buildings

Article
Assessment of Web Panel Zone in Built-up Box Columns
Subjected to Bidirectional Cyclic Loads
Ramón Mata 1 , Eduardo Nuñez 1, * , Frank Sanhueza 1 , Nelson Maureira 1 and Ángel Roco 2, *

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Católica de La Santísima Concepción,

Concepción 4090541, Chile
2 Facultad de Salud y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de las Américas, Providencia, Santiago 7500975, Chile
* Correspondence: [email protected] (E.N.); [email protected] (Á.R.)

Abstract: The behavior of the web panel zone has a direct effect on the cyclic performance of steel
moment connections. While the mechanisms of web panel zone failure are known under cyclic
load, little is known about the behavior of the web panel zone under bidirectional loads in bolted
connections. Using experimental tests and calibrated numerical models, this research evaluated the
web panel zone behavior under unidirectional and bidirectional cyclic loads. The results showed
that bidirectional load can modify the stress and strain distribution in the web panel zone. Moreover,
the increasing of the width-to-thickness ratio of the column influences the failure mechanism of the
joint configuration and increases the plastic incursion in the column. These data demonstrate that
bidirectional effects improve the web panel zone performance under cyclic loads.

Keywords: web panel zone; cyclic behavior; tubular columns; finite elements; bidirectional load

1. Introduction
The seismic provisions in [1] establish requirements for the use of moment-resisting
Citation: Mata, R.; Nuñez, E.;
frames in high-risk seismic zones to avoid brittle failure mechanisms. Within these re-
Sanhueza, F.; Maureira, N.; Roco, Á.
quirements, the use of prequalified moment connections according to [2] is necessary to
Assessment of Web Panel Zone in guarantee the dissipation of energy from the structure because of the inelastic bending
Built-up Box Columns Subjected to incursion of the beam. All these connections are designed to avoid damage to the column,
Bidirectional Cyclic Loads. Buildings the welding fracture or shear yielding in the web panel zone (WPZ). If the WPZ is weak
2023, 13, 71. https://doi.org/ in shear, the joint will be a weak link with plastic deformations, while the beams will not
10.3390/buildings13010071 develop their flexural resistance under cyclic loading, reducing the strength and stiffness of
the structure significantly [3].
Academic Editors: Chiara Bedon,
The investigation conducted by [4] assessed the deformation demands on the WPZ of
Flavio Stochino, Mislav Stepinac and
Binsheng (Ben) Zhang
steel moment frames through a parametric analysis using numerical models and design
requirements for AISC 360 [5], FEMA-355D [6], and Eurocode 3 [7]. The results found
Received: 21 October 2022 that the research in [6] provides lower capacity and less inelastic incursion than [5,7],
Revised: 12 December 2022 which present similar capacities. Similarly, the research developed in [8] proposed a
Accepted: 15 December 2022 numerical model for beam-to-column connections with the inelastic behavior of the WPZ
Published: 28 December 2022
in moment frames being verified through nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. The
results show an increase in inelastic response and energy dissipation capacity with lower
maximum structure strength without indication of a soft-story collapse mechanism in
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
the range of deformation under 15 times the panel yield deformation. Nevertheless, this
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. research considers a uniaxial bending effect on the panel zone and higher levels of inelastic
This article is an open access article deformation than the studies.
distributed under the terms and On the other hand, [9] shows the importance of the WPZ strength in slotted-web
conditions of the Creative Commons beam connections through a combined numerical and experimental study. The results
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// show that high participation of the panel zone effect causes weld fracture in the beam web
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and decreases the connection. In this sense, several studies [10–13] have evaluated the
4.0/). strength and performance of the panel zone, noting that both short and long web panels

Buildings 2023, 13, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010071 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 71 2 of 18

have substantial post-buckling capacities. Furthermore, when the panel zone is subjected
to extremely large inelastic demands, this could cause a potential material fracture and
thus brittle failure in the column. Further research developed in [14] analyzed the behavior
of corrugated web panel zones, obtaining a limited influence of the corrugated forms in the
connection shear strength. In addition, the corrugated panels achieved a residual strength
of 50% the buckling shear strength; therefore, the use of residual capacity in the design to
prevent brittle failure was recommended.
To improve the behavior of the panel zone, intermediate and panel stiffeners are
attached to the plate girder web panel to increase the shear strength or reduce the panel
aspect ratio to limit the local buckling. The research conducted in [15] proposed a design
procedure for intermediate transverse stiffeners through a set of design equations to predict
the post-buckling shear strength, emphasizing the necessity of transverse stiffeners specially
when the panel aspect ratio is greater than 1.0. On the other hand, [16] experimentally
evaluated the effect of these stiffeners on the WPZ shear stability on cruciform beam-to-
column connections. The results showed a decrease of the shear buckling in the WPZ and
hysteresis behavior improved.
Based on these results, several steel moment connections have been proposed, includ-
ing stiffeners in their configurations to improve the panel zone performance in investiga-
tions developed in [17–24]. Specifically, in the research conducted in [25], different joint
assemblies of a new welded moment connection with horizontal stiffeners and tubular
columns were performed to estimate their bidirectional cyclic behavior. An important
reduction in terms of shear and bending was reached in the column. Moreover, higher
deformation of the WPZ was correctly distributed by the internal diaphragm. Likewise,
the study developed in [26] assessed the WPZ shear strength in cruciform columns and
box columns with continuity plates using the finite element method (FEM). The results
showed that cruciform sections have similar plastic capacities to box sections and more
shear strength in the WPZ.
More specifically, the experimental research conducted in [27] studied steel tube panels
under lateral cyclic load and focused on the evaluation of stiffness and dissipated energy
on each cycle of loading. The tubes were tested as boundary elements of the shear wall had
local buckling close to the base due to high compression forces and fracture near the top
close to the beam. In addition, the behavior of the tubes was similar to a cantilever beam
with a hysteretic behavior that showed a slight pinching without stiffness and strength
degradations. Furthermore, the research conducted in [28] evaluated experimentally,
numerically, and analytically the shear behavior of the panel zone in connection to hollow
structural section columns (HSS) in the plane. The results reveal that for this connection, the
main failure mode was a shear failure in the plane zone where shear deformation and local
buckling occur. The hysteretic behavior exhibited good ductility and stability, showing that
an increasing thickness of the tube increases the ultimate shear resistance.
However, this research does not evaluate the behavior under bidirectional cyclic be-
havior, which is a limitation in assessing the behavior of 3D joints. In this sense, the research
conducted in [23] studies the seismic behavior of steel beam-column joint connections with
outer stiffeners and welding connections under bidirectional cyclic loads. The prototypes
were HSS columns with welded connections to annular stiffeners and beams, which pre-
sented inward buckling of the column and fracture of the ring stiffener during the test. In
addition, the bidirectional cyclic load reduced the strength connection capacity compared
to unidirectional loading. Finally, a stress concentration occurs along the diagonal line of
HSS columns in 3D joints with a possibility of brittle failure if the outer annular stiffener is
not present. Nevertheless, this research did not contemplate the use of a bolted connection
to prevent brittle failure as a fracture or local buckling in the column.
On the other hand, as the number of prequalified connections is limited and most of
them are used for wide-flange columns, there was a need for a new proposal for tubular
connections. In addition, the implementation of tubular columns brings some limitations
due to their commercial availability, which commonly does not have sufficient thickness to
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 3 of 18

