as the specified minimum tensile
249 strength in accordance with the standard specification.
PU

250 (b) Where available construction documents indicate the specified minimum tensile strength of the rivet
251 material, that value is used.
252 (c) Where rivet material information is not shown on available construction documents, rivet grade is
253 permitted to be determined in accordance with Specification Appendix 5, Section 5.2.6, and the
254 specified minimum tensile strength of the rivet material is based upon the grade so determined.

255 The default expected tensile strength for rivet material is permitted to be determined by multiplying the
256 default lower-bound tensile strength by a factor of 1.10.

257 2e. Bolt Material

258 The default lower-bound tensile strength for bolt material shall be taken as the specified minimum tensile

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-8

259 strength of bolt material, which is permitted to be determined as follows:

260 (a) Where available construction documents indicate the standard specification type and grade of bolts, the
261 specified minimum tensile strength of the bolt material is taken as the specified minimum tensile
262 strength in accordance with the standard specification.
263 (b) Where available construction documents indicate the specified minimum tensile strength of the bolt
264 material, that value is used.
265 (c) Where bolt material information is not shown on the available construction documents, bolt grade is
266 permitted to be determined in accordance with Specification Appendix 5, Section 5.2.6, and the
267 specified minimum tensile strength of the bolt material is based upon the grade so determined.

268

269

FT
270

A
271

20 R
272
20 D
1, IEW
273

274
AY V

275
M RE

276
IC

277
BL

278
PU

279

280

281

282

283

284

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-9

TABLE A5.1
Default Lower-Bound Material Strengths for Structural Steel
Lower-Bound Lower-Bound
Date of Yield Stress[a] [b], Tensile
Standard FyLB Strength[a], FuLB
Standard Remarks
Specification
Specification
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa)

1901– ASTM A9
Medium steel 30 (205) 60 (415)[b]
1908 Buildings
1909– ASTM A9
Structural steel 28 (195) 55 (380)[b]
1923 Buildings
1924– ASTM A7 and
Structural steel 30 (205) 55 (380)[b]
1931 ASTM A9

FT
1932– ASTM A7 and ASTM
Structural steel 33 (230) 60 (415)[b]
1967 A9

A
ASTM A36 Structural steel

20 R
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 1 44 (305)[c] 62 (425)[c]
1961–
1986
20 D W-Shapes in Group 2
W-Shapes in Group 3
[d]

[d]
41 (285)[c]
39 (270)[c]
59 (405)[c]
60 (415)[c]
1, IEW
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 4 37 (255)[c] 62 (425)[c]
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 5 41 (285)[c] 70 (485)[c]
ASTM A572, Gr. 50 Structural steel
AY V

[d]
W-Shapes in Group 1 50 (345)[c] 65 (450)[c]
M RE

[d]
1961– W-Shapes in Group 2 50 (345)[c] 66 (455)[c]
[d]
Present W-Shapes in Group 3 51 (350)[c] 68 (470)[c]
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 4 50 (345)[c] 72 (495)[c]
IC

[d]
W-Shapes in Group 5 50 (345)[c] 77 (530)[c]
ASTM A36 and Dual
BL

Structural steel
Grade
[d]
1987– W-Shapes in Group 1 49 (340)[c] 66 (455)[c]
PU

[d]
Present W-Shapes in Group 2 50 (345)[c] 67 (460)[c]
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 3 52 (360)[c] 70 (485)[c]
[d]
W-Shapes in Group 4 49 (340)[c] 70 (485)[c]
All ASTM A36 Other than W-Shapes in 36 (250) 58 (400)
Groups 1 through 5

All ASTM A53, Gr. B Pipe 45 (310)[c] 60 (415)[c]

All ASTM A500, Gr. B Round HSS 48 (330)[c] 60 (415)[c]

Rectangular HSS 50 (345)[c] 62 (430)[c]

All ASTM A500, Gr. C Round HSS 50 (345)[c] 62 430)[c]

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-10

Rectangular HSS 50 (345)[c] 62 (430)[c]

All ASTM A572, Gr 50 Other than W-Shapes in 50 (345) 65 (450)

Groups 1 through 5

All ASTM A1085 Gr. A Rectangular and Round HSS 50 (345) 65 (450)
(50 ksi)
User Note: Lower-bound values listed in this table are not always the same as specified minimum values and therefore should not
be used in place of specified minimum values.
[a]
User Note: Where applicable, the indicated values are representative of material removed from the flanges of wide-flange
shapes.
[b]
User Note: Values are based on specified minimum values, unless value is noted with superscript “c.”
[c]
User Note: Values are based on mean minus one standard deviation statistical values and then further reduced from the
resulting statistical values.
[d]
User Note: W-shape size groupings are listed in Commentary Table C-A5.1.

FT
285

A
286

20 R
287
20 D
1, IEW
288

289
AY V

290
M RE

291
IC

292
BL

293
PU

294

295

296

297

298

299

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-11

TABLE A5.2
Factors to Calculate Default Expected Properties from Default Lower-
Bound Properties for Structural Steel
Date of Standard
Property Standard Specification Factor
Specification

Tensile Strength Before 1961 ASTM A7 1.00

Yield Stress Before 1961 ASTM A7 1.15

Tensile Strength 1961–1980 ASTM A36 1.15

1980–1994 ASTM A36 1.20
1994–Present ASTM A36 1.50

FT
ASTM A572 Gr. 42 1.10
ASTM A572 Gr. 50 1.20

A
20 R
ASTM A500 Gr. B & C, Round & Rectangular 1.30

20 D ASTM A1085 Gr. A, Rectangular 1.25

1, IEW
Yield Stress 1961–1970 ASTM A36 1.20
1970–1980 ASTM A36 1.30
1980–1994 ASTM A36 1.40
AY V

1994–Present ASTM A36 1.50

M RE

ASTM A53 Gr. B, Pipe 1.05

ASTM A500 Gr. B & C, Round & Rectangular 1.40
IC

ASTM A572 Gr. 42 1.30

BL

ASTM A572 Gr. 50 1.10

ASTM A1085 Gr. A, Rectangular 1.25

PU

User Note: The factors listed in this table are specifically intended for use with the default lower-bound values listed in Table A5.1.

300

301

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-12

TABLE A5.3
Default Lower-Bound Material Strengths for
Historical Structural Metals
Year of Construction Material Lower-Bound Lower-Bound
Yield Stress, FyLB Tensile Strength, FuLB
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa)

Before 1920 Cast Iron See Chapter I

Before 1920 Wrought Iron 18 (125) 25 (170)
Before 1901 Pre-Standardized 24 (165) 36 (250)
Structural Steel

User Note: Lower-bound values are not the same as specified minimum values and should not

FT
be used in place of specified minimum values.

A
302 3. Testing to Determine Properties of In-Place Materials

20 R
303
304
20 D
The determination of properties of in-place material shall be accomplished through removal of samples of
the in-place material and subsequent laboratory testing of the removed samples. Laboratory testing of
1, IEW
305 samples to determine properties of the in-place material shall be performed in compliance with consensus
306 standards published by ASTM, AISI and AWS, and in accordance with Specification Appendix 5.
307 Alternatively, it is permitted to use in-situ testing of in-place materials where the in-situ testing and
AY V

308 subsequent data analyses are in accordance with consensus standard test methods.
M RE

309 3a. Sampling and Repair of Sampled Locations

IC

310 Sampling shall take place in regions of components where the decreased section strength caused by the
311 sampling remains higher than the demands in the component at the reduced section to resist forces and
BL

312 deformations. Alternately, where the decreased section strength caused by sampling becomes lower than the
313 required capacity, the affected component having the lost section shall be temporarily supported and
314 subsequently repaired.
PU

315 Where a weld or a portion of a weld is to be sampled for testing, details regarding weld sample removal
316 shall be defined.

317 Where repairs are necessary to compensate for removed material, including where a weld sample is
318 removed, details describing the repairs to the sampled component shall be defined. As part of these repairs,
319 the location where the material was removed shall be ground smooth. The repair shall be designed to
320 provide equivalent or greater strength and ductility compared to the existing condition.

321 Where a fastener such as a bolt or rivet is removed for testing, a new bolt of the same nominal diameter and
322 of at least the same tensile strength as the removed connector shall be installed at the time of sampling to
323 replace the removed connector.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-13

324 3b. Interpretation of Test Results

325 Expected properties of in-place material shall be taken as mean test values. Lower-bound properties of in-
326 place material shall be taken as mean test values minus one standard deviation, except that where the in-
327 place material is conclusively identified as conforming to a standard specification, lower-bound properties
328 of the in-place material need not be taken as less than the specified minimum properties listed in the
329 standard specification.

330 4. Extent of Testing of In-Place Materials

331 The extent of testing required to determine properties of the in-place material of steel and wrought iron
332 components shall be in accordance with Sections A5.4a, A5.4b, or A5.4c, as required by the data collection
333 requirements in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.

334 Sampling of cast iron is not required.

FT
335 User Note: It is inadvisable to sample the historical cast iron that falls under the scope of these Provisions.

A
336 Refer to the Commentary for further information.

20 R
337 4a. Testing Not Required
20 D
1, IEW
338 Materials testing is not required if material properties are available from original construction documents
339 that include certified material test reports or certified reports of tests made in accordance with ASTM
340 A6/A6M or A568/A568M. The results of material tests obtained from such reports are permitted to be
341 taken as properties of in-place material when statistically analyzed in accordance with Section A5.3a.
AY V
M RE

342 4b. Usual Testing

343 The minimum number of tests to determine properties of in-place material for usual data collection is based
IC

344 on the following criteria:

BL

345 (a) Where default yield stress and default tensile strength, both lower bound and expected, for structural
346 steel materials from 1901 and after are unambiguously established in accordance with Sections A5.2a,
PU

347 subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d), it is permitted to use these default yield stresses and default tensile
348 strengths as yield stresses and tensile strengths, respectively, of the in-place materials without
349 additional testing.
350 (b) In the absence of construction documents defining properties of the in-place material, at least one
351 strength coupon from each component type shall be removed from in-place material and subsequently
352 tested to determine yield stress and tensile strength of the in-place material.
353 (c) In the absence of construction documents defining filler metal classification and welding processes
354 used for existing welds, default values for weld metal strength are permitted to be used as the existing
355 weld metal strength, provided that the standard specification used to produce the existing steel is
356 defined in the construction documents and the existing steel is permitted for use with prequalified
357 welding procedure specifications (WPS) in accordance with Table B3.1. Alternatively, at least one
358 sample of existing weld metal for each component type having welded joints shall be obtained for
359 laboratory testing to establish weld metal strength, or weld metal strength is permitted to be determined
360 by hardness testing on existing welds in the structure without removal of weld metal samples.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-14

361
362 User Note: Guidance for hardness testing of existing steels is provided in Commentary Section A5.3.

363 4c. Comprehensive Testing

364 The minimum number of tests to determine properties of the in-place material for comprehensive data
365 collection is based on the following criteria:

366 (a) Where default yield stress and default tensile strength, both lower bound and expected, for structural
367 steel materials from 1901 and after are unambiguously established in accordance with Sections A5.2a,
368 subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d), it is permitted to use these default yield stresses and default tensile
369 strengths as yield stresses and tensile strengths, respectively, of the in-place materials without
370 additional testing.
371 (b) Where original construction documents defining properties of the in-place material are inconclusive, or
372 do not exist, but the date of construction is known and the material used is confirmed to be carbon

FT
373 steel, at least three tensile strength coupons and three bolts and rivets shall be randomly removed from
374 each component type and subsequently tested to determine yield stress, where applicable, and tensile

A
375 strength of the in-place material.
376 (c) In the absence of construction documents defining properties of the in-place material, at least two

20 R
377 tensile strength coupons and two bolts and rivets shall be removed from each component type for every
378
379 20 D
four floors or every 200,000 ft2 (19 000 m2) and subsequently tested to determine yield stress, where
applicable, and tensile strength of the in-place material. If it is determined from testing that more than
1, IEW
380 one material grade exists, additional sampling and testing shall be performed until the extent of each
381 grade in component fabrication has been established.
382 (d) For historical structural wrought iron or pre-standardized structural steel, at least three tensile strength
383 coupons shall be removed for each component type for every four floors or 200,000 ft2 (19 000 m2) of
AY V

384 construction and subsequently tested to determine tensile properties of the in-place material. If initial
M RE

385 tests provide material properties that are consistent with properties given in Table A5.3, further tests
386 shall be required only for every six floors or 300,000 ft2 (28 000 m2) of construction. If these tests
387 provide material properties that are nonuniform, additional tests shall be performed until the extent of
IC

388 different materials is established.

389 (e) In the absence of construction documents defining filler metal classification and welding processes
BL

390 used for existing welds, default values for weld metal strength are permitted to be used provided that
391 the standard specification used to produce the existing steel is defined in the construction documents
PU

392 and the existing steel is permitted for use with prequalified WPSs in accordance with Table B3.1.
393 Alternatively, at least two samples of existing weld metal for each component type having welded
394 joints shall be obtained for laboratory testing to establish weld metal strength, or weld metal strength is
395 permitted to be determined by hardness testing on the welds in the structure without removal of weld
396 metal samples. Weld metal samples shall also be tested for Charpy V-notch impact toughness in
397 accordance with the requirements of Structural Steel Welding Code—Steel (AWS D1.1/D1.1M) using a
398 temperature consistent with the lowest ambient temperature to which the weld may be exposed.
399
400 For other properties of in-place materials, a minimum of three tests shall be conducted.

401 The results of any testing of in-place material of structural steel and wrought iron shall be compared to the
402 default lower-bound values in Tables A5.1 and A5.3 for the particular era of building construction. The
403 amount of testing shall be doubled if the expected and lower-bound yield stress and tensile strength
404 determined from testing of the in-place material are lower than the default lower-bound values.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 A-15

405 A6. SUBASSEMBLY TESTS

406 Physical tests of subassemblies of components, including data reduction and reporting, shall be in
407 accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.6.

408

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 B-1

657 CHAPTER B

658 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF COMPONENTS

659

660 This chapter addresses the required characteristics of components to be used to determine compliance with the
661 selected performance objective. The component characteristics are stiffness, strength, and permissible performance
662 parameters.

663 Every structural component resisting seismic force or deformations in an existing building is to be evaluated in
664 accordance with ASCE/SEI 41. The level of effort required depends on the Tier procedure selected, as defined in
665 ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 1, and the associated analysis procedure performed.

666 The chapter is organized as follows:

FT
667
668 B1. General
669 B2. Component Stiffness, Strength, and Permissible Performance Parameters

A
670 B3. Retrofit Measures

20 R
671 B1. GENERAL
20 D
1, IEW
672 1. Basis of the Analytical Model

673 The results of the condition assessment, as specified in Section A4, shall be used to quantify the following
AY V

674 items needed to create an analytical model of the building for structural analysis.
M RE

675 (a) Component section properties and dimensions;

676 (b) Component configuration and eccentricities;
Interaction of nonstructural components and their involvement in seismic force resistance; and
IC

677 (c)
678 (d) Presence and effects of alterations to the structural system.
BL

679 If no damage, alteration, or degradation is observed in the condition assessment, component section
properties shall be taken from available construction documents. If sectional material loss or deterioration
PU

680
681 has occurred, the loss shall be quantified by direct measurement and section properties shall be reduced
682 accordingly using principles of structural mechanics. All deviations noted between available construction
683 records and as-built conditions shall be accounted for in the structural analysis.

684 2. Knowledge Factor

685 The extent of data collected, condition assessment, and materials testing performed shall be used to
686 determine the knowledge factor, κ.

687 2a. Structural Steel

688 The knowledge factor, κ, for computation of the permissible performance parameters for steel components
689 shall be selected in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.4.

690 2b. Cast Iron and Wrought Iron

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 B-2

691 For computation of cast iron and wrought iron component capacities, a knowledge factor, κ, shall be taken
692 as 0.75.

693 B2. COMPONENT STIFFNESS, STRENGTH, AND PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

694 1. General

695 The behavior of a component action for a specific system shall be designated as either deformation-
696 controlled or force-controlled in accordance with Chapters D through I.

697 Use of default material properties from Chapter A of these provisions to determine component strengths is
698 permitted in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 7.

699 2. Stiffness Criteria

700 Component stiffness shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter C and any system-specific

FT
701 requirements set forth in Chapters D through I.

A
702 3. Strength Criteria

20 R
Component strengths for both existing and new components shall be determined in accordance with the
703
704 20 D
general requirements in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5, this chapter, Chapter C, and any system-specific
1, IEW
705 requirements set forth in Chapters D through I. Unless otherwise required in these provisions, component
706 strength shall be determined using the provisions for nominal strength provided for in Chapters B through
707 K of the Specification, substituting expected or lower-bound properties as determined using these
708 Provisions for the specified minimum properties of the Specification. Where a component is not covered by
AY V

709 the Specification or these Provisions, component strengths are permitted to be obtained experimentally or
M RE

710 by analysis using accepted principles of structural mechanics, subject to the approval of the authority
711 having jurisdiction.
IC

712 User Note: When using in-place material properties of these Provisions to determine component strength
713 on the basis of the calculation methods of the Specification, the resulting component strength is not factored
BL

714 by a resistance factor (i.e., ) or a safety factor (i.e., Ω) when evaluating the component in these Provisions.
PU

715 3a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

716 Strengths for deformation-controlled actions on components shall be classified as expected component
717 strengths, QCE. Where calculations are used to determine expected component strength, expected material
718 properties, including strain hardening where applicable, shall be used. Expected component strength
719 obtained experimentally shall be defined as the mean resistance expected over the range of deformations to
720 which the component is likely to be subjected.

721 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

722 Strengths for force-controlled actions on components shall be classified as lower-bound component
723 strengths, QCL. Where calculations are used to determine lower-bound component strength, lower-bound
724 material properties shall be used. Lower-bound component strength obtained experimentally shall be
725 defined as the mean resistance minus one standard deviation.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 B-3

726 The lower-bound strength of components controlled by elastic buckling shall be the nominal strength of the
727 component multiplied by 0.85.

728 User Note: The 0.85 factor should be applied to all buckling limit states where nominal strength is
729 independent of the material yield stress. Some examples include elastic flexural buckling of components in
730 compression, elastic lateral-torsional buckling, and elastic shear buckling.

731 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

732 Component permissible performance parameters shall be determined in accordance with the general
733 requirements in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5, this chapter, Chapter C, and any system-specific requirements
734 set forth in Chapters D through I.

735 User Note: The acceptance criteria in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5, is the verification process that a force or
736 deformation demand on a component action does not exceed the permissible performance parameter for
737 that action for a given performance level. Permissible performance parameters for a component action are

FT
738 given in terms of a permissible strength or permissible deformation, are dependent upon the analysis type
739 selected, and represent the capacity of an action in a component for a given performance level.

A
20 R
740 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

741 20 D
For linear analysis procedures, the permissible strength for a deformation-controlled action shall be taken
1, IEW
742 as the expected component strength set forth in Section B2.3a adjusted by a component capacity
743 modification factor, m.

744 For nonlinear analysis procedures, the permissible deformation for a deformation-controlled action shall be
AY V

745 taken as the expected deformation capacity.

M RE

746 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

IC

747 For linear and nonlinear analysis procedures, the permissible strength for a force-controlled action is taken
748 as the lower-bound component strength set forth in Section B2.3b. Additionally, for nonlinear analysis
BL

749 procedures, the permissible deformation for a force-controlled action shall be taken as the yield
750 deformation, or the deformation at the onset of buckling, computed using lower-bound material properties.
PU

751 B3. RETROFIT MEASURES

752 1. General

753 Seismic retrofit measures shall satisfy the requirements of these Provisions and the applicable provisions of
754 ASCE/SEI 41.

755 If replacement of an existing component is selected as the retrofit measure, the new component shall be
756 assessed in accordance with these Provisions and detailed and constructed in accordance with the
757 applicable building code.

758 2. WeldsGeneral

759 Where welding to existing structural steel components is required as part of a retrofit, the requirements of
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 B-4

760 Table B3.1 shall apply in addition to the requirements of Structural Welding Code—Steel (AWS
761 D1.1/D1.1M), hereafter referred to as AWS D1.1/D1.1M. For welding of components that are comprised
762 entirely of new structural steel, without any welding to existing structural steel, the requirements of AWS
763 D1.1/D1.1M shall apply.

TABLE B3.1
Requirements for New Welds to
Existing Structural Steel Components
Existing Steel Classification Welding Requirements

The standard specification used to produce the existing AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M requirements shall apply. It is
steel is identified in the construction documents and is permitted to use prequalified weld procedure
listed in AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M Table 3.1. specifications (WPS) in accordance with AWS D1.1/AWS
D1.1M Clause 3.

FT
The standard specification used to produce the existing AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M requirements shall apply; WPSs
steel is identified in the construction documents and is shall be qualified by testing in accordance with AWS
listed in AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M Table 4.9. D1.1/D1.1M Clause 4.

A
20 R
The standard specification used to produce the existing AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M requirements shall apply. It is

20 D
steel is identified in the construction documents as ASTM
A7, the existing steel was manufactured after 1950, and
permitted to use prequalified WPSs in accordance with
AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M Clause 3. The existing steel shall
1, IEW
the maximum thickness of any element of the existing
be classified as either a Group I or Group II base metal in
steel component to be welded is equal to or less than 1½
in. (38 mm). accordance with AWS D1.1/AWS D1.1M Clause 3, based
on the tensile properties that are specified in the standard
specification used to produce the existing steel. Preheat
AY V

levels shall be 50°F (28°C) higher than the values listed in

M RE

AWS D1.1/D1.1M Table 3.3, with a minimum preheat of

The standard specification used to produce the existing
steel is identified in the construction documents as ASTM 100°F (38°C). Sampling and testing of the existing steel
A373 or ASTM A441. are not required.[a]
IC
BL

Any steel not meeting any of the above requirements,

including steels where the standard specification used to
Welding requirements shall be established by the
manufacture the steel is unknown, or the specification
Engineer.[b]
PU

used to manufacture the steel is not a standard

specification.
[a]
User Note: ASTM A7 steel of thickness equal to or less than 1½ in. (38 mm), ASTM A373, and ASTM A441 steels
are not listed in AWS D1.1/D1.1M Table 3.1 but are permitted by these Provisions to be welded with prequalified WPS
when the specified additional requirements are met.
[b]
User Note: Commentary Section B3.2 provides guidance for establishing welding requirements.

764

765 3. Welds Resisting Seismic Forces

766 All new welds added to resist seismic forces shall conform to the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4 and
767 Specification Chapter J. Welds added to resist seismic forces shall be designated as conforming to Seismic
768 Provisions Section A3.4a, unless required by these Provisions to be designated as demand critical, in which
769 case they shall be designed as conforming to Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 B-5

770 User Note: Welds in certain connections as identified in Table C5.1 of these Provisions should be
771 designated as demand critical.

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C-1

1 CHAPTER C

2 COMPONENT PROPERTIES AND REQUIREMENTS

3
4 This chapter addresses the stiffness and strength of steel and composite steel-concrete members and connections
5 subject to seismic forces and deformations. Expected (deformation-controlled) and lower-bound (force-controlled)
6 strengths are given.
7
8 There are four analysis procedures detailed in ASCE/SEI 41 as follows:
9
10 (a) Linear static procedure
11 (b) Linear dynamic procedure
12 (c) Nonlinear static procedure
13 (d) Nonlinear dynamic procedure
14

FT
15 A performance objective is a set of building performance levels, each coupled with a seismic hazard level.
16 Additionally in this chapter, permissible performance parameters (component capacity modification factor and

A
17 expected deformation capacity) for primary and secondary structural components are given for three structural
18 performance levels, as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2, and for each analysis type (linear and nonlinear), as

20 R
19 follows:
20
21 20 D
(a) Immediate Occupancy (IO)
1, IEW
22 (b) Life Safety (LS)
23 (c) Collapse Prevention (CP)
24
25 For linear analysis procedures, permissible strengths are given independently for primary and secondary
AY V

26 components, as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5. For nonlinear analysis procedures, permissible deformations
M RE

27 are applicable for both primary and secondary components. Interpolation of permissible performance parameters to
28 intermediate performance levels not listed in these Provisions, such as Damage Control and Limited Safety, shall be
29 accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2.
IC

30
31 This chapter is organized as follows:
BL

32
33 C1. General
PU

34 C2. Beams
35 C3. Members Subjected to Axial or Combined Loading
36 C4. Panel Zones
37 C5. Beam and Column Connections
38 C6. Steel Plate used as Shear Walls
39 C7. Braced-Frame Connections

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C1-1

750 C1. GENERAL

751 ASCE/SEI 41 requires that all structural components subject to seismic forces and deformations be modeled
752 such that forces and deformations induced in the components can be estimated. The analysis procedure
753 selected for assessment will necessitate which component characteristics are required in the analytical
754 component model and means to model the component.

755 For linear analysis procedures, component stiffnesses shall represent all phenomena specific to that component,
756 either explicitly or implicitly.

757 User Note: Complete representation of the nonlinear force-deformation behavior is not required for linear
758 analysis. However, approximate secant stiffnesses may be needed to represent the effects of connection
759 flexibility, concrete cracking of composite components, bolt slip, and similar phenomena.

760 For the nonlinear static procedure, when constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model, the force-deformation

FT
761 behavior of a component, as depicted in Figure C1.1 for Type 1 response as defined in ASCE/SEI 41,
762 Section 7.5, shall be determined in accordance with this section. Alternatively, this model may be derived

A
763 from testing or analysis in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.6.

20 R
User Note: In the case presented in Figure C1.1, the Provisions use a fully yielded component action to
764
765 20 D
define point B. Point C represents the peak inelastic strength of the component action and its associated
deformation. Point D represents the residual strength of the component action and its associated
1, IEW
766
767 deformation. Other model types are discussed in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.

768 For component actions that exhibit a total deformation at Point C greater than two times the yield
AY V

769 deformation, the post-elastic hardening slope, h, is the ratio of the inelastic stiffness to the elastic stiffness,
M RE

770 and it can be positive or negative. If h is negative, then the peak inelastic strength is less than the yield
771 strength.
IC

772
BL
PU

773
774
775 Fig. C1.1. Generalized force-deformation relation for steel components (Type 1 component behavior).

776 For the nonlinear dynamic procedure, the complete hysteretic behavior of a component shall be determined

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C1-2

777 by testing or analysis, or by other procedures approved by the authority having jurisdiction. If test data are
778 not available for the formulation of component behavior, it is permitted to use the component force-
779 deformation parameters described in this Chapter for modeling the force-deformation behavior and
780 applying hysteretic rules for corresponding component actions. When constructing a backbone curve from
781 test data in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.6, the hysteretic load and deformation curve shall not
782 cross beyond the backbone curve. The characteristics of the hysteretic loops, including post-elastic
783 hardening slope, h, cyclic stiffness degradation in unloading and reloading, cyclic strength degradation,
784 and in-cycle strength degradation, shall be represented in the response model. If cyclic degradation slopes
785 vary for a group of similar components, then the response model shall be constructed as the best fit to the
786 data for the class of components.

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-1

832 C2. BEAMS

833 1. General

834 The component characteristics of steel and composite steel-concrete beams subjected to seismic forces or
835 deformations from flexural and/or shear actions shall be determined in accordance with this Section. This
836 section shall apply to a member when the axial force (compression or tension) in the member does not
837 exceed 10% of the nominal axial strength, Pn, determined in accordance with Specification, Chapters D or
838 E, as applicable.
839
840 The flexural and shear behavior of a beam shall be designated as either deformation-controlled or force-
841 controlled in accordance with Chapters D through I.
842
843 If the clear length between supports that resist translation in the direction of the shear force, Lv, is greater
844 than 2.6MCE/VCE, where MCE is the expected flexural strength and VCE is the expected shear strength, the

FT
845 beam shall be designated as flexure-controlled. If Lv is less than 1.6MCE/VCE, the beam shall be designated
846 as shear-controlled. For lengths of Lv between 1.6MCE/VCE and 2.6MCE/VCE, the beam shall be designated as

A
847 shear-flexure-controlled. MCE and VCE shall be determined in accordance with Section C2.3.
848

20 R
849 Provisions for connections between beams and other structural components are provided in Section C5.

850 2. Stiffness
20 D
1, IEW
851 The calculation of stiffness of steel beams, either bare or composite with concrete, shall be based on
852 principles of structural mechanics and as specified in the Specification unless superseded by supplemental
AY V

853 provisions of this section or system-specific sections in Chapters D through I.

M RE

854
855 The force-deformation model shall account for all significant sources of deformation that affect its
856 behavior, including those from axial, flexural, and shear actions.
IC

857 2a. Flexural Stiffness

BL

858 For components encased in concrete, the flexural stiffness shall be determined using full composite action,
a cracked section at the onset of yield, and an equivalent width equal to the minimum web width of the
PU

859
860 concrete section. An equivalent width of the concrete floor slab, as permitted in Specification Section I3.1a,
861 is permitted to be considered if an identifiable shear transfer mechanism between the concrete slab and the
862 steel flange is shown to meet the applicable permissible performance parameters for the selected
863 performance level.

864 2b. Axial Stiffness

865 For components fully encased in concrete and where axial tensile forces remain below the cracking limit,
866 the axial stiffness shall be determined using 100% of the steel and 70% of the concrete area, assuming full
867 composite action, if confining reinforcement consisting of at least a No. 3 (10 mm) at 12 in. (300 mm)
868 spacing or a No. 4 (13 mm) at 16 in. (400 mm) spacing is provided, and the spacing of the confining
869 reinforcement is no more than 0.5 times the least encasing dimension. If this confining reinforcement
870 requirement is not satisfied, the axial stiffness shall be determined assuming no composite action is
871 achievable. Concrete confined on at least three sides, or over 75% of its perimeter, by elements of the steel

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-2

872 component shall be permitted to be considered adequately confined to provide full composite action.

873 2c. Shear Stiffness

874 For composite beams, the shear stiffness shall be taken as that of the steel section alone, unless otherwise
875 justified by test or analysis.

876 3. Strength

877 The flexural and shear strengths of a beam shall be determined in accordance with this section.

878 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

879 1. Expected Flexural Strength

FT
880 The expected flexural strength, MCE, shall be determined using equations for nominal flexural strength,

A
881 Mn, given in Specification Chapter F, except that the expected yield stress, Fye, determined in
accordance with Chapter A, shall be substituted for the specified minimum yield stress, Fy, and the

20 R
882
883 expected strength, QCE = MCE. For the limit state of shear yielding, MCE shall not be taken greater than
884
885
20 D
VCE Lv / 2, or as required by analysis based on support conditions, where VCE is determined in
accordance with Section C2.3a.2.
1, IEW
886 For beams expected to experience inelastic action through flexural yielding, the beam shall have
887 adequate compactness and be sufficiently braced laterally to develop the expected plastic flexural
AY V

888 strength, Mpe, of the section given in Specification Section F2.1, except that Fye shall be substituted for
M RE

889 Fy, and the expected component strength, QCE = Qy = MCE, where Qy is the expected component yield
890 strength. For other cases, QCE < Qy.
IC

891 For beams fully encased in concrete where confining reinforcement is provided to ensure that the
892 concrete remains in place during seismic loading, the limit states of local buckling and lateral-torsional
BL

893 buckling need not be considered.

894
PU

895 2. Expected Shear Strength

896 The expected shear strength, VCE, shall be determined using equations for nominal shear strength, Vn,
897 given in Specification Chapter G, except that Fye shall be substituted for Fy, and QCE = VCE.

898 For beams expected to experience inelastic action through shear yielding, the yielding zone shall be
899 sufficiently stiffened or the web shall have adequate compactness to prevent shear buckling before
900 shear yielding, and the expected shear strength shall be determined using equations for nominal
901 strength, Vn, given in Seismic Provisions Section F3, except that Fye shall be substituted for Fy, and QCE
902 = Qy = VCE. For other cases, QCE < Qy. Stiffener strength, stiffness, spacing, and web compactness shall
903 be in accordance with the requirements in Seismic Provisions Section F3.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-3

904 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

905 1. Lower-bound Flexural Strength

906 The lower-bound flexural strength, MCL, shall be determined using equations for nominal strength, Mn,
907 given in Specification Chapter F, except that the lower-bound yield stress determined in accordance
908 with Chapter A, FyLB, shall be substituted for Fy, and the lower-bound component strength, QCL = MCL.
909 For the limit state of shear yielding, MCL shall not be taken greater than VCL Lv / 2, or as required by
910 analysis based on support conditions, where the lower-bound shear strength, VCL is determined in
911 accordance with Section C2.3b.2.

912 2. Lower-bound Shear Strength

913 The lower-bound shear strength, VCL, shall be determined using equations for nominal strength, Vn,
914 given in Specification Chapter G, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy, and QCL = VCL.

FT
915 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

A
20 R
916 Permissible strengths and deformations for flexural and shear actions in a beam shall be computed in
917
20 D
accordance with this section.
1, IEW
918 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

919 1. Flexural Actions

AY V

a. Linear Analysis Procedures

M RE

920

921 When linear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior is considered deformation-
IC

922 controlled, the flexural behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-36 of ASCE/SEI 41 with the
923 expected flexural strength, QCE = MCE, determined in accordance with Section C2.3a.1 and m
BL

924 taken from Table C2.1. If MCE < Mpe, then m shall be replaced by the effective component capacity
925 modification factor due to lateral-torsional buckling, me, determined from Equation C2-1.
PU

 M pe  M CE 
926 me  m   m  1    1.0 (C2-1)
 M pe   0.7 Fye  S 

927 where
928 Mpe = expected plastic flexural strength of the section, at the location of the plastic hinge,
929 about the axis of bending defined in Section C2.3a.1, kip-in. (N-mm)
930 S = elastic section modulus about the axis of bending, in.3 (mm3)
931
932 If MCE is limited by the limit state of shear yielding, the beam shall be assessed in accordance with
933 Section C2.4a.2.

934 For beams fully encased in concrete where confining reinforcement is provided to ensure that the
935 concrete remains in place during seismic loading, the limit states of local buckling and lateral-

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-4

936 torsional buckling need not be considered for the purpose of determining the component capacity
937 modification factor, m.

TABLE C2.1
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Beams Subjected to Flexure [a] [b]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

[c]
Section Compactness IO LS CP LS CP

1. Highly ductile ( ≤ hd) 2 6 8 10 12

FT
2. Non-moderately ductile ( > md) 1.25 2 3 3 4

A
Linear interpolation between the values on
lines 1. and 2. for flange, wall and web

20 R
3. Other
slenderness shall be performed, and the
20 D lowest resulting value shall be used.
 = width-to-thickness ratio for the element, as defined in the Seismic Provisions.
1, IEW
CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a]
Regardless of the modifiers applied, m need not be taken less than 1.0.
AY V

[b]
Tabulated values are applicable for flexure-controlled beams with Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. Values of m shall be 1.0
when Lv ≤ 1.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, m shall be linearly interpolated between the
M RE

tabulated values and 1.0.

[c]
The limiting slenderness parameters for highly and moderately ductile compression elements, hd and md,
respectively, are defined in Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced by Fye.
IC

938 For built-up shapes, where the strength is governed by the strength of the lacing plates that carry
BL

939 component shear, m shall be taken as 0.5 times the applicable value in Table C2.1, unless larger
940 values are justified by tests or analysis; however, m need not be taken as less than 1.0. The
941 adequacy of lacing plates shall be evaluated using the provisions for tension braces in the
PU

942 Specification. For built-up laced beams fully encased in concrete, local buckling of the lacing need
943 not be considered where confining reinforcement is provided to allow the encasement to remain in
944 place during an earthquake.

945 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

946 When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
947 procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for flexural behavior shown in Figure C1.1,
948 with modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Table C2.2, shall be used for beams. Alternatively,
949 these relationships may be derived from testing or analysis. For beams, it is permitted to take αh
950 for flexural action as 3% of the elastic slope. Further modification of the curve is permitted if a
951 greater value for αh is justified by testing or analysis.

952 When the flexural behavior is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic chord rotation, p,
953 predicted by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic chord rotation provided in

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-5

954 Table C2.2 for a given performance level. If the beam is flexure-controlled, the yield chord
955 rotation, y, shall be determined from Equation C2-2. Otherwise, if the beam is shear-controlled or
956 shear-flexure-controlled, y shall be taken as the shear yield deformation, y, determined from
957 Section C2.4a.2.b.

M CE LCL 1  
958 y  (C2-2)
6 EI

959 where
960 As = effective shear area of the cross section, in.2 (mm2)
961 [for a wide-flange section in strong-axis bending, As = db tw]
962 E = modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa)
963 G = shear modulus of elasticity of steel = 11,200 ksi (77 200 MPa)
964 I = moment of inertia about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4)
965

FT
LCL = length of beam taken between column centerlines, in. (mm)
966 db = depth of beam, in. (mm)
967 tw = thickness of web, in. (mm)

A
968 12 EI


20 R
(C2-3)
LCL 2 GAs
969
20 D
1, IEW
970 User Note: Equation C2-2 is based on a beam that is rotationally restrained at both ends with no
971 end zones and assumes that the effects from transverse loads are negligible. Therefore, the
972 inflection point is located at mid-span. When other end conditions and/or transverse loadings may
shift the inflection point, y should be determined by analysis; see Commentary for more
AY V

973
information.
M RE

974

975 Where shear deformation in a beam does not change the component deformation by more than 5%
976 or is not included in the analysis of the analytical model, it is permitted to take  as zero.
IC
BL

977 User Note: Shear deformation (accounted for by ) in a flexure-controlled beam with a length
978 greater than 10MCE / VCE is generally small and can be neglected in Equation C2-2.
PU

979 If MCE < Mpe, the values in Table C3.4 shall be multiplied by the factor, χ, determined from
980 Equation C2-4.

981

 M pe  M CE 
982   1  0 (C2-4)
 M pe   0.7 Fye  S 

983

984

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-6

TABLE C2.2
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—Beams Subjected to Flexure [a]
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity
Plastic chord rotation angle a and b, rad Plastic chord rotation angle, rad
Residual strength ratio c
IO LS CP
Section Compactness [b]
a = 9y

1. Highly ductile ( ≤ hd) b = 11y 0.25a a b

c = 0.6
a = 4y

FT
2. Non-moderately ductile ( > md) b = 6y 0.25a 0.75a a
c = 0.2

A
3. Other Linear interpolation between the values on

20 R
lines 1. and 2. for flange, wall and web
slenderness shall be performed, and the
[a]
20 D lower resulting value shall be used.
Tabulated values are applicable for flexure-controlled beams with Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. Values shall be taken as 0.0 when Lv ≤
1, IEW
1.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, values shall be linearly interpolated between the tabulated values and
0.0.
[b]
The limiting width-to-thickness ratios, hd and md, are defined in Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced by Fye.
985
AY V

986
M RE

987 2. Shear Actions

a. Linear Analysis Procedures

IC

988
BL

989 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior is considered deformation-
990 controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the
expected shear strength, QCE = VCE, determined in accordance with Section C2.3a.2 and m taken
PU

991
992 from Table C2.3.

TABLE C2.3
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Beams Subjected to Shear [a] [b] [c] [d]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

Length, Lv IO LS CP LS CP

1.6MCE
Lv  (Shear-Controlled) 1.5 9 13 13 15
VCE

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-7

TABLE C2.3
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Beams Subjected to Shear [a] [b] [c] [d]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

Length, Lv IO LS CP LS CP
[a]
Values are applicable for shear-controlled beams with three or more web stiffeners. If there are no stiffeners, divide
values for shear-controlled beams by 2.0, but values need not be taken less than 1.25. Linear interpolation is
permitted for one or two stiffeners.
[b]
Assumes ductile detailing for beam in the shear yielding zone in accordance with the Seismic Provisions.
[c]
Regardless of the modifiers applied, m need not be taken as less than 1.0.
[d]
Values of m shall be 1.0 when Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, m shall be linearly

FT
interpolated between the tabulated values and 1.0.

A
993 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

20 R
994
995 20 D
When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for shear behavior shown in Figure C1.1,
1, IEW
996 with modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Tables C2.4, shall be used for beams.
997 Alternatively, these relationships are permitted to be derived from testing or analysis. For beams,
998 it is permitted to take αh for shear action as 6% of the elastic slope. Further modification of the
999 curve is permitted if a greater value for αh is justified by testing or analysis.
AY V
M RE

1000 When the shear behavior is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic shear deformation, p,
1001 predicted by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic shear deformation provided
1002 in Table C2.4 for a given performance level. The shear yield deformation, y, shall be determined
IC

1003 from Equation C2-5.

1004  
BL

VCE
y 
PU

1005  Ke Lv  (C2-5)

1006 where
1007 Lv = clear length between supports that resist translation in the direction of the shear force,
1008 in. (mm)
1009 VCE = expected shear strength of the beam determined in accordance with Section C2.3a.2,
1010 kips (N)
1011 Ke = elastic shear stiffness, determined in accordance with Section C2.2, kip/in. (N/mm)
1012
1013

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-8

TABLE C2.4
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Beams Subjected to
Shear [a] [b] [c] [d]
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Shear
Strength Plastic Shear Deformation, rad
Deformation, rad
Ratio

Length, Lv a b c IO LS CP

FT
1.6MCE
Lv  (Shear-Controlled)
VCE
0.15 0.17 0.8 0.005 0.14 0.16

A
20 R
[a]
[b]
20 D
Deformation is the rotation angle between the beam and column or portion of beam outside the shear yielding zone.
Values are applicable for shear-controlled beams with three or more web stiffeners. If no stiffeners, divide values for
shear-controlled beams by 2.0. Linear interpolation is permitted for one or two stiffeners.
1, IEW
[c]
Assumes ductile detailing for beam in the shear yielding zone in accordance with the Seismic Provisions.
[d]
Values shall be taken as 0.0 when Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, values shall be linearly
interpolated between the tabulated values and 0.0.
AY V

1014 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

M RE

1015 1. Flexural Action

IC

1016 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

BL

1017 When linear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior is considered force-controlled,
1018 the flexural behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound
PU

1019 flexural strength, QCL = MCL, determined in accordance with Section C2.3b.1.

1020 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1021 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior is considered force-
1022 controlled, the flexural behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-38, with the
1023 lower-bound flexural strength, QCL = MCL, determined in accordance with Section C2.3b.1.

1024 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action is explicitly modeled with a nonlinear force-
1025 deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the beam based on deformation. For such an
1026 evaluation, the total chord rotation, , predicted by analysis shall not exceed y determined from
1027 Equation C2-2 with MCL substituted for MCE.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C2-9

1028 2. Shear Action

1029 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1030 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior is considered force-controlled,
1031 the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound
1032 shear strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section C2.3b.2.

1033 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1034 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior is considered force-
1035 controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-38, with the
1036 lower-bound shear strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section C2.3b.2.

FT
1037 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action is explicitly modeled with a nonlinear force-
1038 deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the beam based on deformation. For such an

A
1039 evaluation, total shear deformation, , predicted by analysis shall not exceed y determined from

20 R
1040 Equation C2-5 with VCL substituted for VCE.
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-13

1037 C3. MEMBERS SUBJECTED TO AXIAL OR COMBINED LOADING

1038 1. General

1039 The component characteristics of steel and composite steel-concrete members subjected to seismic forces
1040 or deformation from axial action alone, or flexural and/or shear actions with concurrent axial action, shall
1041 be determined in accordance with this Section. This section shall apply to a member when the axial force
1042 (compression or tension) in the member equals or exceeds 10% of Pn, determined in accordance with
1043 Specification, Chapters D or E, as applicable.
1044
1045 User Note: Beams with an axial force equal to or exceeding 10% of Pn should be evaluated in accordance
1046 with Section C3. Most beams in braced frames meet this requirement.
1047
1048 The axial, flexural, and shear behavior of a column or brace shall be designated as either deformation-
1049 controlled or force-controlled in accordance with Chapters D through I.

FT
1050
1051 If the clear length between supports that resist translation in the direction of shear force, Lv, is greater than

A
1052 2.6MCE/VCE, the column or brace shall be designated as flexure-controlled. If Lv is less than 1.6MCE/VCE, the
1053 column or brace shall be designated as shear-controlled. For lengths of Lv between 1.6MCE/VCE and

20 R
1054 2.6MCE/VCE, the column or brace shall be designated as shear-flexure-controlled. MCE and VCE, the expected
1055
1056
20 D
flexural and shear strengths, respectively, shall consider the effect of axial force interaction, determined in
accordance with Section C3.3.
1, IEW
1057
1058 Provisions for connections of columns and braces to other structural components are provided in Sections
1059 C5 and C7.
AY V

1060
1061 Buckling braces shall use the generalized force-deformation relation in Figure C3.1 for both the
M RE

1062 compressive and tensile response. This relation accounts for the degradation in brace strength with
1063 increasing deformation. The parameters shall be computed differently for tensile and compressive brace
1064 response as specified in Section C3.4.
IC

1065
BL
PU

1066
1067
1068 Fig. C3.1. Generalized force-deformation relation for buckling braces and their connections acting together.
1069

1070 2. Stiffness

1071 The stiffness of columns or braces shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified in

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-14

1072 the Specification unless superseded by supplemental provisions of this section or system-specific sections
1073 in Chapters D through I.

1074 The force-deformation model for a column or brace shall account for all significant sources of deformation
1075 that affect its behavior, including those from axial, flexural, and shear actions. The force-deformation
1076 model for a brace shall be consistent with the requirements of Section E1.

1077 2a. Axial Stiffness

1078 For buckling braces, the axial stiffness shall be modeled using the specific requirements for linear and
1079 nonlinear analysis in Section E1. Elastic stiffness of a buckling brace shall be calculated or modeled using
1080 the end-to-end brace length, Lee. Buckling braces that are filled with concrete shall consider the full
1081 composite stiffness of the uncracked concrete in compression if the development of composite action can
be justified; otherwise, the brace stiffness shall be based on the steel element only. Concrete fill in buckling

FT
1082
1083 braces, which engages the end connections of the brace, shall be evaluated as fully composite members
1084 with respect to compressive stiffness and resistance.

A
20 R
1085 For buckling-restrained braces, the axial stiffness shall be modeled with the stiffness of the yielding core
1086 20 D
segment and transition segment added in series. A transition segment shall include the properties of the
brace that is stiffened from the end of the core to the gusset connection. It is permitted to assume the gusset
1, IEW
1087
1088 and beam-to-column connection as rigid relative to the brace.

1089 For components fully encased in concrete and where axial tensile forces remain below the cracking limit,
AY V

1090 the axial stiffness shall be determined using 100% of the steel and 70% of the concrete area, assuming full
M RE

1091 composite action, if confining reinforcement consisting of at least a No. 3 (10 mm) at 12 in. (300 mm)
1092 spacing or a No. 4 (13 mm) at 16 in. (400 mm) spacing is provided, and the spacing of the confining
reinforcement is no more than 0.5 times the least encasing dimension. If this confining reinforcement
IC

1093
1094 requirement is not satisfied, the axial stiffness shall be determined assuming no composite action is
BL

1095 achievable. Concrete confined on at least three sides, or over 75% of its perimeter, by elements of the steel
1096 component is permitted to be considered adequately confined to provide full composite action.
PU

1097 2b. Flexural Stiffness

1098 The flexural stiffness of a column or brace, EIc, with P > 0.5Pye, shall be modified by b, as given in
1099 Specification Section C2.3, except that Pye shall be substituted for Pns; and P shall be substituted for αPr.
1100
1101 where
1102 Ag = gross area of cross section, in.2 (mm2)
1103 Ic = moment of inertia of a column or brace about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4)
1104 P = axial compressive force, kips (N)
1105 Pns = cross-section compressive strength, kips (N)
1106 Pr = required axial compressive strength using load and resistance factor design (LRFD) or allowable
1107 strength design (ASD) load combinations, kips (N)
1108 Pye = AgFye = expected axial yield strength, kips (N)
1109 α = ASD/LRFD force level adjustment factor, specified in the Specification

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-15

1110 For nonlinear analysis of buckling braces, the flexural stiffness shall be modeled using the requirements of
1111 Section E1.2b.

1112 The flexural stiffness of column or brace encased in concrete shall satisfy the requirements in Section
1113 C2.2a.

1114 2c. Shear Stiffness

1115 For composite members, the shear stiffness shall be taken as that of the steel section alone, unless otherwise
1116 justified by rational analysis.

1117 3. Strength

1118 The axial, flexural and shear strengths of a column or brace shall be computed in accordance with this

FT
1119 section.

A
1120 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

20 R
1121 1. Expected Axial Strength

1122
20 D
1, IEW
The expected compressive strength, PCE, of a steel column or brace, or a concrete-filled brace in which
1123 the concrete does not engage the brace end connections, shall be determined using equations for
1124 nominal compressive strength, Pn, given in Specification Chapter E, except that Fye shall be substituted
1125 for Fy.
AY V
M RE

1126 For buckling braces, the effective length, Lc, for calculation of member slenderness, Lc/r, shall be
1127 determined using the end-to-end brace length, Lee,
1128
IC

1129 where
1130 K = effective length factor
BL

1131 Lc = KLee = effective length, in. (mm)

1132 r = radius of gyration, in. (mm)
PU

1133

1134 The expected tensile strength, TCE, shall be determined using equations for nominal axial strength, Pn,
1135 given in Specification Chapter D, except that Fye shall be substituted for Fy, and the expected tensile
1136 strength, Fue, shall be substituted for the specified minimum tensile strength, Fu.

