Hamburger 2 07:Layout 1 1/9/07 4:14 PM Page 28

New AWS D1.8

Seismic Welding
Supplement
Outlined
This supplement to AWS D1.1 will help buildings resist seismically induced loads

BY RONALD O. HAMBURGER, JAMES O. MALLEY, AND DUANE K. MILLER

trong earthquakes can cause ex- Angeles region and abruptly ended engi- flange (Fig. 1), sometimes debonding the

S treme damage, but fortunately, such

events are quite rare. Therefore,
building codes specify design criteria to
neers’ understanding of the way these
structures behave. After inspecting a few
buildings, engineers discovered that many
beam flange from the column flange (Fig.
2) and sometimes resulting in the with-
drawal of large divots of material from the
avoid structural collapse, while permitting of the moment-resisting connections had column flange — Fig. 3.
extensive structural damage in design- fractured in a brittle manner, at the beam ater examinations found similar
level events. Engineers have adopted a
capacity-design approach, in which struc-
tures are designed to sustain ductile yield-
flange-to-column CJP weld. Soon, engi-
neers began to inspect for damage in steel
buildings throughout the greater Los An-
L damage, previously undiscovered,
in buildings that had been affected
by the 1989 Loma Prieta and other earth-
ing in predetermined regions, protecting geles area. Although actual earthquake- quakes. Interestingly, although the dam-
the balance of the structure from more ex- induced fractures were plainly visible (Fig. age was not of the type anticipated by
treme damage. Welded steel moment 1), a practice soon evolved of using ultra- engineers, it was generally not life-
frame structures were regarded as one of sonic testing (UT) to detect damage. Ul- threatening and was perhaps more eco-
the best systems to achieve this, with yield- trasonic testing frequently revealed indi- nomical to repair than would have been
ing anticipated to occur in the form of duc- cations, often interpreted as “incipient” the case had the desired ductile plastic
tile plastic hinging within beams, adjacent cracks at the root pass of the beam bot- hinging occurred. Nevertheless, because
to the beam-column connection. tom flange-to-column CJP weld. Rumors the behavior was decidedly nonductile and
On January 17, 1994, the magnitude spread that hundreds of steel frame build- because these structures could be sub-
6.7 Northridge earthquake struck the Los ings had been damaged by the earthquake. jected to earthquakes significantly
stronger than Northridge or Loma Prieta
RON O. HAMBURGER, P.E., S.E., Assessing the Damage in the future, the response resulted in the
S.E.C.B, is a senior principal with Simpson initiation of a major program of research,
Gumpterz + Heger, San Francisco, Calif. Ultimately, researchers determined development, and ultimately substantial
He is a member of the AWS D1 Seismic that most of the reported incidents of revision of the building codes.
Subcommittee, and chair of the AISC Con- damage were really not damage at all, but
nection Prequalification and Review Panel. rather previously undetected construction Causes of the Damage
JAMES O. MALLEY, P.E., S.E., is a senior defects, including slag inclusions and in-
principal with Degenkolb Engineers, San complete fusion. There were also many The program of research sponsored by
Francisco, Calif. He is a member of the false UT indications. Real damage did the U.S. Federal Emergency Management
AWS D1 Seismic Subcommittee, and chair occur, however, in perhaps a few dozen Agency (FEMA) identified a large num-
of the AISC Seismic Provisions Committee. structures. Nearly always, the damage ber of causes for the damage that had oc-
DUANE K. MILLER, Sc.D, P.E., is man- consisted of a fracture that initiated at the curred. Perhaps the most significant of
ager of engineering services with The Lin- root of the CJP weld of the beam bottom these was the basic connection geometry
coln Electric Co., Cleveland, Ohio. He is flange to column flange, usually beneath prescribed by the building code. In this
chair of the AWS D1 Seismic Subcommit- the beam web. Once initiated, these frac- detail, field welded CJP joints attached
tee, and vice chair of the AWS D1 Structural tures progressed in a variety of patterns, the beam flanges to the column flanges
Welding Committee. sometimes extending through the column while the beam web was connected with