comply with seismic limitations for use in special and intermediate moment frames. One
of these proposals is the connection developed in [22], which demonstrates experimental
and numerical compliance with the requirements of [1,2] without the presence of brittle
failures. However, this study did not evaluate the behavior of the proposed connection
under bidirectional loads. In this sense, two numerical studies, [29,30], allow us to evaluate
the behavior of the mentioned connection under bidirectional cyclic loads and axial loading
for five connection configurations. The results of these investigations showed that the axial
load was not critical for the connection and the damage was limited to beams in the joint
configurations subjected to bidirectional cyclic loads. Nevertheless, these studies were
limited in terms of configurations and the sizes of the specimens; therefore, propagation of
the results to other configurations is not recommended.
In this context, an extensive parametric study was developed by [31] analyzing the
effects of different column sizes, the number of beams, clear span-to-depth beam ratio (L/d),
and axial load parameters on cyclic behavior using numerical models in FE. The results
showed that all configurations analyzed conformed to the criteria established in [1], even
for L/d ratios in the range between 7–20. In addition, the assemblies designed with low
axial load are controlled by the design of the WPZ shear, while high levels are controlled
by the strong column–weak beam relationship.
All these studies ensure that the connection proposed in [22] has a successful perfor-
mance for every configuration even under bidirectional loads. However, these numerical
studies calibrated their models from unidirectional cyclic tests and do not assess the web
panel zone behavior in the column, which can control the joint design.
The aim of this research is the assess the cyclic behavior of the web panel zone in
built-up box columns using moment connection subjected to bidirectional load. In this
sense, the cyclic response is characterized through the full-scale experimental tests and
extended to different sizes using numerical models calibrated from experimental data. Two
experimental tests of the joints subjected to unidirectional plane and bidirectional cyclic
loads are performed to compare the cyclic behavior. In addition, six numerical models
were validated and calibrated with the results of the experimental program, allowing
to extrapolate the study to other scenarios untested experimentally. Finally, conclusions
are presented in reference to the web panel zone shear behavior and its influence on the
hysteretic responses of the joints, which are not commonly evaluated using bidirectional
moment connections.

2. Experimental Study
2.1. Test Specimens
Experimental tests on two specimens subjected to pseudo-static cyclic loading were
performed. In Figure 1, the setup of specimens and joint assembly tested are shown. The
assembly of specimens are based on a prequalification test according to Chapter K [1],
applying the cyclic load to capture the bidirectional effect at the top of the column according
to [31]. The joint studied consisted of I-beams connected to the built-up box column through
the end-plate moment connection proposed in [22], using outer stiffeners and A325 bolts.
To consider the bidirectional effect, interior joint configuration with two beams in the plane
(2BI) and exterior joint configuration with two beams in corner position (2BC) were tested.
Beams and columns satisfy the requirements established in [1] for high-ductility members.
The beams and columns were designed to comply with the design requirements of [1,2],
resulting in a 220 mm × 220 mm × 14 mm square built-up box column and IPE-200 beam.
The end-plate thickness, bolts, and outer stiffener are shown in Figure 1. A bolt pretension
was applied in bolts using a calibrated torque wrench to achieve a 70% load pretension
according to [5].
To prevent displacement outside of the plane loaded, lateral restrictions are imposed
at the center of the beams and the top of the column. In this study, the length of the column
used is 2562 mm, while the length of the beam was estimated at 1315 mm.
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 4 of 18

Figure1.
Figure 1. Test
Test assemblies
assemblies and
and geometries
geometriesofofthe
thespecimens.
specimens.

To prevent
2.2. Material displacement outside of the plane loaded, lateral restrictions are imposed
Properties
at the
In Table 1, thebeams
center of the and
material the top of obtained
properties the column. In this
from study, the
the coupon length
tests of the column
are shown. The yield
used is 2562 mm, while the length of the beam was estimated at 1315 mm.
strength (Fy), tensile strength (Fu), and Young’s modulus (E) of steel for beam, column,
and bolts are reported. A view of the coupon steel tested is shown in Figure 2.
2.2. Material Properties
Table In Table 1, properties
1. Material the material properties obtained from the coupon tests are shown. The
of steel.
yield strength (Fy), tensile strength (Fu), and Young’s modulus (E) of steel for beam, col-
umn,Element
and bolts are reported. A Type
Steel view of the coupon steel tested
Yield Stress (MPa)is shown in Figure
Ultimate 2. (MPa)
Stress
Beam flange A36 351 454
Beam flange A36 349 432
Beam flange A36 347 439
Beam web A36 307 403
Beam web A36 332 407
Beam web A36 322 410
Column wall A572 Gr.50 354 550
Column wall A572 Gr.50 512 575
Column wall A572 Gr.50 393 559
Bolt A325 607 801
Bolt A325 625 814
Bolt A325 612 807
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 5 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 2. Test of steel plates samples.