1137 The expected compressive and tensile strength for a buckling-restrained brace, PCE, shall be the net
1138 area of the core multiplied by the expected yield stress, Fye. For strength and modeling parameters, Fye
1139 shall be taken as the specified minimum yield stress, Fy, multiplied by the ratio of the expected yield
1140 stress to the specified minimum yield stress, Ry, from Seismic Provisions Table A3.1. Where the yield
1141 stress is specified as a range, Fye shall be based on the highest yield stress in the range for the
1142 determination of the maximum brace force. If Fye is established by testing, that value shall be used.
1143 The BRB casing system, connections, and adjoining members shall be designed to resist the maximum

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-16

1144 force that the steel core can develop. The maximum force that the core can develop in compression
1145 shall be determined as PCE, and the maximum force that can be developed in tension as PCE.
1146 Factors  and  are the compression strength adjustment factor and the strain-hardening adjustment
1147 factor, respectively, as defined in Seismic Provisions Section F4.2. These factors shall be based on
1148 qualification testing, as described in the Seismic Provisions. Alternatively, for linear analysis, it is
1149 permitted to use  = 1.1 and  = 1.3 if no testing is available.

1150 2. Expected Flexural Strength

1151
1152 The expected flexural strength of a column or brace shall be determined in accordance with Section
1153 C2.3a.1.
1154
1155 For columns or braces expected to experience inelastic action through flexural yielding, the expected
1156 flexural strength, MCE, of the cross section at the hinge locations, shall be determined as follows:

FT
1157
P

A
1158 When  0.2

20 R
Pye
1159
20 D M CE  M pce
1, IEW
1160  P  (C3-1)
 M pe  1  
 2 Pye 
AY V

1161
M RE

P
1162 When  0.2
Pye
1163
IC

M CE  M pce
BL

1164 9 P  (C3-2)
 M pe 1  
8 Pye 
PU

1165
1166 where
1167 Fye = expected yield stress, ksi (MPa)
1168 Mpe = expected plastic flexural strength, determined in accordance with Section C2.3a.1, kip-in.
1169 (N-mm)
1170 Mpce = expected plastic flexural strength reduced for the effect of axial force (compression or
1171 tension), kip-in. (N-mm)
1172 P = axial force (compression or tension), kips (N)
1173
1174 User Note: When braces are modeled with line elements that capture their nonlinear axial force-
1175 deformation behavior, including the effects of buckling, it is not necessary to explicitly evaluate their
1176 flexural strength. However, where explicit modeling of flexural behavior is performed to capture brace
1177 behavior, flexural strength should be evaluated in accordance with these requirements.
1178

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-17

1179 3. Expected Shear Strength

1180 The expected shear strength of a column or brace shall be determined in accordance with Section
1181 C2.3a.2.

1182 For columns or braces expected to experience inelastic action through shear yielding of the web, the
1183 expected shear strength, VCE, along the yielding zone shall be determined as follows:
1184
P
1185 When  0.2
Pye
1186
1187 VCE  Vye  V pe (C3-3)
1188
P

FT
1189 When  0.2
Pye

A
1190

20 R
2
 P 
1191 VCE  Vye  V pe 1    (C3-4)

1192
20 D  Pye 
1, IEW
1193 where
1194 Vpe = nominal shear strength, Vn, in the absence of axial force, from Seismic Provisions Section
1195 F3, with Fye substituted for Fy, kips (N)
AY V

1196 Vye = expected shear yield strength, kips (N)

M RE

1197
1198 3b. Force-Controlled Action
1199
1200 1. Lower-Bound Axial Strength
IC

1201
BL

The lower-bound compressive strength, PCL, of a column or brace shall be determined using equations
1202 for nominal strength, Pn, given in Specification Chapter E, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy.
PU

1203 The lower-bound tensile strength, TCL, of a column or brace shall be determined using equations for
1204 nominal strength, Pn, given in Specification Chapter D, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy.

1205 2. Lower-Bound Flexural Strength

1206 The lower-bound flexural strength, MCL, of a column or brace shall be determined in accordance with
1207 Section C2.3b.1.

1208 3. Lower-Bound Shear Strength

1209 The lower-bound shear strength, VCL, of a column or brace shall be determined in accordance with
1210 Section C2.3b.2.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-18

1211 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

1212 Permissible strengths and deformations for axial actions, and flexural and shear actions concurrent with
1213 axial action, in a column or brace shall be computed in accordance with this section.

1214 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

1215 1. Axial Actions

1216 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1217 When linear analysis procedures are used and the axial behavior is considered deformation-
1218 controlled, the axial behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the
expected component strength, QCE  PCE , determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.1 and m

FT
1219
1220 taken from Table C3.1 or Table C3.2, as appropriate.

A
1221

20 R
TABLE C3.1
20 D
1, IEW
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—Columns and Buckling-Restrained Braces
AY V

Subjected to an Axial Force

M RE

Primary Secondary
Component Component
IC

Component IO LS CP LS CP
BL

1. Columns in Tension 1.25 3 5 6 7

PU

2. Buckling-Restrained Braces [a] [b]

2.3 5.6 7.5 7.5 10
CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a]
Maximum strain of the buckling-restrained brace (BRB) core shall not exceed 2.5%.
[b]
If testing to demonstrate compliance with Section E3.4a is not available, the values shall be multiplied by 0.7.

1222

1223

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-19

TABLE C3.2
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—Buckling Braces Subjected to an Axial Force
Primary Secondary
Component Component

Component IOf LS CP LS CP

Braces in Compression[c] [d] [e] [f]

[b]
1. W, I, 2L in-plane, 2C in-plane 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
0.40
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 5.6 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒

FT
[b]
2. 2L out-of-plane, 2C out-of-plane 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
−1.7 0.45
𝜆 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟

A
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒

20 R
[a]
3. Rectangular HSS 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n

𝜆ℎ𝑑 20 D
𝜆 −1.0 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 3.0 ( ) (
√𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
)
1.0
1, IEW
[a]
4. Round HSS and pipe 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
AY V

5. Single angle (L) 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n

M RE

𝜆 −1.7
𝑛 = 12 ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑
Braces in Tension[c] [d]
IC

[b]
1. W, I, 2L in-plane, 2C in-plane 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
−1.7 0.4
𝜆 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
BL

𝑛 = 3.4 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
[b]
2. 2L out-of-plane, 2C out-of-plane 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
PU

−1.7 0.45
𝜆 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 2.8 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
[a]
3. Rectangular HSS 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
0.24
𝜆 −1.0 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
[a]
4. Round HSS and pipe 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 2.8 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦𝑒
5. Single angle (L) 1.25 0.5n 0.75n 0.6n 0.9n
𝜆 −1.7
𝑛 = 7.2 ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑
[a]
Where HSS or pipe braces are filled with concrete and λ/λhd is less than or equal to 2.5; λ/λhd need not exceed 1.0 for
computing n.
[b]
Connectors for built-up members: Where the connectors for built-up braces do not satisfy the requirements of

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-20

TABLE C3.2
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—Buckling Braces Subjected to an Axial Force
Primary Secondary
Component Component

Component IOf LS CP LS CP

SeismicProvisions Section F2.5b, the values shall be multiplied by 0.5.

[c]
For tension-only bracing, the values shall be divided by 2.0.
[d]
In addition to consideration of connection strength in accordance with Section E1.4, values for braces shall be modified
for connection robustness using np per Section C7.
[e]
The component modification factor, m, for IO shall not exceed m for LS.

FT
[f]
The limiting slenderness parameters for highly and moderately ductile compression elements, hd and md, respectively,
are defined in Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced by Fye.

A
20 R
1224 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1225 20 D
When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
1, IEW
1226 procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for axial behavior shown in Figure C1.1, with
1227 modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Table C3.3, shall be used for columns and buckling-
1228 restrained braces. Alternatively, these relationships are permitted to be derived from testing or
1229 analysis. For columns and buckling-restrained braces, it is permitted to take αh for tension action
AY V

1230 as 3% of the elastic slope. Further modification of the curve is permitted if a greater value for αh is
M RE

1231 justified by testing or analysis.

1232 User Note: For a buckling-restrained brace, point C in Figure C1.1 is QCE for tension and QCE
IC

1233 for compression. Refer to Section C3.3a.1 and the Seismic Provisions to determine the
1234 compression strength adjustment factor  and the strain-hardening adjustment factor .
BL

1235 For nonlinear analysis procedures, the nonlinear force-deformation behavior of buckling braces, as
PU

1236 depicted in Figure C3.1, with the modeling parameters d and f as defined in Table C3.4, shall be
1237 used. Alternatively, these relationships are permitted to be derived from testing.
1238
1239 When the axial behavior of a column or brace is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic
1240 axial deformation, p, predicted by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic axial
1241 deformations provided in Table C3.3 or Table C3.4 for a given performance level. The yield axial
1242 deformation, y, shall be determined as follows:
1243
TCE Lc
1244 For tension:  y  T  (C3-5)
EAg
PCE Lc
1245 For compression:  y  C  (C3-6)
EAg
PCE Lcore P L
1246 For buckling-restrained braces:  y   2 CE conn (C3-7)
EAcore EAconn

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-21

1247 where
1248 Aconn = cross-sectional area of BRB connection, in.2 (mm2)
1249 Acore = cross-sectional area of BRB core, in.2 (mm2)
1250 Lconn = length of BRB connection, in. (mm)
1251 Lcore = length of BRB core, in. (mm)
1252 ΔC = axial deformation at expected compressive buckling strength, in. (mm)
1253 ΔT = axial deformation at expected tensile yield strength, in. (mm)

1254 User Note: The term Qy, and associated, Δy, in Figures C1.1 and C3.1 refer to Point B in the force-
1255 deformation behavior, which is generally termed the “yield point” for a given action. For
1256 compressive axial actions for columns and buckling braces, Point B corresponds to buckling
1257 behavior, rather than traditional yielding in compression. See ASCE/SEI 41, Figure 7.4.

1258

FT
1259
1260

A
1261

20 R
1262
1263
20 D
TABLE C3.3
1, IEW
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Columns and Buckling-
AY V

Restrained Braces Subjected to Axial Force

M RE

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

IC

Plastic Axial Residual

Deformation, in. Strength Plastic Axial Deformation, in. (mm)
BL

(mm) Ratio
PU

Component a b c IO LS CP

Columns in Tension 5ΔT 7ΔT 1.0 0.5ΔT 6ΔT 7ΔT

[a] [b]
Buckling-Restrained Braces 13.3Δy 13.3Δy 1.0 3.0Δy 10Δy 13.3Δy
[a]
Maximum strain of the buckling-restrained brace core shall not exceed 2.5%.
[b]
If testing to demonstrate compliance with Section E3.4a is not available, the values shall be multiplied by 0.7.
1264

1265

1266

1267

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-22

1268

TABLE C3.4

Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear

Analysis Procedures—Buckling Braces Subjected to Axial Force
Expected Deformation
Modeling Parameters Capacity
Total Axial Strength Ratio
Deformation, at Maximum Total Axial Deformation,
in. (mm) Deformation in. (mm)
[g]
Component d f IO LS CP
Braces in Compression[a] [d] [e] [f]

FT
[c]
1. W, I, 2L in-plane, 2C in-plane

A
0.40
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟

20 R
𝑛 = 5.6 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
20 D
2. 2L out-of-plane, 2C out-of-plane
[c]
1, IEW
0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
[b]
3. Rectangular HSS braces
AY V
M RE

1.0
𝜆 −1.0 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 3.0 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
IC

[b]
4. Round HSS and pipe braces 𝑛Δ𝐶 0.2 1.5Δ𝐶 0.7𝑛Δ𝐶 𝑛Δ𝐶
BL

0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑
PU

√𝐸/𝐹𝑦

5. Single angle (L)

𝜆 −1.7
𝑛 = 12 ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑
Braces in tension [a] [d] [e]
[c]
1. W, I, 2L in-plane, 2C in-plane
𝑛Δ 𝑇 1.0 1.5Δ 𝑇 0.7𝑛Δ 𝑇 𝑛Δ 𝑇

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-23

0.4
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 3.4 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
[c]
2. 2L out-of-plane, 2C out-of-plane

0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 2.8 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
[b]
3. Rectangular HSS braces

0.24
𝜆 −1.0 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟
𝑛 = 4.7 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
[b]
4. Round HSS and pipe braces

0.45
𝜆 −1.7 𝐿𝑐 ⁄𝑟

FT
𝑛 = 2.8 ( ) ( )
𝜆ℎ𝑑 √𝐸/𝐹𝑦
5. Single angle (L)

A
20 R
𝜆 −1.7

[a]
𝑛 = 7.2 (
𝜆ℎ𝑑
)
20 D
The strength ratio at maximum deformation for braces in compression corresponds to the degraded post-buckling strength. For
1, IEW
braces in tension it is the strength at incipient brace fracture
[b]
Where HSS or pipe braces are filled with concrete and λ/λℎ𝑑 is less than or equal to 2.5, λ/λℎ𝑑 need not exceed 1.0 for computing n.
[c]
Connectors for built-up members: Where the connectors for built-up braces do not satisfy the requirements of Seismic Provisions
Section F2.5b, the values shall be multiplied by 0.5.
AY V

[d]
For tension-only bracing, the values shall be divided by 2.0
[e]
In addition to consideration of connection strength in accordance with Section E1.4, values for braces shall be modified for
M RE

connection robustness per Section C7.

[f]
The limiting width-to-thickness ratio, hd, is defined in Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced by Fye. For concrete-filled
HSS or pipe braces, hd shall be determined for the corresponding hollow section.
[g]
The permissible deformations for IO shall not exceed that for LS.
IC

1269
BL

1270 2. Flexural Action

PU

1271 a. Linear Analysis Procedures Concurrent with Axial Action

1272 When linear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior of a column or brace is
1273 considered deformation-controlled, the flexural behavior shall be evaluated in accordance with this
1274 section. A column or brace shall satisfy both section strength requirements and member strength
1275 requirements in accordance with this section.

1276 Section Strength

1277 For columns and braces under combined axial and bending stress, development of a flexural
1278 plastic hinge shall be deformation-controlled for flexural behavior, and the combined axial-
1279 bending behavior of the section at the plastic hinge location shall be evaluated by Equation C3-8
1280 or C3-9. If the column or brace is in compression, values for m shall be taken from Table C3.5. If
1281 the column or brace is in tension, values for m shall be taken from Table C3.5, line a, and the
1282 compactness requirements shall be neglected.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-24

1283 If MCE < Mpe, then m for bending about the x-axis shall be replaced by me determined from
1284 Equation C2-1.

1285 If MCE is limited by the limit state of shear yielding, the column or brace shall be assessed in
1286 accordance with Section C3.4a.3.

TABLE C3.5
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Columns and Braces Subjected to
Flexure with Axial Compression or Tension[a] [b]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

FT
Axial Load Ratio and
Section Compactness IO LS CP LS CP

A
20 R
For PUF/Pye < 0.2
1. highly ductile ( ≤
hd) 20 D 2 6 8 10 12
1, IEW
2. non-moderately
1.25 1.25 2 2 3
ductile ( > md)
Linear interpolation between the values on lines 1. and 2. for flange slenderness, wall and
3. Other
web slenderness shall be performed, and the lowest resulting value shall be used.
AY V

For 0.6 ≥ PUF/Pye ≥ 0.2

M RE

13.5 (1 –
1. highly ductile ( ≤ 1.5 (1 – 5/3 7.5 (1 – 5/3
10.5 (1 – 5/3 PUF/Pye)+1 5/3
16.5 (1 – 5/3
PUF/Pye)+1 PUF/Pye)+1 PUF/Pye)+1
hd) ≥1 ≥1
≥1 PUF/Pye)+1
≥1
≥1
IC

2. non-moderately 0.375 (1 – 5/3 0.375 (1 – 5/3 1.5 (1 – 5/3 4.5 (1 – 5/3 PUF/
PUF/Pye)+1 PUF/Pye)+1 1.5 (1 – 5/3 PUF / Pye)+1 ≥ 1 PUF / Pye)+1 Pye)+1
ductile ( > md) ≥1 ≥1 ≥1 ≥1
BL

Linear interpolation between the values on lines 1. and 2. for flange, wall and web
3. Other
slenderness shall be performed, and the lowest resulting value shall be used.
PU

[a]
The limiting width-to-thickness ratios, hd and md, are defined in Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced by
Fye.
[b]
For columns in concentrically braced frames with V- or inverted V-bracing, the value for m is permitted to be multiplied
by 1.25.

1287 PUF
When  0.2 
Pye

PUF  M UDx M UDy 


 mx M pex  m y M pey   
1288 (C3-8)
2 Pye  

1289 PUF
When  0.2 
Pye

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-25

PUF 8  M UDx M UDy 

1290  
     (C3-9)
Pye 9  mx M pex m y M pey 

1291 where
1292 Mpex = expected plastic flexural strength about the x-axis determined in accordance with
1293 Section C3.3a.2 at P = PUF = 0, kip-in. (N-mm)
1294 Mpey = expected plastic flexural strength about the y-axis determined in accordance with
1295 Section C3.3a.2 at P = PUF = 0, kip-in. (N-mm)
1296 MUDx = bending moment about the x-axis determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,
1297 Section 7.5.2.1.1, kip-in. (N-mm)
1298 MUDy = bending moment about the y-axis determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,
1299 Section 7.5.2.1.1, kip-in. (N-mm)
1300 PUF = axial force (compression or tension) in the member determined in accordance with
1301 ASCE/SEI, Section 7.5.2.1.2, kips (N)
1302

FT
mx = component capacity modification factor, m, for column flexure about the x-axis at PUF
1303 in accordance with Table C3.5
1304 my = component capacity modification factor, m, for column flexure about the y-axis at PUF

A
1305 in accordance with Table C3.5

20 R
1306  = knowledge factor determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2.4.

1307 2. 20 D
Member Strength
1, IEW
1308 A steel column or brace in compression shall satisfy Equation C3-10 or C3-11, and Equation C3-
1309 12 for a given performance level.
AY V
M RE

1310 PUF
When  0.2 
PCL
IC

PUF  M Ux M Uy 
1311    (C3-10)
BL

2 PCL  mx M CxLTB m y M Cy 
PU

1312 PUF
When  0.2 
PCL

PUF 8  M Ux M Uy 
1313     (C3-11)
PCL 9  mx M CxLTB m y M Cy 

1314 and

PUF
1315  0.75  (C3-12)
Pye

1316 where
1317

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-26

1318 MCExLTB = expected lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm)
1319 MCLxLTB = lower-bound lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-
1320 mm)
1321 MCxLTB = lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength about the x-axis determined in
1322 accordance with Section C3.3a.2 or C3.3b.2 at PUF = 0. If flexure is deformation-
1323 controlled, MCxLTB = MCExLTB, otherwise flexure is force-controlled and MCxLTB =
1324 MCLxLTB, kip-in. (N-mm)
1325 MCEy = expected flexural strength about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm)
1326 MCLy = lower-bound flexural strength about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm)
1327 MCy = flexural strength about the y-axis determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.2 or
1328 C3.3b.2. If flexure is deformation-controlled, MCy = MCEy, otherwise flexure is
1329 force-controlled and MCy = MCLy, kip-in. (N-mm)
1330 MUFx = bending moment for force-controlled flexure about the x-axis, kip-in. (N-mm)
1331 MUFy = bending moment for force-controlled flexure about the y-axis, kip-in. (N-mm)
1332 MUx = bending moment about the x-axis computed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,
1333 Section 7.5.2.1. If flexure is deformation-controlled, MUx = MUDx, otherwise flexure

FT
1334 is force-controlled and MUx = MUFx, kip-in. (N-mm)
1335 MUy = bending moment about the y-axis computed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,

A
1336 Section 7.5.2.1. If flexure is deformation-controlled, MUy = MUDy, otherwise flexure

20 R
1337 is force-controlled and MUy = MUFy, kip-in. (N-mm)
1338
1339
1340
PCL 20 D
= lower-bound compressive strength determined in accordance with Section C3.3b.1,
1, IEW
kips (N)

1341 If MCxLTB < Mpe, then m for bending about the x-axis in Equation C3-10 and C3-11 shall be
1342 replaced by me determined from Equation C2-1 taking MCE = MCxLTB.
AY V
M RE

1343 A steel column or brace in tension shall satisfy Equation C3-10 or C3-11, except that PCL shall be
1344 taken as the expected tensile strength, TCE, if the axial action is deformation-controlled or the
1345 lower-bound tensile strength, TCL, if the axial action is force-controlled; these strengths shall be
IC

1346 determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.1 and Section C3.3b.1, respectively.
BL

1347 If a column or brace yields in tension, it shall satisfy Equation C3-13 for each performance level.
PU

1348 PUD
 (C3-13)
mt TCE

1349 where
1350 PUD = tensile force in the member determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section
1351 7.5.2.1.1, kips (N)
1352 mt = component capacity modification factor, m, for column or brace in tension taken
1353 from Table C3.3

1354 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1355 When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
1356 procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for flexural behavior shown in Figure C1.1,
1357 with modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Table C3.6, shall be used for columns or braces.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-27

1358 Alternatively, these relationships may be derived from testing or analysis. For columns or braces,
1359 it is permitted to take αh for flexural action as 3% of the elastic slope. Further modification of the
1360 curve is permitted if a greater value for αh is justified by testing or analysis. When the flexural
1361 behavior of a column or brace is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic chord rotation
1362 demand, p, predicted by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic chord rotation
1363 provided in Table C3.6 for a given performance level.

1364 If the column is flexure-controlled, the yield chord rotation, y, of the column shall be determined
1365 from Equation C3-14. Otherwise, if the column or brace is shear-controlled or shear-flexure-
1366 controlled, y shall be taken as y determined from Section C3.4a.3.b.

M pce LCL 1 
1367 y (C3-14)
6 b E I

FT
1368 where
1369
1370

A
LCL = length of member taken between beam centerlines, in. (mm)
1371 τb = stiffness reduction parameter, determined as follows:

20 R
1372
1373
1374
(1)
20 D
When P Pye 0.5
1, IEW
1375 b 1.0 (C3-15a)
1376 (2) When P Pye 0.5
AY V

P P
1377 b 4 1 (C3-15b)
M RE

Pye Pye
1378
IC

1379 User Note: The underlying assumptions for Equation C3-14 are the same as Equation C2-1. When
1380 other end conditions may shift the inflection point away from midspan, it is permitted to determine
BL

1381 y by analysis. See Commentary for more information.

PU

1382 Where shear deformation in a column or brace does not change the component deformation by
1383 more than 5% or is not included in the analysis of the analytical model, it is permitted to take  as
1384 zero.

1385 User Note: Shear deformation (accounted for by ) in a flexure-controlled column or brace with a
1386 length greater than 10MCE / VCE, including axial force interaction, is generally small and can be
1387 neglected in Equation C3-14.

TABLE C3.6
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Columns and Braces Subjected
to Flexure with Axial Compression or Tension[c] [d]

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-28

Expected Deformation Capacity

Axial Load Ratio and Section Compactness

Plastic Rotation Angle, rad

IO LS CP

Columns in Compression[a] [b]

1. highly ductile ( ≤ hd)

2.2 1
 P   L h 
a  0.8  1  G   0.1  0.8   0.0035  0
 P 
 ye   ry tw 

FT
0.5a 0.75b b
2.3 1
 P   L h
b  7.4  1  G   0.5  2.9   0.006  0

A
 P  ry tw 
 ye  

20 R
c  0.9  0.9
PG 20 D
1, IEW
Pye

2. non-moderately ductile ( > md)

AY V

1.2 1
 P   L h b 
a  1.2 1  G  1.4  0.1  0.9 f   0.0023  0
 r
M RE

 P  tw 2t f
 ye   y 
IC

0.5a 0.75b b
1
BL

1.8
 P   L h b 
b  2.5 1  G  0.1  0.2  2.7 f   0.0097  0
 P   r tw 2t f
 ye   y 
PU

PG
c  0.5  0.5
Pye

3. Other:
Linear interpolation between the values on lines 1. and 2. for both flange slenderness and web
slenderness shall be performed, and the lower resulting value shall be used.
Columns in Tension[a] [b]
1. For |PG| / Pye < 0.2
a = 9y
y a b
b = 11y
c = 0.6
2. For |PG| / Pye ≥ 0.2 13.5 (1 – 5/3 |PG| /
0.25y 16.5 (1 – 5/3 |PG| / Pye)y ≥ 0
a = 13.5 (1 – 5/3 |PG| / Pye)y ≥ 0 Pye)y ≥ 0

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-29

TABLE C3.6
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Columns and Braces Subjected
to Flexure with Axial Compression or Tension[c] [d]
Expected Deformation Capacity

Axial Load Ratio and Section Compactness

Plastic Rotation Angle, rad

IO LS CP

b = 16.5 (1 – 5/3 |PG| / Pye)y ≥ 0

FT
c = 0.6 (1 – 5/3 |PG| / Pye) + 0.2 ≥ 0.2
3. Other:

A
Linear interpolation between the values on lines 1 and 2 shall be used

20 R
[a]
y for the purpose of computing a plastic rotation angle is determined using Equation C3-14, with P = PG used in
Equations C3-15a and C3-15b to calculate b.
[b]
20 D
The limiting width-to-thickness ratios, hd and md, are defined in AISC Seismic Provisions Table D1.1, with RyFy replaced
by Fye and P replaced with PG.
1, IEW
[c]
Values are applicable for flexure-controlled beams with Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. Linearly interpolate values to 0.0 when Lv ≤ 1.6
MCE / VCE.
[d]
For beams in concentrically braced frames with V- or inverted V-bracing, the permissible performance parameters are
permitted to be multiplied by 1.25.
AY V

L = laterally unbraced length of member, in. (mm)

PG = axial force component of the gravity load as determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-3.
M RE

bf = width of flange, in. (mm)

d = full nominal depth of member, in. (mm)
h = for rolled shapes, the clear distance between flanges less the fillet or corner radii, in;
= for built-up welded sections, the clear distance between flanges;
IC

= for built-up bolted sections, the distance between fastener lines; and
= for tees, the overall depth, in. (mm)
BL

ry = radius of gyration about y-axis, in. (mm)

t = design wall thickness of HSS member, in. (mm)
tf = thickness of flange, in. (mm)
PU

1388

1389 Where the modeling parameter a is equal to zero or where PG / Pye > 0.6, the component shall
1390 remain elastic for flexure.

1391 Columns or braces classified as deformation-controlled for flexure shall also satisfy Equation C3-
1392 10 or C3-11, and Equation C3-12 when the column or brace is in compression, in Section
1393 C3.4a.2.a, except that the axial force, P, and bending moments about the x- and y-axes, Mx and My
1394 shall be substituted for PUF, MUx and MUy, respectively, developed at the target displacement for
1395 the nonlinear static procedure or at the instant of computation for the nonlinear dynamic procedure,
1396 and m shall be taken as unity.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-30

1397 3. Shear Action Concurrent with Axial Action

1398 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1399 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior is considered deformation-
1400 controlled, the shear behavior strength shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with
1401 the expected shear strength, QCE = VCE, determined in accordance with Section C3.3a.3 and m
1402 taken from Table C3.7.

1403

1404

FT
TABLE C3.7
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear

A
Analysis Procedures—Columns and Braces Subjected to

20 R
Shear[a] [b] [c] [d]
20 D
1, IEW
Primary Secondary
Component Component
AY V

Axial Load Ratio and Member

Length IO LS CP LS CP
M RE

For |PUF| / Pye ≤ 0.2

1.6 M CE
Lv 
IC

(Shear-
VCE 1.5 9 13 13 15
Controlled)
BL

For |PUF| / Pye > 0.2

1.6 M CE 0.75 (1 – 5/3 18 (1 – 5/3
Lv 
PU

(Shear- 12 (1 – 5/3 |PUF|/Pye) + 18 (1 – 5/3 21 (1 – 5/3 |PUF|/Pye)

VCE |PUF|/Pye) + |PUF|/Pye) +
1≥1 |PUF|/Pye) + 1 ≥ 1 +1≥1
Controlled) 1≥1 1≥1
[a]
Values are applicable for shear-controlled beams with three or more web stiffeners. If there are no stiffeners, divide
values for shear-controlled beams by 2.0, but values need not be taken less than 1.25. Linear interpolation is
permitted for one or two stiffeners.
[b]
Assumes ductile detailing for beam in the shear yielding zone in accordance with the Seismic Provisions.
[c]
Regardless of the modifiers applied, m need not be taken as less than 1.0.
[d]
Values of m shall be 1.0 when Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, m shall be linearly
interpolated between the tabulated values and 1.0.

1405 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1406 When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
1407 procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for shear behavior shown in Figure C1.1,
1408 with modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Table C2.4, shall be used for column or braces.
1409 Alternatively, these relationships may be derived from testing or analysis. For columns or braces,

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-31

1410 it is permitted to take αh for shear action as 6% of the elastic slope. Further modification of the
1411 curve is permitted if a greater value for αh is justified by testing or analysis. When the shear
1412 behavior is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic shear deformation demand, p, predicted
1413 by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic shear deformation provided in Table
1414 C3.8 for a given performance level. The shear yield deformation of a column or brace, y, shall be
1415 determined from Equation C3-16:
1416
VCE
y
1417 K e Lv (C3-16)
1418
1419 where
1420 Ke = elastic shear stiffness, determined in accordance with Section C3.2, kip/in. (N/mm)
1421 VCE = expected shear strength of the column or brace, determined in accordance with Section
1422 C3.3a.3, kips (N)

FT
TABLE C3.8

A
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear

20 R
Analysis Procedures—Columns and Braces Subjected to Shear with
20 D
Axial Compression or Tension[a] [b] [c]
1, IEW
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
AY V

Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Shear Deformation, rad
Deformation, rad
M RE

Ratio
Axial Load Ratio and
Member Length a b c IO LS CP
IC

For |P| / Pye ≤ 0.2

BL

1.6 M CE
Lv  (Shear-
VCE 0.15 0.17 0.8 0.005 0.14 0.16
PU

Controlled)

For |P| / Pye > 0.2

1.6 M CE 0.0075 (1 –
Lv  (Shear- 0.225 (1 – 5/3 |P| / 0.255 (1 – 5/3 |P| / 1.2 (1 – 5/3 |P| 0.21 (1 – 5/3 |P| / 0.24 (1 – 5/3 |P| /
VCE 5/3 |P| /
Pye) > 0 Pye) > 0 / Pye) > 0 Pye) > 0 Pye) > 0
Controlled) Pye) > 0
[a]
Deformation is the rotation angle between the beam and column or portion of beam outside the shear yielding zone.
[b]
Values are applicable for shear-controlled beams with three or more web stiffeners. If no stiffeners, divide values for shear-
controlled beams by 2.0. Linear interpolation is permitted for one or two stiffeners.
[c]
Assumes ductile detailing for beam in the shear yielding zone in accordance with the Seismic Provisions.
[d]
Values shall be taken as 0.0 when Lv ≥ 2.6 MCE / VCE. For 1.6 MCE / VCE < Lv < 2.6 MCE / VCE, values shall be linearly
interpolated between the tabulated values and 0.0.

1423

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-32

1424 4b. Force-Controlled Action

1425 1. Axial Action

1426 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1427 When linear analysis procedures are used and the axial behavior of a column or brace is
1428 considered force-controlled, the axial behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-37 of
1429 ASCE/SEI 41 with the lower-bound axial strength, QCL = PCL, determined in accordance with
1430 Section C3.3b.1.

1431 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1432 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the axial behavior of a column or brace is
considered force-controlled, the axial behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-38 of

FT
1433
1434 ASCE/SEI 41 with the lower-bound axial strength, QCL = PCL, determined in accordance with
1435 Section C3.3b.1.

A
20 R
1436 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action is explicitly modeled with a nonlinear force-
1437
1438 20 D
deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the column or brace based on deformation. For
such an evaluation, the total axial deformation, , predicted by analysis shall not exceed T in
1, IEW
1439 tension or C in compression determined from Equations C3-5 and C3-6, respectively, except TCL
1440 and PCL shall be substituted for TCE and PCE, respectively.

2. Flexural Action Concurrent with Axial Action

AY V

1441
M RE

1442 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

When linear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior is considered force-controlled,
IC

1443
1444 the column or brace shall satisfy Equation C3-10 or C3-11, and C3-12 for a given performance
level, determined with FyLB and the lower-bound axial yield strength, PyLB, substituted for Fye, and
BL

1445
1446 Pye, respectively.
PU

1447 Columns or braces classified as force-controlled for flexure shall also satisfy Equations C3-8 and
1448 C3-9 for a given performance level, except that PUF , MUDx and MUDy shall be taken as P, Mx and
1449 My, respectively; the values for m shall be taken as unity; Mpe shall be taken as the lower-bound
1450 plastic flexural strength, MpLB, with FyLB substituted for Fye; and Pye, as determined in Section
1451 C3.2b, shall be taken as PyLB, with FyLB substituted for Fye.

1452 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1453 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the flexural behavior is considered force-
1454 controlled, the column or brace shall satisfy Equation C3-10 or C3-11, and C3-12, when the
1455 column is in compression, except that PUF, and MUx and MUy, shall be taken as the axial force, P,
1456 and moment, Mx or My, respectively, developed at the target displacement for the nonlinear static
1457 procedure or at the instant of computation for the nonlinear dynamic procedure, and m shall be
1458 taken as unity.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C3-33

1459 Columns or braces classified as force-controlled for flexure shall also satisfy Equations C3-8 and
1460 C3-9 for a given performance level, except that PUF , MUDx and MUDy shall be taken as P, Mx and
1461 My, respectively; the values for m shall be taken as unity; Mpe shall be taken as the lower-bound
1462 plastic flexural strength, MpLB, with FyLB substituted for Fye; and Pye, as determined in Section
1463 C3.2b, shall be taken as the lower-bound axial yield strength, PyLB, with FyLB substituted for Fye.

1464 3. Shear Action Concurrent with Axial Action

1465 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1466 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a column or brace is
1467 considered force-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation
1468 7-37, with the lower-bound flexural strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section
1469 C3.3b.2.

FT
1470 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

A
When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a column or brace is

20 R
1471
1472 considered force-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation
1473 20 D
7-38, with the lower-bound flexural strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section
1, IEW
1474 C3.3b.2.

1475 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action is explicitly modeled with a nonlinear force-
deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the column or brace based on deformation. For
AY V

1476
such an evaluation, the total shear deformation, , predicted by analysis shall not exceed y
M RE

1477
1478 determined from Equation C3-16 with VCL substituted for VCE.
IC

1479
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C4-1

1321 C4. PANEL ZONES

1322 1. General

1323 The component characteristics of panel zones at fully restrained moment connections, subject to seismic
1324 forces or deformations from shear action with or without concurrent axial action, shall be determined in
1325 accordance with this Section.

1326 The shear behavior of a panel zone shall be designated as either deformation-controlled or force-controlled
1327 in accordance with Chapters D through I.

1328 2. Stiffness

1329 The stiffness of panel zones shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified in the
Specification unless superseded by supplemental provisions of this section or system-specific sections in

FT
1330
1331 Chapters D through I.

A
1332 The force-deformation model for a panel zone shall account for all significant sources of deformation that

20 R
1333 affect its behavior, including those from axial, flexural, and shear actions.

1334
20 D
Inclusion of panel zone flexibility shall be included in an analytical model by adding a panel zone at the
1, IEW
1335 beam-to-column joint. Alternatively, adjustment of the beam flexural stiffness to account for panel zone
1336 flexibility is permitted. Where the expected shear strength of a panel zone exceeds the flexural strength of
1337 the adjacent beams (converted to applied shear on the panel zone) at a beam-to-column connection and the
stiffness of the panel zone (converted to a rotational spring) is at least 10 times larger than the flexural
AY V

1338
1339 stiffness of the beam, direct modeling of the panel zone is not required. In such cases, rigid offsets from the
M RE

1340 center of the column are permitted to represent the effective span of the beam. Otherwise, use of partially
1341 rigid offsets or centerline analyses is permitted.
IC

1342 2a. Flexural Stiffness

BL

1343 There are no additional requirements beyond those specified in Section C4.2.
PU

1344 2b. Axial Stiffness

1345 There are no additional requirements beyond those specified in Section C4.2.

1346 2c. Shear Stiffness

1347 If the panel zone includes concrete encasement, then the shear stiffness is permitted to be determined using
1348 full composite action, including the effects of cracking, provided a mechanism exists for the transfer and
1349 distribution of forces to the surrounding components.

1350 3. Strength

1351 The shear strength of a panel zone shall be determined in accordance with this section.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C4-2

1352 The shear strength of the concrete encasement can be included in the shear strength of the panel zone
1353 provided a transfer mechanism exists that provides full composite action and distribution of forces to the
1354 surrounding components beyond the anticipated plastic deformations. Otherwise, the shear strength of a
1355 composite panel zone shall neglect the effect of the concrete.

1356 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

1357 The expected shear strength, VCE, shall be determined using the equations for the nominal strength, Rn,
1358 determined from Specification Section J10.6(a), except that Fye shall be substituted for Fy; P shall be
1359 substituted for αPr; tp shall be substituted for tw; and QCE = VCE = Qy = Vye. The axial force (compression or
1360 tension), P, shall be computed in accordance with Section C3 and dependent on the analysis type selected.

1361 where
1362 Pr = required axial strength using LRFD or ASD load combinations, kips (N)

FT
1363 tp = total thickness of panel zone, including doubler plates, in. (mm)
1364 tw = thickness of column web, in. (mm)

A
20 R
1365 3b. Force-Controlled Action

1366 20 D
The lower-bound shear strength, VCL, shall be determined using the equations for the nominal strength, Rn,
1, IEW
1367 given in Specification Section J10.6(a), except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy; P shall be substituted for
1368 αPr; tp shall be substituted for tw; and QCL = VCL.
AY V

1369 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

M RE

1370 Permissible strengths and deformations for shear actions in a panel zone shall be computed in accordance
1371 with this section.
IC

1372 4a. Deformation-Controlled Action

BL

1373 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

PU

1374 When the linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a panel zone is considered
1375 deformation-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-36 of ASCE/SEI 41
1376 with the expected shear strength, QCE = VCE, determined in accordance with C4.3a and m taken from
1377 Table C4.1 and adjusted as required by this section. The axial load, PUF, shall be determined in
1378 accordance with Section C3.

1379

1380

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C4-3

TABLE C4.1
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—Panel Zones Subject to Shear[a]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

Axial Load IO LS CP LS CP

For PUF Pye  0.4 1.5 4 5.5 6 6

(22.5/3)(1-
For PUF Pye  0.4 (2.5/3)(1-|PUF|/Pye)+1 (15/3)(1-|PUF|/Pye)+1
|PUF|/Pye)+1
(25/3)(1-|PUF|/Pye)+1 (25/3)(1-|PUF|/Pye)+1

CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2

FT
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a]
Regardless of the modifiers applied, m need not be taken as less than 1.0.

A
20 R
1381 The component capacity modification factor, m, of the panel zone in Table C4.1 for the LS and CP
1382
20 D
performance levels shall be multiplied by 2 when all of the following conditions are met:
1, IEW
1383 (a) VPZ / Vye < 1.10, where the panel zone shear, VPZ, is determined from Equation C5-21 and Vye
1384 is determined in accordance with Section C4.3a,
1385 (b) the beam flange-to-column flange connection is made with complete-joint-penetration (CJP)
1386 groove welds that satisfy the requirements of Seismic Provisions Section A3.4, and
AY V

1387 (c) beam flange-to-column flange connection welds are not located where column flanges are
M RE

1388 susceptible to local inelastic deformation.

1389 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

IC

When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis procedures,
BL

1390
1391 the generalized force-deformation curve for shear behavior shown in Figure C1.1, with modeling
parameters a, b and c as given in Table C4.2, shall be used for panel zones. Alternatively, these
PU

1392
1393 relationships may be derived from testing or analysis. It is permitted to take αh for shear action as 6%
1394 of the elastic slope. Further modification of the curve is permitted if a greater strain-hardening slope is
1395 justified by testing or analysis.

1396 When the shear strength of a panel zone is considered deformation-controlled, the plastic shear
1397 deformation demand, p, predicted by analysis shall be not greater than the permissible plastic shear
1398 deformation determined from Equations C4-2 or C4-3 or that provided in Table C4.2 for a given
1399 performance level. The shear yield deformation, y, shall be determined from Equation C4-1. The axial
1400 load, P, shall be determined in accordance with Section C3.
1401
2
Fye  P 
1402 y  1    (C4-1)
G 3  Pye 

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C4-4

1403 Where the beam flanges are welded to the column flange, the permissible plastic shear deformation of
1404 the panel zone, p,pz, shall be determined from Equations C4-2 or C4-3, when both of the following
1405 conditions are met:

1406 (a) VPZ / Vye > 1.10, where VPZ is determined from Equation C5-21 and Vye is determined in
1407 accordance with Section C4.3a.
1408 (b) beam flange-to-column flange connection welds are located where column flanges are
1409 susceptible to local inelastic deformation.

1410 (1) For connections where the beam flange-to-column flange connection is made with CJP groove
1411 welds that do not meet the requirements of Seismic Provisions Section A3.4

 2
0.092 Fy  3.45    P    6 y
1412  p , pz     1    (C4-2)
G    
  
2 Pye ,cf

FT


A
1413 (2) For connections where the beam flange-to-column flange connection is made with CJP groove
1414

20 R
welds that meet the requirements of Seismic Provisions Section A3.4
1415

1416
20 D  p , pz
0.183 Fy

3.45
1
P
2

12  y (C4-3)
1, IEW
G  2 Pye,cf
1417
1418 where
AY V

1419 Acf = area of column flange = bcftcf, in.2 (mm2)

M RE

1420 Pye,cf = AcfFye = expected axial yield strength of the column flange, kips (N)
1421 bcf = width of the column flange, in. (mm)
1422 db = smallest depth of the connecting beams at a panel zone, in. (mm)
1423 tcf = thickness of the column flange, in. (mm)
IC

1424  = db / tcf
1425
BL

1426 For all other cases, the permissible plastic shear deformation of the panel zone is permitted to be taken as
12y.
PU

1427
1428
1429
1430
1431

TABLE C4.2
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Panel Zones Subject to Shear
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Shear
Strength Plastic Shear Deformation, p,pz, rad
Deformation, rad
Axial Load Ratio

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C4-5

a b c IO LS CP

For P Pye  0.4 p,pz p,pz 1.0 1y p,pz p,pz

5/3 (1-|P|/Pye) 5/3 (1-|P|/Pye) 5/3 (1-|P|/Pye) 5/3 (1-|P|/Pye)
For P Pye  0.4 5/3 (1-|P|/Pye) 5/3 (1-|P|/Pye)y
p,pz p,pz p,pz p,pz

1432 4b. Force-Controlled Action

1433 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

1434 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a panel zone is considered force-
1435 controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-
1436 bound shear strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section C4.3b.

FT
1437 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

A
When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a panel zone is considered

20 R
1438
force-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-38, with the
1439
1440 20 D
lower-bound shear strength, QCL = VCL, determined in accordance with Section C4.3b.
1, IEW
1441 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action is explicitly modeled with a nonlinear force-deformation
1442 behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the panel zone based on deformation. For such an evaluation, the
total shear deformation, , predicted by analysis shall not exceed y determined from Equation C4-1
AY V

1443
with FyLB substituted for Fye, and PyLB substituted for Pye.
M RE

1444
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-1

1417 C5. BEAM AND COLUMN CONNECTIONS

1418 1. General

1419 This section addresses the component characteristics of steel and composite steel-concrete beam and
1420 column connections subjected to seismic forces and deformations.

1421 The axial, flexural, and shear behavior of a connection shall be designated as either deformation-controlled
1422 or force-controlled in accordance with Chapters D through I.

1423 1a. Fully Restrained Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

1424 The connection shall be classified as fully restrained (FR) if the connection deformations, not including
panel-zone deformations, do not contribute more than 10% to the total lateral deflection of the frame and

FT
1425
1426 the connection is at least as strong as the weaker of the two members being joined. Table C5.1 shall be used
to identify the various FR connection types for which permissible performance parameters are provided in

A
1427
1428 Section C5. Connections described in Table C5.1 are permitted to be classified as FR connections without

20 R
1429 checking their contributions to the total lateral deflection of the frame. Modeling procedures, permissible
1430
20 D
performance parameters, and retrofit measures for moment frames with FR beam-to-column connections
shall be as determined in Chapter D.
1, IEW
1431

1432
AY V

1433
M RE

1434
IC

1435
BL

1436
PU

1437

1438

1439

1440

1441

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-2

TABLE C5.1
Beam-to-Column FR Connection Types

Connection Description

Complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds between beam

flanges and column flanges or continuity plates placed between the
Welded
column flanges when the beam frames into the weak way. The web
unreinforced flange
may be bolted or welded to a shear tab attached to the column or
(WUF) (pre-1995)
directly welded to the column. A composite slab may or may not be
present.

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing

FT
CJP groove welds. The beam web is either bolted or welded to a
single-plate shear connection, or the beam web is welded directly to
the column. A composite slab may, or may not, be present.

A
Bottom haunch in

20 R
WUF with top flange The existing top flange weld shall be removed and replaced with a
weld replaced
20 D
CJP groove weld meeting the requirements of the Seismic
Provisions Section A3.4b. The new bottom haunch shall be
connected to both the beam flange and the column flange with CJP
1, IEW
groove welds meeting the requirements of the Seismic Provisions
Section A3.4b.
The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing
CJP groove welds. The beam web is either bolted or welded to a
AY V

single-plate shear connection, or the beam web is welded directly to

M RE

Bottom haunch in the column. A composite slab may, or may not, be present.
WUF with existing
top flange weld
unaltered The new bottom haunch shall be connected to both the beam flange
and the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the
IC

requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b. The existing

top flange weld is permitted to remain unaltered.
BL

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing
CJP groove welds. The beam web is either bolted or welded to a
PU

single-plate shear connection, or the beam web is welded directly to

the column. A composite slab may, or may not, be present.
Welded cover plate
in WUF The existing beam flange welds shall be removed and replaced with
CJP groove welds meeting the requirements of the Seismic
Provisions Section A3.4b. The new cover plates shall be connected
to the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.
The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing
CJP groove welds. The beam web is bolted, with or without
supplemental welds, to a single-plate shear connection. A
composite slab may, or may not, be present.
Improved WUF—
Bolted web (IWUF-
B) The existing CJP groove welds, connecting the beam flanges to the
column, shall meet the requirements of the Seismic Provisions
Section A3.4a. Alternatively, the existing CJP groove welds shall be
removed and replaced with CJP groove welds meeting the
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-3

TABLE C5.1
Beam-to-Column FR Connection Types

Connection Description

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with CJP
groove welds. The beam web is welded to the column and a single-
AISC 358 WUF— plate shear connection. The single plate is welded to the column.
Welded web (WUF- Composite slab may, or may not, be present.
W)
This connection shall meet the requirements of ANSI/AISC 358,
Chapter 8.

The beam flanges are connected to the flange plates with fillet

FT
welds; the beam flanges are not connected to the column. The
flange plates are welded to the column with CJP groove welds. The

A
beam web is either bolted or welded to a single-plate shear
Welded flange connection, or the beam web is welded directly to the column. A

20 R
plates composite slab may, or may not, be present.

20 D
The existing CJP groove welds, connecting the flange plates to the
column, shall meet the requirements of the Seismic Provisions
1, IEW
Section A3.4a.

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with CJP
AY V

groove welds. The net area of the beam flange is reduced to force
M RE

plastic-hinging away from the column face. The beam web is bolted
Reduced beam or welded to a single-plate shear connection, with or without direct
section weld to the column. Composite slab may, or may not, be present.
IC

This connection shall meet the requirements of ANSI/AISC 358,

Chapter 5.
BL

The beam top flange is connected to the column flange with an

PU

existing CJP groove weld. The existing bottom haunch is connected

to both the beam flange and the column flange with CJP groove
welds. The beam web is bolted or welded to a single-plate shear
connection, with or without direct weld to the column. A composite
slab may, or may not, be present.

The existing bottom haunch shall be connected to both the beam

flange and the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the
Welded bottom
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4a. Alternatively,
haunch (existing)
the existing CJP groove welds, for the bottom haunch, shall be
removed and replaced with CJP groove welds meeting the
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

The existing CJP groove weld, connecting the beam top flange to the
column, shall meet the requirements of the Seismic Provisions
Section A3.4a. Alternatively, the existing CJP groove weld, for the
top flange, shall be removed and replaced with a CJP groove weld
meeting the requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-4

TABLE C5.1
Beam-to-Column FR Connection Types

Connection Description

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing
CJP groove welds. The beam web is bolted or welded to a single-
plate shear connection, with or without direct weld to the column. A
composite slab may, or may not, be present.