28 FEBRUARY 2007
Hamburger 2 07:Layout 1 1/9/07 4:14 PM Page 29

Fig. 1 — Fracture extending through the column flange. Fig. 2 — Fracture debonding the beam flange from the column
flange.

a shear tab, shop welded to the column, tually stronger. Fur-

and field bolted to the beam. Standard ther, because very
weld access holes were placed in the beam large member sizes
webs at the top and bottom flanges. Typi- were often used in the
cally, welding of both beam flange joints construction of these
was performed in the downhand position frames, the center of
with steel backing placed at the underside the beam flange-to-
of the beam flange, and left in place after column flange joint
joint completion. was often a region of
n the typical design model for this very high restraint in

I connection, the CJP flange welds car-

ried 100% of the bending moment
while the shear tabs carried 100% of the
which near hydrostatic
stress conditions could
develop. As a result,
shear. Beam flanges and the CJP welds stresses in this region
were assumed to be uniformly stressed in could easily exceed
axial tension or compression, and to yield nominal yield levels
uniformly across their depth and width. and approach ultimate
The building code required that frames levels. Fig. 3 — Fracture that resulted in large divots of material from the
be designed such that beams were weaker Even had these column flange.
than columns so that inelastic behavior conceptual problems
of the frames would consist of ductile in the connection de-
plastic hinging in the beams at the beam- sign not existed, if yielding had occurred joint and heat-affected zones. Further,
column joint. in the beam flange to column flange joint this bottom beam flange weld was often
Analytical and laboratory studies re- as anticipated, it is unlikely that it could made from a “wildcat” position atop the
vealed that the stress distribution in the have accommodated much ductility. Gen- beam top flange, with stops and starts of
beam flanges was anything but uniform. erally, plastic hinge zones in beams have the multipass welds made at the center of
Out-of-plane bending of the column significant length, often extending from the beam flange, under the beam web.
flanges, under the forces delivered by the one-half of beam depth to a full beam This often led to incomplete fusion and
beam flanges, resulted in a concentration depth in length. However, because the large slag inclusions in the root pass, as
of stress and strain at the center of the beam flange was bolted rather than well as generally poor weld quality in the
beam flange. Further, at the connection, welded to the column and the area of the weld near the beam web.
plane sections did not remain planar, as beam was further reduced by the weld ac-
assumed in design, and as a result, the cess holes, the connection region was sub- Inspection Methods
beam flanges carried substantial shear. stantially weaker than the beam itself. If
This shear caused the beam flanges to yielding had actually initiated in this re- Inspection practice had come to rely
bend as they spanned across the weld ac- gion, it could not have progressed easily too much on the use of UT to discover de-
cess holes in the beam web, producing into the beam to permit ductile behavior fects and flaws in these welds, while visual
large secondary stresses, and causing to occur. inspection during welding was rarely ade-
near-doubling of the stresses at the bot- n any event, in many cases, yielding quately performed. Post-Northridge re-
tom beam flange bottom surface while
substantially reducing stress at the top
surface.
I could not develop. Often, the CJP
joint of the bottom beam flange to col-
umn flange was of inadequate quality. It
search demonstrated that as a result of
joint geometry, UT is unable to reliably
detect flaws at the root of the beam bot-
Yielding of the beam flange and welded was reported that welders rarely followed tom flange joint, particularly in the area
joint often could not occur as anticipated. WPS requirements, and often, WPSs were of the beam web. Further, since backing
High variability in yield strengths of struc- not available to them or to inspectors. was routinely left in place, this obscured
tural steel often resulted in a condition Many welds were made with overly high visual observation of the quality of the
where the beam, though designed to be deposition rates and high heat inputs, re- weld root, which unfortunately, was often
weaker than the column in flexure, was ac- sulting in very low toughness in the welded poor, but remained undetected.