Figure 2. Test of steel plates samples.
Table 1. Material properties of steel.
2.3. Test Setup and Loading Procedure
Element TheSteel type
experimental Yield
setup for Stress
the cycle(MPa) Ultimate
load is shown Stress3.
in Figure (MPa)
All specimens were
Beam flange A36 351 454
tested using a hydraulic testing machine with a capacity of 25 tons and a stroke of ±130 mm.
Beam flange A36 349 432
The velocity of the load application used in the test reached a maximum of 20 mm/min to
Beam flange A36 347 439
avoid the presence of inertial forces during the test. The horizontal displacement applied
Beam web A36 307 403
Beam web was measured A36 by a linear variable displacement
332 transducer (LVDT)
407 installed between the
Beam web top of the column
A36 and the actuator. The
322 applied load was measured
410 by a load cell in the
Column wall actuator and the
A572 Gr.50reaction of the beams was
354 measured similarly using
550 a 10-ton capacity load
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR
Column wall PEER cell. A loading
REVIEW protocol was employed
A572 Gr.50 512 according to the established
575 method 6 ofin
19Chapter K
Column wall of seismic provisions
A572 Gr.50 [1]. 393 559
Bolt A325 607 801
Bolt A325 625 814
Bolt A325 612 807

2.3. Test Setup and Loading Procedure

The experimental setup for the cycle load is shown in Figure 3. All specimens were
tested using a hydraulic testing machine with a capacity of 25 tons and a stroke of ±130
mm. The velocity of the load application used in the test reached a maximum of 20
mm/min to avoid the presence of inertial forces during the test. The horizontal displace-
ment applied was measured by a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) in-
stalled between the top of the column and the actuator. The applied load was measured
by a load cell in the actuator and the reaction of the beams was measured similarly using
a 10-ton capacity load cell. A loading protocol was employed according to the established
method in Chapter K of seismic provisions [1].

Experimental
Figure3.3.Experimental
Figure setup.
setup.

2.4. Experimental Results and Discussion

In this section, the results of the experimental program are presented in terms of fail-
ure mechanism, hysteretic behavior, dissipation capacity, and stiffness. The key parame-
ters of the tests are shown in Table 2.
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 6 of 18

2.4. Experimental Results and Discussion

In this section, the results of the experimental program are presented in terms of failure
mechanism, hysteretic behavior, dissipation capacity, and stiffness. The key parameters of
the tests are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the parameters obtained in the experimental tests.

Test # Ko_West_Beam (kN/rad) Dissipated Energy (kJ) Mmax/Mp θmax (rad)

1 (2BC) 2935 416 1.08 0.04
2 (2BI) 7153 722 1.55 0.04

As shown in Table 2, the dissipated energy is greater in the 2BI specimen in comparison
to the 2BC specimen. Therefore, the bidirectional effect reduces the capacity of energy
dissipation in steel joint configuration. In Figure 4, the failure modes are shown
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
for the
specimen tested. As is expected according to seismic design, the plastic hinges were
concentrated in beams, which is required by [1]. Moreover, no failures were reported in the
complying with the requirements of prequalified moment connections mentioned in [2],
connection components.
and ensuring a ductile failure mechanism without failure in the connection components.

2BC Joint Configuration 2BI Joint Configuration

150 150

100 100

50 50
Force [KN]

Force [kN]

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
θ [rad] θ [rad]

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5
M/Mp

0 0
M/Mp

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5

-2 -2
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
θ[rad] θ[rad]

Figure 4. Force-rotation curves and normalized moment-rotation curves of beam and failure mech-
Figure 4. Force-rotation
anisms curves
at 0.04 radand
of thenormalized moment-rotation curves of beam and failure mecha-
specimens tested.

nisms at 0.04 rad of the specimens tested.

Buildings 2023, 13, 71 7 of 18

A ductile behavior was exhibited by all specimens tested. However, comparing both
joint configurations, greater degradations in the stiffness and strength were observed in
2BC joint in comparison to 2BI joint. Finally, the developed test allows us to verify that the
connection proposed in [22] has a successful performance under cyclic loads, complying
with the requirements of prequalified moment connections mentioned in [2], and ensuring
a ductile failure mechanism without failure in the connection components.

3. Numerical Modeling
The numerical models were developed using the finite element method through the
ANSYS software [32]. The original geometry of the tests was considered with the goal to
reproduce the configurations tested in the experimental program and extrapolating them to
two additional scenarios. The elements and components were modeled explicitly. Loading,
constitutive laws of materials, mesh size, and boundary conditions were used to resolve
the nonlinear behavior of joints studied. The nonlinearities were considered by means of
sub-steps in each load step using the incremental Newton–Raphson method. According
to the convergence criterion [32], the convergence force and residual force obtained out of
equilibrium must be below the convergence values. Furthermore, the augmented Lagrange
method was used to achieve a numerical convergence, according to the investigation carried
out in [33].
In the numerical models, the following assumptions were established: the length
of the column is considered as the distance between the points of zero moment for each
case (the points of zero moment in the columns are assumed to be at half height). The
welds are excluded from the model because inelastic incursion is not expected in these
elements. The diameters of the holes are estimated as standard holes according to the
requirements established in [5]. Additionally, the axial load was not established as its effect
was not contemplated in the experimental program. These considerations were verified
and employed in [22,29,31].
Numerical models calibrated from the experimental tests were extended to evaluate the
cyclic performance of columns with moderate ductility members according to [1]. Moreover,
built-up box columns with slender walls according to [5] were studied to evaluate the
performance of the WPZ shear. Table 3 shows the dimensions of the elements considered
in the numerical model.

Table 3. Geometrical dimensions of the models.

Axial Load End-Plate Outer Stiffener

Models Configuration Beam Column
(Py) Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm)
Mod-00 2BI IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 14 20 16
Mod-01 0% 2BI IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 9 20 16
Mod-02 2BI IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 4 20 16
Mod-03 2BC IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 14 20 16
Mod-04 0% 2BC IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 9 20 16
Mod-05 2BC IPE-200 Box 220 × 220 × 4 20 16

3.1. Constitutive Laws of Materials

The constitutive law was considered by means of a bilinear kinematic law and a
von Mises yield criterion was used; therefore, no variations in magnitude and location
of the yield surface are established. The constitutive law of material was considered
from steel coupon tests reported in Section 2. Average values were used to consider the
constitutive law according to [34]. For example, in Beam elements, the Young´s modulus,
E = 211,908 MPa, yielding stress σy = 334 MPa, and maximum stress σu = 424 MPa were
used. The Young´s modulus, E = 196,696 MPa, yielding stress σy = 419 MPa, and maximum
stress σu = 561 MPa were considered for square built-up box column elements. In addition,
for the bolts, a Young´s modulus, E = 210,625 MPa, yielding stress σy = 615 MPa, and
 Buildings 2023, 13, 71 8 of 18