Welded bottom The new bottom haunch shall be connected to both the beam flange
haunch (retrofitted) and the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b. The existing
CJP groove weld, connecting the beam top flange to the column,
shall meet the requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section

FT
A3.4a. Alternatively, the existing CJP groove weld, for the top
flange, shall be removed and replaced with a CJP groove weld
meeting the requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

A
The existing top and bottom haunches are welded to both the beam
flanges and column with CJP groove welds. The beam web is bolted

20 R
or welded to a single-plate shear connection, with or without direct

Welded top and 20 D

weld to the column. A composite slab may, or may not, be present.
1, IEW
bottom haunches The existing haunches shall be connected to both the beam flanges
(existing) and the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the
requirements of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4a. Alternatively,
the existing CJP groove welds, for the haunches, shall be removed
and replaced with CJP groove welds meeting the requirements of
AY V

the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b.

M RE

The beam flanges are connected to the column flanges with existing
CJP groove welds. The beam web is bolted or welded to a single-
plate shear connection, with or without direct weld to the column. A
IC

Welded top and composite slab may, or may not, be present.

bottom haunches
(retrofitted)
BL

The new haunches shall be connected to both the beam flanges and
the column flange with CJP groove welds meeting the requirements
of the Seismic Provisions Section A3.4b. The existing flange welds
PU

are permitted to remain unaltered.

The beam flanges are connected to the cover plates with fillet welds,
and are connected to the column with CJP groove welds. The cover
plates are welded to the column with CJP groove welds. The beam
web is either bolted or welded to a single-plate shear connection, or
Welded cover- the beam web is welded directly to the column. A composite slab
plated flanges may, or may not, be present.

The existing CJP groove welds, connecting both the beam flanges
and cover plates to the column, shall meet the requirements of the
Seismic Provisions Section A3.4a.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-5

TABLE C5.1
Beam-to-Column FR Connection Types

Connection Description

The beam flanges are connected to the flange plates with bolts; the
beam flanges are not connected to the column. The flange plates are
welded to the column with CJP groove welds. The beam web is
either bolted or welded to a single-plate shear connection. A
Bolted Flange Plate composite slab may, or may not, be present.

The connection shall be considered FR, if it meets the requirements

of ANSI/AISC 358, Chapter 7, or if the connection is stronger than
the expected plastic flexural strength, FyeZ, of the beam.

FT
The beam flanges are connected to the T-stubs with bolts; the beam
flanges are not connected to the column. The T-stubs are bolted to
the column. The beam web is either bolted or welded to a single-

A
plate shear connection. A composite slab may, or may not, be
Double split Tee present.

20 R
20 D
This connection is permitted to be considered FR, if it satisfies the
strength and connection deformation requirements of Section C5.1a,
1, IEW
or those given in ANSI/AISC 358.

The beam flanges are connected to the end-plate with CJP groove
welds. The beam webs are welded to the end-plate with CJP groove
AY V

Bolted end plate in welds or fillet welds. The end-plate is bolted to the column flange. A
composite slab may, or may not, be present.
M RE

conformance with
ANSI/AISC 358
This connection shall meet the requirements of ANSI/AISC 358,
Chapter 6.
IC
BL

1442 1b. Partially Restrained Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

PU

1443 Connections not meeting the requirements in Section C5.1a shall be classified as partially restrained (PR).
1444 Table C5.2 shall be used to identify the various connection types for which permissible performance
1445 parameters are provided in Section C5. Modeling procedures, permissible performance parameters, and
1446 retrofit measures for moment frames with PR beam-to-column connections shall be as determined in
1447 Chapter D.

1448

1449

1450

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-6

TABLE C5.2
Beam-to-Column PR Connection Types

Connection Description

Top and Bottom Flange angles bolted or riveted to beam flanges and column
Flange Angle flange without a composite slab.

A FT
Split-tees bolted or riveted to beam flanges and column
Double Split-Tee

20 R
flange.

20 D
1, IEW
AY V

Composite Top
Flange angle bolted or riveted to column flange and beam
M RE

and Flange Angle

bottom flange with composite slab.
Bottom
IC
BL
PU

Bolted Flange Flange plate with CJP groove welds at column and bolted to
Plate beam flanges

Stiffened or unstiffened end-plate welded to beam and bolted

Bolted End-Plate
to column flange.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-7

TABLE C5.2
Beam-to-Column PR Connection Types

Connection Description

Shear Connection
Single-plate shear connection, composite slab.
with Slab

A FT
Shear Connection

20 R
Single-plate shear connection, no composite slab.
without Slab

20 D
1, IEW

1451
AY V
M RE

1452 2. Stiffness

1453 The stiffness of connections shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified in the
IC

1454 Specification unless superseded by by supplemental provisions of this section or system-specific sections in
Chapters D through I.
BL

1455

The force-deformation model for a connection shall account for all significant sources of deformation that
PU

1456
1457 affect its behavior, including those from axial, flexural, and shear actions.

1458 User Note: Not all connection types need to be explicitly or implicitly included in an analytical model. The
1459 engineer should use judgment based on principles of structural mechanics. For example, if the robustness of
1460 a column splice will prevent its behavior from contributing to the response of the adjacent columns, then it
1461 can be neglected and the column can be modelled as a continuous component from joint to joint.

1462 2a. Beam-to-Column Connections

1463 User Note: The provisions for rotationally restrained connections do not supersede provisions for panel
1464 zones, if applicable, provided in Section C4.
1465

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-8

1466 1. Fully Restrained Connections

1467 Modeling of connection rotational stiffness for FR connections shall not be required except for
1468 connections that are intentionally reinforced to force formation of plastic hinges within the beam
1469 span, remote from the column face. For such connections, rigid elements shall be used between the
1470 column and the beam to represent the effective span of the beam.

1471 2. Partially Restrained Connections

1472 The moment-rotation behavior of each PR connection for use in modeling shall be determined by
1473 testing or analysis using the principles of structural mechanics. The deformation of the connection
1474 shall be included when calculating frame displacements.

In lieu of explicit connection modelling, it is permitted in linear analyses to adjust the flexural

FT
1475
1476 stiffness of a beam with PR connections, EIb, to account for the flexibility of the end connections
1477 using Equation C5-1.

A
20 R
 EIb adjusted
1

1478
20 D 6

1
(C5-1)
1, IEW
LCL K  EI b

1479 where
Ib = moment of inertia of the beam about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4)
AY V

1480
Kθ = elastic stiffness of the partially restrained connection, kip-in./rad (N-mm/rad)
M RE

1481
1482 LCL = centerline length of the beam taken between joints, in. (mm)
IC

1483 Where Equation C5-1 is used, the adjusted beam stiffness shall be used in frame analysis with FR
1484 connections, and the rotation of the connection shall be taken as the chord rotation of the beam.
BL

1485 2b. Column-to-Base Connections

PU

1486 The rotational stiffness, K, of each base connection for use in modeling shall be determined by testing or
1487 analysis. The deformation of the column-to-base connection shall be included when determining frame
1488 displacements.

1489 3. Strength

1490 The axial, flexural and shear strengths of a connection shall be determined in accordance with this section.

1491 The strength of a connection shall be based on the controlling limit state considering all potential modes of
1492 failure.

1493 The strength of bolts, rivets, and welds used in steel connections for a given deformation-controlled or
1494 force-controlled action shall be taken as the nominal strength for that action given in Specification Chapter
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-9

1495 J.

1496 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

1497 1. FR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

1498 The expected strengths for all applicable limit states for FR moment connections shall be
1499 determined in accordance with the procedures specified in the Specification or Seismic Provisions,
1500 testing, principles of structural mechanics, or the requirements of this section. Calculated expected
1501 strengths shall use expected material properties. Unless otherwise indicated in this section, the
1502 expected flexural strength, MCE, of FR connections shall be determined using Equation C5-2:

1503 QCE  M CE  Fye Zb (C5-2)

FT
1504 where

A
1505 Zb = plastic section modulus of beam, in.3 (mm3)

20 R
(a) For WUF (pre-1995) connections with beam depth of W24 (W610) and greater, MCE shall be
1506
1507 20 D
determined as
1, IEW
1508 QCE  M CE  Fye Sb (C5-3)
AY V

1509 where
M RE

1510 Sb = elastic section modulus of beam, in.3 (mm3)

1511
1512 (b) For reduced beam section connections, MCE shall be determined in accordance with
IC

1513 ANSI/AISC 358.

1514
BL

1515 2. PR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

PU

1516
1517 The expected strengths for all applicable limit states for PR moment connections shall be
1518 determined in accordance with the procedures specified in the Specification or Seismic Provisions,
1519 testing, principles of structural, or the requirements of this section. Calculated expected strengths
1520 shall use expected material properties.

1521 (a) For top and bottom flange angle connections

1522 The expected flexural strength of a riveted or bolted flange angle connection, as shown in
1523 Figure C5.1, shall be the smallest value of MCE based on the following limit states:

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-10

FT
1524

Fig. C5.1. Top and bottom flange angle connection.

A
1525

20 R
1526 (i) If the expected shear strength of the rivet or bolt group connecting the horizontal
1527
20 D leg of the flange angle to the beam flange controls, the expected flexural
strength of the connection, MCE, shall be determined as:
1, IEW
1528

1529 QCE  M CE   Fve Ab Nb  db (C5-4)

AY V
M RE

1530 where
1531 Ab = gross area of rivet or bolt, in.2 (mm2)
1532 Fnv = nominal shear stress for bearing-type connections, given in
IC

1533 Specification Section J3.6, ksi (MPa)

Fve = expected shear strength of bolt or rivet, taken as Fnv, given in
BL

1534
1535 Specification Section J3, ksi (MPa)
Nb = least number of bolts or rivets connecting the top or bottom angle
PU

1536
1537 to the beam flange
1538 db = depth of beam, in. (mm)

1539 (ii) If the expected tensile strength of the horizontal leg of the flange angle controls,
1540 the expected flexural strength of the connection, MCE, shall be determined as:
1541

1542 QCE  M CE  PCE  db  ta  (C5-5)

1543 where PCE is the expected tensile strength of the horizontal leg, governed by the
1544 gross or net section area, and shall be taken as the smaller value determined
1545 from Equations C5-6 and C5-7, kips (N).

1546 PCE  Fye Ag (C5-6)

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-11

1547 PCE  Fue Ae (C5-7)

1548 where
1549 Ae = effective net area of horizontal angle leg, in.2 (mm2)
1550 Ag = gross area of horizontal angle leg, in.2 (mm2)
1551 ta = thickness of angle, in. (mm)

1552 (iii) If the expected tensile strength of the rivet or bolt group connecting the vertical
1553 leg of the flange angle to the column flange controls, the expected flexural
1554 strength, MCE, of the connection shall be determined as:

1555 QCE  M CE   Fte Ab Nb  db  ba  (C5-8)

FT
1556 where
1557 Fte = expected tensile strength of bolt or rivet, taken as Fnt, given in

A
1558 Specification Section J3, ksi (MPa)

20 R
1559 ba = distance from the exterior flange face to the resultant tensile force of
1560
1561
20 D the bolt or rivet group, as shown in Figure C5.1, in. (mm)
1, IEW
1562 The effect of prying on the rivet or bolt group connecting the vertical leg of the
1563 angle to the column flange shall also be considered.
AY V

1564 (iv) If the expected flexural yielding of the flange angle controls, the expected
M RE

1565 flexural strength of the connection, MCE shall be determined as:

wta 2 Fye
IC

1566 QCE  M CE   db  ba  (C5-9)

 t 
2  ba  a 
BL

 2
PU

1567 where
1568 w = length of flange angle, in. (mm)

1569 (b) For double split-tee connections

1570 The expected flexural strength of the double split-tee (T-stub) connection, as shown in Figure
1571 C5.2, shall be the smallest value of MCE based on the following limit states:

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-12

FT
1572

Fig. C5.2. Double split-tee connection.

A
1573

20 R
1574 (i) If the expected shear strength of the rivet or bolt group connecting the web of
1575 20 D the split-tee to the beam flange controls, the expected flexural strength, MCE, of
the connection shall be determined using Equation C5-4.
1, IEW
1576
1577 (ii) If the expected tensile strength of the rivet or bolt group connecting the flange of
1578 the split-tee to the column flange controls, the expected flexural strength, MCE,
of the connection shall be determined as:
AY V

1579
M RE

1580 QCE  M CE   Fte Ab Nb  db  ts  (C5-10)

IC

1581 where
Nb = least number of bolts or rivets connecting the flange of the top or
BL

1582
1583 bottom split-tee to the column flange
ts = thickness of split-tee stem, in. (mm)
PU

1584
1585
1586 The effect of prying on the rivet or bolt group connecting the flange of the split-
1587 tee to the column flange shall also be considered.

1588 (iii) If expected tensile strength of the stem of the split-tee controls, the expected
1589 flexural strength, MCE, of the connection shall be determined using Equation C5-
1590 5, where ts is substituted for ta, and Ag and Ae are taken as the gross area and
1591 effective net area of the split-tee stem, respectively.
1592 (iv) If the expected flexural yielding of the flange of the split-tee controls, the
1593 expected flexural strength, MCE, of the connection shall be determined as:

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-13

wt f 2 Fye
1594 QCE  M CE   db  ts  (C5-11)
 ts 
 t
b  
 2

1595 where
1596 bt = distance between the nearest row of fasteners in the flange of the
1597 split-tee and the centerline of the split-tee stem, as shown in Figure
1598 C5.2, in. (mm)
1599 tf = thickness of flange of the split-tee, in. (mm)
1600 w = length of split-tee, in. (mm)

1601 (c) For bolted flange plate connections

FT
1602 For bolted flange plate connections, as shown in Figure C5.3, the flange plate shall be welded
1603 to the column and welded or bolted to the beam flange. This connection shall be considered

A
1604 fully restrained if its expected flexural strength equals or exceeds the expected flexural

20 R
1605 strength of the connected beam.

1606
20 D
If the expected tensile strength of the flange plate controls, the expected flexural strength,
1, IEW
1607 MCE, of the connection shall be determined using Equation C5-5, where the thickness of
1608 flange plate, tp, is substituted for ta, and Ag and Ae are taken as the gross area and effective net
1609 area of flange plate, respectively.
AY V
M RE

1610 Similar to top and bottom flange angle and double split-tee connections, the expected flexural
1611 strength of the connection shall be determined when the welds or bolt group connecting the
1612 flange plate to the beam flange control over the tensile strength of the flange plate. The
IC

1613 expected strength of the welds shall be taken as the nominal stress of the weld metal, Fnw,
given in Specification Section J2.
BL

1614
PU

1615

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-14

1616 Fig. C5.3. Bolted flange plate connection.

1617 (d) For bolted end plate connections

1618 Bolted end plate connections, as shown in Figure C5.4, shall be considered fully restrained if
1619 the expected flexural strength equals or exceeds the expected flexural strength of the
1620 connected beam.

1621 Applicable limit states for bolted end plate connections shall be determined in accordance
1622 with the procedures of the Specification, Seismic Provisions, or by another procedure
1623 approved by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).

1624 The expected flexural strength, MCE, shall be determined for the limit state of flexural yielding

FT
1625 of the end plate or the limit state of bolt rupture, subject to combined tension and shear
1626 actions.

A
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL

1627
PU

1628 Fig. C5.4. Bolted end plate connection.

1629 (e) For composite PR connections

1630 The expected strength for composite PR connections shall be derived from testing or analysis
1631 in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.6.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-15

1632 3. Column-to-Base Connections

1633 The expected strengths for all applicable limit states for column-to-base connections shall be
1634 determined in accordance with the procedures specified in the Specification or Seismic Provisions,
1635 testing, principles of structural mechanics, or the requirements of this section. Calculated expected
1636 strengths shall use expected material properties.

1637 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

1638 The lower-bound strength of applicable limit states controlled by bolt, rivet, or weld failure computed using
1639 only the nominal strength of the bolt, rivet, or weld given in Specification Chapter J shall be multiplied by
1640 0.85.

1641 1. FR and PR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

FT
1642 The lower-bound strengths for all applicable limit states for FR and PR moment connections shall

A
1643 be based on procedures listed in Sections C5.3a.1 and C5.3a.2 using lower-bound material

20 R
1644 properties instead of expected material properties.

1645 2. 20 D
Column-to-Base Connections
1, IEW
1646 The lower-bound strengths for all applicable limit states for column-to-base connections shall be
1647 based on procedures listed in Section C5.3a.3 using lower-bound material properties instead of
expected material properties.
AY V

1648
M RE

1649 3. Column and Beam Splices

IC

1650 The lower-bound strengths for all applicable limit states for column and beam splices shall be
1651 determined in accordance with procedures specified in the Specification or Seismic Provisions,
BL

1652 testing, principles of structural mechanics, or the requirements of this section. Calculated lower-
1653 bound strengths shall use lower-bound material properties.
PU

1654 Yielding of the base metal shall be considered a deformation-controlled action based on
1655 permissible strengths or deformations given for the beam or column gross section.

1656 Actions on groove welds in column or beam splices shall be considered force-controlled actions.

1657 (a) With Complete-Joint-Penetration Groove Welded Splices

1658 The lower-bound tensile strength of splices made with CJP groove welds for a given
1659 action shall be determined in accordance with procedures given in the Specification for
1660 nominal strength, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy.

1661 (b) With Partial-Joint-Penetration Groove Welded Splices

1662 The lower-bound tensile strength of splices made with partial-joint-penetration (PJP)
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-16

1663 groove welds, σcr, for a given action shall be determined in accordance with Equation C5-
1664 12. Weld stress demand on splice, σUF, shall be determined as the maximum stress in the
1665 smaller section at the end of the PJP groove weld or in accordance with Equation C5-14.
1666 The demand, σUF, shall not exceed the lower-bound strength, σcr.

K IC  a 
1667 cr   Fue 1  0   Fye (C5-12)
  a0    t f ,u 
F    a0
  t f ,u  

1668 where
 a   a0  a0 
1669 F  0    2.3  1.6   4.6  (C5-13)
 t f ,u   t f ,u  t f ,u 
1670 KIC = fracture toughness parameter per Table C5.3 or by other approved

FT
1671 methods, ksi in. ( MPa mm ). If the Charpy V-notch toughness is not

A
1672 known, it is permitted to use the value for 5 ft-lb (6.8 J)

20 R
1673 a0 = dimension of the smaller flange or web thickness that is not welded,
1674
1675 20 D
tf,u
including any applicable loss, in. (mm)
= thickness of the smaller flange or web, in. (mm)
1, IEW
1676
1677
1678
AY V

TABLE C5.3
M RE

Fracture Toughness Parameter, KIC, for Steel

Charpy V-Notch at Lowest Anticipated
Service Temperature (LAST), ft-lb (J)

KIC, ksi in. MPa mm 
IC

5 (6.8) 50 (1700)
BL

10 (14) 100 (3500)

20 (27) 185 (6400)
PU

40 (54) 300 (10 000)

 P   M UF , x   M UF , y 
1679 UF   UF        (C5-14)
 Ag   S x   S y 

1680 where
1681 Ag = gross area of smaller member, in.2 (mm2)
1682 Sx = elastic section modulus of the smaller member taken about the x-axis, in.3
1683 (mm3)
1684 Sy = elastic section modulus of the smaller member taken about the y-axis, in.3
1685 (mm3)
1686
1687 (c) Bolted Splices

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-17

1688 Actions on bolted splices shall be considered force-controlled. The lower-bound strengths
1689 of the splice shall be determined in accordance with procedures given in the Specification
1690 for nominal strengths using lower-bound material properties.

1691 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

1692 Permissible strengths and deformations for axial, flexural and shear actions in a connection shall be
1693 computed in accordance with this section.

1694 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

1695 1. Beam-to-Column Connections

1696 a. FR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

FT
1697 (1) Linear Analysis Procedures

A
20 R
1698 For linear analysis procedures, flexural behavior of FR connections identified in
Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall be considered deformation-controlled and
1699
1700 20 D evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the expected flexural
1, IEW
1701 strength, QCE = MCE, determined in accordance with Section C5.3a.1and m
1702 taken from Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) as modified in this section. Actions for
1703 limit states for which no values for m are provided shall be considered force-
controlled.
AY V

1704
M RE

1705 The permissible flexural strength of FR beam-to-column moment connections

1706 shall be dependent on the detailing of continuity plates, the strength of the panel
IC

1707 zone, the beam span-to-depth ratio, and the slenderness of the beam web and
1708 flanges. Tabulated values for m in Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall be modified
BL

1709 as determined by the following conditions. The modifications shall be

1710 cumulative, but the resulting value for m need not be taken as less than 1.0.
PU

1711 (a) If the connection does not satisfy at least one of the following three
1712 conditions, the tabulated value for m in Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall
1713 be multiplied by 0.8.

bbf
1714 (i) tcf  (C5-15)
5.2

1715 or

bbf bbf
1716 (ii)  tcf  (C5-16)
7 5.2

1717 and
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-18

tbf
1718 t (C5-17)
2

1719 or

bbf
1720 (iii) tcf  (C5-18)
7

1721 and

1722 t  tbf (C5-19)

1723 where

FT
1724 bbf = width of beam flange, in. (mm)
1725 t = thickness of continuity plate, in. (mm)

A
1726 tbf = thickness of beam flange, in. (mm)

20 R
1727
1728 20 D (b) If the following condition is not met, the tabulated value for m in Table
C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall be multiplied by 0.8. Vye shall be determined
1, IEW
1729 in accordance with Section C4.3a.

VPZ
0.6   0.9 (C5-20)
AY V

1730
Vye
M RE

1731 where
1732 VPZ = panel-zone shear at the development of a hinge (expected
IC

1733 first yield) at the critical location of the connection, kips (N)
BL

1734
1735 For My at the face of the column, VPZ is permitted to be estimated using
1736 Equation C5-21.
PU

VPZ 
 M y (beam)  LCL   havg  db 
(C5-21)
1737   
db  CL  d c   havg 
L

1738 where
1739 My(beam) = expected first yield moment of the beam, kip-in. (N-
1740 mm)
1741 = SFye
1742 havg = average story height of columns above and below panel
1743 zone, in. (mm)
1744

1745 (c) If the beam flange and web slenderness satisfy the following
1746 conditions, the tabulated value for m in Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) need
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-19

1747 not be modified.

bf E
1748  0.31 (C5-22)
2t f Fye

1749 and

h E
1750  2.45 (C5-23)
tw Fye

1751 If the beam flange or web slenderness satisfy the following conditions,
1752 the tabulated value for m in Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall be

FT
1753 multiplied by 0.5.

A
bf E
1754  0.38 (C5-24)

20 R
2t f Fye

1755
20 D or
1, IEW
h E
1756  3.76 (C5-25)
tw Fye
AY V
M RE

1757 Straight-line interpolation, based on the case that results in the lower
1758 modifier, shall be used for intermediate values of beam flange or web
IC

1759 slenderness.
BL

1760 (d) If the clear span-to-depth ratio, Lcf / db, is less than 8, the tabulated
1761 value for m in Table C5.4 (Table C5.4M) shall be multiplied by the
PU

1762 factor
1763
  8  Lcf db  
 
1764 0.5  3 

1765
1766 where
1767 Lcf = length of beam taken as the clear span between column
1768 flanges, in. (mm).

1769 FR connections designed to promote yielding of the beam remote from

1770 the column face shall be considered force-controlled for flexure and
1771 shall satisfy Equation C5-26.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-20

1772 M CLc  M peb (C5-26)

1773 where
1774 Mpeb = expected plastic flexural strength of beam,
1775 determined in accordance with Section C2.3a at the
1776 plastic hinge location, projected to the face of
1777 column, kips (N)
1778 MCLc = lower-bound flexural strength of connection at the
1779 face of the column, determined in accordance with
1780 Section C5.3b.1, kips (N)
1781
1782

TABLE C5.4

FT
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure[a]

A
20 R
20 D Primary
Component
Secondary
Component
1, IEW
[c]
Component IO LS CP LS CP

4.3  3.9 - 4.3 -

AY V

WUF (pre-1995)[b] 1.0 5.5 - 0.064db

0.083db 0.043db 0.048db
M RE

Bottom haunch in WUF with top flange

weld removed and replaced per Table 2.3 2.7 3.4 3.8 4.7
C5.1
IC

Bottom haunch in WUF with existing top

1.8 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.3
flange weld unaltered
BL

Welded cover plate in WUF with existing

flange weld removed and replaced per 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 3.1
PU

Table C5.1
Welded cover plate in WUF with existing 3.9 - 4.3 - 5.4 - 5.4 -
6.9 - 0.118db
flange weld unaltered[b] 0.059db 0.067db 0.090db 0.090db
2.0 - 2.3 - 3.1 - 4.9 -
Improved WUF—Bolted web[b] 6.2 - 0.065db
0.016db 0.021db 0.032db 0.048db
AISC 358 WUF-W and other AISC 358
3.1 4.2 5.3 5.3 6.7
conforming connections
3.5 - 4.9 - 6.2 - 6.5 -
Reduced beam section[b] 8.4 - 0.032db
0.016db 0.025db 0.032db 0.025db
Welded Flange Plates
1. Flange plate net section 2.5 3.3 4.1 5.7 7.3
2. Other limit states Force-controlled
Welded top and bottom haunch 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.7 6.0

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-21

TABLE C5.4
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure[a]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

[c]
Component IO LS CP LS CP

Welded cover-plated flanges 2.5 2.8 3.4 3.4 4.2

CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a]
Tabulated values shall be modified as indicated in Section C5.4a.1.a(1)(a through d).

FT
[b]
Where values of m are a function of db, they need not be taken as less than 1.0.
[c]
Refer to Table C5.1 for description of the connection.

A
1783

20 R
TABLE C5.4M
20 D
1, IEW
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure[a]
AY V
M RE

Primary Secondary
Component Component
IC

[c]
Component IO LS CP LS CP
BL

4.3  3.9 4.3 

WUF (pre-1995)[b] 1.0 5.5  0.0025db
0.0033db 0.0017db 0.0019db
PU

Bottom haunch in WUF with top flange

weld removed and replaced per Table 2.3 2.7 3.4 3.8 4.7
C5.1
Bottom haunch in WUF with existing top
1.8 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.3
flange weld unaltered
Welded cover plate in WUF with existing
flange weld removed and replaced per 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 3.1
Table C5.1
Welded cover plate in WUF with existing 3.9  4.3 5.4  5.4 
6.9  0.0046db
flange weld unaltered[b] 0.0023db 0.0026db 0.0035db 0.0035db
2.0  2.3  3.1 4.9 
Improved WUF—Bolted web[b] 6.2  0.0026db
0.00063db 0.00083db 0.0013db 0.0019db
AISC 358 WUF-W and other AISC 358
3.1 4.2 5.3 5.3 6.7
conforming connections
Reduced beam section[b] 3.5  4.9  6.2  6.5 8.4 

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-22

TABLE C5.4M
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear Analysis
Procedures—FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure[a]
Primary Secondary
Component Component

[c]
Component IO LS CP LS CP

0.00063db 0.00098db 0.0013db 0.00098db 0.0013db

Welded Flange Plates
1. Flange plate net section 2.5 3.3 4.1 5.7 7.3
2. Other limit states Force-controlled

FT
Welded top and bottom haunch 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.7 6.0

A
Welded cover—plated flanges 2.5 2.8 3.4 3.4 4.2

20 R
[a]
Tabulated values shall be modified as indicated in Section C5.4a.1.a(1)(a through d).
[b]
Where values of m are a function of db, they need not be taken as less than 1.0.
[c]
20 D
Refer to Table C5.1 for description of the connection.
1, IEW
1784 (2) Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1785 For nonlinear analysis procedures, flexural behavior of FR connections

AY V

1786 identified in Table C5.5 (Table C5.5M) shall be considered deformation-

M RE

1787 controlled, and the plastic rotation angle, p, predicted by analysis shall be not
1788 greater than the permissible plastic rotation angle given in Table C5.5 (Table
1789 C5.5M) as modified in this section.
IC

Permissible flexural deformation of FR beam-to-column moment connections

BL

1790
1791 shall be dependent on the detailing of continuity plates, the strength of the panel
zone, the beam span-to-depth ratio, and the slenderness of the beam web and
PU

1792
1793 flanges. Tabulated deformations in Table C5.5 (Table C5.5M) shall be modified
1794 in accordance with the conditions set forth in Sections C5.4a.1.a(1)(a), (b), and
1795 (c), and(d). The modifications shall be cumulative.

1796 FR connections designed to promote yielding of the beam remote from the
1797 column face shall be considered force-controlled for flexure and shall satisfy
1798 Equation C5-26.

1799

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-23

Table C5.5
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—
FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure[a]
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component[c] a b c IO LS CP

FT
0.051– 0.043– 0.026– 0.0323– 0.043–
WUF (pre-1995)[b] 0.2
0.0013db 0.00060db 0.00065db 0.00045db 0.00060db

A
Bottom haunch in WUF with top

20 R
flange weld removed and replaced 0.026 0.036 0.2 0.013 0.0270 0.036
per Table C5.1
Bottom haunch in WUF with
existing top flange weld unaltered
20 D 0.018 0.023 0.2 0.009 0.0180 0.023
1, IEW
Welded cover plate in WUF with
existing flange weld removed and 0.031 0.031 0.2 0.009 0.023 0.031
replaced per Table C5.1
AY V

Welded cover plate in WUF with 0.056– 0.056– 0.028– 0.0420– 0.056–
0.2
M RE

existing flange weld unaltered[b] 0.0011db 0.0011db 0.00055db 0.00083db 0.0011db

0.021– 0.050– 0.010– 0.0375– 0.050–
Improved WUF—Bolted web[b] 0.2
0.00030db 0.00060db 0.00015db 0.00045db 0.00060db
IC

AISC 358 WUF-W and other AISC

0.041 0.054 0.2 0.020 0.0410 0.054
358 conforming connections
BL

0.050– 0.070– 0.025– 0.0525– 0.07–

Reduced beam section[b] 0.2
0.00030db 0.00030db 0.00015db 0.00023db 0.00030db
PU

Welded flange plates

1. Flange plate net section 0.03 0.06 0.2 0.015 0.0450 0.06
2. Other limit states Force-controlled
Welded top and bottom haunches 0.028 0.048 0.2 0.014 0.0360 0.048
Welded cover—plated flanges 0.031 0.031 0.2 0.016 0.0233 0.031
[a]
Values are applicable at the column face. Tabulated values shall be modified as indicated in Section C5.4a.1.a(1)(a through d).
[b]
Where plastic rotations are a function of db, they need not be taken as less than 0.0.
[c]
Refer to Table C5.1 for description of the connection.

1800

1801

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-24

Table C5.5M
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—
FR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Flexure [a]
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component[c] a b c IO LS CP

FT
0.051– 0.043– 0.026– 0.0323– 0.043–
WUF (pre-1995)[b] 0.2
0.000051db 0.000024db 0.000026db 0.000018db 0.000024db

A
Bottom haunch in WUF with

20 R
top flange weld removed and 0.026 0.036 0.2 0.013 0.0270 0.036
replaced per Table C5.1
Bottom haunch in WUF with
existing top flange weld
20 D0.018 0.023 0.2 0.009 0.0180 0.023
1, IEW
unaltered
Welded cover plate in WUF
with existing flange weld
0.031 0.031 0.2 0.009 0.023 0.031
AY V

removed and replaced per

Table C5.1
M RE

Welded cover plate in WUF

0.056– 0.056– 0.028– 0.0420– 0.056–
with existing flange weld 0.2
0.000043db 0.000043db 0.000022db 0.000033db 0.000043db
unaltered[b]
IC

0.021– 0.050– 0.010– 0.0375– 0.050–

Improved WUF—Bolted web[b] 0.2
0.000012db 0.000024db 0.0000059db 0.000018db 0.000024db
BL

AISC 358 WUF-W and other

AISC 358 conforming 0.041 0.054 0.2 0.020 0.0410 0.054
PU

connections
0.050– 0.070– 0.025– 0.0525– 0.07–
Reduced beam section[b] 0.2
0.000011db 0.000011db 0.0000059db 0.0000091db 0.000012db
Welded flange plates
1. Flange plate net section 0.03 0.06 0.2 0.015 0.0450 0.06
2. Other limit states Force-controlled
Welded top and bottom
0.028 0.048 0.2 0.014 0.0360 0.048
haunches
Welded cover—plated flanges 0.031 0.031 0.2 0.016 0.0233 0.031
[a]
Values are applicable at the column face. Tabulated values shall be modified as indicated in Section C5.4a.1.a(1)(a through d).
[b]
Where plastic rotation angles are a function of db, they need not be taken as less than 0.0.
[c]
Refer to Table C5.1 for description of the connection.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-25

1802 b. PR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

1803 (1) Linear Analysis procedures

1804 For linear analysis procedures, the flexural behavior of PR connections

1805 identified in Table C5.6 (Table C5.6M) shall be considered deformation-
1806 controlled and evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the expected
1807 flexural strength, QCE = MCE, determined in accordance with Section C5.3a.2
1808 and m taken from Table C5.6 (Table C5.6M). Actions for limit states for which
1809 no values for m are provided shall be considered force-controlled.

1810

FT
Table C5.6
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear

A
20 R
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections
20 D
Subject to Flexure
1, IEW
Primary Secondary
Component Component
AY V

Component IO LS CP LS CP
M RE

Top and Bottom Flange Angle[b]

1. Shear failure of rivet or bolt
1.5 4 6 6 8
IC

(limit state 1)[c]

2. Tension failure of horizontal leg
BL

1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2

of angle (limit state 2)
3. Tension failure of rivet or bolt
PU

1.25 1.5 2.5 4 4

(limit state 3)[c]
4. Flexural failure of angle (limit
2 5 7 7 14
state 4)
Double Split-Tee[b]
1. Shear failure of rivet or bolt
1.5 4 6 6 8
(limit state 1)[c]
2. Tension failure of rivet or bolt
1.25 1.5 2.5 4 4
(limit state 2)[c]
3. Tension failure of split-tee stem
1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2
(limit state 3)
4. Flexural failure of split tee (limit
2 5 7 7 14
state 4)
Bolted Flange Plate[b]

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-26

Table C5.6
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections
Subject to Flexure

Primary Secondary
Component Component

Component IO LS CP LS CP

1. Failure in net section of flange

plate or shear failure of bolts or 1.5 4 5 4 5

FT
rivets[c]
2. Weld failure or tension failure
1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2

A
on gross section of plate

20 R
Bolted End-Plate
1. Yield of end plate
2. Yield of bolts
20 D 2
1.5
5.5
2
7
3
7
4
7
4
1, IEW
3. Failure of weld 1.25 1.5 2 3 3
[b]
Composite Top with Bottom Flange Angle
AY V

1. Failure of deck reinforcement 1.25 2 3 4 6

M RE

2. Local flange yielding and web

1.5 4 6 5 7
crippling of column
3. Yield of bottom flange angle 1.5 4 6 6 7
IC

4. Tensile yield of rivets or bolts at

1.25 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5
column flange
BL

5. Shear yield of beam flange

1.25 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5
connections
PU

2.4
13.00.2
Shear Connection with Slab[a] 0.01   17.00.387dbg
90dbg
1dbg
8.9
13.00.2
Shear Connection without Slab[a] 0.19   17.00.387dbg
90dbg
3dbg
[a]
dbg = depth of bolt group, in.
[b]
Web plate or stiffened seat shall be considered to carry shear. Without shear connection, action shall not be
classified as secondary. If db > 18 in. multiply m by 18/db, but values need not be less than 1.0.
[c]
For high-strength bolts, divide values by 2.0, but values need not be less than 1.25.

1811

1812

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-27

Table C5.6M
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections
Subject to Flexure

Primary Secondary
Component Component

Component IO LS CP LS CP

Top and Bottom Flange Angle[b]

1. Shear failure of rivet or bolt
1.5 4 6 6 8

FT
(limit state 1)[c]
2. Tension failure of horizontal
1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2

A
leg of angle (limit state 2)

20 R
3. Tension failure of rivet or bolt
1.25 1.5 2.5 4 4
(limit state 3)[c]

state 4)
20 D
4. Flexural failure of angle (limit
2 5 7 7 14
1, IEW
Double Split-Tee[b]
1. Shear failure of rivet or bolt
1.5 4 6 6 8
(limit state 1)[c]
AY V

2. Tension failure of rivet or bolt

M RE

1.25 1.5 2.5 4 4

(limit state 2)[c]
3. Tension failure of split-tee
1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2
stem (limit state 3)
IC

Bolted Flange Plate[b]

BL

1. Failure in net section of

flange plate or shear failure of 1.5 4 5 4 5
bolts or rivets[c]
PU

2. Weld failure or tension

1.25 1.5 2 1.5 2
failure on gross section of plate
Bolted End-Plate
1. Yield of end plate 2 5.5 7 7 7
2. Yield of bolts 1.5 2 3 4 4
3. Failure of weld 1.25 1.5 2 3 3
[b]
Composite Top with Bottom Flange Angle
1. Failure of deck
1.25 2 3 4 6
reinforcement
2. Local flange yielding and
1.5 4 6 5 7
web crippling of column
3. Yield of bottom flange angle 1.5 4 6 6 7
4. Tensile yield of rivets or bolts 1.25 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-28

Table C5.6M
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections
Subject to Flexure

Primary Secondary
Component Component

Component IO LS CP LS CP

at column flange
5. Shear yield of beam flange
1.25 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5

FT
connections
2.4– 13.0– 17.0–
Shear Connection with Slab[a] — —

A
0.00043dbg 0.011dbg 0.015dbg

20 R
8.9– 13.0– 17.0–
Shear Connection without Slab[a] — —
0.0076dbg 0.011dbg 0.015dbg
[a]
[b]
20 D
dbg = depth of the bolt group (mm)
Web plate or stiffened seat shall be considered to carry shear. Without shear connection, action shall not be
1, IEW
classified as secondary. If db > 450 mm, multiply m by 450/db, but values need not be less than 1.0.
[c]
For high-strength bolts, divide values by 2.0, but values need not be less than 1.25.
AY V

1813 (2) Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

M RE

1814 For nonlinear analysis procedures, the flexural behavior of PR connections

1815 identified in Table C5.6 (Table C5.6M) shall be considered deformation-
IC

1816 controlled, and the plastic rotation angle, p, predicted by analysis shall be not
1817 greater than the permissible plastic rotation angle given in Table C5.7 (Table
BL

1818 C5.7M).
PU

Table C5.7
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject
to Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-29

Table C5.7
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject
to Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP

FT
Top and Bottom Flange Angle[b]

A
1. Shear failure of rivet or 0.036 0.048 0.200 0.008 0.030 0.040
bolt (Limit State 1)[c]

20 R
2. Tension failure of 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015
horizontal leg of angle (Limit
State 2)
20 D
1, IEW
3. Tension failure of rivet or 0.016 0.025 1.000 0.005 0.020 0.020
bolt (Limit State 3)[c]
4. Flexural failure of angle 0.042 0.084 0.200 0.010 0.035 0.070
AY V

(Limit State 4)
M RE

Double Split-Tee[b]
1. Shear failure of rivet or 0.036 0.048 0.200 0.008 0.030 0.040
bolt (Limit State 1)[c]
IC

2. Tension failure of rivet or 0.016 0.024 0.800 0.005 0.020 0.020

bolt (Limit State 2)[c]
BL

3. Tension failure of split- 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015

tee stem (Limit State 3)
PU

4. Flexural failure of split tee 0.042 0.084 0.200 0.010 0.035 0.070
(Limit State 4)
Bolted Flange Plate[b]
1. Failure in net section of 0.030 0.030 0.800 0.008 0.020 0.025
flange plate or shear failure
of bolts or rivets[c]
2. Weld failure or tension 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015
failure on gross section of
plate
Bolted End-Plate
1. Yield of end plate 0.042 0.042 0.800 0.010 0.035 0.035
2. Yield of bolts 0.018 0.024 0.800 0.008 0.020 0.020
3. Failure of weld 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.015 0.015
[b]
Composite Top with Bottom Flange Angle
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-30

Table C5.7
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject
to Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP

FT
1. Failure of deck 0.018 0.035 0.800 0.005 0.020 0.030
reinforcement

A
20 R
2. Local flange yielding and 0.036 0.042 0.400 0.008 0.025 0.035
web crippling of column
3. Yield of bottom flange
angle
20 D 0.036 0.042 0.200 0.008 0.025 0.035
1, IEW
4. Tensile yield of rivets or 0.015 0.022 0.800 0.005 0.013 0.018
bolts at column flange
5. Shear yield of beam- 0.022 0.027 0.200 0.005 0.018 0.023
AY V

flange connection
M RE

Shear Connection with Slab[a] 0.029– 0.15– 0.400 0.014– 0.1125– 0.15–
[d]
0.00020dbg 0.0036dbg 0.00010dbg 0.0027dbg 0.0036dbg ≤
≤ g/dmax – ≤ g/dmax – g/dmax – 0.02
IC

0.02 0.02
Shear Connection without 0.15– 0.15– 0.400 0.075– 0.1125– 0.15–
BL

Slab[a] [d] 0.0036dbg 0.0036dbg 0.0018dbg ≤ 0.0027dbg 0.0036dbg ≤

g/dmax – ≤ g/dmax – g/dmax – 0.02
0.02 0.02
PU

[a]
Where plastic rotations are a function of the depth of the bolt group, dbg, they shall not be taken as less than 0.0.
[b]
Web plate or stiffened seat shall be considered to carry shear. Without shear connection, action shall not be classified as
secondary. If beam depth, db > 18 in., multiply m by 18/db.
[c]
For high-strength bolts, divide values by 2.0.
[d]
dmax = larger of d1 and d2, in.
where
d1 = vertical distance from center of bolt group to top of beam, in.
d2 = vertical distance from center of bolt group to bottom of beam, in.
g = gap distance between the end of beam and face of column, in.

1819

1820

1821

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-31

1822

1823

Table C5.7M
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to
Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

FT
Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

A
20 R
Component a b c IO LS CP

Top and Bottom Flange Angle[b] 20 D

1, IEW
1. Shear failure of rivet 0.036 0.048 0.200 0.008 0.030 0.040
or bolt (Limit State 1)[c]
2. Tension failure of 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015
horizontal leg of angle
AY V

(Limit State 2)
M RE

3. Tension failure of 0.016 0.025 1.000 0.005 0.020 0.020

rivet or bolt (Limit State
3)[c]
IC

4. Flexural failure of 0.042 0.084 0.200 0.010 0.035 0.070

angle (Limit State 4)
BL

Double Split-Tee[b]
1. Shear failure of rivet 0.036 0.048 0.200 0.008 0.030 0.040
PU

or bolt (Limit State 1)[c]

2. Tension failure of 0.016 0.024 0.800 0.005 0.020 0.020
rivet or bolt (Limit State
2)[c]
3. Tension failure of 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015
split- tee stem (Limit
State 3)
4. Flexural failure of 0.042 0.084 0.200 0.010 0.035 0.070
split- tee (Limit State 4)
Bolted Flange Plate[b]
1. Failure in net section 0.030 0.030 0.800 0.008 0.020 0.025
of flange plate or shear
failure of bolts or rivets[c]
2. Weld failure or 0.012 0.018 0.800 0.003 0.010 0.015
tension failure on gross
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-32

Table C5.7M
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to
Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP

FT
section of plate

A
Bolted End-Plate

20 R
1. Yield of end plate 0.042 0.042 0.800 0.010 0.035 0.035
2. Yield of bolts
3. Failure of weld
20 D
0.018
0.012
0.024
0.018
0.800
0.800
0.008
0.003
0.020
0.015
0.020
0.015
1, IEW
[b]
Composite Top with Bottom Flange Angle
1. Failure of deck 0.018 0.035 0.800 0.005 0.020 0.030
reinforcement
AY V

2. Local flange yielding 0.036 0.042 0.400 0.008 0.025 0.035

M RE

and web crippling of

column
3. Yield of bottom 0.036 0.042 0.200 0.008 0.025 0.035
IC

flange angle
4. Tensile yield of rivets 0.015 0.022 0.800 0.005 0.013 0.018
BL

or bolts at column
flange
PU

5. Shear yield of beam- 0.022 0.027 0.200 0.005 0.018 0.023

flange connection
Shear Connection with 0.029– 0.15– 0.400 0.014– 0.1125– 0.15–
Slab[a] 0.0000079dbg 0.00014dbg 0.0000039dbg 0.00011dbg 0.00014dbg ≤
≤ g/dmax – ≤ g/dmax – g/dmax – 0.02
0.02 0.02
Shear Connection without 0.15– 0.15– 0.400 0.075– 0.1125– 0.15–
Slab[a] 0.00014dbg 0.00014dbg 0.000071dbg 0.00011dbg 0.00014dbg ≤
≤ g/dmax – ≤ g/dmax – g/dmax – 0.02
0.02 0.02
[a]
Where plastic rotations are a function of the depth of the bolt group, dbg, they shall not be taken as less than 0.0.
[b]
Web plate or stiffened seat shall be considered to carry shear. Without shear connection, action shall not be classified as
secondary. If beam depth, db > 450 mm, multiply m by 450/db.
[c]
For high-strength bolts, divide values by 2.0.
[d]
dmax = larger of d1 and d2 (mm)
where
d1 = vertical distance from center of bolt group to the top of beam (mm)
d2 = vertical distance from center of bolt group to the bottom of beam (mm)
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-33

Table C5.7M
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—PR Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to
Flexure

Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity

Residual
Plastic Rotation
Strength Plastic Rotation Angle, rad
Angle, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP

FT
g = gap distance between the end of beam and face of column (mm)

A
1824
4b. Force-Controlled Actions

20 R
1825
1826
1827 1. All Connections20 D
1, IEW
1828 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

When linear analysis procedures are used and the flexural, shear, or axial behavior of a
AY V

1829
connection is considered force-controlled, the strength of the connection for a given
M RE

1830
1831 action shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound
1832 component strength, QCL, of the connection determined in accordance with Section
IC

1833 C5.3b.
BL

1834 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

PU

1835 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the flexural, shear, or axial behavior of
1836 a connection is considered force-controlled, the strength of the connection for a given
1837 action shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-38, with QCL, of the connection
1838 determined in accordance with Section C5.3b.

1839 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action, for the connection, is explicitly modeled
1840 with a nonlinear force-deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the connection
1841 based on deformation. For such an evaluation, the total deformation of the connection for
1842 a given action shall not exceed the yield deformation for that action defined in Figure
1843 C1.1 calculated based on principles of structural mechanics using expected material
1844 properties.

1845 2. FR and PR Beam-to-Column Moment Connections

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C5-34

1846 FR and PR connections shall meet the requirements of Section C5.4b.1.

1847 The upper-bound beam flexural strength shall be used to determine the required connection
1848 strength. The upper-bound flexural strength shall be taken as Mpe.

1849 3. Column-to-Base Connections

1850 Column-to-base connections shall meet the requirements of Section C5.4b.1.

1851 The upper-bound flexural strength of column-to-base connections shall be included under the
1852 range of conditions considered. The upper-bound flexural strength of column-to-base connections
1853 shall include the effective flexural resistance resulting from the compressive load in the column,
1854 and shall assume the development of full tension strength of the anchor rods.

FT
1855 5. Anchorage to Concrete

A
Connections of steel components to concrete components shall comply with the requirements of these

20 R
1856
1857 Provisions and ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 10, for classification of actions as deformation-controlled or force-
1858
20 D
controlled, and determination of associated strengths.
1, IEW
1859 The capacity of connections between steel components and concrete components shall be the lowest value
1860 determined for the limit states of strength of the steel components, strength of connection plates, and
1861 strength of anchor rods and their embedment in the concrete.
AY V
M RE

1862 The capacity of column-to-base connections shall be the lowest strength determined based on the following
1863 limit states: strength of welds or anchor rods, bearing strength of the concrete, and yield strength of the
1864 base plate.
IC

1865 The capacity of anchor rod connections between column-to-base connections and concrete substrata shall
BL

1866 be the lowest strength determined based on the following limit states: shear or tensile yield strength of the
1867 anchor rods, loss of bond between the anchor rods and the concrete, or failure of the concrete. Anchor rod
strengths for each failure type or limit state shall be the nominal strengths determined in accordance with
PU

1868
1869 ACI 318 (or ACI 318M), or according to other procedures approved by the AHJ.

1870 For base plate yielding, bolt yielding, and weld failure within a column-to-base connection, the value for m
1871 stipulated in this section based on the respective limit states for a PR end plate connection shall be used.
1872 Column-to-base connection limit states controlled by anchor rod failure modes governed by the concrete
1873 shall be considered a force-controlled action.

1874

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C6-1

1847 C6. STEEL PLATE USED AS SHEAR WALLS

1848 1. General

1849 The component characteristics of steel plate used as shear walls subject to seismic forces or deformations
1850 from shear action, with no concurrent axial action, shall be determined in accordance with this section. This
1851 section applies to steel plate shear walls, with web plates sufficiently thick or stiffened to prevent shear
1852 buckling, that primarily resist loads or deformations through shear strength and stiffness. This section does
1853 not apply to shear walls subject to shear buckling.