WELDING JOURNAL 29
Hamburger 2 07:Layout 1 1/9/07 2:43 PM Page 30

hese combined factors of high stress was agreed upon by the consensus com- Annex D — Supplemental Testing for

T concentrations, high restraint, large

flaws, and low toughness material
resulted in a condition made to order for
mittees that AISC should address the
“what” and “where” requirements, while
AWS would address the “how” and “who”
Extended Exposure Limits for FCAW
Filler Metals
Annex E — Supplemental Ultrasonic
fracture to initiate and progress, which in issues. AISC did this in AISC 343, Seis- Technician Testing
many cases it did. Interestingly, during mic Provisions for Steel Buildings, while Annex F — Supplemental Magnetic
later laboratory research, it was demon- AWS issued its AWS D1.8, Seismic Sup- Particle Testing Procedures
strated that even if weld quality and tough- plement to the D1.1 Structural Welding Annex G — Flaw Sizing by Ultrasonic
ness were improved, if connection geom- Code — Steel. Testing
etry remained unchanged, fractures would To illustrate, where steel backing is re- Annex H — Guidelines for the Prepa-
still initiate under low levels of inelastic quired to be removed was not specified in ration of Technical Inquiries for the Struc-
cycling due to low cycle fatigue at the re- D1.8, but rather included in AISC docu- tural Welding Committee.
gion near the intersection of the weld ac- ments. However, when backing is required Finally, concluding the document is an
cess hole with the beam flange. to be removed, AWS D1.8 addresses the extensive commentary that provides back-
This research led to many changes in issues of how this is to be done, and the ground material and explains the intent
design and construction practice includ- applicable workmanship provisions for behind many of the provisions.
ing the use of new connection geometries, such operations.
improved control over base material yield or many years, AISC has had the
strength and toughness, requirements for
use of weld filler metals with rated notch
toughness, and greater care in the prepa-
F TC9 Seismic task committee that
was responsible for the Seismic Pro-
visions. More recently, an AISC Connec-
Summary of Major
Provisions of D1.8
The following is a summary of major
ration of and adherence to WPSs during tion Prequalification and Review Panel
construction. was formed to determine what connection provisions contained in D1.8. This sum-
details should be permitted to be used mary is NOT comprehensive, and the
without performing full-scale assembly reader should obtain a copy of D1.8 and
Changes to Construction review it in depth as not every provision
testing. The AWS D1 Structural Welding
Codes Committee established a seismic subcom- is covered in this summary.
mittee to consider the welding-related is-
With the newfound knowledge regard- sues that needed to be incorporated into Welder Qualification
ing the causes of fractured connections, AWS standards.
there was a significant effort to update the Section 5 and Annex C of D1.8 are de-
seismic design provisions. The FEMA voted to welder qualification. In addition
project culminated late in 2001 with the The New AWS D1.8 Seismic to meeting the welder qualification re-
publication of design guidelines applica- Welding Supplement quirements of D1.1, welders performing
ble to moment frame buildings located work under D1.8 are required to take the
throughout the U.S. The project recom- In 2005, the first D1.8 Seismic Weld- Supplemental Welder Qualification for
mendations are contained in: ing Supplement was approved by the AWS Restricted Access Welding Test, as pre-
• FEMA 350 — Recommended Seismic D1 Committee. As the title implies, D1.8 scribed in Annex C, when the production
Design Criteria for New Steel Moment is not a standalone standard, but rather weld involves all of the following:
Frame Buildings. (FEMA, 2000a). supplements AWS D1.1, Structural Weld- 1) the weld is demand critical (as de-
• FEMA 351 — Recommended Seismic ing Code — Steel. Moreover, D1.8 is ex- fined by AISC)
Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Exist- pected to be used in conjunction with the 2) the weld joins the beam bottom
ing Welded Steel Moment Frame Buildings. AISC Seismic Provisions. While most of flange to a column flange
(FEMA, 2000b). the design-related issues are covered in 3) the weld must be made through a
• FEMA 352 — Recommended AISC standards, D1.8 addresses connec- weld access hole in the beam web.
Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Cri- tion details, materials, workmanship, and Qualification of welders in accordance
teria for Welded, Steel Moment Frame inspection issues. These topics are cov- with Annex C is not required if all of the
Buildings. (FEMA, 2000c). ered in seven sections as follows: three preceding conditions are not part of
• FEMA 353 — Recommended Specifi- the production weld. See D1.8, provision
cations and Quality Assurance Guidelines Section 1 General Requirements 5.1.1.
for Steel Moment Frame Construction for Section 2 Reference Documents wo test configurations are de-
Seismic Applications. (FEMA, 2000d).
These publications constituted “rec-
ommendations,” not prescriptive code re-
Section 3
Section 4
Definitions
Welded Connection
Details
T scribed in Annex C, known as Op-
tion A and Option B. Option A is
to be used when steel backing is specified
quirements. Further, these standards were Section 5 Welder Qualification on the WPS, while Option B is used for
not subject to the consensus approval Section 6 Fabrication open root joints, or joints backed with ce-
process, typical of most construction stan- Section 7 Inspection ramic, copper, or other nonsteel materi-
dards. als. The type of test to be taken is de-
EMA 353 identified the need to Following these sections are eight norma-