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

maximum stress σu = 808 MPa were used. The material for the beam is assumed for end
plates and horizontal and vertical diaphragms. Posteriorly, the material properties were
3.2. BoundarytoConditions
transformed true stressand
andLoading
strain values for their use in FE models.
To allow for rotation in the base of the column, a pinned restraint was used at the
3.2. Boundary Conditions and Loading
base. The ends of the beams were established as simply supported, with limited move-
mentsToinallow for rotation
Z direction. in the base
Moreover, of thesupports
lateral column, atopinned
the beamrestraint
werewas used at
applied to the base. with
comply
Thestability
the ends of the beamsmembers
bracing were established
of beams as simply
accordingsupported,
to [1,5].with
Thelimited
loading movements
was applied in Zat the
direction. Moreover, lateral supports to the beam were applied to comply with the stability
top of the column for the models studied through lateral displacements. Additionally,
bracing members of beams according to [1,5]. The loading was applied at the top of the
instability by displacements out of the plane was solved by incorporating lateral support
column for the models studied through lateral displacements. Additionally, instability by
at the top of the
displacements outcolumn. In Figure
of the plane 5, support
was solved conditions
by incorporating usedsupport
lateral in the configuration
at the top of theof the
two
column. In Figure 5, support conditions used in the configuration of the twoto
beams corner (2BC) model are shown. A pretension equivalent 70% corner
beams of the bolt
tension resistance
(2BC) model was applied
are shown. according
A pretension to [5]toto70%
equivalent reproduce
of the boltthe real conditions
tension between
resistance was
the plates (see Figure 6).
applied according to [5] to reproduce the real conditions between the plates (see Figure 6).

Figure
Figure 5. Boundary conditionsused
Boundary conditions usedinin
thethe numerical
numerical model.
model.

Figure 6.
Figure Bolt pretension
6. Bolt pretensionused
usedininthe numerical
the models.
numerical models.
3.3. Mesh and Element Type
3.3. Mesh and Element Type
In this study, SOLID 186 elements were employed to simulate all elements. The ele-
mentIn is this study,
defined by 20SOLID
nodes186
withelements
3 degreeswere employed
of freedom to simulate
per node all translations
given from elements. The
in ele-
ment is defined by 20 nodes with 3 degrees of freedom per node given from translations
the x, y, and z directions. This element is ideal to model the plasticity, hyperelasticity, creep,
in the stiffening,
stress x, y, and zlarge
directions. This
deflection, andelement is ideal
large strain to model
capability, theaccurately
which plasticity, hyperelasticity,
represent the
creep,
expectedstress stiffening,
stresses large deflection, and large strain capability, which accurately rep-
and deformations.
resent the expected stresses and deformations.
Different mesh sizes have been used to provide accurate results without great com-
putational efforts. In this sense, the inelastic behavior in plastic hinge zones was modeled
using a fine mesh, while in other zones, an expected elastic behavior was modeled as a
coarser mesh. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was performed to obtain the accuracy of
 Buildings 2023, 13, 71 9 of 18

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1

Different mesh sizes have been used to provide accurate results without great com-
putational efforts. In this sense, the inelastic behavior in plastic hinge zones was modeled
using a fine mesh, while in other zones, an expected elastic behavior was modeled as a
coarser
element’smesh. Furthermore,
size in the range a sensitivity
of 5 mmanalysis was performed
to 40 mm. Finally, a to obtain the element
maximum accuracy size of
of
was selected for elements with expected nonlinear behavior, togethermesh
the developed model and its convergence with mesh refinement, varying the with 25 m
element’s size in the range of 5 mm to 40 mm. Finally, a maximum element size of 5 mm
those with linear behavior, obtaining a better computational efficiency.
was selected for elements with expected nonlinear behavior, together with 25 mm for those
The FEM
with linear solves
behavior, the nonlinear
obtaining equations using
a better computational the Newton–Raphson method.
efficiency.
riorly,
ThetheFEMnumber of nonlinear
solves the equations is obtained
equations usingfrom the number of structure
the Newton–Raphson method. Pos-degrees o
dom. Different
teriorly, the number meshes, sizes,isand
of equations formsfrom
obtained have thebeen usedofto
number determine
structure a rational
degrees of m
freedom. Different meshes, sizes, and forms have been used to determine a rational
improve the computational cost. Therefore, the solution adopted uses a fine mesh in mesh
to improve the computational cost. Therefore, the solution adopted uses a fine mesh in
of interest as high stress or strain regions, specifically in the central zone of the node
zones of interest as high stress or strain regions, specifically in the central zone of the node
the inelastic
where response
the inelastic responseisisexpected,
expected, and and a coarser
a coarser meshmesh
in the in theregions,
other other asregions,
shown as sho
Figure 7.
in Figure 7.

Figure7. 7.
Figure Meshing
Meshing usedused
in theinnumerical
the numerical
models.models.

Additionally, geometrical
Additionally, imperfections
geometrical were considered
imperfections were according
considered to the geometrical
according to the ge
limits established in [35,36]. However, a limited effect of the imperfections on cyclic
rical limits established in [35,36]. However, a limited effect of the imperfections on
behavior was obtained. More investigations on these effects and their consequences in the
behavior was
connections obtained.
can be found in More
[37]. investigations on these effects and their consequences
connections can be found in [37].
3.4. Type of Contacts
3.4. In thisof
Type research,
Contacts a “Bonded” contact was employed to simulate welding conditions
and restrained contact in all directions. The contact between the end-plates was considered
through In “frictional”
this research, a “Bonded”
contact contact
to allow relative was employed
displacements to simulate
between welding cond
them. A friction
and restrained
coefficient equal tocontact in all directions.
0.3 was established accordingThe contact
to [22]. Trialbetween
and error the
wasend-plates
performed was c
ered through “frictional” contact to allow relative displacements between
to obtain this value [29,30]. A schematic view of contacts in the joint is shown in Figurethem.
8. A fr
Moreover,
coefficient theequal
type oftocontact by region
0.3 was is reported
established in Table 4.
according to [22]. Trial and error was perfo
to obtain this value [29,30]. A schematic view of contacts in the joint is shown in Fig
Table 4. Contacts simulated by using elements.
Moreover, the type of contact by region is reported in Table 4.
N◦ Contact between Elements Type of Contact
1 End-plates
2 Bolt shank in contact to end-plate
Frictional (µ = 0.3)
3 Bolt head in contact to end-plate
4 Nut in contact to end-plate
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 10 of 18

Table 4. Cont.

Figure 7. Meshing used in the numerical models.