1854 The shear behavior of a steel plate shear wall shall be designated as either deformation-controlled or force-
1855 controlled in accordance with Chapters D through I.

2. Stiffness

FT
1856

1857 The stiffness of steel plate shear walls shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified

A
1858 in the Specification unless superseded by supplemental provisions of this section or system-specific

20 R
1859 sections in Chapters D through I.
20 D
The force-deformation model for a steel plate shear wall shall account for all significant sources of
1, IEW
1860
1861 deformation that affect its behavior, including those from axial, flexural, and shear actions.

1862 2a. Flexural Stiffness

AY V
M RE

1863 There are no additional requirements beyond those specified in Section C6.2.

2b. Axial Stiffness

IC

1864
BL

1865 There are no additional requirements beyond those specified in Section C6.2.
PU

1866 2c. Shear Stiffness

1867 If the plate wall includes concrete encasement or backing, then the shear stiffness of the plate wall shall be
1868 determined using full composite action, including the effects of cracking, provided a mechanism exists that
1869 provides sufficient transfer and distribution of forces to the surrounding boundary elements.

1870 It is permitted to analyze a steel plate shear wall using plane stress finite elements with beams and columns
1871 as horizontal and vertical boundary elements, respectively. The elastic shear stiffness of a stiffened plate
1872 wall, Kw, shall be determined in accordance with Equation C6-1 unless another method based on principles
1873 of structural mechanics is used.

Gatw
Kw 
1874  h  (C6-1)

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Ballot dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C6-2

1875 where
1876 a = clear width of wall between vertical boundary elements, in. (mm)
1877 h = clear height of wall between horizontal boundary elements, in. (mm)
1878 tw = thickness of steel plate shear wall, in. (mm)

1879 User Note: Equation C6-1 does not account for the change in elastic stiffness for shear buckling of an
1880 unstiffened plate wall prior to achieving shear yielding, nor does it capture composite action with concrete.
1881 The equivalent elastic stiffness of a buckled wall or composite wall at yield should be determined based on
1882 principles of structural mechanics or analysis.

1883 3. Strength

1884 The shear strength of steel plate shear walls shall be determined in accordance with this section. For
determination of shear strength, the plate wall shall be modeled as the web of a plate girder.

FT
1885

The shear strength of the concrete encasement or backing is permitted to be included in the shear strength

A
1886
of the plate wall provided a transfer mechanism exists that provides full composite action and distribution

20 R
1887
1888 of forces to the surrounding boundary elements beyond the anticipated plastic deformations. Otherwise, the
1889 20 D
shear strength of a composite plate wall shall neglect the effect of the concrete.
1, IEW
1890 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

The expected shear strength, VCE, of a plate wall shall be determined using equations for nominal shear
AY V

1891
1892 strength, Vn, given in Specification Chapter G, except that Fye shall be substituted for Fy, and QCE = VCE.
M RE

1893 Alternatively, for an unstiffened plate wall, it is permitted to determine the expected shear strength using
equations for nominal shear strength, Vn, given in Seismic Provisions Section F5, except that Fye shall be
IC

1894
1895 substituted for Fy.
BL

1896 For plate walls expected to experience inelastic action through shear yielding, the wall shall be sufficiently
PU

1897 stiffened to prevent shear buckling, and QCE = Qy = VCE. Stiffener strength, stiffness and spacing shall be in
1898 accordance with the requirements for plate girders given in Specification Chapter G. In lieu of providing
1899 stiffeners, it is permitted to encase or back the plate wall in concrete; the expected shear strength is
1900 permitted to be computed taking h/tw in Specification, Chapter G, equal to zero.

1901 3b. Force-Controlled Action

1902 The lower-bound shear strength, VCL, of a plate wall shall be determined using equations for nominal shear
1903 strength, Vn, given in Specification, Chapter G, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy, and QCL = VCL.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Ballot dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C6-3

1904 Alternatively, for an unstiffened plate wall, it is permitted to determine the lower-bound shear strength using
1905 equations for nominal shear strength, Vn, given in Seismic Provisions Section F5, except that FyLB shall be
1906 substituted for Fy.

1907 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

1908 Permissible strengths and deformations for shear actions in a steel plate shear wall shall be computed in
1909 accordance with this section. Values provided are applicable if stiffeners, concrete encasement or backing
1910 are provided to prevent shear buckling.

1911 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

1912 1. Shear Actions

FT
1913 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

A
1914 When the linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a steel plate shear wall is

20 R
1915 considered deformation-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41,
Equation 7-36, with the expected shear strength, QCE = VCE, determined in accordance with
1916
1917 20 D
Section C6.3a and m taken from Table C6.1.
1, IEW

Table C6.1
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
AY V
M RE

Analysis Procedures—Steel Plate Shear Walls Subject to

Shear
IC

Primary Secondary
BL

Component Component

Component IO LS CP LS CP
PU

Steel Plate Shear Walls[a] 1.5 8 12 12 14

CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a]
Applicable if stiffeners, concrete encasement or backing are provided to prevent shear buckling.

1918 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1919 When constructing the nonlinear force-deformation model for use in the nonlinear analysis
1920 procedures, the generalized force-deformation curve for shear behavior shown in Figure C1.1,
1921 with modeling parameters a, b and c as given in Table C6.2, shall be used for steel plate shear
1922 walls. Alternatively, these relationships are permitted to be derived from testing or analysis. For
1923 steel plate shear walls, it is permitted to take αh for shear action as 6% of the elastic slope. Further
1924 modification of the curve is permitted if a greater value of αh is justified by testing or analysis.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Ballot dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C6-4

1925 When the shear strength of a steel plate shear wall is considered deformation-controlled, the
1926 plastic shear deformation demand, p, predicted by analysis shall not be greater than the
1927 permissible plastic shear deformations provided in Table C6.2 for a given performance level. The
1928 yield shear deformation, y, of a steel plate shear wall shall be determined from Equation C6-2.

VCE
y 
1929  K wh  (C6-2)

1930 where
1931 Kw = elastic shear stiffness of stiffened plate wall, determined in accordance with Section
1932 C6.2c, kip/in. (N/mm)
1933 VCE = expected shear strength of the steel plate shear wall determined in accordance with
1934 Section C6.3a, kips (N)

FT
1935

TABLE C6.2

A
20 R
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
20 D
Analysis Procedures—Steel Plate Shear Walls Subject to Shear
1, IEW
Modeling Parameters Expected Deformation Capacity
AY V

Residual
Plastic Shear
Strength Plastic Shear Deformation, rad
M RE

Deformation, rad
Ratio

Component a b c IO LS CP
IC

Steel Plate Shear Walls[a] 14y 16y 0.7 0.5y 13y 15y
BL

[a]
Applicable if stiffeners, concrete encasement or backing are provided to prevent shear buckling.
PU

1936 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

1937 1. Shear Actions

1938 a. Linear Analysis Procedures

1939 When linear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a steel plate shear wall is
1940 considered force-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-37 of
1941 ASCE/SEI 41 with the lower-bound shear strength, QCL = VCL , determined in accordance with
1942 Section C6.3b.

1943 b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

1944 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the shear behavior of a steel plate shear wall is
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Ballot dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C6-5

1945 considered force-controlled, the shear behavior shall be evaluated using Equation 7-38 of
1946 ASCE/SEI 41 with the lower-bound shear strength, QCL = VCL , determined in accordance with
1947 Section C6.3b.

1948 Alternatively, when a force-controlled action, for the steel plate shear wall, is explicitly modeled
1949 with a nonlinear force-deformation behavior, it is permitted to evaluate the steel plate shear wall
1950 based on deformation. For such an evaluation, the total shear deformation, , of the steel plate
1951 shear wall predicted by analysis shall not exceed y determined from Equation C6-2.

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Ballot dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-1

1 C7. BRACED-FRAME CONNECTIONS

2 1. General

3 For the purposes of this section, braced-frame connections join one or more braces to beams and columns
4 that resist seismic forces and deformations. Three types of braced frames are considered: CBF, EBF and
5 BRBF, as discussed in Chapter E. In these elements, braced frame connections are located at the brace-
6 beam-column and/or brace-beam intersection, depending on the bracing configuration. For evaluation, the
7 connection shall be designated as configured to either restrain or accommodate end rotation of the brace as
8 defined in Seismic Provisions Section F2.6c.3. Individual component limit states of a braced-frame
9 connection shall be designated as either deformation-controlled or force-controlled actions as described in
10 Section C7.3.
11
12 Braced-frame connections shall be evaluated for the combined loading conditions resulting from (1) axial
13 tension or compression of the brace(s); (2) flexural demands of the braces that are expected to buckle; and
14 (3) axial, shear, and flexural demands resulting from restraint of the adjacent beams and/or columns. For

FT
15 deformation-controlled connections, accurate modeling approaches, as discussed in Chapter E, are required
16 to determine the deformation demands. Stiffness, as well as force and deformation capacities, of braced-

A
17 frame connections are provided herein.

20 R
18 2. Stiffness

19 20 D
The stiffness of columns or braces shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified in
1, IEW
20 the Specification unless superseded by supplemental provisions of this section or system-specific sections
21 in Chapters D through I.
AY V

22 2a. Rotation-Restrained Connections at Brace Ends

M RE

23 When a buckling brace is implicitly modeled with an axial element that models the nonlinear behavior of
24 the braced frame using the parameters defined in Section C3.2 and described in Section E1.2b, the
25 rotational stiffness of connections, which accommodate end rotation of the brace, is permitted to be
IC

26 evaluated as rigid.
BL

27 2b. Rotation-Accommodating Connections at Brace Ends

PU

28 When a buckling brace is implicitly modeled with an axial element that models the nonlinear behavior of
29 the braced frame using the parameters defined in Section C3.2 and described in Section E1.2b, the
30 rotational stiffness of connections, which accommodate end rotation of the brace, is permitted to be
31 evaluated as rigid, except to account for effects on adjacent members as required by Section C7.2c.
32
33 When a buckling brace is explicitly modeled using two-dimensional nonlinear beam-column elements,
34 rotational stiffness of rotation-accommodating connections, such as gusset plates or knife plates, shall be
35 computed based on the effective gusset plate width, Bw, and the average unrestrained length of the gusset
36 plate, Lavg.
37
38 User Note: Braced-end connections may conservatively be modelled as pinned. Where assessments using
39 such simplified modeling indicate the need for retrofit, the engineer should consider using the more
40 accurate connection model for a more accurate assessment.
41
42 User Note: The effective gusset plate width, Bw, may conservatively be determined using a 37 projection,
43 with that projection limited by any unconnected edge of the gusset. The effective width of a knife plate
44 may be determined similarly, but is often restricted by the gross width of the plate.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-2

45
46 The elastic rotational spring stiffness, Kθ, in the plane of brace buckling shall be determined as:
47
EAg t 2p
48 K (C7-1)
3Lavg
49
50
51 where
52 Ag = Bwtp, gross area of gusset plate, in.2 (mm2)
53 Bw = effective gusset plate width, in. (mm)
54 Lavg = average unrestrained length of gusset plate, in. (mm)
55 tp = thickness of gusset plate, in. (mm)
56

57 2c. Modeling of Beam-to-Column Joint

FT
58 Where gusset plates join beams and columns and the gusset-plate thickness is greater than or equal to
59 0.75tw, where tw is the greater web thickness of both the beam and the column, the beam-to-column
60 connection shall be modeled as fully restrained unless justified otherwise by analysis. For gusset plates

A
61 welded directly to beams or columns, rigid elements or offsets extending the full gusset-plate length in

20 R
62 columns and 75% of the gusset-plate length in beams shall be used, as shown in Figure C7.1, unless
63
64 20 D
justified otherwise by analysis.
1, IEW
65 User Note: Where a gusset plate frames into the web of a column oriented for weak-axis bending,
66 stiffeners joining the top and bottom of the gusset to the column flange are required for the connection to be
67 considered fully restrained.
68
AY V

69 Where gusset plates join beams and columns and the gusset-plate thickness is less than 0.75tw of either the
M RE

70 beam or the column, the beam-to-column connection shall be modeled as partially restrained using the
71 provisions of Section C5 or as simply supported, unless justified otherwise by testing or analysis.
72
IC
BL
PU

73

74 Fig. C7.1. Rigid-element or offset dimensions for welded gusset plates.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-3

75 3. Strength

76 Braced-frame connection strength shall be based on principles of structural mechanics and as specified in
77 the Seismic Provisions and Specification, except that default material properties shall be substituted for
78 specified minimum material properties, unless superseded by provisions of this section.

79 3a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

80 1. Welded Gusset-Plate Rotation

81 Welds connecting rotation-accommodating gusset plates connections shall be designated as

82 gusset-plate interface welds.
83
84 (a) The strength of gusset-plate interface welds made with complete-joint-penetration (CJP)
85 groove welds meeting the requirements of the Specification need not be evaluated.
86
87 (b) The strength of an interface weld group consisting of one or two (parallel) fillet weld

FT
88 lines (typically on either side of a single edge of the gusset plate) shall be evaluated based
89 on the strength of the filler weld metal in accordance with the Specification, Section J2.4.

A
90
91 (c) The strength of gusset-plate interface welds made with partial-joint-penetration groove

20 R
92 welds meeting the requirements of the Specification shall be evaluated based on their
93
94
20 D
tensile strength.
1, IEW
95 When brace buckling is explicitly modeled using nonlinear beam-column elements, the flexural
96 strength of the gusset plate shall be determined using Equation C7-2.
97
AY V

Bwt 2p
98 QCE M CE Fye (C7-2)
M RE

6
99
100 2. Brace-to-Beam and Brace-to-Column Connections
IC

101
102 The expected strengths for all applicable limit states for brace-to-beam and brace-to-column
BL

103 connections shall be determined in accordance with procedures specified in the Specification or
104 Seismic Provisions, testing, principles of structural mechanics, or the requirements of this section.
105 Calculated expected strengths shall use expected material properties.
PU

106 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

107 Unless modified elsewhere in this section, limit states of brace connections shall be evaluated using
108 nominal strengths, determined from the Specification, except that FyLB and 𝐹𝑢𝐿𝐵 shall be substituted for Fy
109 and Fu, respectively. For welded connections made with filler metal that does not meet the toughness
110 requirements of the Seismic Provisions, Section A3.4a, limit states shall be evaluated such that the lower-
111 bound strength is equal to 75% of the nominal strength. If a capacity-based analysis approach in accordance
112 with Seismic Provisions Section A3.2 is used, 𝐹𝑦𝑒 and 𝐹𝑢𝑒 are permitted to be substituted for Fy and Fu,
113 respectively, for evaluating connection limit states, and the force-controlled demand, QUF, is the expected
114 brace capacity (Method 1 of ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.2). Applicable limit states are not limited to the
115 ones described in this section.
116
117 User Note: The effective gusset plate width, for the purposes of axial strength checks, may conservatively
118 be determined using a 37 projection, with that projection limited by any unconnected edge of the gusset.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-4

119 The effective width of a knife plate may be determined similarly, but is often restricted by the gross width
120 of the plate.

121 1. Tensile Yielding in the Gross Section

122 Yield strength, TCL, of a connecting plate shall be determined using the nominal axial strength, Pn,
123 determined from Specification Equation D2-1, except that FyLB shall be substituted for Fy.

124 2. Tensile Rupture in the Net Section

125 Rupture strength, TCL, of a brace or connecting plate shall be determined using the nominal axial
126 strength, Pn, determined from Specification Equation D2-2, except that FuLB shall be substituted
127 for the specified minimum tensile strength, Fu. Reinforcement used to reinforce the net section in
128 the slotted region of the brace shall conform to the requirements of Seismic Provisions Section
129 F2.5b(c).

130 3. Block Shear

FT
131 Block shear rupture strength, TCL, of a connecting plate shall be determined using the nominal

A
132 strength, Rn, determined from Specification Equation J4-5, except that the lower bound properties,

20 R
133 FyLB and FuLB, shall be substituted for Fy and Fu, respectively.

134 4.
20 D
Compressive Strength
1, IEW
135 Lower-bound compressive strength, PCL, of a connecting plate shall be evaluated in the direction
136 of the brace as the minimum of the flexural buckling and gross section yielding resistances in
137 accordance with Equation C7-3 and the lower-bound strength, QCL = PCL.
AY V

138
139 The critical stress shall be computed using Specification Section E3, where the effective length, Lc,
M RE

140 is permitted to be computed as KLavg. Unless justified otherwise by analysis, the effective length
141 factor, K, shall be equal to 0.65 for corner gusset plates at the brace-beam-column intersection and
142 1.2 for midspan gusset plates at the brace-beam intersection.
IC

143
PCL FcrLB Ag FyLB Ag (C7-3)
BL

144
145 where
PU

146 FcrLB = critical stress of the plate computed using FyLB, ksi (MPa)
147 FyLB = lower-bound yield stress, ksi (MPa)

148 5. Bolted Connections in Shear

149 Lower-bound shear strength, VCL, of bolted connections shall be determined in accordance with
150 Specification Section J3 and the lower-bound strength, QCL = VCL. For bolt groups that are not the
151 sole load-transfer mechanism between the brace and frame, the strength of the connected material
152 is permitted to be evaluated using Specification, Section J3.10, when deformation at the bolt hole
153 at service load is not a design consideration.

154 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

155 Component permissible performance parameters shall be determined in accordance with this section.
156
157 All actions acting on braced-frame connections which are designated as rotation-restrained shall be
158 considered force controlled.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-5

159 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

160 Welded gusset plate rotation capacity, θgp, shall be determined based on (i) type of interface weld; (ii)
161 compliance with the toughness requirements of the Seismic Provisions, Section A3.4a; (iii) ratio of the
162 yield strength of the gusset plate, ftUD, to the tensile strength of the weld group, ftCE, with the limit on the
163 ratio, ftUD/ftCE, defined in the following; and (iv) rotational clearance, Lell, defined in Figure C7.2a relative to
164 the plate thickness, tp. For midspan gusset-plate connections, Lell is permitted to be taken as the vertical
165 clearance between the brace end and beam flange, Lvert, provided that Lvert is greater than or equal to 2tp, as
166 shown in Figure C7.2b. If the elliptical clearance is not determinable or the vertical clearance is less than
167 2tp in midspan gusset plates, the connection shall be evaluated as rotation restrained. The yield strength of
168 the gusset plate, in kip/in., is:
169
170 ftUD Fyet p (C7-4)
171
172 (a) The rotational capacity of gusset plates with interface welds conforming to the requirements of
173 Section F2.6c.4 of the Seismic Provisions, and with toughness requirements of Section A3.4a of
174 the Seismic Provisions, need not be evaluated.

FT
175
176 (b) The rotational capacity of gusset plates with interface welds made with CJP groove welds that

A
177 meet the requirements of the Specification but do not meet the toughness requirements of the

20 R
178 Seismic Provisions, Section A3.4a, shall be determined from Table C7.1 using ftUD ftCE 0.75 .
179
180 (c) 20 D
The rotational capacity of gusset plates with interface welds made with fillet welds which do not
1, IEW
181 meet the toughness requirements of the Seismic Provisions, Section A3.4a, shall be determined
182 from Table C7.1.
183
184
AY V

185
M RE
IC
BL
PU

186

187 (a)Corner gusset plate elliptical clearance (b) Midspan gusset plate vertical clearance

188 Fig. C7.2. Gusset-plate clearance models.

189 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

190 When the rotational capacity of the gusset plate is a consideration, m for computing permissible
191 performance parameters of the brace in both tension and compression in Table C3.2 shall use the
192 modification factor for connection robustness, np from Equation C7-5, when np is less than n. In
193 Equation C7-5, θgp is equal to d as computed from Table C7.1 and based on the requirements of
194 Section C7.4a.1.
195

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-6

Lc 2gp
196 np 1 (C7-5)
2 C
197
198 where
199 Lc = effective length, defined in Section C3.3a.1, in. (mm)
200 ΔC = axial deformation at expected compressive buckling strength, determined
201 using Equation C3-6
202 θgp = welded gusset plate rotation capacity, rad

203 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

204 When brace buckling is modeled using a concentrated spring and the parameters defined in
205 Section C3.2, the modeling parameters and permissible deformations of the brace shall be
206 modified such that n y L2gp 2 , where Δy is equal to ΔT or ΔC for braces in tension or
207 compression, respectively.
208

FT
209 When brace buckling is modeled using nonlinear beam-column elements capable of simulating
210 member buckling, the modeling parameters of the gusset plate in flexure shall be determined from

A
211 Table C7.1. When the rotational capacity of the gusset plate is a consideration, the permissible

20 R
212 deformations shall be determined from Table C7.1.
213
214
20 D
1, IEW
TABLE C7.1
Modeling Paramaters and Permissible Performance Parameters
for Nonlinear Analysis Procedures—Braced-Frame Connections
AY V
M RE

Modeling
Permissible Performance Parameters
Parameters
IC

Strength Ratio
Total Rotation (rad)
at Fracture
BL

[b]
Component/Action f IO LS CP
[a]
Welded Gusset-Plate Rotation
PU

𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑙
0.33
𝑓𝑡𝑈𝐷 −0.57 1.0 1.5MCE K   0.7d 0.7d d
d = 0.11 ( ) ( )
𝑡𝑝 𝑓𝑡𝐶𝐸

CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2

IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
[a] 𝐿 𝑓
For computing d, 𝑒𝑙𝑙 ≤ 8 and 𝑡𝑈𝐷 ≥ 0.75.
𝑡𝑝 𝑓𝑡𝐶𝐸
[b]
f = resistance immediately prior to fracture (see Figure C3.1)
215

216 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

217 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

218 When linear analysis procedures are used and the behavior of a braced-frame connection is
219 considered force-controlled, the strength of the connection component for a given action shall be

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 C7-7

220 evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound strength, QCL, of the
221 connection determined in accordance with Section C7.3b.
222
223 The following exceptions for evaluation of force-controlled actions shall apply:
224
225 (a) For rotation-accommodating connections, the demand-capacity ratio for the gusset-plate
226 axial yielding limit state in tension, as specified in Section C7.3b.1, is permitted to be up
227 to 1.2.
228
229 (b) For bolt groups loaded in shear which are not the sole load-transfer mechanism from the
230 brace to the beam and/or column and where the connected material bearing and tearout
231 resistance does not exceed 1.2 times the bolt-fracture resistance, the demand-capacity
232 ratio for bolt fracture in shear is permitted to be up to 1.3.
233
234 (c) For bolt groups loaded in shear which are not the sole load-transfer mechanism between
235 the brace and frame, the demand-capacity ratio for bearing and tearout at bolt holes in the
236 connected material is permitted to be up to 1.1.

FT
237 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

A
238 When nonlinear analysis procedures are used and the behavior of a braced-frame connection is

20 R
239 considered force-controlled, the strength of the connection component for a given action shall be
240
241 20 D
evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-38, with the lower-bound strength, QCL, of the
connection determined in accordance with Section C7.3b.
1, IEW
242
243 The following exceptions for evaluation of force-controlled actions shall apply:
244
245 (a) For rotation-accommodating connections, the demand-capacity ratio for the gusset-plate
AY V

246 axial yielding limit state in tension, as specified in Section C7.3b.1, is permitted to be up
M RE

247 to 1.2; the brace axial strength determined in Section C3.3a.1 shall be limited by the
248 lower-bound component strength, QCL, for this limit state.
249
IC

250 (b) For bolt groups loaded in shear which are not the sole load transfer mechanism between
251 the brace and frame and where the connected material bearing and tearout resistance does
BL

252 not exceed 1.2 times the bolt fracture resistance, the demand capacity ratio for bolt
253 fracture in shear is permitted to be up to 1.3.
PU

254
255 (c) For bolt groups loaded in shear which are not the sole load transfer mechanism between
256 the brace and frame, the demand capacity ratio for bearing and tearout at bolt holes in the
257 connected material is permitted to be up to 1.1.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 D-1

1938 CHAPTER D

1939 STRUCTURAL STEEL MOMENT FRAMES

1940

1941 Steel moment frames develop their seismic resistance primarily through bending of beams and columns, and
1942 moment-resisting beam-to-column connections. This chapter describes requirements for the primary and secondary
1943 structural steel components of moment frames. Unless otherwise noted in this chapter, these requirements are in
1944 addition to any requirement prescribed in Chapter C.

1945 The chapter is organized as follows:

FT
1946 D1. General
1947 D2. Stiffness
D3. Strength

A
1948
1949 D4. Permissible Performance Parameters

20 R
1950 D5. Retrofit Measures

1951 D1. GENERAL

20 D
1, IEW
1952 Moment frames shall consist of beams and columns connected by one or more of the connection types
1953 defined in Table C5.1 or Table C5.2. Modeling procedures, permissible performance parameters, and
AY V

1954 retrofit measures for moment frames with fully restrained (FR) and partially restrained (PR) beam-to-
M RE

1955 column connections shall be as determined in Sections D2 through D5.

1956 D2. STIFFNESS

IC

1957 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

BL

1958 If linear analysis procedures are used, the following criteria shall apply:
PU

1959 (a) Moment frames shall be composed of columns, beams, connections, and panel zones. Elastic axial
1960 stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness of each component shall be determined as specified for
1961 each component in Chapter C.
1962 (b) FR and PR beam-to-column connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.
1963 (c) Panel zones shall be modeled as specified in Section C4.
1964 (d) Column-to-base connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.

1965 2. Nonlinear Static Procedure

1966 If the nonlinear static procedure is used, the following criteria shall apply:

1967 (a) Elastic stiffness properties of components shall be modeled as specified in Section D2.1.
1968
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 D-2

1969 (b) Inelastic action in components shall be represented in the analytical model by nonlinear force-
1970 deformation relationships, incorporating multi-force interaction effects where needed, derived from
1971 testing or analysis; and

1972 (c) Nonlinear behavior specific to a component not addressed above, including panel zone shear
1973 deformations, bolt slippage, and composite action, that can influence the stiffness of a component by
1974 more than 5% shall be considered in the analytical model.

1975 3. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

1976 If the nonlinear dynamic procedure is used, the complete hysteretic behavior of each component shall be
1977 determined by testing or by procedures approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

1978 If experimental data are not available for the formulation of component strength or deformation capacity, it

FT
1979 is permitted to use the component parameters described in Section D2.2 for modeling the force-deformation
1980 behavior or backbone curve. Modelling of strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity degradation, and

A
1981 similar phenomena, is required only if demands imply significant inelastic action. The hysteretic load and
deformation paths shall not cross beyond the backbone curve.

20 R
1982

1983 D3. STRENGTH 20 D

1, IEW
1984 Component strengths shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and Chapter C. Classification of
1985 component actions as deformation-controlled or force-controlled shall be in accordance with Section D4.
AY V

1986 D4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

M RE

1987 1. General
IC

1988 Component permissible strengths and deformations shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and
BL

1989 this section.

PU

1990 The following criteria shall apply.

1991 (a) Flexure actions in FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections listed in Tables C5.1 and C5.2
1992 shall be considered deformation-controlled actions.
1993 (b) Flexural actions in columns shall be taken as force controlled when PG/Pye is greater than 0.6. Flexural
1994 actions in columns where PG/Pye is less than 0.6 shall be considered deformation controlled.
1995 where
1996 Ag = gross area of cross section, in.2 (mm2)
1997 PG = axial force component of the gravity load as determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-3,
1998 kips (N)
1999 Pye = AgFye = expected axial yield strength, kips (N)
2000 (c) Axial compression action is force-controlled for all components.
2001 (d) Shear actions in panel zones and beams are considered deformation-controlled, and shear actions in
2002 columns, and FR and PR beam-to-column connections are considered force-controlled.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 D-3

2003 2. Linear Analysis Procedures

2004 For linear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall be compared with permissible strengths
2005 in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2. The component capacity modification factors, m, for
2006 computing the permissible strengths for structural steel components shall be determined from Chapter C.
2007 Limit states for which no values for m are provided for a component in Chapter C shall be considered
2008 force-controlled.

2009 3. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2010 For nonlinear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
2011 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3. Permissible deformations for structural steel components shall be determined
2012 from Chapter C.

FT
2013 D5. RETROFIT MEASURES

A
2014 Seismic retrofit measures for moment frames with FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections shall

20 R
2015 satisfy the requirements of Section B3 and the provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.

2016
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-1

2035 CHAPTER E

2036 STRUCTURAL STEEL BRACED FRAME

2037 AND STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALL REQUIREMENTS
2038 Steel braced frames and steel plate shear walls are those elements that develop seismic resistance primarily through
2039 either axial forces in the bracing components or shear forces in the shear wall components, respectively. This chapter
2040 describes the element-specific requirements for the primary and secondary structural steel components of steel
2041 braced frames or steel plate shear walls. Unless otherwise noted in this chapter, these requirements are in addition to
2042 any requirement prescribed in Chapter C.

2043 The chapter is organized as follows:

FT
2044 E1. Concentrically Braced Frames (CBF)
2045 E2. Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF)

A
2046 E3. Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF)

20 R
2047 E4. Steel Plate Shear Walls

2048 E1. 20 D
CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (CBF)
1, IEW
2049 1. General

Concentrically braced frames (CBF) are braced frames where component work lines intersect at a single
AY V

2050
2051 point at a connection, or at multiple points with the distance between points of intersection being the
M RE

2052 eccentricity. Bending caused by such eccentricities shall be considered in the modeling and evaluation of
2053 the components.
IC

2054 Strength and deformation limits of CBF meeting all requirements of Seismic Provisions Section F2 shall be
BL

2055 defined employing this section and Section C3. The strength and deformation limits of all other CBF shall
2056 be defined by the lowest strength and deformation capacity permitted by the combination of Sections C3
PU

2057 and C7.

2058 2. Stiffness

2059 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

2060 If linear analysis procedures are used, the following criteria shall apply:

2061 (a) Elastic axial stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness of all components shall be determined in
2062 accordance with Chapter C.
2063 (b) Fully restrained (FR) and partially restrained (PR) beam-to-column moment connections shall be
2064 modeled as specified in Sections C5 and D1. Beam-column connections with corner gusset plates shall
2065 be modeled as specified in Section C7. Panel zones, if applicable, shall be modeled as specified in
2066 Section C4.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-2

2067 (c) Column-to-base connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.

2068 2b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2069 Nonlinear analysis shall be performed using the generalized force-deformation relationship, inelastic beam-
2070 column elements with fiber-discretized cross sections, nonlinear lumped plasticity elements, or other
2071 rational method. The modeling approach shall be verified by comparison of computed to measured braced
2072 frame response or be calibrated to accurately simulate the analytical force-deformation envelope given in
2073 Figure C3.1 and consistent with values from Table C3.4 for the CBF brace and configuration of the
2074 element. The computed behavior for all elements in the CBF shall be evaluated by the limits provided in
2075 Sections B, C2, C3, and C7.

2076 User Note: The commentary provides modeling methods, which have been documented to provide
acceptable accuracy, for the generalized force-deformation relation and inelastic beam-column elements

FT
2077
2078 with fiber-discretized cross section methods.

A
2079 3. Strength

20 R
2080
20 D
Component strengths of CBF shall be determined in accordance with Section B2, Chapter C, and the
additional requirements of this section. Classification of component actions as deformation-controlled or
1, IEW
2081
2082 force-controlled shall be in accordance with Section E1.4.

2083 The resistance of CBF shall consider brace resistance and brace-to-gusset plate connection resistance with
AY V

2084 frame action of beams and columns, as defined in Chapter C. The resistance of the brace shall be the
M RE

2085 expected brace resistance for braced frames if all requirements of the Seismic Provisions are satisfied. For
2086 all other frames, the resistance of the brace shall be the lesser resistance based on the characteristics of the
brace as defined in Section C3 or the braced-frame connections as defined in Section C7.
IC

2087
BL

2088 For HSS braces filled with normal weight concrete such that the concrete engages the end connections of
2089 the brace, the composite strength of the brace shall be considered to compute the capacity-limited brace
PU

2090 force when evaluating other component actions, including beams, columns, and connections in Sections C3
2091 and C7. The bare steel strength of HSS braces filled with normal weight concrete shall be used to evaluate
2092 brace actions when the concrete fill does not contact or engage the brace end connections. Braces filled
2093 with lightweight or other concrete shall be experimentally evaluated in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,
2094 Section 7.6.

2095 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2096 4a. General

2097 Component permissible strengths and deformations for CBF shall be determined in accordance with
2098 Section B2 and the requirements of this section.

2099 The following criteria shall apply for assessment of CBF:

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-3

2100 (a) Axial tension and compression actions in braces shall be considered deformation-controlled.
2101 (b) Flexure actions in beams shall be considered deformation-controlled as determined for each
2102 component in Chapter C.
2103 (c) Axial compression action in columns shall be considered force-controlled.
2104 (d) Flexural actions in columns shall be taken as force controlled when P Pye is greater than 0.6, where P
2105 is the axial force, Pye = AgFye = the expected axial yield strength, Ag is the gross area of the cross-
2106 section, and Fye is the expected yield stress. Flexural actions in columns where P Pye is less than 0.6
2107 shall be considered deformation controlled.
2108 (e) Shear actions in panel zones shall be considered deformation-controlled, shear actions in beams,
2109 columns, and FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections shall be considered force-controlled.
2110 (f) Unless otherwise defined in Section C7, compression, tension, shear, and flexural actions in brace
2111 connection components, including gusset plates, bolts, welds, and other connectors, shall be considered
2112 force-controlled, unless connections are explicitly modeled and test results indicate that connection

FT
2113 performance is ductile and stable while the desired brace ductility is achieved.

A
2114 4b. Linear Analysis Procedures

20 R
For linear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall be compared with permissible strengths
2115
2116 20 D
in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2. The component capacity modification factors, m, for
1, IEW
2117 computing the permissible strengths for structural steel components shall be determined from Chapter C.
2118 Limit states for which no values for m are provided for a component in Chapter C shall be considered
2119 force-controlled.
AY V
M RE

2120 Actions in beams, beam connections, and supporting members in V-type or inverted V-type braced frames
2121 shall be evaluated as force-controlled to resist the unbalanced load effects in combination with gravity
2122 loads specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.2.2. The unbalanced load effects shall be determined using the
IC

2123 expected yield strength of the brace in tension with 30% of the expected compressive strength of the
2124 adjacent brace in compression, where the expected brace strengths are as defined in Section C3.
BL

2125 4c. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

PU

2126 For nonlinear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
2127 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3. Permissible deformation for structural steel components shall be selected
2128 from Chapter C.

2129 5. Retrofit Measures

2130 Seismic retrofit measures for CBF shall satisfy the requirements of Section E1, Section B3 and applicable
2131 provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.

2132 E2. ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (EBF)

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-4

2133 1. General

2134 Eccentrically braced frames (EBF) are braced frames where component work lines do not intersect at a
2135 single point and the distance between points of intersection, or eccentricity, exceeds the depth of the
2136 smallest member joined at the connection. The component between these points, referred to as the link
2137 beam, has a span equal to the eccentricity. Component properties for a link beam shall be taken from
2138 Section C2 or C3, depending on the axial force in the link, using the length of the beam or column equal to
2139 the eccentricity.

2140 2. Stiffness

2141 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

2142 If linear analysis procedures are used, the following criteria shall apply:

FT
2143 (a) EBF shall be composed of braces, columns, beams, connections, and panel zones, as applicable. Elastic

A
2144 axial stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness of each component shall be calculated as specified

20 R
2145 for each component in Chapter C.
2146
2147
20 D
(b) FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections shall be modeled as specified in Sections C5 and D1.
Panel zones, if needed, shall be modeled as specified in Section C4.
1, IEW
2148 (c) Columns and braces shall be modeled as specified in Section C3.
2149 (d) The region of gusset boundary to the beam, column, and brace shall be modeled as rigid unless a more
2150 detailed model is available. Brace connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.
AY V

2151 (e) Column-to-base connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.

M RE

2152 2b. Nonlinear Static Procedure

IC

2153 If the nonlinear static procedure is used, the following criteria apply:
BL

2154 (a) The elastic properties of components shall be modeled as specified in Section E2.2a.
PU

2155 (b) The nonlinear force-deformation behavior of components to represent yielding or buckling, post-
2156 yielding or post-buckling, peak strength, strength reduction after peak strength, and residual strength
2157 shall be modeled as specified for each component in Chapter C.

2158 2c. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

2159 If the nonlinear dynamic procedure is used, the complete hysteretic behavior of each component shall be
2160 determined by testing or by other procedures approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

2161 If testing data are not available for the formulation of component strength, the component force-
2162 deformation parameters described in Section E2.2b for modeling the force-deformation behavior, or
2163 backbone curve, and applying hysteretic rules for corresponding components is permitted. The hysteretic
2164 load and deformation paths shall not cross beyond the backbone curve. The characteristics of the hysteretic
2165 loops, including cyclic stiffness degradation in unloading and reloading, cyclic strength degradation, and
2166 in-cycle strength degradation, shall be represented in the modeling if exact cyclic degradation slopes vary
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-5

2167 for different components.

2168 3. Strength

2169 Component strengths of EBF shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and Chapter C.
2170 Classification of component actions as deformation-controlled or force-controlled shall be in accordance
2171 with Section E2.4.

2172 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2173 4a. General

2174 Component permissible strengths and deformations shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and
this section.

FT
2175

The following criteria shall apply for assessment of EBF:

A
2176

20 R
2177 (a) Shear and flexure actions in link beams shall be considered deformation-controlled.
2178
controlled.
20 D
(b) All other actions in link beams and actions in other EBF components shall be considered force-
1, IEW
2179
2180 (c) Compression, tension, shear, and flexure actions on brace connections, including gusset plates, bolts,
2181 welds, and other connectors, shall be considered force-controlled.
AY V

4b. Linear Analysis Procedures

M RE

2182

2183 For linear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall be compared with permissible strengths
in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2. The component capacity modification factors, m for
IC

2184
2185 computing the permissible strengths for structural steel components shall be selected from Chapter C. Limit
BL

2186 states for which no values for m are provided for a component in Chapter C shall be considered force-
2187 controlled.
PU

2188 All components in an EBF except the link beams shall be assessed or designed for 1.25 times the lesser of
2189 the expected flexural or shear strength of the link beams to ensure link yielding without brace, beam, or
2190 column buckling. Where the link beam is attached to the column flange with complete-joint-penetration
2191 groove welds, the requirements for these connections shall be the same as for FR beam-to-column moment
2192 connections in Section C5.

2193 A link beam that exhibits inelastic shear yielding with an axial load ratio, PUF Pye , greater than 0.6 shall
2194 remain elastic for all actions and m for shear action in Section C3.4a.3 shall reduce to unity, where PUF is
2195 the axial force in the member, determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.2. This
2196 provision is applicable for both compression and tension axial force.

2197 4c. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2198 For nonlinear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-6

2199 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3. Permissible deformations for structural steel components shall be selected
2200 from Chapter C.

2201 Shear yielding link beams with an axial load ratio, P Pye , greater than 0.6 shall remain elastic for all
2202 actions and the permissible plastic rotation angles for shear action in Section C3.4a.3 will reduce to zero,
2203 where P is axial force in the column (compression or tension), kips (N). This provision is applicable for
2204 both compression and tension axial forces.

2205 5. Retrofit Measures

2206 Seismic retrofit measures for EBF shall satisfy the requirements of Section E2, Section B3, and applicable
2207 provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.

E3. BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACED FRAMES (BRBF)

FT
2208

1. General

A
2209

20 R
2210 Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF) are concentrically braced frame systems with buckling-
2211
2212 buckling.
20 D
restrained braces (BRB) that are composed of a steel core and a casing system that restrains the core from
1, IEW
2213 2. Stiffness
AY V

2214 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

M RE

2215 If linear analysis procedures are used, the following criteria shall apply:
IC

2216 (a) BRBF shall be composed of buckling-restrained braces, columns, beams, connections, and panel
zones, as applicable. Elastic axial stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness of each component
BL

2217
2218 shall be calculated as specified for each component in Chapter C.
(b) FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections shall be modeled as specified in Sections C5 and D1.
PU

2219
2220 Panel zones, if applicable, shall be modeled as specified in Section C4.
2221 (c) Columns and braces shall be modeled as specified in Section C3.
2222 (d) The region of gusset boundary to beam, column, and brace shall be modeled as rigid unless a more
2223 detailed model is available. Brace connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.
2224 (e) Column-to-base connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.
2225 (f) Braces shall be modelled with the stiffness of the yielding core segments as specified in Section C3.
2226 The transition segments shall include the properties of the brace that is stiffened from the core to the
2227 gusset.

2228 2b. Nonlinear Static Procedure

2229 If the nonlinear static procedure is used, the following criteria shall apply:

2230 (a) The elastic properties of components shall be modeled as specified in Section E3.2a.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-7

2231 (b) The nonlinear force-deformation behavior of components to represent yielding or buckling, post-
2232 yielding or post-buckling, peak strength, strength reduction after peak strength, and residual strength
2233 shall be modeled as specified for each component in Chapter C.
2234 (c) The nonlinear axial force-deformation behavior of buckling-restrained braces is permitted to be
2235 modeled as shown in Figure C1.1 with parameters as defined in Section C3, or these relationships are
2236 permitted to be derived by testing or analysis. The parameter y defined in Section C3 shall represent
2237 the axial deformation at the expected brace yield strength, which occurs at point B in the curve in
2238 Figure C1.1. The post-peak slope beyond modeling parameter b from Section C3 is permitted to match
2239 the negative yield stiffness down to a near zero residual strength.

2240 2c. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

2241 If the nonlinear dynamic procedure is used, the complete hysteretic behavior of each component shall be
determined by testing or by procedures approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

FT
2242

If testing data are not available for the formulation of component strength, the component force-

A
2243
2244 deformation parameters described in Section E3.2b for modeling the force-deformation behavior, or

20 R
2245 backbone curve and applying hysteretic rules for corresponding components is permitted. The hysteretic
2246
20 D
load and deformation paths shall not cross beyond the backbone curve. The characteristics of the hysteretic
loops, including cyclic stiffness degradation in unloading and reloading, cyclic strength degradation, and
1, IEW
2247
2248 in-cycle strength degradation, shall be represented in the modeling if exact cyclic degradation slopes vary
2249 for different components.
AY V

2250 3. Strength
M RE

2251 Component strengths of BRBF shall be determined in accordance with Section B2, Chapter C, and the
additional requirements of this section. Classification of component actions as deformation-controlled or
IC

2252
2253 force-controlled shall be in accordance with Section E3.4.
BL

2254 BRBF systems shall be evaluated and designed as capacity-based systems with the BRB casing system,
PU

2255 connections, and adjoining members designed to resist the maximum forces that the steel core can develop.
2256 The maximum force that the BRB core can develop shall include material strain-hardening effects and an
2257 adjustment to account for compression overstrength with respect to tension strength.

2258 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2259 4a. General

2260 Component permissible strengths and deformations shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and
2261 the requirements of this section.

2262 The following criteria shall apply for assessment of BRBF:

2263 (a) Axial tension and compression actions in braces shall be considered deformation-controlled.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-8

2264 (b) Flexure actions in beams and columns shall be considered force- or deformation-controlled as
2265 determined for each component in Chapter C.
2266 (c) Axial compression action in columns is force-controlled.
2267 (d) Shear actions in panel zones are considered deformation-controlled, and shear actions in beams,
2268 columns, and FR and PR beam-to-column connections are considered force-controlled.
2269 (e) Compression, tension, shear, and bending actions in brace connection components, including gusset
2270 plates, bolts, welds, and other connectors, shall be considered force-controlled, unless connections are
2271 explicitly modeled, and test results indicate that connection performance is ductile and stable while the
2272 desired brace ductility is achieved.
2273 The permissible strengths and deformations for a BRB in Section C3 shall only be permitted if testing in
2274 accordance with Seismic Provisions, Section K3, as a minimum, is submitted. The deformation term bm
2275 shall be the maximum of 100% of the deformations at the BSE-1N seismic hazard level or 65% of the
2276 deformations at the BSE-2N seismic hazard level, as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2.

FT
2277 4b. Linear Analysis Procedures

A
2278 For linear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall be compared with permissible strengths

20 R
2279 in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2. The component capacity modification factors, m, for
2280
20 D
computing the permissible strengths for structural steel components shall be selected from Chapter C.
Limit states for which no values of m are provided for a component in Chapter C shall be considered force-
1, IEW
2281
2282 controlled.

2283 4c. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

AY V
M RE

2284 For nonlinear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
2285 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3. Permissible deformations for structural steel components shall be selected
2286 from Chapter C.
IC
BL

2287 5. Retrofit Measures

Seismic retrofit measures for BRBF shall satisfy the requirements of this section, Section B3, and
PU

2288
2289 applicable provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.

2290 In the case where additional seismic force-resisting elements are added in series with the BRBF to reduce
2291 the demands on the BRBF components, the relative stiffness for each component shall be incorporated into
2292 the analysis.

2293 If the BRB component not meeting the permissible performance parameters is replaced with a larger
2294 capacity BRB component, the connections and adjoining members (beams and columns) shall be evaluated
2295 for the new expected brace strengths as required in Section E3.3.

2296 If a BRBF is added as the retrofit element, the design shall be based on determining the nominal strengths
2297 according to the procedures in these Provisions and the Seismic Provisions, as applicable.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-9

2298 E4. STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS

2299 1. General

2300 Steel plate shear walls, with or without perforations, are connected to horizontal and vertical boundary
2301 elements on all four sides of the steel plate shear wall. These boundary elements shall be evaluated as
2302 beams or columns. Component properties for a steel plate shear wall shall be taken from Sections C1
2303 through C6, as applicable.

2304 2. Stiffness

2305 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

2306 If linear analysis procedures are used, the following criteria shall apply:

FT
2307 (a) Steel plate shear walls are composed of plate walls, columns, beams, connections, and panel zones, as

A
2308 applicable. Elastic axial stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness of each component shall be

20 R
2309 determined as specified for each component in Chapter C.
2310
2311
20 D
(b) FR and PR connections shall be modeled as specified in Sections C5 and D1. Panel zones, if needed,
shall be modeled as specified in Section C4.
1, IEW
2312 (c) Column-to-base connections shall be modeled as specified in Section C5.
2313 (d) Steel plate used as shear wall, with web plates sufficiently thick or stiffened to prevent buckling, shall
2314 be modeled as specified in Section C6. Other methods for analyzing steel plate shear walls are
AY V

2315 permitted based on accepted principles of structural mechanics for this type of element.
M RE

2316 2b. Nonlinear Static Procedure

IC

2317 If the nonlinear static procedure is used, the following criteria apply:
BL

2318 (a) The elastic properties of components shall be modeled as specified in Section E4.2a.
(b) The nonlinear force-deformation behavior of components to represent yielding or buckling, post-
PU

2319
2320 yielding or post-buckling, peak strength, strength reduction after peak strength, and residual strength
2321 shall be modeled as specified for each component in Chapter C.

2322 2c. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

2323 If the nonlinear dynamic procedure is used, the complete hysteretic behavior of each component shall be
2324 determined by testing or by procedures approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

2325 If testing data are not available for the formulation of component strength, the component force-
2326 deformation parameters described in Section E4.2b for modeling the force-deformation behavior or
2327 backbone curve and applying hysteretic rules for corresponding components is permitted. The hysteretic
2328 load and deformation paths shall not cross beyond the backbone curve. The characteristics of the hysteretic
2329 loops, including cyclic stiffness degradation in unloading and reloading, cyclic strength degradation, and
2330 in-cycle strength degradation, shall be represented in the modeling if exact cyclic degradation slopes vary
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-10

2331 for different components.

2332 3. Strength

2333 Component strengths of steel plate shear walls shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and
2334 Chapter C. Classification of component actions as deformation-controlled or force-controlled shall be in
2335 accordance with Section E4.4.

2336 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2337 4a. General

2338 Component permissible strengths and deformations of steel plate shear walls shall be determined in
2339 accordance with Section B2 and the requirements of this section.

FT
2340 The following criteria shall apply for assessment of steel plate shear walls:

A
20 R
2341 (a) Shear action in steel plate shear walls shall be considered deformation-controlled. The shear strength
2342
2343
20 D
and stiffener requirements shall be determined in accordance with Section C6.
(b) Flexure actions in beams and columns shall be considered deformation-controlled as determined for
1, IEW
2344 each component in Chapter C.
2345 (c) Axial compression action in columns is force-controlled.
2346 (d) Shear actions in panel zones shall be considered deformation-controlled, and shear actions in beams,
AY V

2347 columns, and FR and PR beam-to-column moment connections shall be considered force-controlled.
M RE

2348 (e) Compression, tension, shear, and bending actions on connections, including gusset plates, bolts, welds,
2349 and other connectors, shall be considered force-controlled, unless connections are explicitly modeled,
2350 and testing indicates that connection performance is ductile and stable while the desired plate wall is
IC

2351 achieved.
BL

2352 4b. Linear Analysis Procedures

PU

2353 For linear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall be compared with permissible strengths in
2354 accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2. The component capacity modification factors, m, for
2355 computing the permissible strengths for the structural steel components shall be selected from Chapter C.
2356 Limit states for which no values of m are provided for a component in Chapter C shall be considered force-
2357 controlled.