F
pendent on the type of backing (if any)
change requirements that were con- tive (e.g., mandatory) annexes as follows: that will be used in production, and as
tained in both AISC and AWS spec- shown on the WPS. See D1.8, provision
ifications. Issues such as the overall de- Annex A — WP Heat Input Envelope 5.1.3 and Annex C provisions C3.2, C3.3.
sign and acceptable connection details Testing of Filler Metals for Demand Crit- As is the case for D1.1, welders taking
were clearly in the purview of AISC. It was ical Welds the Annex C test must qualify by welding
less clear, however, as to which organiza- Annex B — Intermix CVN Testing of process. In addition, the test plate must
tion should address issues such as connec- Filler Metal Combinations (where one of be welded with a deposition rate equal to
tion details (e.g., where steel backing the filler metals is FCAW-S) or higher than that which will be used in
could or could not be left in place, accept- Annex C — Supplemental Welder Qual- production. It is wise, therefore, to use a
able weld access hole geometries, etc.). It ification for Restricted Access Welding slightly higher deposition rate in the

30 FEBRUARY 2007
Hamburger 2 07:Layout 1 1/9/07 2:44 PM Page 31

welder qualification test so that the welder Filler Metals — Demand years. Finally, SMAW electrodes of the
will be qualified to use all production Critical Welds classification E7018, E7018-X, E7018-
WPSs. See D1.8, Annex C provision C3L, and E8018-C3, as well as solid
C3.1.2. In addition to meeting the require- GMAW electrodes, are exempt from lot
fter the test plate is complete, the testing, providing the certificate of con-

A
ments above, filler metals used for mak-
various restriction plates are re- ing demand critical welds are required to formance shows a minimum of 20 ft-lb (27
moved and the test plate is visu- meet even more stringent requirements. J) at 0°F (–18°C). See D1.8, provision
ally inspected. Then, at the Contractor’s For example, D1.8 requires that the filler 6.3.8.
option, the test plate is nondestructively metals to be used in production first be
or mechanically tested. NDT options in- evaluated in tests run at high and low lev- Techniques
clude ultrasonic inspection (UT) and ra- els of heat input, that is, under slow and
diographic inspection (RT). Four bend fast cooling rates. Production welding The sequence of depositing the half-
tests are used for mechanical testing. See WPSs are then permitted to use a wide length weld beads associated with making
D1.8, Annex C provision C4. range of variables, providing the calcu- demand critical welds in beam bottom
lated heat input levels are within the range flange-to-column flange welds, where the
Welding Procedure of tested values. See D1.8, provision 6.3.5 welds are made through a weld access
Specifications (WPSs) and Annex A. hole, is detailed. Welds should not be
he Seismic Welding Supplement started or stopped directly under the web,
In addition to meeting the require-
ments of D1.1, D1.8 mandates additional
WPS requirements. Under D1.8, WPSs
T provides two means by which the
high and low heat input tests can be
conducted. The first approach is detailed
and each layer must be completed on both
sides of the beam web before a new layer
can be started. Finally, weld starts and
must list the filler metal manufacturer as in Annex A of D1.8. Suggested heat input stops are to be staggered, layer to layer,
well as the filler metal trade name in ad- levels are provided, but alternative values on opposite sides of the beam web. See
dition to the AWS classification. may be used as well. The second approach D1.8, provision 6.14.
he protected zone is the region