N◦ Contact between Elements Type of Contact
5 End-plate in contact togeometrical
Additionally, horizontal imperfections
and vertical stiffener
were considered according to the geomet-
6 rical limits stiffener
Horizontal established in [35,36].
in contact to However, a limited effect of the imperfections on cyclic
vertical stiffener
behavior was obtained. More investigations on these effects and their consequences in the
7 Stiffeners
connections can be in contact
found to column
in [37].
8 End-plate in contact to beam
3.4. Type of Contacts Bonded
9 Bolt shank in contact to bolt head
In this research, a “Bonded” contact was employed to simulate welding conditions
10 and restrained contactinincontact
Bolt shank all directions.
to nut The contact between the end-plates was consid-
ered through “frictional” contact to allow relative displacements between them. A friction
11 Bolt shank in contact to bolt head
coefficient equal to 0.3 was established according to [22]. Trial and error was performed
12 Beam
to obtain this valuein[29,30].
contact Ato beam view of contacts in the joint is shown in Figure 8.
schematic
Moreover, the type of contact by region is reported in Table 4.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Table 4. Contacts simulated by using elements.

N° Contact between Elements Type of Contact

1 End-plates
2 Bolt shank in contact to end-plate
Frictional (μ = 0.3)
3 Bolt head in contact to end-plate
4 Nut in contact to end-plate
5 End-plate in contact to horizontal and vertical stiffener
6 Horizontal stiffener in contact to vertical stiffener
7 Stiffeners in contact to column
8 End-plate in contact to beam
Bonded
9 Bolt shank in contact to bolt head
10 Bolt shank in contact to nut
Figure 8. Schematic view of the contacts employed.
8. Schematic view
Figure 11 of the
Bolt contacts
shank employed.
in contact to bolt head
12 Beam in contact to beam
3.5. Validation of FEM
Both
3.5. typologies
Validation of FEM(2BI and 2BC) of the numerical models were calibrated from the
experimental program. Theand
Both typologies (2BI hysteresis curves
2BC) of the between
numerical thewere
models experimental test the
calibrated from andex-FE model
wereperimental
compared. In Figure
program. The 9, an acceptable
hysteresis match of
curves between thecurves was obtained;
experimental test and FEhowever,
model slight
were compared.
differences in termsInofFigure 9, anwere
strength acceptable match of curves
also obtained. was obtained;reported
The differences however,may slightbe due to
differences in terms of strength were also obtained. The differences reported
higher overstrength of material in some uncharacterized components. It is important may be due to
to higher overstrength of material in some uncharacterized components.
note that material characterization is performed on limited zones of the componentsIt is important to but
note that material characterization is performed on limited zones of the components but
not on all components.
not on all components.

Figure 9. Comparison of the hysteresis curves of the FEM and experimental results.
Figure 9. Comparison of the hysteresis curves of the FEM and experimental results.
4. Results
4.1. Stress Distribution
The analysis of the models described in the previous sections displays an equivalent
von Mises stress distribution in Figures 10 and 11. These distributions for the different
width-to-thickness column ratios show how the stresses increase as the width-to-thick-
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 11 of 18

4. Results
4.1. Stress Distribution
The analysis of the models described in the previous sections displays an equivalent
von Mises stress distribution in Figures 10 and 11. These distributions for the different
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
width-to-thickness column ratios show how the stresses increase as the width-to-thickness
column ratio decreases.

Model Front View Posterior View

High-ductility column

Moderate-ductility
column

Slender column

Figure 10. Stress distribution in the 2BC models (Units: MPa).

Figure 10. Stress distribution in the 2BC models (Units: MPa).

For
For 2BC
2BC models,
models, the
the distributions
distributions ofof the
the stresses
stresses are
are mainly
mainly uniform
uniform in in the
the web
web panel
panel
zone shear with an increase in the outer annular stiffener as the width-to-thickness
zone shear with an increase in the outer annular stiffener as the width-to-thickness column col-
umn
ratio ratio decreases.
decreases. In addition,
In addition, the beams
the beams are less
are less stressed
stressed when when the stresses
the stresses increase
increase in
in the
the
webwebpanel panel
zone.zone. This demonstrates
This demonstrates how the how the failure
failure mechanismmechanism of the connection
of the connection changes
changes in thewhere
in the zones zonesthewhere the stresses
stresses exceed exceed the yielding
the yielding stressFurthermore,
stress (Fy). (Fy). Furthermore, the
the stress
stress distribution in the panel zone is concentrated in the central area,
distribution in the panel zone is concentrated in the central area, decreasing as it approaches decreasing as it
approaches the edges
the edges of the column. of the column.
For
For the
the 2BI
2BI models,
models, high-ductility
high-ductility models
modelsshowshowaauniform
uniformstress
stressdistribution
distributionconcen-
concen-
trated
trated in
in the
the center
center of
of the
the web
web panel
panel zone
zone with
with aa slight
slight concentration
concentration in in the
the union
union ofof the
the
column
column with
with thethe outer
outer annular
annular stiffener
stiffener asas shown
shown in Figure 11. On On the
the other
other hand,
hand, the
the
moderate-ductility
moderate-ductility model modelexhibited
exhibitedanan increase
increase in stress
in stress in allinweb
all panel
web panel
zones zones with
with points
points of stress concentration in the column outside the web panel
of stress concentration in the column outside the web panel zone without exceeding Fy.zone without exceeding
Fy. Likewise,
Likewise, the the slender
slender column
column model
model shows shows a stress
a stress distribution
distribution similar
similar to a tension
to a tension field
field action in the panel zone, yielding in shear with values up to Fy. Furthermore, a stress
concentration is present in the union of the column with the outer annular stiffener and
column edges. Finally, in these 2BI models, the stress distribution in the web panel zone
changes from a uniform normal stress distribution to a diagonal shear distribution as the
width-to-thickness column ratio increases.
 Buildings 2023, 13, 71 12 of 18

2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

action in the panel zone, yielding in shear with values up to Fy. Furthermore, a stress
concentration is present in the union of the column with the outer annular stiffener and
column edges. Finally, in these 2BI models, the stress distribution in the web panel zone
web panel zone if it occurs,
changes from acontrary to the 2BI
uniform normal case
stress where thetoshear
distribution stresses
a diagonal in the
shear web
distribution as the
panel predominate.
width-to-thickness column ratio increases.