2358 4c. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2359 For nonlinear analysis procedures, calculated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
2360 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3. Permissible deformation for structural steel components shall be selected
2361 from Chapter C.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 E-11

2362 5. Retrofit Measures

2363 Seismic retrofit measures for steel plate shear walls shall satisfy the requirements of this section, Section
2364 B3, and applicable provisions of ASCE/SEI 41. Potential retrofit measures are permitted to include the
2365 addition of stiffeners, encasement in concrete, or the addition of concrete backing on steel plate shear walls.

2366

2367

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 F-1

2395 CHAPTER F

2396 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES WITH INFILLS

2397 F1. GENERAL

2398 Structural steel frames with partial or complete infills of reinforced concrete or reinforced or unreinforced
2399 masonry shall be evaluated considering the combined stiffness of the steel frame and infill material.

2400 The engineering properties and permissible performance parameters for the infill walls shall comply with
2401 the requirements in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 10, for concrete and ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 11, for masonry.
2402 Infill walls and frames shall be considered to resist the seismic force in composite action, considering the
2403 relative stiffness of each element, until complete failure of the walls has occurred. The interaction between

FT
2404 the structural steel frame and infill shall be considered using procedures specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter
2405 10, for concrete frames with infill. The analysis of each component shall be performed in stages,

A
2406 considering the effects of interaction between the elements and carried through each performance level. At

20 R
2407 the point where the infill has been deemed to fail, as determined by the permissible performance parameters
2408
2409
20 D
specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapters 10 or 11, the wall shall be removed from the analytical model. The
analysis shall be resumed on the bare structural steel frame, taking into consideration any vertical
1, IEW
2410 discontinuity created by the degraded wall. At this point, the engineering properties and permissible
2411 performance parameters for the frame components, as specified in Chapter C, shall apply.
AY V

2412 F2. RETROFIT MEASURES

M RE

2413 Seismic retrofit measures for structural steel frames with infills shall satisfy the requirements of Section
2414 B3, Section F1, and the provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.
IC
BL

2415
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-1

2416 CHAPTER G

2417 DIAPHRAGMS
2418 ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 7, includes provisions for classification of diaphragms, mathematical modeling, diaphragm
2419 chords, diaphragm collectors, and diaphragm ties. Specific provisions for diaphragms considered in this Chapter
2420 include steel deck diaphragms that are either (1) bare, (2) filled with reinforced structural concrete, or (3) filled with
2421 unreinforced or insulating (nonstructural) concrete topping. Additional requirements for diaphragm elements
2422 including steel truss diaphragms and archaic diaphragms are covered. Guidance is also provided on chord and
2423 collector elements.

2424 The chapter is organized as follows:

2425 G1. Bare Steel Deck Diaphragms

FT
2426 G2. Steel Deck Diaphragms with Reinforced Concrete Structural Topping
2427 G3. Steel Deck Diaphragms with Unreinforced Structural Concrete Topping or Lightweight Insulating

A
2428 Concrete

20 R
2429 G4. Horizontal Steel Truss Diaphragms
2430 G5. Archaic Diaphragms
2431 20 D
G6. Chord and Collector Elements
1, IEW
2432 G1. BARE STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS

2433 1. General
AY V
M RE

2434 Steel deck diaphragms shall be composed of profiled steel panels. Panels (decking units) shall be attached
2435 to each other at side-laps by welds, crimping (such as button punching), or mechanical fasteners, and shall
2436 be attached to the structural steel supports by welds or by mechanical fasteners. Bare steel deck diaphragms
IC

2437 are permitted to resist seismic loads acting alone or in conjunction with supplementary horizontal steel truss
2438 diaphragms designed in accordance with the requirements of Section G4. Structural steel frame
BL

2439 components, to which bare steel deck diaphragms are attached, shall be considered to be the chord and
2440 collector elements.
PU

2441 The criteria of this section shall apply to existing diaphragms and to stiffened, strengthened, or otherwise
2442 retrofitted diaphragms. Interaction of new and existing components of retrofitted diaphragms shall be
2443 evaluated to ensure strain compatibility. Load transfer mechanisms between new and existing diaphragm
2444 components shall be evaluated.

2445 2. Stiffness

2446 Bare steel deck diaphragms shall be classified as flexible, stiff, or rigid in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41,
2447 Section 7.2.9. The stiffness shall be determined in accordance with ANSI/AISI S310.

2448 The force-deformation model for bare steel deck diaphragms shall include profile buckling and/or yielding,
2449 and local deformations at side-lap and structural (support) connectors.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-2

2450 3. Strength

2451 Strength of bare steel deck diaphragms shall be determined in accordance with this section.

2452 3a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

2453 For strength based on deformation-controlled actions, the expected strength, QCE, for bare steel deck
2454 diaphragms shall be determined by modifying the nominal diaphragm strength, Sn, determined in
2455 accordance with ANSI/AISI S310. If the nominal strength is controlled by panel buckling, the expected
2456 strength shall be determined as 1.1Snb, where Snb is the nominal shear strength per unit length of a
2457 diaphragm controlled by out-of-plane buckling. If the nominal strength is controlled by side-lap or
2458 structural connections, the expected strength depends on the connectors employed, as follows:

2459 a) If power actuated fasteners are used for the structural connections the expected strength shall be
2460 determined as 1.2Snf, where Snf is the nominal shear strength per unit length of diaphragm controlled by

FT
2461 connections.
2462 b) For all other side-lap or structural connections within the scope of ANSI/AISI S310, the expected

A
2463 strength shall be determined as 1.0Snf.

20 R
3b. Force-Controlled Actions
2464
20 D
1, IEW
2465 For strength based on force-controlled actions, the lower-bound shear strength, QCL, for bare steel deck
2466 diaphragms shall be determined by modifying the nominal diaphragm strength, Sn, determined in
2467 accordance with ANSI/AISI S310. If the nominal strength is controlled by panel buckling, Snb, the lower-
2468 bound strength shall be determined as 0.9Snb. If the nominal strength is controlled by side-lap or structural
AY V

2469 connections, Snf, the expected strength depends on the connectors employed, as follows:
M RE

2470 a) If power actuated fasteners are used for the structural connections the lower-bound strength shall be
2471 determined as 1.0Snf.
IC

2472 b) If welds are used for the side-lap or structural connectors the lower-bound strength shall be determined
2473 as 0.8Snf. For all other side-lap or structural connections within the scope of ANSI/AISI S310 the
BL

2474 expected strength shall be determined as 0.9Snf.

PU

2475 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2476 For life safety or lower performance levels, bearing support or anchorage of the deck shall be maintained.
2477 For higher performance levels than life safety, the amount of damage to the connections shall not impair the
2478 load transfer between the diaphragm and the structural steel frame. Deformations shall not exceed the
2479 threshold of deflections that cause unacceptable damage to other components, either structural or
2480 nonstructural, at the target performance level(s). Permissible performance parameters for collectors shall be
2481 as specified in Section G6.4.

2482 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

2483 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

2484 Bare steel deck is permitted to be designated as deformation-controlled. When the strength of a bare
2485 steel deck diaphragm is considered deformation-controlled, the strength shall be evaluated using
2486 ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the expected component strength, QCE, determined from Section
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-3

2487 G1.3a and m taken from Table G1.1.

Table G1.1
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Bare Steel Deck Diaphragm
Primary Secondary
Component Component
Component or Action
IO LS CP LS CP

Shear strength controlled by connectors[a]:

support: PAF; side-lap: screw 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0

FT
support: weld; side-lap: screw 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0
support: weld; side-lap: button punch 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.0

A
support: weld; side-lap: weld 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 3.0

20 R
Shear strength controlled by panel:
buckling 20 D 1.25 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
1, IEW
CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
PAF= power actuated fasteners
[a]
For panels with spans between supports with fasteners greater than 60 in. (1500 mm), the spacing of side-
AY V

lap connections between supports shall not exceed 36 in. (900 mm), and the spacing of edge fasteners
M RE

between supports shall not exceed 36 in. (900 mm).

Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

IC

2488 2.
BL

2489 The generalized force-deformation curve shown in Figure C1.1, with the modeling parameters d, e, and
2490 c as defined in Table G1.2, shall be used for bare steel deck diaphragms, or these relationships may be
derived from testing or analysis.
PU

2491

2492 When the shear strength of a bare steel deck diaphragm is considered deformation-controlled, the
2493 plastic shear deformation, p, shall be no greater than the permissible plastic shear deformation
2494 provided in Table G1.2. The yield shear deformation, y, of a bare steel deck diaphragm shall be
2495 calculated as the expected component strength, QCE, divided by the initial stiffness as determined in
2496 Section G1.2.

2497
2498
2499

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-4

TABLE G1.2
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—Bare steel deck diaphragms

Modeling Parameters Permissible Deformations

Residual
Component or Action Plastic Shear
Strength Plastic Shear Deformation, rad
Deformation, rad
Ratio

d e c IO LS CP

Shear strength controlled by

FT
connectors[a]:
support: PAF; side-lap: screw 2.8y 4.0y 0.4 1.4y 2.8y 4.0y

A
[b]
support: weld; side-lap: screw 2.8y 4.0y 0.05 1.4y 2.8y 4.0y

20 R
support: weld; side-lap: button 1.7y 3.1y 0.05[b] 0.9y 1.7y 3.1y
punch
support: weld; side-lap: weld
20 D 2.3y 3.6y 0.05[b] 1.2y 2.3y 3.6y
1, IEW
Shear strength controlled by panel:
buckling 3.6y 5.6y 0.5 1.8y 3.7y 6.0y
AY V

[a]
For panels with spans between supports with fasteners greater than 60 in. (1500 mm), the spacing of side-lap
connections between supports shall not exceed 36 in. (900 mm), and the spacing of edge fasteners between supports
M RE

shall not exceed 36 in. (900 mm).

[b]
Structural connectors generally control residual strength. Value based on arc spot weld; for an arc seam weld, c = 0.15.
IC

2500 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

BL

2501 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

PU

2502 When the shear strength of a bare steel deck diaphragm is considered force-controlled, the shear
2503 strength shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound shear strength,
2504 QCL, determined per Section G1.3b.

2505 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2506 When the shear strength of a bare steel deck diaphragm is considered force-controlled, the total shear
2507 deformation, , of the diaphragm shall not exceed y determined in accordance with Section G1.4a.2.
2508 The lower-bound shear strength, QCL, determined in accordance with Section G1.3b, shall not be less
2509 than the maximum force determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3.2.3.

2510 5. Retrofit Measures

2511 Seismic retrofit measures for bare steel deck diaphragms shall satisfy the requirements of Section B3 and
2512 ASCE/SEI 41.
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-5

2513 G2. STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL TOPPING

2514 1. General

2515 Steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural topping, consisting of either composite or a
2516 noncomposite construction, are permitted to resist diaphragm loads. The concrete fill shall be either normal
2517 or lightweight structural concrete, with reinforcing composed of welded wire reinforcing or reinforcing
2518 bars. It is permitted in all instances to ignore the contributions of any reinforcing and apply the provisions
2519 of Section G3 in lieu of this section. Panels (decking units) shall be attached to each other at side-laps by
2520 welds, crimping, or mechanical fasteners and shall be attached to structural steel supports by welds or by
2521 steel headed stud anchors. The structural steel frame components to which the topped steel deck
2522 diaphragms are attached shall be considered the chord and collector elements.

2523 The criteria of the section shall apply to existing diaphragms and new and retrofitted diaphragms. Interaction
2524 of new and existing components of retrofitted diaphragms shall be evaluated for strain compatibility. Load

FT
2525 transfer mechanisms between new and existing diaphragm components shall be considered in determining the
2526 flexibility of the diaphragm.

A
20 R
2527 2. Stiffness

2528 20 D
For existing steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural topping, a rigid diaphragm
assumption is permitted if the span-to-depth ratio is not greater than 5:1. For greater span-to-depth ratios,
1, IEW
2529
2530 and in cases with plan irregularities, diaphragm stiffness shall be explicitly included in the analysis in
2531 accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.2.9. Diaphragm stiffness shall be determined using the cast-in-
2532 place concrete diaphragm provisions of ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.10.2.2, for the slab above the top flute of
AY V

2533 the steel deck or another method with a representative concrete thickness approved by the authority having
M RE

2534 jurisdiction (AHJ).

2535 Inelastic properties of diaphragms shall not be included in inelastic seismic analyses if the weak link in the
IC

2536 diaphragm is connection failure.

BL

2537 3. Strength
PU

2538 The strength of steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural topping shall be determined in
2539 accordance with this section.

2540 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

2541 The expected component strength, QCE, of steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural
2542 topping shall be determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.10.2.3 considering the reinforced slab above the
2543 top flute of the steel deck or by another procedure approved by the AHJ. Expected component strengths,
2544 QCE, for steel headed stud anchors shall be equal to the nominal strengths specified in Specification Chapter
2545 I for steel headed stud anchors, except that the expected tensile strength, Fue, shall be substituted for the
2546 specified minimum tensile strength, Fu. Fue shall be determined in accordance with Section A5.2.

2547 Alternatively, the expected component strength, QCE, of steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete
2548 structural topping shall be taken as two times the allowable strength values specified in the applicable
2549 building code unless a larger value is justified by test data or manufacturer data.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-6

2550 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

2551 The lower-bound component strength, QLB, of steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural
2552 topping shall be determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.10.2.3 considering the reinforced slab above the
2553 top flute of the steel deck or by another procedure approved by the AHJ. Lower-bound component
2554 strengths, QCL, for steel headed stud anchors shall be equal to the nominal strengths specified in
2555 Specification Chapter I for steel headed stud anchors, except that the lower-bound tensile strength, FuLB,
2556 shall be substituted for Fu. FuLB shall be determined in accordance with Section A5.2.

2557 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2558 For life safety or lower performance levels, bearing support or anchorage shall be maintained. For higher
2559 performance levels than life safety, the amount of damage to the connections or cracking in concrete-filled
2560 slabs shall not impair the load transfer between the diaphragm and the structural steel frame. Deformations
2561 shall be limited to be below the threshold of deflections that cause damage to other components, either

FT
2562 structural or nonstructural, at specified performance levels. Permissible performance parameters for
2563 collectors shall be as specified in Section G6.4.

A
Steel headed stud anchors for structural steel beams designed to act compositely with the slab shall have the

20 R
2564
2565 design strength to transfer both diaphragm shears and composite beam shears. Where the beams are
2566 20 D
encased in concrete, use of bond between the structural steel and the concrete is permitted to transfer loads.
1, IEW
2567 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

2568 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

AY V
M RE

2569 When the strength of a steel deck diaphragm with reinforced concrete structural topping is considered
2570 deformation-controlled, the strength shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36 with the
2571 expected component strength, QCE, determined from Section G2.3a and m taken from ASCE/SEI 41,
IC

2572 Table 10-21 and Table 10-22, as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.10.2.4.
BL

2573 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

PU

2574 The generalized force-deformation curve shown in Figure C1.1, with the modeling parameters a, b,
2575 and c as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Tables 10-19 and 10-20, and as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Section
2576 10.10.2.4, shall be used for steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural topping.
2577 Alternatively, these relationships may be derived from testing or analysis.

2578 When the shear strength of a steel deck diaphragm with reinforced concrete structural topping is
2579 considered deformation-controlled, the total shear deformation, , shall be evaluated against the
2580 permissible shear deformations provided in ASCE/SEI 41, Table 10-19 and Table 10-20 as specified in
2581 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 10.10.2.4.

2582 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

2583 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

2584 When the strength of a steel deck diaphragm with reinforced concrete structural topping is considered

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-7

2585 force-controlled, the strength shall be evaluated using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-
2586 bound shear strength, QCL, determined in accordance with Section G2.3b.

2587 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2588 When the shear strength of a steel deck diaphragm with reinforced concrete structural topping is
2589 considered force-controlled, the total shear deformation, , of the diaphragm shall not exceed point B
2590 as defined in the generalized force-deformation curve of Figure C1.1 with initial stiffness defined in
2591 Section G2.2 and strength defined in G2.3. The lower-bound shear strength, QCL, determined in
2592 accordance with Section G2.3b, shall not be less than the maximum force determined by ASCE/SEI
2593 41, Section 7.5.3.2.3.

2594 5. Retrofit Measures

2595 Seismic retrofit measures for steel deck diaphragms with reinforced concrete structural topping shall satisfy

FT
2596 the requirements of Section B3 and ASCE/SEI 41.

A
2597 G3. STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS WITH UNREINFORCED STRUCTURAL CONCRETE TOPPING

20 R
2598 OR LIGHTWEIGHT INSULATING CONCRETE

2599 1. General 20 D
1, IEW
2600 Diaphragm loads are permitted to be resisted by steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced concrete;
2601 concrete with temperature and shrinkage reinforcing with or without headed stud anchors; or, lightweight
insulating concrete as defined in ANSI/AISI S310. The provisions of this section apply where the
AY V

2602
2603 reinforcing qualifies as temperature and shrinkage reinforcement in accordance with either Section
M RE

2604 2.4.B.15.a.1 of ANSI/SDI C-2017 for composite steel deck-slabs or with Section 2.4.B.2 of ANSI/SDI NC-
2605 2017 for non-composite steel deck; or where headed stud anchors are used; or to plain concrete. Panels
2606 (decking units) shall be attached to each other at side-laps by welds, crimping, or mechanical fasteners and
IC

2607 shall be attached to structural steel supports by welds or by steel headed stud anchors. The structural steel
2608 frame components to which the topped steel deck diaphragm is attached shall be considered the chord and
BL

2609 collector elements.

PU

2610 The criteria of this section shall apply to existing diaphragms and to stiffened, strengthened, or otherwise
2611 retrofitted diaphragms. Interaction of new and existing components of retrofitted diaphragms shall be
2612 evaluated to ensure strain compatibility. Load transfer mechanisms between new and existing diaphragm
2613 components shall be evaluated.

2614 2. Stiffness

2615 Steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete topping or lightweight insulating concrete
2616 shall be classified as flexible, stiff, or rigid in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.2.9. The diaphragm
2617 stiffness shall be determined in accordance with ANSI/AISI S310.

2618 3. Strength

2619 The strength of steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete topping or lightweight
2620 insulating concrete shall be determined in accordance with this section.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-8

2621 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action

2622 The expected component strength, QCE, for steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete
2623 topping or lightweight insulating concrete shall be determined by modifying the nominal diaphragm
2624 strength, Sn, determined in accordance with ANSI/AISI S310. If the deck uses welds for the structural
2625 connectors the expected strength shall be determined as 1.8Snf. If the deck uses welded steel headed stud
2626 anchors for the structural connectors the expected strength shall be determined as 1.5Snf.

2627 3b. Force-Controlled Actions

2628 The lower-bound component strength, QCL, for steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete
2629 topping or lightweight insulating concrete shall be determined by modifying the nominal diaphragm
2630 strength, Sn, determined in accordance with ANSI/AISI S310. If the deck uses welds for the structural
2631 connectors the lower-bound strength shall be determined as 1.0Snf. If the deck uses welded steel headed
2632 stud anchors for the structural connectors the lower-bound strength shall be determined as 1.0Snf.

FT
2633 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

A
20 R
2634 For life safety or lower performance levels, bearing support or anchorage of the deck shall be maintained.
For higher performance levels than life safety, the amount of damage to the connections shall not impair the
2635
2636 20 D
load transfer between the diaphragm and the structural steel frame. Deformations shall not exceed the
threshold of deflections that cause unacceptable damage to other components, either structural or
1, IEW
2637
2638 nonstructural, at the target performance level(s). Permissible performance parameters for collectors shall be
2639 as specified in Section G6.4.
AY V

2640 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions

M RE

2641 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

IC

2642 When the strength of a steel deck diaphragm with unreinforced structural concrete topping or
2643 lightweight insulating concrete is considered deformation-controlled, the strength shall be evaluated
BL

2644 using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-36, with the expected component strength, QCE, determined from
2645 Section G3.3a and m taken from Table G3.1.
PU

2646

2647

2648

2649

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-9

Table G3.1
Component Capacity Modification Factor, m, for Linear
Analysis Procedures—Steel Deck Diaphragm with
Unreinforced Structural Concrete Topping or Lightweight
Insulating Concrete
Primary Secondary
Component Component
Component or Action
IO LS CP LS CP

Shear strength of deck with unreinforced structural concrete

topping or lightweight insulating concrete

FT
- deck welded to support (arc spot or arc seam) 1.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 8.0
- headed shear studs welded through deck to support 1.5 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

A
CP = collapse prevention performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2

20 R
IO = immediate occupancy performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2

20 D
LS = life safety performance level as defined in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 2
1, IEW
2650 2. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Procedures

2651 The generalized force-deformation curve shown in Figure C1.1, with the parameters d, e, and c as
defined in Table G3.2 shall be used for steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete
AY V

2652
2653 topping or lightweight insulating concrete, or these relationships may be derived from testing or
M RE

2654 analysis.

2655 When the shear strength of steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete topping or
IC

2656 lightweight insulating concrete is considered deformation-controlled, the total shear deformation, ,
shall be no greater than the permissible shear deformations provided in Table G3.2. The initial shear
BL

2657
2658 deformation, i, of a steel deck diaphragm with unreinforced structural concrete topping or lightweight
2659 insulating concrete shall be calculated as the expected strength, QCE, divided by the initial stiffness as
PU

2660 determined in Section G3.2.

2661

2662
2663
2664
2665
2666

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-10

TABLE G3.2
Modeling Parameters and Permissible Deformations for Nonlinear
Analysis Procedures—Steel Deck Diaphragm with Unreinforced
Structural Concrete Topping or Lightweight Insulating Concrete

Modeling Parameters Permissible Deformations

Residual
Component or Action Shear
Strength Shear Deformation, rad
Deformation, rad
Ratio

d e c IO LS CP

FT
Shear strength of deck with
unreinforced structural concrete

A
topping or lightweight insulating

20 R
concrete

or arc seam) 20 D
- deck welded to support (arc spot 8.0i 10.0i 0.4 2.0i 8.0i 10.0i
1, IEW
- headed shear studs welded 8.0i 10.0i 0.3 2.0i 8.0i 10.0i
through deck to support
AY V

2667 4b. Force-Controlled Actions

M RE

2668 1. Linear Analysis Procedures

IC

2669 When the shear strength of a steel deck diaphragm with unreinforced structural concrete topping or
2670 lightweight insulating concrete is considered force-controlled, the shear strength shall be evaluated
BL

2671 using ASCE/SEI 41, Equation 7-37, with the lower-bound shear strength, QCL, determined per Section
2672 G3.3b.
PU

2673 2. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

2674 When the shear strength of a steel deck diaphragm with unreinforced structural concrete topping or
2675 lightweight insulating concrete is considered force-controlled, the total shear deformation, , of the
2676 diaphragm shall not exceed i determined in accordance with Section G3.4a.2. The lower-bound shear
2677 strength, QCL, determined in accordance with Section G3.3b, shall not be less than the maximum force
2678 determined by ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.3.2.3.

2679 5. Retrofit Measures

2680 Seismic retrofit measures for steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural concrete topping or
2681 lightweight insulating concrete shall satisfy the requirements of Section B3 and ASCE/SEI 41.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-11

2682 G4. HORIZONTAL STEEL TRUSS DIAPHRAGMS

2683 1. General

2684 Horizontal steel truss diaphragms are permitted to act as diaphragms independently or in conjunction with
2685 bare steel deck roofs. Where either a bare steel deck roof or structural concrete fill over steel deck is
2686 provided, relative rigidities between the steel truss and the bare steel deck roof or structural concrete fill
2687 over steel deck shall be considered in the analysis.

2688 The criteria of this section shall apply to existing truss diaphragms, retrofitted truss diaphragms, and new
2689 diaphragms added to an existing building.

2690 Where steel truss diaphragms are added as part of a retrofit plan, interaction of new and existing
2691 components of strengthened diaphragm elements (stiffness compatibility) shall be evaluated, and the load
2692 transfer mechanisms between new and existing diaphragm components shall be considered in determining

FT
2693 the stiffness of the strengthened diaphragm.

A
2694 Load transfer mechanisms between new diaphragm components and existing frames shall be considered in

20 R
2695 determining the stiffness of the diaphragm or frame element.

2696 2. Stiffness 20 D
1, IEW
2697 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

Steel truss diaphragm elements shall be modeled as horizontal truss components (similar to structural steel
AY V

2698
2699 braced frames) where axial stiffness controls deflections. Connections are permitted to be modeled as
M RE

2700 pinned except where connections provide moment resistance or where eccentricities exist at the
2701 connections. In such cases, connection rigidities shall be modeled. Stiffness of truss diaphragms shall be
2702 explicitly considered in distribution of seismic forces to vertical components.
IC

2b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

BL

2703

2704 Inelastic models similar to those of structural steel braced frames shall be used for truss components where
PU

2705 nonlinear behavior of truss components occurs. Elastic properties of truss diaphragms are permitted in the
2706 model for inelastic seismic analyses where nonlinear behavior of truss components does not occur.

2707 3. Strength

2708 The strength of truss diaphragm members shall be determined as specified for structural steel braced frame
2709 members in Chapter E and using the appropriate expected or lower-bound properties as provided in
2710 Chapter A. Lateral support of truss diaphragm members provided by steel deck, with or without concrete
2711 fill, shall be considered in the evaluation of truss diaphragm strengths. Gravity load effects shall be
2712 included in the required strength for those members that support gravity loads.

2713 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2714 Permissible performance parameters for horizontal steel truss diaphragm components shall be as specified
2715 for concentrically braced frames in Section E1.4.
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-12

2716 5. Retrofit Measures

2717 Seismic retrofit measures for steel truss diaphragms shall meet the requirements of Section B3 and
2718 ASCE/SEI 41.

2719 G5. ARCHAIC DIAPHRAGMSSHALLOW BRICK ARCHES SPANNING BETWEEN STRUCTURAL

2720 STEEL FLOOR BEAMS

2721 1. General

2722 Archaic diaphragms in structural steel buildings are those consisting of shallow masonry arches that span
2723 between structural steel or wrought iron beams, with the arches packed tightly between the floor beams to
2724 provide the necessary resistance to arch thrust.

2. Stiffness

FT
2725

2a. Linear Analysis Procedures

A
2726

20 R
2727 Existing archaic diaphragms shall be modeled as a horizontal diaphragm with equivalent thickness of
2728
2729
20 D
masonry arches and concrete fill. Modeling of the archaic diaphragm as a truss with structural steel or
wrought iron beams as tension components and arches as compression components is permitted. The
1, IEW
2730 stiffness of archaic diaphragms shall be considered in determining the distribution of seismic forces to
2731 vertical components. Analysis results shall be evaluated to verify that diaphragm response remains elastic
2732 as assumed.
AY V

Interaction of new and existing components of strengthened diaphragms shall be evaluated by checking the
M RE

2733
2734 strain compatibility of the two classes of components in cases where new structural components are added
2735 as part of a seismic retrofit. Load transfer mechanisms between new and existing diaphragm components
2736 shall be considered in determining the stiffness of the strengthened diaphragm.
IC

2b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

BL

2737

2738 Response of archaic diaphragms shall remain elastic unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
PU

2739 3. Strength

2740 Member strengths of archaic diaphragm components are permitted to be determined assuming that no
2741 tension strength exists for all components except for structural steel or wrought iron beams. Gravity load
2742 effects shall be included for components of these diaphragms. Force transfer mechanisms between the
2743 various components of the diaphragm, and between the diaphragm and the frame, shall be evaluated to
2744 verify the completion of the load path.

2745 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

2746 Archaic diaphragms shall be considered force controlled. For life safety or lower performance levels,
2747 diaphragm deformations and displacements shall not lead to a loss of bearing support for the components of
2748 the arches. For higher performance levels than life safety, the deformation caused by diagonal tension shall
2749 not result in the loss of the load transfer mechanism. Deformations shall be limited below the threshold of
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-13

2750 deflections that cause damage to other components, either structural or nonstructural, at specified
2751 performance levels. These values shall be established in conjunction with those for structural steel or
2752 wrought iron frames.

2753 5. Retrofit Measures

2754 Seismic retrofit measures for archaic diaphragms shall satisfy the requirements of Section B3 and
2755 ASCE/SEI 41.

2756 G6. CHORD AND COLLECTOR ELEMENTS

2757 1. General

2758 Structural steel framing that supports the diaphragm and transfers lateral loads is referred to as diaphragm
chord or collector components. Where structural concrete is present, additional slab reinforcement is

FT
2759
2760 permitted to provide tensile strength while the slab carries chord or collector compression. The structural
2761 steel framing that transfers lateral loads shall be attached to the deck with spot welds by steel headed stud

A
2762 anchors or by other approved methods.

20 R
2763 2. Stiffness
20 D
1, IEW
2764 Modeling assumptions specified for equivalent structural steel frame members in these Provisions shall be
2765 used for chord and collector elements.

3. Strength
AY V

2766
M RE

2767 The strength of structural steel chords and collectors shall be as specified in Section C3 for members
2768 subjected to combined axial force and flexure, and using the appropriate expected or lower-bound
2769 properties as provided in Chapter A. Chord and collector connections shall be considered force-controlled.
IC

2770 The strength of steel reinforcing bars, embedded in concrete slabs, acting as chords or collectors shall be
determined in accordance with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 10.
BL

2771

2772 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

PU

2773 Inelastic action in chords and collectors is permitted if it is permitted in the diaphragm. Where such actions
2774 are permissible, chords and collectors shall be considered deformation controlled. The component capacity
2775 modification factors, m, shall be taken from applicable components in Chapter C, and inelastic permissible
2776 performance parameters shall be taken from components of moment frames with FR beam-to-column
2777 moment connections in Chapter D. Where inelastic action is not permitted, chords and collectors shall be
2778 considered force-controlled components. Where chord and collector elements are force controlled, QUD, the
2779 deformation-controlled action caused by gravity loads and earthquake forces determined in accordance
2780 with ASCE/SEI 41, Section 7.5.2.1.2, need not exceed the total force that can be delivered to the
2781 component by the expected strength of the diaphragm or the vertical components resisting seismic forces.
2782 For life safety or lower performance levels, the deformations and displacements of chord and collector
2783 components shall not result in the loss of vertical support. For higher performance levels than life safety,
2784 the deformations and displacements of chords and collectors shall not impair the load path.

2785 Welds and connectors joining the diaphragms to the chords and collectors shall be considered force
2786 controlled. If all connections meet the permissible performance parameters, the diaphragm shall be
2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 G-14

2787 considered to prevent buckling of the chord member within the plane of the diaphragm. Where chords or
2788 collectors carry gravity loads in combination with seismic loads, they shall be designed as members with
2789 combined axial load and bending in accordance with Chapter D.

2790 5. Retrofit Measures

2791 Seismic retrofit measures for chord and collector elements shall satisfy the requirements of Section B3 and
2792 ASCE/SEI 41.

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 H-1

2728 CHAPTER H

2729 STRUCTURAL STEEL PILE FOUNDATIONS

2730 H1. GENERAL

2731 A pile provides strength and stiffness to the foundation either by bearing directly on soil or rock, by friction
2732 along the pile length in contact with the soil, or by a combination of these mechanisms. Foundations shall
2733 be evaluated as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 8. Concrete components of foundations shall conform
2734 to ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 10. The evaluation and design of structural steel piles shall comply with the
2735 requirements of these Provisions.

2736 H2. STIFFNESS

FT
2737 If the pile cap is below grade, the foundation stiffness from the pile cap bearing against the soil is permitted

A
2738 to be represented by equivalent soil springs derived as specified in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 8. Additional

20 R
2739 stiffness of the piles is permitted to be derived through bending and bearing against the soil. For piles in a
2740 group, the reduction in each pile’s contribution to the total foundation stiffness and strength shall be made
2741 20 D
to account for group effects. Additional requirements for determining the stiffness shall be as specified in
1, IEW
2742 ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 8.

2743 H3. STRENGTH

AY V

Except in sites subject to liquefaction of soils, it is permitted to neglect buckling of portions of piles
M RE

2744
2745 embedded in the ground. Flexural demands in piles shall be determined either by nonlinear methods, or by
2746 elastic methods for which the pile is treated as a cantilever column above a calculated point of fixity.
IC

2747 H4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

BL

2748 The permissible performance parameters for the axial force and maximum bending moments on the pile
PU

2749 shall be as specified for a structural steel column in Section D4.2 for linear methods and in Section D4.3 for
2750 nonlinear methods, where the lower-bound axial compression and flexural strengths shall be computed for
2751 an unbraced length equal to zero for those portions of piles that are embedded in nonliquefiable soils.

2752 Connections between structural steel piles and pile caps shall be considered force-controlled.

2753 H5. RETROFIT MEASURES

2754 Seismic retrofit measures for structural steel pile foundations shall meet the requirements of Section B3 and
2755 ASCE/SEI 41.

2756

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 I-1

2756 CHAPTER I

2757 CAST AND WROUGHT IRON

2758 I1. GENERAL
2759
2760 Framing that includes existing components of cast iron, wrought iron, or both is permitted to participate in
2761 resisting seismic forces in combination with concrete or masonry walls. Existing cast iron components of
2762 structural framing are permitted to be assessed and designed to resist seismic forces or deformations as
2763 primary components.
2764
2765 I2. STIFFNESS OF CAST AND WROUGHT IRON
2766
2767 The stiffness of cast and wrought iron components shall be calculated using elastic section properties and a
modulus of elasticity of 20,000 ksi (138 000 MPa) for cast iron and 25,000 ksi (172 000 MPa) for wrought

FT
2768
2769 iron, unless a different value is obtained by testing or other methods approved by the authority having
2770 jurisdiction.

A
2771

20 R
2772 I3. STRENGTH OF CAST AND WROUGHT IRON
2773
2774 20 D
Component strengths shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and the requirements of this
1, IEW
2775 section.
2776
2777 1. Cast Iron
2778
AY V

2779 The use of cast iron to resist tensile stresses is not permitted.
M RE

2780
2781 The lower-bound compressive strength, QCL = PCL, of a cast iron column shall be determined from
2782 Equation I3-1.
IC

2783
PCL  Ag Fcr
2784 (I3-1)
BL

2785
2786
PU

2787 The critical stress, Fcr, is determined as follows:

2788
Lc
2789 (a) When  108
r
2790 Fcr = 17 ksi (I3-2)
2791
2792 Fcr = 117 MPa (I3-2M)
Lc
2793 (b) When  108
r
2794 Fcr  Fe (I3-3)
2795
2796 where
2797 Ag = gross area of the cross section, in.2 (mm2)
2798 Fe = elastic buckling stress determined according to Equation I3-4, ksi (MPa)

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 I-2

2 Eci
2799 = 2
(I3-4)
Lc
r
2800 Eci = modulus of elasticity of cast iron
2801 = 20,000 ksi (138 000 MPa)
2802 Lc = laterally unbraced length of column, in. (mm)
2803 r = radius of gyration, in. (mm)
2804
2805 2. Wrought Iron
2806
2807 Lower-bound strength of a wrought iron component is permitted to be determined by considering the
2808 applicable provisions of the Specification, where the properties of wrought iron are substituted for the
2809 properties of structural steel. Lower-bound yield stress and lower-bound tensile strength shall be taken from
2810 Table A5.3, unless determined by testing in accordance with Section A5, and the modulus of elasticity shall
2811 be taken as 25,000 ksi (172 000 MPa).

FT
2812
2813 I4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR CAST AND WROUGHT IRON

A
2814

20 R
2815 Component permissible performance parameters shall be determined in accordance with Section B2 and the
2816 requirements of this section.
2817
1. Cast Iron
20 D
1, IEW
2818
2819
2820 Actions on cast iron components shall be force-controlled.
2821
AY V

2822 The ability of cast iron components to resist the deformations at the selected seismic hazard level shall be
evaluated. In this evaluation, cast iron components are not permitted to resist tensile stresses.
M RE

2823
2824
2825 2. Wrought Iron
2826
IC

2827 Actions on wrought iron components shall be force-controlled.

2828
BL

2829 The ability of wrought iron components to resist the deformations at the selected seismic hazard level shall
2830 be evaluated.
PU

2831
2832 I5. RETROFIT MEASURES
2833
2834 Seismic retrofit measures for structural frames including cast iron components, wrought iron components,
2835 or both, shall satisfy the requirements of this chapter, Section B3, and the provisions of ASCE/SEI 41.

2020 Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-1

1
COMMENTARY
2
on the Seismic Provisions for
3
Evaluation and Retrofit of
4
Existing Structural Steel Buildings
5

7 DRAFT dated April 29, 2020

FT
8 for use with Provisions DRAFT dated April 29, 2020

A
9
10

20 R
11
12
13 20 D
(The Commentary is not a part of AISC 342-20, Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Structural Steel Buildings, but is included for informational purposes only.)
1, IEW
14
15 INTRODUCTION
16
17 The Provisions are intended to be complete for normal design usage.
AY V

18
M RE

19 The Commentary furnishes background information and references for the benefit of the design professional seeking
20 further understanding of the basis, derivations and limits of the Provisions.
21
IC

22 The Provisions and Commentary are intended for use by design professionals with demonstrated engineering
23 competence.
BL

24
25
PU

26
27

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-2

28 CHAPTER A
29 GENERAL PROVISIONS
30
31 A1. SCOPE
32
33 The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) (ICC, 2015b) outlines the requirements for seismic
34 evaluation and retrofit (or rehabilitation) of an existing building to improve its seismic lateral force
35 resistance. The IEBC provides a performance-based seismic design (PBSD) approach that explicitly
36 references the evaluation and retrofit procedures prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41, Seismic Evaluation and
37 Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2017), hereafter referred to as ASCE/SEI 41. Chapter 9, Steel and
38 Iron, of ASCE/SEI 41 prescribes the modeling requirements and parameters, and the permissible strengths
39 and deformations for primary and secondary structural steel, composite, wrought iron, and cast iron
40 components subject to seismic forces and deformations.
41
42 These Provisions are intended to be the reference provisions to be used in the development of Chapter 9 in
43 ASCE/SEI 41 for buildings with structural steel, composite, cast iron, and wrought iron components. As

FT
44 such, these Provisions are intended to be used in conjunction with ASCE/SEI 41 and not as stand-alone
45 provisions. If the seismic retrofit (or rehabilitation) work is required by the IEBC or the International

A
46 Building Code (IBC) (ICC, 2015a) to satisfy the provisions for a new building, these Provisions are not to

20 R
47 be used unless approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
48
49
50
20 D
These Provisions and associated commentary were developed from the provisions of Chapter 9, Steel and
1, IEW
Iron, of ASCE/SEI 41. The provisions from Chapter 9 of ASCE/SEI 41 have been reorganized and
51 formatted to be consistent with other AISC ANSI-approved standards. In addition to reorganization,
52 editorial changes have been made to improve the user-friendliness of these Provisions. The intent of the
53 technical provisions of ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter 9 has remained unchanged. It is the expectation that the next
AY V

54 version of ASCE/SEI 41 will incorporate these Provisions as the portion of Chapter 9 dealing with
55
M RE

structural steel, composite, wrought iron, and cast iron components.

56
57 There are some instances where the provisions in ASCE/SEI 41, and hence these Provisions, differ from
58 other AISC standards. It is the expectation that in time these differences will either be rectified or
IC

59 commentary provided where needed to explain and clarify any differences for the user of these documents.
60
BL

61 Techniques for repair of earthquake-damaged components are not included in ASCE/SEI 41 or in these
62 Provisions. The design professional is referred to SAC Joint Venture publications FEMA 350 (FEMA,
PU

63 2000a), 351 (FEMA, 2000b), 352 (FEMA, 2000c), and 353 (FEMA, 2000d) for information on design,
64 evaluation and repair of damaged steel moment-resisting frame structures.
65
66 Great care should be exercised in selecting the appropriate retrofit approaches and techniques for
67 application to historic buildings to preserve their unique characteristics.
68 A2. REFERENCED SPECIFICATIONS, CODES, AND STANDARDS
69 These Provisions cite ASTM standard specifications that have been withdrawn, meaning the standard
70 specification is considered obsolete and is no longer maintained by ASTM. Withdrawn standard
71 specifications may be available from ASTM; however, availability may be limited. As an alternative, AISC
72 Design Guide 15, Rehabilitation and Retrofit (Brockenbrough and Schuster, 2018) provides historical
73 summaries of ASTM standard specifications for structural steel, including specified yield stress and tensile
74 strength values.
75 A4. CONDITION ASSESSMENT
76 1. General
77 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2 includes provisions for determining a “required level of knowledge” as one of
78 three categories: “Minimum,” “Usual” or Comprehensive.” As summarized in Table C-A4.1, the required
79 level of knowledge then determines the data collection requirements for the condition assessment specified
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-3

80 in Section A4, the material properties specified in Section A5, and other collected data as specified by
81 ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2 and elsewhere in ASCE/SEI 41. The existence or absence of construction
82 documents, such as design drawings, among other documents, also influences the degree of data collection.
83 Detailed requirements and additional guidance for data collection can be found in ASCE/SEI 41, Sections
84 3.2 and 6.2 and the associated ASCE/SEI 41 Commentary sections.

TABLE C-A4.1
Selected Data Collection Requirements Excerpted from
ASCE/SEI 41
Category of Required Level of Knowledge
Data to be
Collected Minimum Usual Comprehensive

Testing No tests Usual testing Comprehensive testing

Drawings Design Field survey Design Field survey Design Field survey
drawings drawings drawings drawings drawings drawings

FT
prepared in prepared in prepared in
absence of absence of absence of
design design design

A
drawings drawings drawings

20 R
Condition Visual Comprehen- Visual Comprehen- Visual Comprehen-
Assessment
(Section A4) 20 D
(Section A4.2) sive
(Section A4.3)
(Section A4.2) sive
(Section A4.3)
(Section A4.2) sive
(Section A4.3)
1, IEW
Material From design From default From design From usual From design From
Properties drawings (or values drawings (or tests (Section drawings (or comprehensive
(Section A5) other design (Section A5.2) other design A5.4b) other design tests (Section
documents) documents) documents) A5.4c)
AY V

and tests and tests

M RE

NOTE: This table is a partial excerpt of ASCE/SEI 41, Table 6-1. These Provisions provide data collection requirements
for only some categories of data. Refer to ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2 for complete data collection requirements for all
categories of data, including additional categories not shown here. Where these Provisions provide requirements for data
IC

collection, ASCE/SEI 41 may impose additional requirements.

BL

85

86 Primary and secondary components of buildings include columns, beams, braces, connections, and link
PU

87 beams. Components may also appear in diaphragms. Columns, beams, and braces may be built up from
88 plates, angles, and channels, used in various combinations, and connected together with rivets, bolts, or
89 welds. Connections are considered to be a component in these Provisions; connections are comprised of
90 connectors such as rivets, bolts and welds, and connecting elements such as plates and angles.
91
92 The extent of condition assessment that must be accomplished is related to availability and accuracy of
93 construction and as-built records, the quality of materials used and of construction performed, and the
94 physical condition of the structure. If original structural design drawings are not available or show
95 incomplete information, ASCE/SEI 41, Section 6.2 requires that field survey drawings be prepared. The
96 design professional is encouraged to research and acquire all available records from original construction.
97
98 Direct visual inspection provides the most valuable information because it can be used to identify
99 configuration issues, it allows measurement of component dimensions, and it identifies the presence of
100 degradation. The continuity of load paths may be established by viewing components, including
101 connections in particular. From visual inspection, the need for other test methods to quantify the presence
102 and degree of degradation may be established.
103
104 Accessibility constraints may necessitate the use of instruments, such as a fiberscope or video probe, which
105 would otherwise reduce the amount of damage to covering materials. The knowledge and insight gained
106 from the condition assessment is invaluable to understanding load paths and the ability of components to
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-4

107 resist and transfer loads. The degree of assessment performed also affects the knowledge factor, which is
108 discussed in Section B1.2.
109
110 The physical condition of existing components, including connectors and connecting elements, must be
111 examined for degradation. Degradation may include environmental effects (such as corrosion, fire damage,
112 and chemical attack) or past or current loading effects (such as overload, damage from past earthquakes,
113 fatigue, and fracture). The condition assessment should also examine for configurational problems
114 observed in recent earthquakes, including effects of discontinuous components, improper bolting and
115 welding, and poor fit-up. Often, unfinished interior areas, such as mechanical rooms, interstitial spaces,
116 attics and basements, provide suitable access to structural components and can give a general indication of
117 the condition of the structure general. Invasive inspection of critical components, particularly connectors
118 and connecting elements within connections, is typically necessary, if not explicitly required by these
119 Provisions.
120
121 Component orientation, plumbness, and physical dimensions should be confirmed during an assessment.
122 Connections between components are critical to performance of structural systems and as a result, require
123 special consideration and evaluation. The load path for the system must be determined, and each

FT
124 connection in each load path must be evaluated. This evaluation includes diaphragm-to-component and
125 component-to-component connections. FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) provides recommendations for
126

A
inspection of welded structural steel moment frames. The strength and deformation capacity of connections
127 must be checked where the connection is attached to one or more components that are expected to

20 R
128 experience significant inelastic response. Detailed inspections are required for anchorages between exterior
129
130 20 D
walls and the roof and floor diaphragms that are used to resist out-of-plane loading.
1, IEW
131 The condition assessment also affords an opportunity to review other conditions that may influence
132 structural elements and systems and overall building performance. Of particular importance is the
133 identification of other elements and components that may contribute to or impair the performance of the
134 structural system in question, including infills, neighboring buildings, and equipment attachments.
AY V

135 Limitations to assessment that are posed by existing coverings, wall and ceiling finishes, insulation, infills,
M RE

136 and other conditions should also be defined such that prudent retrofit measures may be planned.
137
138 For structural steel and wrought iron elements encased in concrete, it may be more cost-effective to provide
IC

139 an entirely new seismic force-resisting system than to undertake a visual inspection by removal and
140 subsequent repair of the concrete encasement.
BL

141
142 Physical condition of components may also dictate the use of certain destructive and nondestructive test
143
PU

methods. If structural elements are covered by well bonded fireproofing materials or are encased in durable
144 concrete, where the covering or encasing material is confirmed to not include significant amounts of
145 constituents that might promote corrosion, it is likely that their condition is suitable. However, local
146 removal of these materials at connections should be performed as part of the assessment. The scope of this
147 removal effort is dictated by the component and element design. For example, in a braced frame, exposure
148 of several key connections may suffice if the physical condition is acceptable and the configuration
149 matches the design drawings. However, for moment frames, it may be necessary to expose more
150 connection locations because of varying designs and the critical nature of the connections. Refer to FEMA
151 351 (FEMA, 2000b) for inspection of welded moment frames. For instances where no construction
152 documents exist, it is necessary to expose or indirectly view all primary connections for documentation of
153 actual connection details.
154
155 2. Visual Condition Assessment
156
157 Each connection type should be characterized by similar limit states and similar modes of nonlinear
158 behavior. The engineer’s judgment is required to determine how many different connection types are
159 suitable for a given building.
160
161 4. Component Properties
162

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-5

163 Structural elements of the seismic force-resisting system are composed of primary and secondary
164 components, which collectively define element strength and resistance to deformation. Behavior of the
165 components—including shear walls, beams, diaphragms, columns, braces, and their connections—is
166 dictated by physical properties such as cross-sectional area; material grade; thickness, depth, and
167 slenderness ratios; lateral-torsional buckling resistance; and connection details.
168
169 The actual physical dimensions of components should be measured. Modifications to components should
170 be noted, including holes. The presence of corrosion, other forms of deterioration, and distortion or
171 deformation, should be noted.
172
173 These primary component properties are needed to properly characterize building performance in the
174 seismic analysis. The starting point for establishing component properties should be the available
175 construction documents. Preliminary review of these documents should be performed to identify vertical-
176 load (gravity-load) and seismic force-resisting elements and systems, and their critical components and
177 connections. Site inspections should be conducted to verify as-built conditions and to ensure that
178 remodeling has not changed the original design concept. In the absence of a complete set of construction
179 documents, the design professional must thoroughly inspect the building to identify these elements, systems

FT
180 and components, and prepare field-survey drawings to document inspection findings, as indicated in
181 Section A4.
182

A
183 The method of connecting the various components of the structural system is critical to the performance of

20 R
184 the system. The type and character of the connections must be determined by a review of the structural
185
186 20 D
design drawings and a field verification of the connections and their condition.
1, IEW
187 A5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
188
189 Expected material properties should be used to determine component strengths associated with
190 deformation-controlled actions. Lower-bound material properties should be used to determine component
AY V

191 strengths associated with force-controlled actions.