T
WPSs must also list one or more com- applies to FCAW electrodes, and uses the
binations of welding variables that produce new supplemental designator “D.” Filler within the structural member in
heat inputs within the limits of the tests per- metals with this supplemental designator which plastic hinging is expected to
formed on the specific filler. The values for are required to be tested at a prescribed occur during seismic events. In order to
E, I, and S as shown on the WPS must re- high and low heat input level, as well as facilitate this inelastic deformation (in-
sult in a heat input within the high and low tested according to the standard A5 clas- stead of initiating fracture), the protected
heat input limits for the specific electrode sification test. zone must be kept free of notches and
being used. See D1.8, provision 6.1.2. Filler metals for demand critical welds, gouges, as well as miscellaneous attach-
when tested at high and low heat input ments that may impede the desired be-
Filler Metals — All D1.8 Welds levels, must meet all the requirements for havior of the member. With the exception
a minimum CVN toughness value of 20 of arc spot welds used to hold steel deck-
For all work done under D1.8, filler ft-lb (27 J) at 0°F (–18°C), as measured in ing in place, unauthorized welds and at-
metals are required to meet a minimum a standard AWS A5 filler metal classifi- tachments should not be made in the pro-
Charpy V-notch requirement of 20 ft-lb cation test, as previously discussed. Addi- tected zone. This would include, but is not
(27 J) at 0°F (–18°C), as measured in a tionally, filler metals for demand critical limited to, welded studs, erection aids, and
standard AWS A5 filler metal classifica- welds, when tested at high and low heat attachments for nonstructural members
tion test. Higher values for the CVN en- input levels, are required to deliver a min- (such as sprinkler system supports). See
ergy (e.g., >20 ft-lb) are acceptable, as are imum CVN toughness value of 40 ft-lb (54 D1.8, provision 6.15.
test results involving lower testing tem- J) at 70°F (20°C), when tested at high and
peratures (e.g., lower than 0°F). See D1.8, low heat input levels, assuming the struc- Conclusions
provision 6.3.1 and Table 6.1. ture is subject to service temperatures of
he Northridge earthquake provided

T
ost filler metals are required to at least 50°F (10°C). If not, other require-

M be capable of depositing weld

metal with a maximum diffusible
hydrogen content of 16 mL per 100 g of
ments may apply. The strength and duc-
tility requirements for the electrode clas-
sification must also be achieved. See D1.8,
an opportunity for engineers to in-
crease their understanding of the
behavior of steel structures during major
seismic events. Through the effort of con-
deposited weld metal, meeting the re- Table 6.2 and provision 6.3.6.
quirement for H16. Exemptions from the E7018, E7018-X, E7018-C3L, and scientious and knowledgeable volunteers,
requirement include SMAW electrodes E8018-C3 are exempted from the hi/lo new consensus standards have been de-
with low-hydrogen coatings, which may be heat input testing, as are solid GMAW veloped, codifying this knowledge into
accepted based on meeting electrode electrodes. See D1.8, provision 6.3.5(1) new or revised standards. The AWS D1.8
specification coating moisture contents. and (2). Seismic Welding Supplement, when spec-
iller metals to be used in making de- ified and properly implemented, and

F
Solid electrodes for GMAW and EGW are
exempted from any hydrogen measure- mand critical welds must also com- when used with the AISC Seismic Provi-
ment. See D1.8, provision 6.3.2. ply with one or more of the meth- sions, is expected to significantly improve
When FCAW-S filler metals are com- ods offered by D1.8 to ensure lot-to-lot the performance of steel buildings and re-
bined with filler metals deposited by other consistency. Three methods are provided. duce or possibly eliminate the type of
processes, the combination of the two First, each lot of material can be tested. damage that was observed in steel struc-
must be checked to ensure that the mini- Secondly, manufacturers who are audited tures after the Northridge earthquake.◆
mum required Charpy V-notch toughness and approved by various third-party agen-
is obtained. Annex B of D1.8 prescribes cies can supply untested product, provid-
the required tests. Such testing is not re- ing at least three lots of material for each
quired when FCAW-S is intermixed with filler metal trade name and diameter have
other FCAW-S. See D1.8, provision 6.3.4 been tested, and such a test is repeated on
and Annex B. a frequency not to exceed every three

WELDING JOURNAL 31