Model Front View

High-ductility column

Moderate-ductility
column

Slender column

Figure 11. StressFigure

distribution in distribution
11. Stress the 2BI models (Units:
in the MPa).(Units: MPa).
2BI models

4.2. Plastic Strain Distributions

The comparison of stress distributions between the 2BI and 2BC models demonstrates
Similar tothat
the when a joint
previous is loaded
section, bidirectionally,
equivalent plasticthe distribution
strains of stresses
were obtained forbecomes more uniform.
all models
This is translated to a global yielding mechanism for the entire area of the web panel zone
analyzed and are shown in Figures 12 and 13 for 2BC and 2BI models, respectively. The
if it occurs, contrary to the 2BI case where the shear stresses in the web panel predominate.
plastic strain distributions for all high-ductility models show failure mechanisms as plas-
tic hinges at the beams starting from the web yielding to the flange yielding. On the other
hand, for moderate-ductility models, plastic hinges are present at the beams. However, a
slightly inelastic incursion is shown in the union of the column with the outer annular
stiffener and column edges for 2BC models and in the web panel zone for 2BI models.
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 13 of 18

4.2. Plastic Strain Distributions

Similar to the previous section, equivalent plastic strains were obtained for all models
analyzed and are shown in Figures 12 and 13 for 2BC and 2BI models, respectively. The
plastic strain distributions for all high-ductility models show failure mechanisms as plastic
hinges at the beams starting from the web yielding to the flange yielding. On the other
hand, for moderate-ductility models, plastic hinges are present at the beams. However,
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
a slightly inelastic incursion is shown in the union of the column with the outer annular
stiffener and column edges for 2BC models and in the web panel zone for 2BI models.

Model Front View Posterior View

High-ductility
column

Moderate-
ductility
column

Slender
column

Figure 12. Plastic strain distributions in the 2BC models (Units: mm/mm).
Figure 12. Plastic strain distributions in the 2BC models (Units: mm/mm).
The 2BC slender column model shows an inelastic incursion meaningfully concen-
The 2BC slender column model shows an inelastic incursion meaningfully concen-
trated in the outer annular stiffeners and its union with the column. However, a slight
trated in the outer annular stiffeners and its union with the column. However, a slight plas-
plastic strain appears in the flange of the beams instead of the failure mechanism con-
tic strain appears in the flange of the beams instead of the failure mechanism controlled by
trolled by the outer annular stiffeners. These stiffeners were designed to the maximum-
the outer annular stiffeners. These stiffeners were designed to the maximum-concentrated
concentrated beam flange force and had sufficient thickness to avoid high damage in the
beam flange force and had sufficient thickness to avoid high damage in the column and
column and panel zones where plastic strain is not present.
panel zones where plastic strain is not present.
Buildings2022,
Buildings 13, x71FOR PEER REVIEW
2023, 12, 1514ofof19
18

Model Front View

High-ductility column

Moderate-ductility
column

Slender column

Figure
Figure13.
13.Plastic
Plasticstrain
straindistributions
distributionsin
inthe
the2BI
2BImodels
models(Units:
(Units:mm/mm).
mm/mm).

The
Theresults
resultsof
ofthe
the2BI
2BIslender
slendermodel
modelshow
showhowhowthetheplastic
plasticstrains
strainsareareconcentrated
concentratedin in
the web panel zone inducing the shear yielding. Likewise, slight plastic incursion
the web panel zone inducing the shear yielding. Likewise, slight plastic incursion is present is pre-
sent inouter
in the the outer annular
annular stiffeners
stiffeners and inand
thein the outside
zone zone outside
the web thepanel
web zone.
panel In
zone. In addi-
addition, the
tion,
strainthe strain distribution
distribution shows how shows howbehavior
inelastic inelasticstarts
behavior
fromstarts from the
the column column
edges edges
and extends
and extends through
diagonally diagonally
anthrough an edge-to-edge
edge-to-edge diagonal
diagonal stress stress
field. field.for
Finally, Finally, for all high-
all high-ductility
ductility
models, models, higher strains
higher plastic plastic are
strains are present
present in comparison
in comparison to the to the configurations
configurations of
of other
other
models.models. Likewise,
Likewise, the 2BItheexhibits
2BI exhibits
more more
plasticplastic
strainsstrains than
than the 2BC themodels,
2BC models,
which which
shows
shows
how the how the bidirectional
bidirectional load the
load limits limits the inelastic
inelastic incursion.
incursion.

4.3.Hysteretic
4.3. HystereticBehavior
Behaviorofofthe
theConnections
Connections
Thehysteretic
The hystereticresponse
responsecurves
curvesof ofall
allmodels
modelsanalyzed
analyzedare areshown
shownin inFigure
Figure14,14,where
where
the vertical coordinate F is the load applied on the top of the column
the vertical coordinate F is the load applied on the top of the column and the horizontal and the horizontal
coordinateisisthe
coordinate thedrift
drift rotation
rotation of of
thethe system.
system. In general,
In general, for allfor all models,
models, a ductilea ductile and
and stable
stable hysteretic behavior without pinching and degradations in the strength
hysteretic behavior without pinching and degradations in the strength and stiffness. How- and stiffness.
However,
ever, as theaswidth-to-thickness
the width-to-thickness column column
ratio ratio increases,
increases, degradations
degradations in theinstiffness
the stiffness
and
and strength are noted for all models. The strength degradation is greater
strength are noted for all models. The strength degradation is greater in the 2BI models, in the 2BI models,
and the
and the stiffness
stiffness degradation
degradationisisgreater
greaterininthethe
2BC models.
2BC models. This difference
This is associated
difference with
is associated
the failure model exhibited by each model, where the 2BI slender model
with the failure model exhibited by each model, where the 2BI slender model was con- was controlled by
panel shear yielding and the 2BC by the outer annular stiffener bending
trolled by panel shear yielding and the 2BC by the outer annular stiffener bending yield. yield. Additionally,
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 15 of 18

Additionally, the difference between the high-ductility and moderate-ductility models is

the difference
small in terms between theand
of strength high-ductility and
stiffness; the moderate-ductility
large models
difference was for is small
the high in terms
inelastic cy-
of strength
cles of load.and stiffness; the large difference was for the high inelastic cycles of load.

Figure 14. Hysteretic curves for all models analyzed.

Figure 14. Hysteretic curves for all models analyzed.

AA comparison
comparison between
between the the 2BI
2BI and
and 2BC
2BC models
models was
was developed
developedfor foreach
each width-to-
width-to-
thickness
thickness column ratio and is shown in Figure 15. These results indicate that thebidirec-
column ratio and is shown in Figure 15. These results indicate that the bidirec-
tional
tional effect
effect causes
causes significant
significant decreases
decreases in
in the
the strength
strength and
and stiffness
stiffness of
of the
the joints
joints for
for the
the
same number of connected beams. Nevertheless, this bidirectional effect
same number of connected beams. Nevertheless, this bidirectional effect had no greater had no greater
difference
difference between
between thethe high-ductility
high-ductility and moderate-ductility models.
and moderate-ductility models. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the the
slender
slender models continue to show high stiffness degradations when the bidirectional effect
models continue to show high stiffness degradations when the bidirectional effect
is
is present
present instead of the
instead of the strengths
strengthsbeing
beingsimilar.
similar.ToTosummarize
summarizequantitatively
quantitatively thethe hyster-
hysteretic
etic behavior
behavior shownshown previously
previously on hysteretic
on hysteretic curves,
curves, Table
Table 5 shows
5 shows the the
keykey parameters
parameters of
of the
the models analyzed.
models analyzed.

Table 5. Summary of the parameters obtained in numerical models.

Width-to-Thickness Pmax θmax Ko Ksec_0.04 Dissipated Emax σmax

Joint
Ratio (kN) (rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) Energy (kJ) (mm/mm) (MPa)
High-ductility 56.953 0.05 2718 1423 634 0 255.7
2BC Moderate-ductility 50.088 0.05 2407 1252 575 0 326.9
Slender 48.189 0.05 1783 1141 390 0.019 412.2
High-ductility 76.543 0.05 4572 1913 1118 0 295.1
2BI Moderate-ductility 74.712 0.05 3935 1867 942 0.007 398
Slender 39.988 0.05 2580 980 649 0.085 508.3

These results show how stiffness and strength are higher in the models without a
bidirectional effect (2BI), even when a slender column is present. In terms of dissipated
energy, the difference between the high-ductility and moderate-ductility models is small,
in the order of 9%. However, for slender models, the difference between the high-ductility
and moderate-ductility models can sustain even a 40% reduction. Additionally, higher
dissipated energy is observed for the 2BI slender model in comparison to the 2BC slender
model; [8] suggests that shear panel failure is highly ductile and can improve the connection
energy dissipation capacity. Moreover, the inelastic incursion of the outer annular stiffeners
of the 2BC models is limited, which limits its energy dissipation.
Buildings 2022, 13,
Buildings 2023, 12, 71
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16of
17 of 18
20

Figure 15. Comparison of the hysteretic curves between joint configurations.

Figure 15. Comparison of the hysteretic curves between joint configurations.

TableFinally,
5. Summary ofdemand
a high the parameters
in the obtained
web panelin zone
numerical models.
is denoted for interior joints (2BI) and for
models with bidirectional
Pmax θmaxeffect (2BC)
Ko in terms of strain
Ksec_0.04 and stress. However,
Dissipated Ɛmax the stability
σmax
Joint Width-to-Thickness of
Ratio
the system in terms of secant
(kN) (rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) Energy (kJ) (mm/mm) (MPa)of
stiffness reduction is higher in 2BC models, in the order
36%, in comparison to 2BI where the reduction is in the order of 62%.
High-ductility 56.953 0.05 2718 1423 634 0 255.7
2BC Moderate-ductility 50.088
5. Conclusions 0.05 2407 1252 575 0 326.9
Slender 48.189 0.05 1783 1141 390 0.019 412.2
In this research, the assessment of the cyclic behavior of the web panel zone in built-up
High-ductility box columns76.543 0.05 4572 1913 1118 0
with different width-to-thickness ratios was performed. An end-plate moment 295.1
2BI Moderate-ductility
connection 74.712
proposed by0.05 3935 to a bidirectional
[22] subjected 1867 942loading was
cyclic 0.007 398
used to connect
Slender 39.988 0.05 2580 980 649 0.085
beams to columns. The cyclic response of 3D steel joint configurations was obtained from 508.3
experimental tests. Moreover, a numerical study using FEM was employed to extend the
These to
evaluation results showthicknesses
different how stiffness and
in the strength
panel zone.are The higher
effectin
ofthe models without
bidirectional loadinga
bidirectional
was effect (2BI), the
studied considering evenfailure
whenmechanism,
a slender column is present.
hysteretic In terms
response, stressof dissipated
distribution,
energy,
strain the difference
distribution, between
energy the high-ductility
dissipation and moderate-ductility
capacity, stiffness, models isand
and strength of specimens small,
FE
in the order
models. of 9%.
Finally, theHowever, for slender
main conclusions aremodels, the as
described difference
follows: between the high-ductility
and moderate-ductility models can sustain even a 40% reduction. Additionally, higher
dissipated energy is observed for the 2BI slender model in comparison to the 2BC slender
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 17 of 18