M RE

192

193 1. General
IC

194 The extent of testing of in-place materials that must be accomplished is related to availability and accuracy
195 of construction and as-built records, the quality of materials used and construction performed, and the
BL

196 physical condition of the in-place materials. Data such as the properties and grades of material used for
197 components and connectors as obtained from construction documents may be effectively used to reduce the
198
PU

amount of required testing of in-place materials. The design professional is encouraged to research and
199 acquire all available records from original construction.
200
201 The material used in post-1900 construction is likely to be mild steel with a specified minimum yield
202 strength between 28 ksi (195 MPa) and 36 ksi (250 MPa). Cast iron was often used for columns in much
203 older construction, from the 1850s to the 1890s, with limited use continuing through the 1920s. Wrought
204 iron was used in structural applications from the 1870s to the 1890s, except with limited use as tension rods
205 continuing into the 1930s. Cast iron was gradually replaced by wrought iron, and then wrought iron was
206 replaced by steel. The connectors in older construction were usually mild steel rivets or bolts, although the
207 earliest rivets and bolts were made from wrought iron. These connectors were later replaced by high-
208 strength bolts and welds. The seismic performance of these components depends heavily on the condition
209 of the in-place material. A more detailed historical perspective is given in Section C5.2 of FEMA 274
210 (FEMA, 1997) and in Paulson (2013).
211
212 Mechanical properties of component materials, including connector and connecting element materials,
213 dictate the structural behavior of the component under load. Mechanical properties of greatest interest
214 include the expected and lower-bound estimates of yield stress (Fye, FyLB) and tensile strength (Fte, FtLB) of
215 the materials, along with modulus of elasticity, ductility, toughness, elongation characteristics, and
216 weldability.
217

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-6

218 2. Default Material Properties

219
220 Default lower-bound yield stress and tensile strength values for pre-1960 steels provided in Table A5.1 are
221 specified minimum values from the applicable ASTM standard specification.
222
223 For many post-1960 steels listed in Table A5.1, databases of yield and tensile strength values from mill
224 certificates were compiled and statistically analyzed to arrive at the default lower-bound yield stress and
225 tensile strength values provided in the table. For these post-1960 steels, the lower-bound strength is the
226 mean minus one standard deviation value, then further reduced by 10%. The further reduction accounts for
227 uncertainties in material values due to rate of loading during coupon testing at the mills and the variation of
228 material properties between cross-section elements. This approach has been taken with the values provided
229 in Table A5.1 for wide-flange shapes manufactured according to ASTM A36, ASTM A572 and ASTM
230 A36 dual-grade, and for pipe and HSS manufactured according to ASTM 53 Grade B and ASTM A500
231 Grade B and C. The default lower-bound values calculated according to the approach described above are
232 also limited to not less than the specified minimum value from the applicable ASTM standard specification.
233
234 In Table A5.1, the default strength values for ASTM A36, ASTM A572 Grade 50, and steel that is dual-

FT
235 graded as both ASTM A36 and ASTM A572 Grade 50 are further sub-divided into groups. These groups
236 are defined in Table C-A5.1, which is based on Table 1-2 of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Load

A
237 and Resistance Factor Design, Volume 1, Second edition (AISC,1998).

20 R
238
239

20 D
TABLE C-A5.1
1, IEW
Structural Shape Size Groupings for Tensile Property Classification
Structural
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Shapes
AY V
M RE

W shapes W24x55, 62 W44x230, 262 W40x290, 335 W40x456 to 593 incl. W36x848
W21x44 to 57 incl. W40x149 to 264 incl. W40x431 W40x392 W14x605 to 808 incl.
W18x35 to 71 incl. W36x135 to 210 incl. W40x277 to 372 incl. W36x328 to 798 incl.
W16x26 to 57 incl. W33x118 to 152 incl. W36x230 to 300 incl. W33x318 to 354 incl.
IC

W14x22 to 53 incl. W30x90 to 211 incl. W33x169 to 291 incl. W30x292 to 477 incl.
W12x14 to 58 incl. W27x84 to 178 incl. W30x235 to 261 incl. W27x307 to 539 incl.
BL

W10x12 to 45 incl. W24x68 to 162 incl. W27x194 to 258 incl. W24x250 to 492 incl.
W8x10 to 48 incl. W21x62 to 147 incl. W24x176 to 229 incl. W18x211 to 311 incl.
W6x9 to 25 incl.
PU

W18x76 to 143 incl. W21x166 to 201 incl. W14x233 to 550 incl.

W5x16, 19 W16x67 to 100 incl. W18x158 to 192 incl. W12x210 to 336 incl.
W4x13 W14x61 to 132 incl. W14x145 to 211 incl.
W12x65 to 106 incl. W12x120 to 190 incl.
W10x49 to 112 incl.
W8x58, 67

M Shapes all

S Shapes to 35 lb/ft incl. over 35 lb/ft

HP Shapes to 102 lb/ft incl. over 102 lb/ft

American to 20.7 lb/ft incl. over 20.7 lb/ft

Standard
Channels (C)

Miscellane- to 28.5 lb/ft incl. over 28.5 lb/ft

ous
Channels
(MC)

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-7

Angles (L) to ½-in. incl. over ½- to ¾-in. incl. over ¾-in.

Notes:
Structural tees from W, M, and S shapes fall into the same group as the structural shapes from which they are cut.
240
241
242 The default strength values listed in Table A5.1 presume that the test samples for wide-flange shapes have
243 been extracted from the flanges, whereas prior to 1997, mill practice was to extract samples from the web.
244 Older yield strength test results from tests on samples removed from the web can be adjusted using the
245 correction factor given in ANSI/AISC 360 Commentary Appendix Section 5.2.2.
246
247 Each factor provided in Table A5.2 for ASTM 53 Grade B and ASTM A500 Grades B and C pipes and
248 HSS shapes is the ratio of mean database value to the unreduced mean-minus-one standard deviation value.
249 The factor for ASTM A1085 steel is taken equal to Ry specified in ANSI/AISC 341 (hereafter referred to as
250 the Seismic Provisions).
251 3. Testing to Determine Properties of In-Place Materials

FT
252 FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) provides information and references for several test methods.

A
253
254

20 R
To obtain the desired mechanical properties of in-place materials, it is often necessary to use destructive
255 and nondestructive testing methods. Sampling of materials should take place in regions of a component
256
257
20 D
where the required strength for the applied loads is less than the resulting available strength that is
determined with consideration of the lost section caused by sampling. Potential sampling locations include
1, IEW
258 flange tips at the ends of simply-supported beams and external edges of plates.
259
260 It may be necessary to repair components after removal of samples, as stated in in Section A5.3a. It is
AY V

261 important that the area where the samples are removed from the component be free from characteristics that
262 could create stress concentrations that adversely affect the strength or ductility in the region of the
M RE

263 component affected by sample removal. To prevent adverse effects, sharp corners should be avoided and
264 the area where cutting occurred to remove a sample should be ground smooth. The component affected by
265 material removal should be repaired such that it has at least the same strength and ductility as it did prior to
IC

266 the removal of the sample.

267
BL

268 To mitigate the difficulties associated with sample removal and subsequent repair of the sample location, it
269 may be possible to use default values for materials properties in lieu of material sampling and testing,
PU

270 where so permitted by these Provisions and ASCE/SEI 41 under certain specified conditions included in the
271 extent of testing requirements for usual testing and comprehensive testing.
272
273 Of greatest interest to seismic system performance are the expected yield strength and expected tensile
274 strength of the installed materials. Notch toughness of structural steel and weld material is also important
275 for connections that undergo cyclic loadings and deformations during earthquakes. Chemical and
276 metallurgical properties can provide information on properties such as compatibility of welds with parent
277 metal and potential lamellar tearing caused by through-thickness stresses. Virtually all component elastic
278 and inelastic limit states are related to yield and tensile strengths. Past research and accumulation of data by
279 industry groups have resulted in published material mechanical properties for most primary metals and
280 their dates of fabrication. Section A5.2 provides default properties. This default information may be used,
281 together with tests from recovered samples, to rapidly establish expected strength properties for use in
282 component strength and deformation analyses.
283
284 Review of other properties derived from laboratory tests, such as hardness, impact, fracture and fatigue, is
285 generally not needed for structural steel component capacity determination, but it may be required for
286 historical materials and connection evaluation. These properties may not be needed in the analysis phase if
287 significant retrofit measures are already known to be required.
288

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-8

289 To quantify material properties and analyze the performance of welded moment connections, more
290 extensive sampling and testing of welds may be necessary (FEMA, 2000b). This testing may include base
291 and weld material chemical and metallurgical evaluation, expected strength determination, hardness, and
292 Charpy V-notch testing of the heat-affected zone and neighboring base metal, and other tests depending on
293 connection configuration. Weld samples should consist of both neighboring base and weld metal to allow
294 for a determination of the composite strength of the welded connection.
295
296 One frequently-used approach used for determination of the tensile properties of existing steel components
297 is by mechanical testing on samples of the existing steel extracted from the structure, whether for welding
298 assessments or for strength assessments. At times, however, this may be problematic because the strength
299 of the structure may be temporarily reduced due to the removal of samples, and replacement material may
300 subsequently need to be provided, as stated in in Section A5.3a. When material removal is problematic,
301 particularly with welding assessments, hardness testing may be a desirable alternative. Hardness values are
302 a reasonable predictor of tensile strength; hardness testing cannot determine yield strength or ductility
303 (elongation). Precise conversions of hardness values to tensile strengths are not possible, but hardness
304 testing can be used to obtain a general understanding of the strength of the existing steel. Hardness testing
305 can be performed in-situ on existing steel. If hardness testing is instead to take place in the laboratory,

FT
306 samples of the existing steel smaller than the samples usually extracted for tensile testing can be utilized.
307
308

A
Another consideration is that hardness testing results are available immediately after the testing is
309 performed. Because of the low cost and essentially nondestructive nature of in-situ hardness testing,

20 R
310 multiple steel members can be quickly and economically tested: beam and columns, flanges and webs,
311
312 20 D
members of different foot-weights, angles and wide-flange shapes, connectors such as rivets and bolts, and
so forth.
1, IEW
313
314 Many hardness scales have been developed over the years, and there are many methods of testing. Brinell
315 hardness testing is well suited for in-situ testing that is performed to determine the tensile strength of the
316 steel. As compared to other test methods, Brinell hardness testing measures the hardness over an area that
AY V

317 results in an averaging of the localized hardness. Other hardness testing methods, like Rockwell, are better
M RE

318 for identification of localized conditions such as weld heat affected zone properties; Brinell is better suited
319 for identification of the tensile strength of the base metal.
320
IC

321 ASTM E10, Standard Test Method for Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials (ASTM, 2018), prescribes
322 testing procedures. In-situ hardness testing can be performed in accordance with ASTM E110, Standard
BL

323 Test Methods for Indentation Hardness of Metallic Materials by Portable Hardness Testers (ASTM, 2014).
324 ASTM A370, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (ASTM,
325
PU

2019), can be used to convert hardness values from one scale to another. ASTM A370 and SAE J417 (SAE,
326 2018) provide conversions of hardness values to estimated steel tensile strengths.
327

328 4. Extent of Testing of In-Place Materials

329 The extent of testing of the installed materials is dependent upon the level of knowledge that is required
330 (see Table C‑A4.1) when assessing the building under consideration. For example, where construction
331 documents are available for a building, the design drawings may identify the standard specification used for
332 production of the materials installed in the building or may indicate specified minimum properties for the
333 materials. As a result of this knowledge, for example, testing is not required for the particular case of usual
334 testing. If specific materials information is not listed or if construction documents are not available, but the
335 date of construction is known, some knowledge regarding materials likely used in the building can be
336 obtained from published references that provide chronological listings of historical materials specifications,
337 such as AISC Design Guide 15, Rehabilitation and Retrofit (Brockenbrough and Schuster, 2018). Absent
338 any knowledge whatsoever, testing of materials extracted from the building is required.
339
340 To quantify expected strength and other properties accurately, a minimum number of tests may be required
341 to be conducted on representative components.
342
343 The engineer should exercise judgment to determine how much variability of component sizes constitutes a
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-9

344 significant change in structural material properties. It is likely that most of the sections of the same size
345 within a building have similar material properties. Differences in material properties are more likely to
346 occur because of differences in size groups, differences in specified material properties [Fy of 36 ksi (250
347 MPa) versus 50 ksi (345 MPa)], and differences in section shapes. At a minimum, one coupon should be
348 removed from each nominal size of each wide-flange, angle, channel, hollow structural section, and other
349 structural shape used as part of the seismic force-resisting system. Additional sampling should be done
350 where large variations in member sizes occur within the building and where the building was constructed in
351 phases or over extended time periods where members may have come from different mills or from different
352 batches of steel. Removal of coverings, including surface finishes, fireproofing, and other non-structural
353 materials, is generally required to facilitate coupon sampling and visual observations.
354
355 Material properties of structural steel vary much less than those of other construction materials. In fact, the
356 expected yield and tensile stresses are usually considerably higher than the specified minimum values. As a
357 result, testing for material properties of structural steel may not be required. The properties of wrought iron
358 are more variable than those of steel. The strength of cast iron components cannot be determined from
359 small sample tests because component behavior is usually governed by inclusions and other imperfections.
360 Non-destructive testing (NDT) of wrought iron and cast iron is complicated by their metallurgical

FT
361 structures; NDT techniques that are more commonly used with structural steel may be unsuccessful when
362 applied to cast iron and wrought iron.
363

A
364 If ductility and toughness are required at or near an existing weld, the design professional may

20 R
365 conservatively assume that no ductility is available, in lieu of testing. In this case, the welded joint would
366
367 20 D
have to be modified if inelastic demands are anticipated and the possibility of fractures cannot be tolerated.
Special requirements for welded moment frames are given in FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b).
1, IEW
368
369 To statistically quantify expected strength and other properties of in-place materials, a minimum number of
370 tests must be conducted on materials from representative components. The minimum number of tests is
371 established by considering available data from original construction, the type of structural system used,
AY V

372 desired accuracy, and quality or condition of in-place materials. Visual access to the structural system also
M RE

373 influences testing program definition.

374
375 If a higher degree of confidence in results is desired, either the sample size should be determined using
IC

376 ASTM E122 (ASTM, 2017) criteria or the prior knowledge of material grades from Section A5.2 should be
377 used in conjunction with approved statistical procedures.
BL

378
379 Design professionals may consider using Bayesian statistics and other statistical procedures contained in
380
PU

FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) to gain greater confidence in the test results obtained from the sample sizes
381 specified in this section.
382
383
384

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-10

385 CHAPTER B
386 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF COMPONENTS
387 These Provisions address components subject to seismically-induced forces or deformations. Existing buildings
388 tend to use braced frames, moment frames, shear walls, and other elements in various combinations that do not
389 readily fit into a particular seismic force-resisting system (SFRS), as defined in Minimum Design Loads and
390 Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2016) or Seismic Provisions. The
391 frame assemblies identified in Chapters D and E do not require that the assembly is equivalent to a modern SFRS.
392 B1. GENERAL
393 1. Basis of the Analytical Model
394 Mathematical modeling of existing components depends on the design professional’s knowledge of the
395 condition of the structural system and material properties, as determined in accordance with Section A4 and
396 Section A5, respectively. Certain damage—such as water staining, evidence of prior leakage, limited
397 corrosion, and limited buckling—may not require consideration in the mathematical model. The design
398

FT
professional must establish the acceptability of such damage on a case-by-case on the basis of capacity loss
399 and deformation constraints. It may be necessary to modify both strength criteria and deformation
400 permissible performance parameters to account for the damaged conditions of components. Degradation at

A
401 connection points in particular should be carefully examined; significant capacity reductions may be

20 R
402 involved, as well as a loss of ductility. Thickness variations due to manufacturing tolerances should not be
403

404 B2. COMPONENT

20 D
interpreted as section loss.
STIFFNESS, STRENGTH, AND PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE
1, IEW
405 PARAMETERS
406 3. Strength Criteria
3a. Deformation-Controlled Actions
AY V

407
408
M RE

409 The relative magnitude of the m-factors alone should not be interpreted as a direct indicator of performance.
410 The stiffness of a component and its expected strength, QCE, must be considered where evaluating expected
411 performance.
IC

412
413 3a. Force-Controlled Actions
BL

414
415 When determining the lower-bound strength of a component whose limit state is governed by elastic
PU

416 buckling, a reduction factor of 0.85 is applied to the nominal strength in order to account for the
417 uncertainties in strength of such behavior. This treatment stands in contrast to that of inelastic limit states,
418 where the lower-bound strength is directly a function of the material property FyLB. The reduction factor
419 applies to any elastic buckling limit state that is not directly proportional to FyLB. Without the reduction,
420 there would be no difference in the component strength for a force-controlled and deformation-controlled
421 action. The common limit states of lateral-torsional buckling for flexure or elastic flexural buckling for
422 compression are two examples of this.
423

424 B3. RETROFIT MEASURES

425 2. Welds–General
426 When new welds are required to be made to existing steel components as part of a retrofit, the engineer is
427 required by these Provisions to assess the weldability of the existing steel. Based on that assessment, the
428 retrofit construction documents should specify requirements for weld procedure specifications (WPSs) for
429 new welds to the existing steel that are in conformance with these Provisions. The assessment could be as
430 simple as a review of the available construction documents that describe the existing structural steel
431 building, without any need for sampling or testing of the existing structural steel. Depending upon the
432 available information, or lack thereof, sampling and testing of the existing structural steel to be welded
433 could be necessary.
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-11

434
435 Table B3.1 of these Provisions provides several acceptable approaches for developing WPSs for new welds
436 to existing steel. For the majority of structural steel buildings constructed since 1950, it is anticipated that
437 the approaches specified in Table B3.1 of these Provisions will result in the use of a prequalified WPS for
438 making a new weld to an existing structural steel component. Nonetheless, there will be instances where
439 the engineer will need to assess by testing the weldability of the existing steel to be welded as part of the
440 requirements for developing a WPS.
441
442 Weldability, as defined in Standard Welding Terms and Definitions (AWS A3.0/3.0M) (AWS, 2020), is
443 “The relative ease with which a material may be welded to meet an applicable standard.” Weldability is a
444 qualitative term: steel with good weldability can be easily welded whereas steel with poor weldability may
445 require specialized techniques such as higher levels of preheat, postheat and other measures. Additional
446 information on weldability can be found in AISC Design Guide 21, Welded Connections—A Primer for
447 Engineers (Miller, 2017).
448
449 For existing steels that were produced to standard specifications that are listed in Structural Welding
450 Code—Steel (AWS D1.1/D1.1M) (AWS, 2015) for use with prequalified WPSs, no special requirements

FT
451 are specified by Table B3.1 in these Provisions. Compliance with applicable provisions in AWS
452 D1.1/D1.1M satisfies these Provisions. Because AWS D1.1/D1.1M is focused primarily on welding of new
453

A
steels, structural steels manufactured according to now-obsolete standard specifications are not listed in the
454 current edition of AWS D1.1/D1.1M for use with prequalified WPSs; these steels are commonly referred to

20 R
455 as “unlisted” steels. Consequently, Table B3.1 of these Provisions extends to certain, selected unlisted
456
457 20 D
steels the latitude to be welded using prequalified WPSs, providing that preheat levels are increased. The
selected steels are mostly limited to structural steels that were manufactured under some of the first
1, IEW
458 standard specifications that were developed for structural steels with good weldability. Additionally,
459 ASTM A7 structural steel in thickness not exceeding 1.5 in. (38 mm) that was produced after 1950 is also
460 permitted to be welded under a prequalified WPS because ASTM A7 steel of this era is commonly held to
461 be weldable, as evidenced in part by the listing of ASTM A7 steel for use with prequalified welds in AWS
AY V

462 D1.0-63 (AWS, 1963). AWS D1.0-63 is one of the predecessor standards to AWS D1.1/D1.1M. The
M RE

463 thickness limit of 1.5 in. (38 mm) is based upon the limitations on welding to ASTM A7 steels as specified
464 in AWS D1.0-63.
465
IC

466 For unlisted steels that are produced to standard specifications that are not permitted for use with
467 prequalified WPSs by Table B3.1 of these Provisions, or for steels of an unknown classification, these
BL

468 Provisions require that the engineer determine the welding requirements. This category necessarily includes
469 steels with known good weldability that are prequalified by AWS D1.1/D1.1M but cannot be so designated
470
PU

by the engineer because the classification is not known due to the lack of documentation. For example, the
471 existing steel may be ASTM A36, but the actual identity of the steel has been lost over time because
472 original construction documents are not available to the engineer. Also included in the category of unlisted
473 steels are those that have poor weldability due to limited control on the compositional characteristics; some
474 steel in this category may be unweldable.
475
476 Because of the wide range of possibilities with unlisted and unknown steels, the engineer is obligated by
477 these Provisions to determine welding requirements. However, these Provisions do not provide
478 requirements as to how this task is to be completed because of the large number of variables involved and
479 also because of the considerable engineering judgment to be exercised while completing this task. Instead,
480 Tables C-B3.1, C-B3.2, C-B3.3a, and C-B3.3b provide general guidance to assist the engineer in fulfilling
481 the obligation to determine welding requirements for steels that are not permitted to use prequalified WPSs
482 in accordance with these Provisions. The engineer may need to retain the services of a welding engineer or
483 metallurgical specialist to determine appropriate welding requirements.
484
485 Structural steels that were manufactured with an intent for welding were developed over the course of the
486 1920s and 1930s. Structural steels were not commercially produced under standard specifications written
487 specifically for manufacture of easily-weldable structural steels until after circa 1950. Consequently, steels
488 manufacturing before 1950 may exhibit physical features that adversely affect the soundness of the steel,
489 such as non-metallic inclusions, stringers, voids of various shapes, tears, and segregation. Steels exhibiting
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-12

490 these soundness concerns are commonly referred to as “dirty” steels, particularly when compared to the
491 soundness provided by modern steels manufactured with an intent to be welded. Certain manufacturing
492 processes that were conducive to the production of steel with soundness concerns, such as the acid-
493 Bessemer process, were permitted by standard specifications well into the 1960s; these types of processes
494 would not ordinarily be used for manufacturing of steel with an intent for welding. Rimmed and capped
495 steel may also have soundness concerns. In particular, structural steels manufactured prior to circa 1930
496 have an even greater likelihood of exhibiting soundness concerns because control of either chemical
497 composition or manufacturing process with strict regard for weldability was not a commercial concern
498 during that era; instead, riveted structural connections were used. Metallographic examination, as described
499 in the paragraphs that follow and in Table C-B3.1, may be used to assess the soundness of existing
500 structural steel to be welded.
501
502 A representative photomicrograph showing stringers in a sample of “dirty” structural steel obtained from a
503 building constructed circa 1905 is given in Figure C-B3.1. Five different samples of structural steel from
504 beam webs, beam flanges, angles, and column splice plates were obtained from this building and examined
505 metallographically, and inclusions similar to that shown in Figure C-B3.1 were observed in all five samples.
506 Inclusions of this nature need to be considered when the retrofit measures involve welding, because their

FT
507 presence can readily lead to lamellar tearing when the steel is stressed in the through-thickness direction,
508 whether due to weld shrinkage restraint or due to applied loads. Weld shrinkage may cause the inclusions
509

A
to join together and locally tear; this concern is most probable when the weld axis is parallel to the direction
510 of rolling. Welded joints that are perpendicular to the direction of rolling may fail in tearing under applied

20 R
511 loads.
512
513 20 D
Inclusions of the nature shown in Figure C-B3.1, along with other soundness concerns that may lead to
1, IEW
514 poor weld performance, are detected visually through the use of metallographic examination, not by
515 compositional analysis. Guidance for use of metallographic examination is provided in Table C-B3.1.
516
517 If significant inclusions or other significant soundness concerns are present in an existing structural steel
AY V

518 component, connections may be accomplished by mechanical means such as bolting instead of by welding.
M RE

519 Alternately, the suitability for welding could be established by testing on the actual steel to be welded. In
520 this case, attention should be given to weld joint design and control of weld shrinkage strains.
521
IC

522 The historical structural wrought iron and grey cast iron that fall within the scope of these Provisions are
523 considered to be not weldable for load-bearing, structural connections due to the metallurgical nature and
BL

524 compositional characteristics of these particular historical structural metals. The slag that is inherently
525 present in historical structural wrought iron creates weakness in the through-thickness direction of the iron,
526
PU

and as a result, lamellar tearing is likely to develop if the wrought iron is welded (AWS, 2010). The coarse-
527 grained metallurgy and compositional characteristics of historical grey cast iron are not conducive to fusion
528 welding, although brazing is possible. However, a welded joint in cast iron is not as strong nor as ductile as
529 the original cast iron itself (AWS, 1985). Structural welding to these particular historical metals should be
530 avoided (Miller, 2017), although welding might be used for nonstructural architectural and aesthetic
531 purposes, where stresses in the weld due to applied forces are very low. Structural connections to historical
532 wrought iron and grey cast iron should instead be accomplished by mechanical means such as bolting. The
533 guidance provided in Tables C-B3.1, C-B3.2, C-B3.3a, and C-B3.3b pertains to structural steel and is not
534 intended to be directly applicable to historical structural wrought iron or grey cast iron.
535
536

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-13

Direction of rolling
537
538 Fig. C-B3.1 - Representative photomicrograph showing elongated inclusions in structural steel that was
manufactured circa 1905.

FT
539
540
Table C-B3.1

A
Guidance for Use of Metallographic Examination

20 R
20 D
Existing Steel Classification Considerations/Investigations Welding Suggestions
1, IEW
By this era, as-manufactured structural
steels were generally sound, even No compelling reason for metallographic
though the steel was not necessarily examination, although such an examination
produced according to a standard should be considered if compositional testing
AY V

The existing steel was

specification for structural steels that of the steel to be welded yields unusual
produced after 1950.
M RE

are intended to be weldable. One results, or if the steel may have been
exception is structural steel manufactured using the acid-Bessemer
manufactured using the acid-Bessemer process.
process.
IC
BL

If the existing structural steel in the

completed connection could become
stressed in the through-thickness direction,
During this era, structural steels with
PU

whether due to weld shrinkage or structural

good weldability intended for use in
loading, or a new multipass weld is to be
buildings were being developed.
made to the existing steel, a metallographic
However, steels with good weldability
examination of the existing steel for the
were typically produced only under
The existing steel was presence of inclusions, such as stringers,
special order according to project-
produced between 1930 and and other soundness concerns is
specific manufacturing specifications.
1950 inclusive. recommended. If inclusions or other
While many structural steels produced
soundness concerns are present, mechanical
during this era were sound, there is
testing of samples extracted from the
nonetheless a chance that some
structure of the existing steel to be welded
structural steels from this era might be
may demonstrate acceptable performance of
considered “dirty” by today’s standards.
the welded joint is that is proposed to be
used; otherwise, mechanical connections
should be considered.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-14

During this era, structural steel was not

routinely produced with any
consideration of weldability. There is a
Regardless of the welded joint configuration,
high probability that a structural steel
a metallographic examination of the existing
from this era would be considered
steel should be undertaken to examine for
“dirty” by current standards. “Dirty”
the presence of inclusions, such as stringers,
The existing steel was steels may include inclusions such as
and other soundness concerns. If inclusions
produced prior to 1930. stringers that could lead to lamellar
or other soundness concerns are present to
tearing at welded joints. In structural
an extent and severity such that susceptibility
steels produced during this era, such
to lamellar tearing is heightened, mechanical
inclusions may occur frequently and
connections should be considered.
may be relatively large. Other
soundness concerns may also be
present.

541

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-15

Table C-B3.2
Guidance for Determining Welding Requirements for New
Welds to Existing Steel:
For Existing Steel that Was Previously Welded
Existing Steel Classification Considerations/Investigations Welding Suggestions

Weldability has been partially

If at least 80% of the inspected connections
established by previous structural
pass AWS D1.1/D1.1M acceptance criteria,
welding. At least 10% of the
welding in accordance with prequalified WPS
connections, or three (3 ) connections
of a steel having equivalent mechanical and
minimum, should be inspected for
The existing steel was compositional requirements that is also
lamellar tearing of the existing steel
produced in accordance with permitted to be used with prequalified WPSs
and for weld metal cracking. Existing
a known standard in Clause 3 of AWS D1.1/D1.1M, but with
complete-joint-penetration (CJP)
specification, but the steel is preheat levels increased by 50°F (28°C)
groove welds should be inspected with
not permitted to be used with above the prequalified preheat level for steels
Ultrasonic Testing (UT). Partial-joint-
prequalified WPSs by Table with equivalent strength levels.
penetration (PJP) groove welds and
B3.1 of these Provisions.

FT
fillet welds should be inspected with
Evidence is available showing Otherwise, preheat should be in accordance
Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) or
that the existing steel was with AWS D1.1/D1.1M Annex H, based on
Penetrant Testing (PT).
previously welded. the maximum compositional limits specified

A
in the manufacturing specification. WPSs
The strength level of the existing steel

20 R
should be qualified by test, using sample of
to be welded can be based on the
existing steel to be welded that is extracted
20 D tensile properties requirements listed in
the standard specification.
from the existing structure.
1, IEW
Weldability has been partially
established by previous welding. At
least 10% of the connections, or three If at least 80% of the inspected connections
(3) connections minimum, should be pass AWS D1.1/D1.1M acceptance criteria,
AY V

inspected for lamellar tearing and weld welding in accordance with prequalified WPS
M RE

metal cracking. Existing CJP groove of a steel having equivalent mechanical and
weld should be inspected with UT. PJP compositional requirements that is also
groove welds and fillet welds should be permitted to be used with prequalified WPSs
The standard specification inspected with MT or PT. in Clause 3 of AWS D1.1/D1.1M, but with
IC

used to produce the existing preheat levels increased by 50°F (28°C)

steel is unknown. Evidence is Compositional analysis of the existing above the prequalified preheat level for steels
available showing that the steel to be welded will likely be with equivalent strength levels.
BL

existing steel was previously necessary. Additionally, given unknown

welded. manufacturing specification, the Otherwise, preheat should be in accordance
strength level of the existing steel to be with AWS D1.1/D1.1M Annex H, based on
PU

welded should be estimated from the composition determined by testing of the

hardness testing of the steel. steel to be welded. WPSs should be qualified
Alternatively, samples of the existing by test, using sample of existing steel to be
steel to be welded could be extracted welded that is extracted from the existing
from the existing structure and structure.
subsequently tested for tensile
properties.

542

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-16

543
Table C-B3.3a
Guidance for Determining Welding Requirements for New Welds
to Existing Steel that was Not Previously Welded
(Produced Under a Known Standard Specification)
Existing Steel Classification Investigations/considerations Welding Suggestions

The existing steel should be welded

The existing steel standard
in accordance with the requirements
specification requirements meets all
of a steel with equivalent mechanical
the mechanical and compositional
and compositional requirements that
limits of a steel that is permitted to be
is permitted to be used with
used with prequalified WPSs in
prequalified WPSs in Clause 3 of
Clause 3 of AWS D1.1/D1.1M.
AWS D1.1/D1.1M.

FT
Preheat should be determined in
The existing steel standard
accordance with AWS D1.1/D1.1M
specification requirements do not meet
Annex H, based on the maximum
all the mechanical and compositional

A
compositional limits stated in the
limits of a steel that is permitted to be
standard specification for the

20 R
used with prequalified WPSs in
existing steel. WPSs should be
Clause 3 of AWS D1.1/D1.1M. The
The existing steel was produced in qualified by testing, using sample of
20 D
accordance with a known standard
specification, but the steel is not
specified limits on phosphorus (P) and
sulfur (S) are under 0.050%.
existing steel to be welded that is
extracted from the existing structure.
1, IEW
permitted to be used with
prequalified WPSs by Table B3.1 of
these Provisions. The existing steel The existing steel standard
was not previously welded. specification requirements do not meet
AY V

all the mechanical and compositional

limits of a steel permitted to be used
Preheat should be in accordance
M RE

with prequalified WPSs in Clause 3 of

with AWS D1.1/D1.1M Annex H,
AWS D1.1/D1.1M. The standard
based on the maximum
specification permits levels of P or S or
compositional limits stated in the
both to exceed 0.050%. This includes
standard specification for the
IC

instances where the standard

existing steel, or as determined from
specification for the existing steel does
compositional testing. WPSs should
BL

not provide limits on P or S or both. In

be qualified by test, using sample of
the case of unregulated levels of P or S
existing steel to be welded that is
or both, the composition of the existing
extracted from the existing structure.
PU

steel to be welded should be

determined by testing of samples of the
existing steel to be welded that are
extracted from the structure.

544

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-17

Table C-B3.3b
Guidance for Determining Welding Requirements for New
Welds to Existing Steel that was Not Previously Welded
(Produced Under an Unknown Specification)
Existing Steel Classification Investigations/considerations Welding Suggestions

If the composition and mechanical

properties are consistent with a steel
permitted to be used with
prequalified WPSs in Clause 3 of
AWS D1.1/D1.1M, the steel may be
welded in accordance with the
prequalified WPS of a steel having
equivalent mechanical and
compositional requirements that is
also permitted to be used with
prequalified welds in Clause 3 of

FT
The composition of the existing steel to
The standard specification used to AWS D1.1/D1.1M.
be welded should be determined by
produce the existing steel is
testing. The mechanical properties of

A
unknown. The existing steel was
the existing steel should be determined
not previously welded. If the composition and mechanical
by testing.

20 R
properties are not consistent with a
steel that is permitted to be used
20 D with prequalified WPSs in Clause 3
of AWS D1.1/D1.1M, preheat should
1, IEW
be in accordance with AWS
D1.1/D1.1M Annex H, based on the
results of compositional testing.
WPSs should be qualified by test,
using sample of existing steel to be
AY V

welded that is extracted from the

M RE

existing structure

545
IC

546
547
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-18

548 CHAPTER C
549 COMPONENT PROPERTIES AND REQUIREMENTS
550
551 Prior to ASCE 41-13, permissible parameters for the nonlinear analysis procedures were given for both primary and
552 secondary components. ASCE 41-13, in accordance with ASCE 41 Section C7.5.3.2.1, removed the values for
553 primary components and retained those for secondary components, which would be applicable to both component
554 designations.
555

556 C1. GENERAL

557 The parameters Q and Qy in Fig. C1.1 are the generalized component force and generalized component
558 yield capacity, respectively.  or  is the generalized component deformation. For beams and columns,  is
559 the elastic and plastic chord rotation, where y is the chord rotation corresponding to the flexural yield
560 capacity of the section, Mpe. The beam or column member may have other failure modes that govern the

FT
561 behavior of the member, e.g., lateral-torsional buckling resulting from lack of compression flange bracing.
562 For panel zones, the deformation component,  shown in Fig. C1.1 represents , the angular shear
563

A
deformation in radians. Fig. C1.2 defines chord rotation for beams.

20 R
564 The commentary for components and the commentary for the various types of structural steel frame
565 systems are inextricably linked together. Commentary Table C-C1.1 provides a cross reference between
566
567
20 D
general component types and frame-related commentary sections where component-related commentary
may be found.
1, IEW
568
569
570
AY V

TABLE C-C1.1
M RE

Commentary Cross-References for Components

Chapter C Component-Related Section Related Commentary
IC

C2. Beams Commentary Sections D1 through D5

BL

C3. Members Subjected to Axial or Combined Loading Commentary Sections E1, E2 and E3

C4. Panel Zones Commentary Sections D1 through D5

PU

C5. Beam and Column Connections Commentary Sections D1 through D5

C6. Steel Plates used as Shear Walls Commentary Sections E4

571
572 For beams and columns,  is the total elastic and plastic rotation of the beam or column, y is the chord
573 rotation at yield,  is total elastic and plastic displacement, and y is yield displacement. For panel zones, y
574 is the angular shear deformation in radians. Figure C-C1.1 defines chord rotation for beams. The chord
575 rotation shall be determined either by adding the yield rotation, y, to the plastic rotation, or it can be taken
576 equal to the story drift. The yield rotation due to flexure shall be determined from Equations C2-2 and C3-
577 14, where the point of contraflexure is anticipated to occur at the midlength of the beam or column.
578

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-19

579
580 (a) Cantilever example
581

A FT
20 R
582 20 D
1, IEW
583 (b) Frame example
584
585 Fig. C-C1.1. Definition of chord rotation.
586
AY V

587
M RE

588 C2. BEAMS

589
590 1. General
IC

591
592 Section C2 covers beams that, in many cases, resist an interaction of the flexural demand and shear
BL

593 demand. The Provisions include a strength ratio check, MCE/VCE, within a segment length of beam, Lv, to
594 determine the governing behavior for the segment. Lv is defined as the clear length between supports that
595 resist translation in the direction of the shear force, as shown for example in Figure C-C2.1. In the
PU

596 traditional case of a shear-dominated link in an eccentrically braced frame (EBF), Lv is identical to the
597 length of EBF link, e, as defined in the Seismic Provisions. In the case of a shear-dominated beam in a
598 moment frame, Lv is taken as the clear length between column faces.
599

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-20

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE

600
601 Fig. C-C2.1. Examples of the length, Lv.
602
C3. MEMBERS SUBJECTED TO AXIAL OR COMBINED LOADING
IC

603
604
1. General
BL

605
606
607 Historically these provisions have treated columns and braces as similar members for seismic design.
PU

608 While it is true that both members carry axial force, other aspects of their behavior are quite different.
609 During earthquake, braces sustain significant inelastic deformation due to cyclic buckling, tensile yield and
610 inelastic post-buckling deformations. Columns are expected to sustain at most limited secondary local
611 yielding. This is also true for beams which carry significant axial load ratios (greater than 0.1). This section
612 has been revised to keep both braces and columns, included beams with axial load ratios greater than 0.1;
613 the provisions have been reorganized to reflect these differences in behavior between primary yield
614 mechanisms sustained by the brace and secondary yield mechanisms sustained by the columns and beam in
615 braced frames. The provisions for columns have had no significant changes, but the provisions for braces
616 have changed quite significantly in recognition of the hundreds of brace and braced frame tests for seismic
617 behavior that have been complete during the past 20 years.
618
619 Cyclic inelastic behavior of buckling braces and braced frames is a pinched hysteretic behavior that is
620 significantly different in tension and compression with deterioration in compressive resistance, as
621 illustrated in Figure C-C3.1. The deterioration and resistance depend on many factors including the brace
622 and its connections, and as a result, a force-deformation envelope is introduced for brace members in
623 Figure C3.1. This relationship is primarily dependent on the cross-sectional compactness ratio, where the
624 denominator of the ratio is the seismic compactness limit provided by the Seismic Provisions.
625

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-21

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
626
627 Fig. C-C3.1. Response of CBF with buckling braces (Popov et al., 1976).
AY V

628
2. Stiffness
M RE

629
630
631 The stiffness of columns and buckling-restrained braces are largely unchanged from prior editions of
ASCE/SEI 41. However, the stiffness of braces varies widely during an earthquake due to the large
IC

632
633 inelastic deformations. A major deficiency in existing braced frames is braces which are much more cross-
sectionally slender than current limits for highly ductile members in the Seismic Provisions. Braces with
BL

634
635 this deficiency can be economically and efficiently retrofit to provide performance comparable to a brace
636 meeting the highly ductile slenderness limits by filling the brace with concrete so the concrete fills the tube
PU

637 but does not engage or contact the end connection of the brace (Sen et al. 2017). In this way, the stiffness,
638 buckling resistance and tensile resistance are largely unchanged by the concrete fill, but the inelastic
639 performance of brace is dramatically improved. Concrete fill that contacts and engages the end connection
640 of the brace increases the stiffness and compressive resistance of the brace (Liu and Goel 1988), and thus
641 place greater demands on the frame and the connection and may adversely affect the inelastic performance
642 of the CBF system.
643
644 3. Strength
645
646 This section is largely unchanged from the previous limits in ASCE 41. Specific limits for buckling braces
647 have been included based upon experimental research on braced frames.
648
649 3a. Deformation-Controlled Action
650
651 1. Expected Axial Strength
652
653 For the evaluation of brace strength, the effective length, Lc, of the brace about both major axes
654 should be considered.
655

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-22

656 For braces buckling out of the plane of the frame, the effective length factor, K, may be taken as
657 follows:
658
659 (a) For braces with rotation-restrained end connections, as defined in Section C7, K = 0.65.
660 (b) For rotation-accommodating connections, as defined in Section C7, K = 1.0.
661 (c) For intersecting braces in X-braced frames, K = 0.7.
662
663 Other values of K may be justified by analysis.
664
665 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
666
667 This section has undergone a significant reorganization from its presentation in ASCE/SEI 41, including the
668 following:
669  Tables C3.1, C3.3, C3.5, C3.6 and C3.7 contain m-factors, modeling parameters and deformation limits
670 for columns and buckling-restrained braces. These values are largely unchanged from prior editions of
671 ASCE 41.
 Tables C3.2 and C3.4 contain m-factors, modeling parameters and deformation limits for buckling

FT
672
673 braces. These values have changed significantly. Prior values for buckling braces were essentially
674 unchanged since the 1990s, and prior values had some significant inconsistencies due to the limited

A
675 research on braced frames and the small-scale experimental results from that earlier era. The data in

20 R
676 these tables on buckling braces benefit from the hundreds of brace and braced frame tests completed in
the past two decades. In addition, the limits used to define brace performance consider the full range of
677
678 20 D
parameters needed to predict brace behavior. While there have been extensive tests on braces and
braced frames in recent years (primarily wide flange and HSS braces), other brace types have little
1, IEW
679
680 additional data and limited changes have been made. In some cases, these changes result in increased
681 capacity for braces that had previously been considered deficient. These changes have reduced the
682 number of footnotes and special conditions previously noted with these tables, but some footnotes
AY V

683 were retained because there was no rational evidence to change them.
 Detailed attention has been given to rectangular HSS braces here to incorporate data collected from 69
M RE

684
685 different experiments (Liu and Goel 1987; Lee 1988; Shaback and Brown 2003; Tremblay et al. 2003;
686 Yang and Mahin 2005; Han et al. 2007; Uriz and Mahin 2008; Fell et al. 2009; Richard 2009; Roeder
et al. 2011a; Sen et al. 2016, 2017; Ibarra 2018). For these experiments, the expressions in Tables C3.2
IC

687
688 and C3.4 were derived from the total axial deformation range prior to tearing or fracture of the brace.
The axial deformation capacity in tension and compression was assumed to be half the total axial
BL

689
690 deformation range (i.e., assuming a symmetric cyclic deformation history); this approach is recognized
691 as simplistic but is intended to be suitable for use in commercial software. These data were fit to
PU

692 expressions using linear regression in logarithmic space.

693  Less detailed attention has been given to other brace types. For these cross sections, expressions were
694 fit as described above but using the existing modeling parameters in ASCE 41-17. As such, the m-
695 factors, modeling parameters, and deformation limits for these cross sections are largely unchanged but
696 presented as expressions to facilitate their use.
697 It should be emphasized the braced frames meeting the requirements of Section F2 of the Seismic
698 Provisions are controlled by this Section C3 combined with requirements of Section E1. All other
699 CBFs are controlled by the lesser capacity provided by Sections C3 and C7 combined with the
700 requirements of Section E1.
701
702 C4. PANEL ZONES
703
704 Moment frame design before the 1994 Northridge, CA earthquake (1985-1994 era) favored weak panel
705 zones, weak in the sense that it can yield before the beam. It was shown during the SAC project that weak
706 panel zones are seen to trend towards low levels of total plastic rotation [see FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e)].
707 In particular, test results show that above VPZ / Vye of about 1.10, tested subassemblies do not achieve very
708 much ductilityabout one half of the permissible performance parameters for panel zones assumed for
709 joints where the beam-to-column connections are made with conforming weld metal. Large panel zone
710 shear deformations associated with weak panel zones can instigate fracture of the complete-joint-
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-23

711 penetration (CJP) groove weld at the beam flange-to-column flange connection. This phenomenon is
712 caused by a flexural plastic hinge developing in the column flanges resulting in a strain concentration at the
713 corners of the panel zone, see Fig. C-C4.1. Research (Kim et al., 2015) has shown that the primary cause
714 that can increase the risk of CJP groove weld fracture is excessive column flange bending (or kinking) at
715 the corners of the panel zone, which was suggested to be a function of db / tcf.
716

A FT
717

20 R
718 Fig. C-C4.1. Weak panel zone behavior (Jin and El-Tawil, 2005).
719
720 20 D
The permissible performance parameters reflect this risk of weld fracture for weak panel zones. A 50%
1, IEW
721 reduction from factors found in the 2017 edition of ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE, 2017), and earlier editions, for
722 panel zones was applied to provide a lower-bound limit for pre-Northridge connections made with CJP
723 groove welds. This value reflects about the average of the total plastic rotation values shown in FEMA
724 355D for weak panel zones. The provisions permit a n increase in the permissible values when certain
AY V

725 beam-to-column connection concerns are satisfied. The permissible performance parameters for panel
M RE

726 zones when VPZ / Vye < 1.10, with welds conforming to the requirements of AISC 341, Section A3.4, are
727 twice that of those without conforming weld metal. The beam flange-to-column flange weld must also not
728 be located at the region of high strain demand. Equation C4-3 is slightly different than that proposed by
Kim et al. (2015) because of the chosen shear yield strain. Lastly, fracture of the beam flange-to-column
IC

729
730 flange weld is not a damage state of the panel zone itself, which are covered by the upper-bound limits. The
BL

731 provisions use panel zone performance as an indicator of the increased risk of weld fracture and, thus, the
732 potential consequences associated to damage of the beam-to-column connection. This mechanism may
733 govern over the acceptance criteria for the beam-to-column connection itself, including reduction for panel
PU

734 zone strength.

735
736 C5. BEAM AND COLUMN CONNECTIONS
737
738 1. General
739
740 Beam and column connections are to be classified as fully restrained (FR) or partially restrained (PR),
741 based on the strength and stiffness of the connection assembly. The beam-to-column connection types and
742 definitions contained in Tables C5.1 and C5.2, and the permissible performance parameters for these
743 connections, have been adopted from the referenced SAC documents, FEMA 350 (FEMA, 2000a), 351
744 (FEMA, 2000b), 355D (FEMA, 2000e), and 355F (FEMA, 2000f). The number of connections identified is
745 based on research that has shown behavior to be highly dependent on connection detailing. The design
746 professional should refer to those guidelines for more detailed descriptions of these connections, and a
747 methodology for determining permissible performance parameters for other connection types not included
748 in ASCE/SEI 41 or in these Provisions.
749
750 FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) identifies two types of connections—Type 1 (ductile) and Type 2 (brittle).
751 These definitions are not used in ASCE/SEI 41 or these Provisions because the distinction is reflected in
752 the permissible performance parameters for the connections.
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-24

753
754 Table C5.1 provides a list of common FR beam-to-column connections. The most common FR beam-to-
755 column connection used in steel moment frames since the late 1950s required the beam flange to be welded
756 to the column flange using complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds. Many of these connections have
757 fractured during recent earthquakes. The design professional is referred to FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) and
758 FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b).
759
760 The evaluation process for beam-to-column connections in the seismic force-resisting system by the design
761 professional should include a review of all welding inspection reports in order to verify compliance with
762 the benchmark codes and standards listed in ASCE/SEI 41, Table 3-2. In jurisdictions where the adopted
763 building code identified in ASCE/SEI 41, Table 3-2 may not have addressed the enhanced welding
764 requirements as identified, at the earliest, in the 1994 UBC Emergency Provisions as issued by
765 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in September/October 1994, the design professional
766 should use other verification techniques as evidence that CJP groove welds are in compliance with the
767 Seismic Provisions welding requirements. CJP groove welds satisfying the welding requirements in the
768 Seismic Provisions are notch-tough welds, otherwise the welds should be considered to have limited
769 capacity.

FT
770
771 Table C5.2 includes simple shear or pinned connections classified as PR connections. Although the gravity
772

A
load-carrying beams and columns are typically neglected in the seismic analysis of steel moment-frame
773 structures, SAC research contained in FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) indicates that these connections are

20 R
774 capable of contributing some stiffness through very large drift demands. Including gravity load-carrying
775
776 20 D
elements (subject to the modeling procedures and permissible performance parameters in this section) in
the mathematical model could be used by the design engineer to reduce the demands on the moment-frame
1, IEW
777 elements.
778
779 FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) provides an alternate methodology for determining column demands that has
780 not been adopted into ASCE/SEI 41 because that method ignores axial flexure interaction. Recent research
AY V

781 (Uang et al.) has shown the steel columns can behave differently when subjected to inelastic flexure
M RE

782 deformation while under axial force. Various factors account for the difference, such as compactness, axial
783 load ratio, aspect ratio, and slenderness. Columns that are not compact for high ductility, have high axial
784 force, or have high aspect ratios can experience torsional buckling without much inelastic flexural
IC

785 deformation. It is important to account for this behavior, as column buckling can lead to global building
786 collapse.
BL

787
788 Welded beam and column splices are treated as force-controlled actions. The strength of complete-joint-
penetration groove welded splices is taken as the strength of the base metal. For partial-joint-penetration
PU

789
790 (PJP) groove welded splices [Section C5.3b.3(b)], the strength of the splice is taken as the lesser of the
791 fracture of the weld, the fracture of the base metal over the welded portion or yielding of the section.
792 Column splices made with PJP groove welds have been shown in laboratory testing (Bruneau and Mahin,
793 1990) and in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (AIJ, 1995). The method to determine the fracture stress is based
794 on provisions found in NIST (2017). The fracture toughness parameters of Table C5.3 are taken as the
795 mean value correlated against the results of a Charpy V-notch test for the weld. Detailed discussion of the
796 correlation between KIC and Charpy V-notch can be found in NIST (2017). Typical pre-Northridge weld
797 tests show a mean of around 10 ft-lb. A value of 5 ft-lb is used as the default if no material testing is
798 performed in order to establish a lower-bound capacity.
799
800 2. Stiffness
801
802 2a. Beam-to-Column Connections
803
804 1. Fully Restrained Connections
805
806 FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) is a useful reference for information concerning nonlinear behavior of
807 various tested connection configurations.
808

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-25

809 2. Partially Restrained Connections

810
811 In the absence of more rational analysis, the equivalent rotational spring stiffness, K, may be
812 estimated by Equation C-C5-1.
M CE
813 K  (C-C5-1)
0.005
814 where
815 MCE = expected flexural strength of connection, kip-in. (N-mm), for the following PR
816 connections:

817 (a) PR connections encased in concrete, and where the connection resistance, MCE
818 includes the composite action provided by the concrete encasement;
819 (b) PR connections encased in masonry, where composite action cannot be developed
820 in the connection resistance, MCE; and
821 (c) bare steel PR connections (welded or with standard-sized holes).

FT
822 Where PR connections are encased in concrete but MCE is determined neglecting composite action, and
823 for all other PR connections not listed in the preceding provision, , the equivalent rotational spring

A
824 stiffness may be estimated by Equation C-C5-2.

20 R
M CE
K  (C-C5-2)
825

826
20 D 0.003
Composite action should be neglected in computing MCE in Equation C-C5-2.
1, IEW
827
828 2b. Column-to-Base Connections
829
AY V

830 In the absence of more rational analysis, the column base rotational spring can be approximated by
Equation C-C5-1.
M RE

831
832
833 3. Strength
834
IC

835 FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) provides guidance on determining the strength of various FR beam-to-column
836 connection configurations.
BL

837
838 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
PU

839
840 4a. Deformation-Controlled Actions
841
842 1. Beam-to-Column Connections
843
844 FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) provides information concerning nonlinear behavior of various tested
845 connection configurations and is the basis for all the values in Table C5.5. In most cases, the values
846 found in the table are based on equations predicting the median response minus a value 0.01 to account
847 for the beam yield.
848
849 The continuity plate modifier is based on recommendations in FEMA 355F (FEMA, 2000f) for
850 continuity plate detailing in relationship to column flange thickness.
851
852 The panel zone modifier is based on research in FEMA 355F (FEMA, 2000f) indicating that
853 connection performance is less ductile where the strength of the panel zone is either too great or too
854 small compared with the flexural strength of the beam. The panel zone strength range between 60%
855 and 90% of the beam strength is considered to provide balanced yielding between the beam and panel
856 zone, which results in more desirable performance.
857

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-26

858 The clear span-to-depth ratio modifier for linear permissible performance parameters reflects the
859 decreased apparent ductility that arises because of increased elastic rotations for longer beams. The
860 decreased plastic rotation capacity of beams with very small Lc/d ratios is not reflected directly.
861 However, the modifier for linear criteria was developed so that it would be appropriate for the
862 predominant case of Lc/d ratios greater than about 5.
863
864 The beam flange and web slenderness modifiers are based on the same modifications to beam
865 permissible performance parameters contained in Tables C2.1, C2.3, C3.1, C3.5, C4.1, C5.4, C5.6 and
866 C6.1. Though not an aspect of the connection itself, beam flange and web slenderness affect the
867 behavior of the connection assembly.
868
869 FR connections designed to promote yielding of the beam in the span, remote from the column face,
870 are discussed in FEMA 350 (FEMA, 2000a).

871 C7. BRACED-FRAME CONNECTIONS

872 1. General

FT
873 A wide variety of connection configurations can be used to join braces to framing members in
concentrically, eccentrically, and buckling-restrained braced frames. These connections may be formed

A
874
using an assemblage of several different components, such as gusset plates, shear plates, end plates, angles,

20 R
875
876 bolts, and welds to develop the required forces from a linear analysis, demands from a nonlinear analysis or
877
878
20 D
based on a capacity-based evaluation approach. For CBFs and BRBFs, the capacity-based evaluation forces
are calculated from the plastic capacity of the braces;
1, IEW
879
880 For CBFs and BRBFs, the tensile and compressive yielding (or compressive buckling for CBFs) braces are
881 expected to be the primary yield mechanism. For EBFs, the primary yield mechanism is shear or flexural
yielding of the link (either in flexure or shear, depending on the geometry; the reader is referred to the
AY V

882
883 Seismic Provisions for additional information). Though braces primarily resist axial forces, their end
M RE

884 connections may have axial, shear, and flexural demands induced by buckling and yielding of braces and/or
885 frame action. Previous provisions for seismic evaluation have classified all braced-frame connection
886 actions as force-controlled, but experimental and computational research conducted in the past decade has
IC

887 shown that connections in concentrically braced frames can develop secondary yielding mechanisms which
888 enhance system behavior and drift capacity. Specifically, yielding of the gusset plate or bolt-hole elongation
BL

889 are two secondary yield mechanism that are beneficial to both new and older CBF. In addition, the effects
890 of connections on system stiffness and strength are significant and therefore important for seismic
PU

891 performance evaluation, in particular that gusset-plate connections provide significant rotational restraint
892 and therefore should be modeled as fully restrained. The new provisions for braced-frame connections
893 reflect these advancements in the understanding of braced frame behavior and primarily address the
894 evaluation methods for brace end connections in concentrically braced frames.
895
896 Braced-frame connections are classified as either rotation-restrained or rotation-accommodating
897 connections based upon the concept for accommodation of brace buckling in Section F2.6c(3) of the
898 Seismic Provisions. Rotation-restrained connections prevent end rotation of the brace, as shown in Figure
899 C-C7.1a; in concentrically braced frames with buckling braces, a brace with rotation-restrained connections
900 develops three plastic hinges in the brace after buckling and thus, such a connection must resist the axial
901 and flexural demands resulting from this action. Rotation-accommodating connections are usually gusset-
902 plate or knife-plate connections where flexural yielding can occur, as shown in Figure. C-C7.1(b) and(c).
903 Such a connection is designed to resist only axial demands resulting from brace buckling but has rotational
904 capacity dependent upon detailing. In contrast, BRBFs transfer only axial demands (if rotation of the brace
905 end is sufficiently restrained) and therefore the gusset-plate connection must be capable of transferring the
906 full axial capacity of the BRB with yielding of the gusset plate permitted after the yield strength of the BRB
907 is achieved.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-27

908
909 (a) Rotation-restrained gusset-plate connection
910

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
911
912 (b) Rotation-accommodating (c) Rotation-accommodating
AY V

913 gusset-plate connection knife-plate connection

M RE

914 Fig. C-C7.1. Example rotation-restrained and rotation-accommodating connections.

IC

915 The evaluation of Whitmore width is required several times in this Section. The Whitmore width is
916 recommended to be defined by a 37.6 degree angle (a 3-4-5 triangle) in this section, because research has
BL

917 shown that this angle provides a more accurate estimate of the strength and resistance of the gusset plate
918 connection. In addition, this angle permits use and retentions of a larger number of existing connections
without excessive retrofit costs.
PU

919

920 2. Stiffness

921 The provisions for stiffness of braced-frame connections include the connection components and their
922 effects on adjacent members.
923
924 Braced-frame connection components are assumed to be relatively stiff due to their short lengths. A specific
925 rotational stiffness expression is provided in Eq. C7-1 for flexure (a deformation-controlled action) in
926 rotation-accommodating connections, including gusset plates and knife plates. This equation is based on a
927 37 Whitmore section for determining the gross area, and the average length method proposed by Thornton
928 (1984) for determining the length. The average unrestrained length of gusset plate, Lavg, should be taken as
929 the average of the unrestrained gusset plate lengths to the nearest adjacent member at the Whitmore width
930 ends (L1 and L3) and center (L2). If the Whitmore width end intersects the adjacent member, the
931 corresponding length should be taken as a negative value. For knife-plate connections, the average
932 unrestrained length should be the linear clearance in the knife plate as shown in Figure C7.2.
933

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-28

FT
934
935 Fig. C-C7.2. Whitmore section, and unrestrained lengths of gusset plate, for evaluation of gusset plate axial
936 and flexural actions.

A
937

20 R
938

20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE
IC

939
940 (a) Unrestrained length of knife plate (b) Effective width of knife plate is limited by plate width
BL

941 Fig. C-C7.3. Effective width and average unrestrained length for evaluation of axial and flexural actions of knife
PU

942 plates.

943
944 This rotational stiffness is considered in the direction of buckling, and the rotational stiffness in other
945 directions may be assumed to be stiff. When force-controlled actions in connections are modeled explicitly
946 as permitted by ASCE/SEI 41, appropriate stiffness can be determined from mechanics (e.g., using the
947 Whitmore section for gusset plates under axial load) or empirically-derived relationships (e.g., Lesik and
948 Kennedy (1990) for welded connections).
949
950 The provisions in Sections C7 and E1.2 recommend the use of a sophisticated model for prediction of the
951 inelastic behavior of concentrically braced frames. Such a model leads to much more accurate predictions
952 of braced frame forces and deformations as well as the deformation capacity of braces and gusset plate
953 connections. However, it is recognized the simplified models are often required. For simplified models,
954 pinned connections of the brace to the frame are required.Some documents suggest that fixed brace
955 connections are recommended, but this is a misinterpretation of published results. Fixed brace connections
956 result in significantly underestimating braced frame deformations and overestimating braced frame
957 resistance. Pinned end brace connections tend to result in conservative predictions of braced frame
958 behavior, and it also recommended that be used with phenomenological models of the inelastic behavior of
959 the brace, based on Section C3, to improve estimated performance.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-29

960
961 The contribution of braced-frame connections on system stiffness is significant, especially when the
962 connection restrains relative rotation between the beam and column. Notably, welded gusset plates,
963 including those which are welded directly to the flange of a beam or column and those which are indirectly
964 fastened through shear plates, end plates, or double angles, act like haunches to stiffen the beam-column
965 interface. This finding has been justified through numerical simulation of a large quantity of tests of
966 concentrically and buckling-restrained braced frames with welded gusset plates (Hsiao et al. 2012, Palmer
967 et al. 2016).
968
969 The connection model diagrammed in Figure C7.3 corresponds to that used by Hsiao et al. (2012), which
970 showed high fidelity compared to experimental results.

971 3. Strength

972 Explicit guidance for evaluating braced-frame connection strength is provided for several actions. For use
973 of the Whitmore section, a 37-degree projection angle may be used. For gusset-plate yielding in tension, the
974 30-degree projection angle has been shown to conservatively estimate available strength of gusset plates

FT
975 due to load redistribution upon yielding (Yam and Cheng 2002). Different effective length factors are given
976 for buckling of corner gusset plates (Fig. C-C7.4a) and beam midspan gusset plates (Fig. C-C7.4b); the
latter have larger effective length factors due to the reduced transverse restraint at this location.

A
977
978

20 R
20 D
1, IEW
AY V
M RE

979
(a) Corner gusset plate at brace-beam- (b) Beam midspan gusset plate with stiffeners at
IC

column intersection brace-beam intersection

BL

980 Fig. C-C7.4 Example gusset-plate connections.

Since braced frames are expected to sustain significant inelastic deformation demands in large earthquakes,
PU

981
982 bolt-hole deformation is a permitted yielding mechanism, provided that the bolt group under evaluation is
983 not the sole load transfer mechanism on the brace-to-frame load path. In Figure C-C7.5, the brace-to-gusset
984 plate bolt group does not meet this requirement, whereas the gusset-plate-to-shear-plate bolt group does.
985

986
987
988 Fig. C-C7.5. Example bolt groups in braced-frame connections.
989
990 The strength of welded joints formed with filler metal which does not meet demand critical requirements is
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-30

991 reduced to 75% of the nominal strength, which matches the 0.75 resistance factor for welded joints in the
992 Specification, because this failure mode is especially critical. This reduction does not apply to weld strength
993 computed to evaluate the deformation-controlled action of welded gusset-plate rotation. The expression for
994 gusset-plate rotation capacity was calibrated using the full nominal strength (not 75% of the nominal
995 strength).

996 4. Permissible Performance Parameters

997 These provisions introduce moment-rotation behavior and permissible performance parameters for rotation-
998 accommodating welded gusset-plate connections that do not meet the requirements of the Seismic
999 Provisions. The deformation (rotation) capacity of such connections has been determined from
1000 experimental testing of braced-frame subassemblages designed to simulate pre-1988 (where 1988
1001 corresponds to the implementation of modern steel seismic provisions) concentrically braced frame
1002 construction. Therefore, the gusset plates in these tests had relatively low rotational clearance and welds
1003 formed with electrode which does not meet demand critical requirements (Sen et al., 2017). Rotational
1004 capacity of these connections can be improved by providing greater rotational clearance and overlaying
1005 notch-tough weld metal to develop the tensile strength of the plate.

FT
1006
1007 The rotation parameters for these connections are converted to brace axial deformations for linear
procedures and nonlinear procedures in which brace buckling is not explicitly modeled assuming the brace

A
1008
1009 deflected shape is triangular and small-angle approximations are permissible.

20 R
1010
1011
1012 20 D
For the limit states of gusset-plate yielding in tension, bolt fracture in shear, and bearing and tear-out of bolt
holes in shear, demand-capacity ratios exceeding unity are permitted. The larger demand-capacity ratios are
1, IEW
1013 justified from experimental observations of numerous tests simulating pre-1988 concentrically braced
1014 frames (Sen et al. 2017). For bolt fracture in shear, the larger demand-capacity ratio is permitted only if the
1015 bolt fracture resistance is not significantly lower than that for bearing or tear-out of the corresponding
connected material. This provision is intended to promote bolt-hole elongation which precludes bolt
AY V

1016
1017 fracture.
M RE

1018
1019
IC
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-31

1020 CHAPTER D
1021 STRUCTURAL STEEL MOMENT FRAME SYSTEMS
1022 D1. GENERAL
1023 Steel moment frames are those frames that develop their seismic resistance through bending of steel beams
1024 and columns, and moment-resisting beam-to-column connections. A moment-resisting beam-to-column
1025 connection is one that is designed to develop moment resistance at the joint between the beam and the
1026 column and also designed to develop the shear resistance at the panel zone of the column. Beams and
1027 columns consist of either hot-rolled steel sections or built-up members from hot-rolled plates and sections.
1028 Built-up members are assembled by riveting, bolting, or welding. The components are either bare steel or
1029 steel with a nonstructural coating for protection from fire or corrosion, or both, or steel with either concrete
1030 or masonry encasement. The behavior of steel moment-resisting frames is generally dependent on the
1031 connection configuration and detailing.
1032 FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) identifies two types of connections—Type 1 (ductile) and Type 2 (brittle).
1033 These definitions are not used in ASCE/SEI 41 or these Provisions because the distinction is reflected in

FT
1034 the permissible performance parameters for the connections.
1035

A
1036 The most common FR beam-to-column connection used in steel moment frames since the late 1950s
1037 required the beam flange to be welded to the column flange using complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove

20 R
1038 welds. Many of these connections have fractured during recent earthquakes. The design professional is
1039
20 D
referred to FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) and FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b).
1, IEW
1040 The evaluation process for beam-to-column connections in the seismic force-resisting system by the design
1041 professional should include a review of all welding inspection reports in order to verify compliance with
1042 the benchmark codes and standards listed in ASCE/SEI 41, Table 3-2. In jurisdictions where the adopted
1043 building code identified in ASCE/SEI 41, Table 3-2 may not have addressed the enhanced welding
AY V

1044 requirements as identified, at the earliest, in the 1994 UBC Emergency Provisions as issued by
M RE

1045 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in September/October 1994, the design professional
1046 should use other verification techniques as evidence that CJP groove welds are in compliance with the
1047 Seismic Provisions welding requirements. CJP groove welds satisfying the welding requirements in the
1048
IC

Seismic Provisions are notch-tough welds, otherwise the welds should be considered to have limited
1049 capacity.
BL

1050 Table C5.2 includes simple shear or pinned connections classified as PR connections. Although the gravity
1051 load-carrying beams and columns are typically neglected in the seismic analysis of steel moment-frame
PU

1052 structures, SAC research contained in FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) indicates that these connections are
1053 capable of contributing some stiffness through very large drift demands. Including gravity load-carrying
1054 elements (subject to the modeling procedures and permissible performance parameters in this section) in
1055 the mathematical model could be used by the design engineer to reduce the demands on the moment-frame
1056 elements.
1057 D2. STIFFNESS
1058 1. Linear Analysis Procedures
1059 FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) is a useful reference for information concerning stiffness properties and
1060 modeling guidelines for PR connections.
1061 2. Nonlinear Static Procedure
1062 Equations C2-4 and C3-14 for computing the yield chord rotation, y, of a beam and a column, respectively,
1063 assume that the rotations at each end of the beam or column are equal (i.e., double-curvature bending with
1064 an inflection point at midspan). Consequently, plastic chord rotation, p, in Table C2.2 and Table C3.6
1065 assume that the plastic rotation at the ends of the beam or column are equal. It is common practice to
1066 assume that chord rotation and rotation in a plastic hinge are equivalent. However, this assumption can be
1067 violated when boundary conditions restrain the ability to essentially have equal end rotations.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-32

1068 Strain hardening should be considered for all components.

1069 Research performed by Newell and Uang (2006; 2008) indicated that elastic shear deformation can
1070 contribute significantly (10% – 50%) to the total rotation in stocky columns. The term (1+ ) in Equations
1071 C2-2 and C3-14 adjusts the yield chord rotation resulting from flexure to account for the effect of shear
1072 deformation on the elastic curve. This adjustment to the flexural stiffness can be found in textbooks
1073 covering advanced structural analysis. The criterion for the 5% variation on stiffness to address component-
1074 specific phenomena in Section D2.2 Item c, including shear deformations, was set as a reasonably low
1075 percentage based on engineering judgement. Shear deformations are typically included by default in
1076 commercial structural analysis software and the analyst has to manually turn this feature off.
1077 Equation C3-14 accounts for the change in rotation resulting from shear deformation but does not include
1078 the change in flexural stiffness from the axial load. Using the geometric stiffness matrix, the yield chord
1079 rotation can be determined as:

 P  L 1  
 y  M pe  1  
 Pye   2 P 
1080 6  b E  I  1   (C-D2-1)
strength 
 60 1    PE 

FT
stiffness

A
1081 where

20 R
 2 EI
1082
PE 
L2 20 D
in the plane of bending.
1, IEW
1083 This formula accounts for the local second-order effect (P-). Global second-order effects (P-) do not
1084 influence the flexural stiffness of a column. P is taken as negative when in compression. This adjustment is
1085 not included in Equation C3-14 because the column length required to get approximately a 15% reduction
AY V

1086 in rotational stiffness and limit PE to 0.5Pye (elastic case when b = 1.0) is much greater than conventional
M RE

1087 story heights and therefore can be ignored. Furthermore, local second-order effects are generally not
1088 explicitly included in structure analysis software packages. Typically, these software packages recommend
1089 subdividing columns to implicitly account for local second-order effects.
IC

1090 Equations C2-2 and C3-14 do not account for stiff end zones at the ends of the beam or column, nor do
1091 they address the condition when the anticipated plastic hinge locations are some distance away from the
BL

1092 ends of the beam or column. For example, a beam with strong panel zones (rigid) and plastic hinges located
1093 at the face of the column, the yield chord rotation can be determined from:
PU

M pe Lcf 1     Lcf 
1094 y    (C-D2-2)
6 EI  LCL 
1095 where
12 EI
1096  
L2cf GAs
1097 In this equation, Lcf is the distance between the column faces and LCL is the centerline length (joint to joint).
1098 Mpe is measured at the face of the column and the lengths of the rigid end zones at the ends of the beam are
1099 assumed equal. Therefore, the rotation at the end of the beam (at joint) and at the face of the column (start
1100 of end zone) are equal.
1101 A yield surface is the plastic capacity of a cross-section (Pye – Mpe interaction curve). The surface is based
1102 on full yielding of the cross-section and does not capture the effects of global member buckling on the
1103 capacity of the plastic hinge. As such, the cross-section elements have to be classified as compact for
1104 compression (i.e., capable of sustaining some inelastic strains beyond yield before local buckling occurs) in
1105 order to develop a fully yielded section. Information concerning the yield surface given by Equation 9-7
1106 can be found in the commentary provided in ANSI/AISC 360 (hereafter referred to as the Specification)
1107 Chapter H. This interaction curve was selected to be applicable to many column shapes. It can be
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-33

1108 conservative for specific actions (e.g., plastic hinging for bending about the weak axis of a wide-flange
1109 section). Furthermore, Equation 9-7 does not address the case when a column hinge is subjected to bi-axial
1110 bending. Other formulations for yield surfaces that can more effectively capture the plastic strength of a
1111 column hinge, including biaxial bending, can be found in SSRC (2010).
1112 Equations C3-1 and C3-2 are a linear approximation of the nonlinear yield surface. A nonlinear formulation
1113 for the yield surface is:

1114  1
 P 
MCE  M pce  M pe   (C-D2-3)
 Pye 
1115 The exponents ( and ) can be determined to provide the best fit to test results for plastic hinges
1116 developed in beam-columns. This type of formulation is useful since it aligns with column hinge models
1117 provided in commercially available structural analysis software packages.
1118 Panel zone strength is determined according to Specification Section J10.6(a) and is targeted at full
1119 yielding of the web, and doubler plates if any, and does not include post-yield strength contributions from
1120 thick column flanges as can be found in Specification Section J10.6(b). This is because the derivation of

FT
1121 these equations assumed a shear strain ductility of 4, which is beyond the deformation associated to full
1122 yielding of the web.

A
1123 3. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure

20 R
1124 See Commentary Section D2.2 for information regarding the yield surface for plastic hinges located in
1125
1126
20 D
columns. FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) is a useful reference for information concerning nonlinear behavior
of various tested connection configurations.
1, IEW
1127 The plastic rotation values in Table C3.6 for plastic hinges in a column are provided for columns subjected
1128 to axial compression force and for columns subjected to axial tension force. In most framing configurations,
1129 the column in compression will control the assessment; however, there may be a rare case where columns
AY V

1130 are subjected to sustained tension forces. It is conservative to apply the values provided for a column in
M RE

1131 compression to define the flexural backbone curve and permissible plastic rotations for the column in
1132 tension. For stocky columns having low width-to-thickness ratios with Pn ≈ Py, there will not be much
1133 difference between the responses (i.e., a symmetric hysteresis curve). Analytical research (Newell, 2008)
IC

1134 has suggested that deep, slender columns can have different responses.
1135
BL

The modeling parameters and evaluation criteria for plastic hinges in structural steel columns in
1136 compression outlined in Table C3.6 are based on research performed by Suzuki and Lignos (2015); Elkady
1137 and Lignos (2015); Ozkula and Uang (2015); Newell and Uang (2006); Brownlee (1994), MacRae (1989);
PU

1138 and EERC 75-11 (Popov, 1975). The equations in Table C3.6 provide predictions for the modeling
1139 parameters a and b shown in Figure C1.1 that have a 50% confidence level. For columns satisfying the
1140 requirements in Group 1 (align with highly ductile column in the Seismic Provisions), the standard error on
1141 a, b, and c is 0.0051, 0.0089, and 0.11, respectively. For columns exceeding the requirements of Group 2
1142 (align with moderately ductile columns in the Seismic Provisions), the standard error on a, b and c is
1143 0.0034, 0.0144 and 0.02, respectively.
1144 Some tests were done with constant axial loads maintained throughout the tests, while others had some
1145 initial axial load applied with a small amount of axial load cycled throughout the test. In the latter cases, the
1146 constant applied portion of the total axial load was used in the statistical analysis of the test results. As such,
1147 it is permitted to use the constant axial load in the column as the basis for the modeling parameters and
1148 permissible performance parameters. This constant axial load is typically taken as the gravity load, PG, in
1149 the column. This is a significant change from past versions of ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 9, which used the
1150 total axial force, P, as the basis for plastic rotation angles in columns—requiring the rotations to be updated
1151 every time step throughout the analysis.
1152 Testing has shown that plastic hinges in compact, stocky columns with constant axial load ratios not
1153 exceeding 0.6×Pye can have plastic deformation capacity. This capacity is a function of the member and
1154 section slenderness parameters described in Table C3.6. Alternatively, plastic hinges in stocky columns
1155 with constant axial load ratios exceeding 0.6×Pye have reduced plastic deformation capacity and are

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-34

1156 therefore not permitted to yield in these Provisions. Columns with gravity loads equal to or exceeding
1157 0.6×Pye are likely insufficient to support design gravity load combinations. Furthermore, some tests
1158 (Ozkula and Uang, 2015) have illustrated that member slenderness (L/ry) can influence the plastic
1159 deformation capacity at various axial load ratios in deep slender columns. Therefore, the column is not
1160 permitted to yield when any modeling parameter goes to zero.
1161 The modeling parameters and evaluation criteria for plastic hinges in structural steel columns in tension are
1162 the same as those provided in past versions of ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 9, and therefore remain a function of
1163 y given by Equation C3-14.
1164 The 3% strain hardening recommendation given in this section is generally conservative for plastic hinges
1165 that develop in structural steel columns. Research (Elkady and Lignos, 2015) has shown that larger strain
1166 hardening values are possible.
1167 In past versions of ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 9, columns in compression were classified as force-controlled for
1168 flexure when P/PCL > 0.5, and lower-bound material properties were used to compute action strengths, QCL.
1169 The change in column properties could not be implemented in the nonlinear procedures efficiently. New
1170 criteria in Table C3.6 for columns are based on column hinges being deformation-controlled for flexure
1171 (using expected material properties). At a specific axial force ratio, PG/Pye, (compression or tension) the

FT
1172 column hinges are not permitted to yield, in lieu of switching to a force-controlled mechanism. Column
1173 member stability verifications are included that use lower-bound material properties when required.

A
1174 D3. STRENGTH

20 R
1175
1176
20 D
FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) provides guidance on determining the strength of various FR beam-to-column
connection configurations.
1, IEW
1177 FEMA 355D (FEMA, 2000e) provides information concerning nonlinear behavior of various tested
1178 connection configurations.
1179 D4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
AY V

1180 1. General
M RE

1181 The strength and behavior of steel moment-resisting frames is typically governed by the connections. The
1182 design professional is urged to determine the controlling limit state of the system where selecting the
1183
IC

corresponding acceptance criterion.

1184 2. Linear Analysis Procedures
BL

1185 Columns. The m-factors for the linear procedures have been taken from the 2017 edition of ASCE/SEI 41,
1186 which are principally unchanged from those provided in the 2013 edition of ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE, 2013).
PU

1187 How the m-factors are applied in a structural assessment has been technically revised beginning with the
1188 2017 edition of ASCE/SEI 41, and with these Provisions, to be consistent with the intended use of the
1189 assessment procedures. So doing resulted in revising the axial load ratio to match that initially
1190 recommended in FEMA 273 (FEMA, 1997a) (which used P/Pye)—also see Section D2 for additional
1191 information. Using the original equations to capture P-M interaction effects on an m-factor result in m = 0
1192 at P/Pye = 0.6 (taken from the P-M interaction for the nonlinear procedures which results in p = 0 when
1193 P/Pye = 0.6). The equations for P-M interaction are revised in these Provisions so that they result in m = 1 at
1194 P/Pye = 0.6. P is kept as PUF as an estimate of the total expected axial force in the column since the
1195 effective m-factors were not significantly changed from those prescribed in FEMA 273 (FEMA, 1997a).
1196 Furthermore, the m-factors have not been calibrated to the permissible performance parameters for columns
1197 using the nonlinear procedures, which explicitly use PG/Pye to match that used in the regression analyses.
1198 Future efforts should evaluate calibrating the permissible performance parameters for the two assessment
1199 philosophies, which may result in the linear procedures similarly using PG / Pye.
1200 The width-to-thickness ratios of the cross-section elements in compression at axial load ratios of zero and
1201 0.2 were changed in ASCE/SEI 41-17 to match the compactness requirements in the Seismic Provisions.
1202 Though the terms are not used in ASCE/SEI 41 or these Provisions, the lower-bound curve matches that for
1203 “Highly Ductile” elements and the upper-bound curve matches those for “Moderately Ductile” elements
1204 (which matches the compactness requirements in the Specification). The axial load ratio of 0.2 was selected

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-35

1205 to align with other provisions (i.e., yield surface) and the permissible performance parameters in ASCE/SEI
1206 41-17. This is slightly different than using the axial load ratio of 0.125 in the Seismic Provisions based on
1207 plastic design theory. A linear change is adopted between and axial load ratios of zero and 0.2. In these
1208 Provisions, the compactness criteria is revised to match the Seismic Provisions, hd and md, to simplify the
1209 assessment and align the two standards, though the axial load used in the equations must match that
1210 specified in ASCE/SEI 41 (i.e., PUF or PG). This change does remove the connection at an axial load ratio
1211 of 0.2 that is prevalent in ASCE/SEI 41 and these Provisions. Future efforts to these Provisions, the Seismic
1212 Provisions, and the Specifications will aim to align the compactness requirements and permissible
1213 performance parameters. The compactness requirements are not applicable to cross-section elements in
1214 tension.
1215 The m-factors are chosen to be equal to a beam at an axial load ratio of 0.2. Uniaxial P-M interaction
1216 reduces these values to m = 1 at PUF / Pye = 0.6. This is slightly different than past versions of ASCE/SEI 41,
1217 Chapter 9, but is consistent in that a column hinge does not yield when m = 1 in lieu of shifting to a force-
1218 controlled component.
1219 The axial load basis of P / Pye is maintained to be consistent among all parameters.
1220

FT
Many older frames may have steel columns with reinforced concrete encasement for fire protection. The
1221 composite stiffness and resistance of these members may be significant, but the composite resistance may
1222 be lost at larger deformations if the concrete encasement does not have adequate confinement. It may

A
1223 frequently be advantageous to use this increased resistance, but the increase must be justified by analysis of

20 R
1224 the composite section, including full consideration of the ductility and inelastic deformation capacity of the
1225
1226
1227
member.
20 D
1, IEW
FR connections designed to promote yielding of the beam in the span, remote from the column face, are
1228 discussed in FEMA 350 (FEMA, 2000a).
1229 3. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures
AY V

1230 Columns. Similar to the linear procedures, flexural hinges in columns are checked for yielding (section
M RE

1231 strength) and the column members are checked for stability (member strength). Section strength is verified
1232 by evaluating the permissible performance parameters so that the rotation demand does not exceed the
1233 permissible plastic rotation for a given Performance Level. Member strength is verified using the same P-M
1234
IC

interaction equations applicable for the linear procedures. An elastic column can generally be checked
1235 neglecting the moment contribution so that P / PCL ≤ 1.0 is verified. However, testing (Ozkula, Harris, and
1236
BL

Uang, 2017) has shown that deep, slender wide-flange columns are susceptible to out-of-plane buckling
1237 modes during cyclic motions after plastic hinges have developed at both ends. If the column has developed
1238 flexural plastic hinges, the maximum moment demand will commonly be at the hinge and follow the yield
PU

1239 surface (adjusted for stain hardening) where Mpce changes as P changes. Depending on the denominator in
1240 the moment term, this case may result in P / PCL being compared to some number less than unity. The
1241 lateral-torsional buckling strength in the denominator should also include modification by Cb as defined in
1242 Specification Chapter F. When computing PCL it is generally acceptable to use an effective length factor of
1243 unity unless a smaller value is justified by analysis.
1244
1245 Many older frames may have steel columns with reinforced concrete encasement for fire protection. The
1246 composite stiffness and resistance of these members may be significant, but the composite resistance may
1247 be lost at larger deformations if the concrete encasement does not have adequate confinement. It may
1248 frequently be advantageous to use this increased resistance, but the increase must be justified by analysis of
1249 the composite section, including full consideration of the ductility and inelastic deformation capacity of the
1250 member.
1251

1252 D5. RETROFIT MEASURES

1253 The following measures, which are presented in greater detail in FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b), may be
1254 effective in retrofitting moment frames with FR connections:
1255 (1) Add steel braces to one or more bays of each story to form concentrically or eccentrically braced
1256 frames to increase the stiffness of the frames. The attributes and design criteria for braced frames
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-36

1257 are specified in Chapter E. The location of added braces should be selected so as to not
1258 substantially increase horizontal torsion in the system;
1259 (2) Add concrete or masonry shear walls or infill walls to one or more bays of each story to increase
1260 the stiffness and strength of the structure. The attributes and design requirements of concrete and
1261 masonry shear walls are specified in ASCE/SEI 41 Sections 10.7 and 11.3, respectively. The
1262 attributes and design requirements of concrete and masonry infills are specified in ASCE/SEI 41
1263 Sections 10.6 and 11.4, respectively. The location of added walls should be selected so as not to
1264 substantially increase horizontal torsion in the system;
1265 (3) Attach new steel frames to the exterior of the building. The retrofitted structure should be checked
1266 for the effects of the change in the distribution of stiffness, the seismic load path, and the
1267 connections between the new and existing frames. The retrofit scheme of attaching new steel
1268 frames to the exterior of the building has been used in the past and has been shown to be effective
1269 under certain conditions. This retrofit approach may be structurally efficient, but it changes the
1270 architectural appearance of the building. The advantage is that the retrofit may take place without
1271 disrupting the use of the building;
1272 (4) Reinforce moment-resisting connections to force plastic hinge locations in the beam material away
1273 from the joint region to reduce the stresses in the welded connection, thereby reducing the

FT
1274 possibility of brittle fractures. This scheme should not be used if the welded connections in the
1275 existing structure did not use weld material of sufficient toughness to avoid fracture at stresses
1276

A
lower than yield or where strain-hardening at the new hinge location would produce larger stresses
1277 than the existing ones at the weld. The retrofit measures to reinforce selected moment-resisting

20 R
1278 connections should consist of providing horizontal cover plates, vertical stiffeners, or haunches.
1279
1280 20 D
Removal of beam material to force the plastic hinge into the beam and away from the joint region
can also be used subject to the above restrictions. Guidance on the design of these modifications of
1, IEW
1281 FR moment connections is discussed in FEMA 351;
1282 (5) Add energy dissipation devices as specified in ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter 15; and
1283 (6) Increase the strength and stiffness of existing frames by welding steel plates or shapes to selected
1284 members.
AY V

1285
M RE

The retrofit measures for moment frames with FR connections may be effective for moment frames with
1286 PR connections as well. Moment frames with PR connections are often too flexible to provide adequate
1287 seismic performance. Adding concentric or eccentric bracing or reinforced concrete or masonry infills may
1288 be a cost-effective retrofit measure.
IC

1289 PR connections are usually components that are weak, flexible, or both. Connections may be retrofitted by
BL

1290 replacing rivets with high-strength bolts, adding weldment to supplement rivets or bolts, or welding
1291 stiffeners to connection pieces or combinations of these measures. Refer to FEMA 351 (FEMA, 2000b) for
1292 additional information concerning the retrofit of moment frames with PR connections.
PU

1293
1294

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-37

1295 CHAPTER E
1296 STRUCTURAL STEEL BRACED FRAME
1297 AND STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALL REQUIREMENTS
1298 Steel braced frames act as vertical trusses where the columns are the chords and the beams and braces are
1299 the web members. In standard braced frame configurations, connections between braces, and beams and
1300 columns are typically made with gusset plates. Gusset plates at brace-to-beam or brace-to-column
1301 intersections can have a significant effect on the rigidity of beam-to-column connections, even for simple
1302 framing connections, when the size of the gusset plate is reasonably large. Column bases connected to
1303 braces at grade level are mainly subjected to large axial and shear loads, with small secondary moments in
1304 the elastic state.
1305
1306 Components can be bare steel, steel with a nonstructural coating for fire protection, or steel with concrete
1307 or masonry encasement.
1308
1309 The use of concentrically braced frames (CBF) as seismic force-resisting systems has a long history as

FT
1310 compared with the more recent use of buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF). Seismic design and
1311 detailing of CBF have evolved over time, and code requirements have been continually updated. Modern

A
1312 seismic design codes for structural steel such as the Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2016) place great attention
1313

20 R
on section compactness, component slenderness, and seismic detailing of connections to ensure ductile
1314 behavior and acceptable performance. Thus, when modeling inelastic deformation capacities for nonductile
1315
1316 20 D
connections and components of older existing frames, the modeling parameters that are applicable to
ductile detailing and compact sections as presented in this section should be used with caution. In lieu of
1, IEW
1317 experiments, engineering judgment and application of approved methods using engineering mechanics are
1318 permitted with proper prediction of inelastic deformation or consideration of expected nonductile behavior.
1319 E1. CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (CBF)
AY V

1320 1. General
M RE

1321 The connection response, as well as beam and column behavior have a strong influence on the seismic
1322 performance of CBFs. In contrast to the intended performance of BRBF described in Section E3, the
IC

1323 braces in CBF are likely to buckle both globally and locally in compression under large seismic demands,
1324 resulting in strength reduction and stiffness degradation of framing members and increasing inelastic
BL

1325 demands for their connections after buckling. This behavior could lead to early fracture of the section at the
1326 buckled area and in the gusset plate.
PU

1327 Prior provisions of ASCE/SEI 41 for CBFs have had largely remained unchanged from the original
1328 documentation provided in FEMA 273. Over the last two decades there has been significant research
1329 investigating the seismic performance of braced frame systems (as opposed to individual components). This
1330 work has yielded significant advances in nonlinear structural modeling, design for performance objectives
1331 and ductility, and evaluation and retrofit of existing (pre-1988) CBFs. To reflect this work, this document
1332 includes a significant reorganization of provisions included in this document.
1333
1334 The Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) provisions of Section F2 of the Seismic Provisions use
1335 the principles of capacity-based design to ensure that the inelastic capacity of the brace controls the seismic
1336 capacity of the frame. As a result, Section C7 is not required for SCBFs meeting all requirements of Section
1337 F2 of Seismic Provisions, however Sections E1 and C3 are required for those systems.
1338
1339 Different configurations of braced frames are used, and Figs. C-E1-1 and C-E1-2 define configurations and
1340 components discussed here.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-38

1341
1342
1343 Fig. C-E1.1. Typical CBF components.
1344
1345

A FT
20 R
1346
1347 (a) Diagonal
20 D
(b) X-bracing (c) Multistory (d) Inverted V-bracing (e) V-bracing
1, IEW
1348 bracing X-bracing (Chevron)
1349
1350 Fig. C-E1.2. Typical CBF configurations.
AY V

1351
M RE

1352 2. Stiffness
1353 2a. Linear Analysis Procedures
IC

1354 The fixity of the column base significantly influences the response of braced frames (particularly shorter
1355 buildings), and it is relatively difficult to achieve a fully restrained column base connection. Therefore, a
BL

1356 pinned column base is required unless it is clearly shown by analysis that a partially restrained or fully
1357 restrained model is appropriate
PU

1358 2b. Nonlinear Procedures

1359 Much research has taken place in recent years to better understand and quantify the nonlinear behavior of
1360 CBF. Useful references for information regarding nonlinear load-deformation behavior of braces and
1361 related connections include ATC 72-1 (PEER, 2010), Aviram et al. (2010), Davaran and Far (2009),
1362 Fahnestock and Stoakes (2009), Fell et al. (2009; 2010), FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997), FEMA P440A
1363 (FEMA, 2009), Jordan (2010), Liu and Astaneh-Asl (2000), NIST (2010a; 2010b), Richards (2009),
1364 Roeder et al. (2004; 2009a; 2009b; 2011b), Uriz and Mahin (2008), Stoakes and Fahnestock (2010) Yang
1365 (2006), Yang et al. (2008), Yoo (2006), Yoo et al. (2008; 2009), and Zhang et al. (2011).
1366
1367 Recent research indicates the possibility of allowing desirable controlled yielding to occur at multiple
1368 locations (i.e., in gussets and beams, in addition to braces) to increase the inelastic deformation capacity of
1369 special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) (Roeder et al., 2011b) and adding flexural strength and
1370 rigidity at the beam-to-column connections for nonductile CBF can increase the redundancy and improve
1371 the performance against collapse after the buckled brace fractures.
1372
1373 Nonlinear analysis is increasingly used in seismic design, evaluation, and retrofit. Considerable research on
1374 the inelastic dynamic analysis has been completed, and this analytical research has been compared to
1375 experimentally measured behavior to establish the accuracy and reliability of the generalized force-

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-39

1376 displacement and fiber based line element nonlinear procedures. The computer program must have
1377 capability of simulating nonlinearity due to material behavior and geometric effects of the system (i.e., P-
1378 Delta) and individual members (i.e., buckling and P-delta). The deformation demands and forces of all
1379 elements, connections, and components must evaluated using the appropriate limits provided in Sections
1380 C3 and C7. The following guidance has been verified to provide reasonable accuracy in past research
1381 studies.
1382
1383 Analysis with Generalized Force-Deformation Relation. Brace and brace end-connection behavior may be
1384 represented by the generalized force-deformation relation in Fig. C3.1. Different force-deformation
1385 relations are used to represent the tensile and compressive brace behavior consistent with Table C3.4 and
1386 the requirements of Section C3.2. The brace response envelope must have deteriorated compressive
1387 resistance after brace buckling and no capacity after brace fracture. The resistance of beams, columns and
1388 beam-column connections should be directly modeled in accordance with Sections C3, C4, C5 and C7 and
1389 consider their nonlinear behavior, as appropriate. Beam-column connections where a gusset plate is
1390 attached to both the beam and column should be considered fully or partially restrained consistent with
1391 Section C5. When the generalized force-deformation relations are used to represent the brace axial
1392 behavior, the brace flexural stiffness should be neglected. This method has been shown to provide

FT
1393 acceptable comparison between computed behavior and measured experimental results.
1394

A
1395 Analysis with Fiber-Based Line Elements. Nonlinear, fiber-based beam-column elements (also referred to

20 R
1396 a line elements) can be used to configure the CBF system, including members and connections, with the
following constraints.
1397
1398 20 D
(a) Each brace should have an initial displacement in the direction of buckling in the shape of a sine curve
1, IEW
1399
1400 with amplitude Lee/500 where Lee is the member end-to-end length to provide accurate representation of
1401 buckling force.
1402
AY V

1403 (b) Braces should be simulated with 10 or more nonlinear elements along the brace length. Beams and
columns should be simulated with at least 4 nonlinear elements along the member length for displacement-
M RE

1404
1405 based element formulations and at least one nonlinear element along the member length for force-based
1406 element formulations. Each element should have at least 4 integration points along the length.
IC
BL
PU

1407
1408 (a) HSS tube (b) Weak-axis bending (c) Strong-axis bending
1409 Fig. C-E1.3. Schematic layout of fibers for HSS and hot-rolled cross sections.
1410
1411 (c) The cross section of all members should be segmented with at least 4 fiber layers through the cross-
1412 sectional dimensions with stress variation due to flexure and at least 2 fiber layers through the cross-
1413 sectional dimensions with no variation in variation in normal stresses resulting from flexural, as shown in
1414 Fig. C-E1.3
1415
1416 (d) The constitutive models of all steel elements must represent bilinear inelastic behavior with kinematic
1417 hardening, and include nonlinear geometric effects. The use of advanced constitutive relationships capable
1418 of simulating the Bauschinger effect is permitted. Expected or measured yield stress of the steel should be
1419 used, and 1% strain hardening should be employed unless additional information is available to justify a
1420 different value.
1421
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-40

1422 (e) For the beam-column-gusset connections, rigid offsets for braces, beams, and columns at gusset-plate
1423 connections should be employed in accordance with Section C7.2c and as shown in Fig. C-E1.4 to simulate
1424 the enhanced connection stiffness. Nonlinear rotational springs with constitutive behavior described in part
1425 (d) above and stiffness and strength based upon the gusset plate and end clearance of the brace should be
1426 employed as described in Section C7 as shown in Fig. C-E1.4.
1427
1428 (f) All other connections (e.g., beam-to-column and column base) should be modeled as FR or PR
1429 connections as appropriate for the structure.
1430

A FT
20 R
20 D
1, IEW
1431
1432 Fig. C-E1.4. Rotational connection model of corner connections.
AY V

1433
1434 This method has been shown to provide a very accurate comparison between computed behavior and
M RE

1435 measured experimental results. Models have been developed to simulate brace or connection fracture and to
1436 analysis system response after these initial fractures. While this clearly the most accurate and economically
1437 efficient method currently available for predicting nonlinear braced frame response, it will not predict local
IC

1438 buckling and other similar local deformations. Higher resolution finite element models are required to
1439 capture these local response effects.
BL

1440
1441 Analysis with Lumped Plasticity Line or Concentrated Spring Elements. Lumped plasticity elements can
PU

1442 include nonlinear beam-column elements with lumped plasticity and/or nonlinear axial elements with
1443 force-displacement envelopes. All analyses should include nonlinearities geometric effects. Force-
1444 deformation relations should be based upon engineering mechanics and should be used to represent the
1445 tensile and compressive brace behavior including deterioration of resistance after brace buckling. The brace
1446 response envelope should have no capacity after brace fracture. The resistance of beams, columns and
1447 beam-column connections should be directly modeled in accordance with Sections C3, C4, C5 and C7 and
1448 consider their nonlinear behavior as appropriate. The accuracy of this method has not been documented and
1449 the user will need to verify the accuracy and reliability of this method before using it in practice
1450
1451 Inelastic behavior of the column base subjected to net tension should be considered in the modeling for
1452 potential rocking mode of the entire braced frame.
1453
1454 Modeling inelastic behavior of column splice connections should be considered for flexural, axial, and
1455 shear deformations based on connection details properly judged as FR or PR connections unless complete-
1456 joint-penetration groove welds are used to join columns at the splice or the splice is strengthened to the full
1457 strength of the adjacent weaker column. When testing data are not available, modeling parameters and
1458 permissible performance parameters for PR moment-frame connections in Table C5.7 or Table C5.7M may
1459 be used for modeling of the splice with proper consideration of axial load effects on reduction of flexural
1460 deformation and strength.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-41

1461
1462 Compared with the braces of BRBF, the braces in CBF buckle in compression, both globally and locally,
1463 under large seismic action. This buckling may result in significant cyclic stiffness and strength degradation
1464 and in-cycle strength degradation of axial load resistance. These cyclic degradation behaviors should be
1465 modeled for braces and other components having similar behavior using the nonlinear dynamic procedure.
1466 3. Strength
1467 To reflect the complexity of CBF response, these provisions have new sections that provide tables and
1468 expressions to quantify the connection resistance and deformability. Section C7 allows limited yielding in
1469 some connections, because experimental research has shown that permitting yield mechanisms in the
1470 connection does not adversely affect seismic performance and in some cases may improve it.
1471 SCBFdesigned to requirements of Section F2 of the Seismic Provisions have connections that are designed
1472 to fully develop brace behavior, and therefore these frames only need to meet Section C3.
1473 It is recommended that the effect of axial force on flexural strength or axial force-moment interaction in
1474 either uniaxial or biaxial bending be modeled for columns, braces, and beams that are subjected to large
1475 axial forces.
1476

FT
1477 It is recommended that the effect of cyclic strength degradation caused by the cyclic nature of loading on
1478 the force–deformation capacity boundary or backbone curve at the plastic hinges be considered as

A
1479 prescribed in Sections C3 and C7. In lieu of derivation from experiments, the percentage reduction for

20 R
1480 strength capacity may be modeled in accordance with ATC 72-1, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for
1481 Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2010), a report resulting from the Tall Building
1482
1483
Initiative. 20 D
1, IEW
1484 A multitude of research studies have been performed to better understand the behavior of CBF connections:
1485 Aviram et al. (2010), Jordan (2010), Liu and Astaneh-Asl (2000), Roeder et al. (2004; 2011b), Stoakes and
1486 Fahnestock (2010), Wijesundara et al. (2010), and Zhang et al. (2011). Connection strength and behavior
AY V

1487 have a dramatic effect on the performance of concentrically braced frames, particularly in frames that do
1488
M RE

not comply with the modern detailing requirements presented in the Seismic Provisions. Therefore, it is
1489 recommended that connections be explicitly modeled in a proper way to simulate realistic characteristics of
1490 their full range of strengths. In lieu of derivation from tests, approved methods using engineering
1491 mechanics are permitted to model the strengths. For models where connection strength has not been
IC

1492 explicitly considered, refer to Table C3.2 footnotes for additional reduction factors on the component
1493
BL

permissible performance parameters.