1. The bidirectional effect reduces the strength and stiffness capacities of the connection;
in the absence of the bidirectional effect, the connection can reach 0.8 Mp (plastic
moment) and 0.04 rad of rotation as long as the members and components are designed
according to the seismic philosophy;
2. High-ductility columns and moderate-ductility columns allow ductile failure mecha-
nisms with plastic hinges in the beams to be reached. Nevertheless, for interior joints,
slight plastic deformations could appear without system instability;
3. A combined failure mechanism with plastic hinges in the beams and plastic strains in
the web panel zone is achieved for slender web columns. Therefore, the strength and
stiffness of the joint configurations decreased;
4. Slender columns reached a the hysteretic behavior of the connection was still ductile
until the 0.05 rad rotation. However, a reduction in the energy dissipation capacity
occurred until 62% of the original capacity was reached when yielding in shear
appeared in the web panel zone;
5. The presence of outer annular stiffeners and vertical stiffeners allows the local buckling
on the web panel zone to be avoided, modifying the stress distribution such that is it
similar to a diagonal tension field for interior joints and a uniform stress distribution
for joints with bidirectional effect. However, these stiffeners should be designed to
support the concentrated beam capacity load to transfer the stress properly.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.N.; methodology, E.N. and R.M.; software, R.M. and
E.N.; validation, E.N. and F.S.; formal analysis, E.N. and R.M.; investigation, E.N., N.M. and F.S.;
resources, N.M. and Á.R.; data curation, E.N.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N. and R.M.;
writing—review and editing, E.N. and Á.R.; visualization, E.N.; supervision, E.N.; project administra-
tion, E.N.; funding acquisition, Á.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Fondecyt N◦ 11200709 (Agencia Nacional de Investigación y
Desarrollo, Chile) and DINNOVA 03/2020-II (UCSC).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not available.
Acknowledgments: Dirección de postgrado de la UCSC.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. AISC341-16; Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
2. AISC358-16; Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications. American
Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
3. Krawinkler, H.; Mohasseb, S. Effects of panel zone deformations on seismic response. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1987, 8, 233–250.
[CrossRef]
4. Tuna, M.; Topkaya, C. Panel Zone deformation demands in steel moment resisting frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 110, 65–75.
[CrossRef]
5. ANSI/AISC 360-16; Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
6. FEMA 355D; State of the Art Report on Connection Performance. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC,
USA, 2000.
7. European Standard EN 1993-1-8; Eurocode 3: Design of Steel structures—Part 1–8: Design of Joints. European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
8. Skiadopoulos, A.; Lignos, D. Seismic demands of Steel moment resisting frames with inelastic beam-to-column web panel zones.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 1591–1609. [CrossRef]
9. Adlparvar, M.R.; Vetr, M.G.; Ghaffari, F. The importance of panel zone shear strength on seismic behavior of improved slotted-web
beam connection. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2017, 17, 307–318. [CrossRef]
10. Hanna, M.T. Failure Loads of web panels loaded in pure shear. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 105, 39–48. [CrossRef]
11. Brandonisio, G.; de Luca, A.; Mele, E. Shear inestability of panel zone in beam-to-column connections. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2011,
67, 891–903. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 71 18 of 18

12. Augusto, H.; da Silva, L.S.; Rebelo, C.; Castro, J. Characterization of web panel components in double-extended bolted end-plate
steel joints. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016, 116, 271–903. [CrossRef]
13. Choi, Y.S.; Kim, D.; Lee, S.C. Ultimate Shear behavior of web panels of HSB800 plate griders. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015,
101, 828–837. [CrossRef]
14. Leblouba, M.; Barakat, S.; Al-Saadon, Z. Shear Behavior of corrugated web panels and sensitivity analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2018, 151, 94–107. [CrossRef]
15. Lee, S.; Lee, D.; Yoo, C. Design of intermediate transverse stiffeners for shear web panels. Eng. Struct. 2014, 75, 27–38. [CrossRef]
16. Pan, L.; Chen, Y.; Chuan, G.; Jiao, W.; Xu, T. Experimental evaluation of the effect of vertical connecting plates on panel zone
shear stability. Thin-Walled Struct. 2016, 99, 119–131. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, Y.; Hao, J. Seismic performance of spatial beam-column connections in steel frame. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021, 180, 106586.
[CrossRef]
18. Fadden, M.; McCormik, J. HSS-to-HSS seismic moment connection performance and design. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 101, 373–384.
[CrossRef]
19. Nia, Z.S.; Ghassemieh, M.; Mazroi, A. WUF-W connection performance to box column subjected to uniaxial and biaxial loading.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 88, 90–108.
20. Chen, X.; Shi, G. Experimental study of end-plate joints with box columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 143, 307–319. [CrossRef]
21. Mohammadi, S.; Ghassemieh, M.; Mirghaderi, S.R. Cyclic behavior of steel moment connections with built-up columns in weak
direction. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 172, 106224. [CrossRef]
22. Nuñez, E.; Torres, R.; Herrera, R. Seismic performance of moment connections in steel moment frames with HSS columns. Steel
Comp. Struct. 2017, 25, 271–286.
23. Bai, Y.; Wang, S.; Mou, B.; Wang, Y.; Skalomenos, K. Bi-directional seismic behavior of steel beam-column connections with outer
annular stiffener. Eng. Struct. 2021, 227, 111443. [CrossRef]
24. Qin, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yang, Q.; Shang, K. Experimental seismic behavior of through diaphragm connections to concrete-filled
rectangular steel tubular columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 93, 32–43. [CrossRef]
25. Nia, Z.S.; Ghassemieh, M.; Mazroi, A. Panel zone evaluation of direct connection to box column subjected to bidirectional loading.
Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2014, 23, 833–853.
26. Sarfarazi, S. Evaluation of panel zone shear strength in cruciform columns, box-columns and double web-columns. Int. J. Struct.
Civ. Eng. 2016, 5, 52–56. [CrossRef]
27. Pazmiño, C.; Moscoso, M.; Arévalo, D.; Guaminga, E.; Gómez, C.; Herrera, M.; Vintimilla, J. Experimental study of Steel tube
panel under in-plane lateral cyclic load. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00270. [CrossRef]
28. Rong, B.; Liu, S.; Yan, J.; Zhang, R. Shear Behavior of panel zone in through-diaphragm connections to steel tubular columns.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 122, 286–299. [CrossRef]
29. Gallegos, M.; Nuñez, E.; Herrera, R. Numerical study on cyclic response of end-plate biaxial moment connection in box columns.
Metals 2020, 10, 523. [CrossRef]
30. Nuñez, E.; Lichtemberg, R.; Herrera, R. Cyclic performance of end-plate biaxial moment connection with HSS columns. Metals
2020, 10, 1556. [CrossRef]
31. Mata, R.; Nuñez, E. Parametric study of 3D steel moment connections with built-up box column subjected to biaxial cyclic loads.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 197, 107453. [CrossRef]
32. ANSYS, Inc. Theory Reference for ANSYS and ANSYS Workbench Release 19.0; ANSYS, Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2019.
33. Moura, P.; Carvalho, H.; Figueiredo, L.; Aires, P.; Bártolo, R. Unitary model for the analysis of bolted connections using the finite
element method. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 104, 308–320.
34. Amadio, C.; Bedon, C.; Fasan, M.; Pecce, M. Refined numerical modelling for the structural assessment of steel-concrete composite
beam-to-column joints under seismic loads. Eng. Struct. 2017, 138, 394–409. [CrossRef]
35. ASTM-A6/A6M; Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling.
ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
36. ASTM-A500/A500M; Standard Specification for Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds
and Shapes. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
37. Tartaglia, R.; D’Aniello, M.; Rassati, G.A.; Swanson, J.A.; Landolfo, R. Full strength extended stiffened end-plate joints: AISC vs
recent European design criteria. Eng. Struct. 2018, 159, 155–171. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.