1494

1495
PU

For nonlinear dynamic procedures, the hysteretic load and deformation paths should not cross beyond the
1496 force-displacement capacity boundary or backbone curve. The characteristics of the hysteretic loops should
1497 be realistically represented in the modeling if exact cyclic degradation slopes vary for different components
1498 and are hard to predict.
1499
1500 FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) is a useful reference for information concerning hysteretic behavior of braced
1501 frame components. Additional useful references for information regarding nonlinear load-deformation
1502 behavior of braces include those in Commentary Section E2.2b; in particular, FEMA P440A (FEMA, 2009).
1503
1504 HSS braces with local slenderness exceeding high ductility requirements can be economically retrofit by
1505 filling the tube with concrete, which will delay fracture of the brace and improve the seismic performance.
1506 If this retrofit approach is used, it is important that the concrete fill does not engage or make contact with
1507 connections at each end of the brace. Under these conditions, the forces that that brace can develop are
1508 limited by force transferred by the steel brace connection. If the concrete fill engages or makes contact
1509 with the end connection of the brace, the brace will develop significantly larger forces because the end
1510 connections will permit development of the larger force. This larger force reduces the benefit of the
1511 concrete fill, and often resulted in fracture of the brace at lower deformation demands.
1512 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
1513 4a. General
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-42

1514 The forces computed by linear methods are limited by the computed resistance (demand-capacity ratio of 1)
1515 and m-factors. The permissible deformations computed using nonlinear analysis are limited by values in the
1516 tables provided in Sections C3 and C7. For SCBFs designed to meet all requirements of Section F2 of the
1517 Seismic Provisions, the m-values and deformation limits are all provided in Section C3. For all other CBFs,
1518 the m-values and deformation limits are the smallest value for each given element provided in Sections C3
1519 and C7..
1520 5. Retrofit Measures
1521 The retrofit measures for moment frames with FR connections described in Commentary Section D5 may
1522 be effective for braced frames. Other modifications, which may be effective, include replacement or
1523 modification of connections that are insufficient in strength and/or ductility, and encasement of columns in
1524 concrete to improve their performance.
1525
1526 The retrofit measures for FR moment frames described in Section C9.4.2.5 of ASCE/SEI 41 may be
1527 effective for braced frames. Other modifications which may be effective include replacement or
1528 modification of connections that are insufficient in strength and/or ductility and encasement of columns in
1529 concrete to improve their performance. Research has shown that the following are effective retrofit

FT
1530 measures for CBFs.
1531
(a) Filling a locally slender brace with concrete. The concrete fill should be separated from the gusset plate

A
1532
1533 to prevent contact and an increase in brace force. Normal weight concrete should be employed unless

20 R
1534 the use of light weight concrete is experimentally evaluated for that application.
1535
1536 20 D
(b) To mitigate gusset-plate-interface weld fractures, the brace should be replaced to permit brace-end
rotation and/or the gusset-plate-interface welds should be strengthened by overlaying demand critical
1, IEW
1537 filler metal to develop the required resistance in Section C7.
1538 (c) For welded continuous shear plate with inadequate strength, reinforcing the shear plate with bolts can
1539 substantially improve deformation capacity and resistance.
1540 (d) In-plane buckling retrofits can be beneficial to retain a large gusset plate. In this retrofit approach, the
AY V

1541 design must consider the impact of connection rotational stiffness on buckling direction or employ a
M RE

1542 brace cross section with radii of gyration that favor IP buckling.
1543 (e) Another retrofit option is to replace the buckling brace with a BRB. These retrofits should have a beam
1544 and column web thickness that is at least 75% of the gusset plate thickness to mitigate yielding and
IC

1545 local deformation in the beam and column adjacent to the connection.
1546
BL

1547 As noted in E1.1, some brace configurations are not suitable for seismic response. In these cases (such as a
1548 K-brace or knee-brace systems), modification of bracing configurations is required. In other case, it may be
1549
PU

advisable to convert a chevron (V-type or inverted V-type) bracing system to a two-story X-brace
1550 configuration or zipper-braced frame configuration, in particular if the beam supporting the chevron (or
1551 inverted chevron) braces is significantly undersized for the unbalanced brace forces. In addition, new steel
1552 braced frames added for retrofit purposes (i.e., adding new CBFs into an existing system) should be
1553 modeled and evaluated per the requirements of this standard and should satisfy modern detailing
1554 requirements set forth in the Seismic Provisions. FEMA 547 (2007) contains useful information pertaining
1555 to the retrofit of existing buildings.
1556
1557 Modification of bracing configurations (i.e., converting V-type or inverted V-type bracing to two-story X-
1558 brace configuration) may be beneficial for improved seismic performance (Yoo et al., 2009; Yang et al.,
1559 2008), however, changes to these provisions relax many of the difficulties currently encountered with
1560 chevron of V-braced frames.
1561
1562 New steel braced frames added for retrofit purposes (i.e., adding new CBF into an existing system) should
1563 be modeled and evaluated per the requirements ASCE/SEI 41 and these Provisions and should satisfy
1564 modern detailing requirements set forth in the Seismic Provisions. FEMA 547 (FEMA, 2007) contains
1565 useful information pertaining to the retrofit of existing buildings. Additional references discussing the
1566 retrofit of CBF include Rai and Goel (2003), Di Sarno et al. (2006), and Roeder et al. (2009b).
1567

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-43

1568 E2. ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (EBF)

1569 2. Stiffness
1570 2c. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure
1571 FEMA 274 (FEMA, 1997) is a useful reference for guidelines on modeling the link beams and information
1572 regarding the hysteretic behavior of eccentrically braced frame (EBF) components.
1573 The elastic shear stiffness, Ke, of the link beam may be determined from Equation C-E2-1, unless justified
1574 otherwise by analysis.
12 EI
1575 Ke  3 (C-E2-1)
Lv 1   
1576 where
1577 As = effective shear area of the cross section, in.2 (mm2)
1578 [for a wide-flange section in strong-axis bending, As = db tw]
1579 E = modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa)
1580 G = shear modulus of elasticity of steel = 11,200 ksi (77 200 MPa)
1581 moment of inertia about the axis of bending, in.4 (mm4)

FT
I =
1582
1583

A
1584 db = depth of beam, in. (mm)

20 R
1585 tw = thickness of web, in. (mm)

1586 
12 EI
Lv 2GAs
20 D (C-E2-2)
1, IEW
1587 3. Strength
1588 Equation C3-4 includes axial load effects. Where required for linear procedures, each action capacity, Pye
AY V

1589 and 0.6FyeAs, should be multiplied by . The resulting value of the interaction equations is the expected
M RE

1590 shear strength, QCE, of the component. This value provides direct incorporation into ASCE/SEI 41
1591 Equation 7-36.
1592 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
IC

1593 The permissible performance parameters for complete-joint-penetration groove welded beam-to-column
BL

1594 connections are based on testing of typical moment-frame proportioning and span ratios.
1595 5. Retrofit Measures
PU

1596 The retrofit measures described in Commentary Section D5 for moment frames with FR connections and in
1597 Commentary Section E1 for concentrically braced frames may be effective for many beams, columns and
1598 braces. Cover plates and/or stiffeners may be effective in retrofitting these components. The strength of the
1599 link may be increased by adding cover plates to the beam flanges, adding doubler plates or stiffeners to the
1600 web, or changing the brace configuration.
1601 E3. BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACED FRAMES (BRBF)
1602 1. General
1603 Buckling-restrained braces (BRB) are expected to withstand significant inelastic deformations without
1604 strength or stiffness degradation when subjected to earthquake loading. It is recommended that evaluation
1605 of buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF) consider the rotational stiffness and deformation limitations
1606 of the gusset plate connections in series with the BRB elements. This limitation would mean that a typical
1607 bay would have beams, columns, BRB elements, and FR or PR moment-frame connections modeled at the
1608 end of the braces. Section E3 focuses on the modeling and permissible performance parameters of the BRB
1609 elements; refer to Chapter D and Section E1 for moment-frame and concentrically braced frame provisions,
1610 respectively.
1611 3. Strength

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-44

1612 The compressive overstrength arises because of friction and confinement that are caused by the interaction
1613 of the core and the casing system.
1614 5. Retrofit Measures
1615 Potential retrofit measures for existing BRBF components would be to add additional seismic force-
1616 resisting elements to reduce the demand on the existing BRBF system or to replace the BRB element. As
1617 the BRBF system is a rather new system, an example of where this may be needed would be in upgrading
1618 an existing building to a higher Performance Level than it was originally intended, for example, from Life
1619 Safety to Immediate Occupancy.
1620 E4. STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS
1621 1. General
1622 A steel plate shear wall system develops its seismic resistance through shear stress in the wall. Although
1623 structures with steel plate shear walls are not common, they have been used to retrofit a few essential
1624 structures where Immediate Occupancy and Operational Performance Levels are required after a large
1625 earthquake. Because of their stiffness, the steel plate shear walls attract much of the seismic shear. It is
1626 essential that the new load paths be carefully established.

FT
1627
1628 The provisions for steel plate walls in ASCE/SEI 41 and in these Provisions assume that the steel plates are

A
1629 sufficiently stiffened to prevent buckling. The design professional is referred to Timler (2000) and the

20 R
1630 Seismic Provisions for additional information regarding the behavior and design of steel plate shear walls.
1631

1632
2. Stiffness
20 D
1, IEW
2c. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure
1633 This procedure is not recommended in most cases.
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-45

1634 CHAPTER F

1635 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES WITH INFILLS

1636 F1. GENERAL
1637 In many cases, infill walls are unreinforced or lightly reinforced, and their strength and ductility may be
1638 inadequate. Before the loss of the wall, the steel frame adds confining pressure to the wall and enhances its
1639 resistance. The actual effective forces on the steel frame components, however, are probably minimal. As
1640 the frame components attempt to develop force, they deform and the stiffer concrete or masonry
1641 components on the far side of the member pick up load. However, beam end connections, column splices,
1642 and steel frame connections at the foundation should be investigated for forces caused by interaction with
1643 the infill similar to procedures specified for concrete frames in ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter 10.
1644
1645 The stiffness and resistance provided by concrete and/or masonry infills may be much larger than the
1646 stiffness of the steel frame acting alone with or without composite actions. Gaps or incomplete contact
1647 between the steel frame and the infill may negate some or all of this stiffness. These gaps may be between

FT
1648 the wall and columns of the frame or between the wall and the top beam enclosing the frame. Different
1649 strength and stiffness conditions must be expected with different discontinuity types and locations.

A
1650 Therefore, the presence of any gaps or discontinuities between the infill walls and the frame must be

20 R
1651 determined and considered in the design and retrofit process. The resistance provided by infill walls may
1652 also be included if proper evaluation of the connection and interaction between the wall and the frame is
1653
1654
20 D
made and if the strength, ductility, and properties of the wall are properly included.
1, IEW
1655 The stiffness provided by infill masonry walls is excluded from the design and retrofit process unless
1656 integral action between the steel frame and the wall is verified. If complete or partial interaction between
1657 the wall and frame is verified, the stiffness is increased accordingly. The seismic performance of
AY V

1658 unconfined masonry walls is far inferior to that of confined masonry walls; therefore, the resistance of the
1659 attached wall can be used only if strong evidence as to its strength, ductility, and interaction with the steel
M RE

1660 frame is provided.

1661
1662
IC

1663
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-46

1664
CHAPTER G

1665 DIAPHRAGMS
1666 The steel deck diaphragm provisions provided for the 2020 edition of this Specification represent an expansion from
1667 available steel deck diaphragm provisions in ASCE/SEI 41 (2017). In previous editions, if connections controlled
1668 the strength of a steel deck diaphragm, then the diaphragm had to be considered force-controlled. As a result, due to
1669 the form of current strength calculations essentially all steel deck diaphragms, with or without concrete fill, had to
1670 be considered force-controlled in ASCE/SEI 41 (2017). This is not consistent with the available experimental data,
1671 which demonstrates that ductility exists in these diaphragm systems. To that end, all existing experimental data was
1672 gathered and assessed to provide acceptance criteria and nonlinear modeling parameters for steel deck diaphragms,
1673 as detailed in Wei et al. (2019). Provisions were developed such that the engineer could consider steel deck
1674 diaphragms as either deformation-controlled, or force-controlled – depending on whether or not ductility in the
1675 diaphragm is being considered.
1676
1677 Reliable provisions exists for determining the stiffness and strength of bare steel deck diaphragms and steel deck

FT
1678 diaphragms with concrete fill in AISI S310. However, the current scope of AISI S310 (2015) is limited to concrete
1679 fill with only temperature and shrinkage reinforcing steel and headed steel shear studs. If the steel reinforcement in
the concrete fill is intended to provide an elevated shear capacity, or provide performance as a chord or collector,

A
1680
1681 then AISI S310 (2015) is silent and other standards only provide limited guidance. As a result, these provisions have

20 R
1682 been separated into three cases: G1 for bare steel deck diaphragms, G2 for steel deck diaphragms with reinforced
1683
1684 20 D
concrete structural topping that are outside the scope of the stiffness and strength provisions of AISI S310 (2015),
and G3 for steel deck diaphragms with unreinforced structural topping and nonstructural topping, which are within
1, IEW
1685 scope for AISI S310 (2015). The provisions for G2 follow the design philosophy of AISC 341 (2016). Research and
1686 standardization work is underway to increase the scope of AISI S310, therefore it is anticipated that the provisions of
1687 G2 and G3 will evolve in the future.
AY V

1688
M RE

1689 G1. BARE STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS

1690 1. General
IC

1691 Bare steel deck diaphragms are usually used for roofs of buildings where there are very light gravity loads
1692 other than support of roofing materials. Load transfer to frame elements that act as chords or collectors in
BL

1693 modern frames is through arc spot or arc seam welds, screws or power actuated fasteners. Load transfer
1694 between deck sheets in modern frames is through screws or arc spot welds in nestable deck, or through
1695
PU

proprietary clinching, top arc seam welds, or button punching, in interlocking deck.
1696 Additionally, these provisions could be extrapolated to roof deck that is similar to steel deck, i.e. through
1697 fastened roof deck.
1698

1699 2. Stiffness
1700 Provisions for calculating stiffness are available in ANSI/AISI S310. Tabulated stiffness values may be
1701 found from the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual (SDI 2015) or from manufacturer catalogs.
1702 A database of tested bare deck diaphragms has also been assembled and may be used for determining
1703 stiffness (SDII database cite).
1704 3. Strength
1705 Provisions for finding the nominal strength of bare steel deck diaphragms are available in ANSI/AISI S310.
1706 Provisions are provided for limit states associated with the connectors and those with the panel. Connector
1707 limit states are more common in conventional configurations. Tabulated strength values may be found from
1708 the Diaphragm Design Manual (SDI 2015) or from manufacturer catalogs. Appropriate nominal connection
1709 capacity calculations are embedded within the ANSI/AISI S310 provisions and generally rely on the
1710 connection provisions of ANSI/AISI S100.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-47

1711 The mean strength for the generalized force-deformation response of bare steel deck diaphragms was
1712 established by equating the energy under an elastic perfectly-plastic model up to the deformation consistent
1713 with 80% post-peak capacity with the actual tested force-deformation response in a cantilever diaphragm
1714 test, as detailed in Wei et al. 2019. The expected strength (mean resistance) was determined by comparing
1715 the established mean strength with the provisions of ANSI/AISI S310 (Wei et al. 2019). The lower-bound
1716 (mean minus one standard deviation) strength was determined in a similar manner, with judgment applied
1717 when the data was sparse.
1718 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
1719 Prior to 2020 connection based limit states were considered as force-controlled only. In 2020, based on an
1720 evaluation of the ductility and hysteretic response of bare steel deck diaphragms in full-scale cantilever
1721 tests this position was updated and permissible performance parameters were provided to allow engineers
1722 to treat these limit states as deformation-controlled. (Wei et al. 2019). The permissible performance
1723 parameters and modeling parameters are broken down by limit state and the connector configuration. In
1724 most cases available cantilever testing did not cycle far enough to provide a reliable prediction of the
1725 residual strength, modeling parameter c. Connector testing under large cycles and judgment was used to
1726 develop these final values – in general power actuated fasteners provide substantial residual capacity while

FT
1727 welds do not. See Wei et al. (2019) or the complete development.
1728 The m-factors for panel buckling are based on ASCE/SEI 41-17 and reflect some engineering judgment as

A
1729 this mode of failure is not common in testing. Modeling parameters for the panel buckling limit state are

20 R
1730 not provided as it is not a common mode of deformation; however, it is possible to develop them from
1731 engineering mechanics.
1732 20 D
The fastener spacing limits, provided in Tables G1.1 and G1.2, were initially incorporated into the initial
1, IEW
1733 edition of the SDI Diaphragm Design Manual (DDM01) (SDI, 1981) and all subsequent editions.
1734
1735 The limit in ,
1736 and DDM01 (SDI, 1981) through DDM04 (SDI, 2015), is based on practical deck
AY V

1737 installation limitations. This limit prevents having a deck side seam from having an unconnected length of
M RE

1738 over 5 feet, thus limiting the relative vertical movement of an unconnected side seam when an installer
1739 might stand on one deck panel and not the adjacent panel. The majority of the initial testing by Luttrell, as
1740 found in DDM01, was conducted without any side-lap fasteners (for welded diaphragms, 89 of 107
IC

1741 assemblies had NO side-lap attachment on spans up to 6'-08".) This testing, along with subsequent testing,
1742 validates the analytic method used for calculating diaphragm strength and stiffness that forms the basis of
BL

1743 AISI S310-16. This testing validates the ability to predict the performance of diaphragms with varied
1744 numbers of side-lap fasteners, from highly connected to no side-lap connections.
PU

1745 5. Retrofit Measures

1746 The stiffness and strength provisions of AISI S310 are sensitive to deck profile and gauge, structural
1747 fastener type and spacing, and sidelap fastener type and spacing. All of these are potential parameters to be
1748 considered in a retrofit. The following measures may be effective in retrofitting bare steel deck diaphragms:
1749 (1) Adding steel headed stud anchors for transfer of load to chord or collector elements;
1750 (2) Strengthening existing chords or collectors by the addition of new steel plates to existing frame
1751 components;
1752 (3) Adding puddle welds or other shear connectors at panel perimeters;
1753 (4) Adding diagonal steel bracing to form a horizontal truss to supplement diaphragm strength;
1754 (5) Adding structural concrete; and
1755 (6) Adding connections between deck and supporting members.
1756 G2. STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL TOPPING
1757 1. General
1758 Steel deck diaphragms with reinforced structural concrete topping are used on floors and roofs of buildings
1759 where there are substantial gravity loads and significant shear demands that require reinforcing in the
1760 structural concrete topping beyond that for temperature and shrinkage steel. ANSI/AISI S310 and Section
1761 G3 provide solutions for lightly reinforced (welded wire fabric, or only temperature and shrinkage steel
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-48

1762 reinforcing) and plain structural concrete topping, this section applies to fully reinforced (composite) slabs.
1763 Overall the approach that is adopted, consistent with Seismic Provisions Section D1.J.5 is to treat the
1764 reinforced concrete above the top of the deck flute as a reinforced slab and use ACI 318 (alternatively
1765 testing is also permitted). This approach is also adopted for cast-in-place concrete diaphragms in ASCE/SEI
1766 41 Chapter 10.
1767 3. Strength
1768 In addition to considering the strength of the reinforced concrete slab above the deck in shear the strength
1769 of the composite steel headed stud or steel channel anchors must be considered. Engineers are directed to
1770 Specification Chapter I for this calculation.
1771 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
1772 All permissible performance parameters and modeling parameters are aligned with ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter
1773 10 for cast-in-place concrete diaphragms. In turn, these provisions are based on reinforced concrete shear
1774 walls.
1775 5. Retrofit Measures

FT
1776 See the commentary discussion in ASCE/SEI 41, Chapter 10, and Section G3of this Commentary.
1777 G3. STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS WITH UNREINFORCED STRUCTURAL CONCRETE TOPPING

A
1778 OR LIGHTWEIGHT INSULATING CONCRETE

20 R
1779 1. General
1780
1781
20 D
Steel deck diaphragms with structural concrete topping are frequently used on floors and roofs of buildings
1, IEW
where there are typical floor gravity loads. Concrete has structural properties that significantly add to
1782 diaphragm stiffness and strength. Concrete reinforcing is minimal, ranging from light welded wire
1783 reinforcement grids to a regular grid of small reinforcing bars (size No. 3 or No. 4). Plain concrete is also
1784 acceptable. Steel decking is typically composed of corrugated sheet steel from 22 gauge down to 14 gauge.
AY V

1785 Rib depths vary from 1½ to 3 in. (38 to 75 mm) in most cases. Attachment of the steel deck to the steel
M RE

1786 frame is usually accomplished using arc spot or arc seam welds at 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) on center. For
1787 partially composite behavior, steel headed stud anchors are welded to the frame before the concrete is cast.
1788 Steel deck diaphragms with nonstructural fill are typically used on roofs of buildings where there are small
IC

1789 gravity loads. The fill, such as lightweight insulating concrete (e.g., vermiculite), usually does not have
1790 usable structural properties and is most often unreinforced. Consideration of any composite action must be
BL

1791 done with caution after extensive investigation of field conditions. Material properties, force transfer
1792 mechanisms, and other similar factors must be verified to include such composite action.
PU

1793 Load transfer to frame elements that act as chords or collectors in modern frames is usually through puddle
1794 welds or headed studs. In older construction where the frame is encased for fire protection, load transfer is
1795 made through the concrete-to-steel bond.
1796 2. Stiffness
1797 Provisions for calculating stiffness are available in ANSI/AISI S310. Tabulated stiffness values may be
1798 found from the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual (SDI 2015) or from manufacturer catalogs.
1799 A small database of tested filled deck diaphragms has also been assembled and may be used for
1800 determining stiffness (O’Brien et al. 2017a,b).
1801 3. Strength
1802 Provisions for finding the nominal strength of filled steel deck diaphragms are available in ANSI/AISI
1803 S310. Tabulated strength values may be found from the Diaphragm Design Manual (SDI 2015) or from
1804 manufacturer catalogs. The mean strength for the generalized force-deformation response of steel deck
1805 diaphragms with concrete fill was established by equating the energy under an elastic perfectly-plastic
1806 model up to the deformation consistent with 80% post-peak capacity with the actual tested force-
1807 deformation response in a cantilever diaphragm test, as detailed in Wei et al. 2019. The expected strength
1808 (mean resistance) was determined by comparing the established mean strength with the provisions of
1809 ANSI/AISI S310 (Wei et al. 2019). The lower-bound (mean minus one standard deviation) strength was
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-49

1810 determined in a similar manner, with judgment applied when the data was sparse.
1811 4. Permissible Performance Parameters
1812 Prior to 2020 filled deck were considered as force-controlled only. In 2020, based on an evaluation of the
1813 ductility and hysteretic response of filled steel deck diaphragms in full-scale cantilever tests this position
1814 was updated and permissible performance parameters were provided to allow engineers to treat these limit
1815 states as deformation-controlled. (Wei et al. 2019). Cracking in the concrete fill initiates at small strains and
1816 thus (a) the IO permissible performance parameters are relatively small and (b) the relatively large m-
1817 factors and permissible performance parameters must be understood in the context of these small strains.
1818 5. Retrofit Measures
1819 The following measures may be effective in retrofitting steel deck diaphragms with structural concrete
1820 topping:
1821 (1) Adding steel headed stud anchors to transfer forces to chord or collector elements;
1822 (2) Strengthening existing chords or collectors by the addition of new steel plates to existing frame
1823 components, or attaching new plates directly to the slab by embedded bolts or epoxy; and
1824 (3) Adding diagonal steel bracing to supplement diaphragm strength.

FT
1825 The following measures may be effective in retrofitting steel deck diaphragms with nonstructural topping:

A
1826 (1) Adding steel headed stud anchors to transfer forces to chord or collector elements;

20 R
1827 (2) Strengthening existing chords or collectors by the addition of new steel plates to existing frame
1828 components, or attaching new plates directly to the slab by embedded bolts or epoxy;
1829
1830
20 D
(3) Adding puddle welds at panel perimeters of diaphragms;
(4) Adding diagonal steel bracing to supplement diaphragm strength; and
1, IEW
1831 (5) Replacing nonstructural fill with structural concrete.
1832 G4. HORIZONTAL STEEL BRACING (STEEL TRUSS DIAPHRAGMS)
AY V

1833 1. General
M RE

1834 Steel truss diaphragm elements are typically found in conjunction with vertical framing systems that are of
1835 structural steel framing. Steel truss diaphragms are more common in long span situations, such as special
1836 roof structures for arenas, exposition halls, auditoriums, and industrial buildings. Diaphragms with large
IC

1837 span-to-depth ratios may often be stiffened by the addition of steel trusses. The addition of steel trusses for
1838 diaphragms identified to be deficient may provide a proper method of enhancement.
BL

1839
1840 Steel truss diaphragms may be made up of any of the various structural shapes. Often, the truss chord
1841
PU

elements consist of wide-flange shapes that also function as floor beams to support the gravity loads of the
1842 floor. For lightly loaded conditions, such as industrial steel deck roofs without concrete fill, the diagonal
1843 members may consist of threaded rod elements, which are assumed to act only in tension. For steel truss
1844 diaphragms with large loads, diagonal elements may consist of wide-flange members, hollow structural
1845 sections, or other structural elements that act in both tension and compression. Truss element connections
1846 are generally concentric to provide the maximum lateral stiffness and ensure that the truss members act
1847 under pure axial load. These connections are generally similar to those of gravity load-resisting trusses.
1848 5. Retrofit Measures
1849 The following measures may be effective in retrofitting steel truss diaphragms:
1850 (1) Diagonal components may be added to form additional horizontal trusses as a method of
1851 strengthening a weak existing diaphragm;
1852 (2) Existing chord components may be strengthened by the addition of steel headed stud anchors to
1853 enhance composite action;
1854 (3) Existing steel truss components may be strengthened by methods specified for braced steel frame
1855 members;
1856 (4) Truss connections may be strengthened by the addition of welds, new or enhanced plates, and
1857 bolts; and
1858 (5) Structural concrete fill may be added to act in combination with steel truss diaphragms after

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-50

1859 verifying the effects of the added weight of concrete fill.

1860 G5. ARCHAIC DIAPHRAGMSSHALLOW BRICK ARCHES SPANNING BETWEEN
1861 STRUCTURAL STEEL FLOOR BEAMS
1862 1. General
1863 Archaic steel diaphragm elements are almost always found in older steel buildings in conjunction with
1864 vertical systems of structural steel framing. The masonry arches were typically covered with a very low
1865 strength concrete fill, usually unreinforced. In many instances, various archaic diaphragm systems were
1866 patented by contractors.
1867 2. Stiffness
1868 2b. Nonlinear Analysis Procedures
1869 Inelastic properties of archaic diaphragms should be chosen with caution for seismic analyses. For the case
1870 of archaic diaphragms, inelastic models similar to those of archaic timber diaphragms in unreinforced
1871 masonry buildings may be appropriate. Inelastic deformation limits of archaic diaphragms should be lower
1872 than those prescribed for a concrete-filled diaphragm.

FT
1873 5. Retrofit Measures

A
1874 The following measures may be effective in retrofitting archaic diaphragms:

20 R
1875 (1) Adding diagonal members to form a horizontal truss;
1876
1877
1878
(2)
action; and 20 D
Strengthening existing steel members by adding steel headed stud anchors to enhance composite
1, IEW
(3) Removing weak concrete fill and replacing it with a structural concrete topping slab after verifying
1879 the effects of the added weight of concrete fill.
1880 G6. CHORD AND COLLECTOR ELEMENTS
AY V

1881 1. General
M RE

1882 Where reinforcing acts as the chord or collector, load transfer occurs through bond between the reinforcing
1883 bars and the concrete.
1884
IC

5. Retrofit Measures
1885 The following measures may be effective in retrofitting chord and collector elements:
BL

1886 (1) Strengthen the connection between diaphragms and chords or collectors;
1887 (2) Strengthen steel chords or collectors with steel plates attached directly to the slab with embedded
PU

1888 bolts or epoxy, and strengthen slab chords or collectors with added reinforcing bars; and
1889 (3) Add chord members.
1890

1891

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-51

1892 CHAPTER H

1893 STRUCTURAL STEEL PILE FOUNDATIONS

1894 H1. GENERAL
1895 Steel piles of wide-flange shape (H-piles) or hollow structural sections or pipes, with and without concrete
1896 infills, can be used to support foundation loads. Piles driven in groups should have a pile cap to transfer
1897 loads from the superstructure to the piles.
1898 In poor soils or soils subject to liquefaction, bending of the piles may be the only dependable resistance to
1899 lateral loads.
1900 H4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
1901 Nonlinear methods require the use of specialized software for determining actions on the piles. FEMA 274
1902 (FEMA, 1997) is a useful reference for additional information.
1903 H5. RETROFIT MEASURES

FT
1904 Retrofit measures for concrete pile caps are specified in ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter 10. Criteria for the retrofit
1905

A
of foundation elements are specified in ASCE/SEI 41 Chapter 8. One method that may be effective in
1906 retrofitting steel pile foundations consists of driving additional piles near existing groups and then adding a

20 R
1907 new pile cap to increase stiffness and strength of the pile foundation. Monolithic behavior gained by
1908
1909 20 D
connecting the new and old pile caps with epoxied dowels may also be effective. In most cases, it is not
possible to retrofit the existing piles.
1, IEW
1910
AY V
M RE
IC
BL
PU

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-52

1911 CHAPTER I

1912 CAST AND WROUGHT IRON

1913 I1. GENERAL

1914 Cast iron is a very hard and brittle material with a high carbon content that can resist compression forces
1915 very well but can be highly susceptible to tensile failures. Cast iron in a structural system was used
1916 primarily in compression, mostly for columns in framing systems and occasionally as compression
1917 elements acting compositely with wrought iron tension elements in built-up beams. The earliest all-metal
1918 framing systems used wrought iron beams supported by cast iron columns, which evolved over time to
1919 systems constructed entirely of wrought iron, and then to systems constructed entirely of structural steel
1920 (Paulson, 2013; Brockenbrough and Schuster, 2018).

1921 I3. STRENGTH OF CAST AND WROUGHT IRON

FT
1922 Cast Iron

A
20 R
1923 The type of cast iron covered by Section I3.1 is historical gray cast iron as manufactured during the 1800s
1924 and early 1900s. The formula provided in these Provisions for determination of lower-bound compression
1925
1926
20 D
strength of a cast iron column is adapted from a formula given in Paulson, Tide and Meinheit (1996), which
provides an analysis of historical compression tests from the 1880s and 1890s on full-size cast iron
1, IEW
1927 columns.

1928 2. Wrought Iron

AY V
M RE

1929 The type of wrought iron covered by Section I3.2 is historical wrought iron as manufactured between
1930 approximately 1870 and 1920.
IC

1931 I4. PERMISSIBLE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR CAST AND WROUGHT IRON
BL

1932 1. Cast Iron

PU

1933 In regard to resisting the deformations at the selected Seismic Hazard Level, net tensile stresses from axial-
1934 flexure interaction should not develop in the cast iron component. This is because historical cast iron
1935 members do not reliably resist tensile stresses (Paulson, 2013). The performance of cast iron under cyclic
1936 tensile stresses is not well-documented but is believed to be extremely poor because of the metallurgical
1937 nature of historical cast iron.

1938 2. Wrought Iron

1939 In contrast to cast iron, wrought iron components can sustain tensile stresses and achieve yield strength.
1940 However, inelastic cyclic performance of wrought iron components is not well-documented, and as a result,
1941 wrought iron components are classified as force-controlled components in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41
1942 Section 7.5.1.2.

1943

1944

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-53

1945
REFERENCES
1946
1947

1948 AISC (1998), Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, 2nd Ed., American Institute of
1949 Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill.
1950 AISC (2016), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341, American Institute of Steel
1951 Construction, Chicago, Ill.
1952 AISI S100-16 (2016). “North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members.”
1953 American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, District of Columbia.
1954 AISI S310-16 (2016), “North American Standard for the Design of Profiled Steel Diaphragm Panels.” American
1955 Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, District of Columbia.
1956 ASCE (2013), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil
1957 Engineers, Reston, Va.
1958 ASCE (2016), Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7,

FT
1959 American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
1960 ASCE (2017), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-17, American Society of Civil

A
1961 Engineers, Reston, Va.

20 R
1962 ASTM (2017), Standard Practice for Calculating Sample Size to Estimate, With Specified Precision, the Average
1963
20 D
for a Characteristic of a Lot or Process, ASTM E122-17, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
1, IEW
1964 ASTM (2014), Standard Test Method for Rockwell and Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials by Portable
1965 Hardness Testers, ASTM E110-14, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
1966 ASTM (2018), Standard Test Method for Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials, ASTM E10-18, ASTM
AY V

1967 International, West Conshohocken, Pa.ASTM (2019), Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical
1968 Testing of Steel Products, ASTM A370-19e1, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
M RE

1969 Aviram, A., Stojadinovic, B., and Der Kiureghian, A. (2010), “Performance and Reliability of Exposed Column
1970 Base Plate Connections for Steel Moment-Resisting Frames,” Rep. No. PEER 107, Pacific Earthquake
IC

1971 Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.

1972 AWS (1963), Code for Welding in Building Construction, AWS D1.0-63, American Welding Society, New York,
BL

1973 N.Y.
AWS (1985), Welding of Cast Iron, American Welding Society Committee on Welding of Iron Castings (Committee
PU

1974
1975 D11), Miami, Fla.
1976 AWS (2010), Guide for Strengthening and Repairing Existing Structures, AWS D1.7/D1.7M:2010, American
1977 Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
1978 AWS (2015), Structural Welding Code—Steel, AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015, American Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
1979 AWS (2020), Standard Welding Terms and Definitions, Including Terms for Adhesive Bonding, Brazing, Soldering,
1980 Thermal Cutting, and Thermal Spraying, AWS A3.0M/A3.0:2010, American Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
1981 Brockenbrough, R.L. and Schuster, J. (2018), Rehabilitation and Retrofit, Design Guide 15, 2nd Ed., AISC, Chicago,
1982 Ill.
1983 Brownlee, S, (1994), Axial Load and Plate Slenderness effects on the Inelastic Behavior of Structural Steel Beam-
1984 Columns, Master of Engineering Report, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
1985 Davaran, A. and Far, N.E. (2009), “An Inelastic Model for Low Cycle Fatigue Prediction in Steel Braces,” Journal
1986 of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 65, pp. 523–530.
1987 Di Sarno, L., Elnashai, A. S., and Nethercot, D.A. (2006), “Seismic Retrofitting of Framed Structures with Stainless
1988 Steel,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, pp. 93–104.
1989 Fahnestock, L.A. and Stoakes, C.D. (2009), “Cyclic Behavior and Performance of Beam-Column Connections in
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-54

1990 Concentrically Braced Frames,” Structures Congress 2009: Don’t Mess with Structural Engineers: Expanding
1991 Our Role, L. Griffiths, T. Helwig, M. Waggoner, and M. Hoit, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1–8.
1992 FEMA (1997a), “NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA 273, prepared by the
1993 Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District of
1994 Columbia.
1995 FEMA (1997), “NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA 274,
1996 prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
1997 District of Columbia.
1998 FEMA (2000a), “Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for Moment-Resisting Steel Frame Structures,” FEMA
1999 350, prepared by the SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2000 Washington, District of Columbia.
2001 FEMA (2000b), “Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Moment Resisting
2002 Steel Structures,” FEMA 351, prepared by the SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal
2003 Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District of Columbia.
FEMA (2000c), “Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame

FT
2004
2005 Buildings,” FEMA 352, prepared by SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency
2006 Management Agency, Washington, District of Columbia.

A
FEMA (2000d), “Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame

20 R
2007
2008 Construction for Seismic Applications,” FEMA 353, prepared by the SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture
2009
20 D
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District of Colulmbia.
FEMA (2000e), “State of Art Report on Connection Performance,” FEMA 355D, prepared by the SEAOC, ATC,
1, IEW
2010
2011 and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District of Columbia.
2012 FEMA (2000f), “State of Art Report on Performance Prediction and Evaluation,” FEMA 355F, prepared by the
AY V

2013 SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District
2014 of Columbia.
M RE

2015 FEMA (2007), “Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,” FEMA 547, Federal Emergency
2016 Management Agency, Washington, District of Columbia.
IC

2017 FEMA (2009), “The Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response,” FEMA P-440A, prepared
2018 by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, District of
BL

2019 Columbia.
2020 Elkady, A. and Lignos, D. (2015), “Analytical Investigation of the Cyclic Behavior and Plastic Hinge Formation in
PU

2021 Deep Wide-Flange Steel Beam-Columns", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 10971118,.
2022 Fell, B. V., Kanvinde, A. M., Deierlein, G. G., and Myers, A. T. (2009), “Experimental Investigation of Inelastic
2023 Cyclic Buckling and Fracture Of Steel Braces,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 1932.
2024 Fell, B.V., Kanvinde, A.M., and Deierlein, G.G. (2010), “Large-Scale Testing and Simulation of Earthquake
2025 Induced Ultra Low Cycle Fatigue in Bracing Members Subjected to Cyclic Inelastic Buckling,” Rep. No. 172,
2026 John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
2027 University, Stanford, CA.
2028 Fell, B.V., Kanvinde, A.M., Deierlein, G.G., and Myers, A.T. (2009), “Experimental Investigation of Inelastic
2029 Cyclic Buckling and Fracture of Steel Braces,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 19–22.
2030 Han, S.W., Kim, W.T., and Foutch, D.A. (2007), “Seismic Behavior of HSS Bracing Members According to Width-
2031 to-Thickness Ratio Under Symmetric Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp.
2032 264273.
2033
2034 Hsiao, P.C., Lehman, D.E., and Roeder, C.W. (2012), “Improved Analytical Model for Special Concentrically
2035 Braced Frames,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 73, pp. 8094.
2036
2037 Ibarra, S. M. (2018), “Experimental Investigation of Chevron Special Concentrically Braced Frames with a Yielding
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-55

2038 Beam Plastic Mechanism,” Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
2039 ICC (2015a), International Building Code, International Code Council, Washington, District of Columbia.
2040 ICC (2015b), International Existing Building Code, International Code Council, Washington, District of Columbia.
2041 Jin, J. and El-Tawil, S. (2005), “Evaluation of FEMA-350 Seismic Provisions for Steel Panel Zones,” Journal of
2042 Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp. 250-258
2043 Jordan, Santos, Jr. (2010), “Finite Element Simulations of Exposed Column Base Plate Connections Subjected to
2044 Axial Compression and Flexure,” Masters Thesis, University of California, Davis, Calif.
2045 Kim, D.-W., Blaney, C., and Uang, C.-M. (2015), “Panel Zone Deformation Capacity as Affected by Weld Fracture
2046 at Column Kinking,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 2746.
2047 Lee, S. (1988), “Seismic Behavior Of Hollow And Concrete-Filled Square Tubular Bracing Members,” Report
2048 UMCE 87-11, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
2049
2050 Lesik, D.F. and Kennedy, D.J.L. (1990), “Ultimate Strength of Fillet Welded Connections Loaded in Plane,”
2051 Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 5567.

FT
2052 Liu, J. and Astaneh-Asl, A. (2000), “Experimental and Analytical Studies of the Cyclic Behavior of Simple
2053 Connections in Steel Frame Buildings,” Rep. No. UCB/CEE-STEEL-2000/01, Department of Civil and

A
2054 Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.

20 R
2055 Liu, Z. and Goel, S.C. (1988), “Cyclic Load Behavior of Concrete-Filled Tubular Braces,” Journal of Structural
2056
20 D
Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 7, pp. 1,4881,506.
1, IEW
2057 MacRae, G. (1989), The Seismic Response of Steel Frames, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand.
2058 Miller, D.K. (2017), Welded Connections—A Primer for Engineers, Design Guide 21, 2nd Ed., AISC, Chicago, Ill.
2059 Newell, J., and Uang, C.-M. (2006), “Cyclic behavior of steel columns with combined high axial load and drift
AY V

2060 demand,” Rep. No. SSRP-06/22, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La
M RE

2061 Jolla, Calif.

2062 Newell, J.D. and Uang, C.-M. (2008), “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Wide-flange Columns Subjected to Large Drift,”
2063 Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, pp. 1,334–1,342.
IC

2064 NIST (2010a), “Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design,” NIST GCR 10-917-
BL

2065 9, National Institute of Standards and Technology, prepared by NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for NIST,
2066 Gaithersburg, Md.
PU

2067 NIST (2010b), “Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design, Supporting
2068 Documentation,” NIST GCR 10-917-9, National Institute of Standards and Technology, prepared by NEHRP
2069 Consultants Joint Venture for NIST, Gaithersburg, Md.
2070 NIST (2017), “Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Design of Buildings, Part IIaSteel Moment
2071 Frames,” NIST GCR 17-917-46v2, National Institute of Standards and Technology, prepared by Applied
2072 Technology Council for NIST, Gaithersburg, Md.
2073 O’Brien, P., Eatherton, M.R., and Easterling, W.S. (2017a), “Characterizing the Load-Deformation Behavior of
2074 Steel Deck Diaphragms Using Past Test Data,” Cold-Formed Steel Reseaerch Consortium Report Series, CFSRC
2075 Report R-2017-02, 2017..
2076 O’Brien, P., Eatherton, M.R., Easterling, W.S., Schafer, B.W., and Hajjar, J.F. (2017b), “Steel Deck Diaphragm
2077 Test Database v1.0,” Cold-Formed Steel Reseaerch Consortium Report Series, CFSRC Report R-2017-03, 2017.
2078 Ozkula, G. and Uang, C.-M. (2015), “Seismic Behavior and Design of Deep, Slender Wide-Flange Structural Steel
2079 Beam-Column Members,” Report No. SSRP-15/06, Department of Structural Engineering, University of
2080 California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
2081 Ozkula, G, Harris, J., and Uang, C-M. (2017), “Observations from Cyclic Tests on Deep, Wide-Flange Beam-
2082 Columns,” Engineering Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 4559.

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-56

2083 Palmer, K.D., Roeder, C.W., and Lehman, D.E. (2016), “Connection Design Recommendations For Improved BRBF
2084 Performance,” Engineering Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 2945.
2085 Paulson, C. (2013), “Modern Strength Assessment of Historical Structural Metals,” APT Bulletin: Journal of
2086 Preservation Technology, Association for Preservation Technology International, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 1729.
2087 Paulson, C., Tide, R.H.R., and Meinheit, D.F. (1996), “Modern Techniques for Determining the Capacity of Cast
2088 Iron Columns,” Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation, ASTM STP 1258, S.J. Kelley, editor, American
2089 Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 186200.
2090 PEER (2010), “Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings,” PEER/ATC
2091 72-1, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Applied Technology Council.
2092 Popov, E., Bertero, V., and Chandramouli, S. (1975), Hysteretic Behavior of Steel Columns Earthquake Engineering
2093 Research Center Report No. 75-11.
2094 Popov, E. P., Takanashi, K., and Roeder, C. W. (1976). “Structural steel bracing systems.” EERC Report 76-17,
2095 University of California, Berkeley.
2096 Rai, D.C. and Goel, S.C. (2003), “Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of Chevron Braced Frames,” Journal of

FT
2097 Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 59, pp. 971–994.
2098 Richard, J. (2009), “Étude du Comportemenet Sismique de Bâtiments Industriels avec Systems de Contreventement

A
2099 en Acier de Faible Ductilitè,” PhD dissertation, Ècole Polytechnique de Montrèal, Montreal, Canada.

20 R
2100 Richards, P.W. (2009), “Seismic Column Demands in Ductile Braced Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
2101
20 D
ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 33–41.
1, IEW
2102 Roeder, C., Lehman, D.E., and Lumpkin, E. (2009a), “Fragility Curves for Concentrically Braced Steel Frames with
2103 Buckling Braces,” Rep. developed for the ATC-58 Project Structural Performance Products Team, Department of
2104 Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
AY V

2105 Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E., Lumpkin, E., and Hsiao, P.-C. (2009b), “Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of
Concentrically Braced Frames,” Proceedings of the 2009 ATC & SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic
M RE

2106
2107 Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures.
2108 Roeder, C. W., Lumpkin, E. J., and Lehman, D. E. (2011a), “A balanced design procedure for special concentrically
IC

2109 braced frame connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67(11), 1760-1772.
Roeder, C., Lehman, D.E., Lumpkin, E., Hsiao, P.-C., and Palmer, K. (2011b), “SCBF Gusset Plate Connection
BL

2110
2111 Design,” T. R. Higgins Award Lecture, American Institute of Steel Construction.
Roeder, C., Lehman, D., and Yoo, J.H. (2004), “Performance-Based Seismic Design of Braced-Frame Connections,”
PU

2112
2113 Pacific Structural Steel Conference.
2114 SAE (2018), Hardness Tests and Hardness Number Conversions, SAE J417, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
2115 SDI (1981), “Diaphragm Design Manual,” SDI DDM01, Steel Deck Institute, 1st Ed., Glenshaw, Pa.
2116 SDI (2015), “Diaphragm Design Manual,” SDI DDM04, Steel Deck Institute, 4th Ed., Glenshaw, Pa.
2117 SDI (2017a), “Standard for Composite Steel Floor Deck,” ANSI/SDI C, Steel Deck Institute, Glenshaw, Pa.
2118 SDI (2017b), “Standard for Non-Composite Steel Floor Deck,” ANSI/SDI NC, Steel Deck Institute, Glenshaw, Pa.
2119 SDI (2017c), “Standard for Steel Roof Deck,” ANSI/SDI RD, Steel Deck Institute, Glenshaw, Pa.
2120 SSRC (Structural Stability Research Council) (2010), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 6th Ed.
2121 Edited by R.D. Ziemian, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
2122 Sen, A.D., Roeder, C.W., Berman, J.W., Lehman, D.E., Li, C.H., Wu, A.C., and Tsai, K.C. (2016), “Experimental
2123 Investigation of Chevron Concentrically Braced Frames with Yielding Beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
2124 Vol. 142, No. 12.
2125
2126 Sen, A. D., Swatosh, M. A., Ballard, R., Sloat, D., Johnson, M.M., Roeder, C. W., Lehman, D. E., and Berman, J.W.
2127 (2017), “Development and Evaluation of Seismic Retrofit Alternatives for Older Concentrically Braced Frames,”
Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
 AISC 342-COMM-57

2128 Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 143, No. 5.

2129
2130 Shaback, B. and Brown, T. (2003), “Behavior Of Square Hollow Structural Steel Braces With End Connections
2131 Under Reversed Cyclic Axial Loading,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 745753.
2132 Suzuki, Y. and Lignos, D. (2015), “Large Scale Collapse Experiments of Wide Flange Steel Beam-Columns,”
2133 Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Shanghai, China, July
2134 13, 2015.
2135 Stoakes, C.D. and Fahnestock, L.A. (2010), “Cyclic Flexural Testing of Concentrically Braced Frame Beam-
2136 Column Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 7, pp. 739–747.
2137 Thornton, W.A. (1984), “Bracing Connections For Heavy Construction,” Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, pp.
2138 139148.
2139 Timler, P.A. (2000), “Design Evolution and State-of-the-Art Development of Steel Plate Shear Wall Construction in
2140 North America,” Proceedings of the 69th Annual SEAOC Convention, pp. 197–208, Structural Engineers
2141 Association of California, Sacramento, Calif.

FT
2142 Tremblay, R., Archambault, M.H., and Filiatrault, A. (2003), “Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced Steel
2143 Frames Made with Rectangular Hollow Bracing Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 12,
pp. 1,6261,636.

A
2144

Uriz, P. and Mahin, S.A. (2008), “Toward Earthquake-Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel-Frame

20 R
2145
2146 Structures,” Report No. PEER 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
2147 Berkeley, Calif 20 D
1, IEW
2148 Wei, G., Eatherton, M.R., and Schafer, B.W. (2019), “Development of Steel Deck Diaphragm Seismic Design
2149 Provisions for ASCE 41/AISC 342,” Cold-Formed Steel Research Consortium, CFSRC Report 2019-01, 2019.
2150 Wijesundara, K.K., Rassathi, G.A., Nascimbene, R., and Bolognini, D. (2010), “Seismic Performance of Brace-
AY V

2151 Beam-Column Connections in Concentrically Braced Frames,” Proceedings of SEI Structures Congress 2010, S.
Senapathi, K. Casey, and M. Hoit, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va.
M RE

2152

2153 Yam, M.C.H. and Cheng, J.J.R. (2002), “Behavior and design of gusset plate connections in compression,” Journal
2154 of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, pp. 11431159.
IC

2155 Yang, C.-S., Leon, R.T., and DesRoches, R. (2008), “Design and Behavior of Zipper-Braced Frames,” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 1092–1100.
BL

2156

2157 Yang, F. and Mahin, S.A. (2005), Limiting Net Section Failure in Slotted HSS Braces, Structural Steel Education
Council, Moraga, Calif.
PU

2158

2159 Yang, T.Y. (2006), “Performance Evaluation of Innovative Steel Braced Frames,” Dissertation, Department of Civil
2160 and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
2161 Yoo, J.-H. (2006), “Analytical Investigation on the Seismic Performance of Special Concentrically Braced Frames,”
2162 Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
2163 Yoo, J.-H., Roeder, C.W., and Lehman, D.E. (2008), “Analytical Performance Simulation of Special Concentrically
2164 Braced Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 6, pp. 881–889.
2165 Yoo, J.-H., Roeder, C.W., and Lehman, D.E. (2009), “Simulated Behavior of Multi-Story X-Braced Frames,”
2166 Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp. 182–197.
2167 Zhang, W., Huang, M., Zhang, Y., and Sun, Y. (2011), “Cyclic Behavior Studies on I-Section Inverted V-Braces
2168 and Their Gusset Plate Connections,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 407–420.
2169

Seismic Provisions for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structural Steel Buildings
Draft dated April 29, 2020
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION